  Jfried Member Username: Jfried Post Number: 879 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.190 |
Where can you find objective information on this ballot proposal? I've found http://oneunitedmichigan.org/ and, http://www.infoplease.com/spot /affirmative1.html what I'm most interested in, and what I think most people need to be educated on, is how affirmative action programs are still used here in Michigan. Quotas are obviously no longer legal, so what do these programs accomplish, where are they used, and how do they work? | ||
Alsodave Member Username: Alsodave Post Number: 756 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.229.122.255 |
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~spa ge/diversity_files/MCRI.pdf | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 2805 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.202.227.12 |
Right now there is a big demonstration in front of the US Courthouse on Fort Street in support of the New Civil Rights Movement. | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 5021 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.41.124.8 |
I'm still not sure how Affirmative Action can be equated with "Civil Rights." If anything, it's a step backwards. I'm still voting for the MCRI, until the opponents of the measure can reasonably explain why I shouldn't. Seems no one has been able to do so yet. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6646 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Maybe the Supreme Court could convince you? http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup ct/html/02-241.ZS.html | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 230 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
Yeah, I was on the fence for a while, but I plan on voting for it...that said, I expect that it will fail something like 45-55%. And that's unfortunate. I suspect that many supporters of AA are aware of the negative effects surrounding AA, but they question the motives of some of the people who support MCRI, and don't want to sit on the same side of the fence as them. This is unfortunate, because in my opinion, the passage of MCRI would be a huge progressive step forward. If MCRI passes, things will be a bit tougher on minorities in the short term than they are right now, but in the long term, civilized society as a whole will benefit and it will be the white racists and redneck f*cks who lose out in the end. | ||
Jfried Member Username: Jfried Post Number: 881 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.190 |
alsodave - thanks for that link! | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4838 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 198.111.165.50 |
Vote YES on MCRI!!! End Affirmative Action NOW!!! | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2875 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.221.69.190 |
I am voting against the MCRI because quite simply it is based on a false (real-world) premise (that everything is equal, that everyone in positions of hiring/admitting will automatically be fair in the process, and that everyone has the same advantages in education). However, everything that I have seen in defense of AA in this case is an ABSOLUTE EMBARRASSMENT! Hundreds of thousands of Black people..."didn't understand what they (we) were signing"..."...didn't read what they (we) were signing". Not to mention many Democrats (Granholm recently joining a lawsuit), (extreme) liberals, and radicals (such as BAMN) using the case for nothing more than political gain. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4168 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/5/76633.html | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4843 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.229 |
You all problaby remember this theory when the Ghettoman and the Street Prophets were a disclosed meeting discussing about the EVIL's of Affirmative Action: "Affirmative action is probably the most misunderstood civil rights issue of our time. Opponents believe that it is misguided social engineering that uses quotas and preferences to replace qualified white males with unqualified Ethnic minorities and women." He also argued that AA is future version of " JIM CROW" Keep whites out and bring in blacks and other minorities in. Imagine a white male or female who supports AA will one day be left out in the American workforce. The Ghettoman forsaw a preview of the perils of the high experienced mostly diversed union custodians who worked for all Garden City Public School District were being excluded by the Garden City School Board and replaced by an all black contracted janitorial service. Now the folks in Garden City want to recall the whole Garden City School Board for a their ill janitorial contract proposal and to bring back the originial janitors. The Ghettoman also argued that AA policies can backfire on high experienced blacks, Asians, Hispanics to be replaced by low experience whites or other race. He does want all AA policies to be used to control the ethic demographics in the American workfore by means of experience and not by race. Until the proposal works, The Ghettoman, ME and the rest of the STREET PROPHETS want it abolished. The Ghettoman also said about AA's and QUOTAS: "Perhaps the most controversial issue about affirmative action is whether it uses "quotas". Affirmative action programs should: a) verify that inequities exist, b) set goals to eliminate the inequities, c) set timetables to meet the goals, d) disband the program after the goals are met. Opponents of affirmative action argue that setting a goal is the same thing as instituting a quota, meaning that a specific outcome is mandated rather than highly desirable. For example, if an employer knows that it has a large disparity between the proportion of Hispanics in its workforce versus the general population, it might use affirmative action to target its recruiting efforts toward the Hispanic population in hopes of increasing Hispanic new hires. It should identify a goal of how many Hispanics it wants to hire, at what levels, and in what timeframe. If the employer mandates that a specific job must go to a Hispanic, or that a specific number of Hispanics must be hired, that is a quota." IT HAPPEN JUST 2 YEARS AGO IN UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN CAMPUS THEIR BOARD OF GOVERNORS ACTUALLY USED THAT QUOTA TO PROMOTE MORE BLACKS INTO THEIR CAMPUS RATHER THAN WHITES AND WOMAN. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION INTERVENED TO SHUT DOWN THAT AA QUOTA AND PROMOTE ALL RACES WHO HAD A HIGH OR LOW SCORES IN THEIR CULTURAL BIASED STANDARIZED TESTS. I'M GLAD THAT MY FRIEND WHO JUST GRADUATE FROM WSU CLASSICS PROGRAM GOT ACCEPTED TO U OF M'S EXCELLENT GRADUATE CLASSICS PROGRAM FOR IF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS DIDN'T ACCEPT HIM HE GOES SOMEPLACE ELSE. The Ghettoman also argued that If affirmative action were just about quotas, you would find that: a) a significant percentage of hires and promotions would go to under-qualified Ethnic minorities, b) the goals of all affirmative action programs would be met, and within the set timetables, and c) they would be sunsetted. While there are instances in which a more-qualified non-Ethnic minority is passed over for a less-qualified or even under-qualified Ethnic minority, these cases are few and far between for one simple reason: to institute such a policy makes no business sense whatsoever. The main reason is that the punishment for not meeting the goals and timetables does not justify promoting a lesser-skilled workforce. Employers and agencies can typically comply with affirmative action programs through their efforts more so than their results. That is why although progress continues to be made, most affirmative action programs fail to meet their goals and timetables, and end up continuing rather than being sunsetted. HE'S RIGHT THOUGH!! AA PROGRAMS ARE SHIFTING FROM RACE OF OVERQUALIFIED PEOPLE TO A RACE OF UNDERQUALIFIED PEOPLE; REFFERING BACK TO THE GARDEN CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL JANITORIAL PROBLEM, IF YOU FOLKS VOTE NO ON MCRI YOU ARE PROMOTING THE RACE PROBLEM RATHER THAT SOLVING IT. ITS JUST LIKE THE BIBLE," FOR THOSE WHO DO RIGHT, AND THEY KNOW IF THEY DON'T DO IT TO HIM IT IS SIN". I say to you please vote YES on MCRI for Affirmative Action is SEGREGATION and it's a CRIME! | ||
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter Post Number: 196 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 141.217.226.162 |
This is gonna get interesting. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20060829/NEW S99/60829029 | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4289 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Looks like it was saved by a technicality. I'm all for Michigan getting to decide what they want. I even believe that the proposal will fail. However, it's quite clear that a measurable amount of those that went trolling for signatures did it in the most dishonest way. There has to be some kind of repercussion. If Michigan was so ready to overturn AA, than why even bother lying and decieving people into signing your petition? If you want Michigan to be able to decide, the least the state can ask for is that you do it in an upfront and honest manner. That really is the very least that can be asked of Mr. Connerly and his proxy, Ms. Gantz. If proven voter fraud isn't enough of a reason to take it off the ballot, I don't know what is. Wow. | ||
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter Post Number: 197 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 141.217.226.162 |
I don't think it will fail. Anyways, this will probably get appealed to the 6th Circuit post haste. (Message edited by tndetroiter on August 29, 2006) | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 179 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 67.38.8.130 |
i don't see how any rational citizen of this embarrassingly racist metropolis can vote FOR this crazy thing!
doesn't the fact that a coalition of rich folks from other states came in and called a proposition to amend our STATE CONSTITUTION to make illegal nearly all types of assistance to minorities AND WOMEN, and did so by veiling it under the guise of CIVIL RIGHTS? it's NOT civil, and it's NOT right. | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 89 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.40.171.54 |
Sure it's civil. It's equal rights for everyone, regardless of gender, race or religion. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4293 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
We can argue the merits of the proposal in circle until the end of time. I find it disturbing that this will remain on the ballot in light of the people that got it on the ballot using complete deception to collect a measurable amount of signaturess. Again, if that's not voter fraud and deserving of a reprimand, I don't know what is. Apart from the merits of the proposal, which have been discussed to no end, I can't find how anyone could go vote for this, in good and clear conscience, knowing how it came to be on the ballot. | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 90 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.40.171.54 |
Maybe people should actually read what they are signing when a petition is presented to them. How can you not say this petition was for civil rights. The whole civil rights movement was based on minorites not having fully equal rights in this country. The problem with AA is that is is inherently and patently unequal. Giving preferential treatment to any group is unfair and diminishes all the incredible good that the Civil Rights movement of the '50s and '60s accomplished. I don't get it. Preferential treatment of any kind is unfair. AA is not civil rights. | ||
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter Post Number: 200 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 141.217.226.162 |
You should read everything you sign. On top of that, I believe that if you invalidate all the signatures in question, there would still have been enough signatures to get it on the ballot. | ||
Johnnny5 Member Username: Johnnny5 Post Number: 348 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 71.227.95.4 |
"We can argue the merits of the proposal in circle until the end of time. I find it disturbing that this will remain on the ballot in light of the people that got it on the ballot using complete deception to collect a measurable amount of signaturess. Again, if that's not voter fraud and deserving of a reprimand, I don't know what is. Apart from the merits of the proposal, which have been discussed to no end, I can't find how anyone could go vote for this, in good and clear conscience, knowing how it came to be on the ballot." The petition to get this on November's ballot received over 500,000 signatures when only 317,000 signatures were required. I highly doubt there were close to 200,000 people who were "Deceived" into signing. Those responsible for the deceptions should be held accountable, but either way this belongs on the ballot. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4295 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Johnny, it doesn't matter how many extra signatures they collected. If there is a measurable/significant amount of signatures achieved by deception, the thing should be thrown out regardless of the proposal, or what I personally think of it. This happens in elections (i.e. a redo), why shouldn't it happen in a proposal campaign? It should be tossed right on its head. It really doesn't surprise me how apologetic and forgiving many of you are about voter fraud. (Message edited by lmichigan on August 29, 2006) | ||
Compn Member Username: Compn Post Number: 73 Registered: 04-2004 Posted From: 65.29.121.215 |
it can be on the ballot. i just hope it doesnt look like the petition that everyone signed. DO YOU SUPPORT EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL? (AFFIRMATIVE ACTION) [ ]YES [ ]NO i can understand how people would be confused. and confusing to people to get them to sign sure does not make it look good. | ||
Johnnny5 Member Username: Johnnny5 Post Number: 349 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 71.227.95.4 |
As far as I can see no one here is apologizing for or forgiving anyone. I for one find it appalling that someone would lie about the contents of a petition in order to receive signatures. On top of that I'm 100% for the elimination of the paid signature gatherers who undoubtedly caused this deception in the first place. The fact is the petition drive received more than enough valid signatures to make this year's ballot. If there were legal grounds to have the petition thrown out then I assume it would already have been done. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4937 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.229 |
I say vote YES to end affirmitive action. | ||
Janesback Member Username: Janesback Post Number: 52 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 69.153.20.152 |
As a female, I do not support Aff. Action. Jane | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 562 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 70.229.231.102 |
I often sign petitions that I don't particularly agree with or agree with the group bringing the petition. The reason: I think that the democratic process means that people can/should bring issues to the ballot box and have a vote! That's their right, isn't it? So, I support their right to put something on the ballot and then I vote my conviction. I think that I learned this strategy in civics class. Of course, voters need to be canny and literate. Sorry that the petition circulators mislead people, but don't many politicians mislead people? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4304 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
I'm completely baffled about this. It doesn't matter whether or not you or I personally agree with the petition or not, why are people apologizing and trying to make light of people decieving others (in measurable numbers) into signing petitions? Not only is that not ethical, it's illegal and undemocratic as it works against the honesty of the system. If you really cared about the "democratic process," you'd be mad as hell. Again, I think the people should be able to decide, too. But, the very least we can ask for is honesty in the political process. If that's asking too much than why do we even have election laws, anyway? Why should I be surprised, though. People are willing to overlook this kind of thing if they agree with the ballot iniative. I guess the MCRI doesn't care if they have to dabble in voter fraud/illegalities to get this to the people, huh? By any means necessary, huh? How ironic. Fortunately, this will meet the demsie it's supposed to meet because of its illegitimacy, and hopefully it will fail because of the merits of the proposal. Karma's a bitch. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 275 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
even if some people were deceived into signing the petition, what about the vast majority who signed it that actually read it and KNEW what they were signing? This group of people appears to far outnumber the ones who didn't read it, to the extent that there are still enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot even if you remove the ones that BAMN is contesting... So tell me again why this measure should be removed from the ballot? | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 627 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.216.143.252 |
Because the entitled want their entitlement...and who the hell are the voters and the taxpayers of this state to take that away? | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1326 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
What's to stop any opponents to purposely, as a wolf in sheep's clothing, do what was alleged by that partisan judge? I, for one, wouldn't put it past the opponents, especially considering the name of the primary opposing organization. Besides, why are the people who claimed that they were duped so stupid? Could they have been dropouts from DPS? | ||
Janesback Member Username: Janesback Post Number: 55 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 69.153.20.152 |
Did it look as if this petition was getting so much support, the opponents took it upon themselves to sabatoge the effort by claiming they were " duped" ? If it was getting more than a usual amount of signatures, its opponents could come up with some outrageous story about being "co-eresed" (sp) into signing it, with an intent to make it then become invalid? As I stated, I need no preferential treatment in the workplace or anywhere else. To me, AA is unfair and it only hinders. Thanks, Jane  | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 565 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 70.229.231.102 |
Brian Dickerson makes one good arguement for voting for the Ban: weakening the "establishment" bloc that keeps things from getting done around here. "Whatever one thinks of affirmative action, a vote in favor of Connerly's initiative would almost certainly diminish the credibility of both the state's major political parties. It's one thing when Republicans and Democrats disagree; it'd be another if leaders of both parties end up being out of step with the ruling majority. A victory for the MCRI could therefore have ramifications far beyond the sphere of civil rights, prompting realignments in both parties -- or sparking the emergence of populist candidates with weaker ties -- and fewer debts -- to either of them." As someone who will just abstain fromvotting for either gubernatorial candidate because they are, imo, both losers, this makes a lot of sense to me. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4310 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Here's my city's newspapers take on this (Lansing State Journal) issue, but a more general look at ballot iniatives in general rather than the technicalities of the MCRI:
http://lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a rticle?AID=/20060901/OPINION01 /609010331&SearchID=7325556634 1835 | ||
Brian Member Username: Brian Post Number: 3328 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.37.83.224 |
Southwestmap, would you sign a pettition to limit your personal rights and then hope that the entire voting populace vote to uphold your personal rights? SOS Land is getting heat for allowing these petitions into the process without regard to the law. The repubs using paid signatures gatherers are not in trouble for lying, the petition language must be on the back of each petition signed, but for breaking the basic rules of using registered voters to gather signatures. None of these ballots are legal. | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 573 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 70.229.231.102 |
Did I miss something? Why no comment on this article that says very little negative effects can be attributed to California's ban on affirmative action in State hiring and university admissions - and some good can be attributed to it? http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=2006609050327 "Michigan has a question for California: Was it a good idea to prohibit, as your voters did in 1996, the use of race- and gender-based affirmative action by public schools and government agencies for hiring, contracting and admissions decisions? Ten years ago, the issue raged in California just as it does now in Michigan in the run-up to the Nov. 7 election and a vote on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or MCRI. Like backers of the MCRI, proponents of the nearly identical California Civil Rights Initiative, known as Proposition 209, promised a pathway to a colorblind society. Its opponents forecast an end to opportunity for women and minorities. A decade later, some results are tangible: fewer African Americans at elite state universities and an apparent reduction in cost for road contracts awarded without consideration of race and gender. But would California do it again? "In a heartbeat," said Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who led the campaign to pass 209. Connerly is also a principal organizer of the MCRI campaign. Even opponents agree that Californians aren't ready to repeal the proposition." | ||
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter Post Number: 268 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 141.217.226.172 |
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20060911/NEW S99/60911012 A preliminary injucntion is granted when the court thinks the appellant will prevail on the merits of the case at trial. In many cases, the denial of such an injunction is the death of the appellant's case. It doesn't give the court's reasoning for denying the injunction, but it'd be interesting to know. I really don't know if the Supreme Court will touch this, I'd say the chances of this thing being on the ballot in November are at about 95%. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4396 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
I'd put it at 100%. If the current Supreme Court gets this, and even decides to take it up, it's still dead on arrival. They'd be far more hostile to this appeal than any court yet, IMO. | ||
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter Post Number: 269 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 141.217.226.172 |
The Supreme Court is the almost the same court that upheld AA a couple years ago, Alito is the only one who could effect the balence. In any event, they would be deciding if an injunction should be issued, not the merits, though they have to base their decision on the probability of the injunction-seeker prevailing on the merits. The 6th Circuit doesn't think it's likely to prevail on the merits and a district court judge who is sypathetic to AA has already ruled that it won't. Just face it, this deserves to be on the ballot. The voices of thousands upon thousands of citizens should not be silenced because a few idiots don't know how to read. This is a wonderful step closer to the end of that horrid institution known as Affirmative Action. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4397 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
I completely agree, this does deserve to be on the ballot. It just doesn't deserve to be on this ballot, unless you're willing to excuse and apologize for measurable, outright voter fraud (and, we're talking tens of thousands of people from all walks of life who have said they were decieved). This isn't some isolated group of events, rather a pattern and practice. But, the merits of the proposal have been argued to death. But, you're the one that's trying to get a rise out of someone as the thread had remained quite for quite a few days. And, the "The voices of thousands upon thousands of citizens should not be silenced because a few idiots don't know how to read" shows how little understanding you have about the injunction being sought. Either you don't understand (which I'm doubting, actually), or you don't care, because it's really not that easy to gloss over unless you're one of those that want to see this on the ballot by any means necessary, including doing whatever it takes (legal or otheriwse) to cement its place. Michigan certainly has the right to vote on this issue, but, as George Washington said, "You can't amend the Constitution by defrauding the people." If this can't be a transparent and legal process, then it doesn't deserve its place on that ballot this time around. | ||
Toriani Member Username: Toriani Post Number: 10 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 69.242.219.26 |
This article does a good job of showing what similar ballot measures in other states have accomplished. If this measure passes in Michigan, it will have negative effects on minorities and women in the workplace. Currently, there's a lawsuit in CA trying to ban gender specific healthcare programs due to passage of a similar act. Is this what you want for Michigan? It's not what I want. http://www.politicalaffairs.ne t/article/view/3985/1/206/ | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 279 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
Yes, that is what I want for Michigan...right now, working class white males are being pushed to the back of the bus...they don't even get a fighting chance in the work place and college admissions...this law will change that... And MCRI has NOTHING to do with gender-specific healthcare, so quit tring to link the two together...start another thread on it if you want | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 280 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
LMichigan... Even if all the signatures that BAMN wants thrown are were to be thrown out, there are still more than enough signatures to put the initiative on the ballot...so it stays, end of story... (Message edited by thejesus on September 12, 2006) | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 581 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 70.229.231.102 |
I agree! That same article, in its many versions, contains false assertions that are being passed around and around. California did not experience anything but the smallest effects from the law over ten years. Minorities are entering the elite campuses in smaller numbers, but overall, minorities are graduating from all campuses in higher numbers. Women in California are still getting mammograms! | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 281 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
"Women in California are still getting mammograms!" lol...that they are...but shhh...BAMN wants people to think otherwise | ||
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter Post Number: 270 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 141.217.226.172 |
Seeking the injunction was about stopping the MCRI from getting on the ballot because a sub-set (a sub-set not even big enough to disqualify the petition as a whole) CLAIMS they were misled. If that would have happened, BAMN and the courts would have, in essence, been defrauding the voters who don't claim they were misled when they did sign it. Who's really trying to throw out the constitution? You say that it deserves to be on the ballot, but not this ballot? Why? There are plenty of people who do want it on this ballot. Perhaps you fear that it might pass? Perhaps you want to protect a logically flawed institution w/ out regard for the legal voices of thousands of Michigan residents? In the 2004 election there were a large number of presidential ballots that were questioned in Ohio, but their number was too small to affect the outcome of the election. Kerry did the right thing and conceded. Nobody was crying voter fraud the way these sore losers are. I think that that situation is very analogous to this situation. Finally, I was relaying new info on the matter; this happened just the other day. I'm not trying to get a rise out of anybody. Don't get pissy just because things didn't go your way. | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 185 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 70.227.14.244 |
does anyone think that this kind of thought is going to help ease racial tension in michigan?
this is the guy who is leading this initiative. the biggest problem our region faces is the concentration of poverty in the predominantly black and minority cities. the way out of that is through education and job training, and having affirmative action types of programs are one part of the solution. don't you bitter white folks who think "dey tuk are jahbs" (not too obscure a south park reference?) realize that having more educated and employed minorities will make the city look better and in the long run encourage more investment and thus more jobs for all of us? i can support some reform of certain programs, sure, but this constitutional amendment goes way too far, IMHO. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 282 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
This is not about easing racial tension...no one is voting for it becuase they think it will affect racial tension one way or the other...we're voting for it because AA has gotten way out of control in our state...certain people are having the doors of opportunity slammed shut via government policy because of the color of their skin, and it's wrong... And just so you know, you sound like a total idiot when you try to label a guy who is 1/4 black, 1/4 native American and 1/2 white as segregationist... | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4400 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Oh, please. AA has, at most (and really all its supposed to do as far as I'm concerned) has provided for equal representation in the workforce, and that's at the very most. The idea that working-class white males are somehow no under-represented in the workforce due to AA is a myth. Even with AA minorities and women still have a hard time getting their foot in the door oftentimes. AA was created in direct opposition to the old "business as usual" climate where qualified women and minorities were passed over and underrepresented in the workforce. And, again, at the very most it's provided for equal representation of qualified persons. I hear this borderline xenophobic (and sometimes outwardly and blatantly xenophobic) being pushed all the time, that white males are somehow at a measurable disadvantage in this country. I don't shed one tear, because it's not true, and it's insulting that anyone would imply that, when countless businesses are still finding every way possible to skirt these rules, and do. I guess pre-60's were the "good ole' days," huh, Jesus? (Message edited by lmichigan on September 12, 2006) | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 283 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
I didn't say they were underrepresented... You see, this is the thing you pro AA people just don't get. People like me don't care one way or the other about quotas and the representation of all races being proportional to the general population...rather, we are for the best, hardest working people being allowed to succeed without the government telling them that they can't because of the color of their skin, be they balck, white, brown, yellow or whatever... You seem to believe that the fact that there are many white males that do succeed makes it ok to discrimiate against the white males who come from the same type of underprivledged background as many minorities do....this is where we disagree... (Message edited by thejesus on September 12, 2006) | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 284 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
"when countless businesses are still finding every way possible to skirt these rules, and do." Funny then how, in California, even though it is now illegal for public universities and public employers to discriminate against people because of their skin color, that private universites and businesses still use AA policies in their admissions and hiring... | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 2981 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.202.227.12 |
TheJesus is another one who is yet showing his true colors... | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 285 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
Detroit_stylin: Please elaborate... | ||
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter Post Number: 273 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 141.217.226.172 |
There are both federal and state statutes banning discrimination based on your skin color, ethnicity, or creed. If you are so discriminated against, you have recourse under those statutes. The elimination of AA and the existance of those statutes will finally place everybody on equal terms in the eyes of the law. Now, to borrow a concept from the free market, all you have to do is get out there and effectively compete. As you said, Lmich, AA provides equal REPRESENTATION in the workplace. That representation is provided w/ out regard to qualification. No matter how you try to rationalize it, AA gives otherwise underqualified (in relation to other applicants on an individual basis, not groups as a whole) individuals consideration over people who are more qualified than they are simply on the basis of race. If that equal representation can't be accomplished simply on the merits of the workers, it doesn't deserve to be there. If you believe in Dr. King's dream of a society where people are judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, then you cannot logically support AA. Udmph, how long has AA been around? Since the 70s I think? If it were an effective tool in stimulating economic development in the black community and the inner-city in general, don't you think we would have seen said development by now? AA doesn't achieve those economic goals that you purport that it does, time has shown that. (Message edited by tndetroiter on September 12, 2006) | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4402 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
I know you don't care about equal representation of qualified persons. You seek a colorblind society as it totally invalidates the Civil Rights Movement, something I sure you view with disdain. Colorblindness totally invalidates and ignores history, and that's exactly how you'd like it. In essence, you're saying that the playing field isn't leveled because it truly is, but because majority America says it is. The Civil Rights Movements, which America was dragged into kicking and screaming as totally reluctant participates, forces you to confront the very real problems the country faced, and still faces to this very day, and you don't like that. You keep living in that land where working-class white males are the worst off, and the pariah of American society. Where working class white males are the "new blacks." That's a pure myth, and you even know it. You know you don't believe that for one second, and if you do, you're worldview is truly warped. Tdt, AA provides equal representation of all equally qualified persons. (Message edited by lmichigan on September 12, 2006) | ||
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter Post Number: 274 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 141.217.226.172 |
Right, I want to ignore history, that's why I majored in it in college. American specifically, so it was kinda hard to ignore the Civil Rights Movement. Quit w/ the personal attacks. If you had taken a course in logic, you'd know that you're handing me victory in this argument as you are attacking me, not the merits of my arguments; I'm winning by default. I think you misread my post, I don't want equal representation through unqualified workers. If there is to be equal representation, then all the workers should be sufficently qualified. If things turn out that way, I'm all for equal representation. AA does not truly level the playing field. I don't see how anybody could say that it does. Don't you want to seek a colorblind society? If you don't, I think it speaks volumes about your true character. In the end, as somebody said earlier, this boils down to the "entitled" wanting their entitlement. | ||
Innovator Member Username: Innovator Post Number: 24 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 160.39.188.86 |
It doesn't appear that Lmich is personally attacking you at all; where does that occur? Lmich says your worldview is warped, but that's not an ad hominem attack. | ||
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter Post Number: 275 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 141.217.226.172 |
Sounds pretty personal. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 286 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
"AA provides equal representation of all equally qualified persons." If I believed this to be true, I wouldn't have a problem with AA...and just so yo know, that is a hard sell, even to pro-AA people | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 457 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.60.181.41 |
Isn't it going to be a better america when white privlige is once again the official rule? Because things are so bad for white men, you never see any of them in power or getting the better jobs, never see them in the corporate halls of power. I'm sure they'll let their joy trickle down all over us, in the old, noblesse oblige kinda way. It's gonna be just like the 1800's again. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 287 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
Again (since no one seems to be listening), things are not bad for white men as a whole...in fact, they are great. Unfortunately, however, things are shitty for the group of white men with less than average academic abilities who come from underprivledged backgrounds. This group of people deserves a chance to claw their way out of the gutters just like anyone else if they are willing to work hard enough for it. But right now, there are government-sanctioned barriers in their way. It's wrong, plain and simple Pointing to the fact that there are several white males who succeed in life is no justification for making things harder on this group of individuals. (Message edited by thejesus on September 12, 2006) | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 2982 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.202.227.12 |
NO how about you elaborate? How is this law making things so much better for us and so much harder for 'working class white men' (when we still struggle to get into everywhere even with this law in place) on a daily basis? | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 288 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
Detroit_stylin: Because the current use of AA in our state makes it so that a white male who comes from the same underprivledged background as a minority is barred from succeeding becuase of the color of his skin while the minorities are given 'bonus points' in college admissions and preferential treatment in public employement because of the color of their skin. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4405 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Tnd and others, AA has many aims some view it as a correction tool (if even a flawed one), other's view it as compensation never given for the centuries of legally ingrained White Supremacy over this nation, while other's view it as a way open the doors of the country to all qualified persons that were once rampantly overlooked no matter how qualified they were. As for a colorblind society, I'm against it with a passion. Again, it ignores history, it absolves anyone from even a bit of blame for the state of minority America (which is ridiculous and irresponsible), and most importantly, it ignores acts of ethnic discrimination and intimidation against minorities that exists in the present. It is negligently naive to try and claim colorblindeness, as ethnicity and race discrimination has been an issue since the beginning of time, and will continue to be (if even greatly reduced). It also works in favor of White Supremacists who really need the legal validation that everything is equal and fair. That simply fuels their argument, and helps them creep back even further into the mainstream. I'm for a multi-cultural society, where history is not only not forgotten, but recognized for what it is, the very good and the very bad, which makes us stronger, as knowledge and understanding of the past truly is power. A society where differences in ethnicity, culture and the like are not seen as taboo things or something to be ignored or swept under the rug as insignifcant, rather something to be celebrated, talked about, and understood. Colorblindness is a tool used by the mainstream majority to suppress and make taboo differences in minority culture and history, plain and simple rather people for it realize it or not. The "I don't see color" is a very naive and dishonest viewpoint, thus inherently dangerous to our understanding of each other and our respective histories. | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 188 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 70.227.14.244 |
Thejesus (I just watched 'Lebowski' again the other night, BTW) - you do make a point i can agree with, regarding poor and underpriveliged white males having a tough time. i just think that making all kinds of affirmative action constitutionally illegal is going too far and is going to do more harm than good. i just know that the metro detroit i have grown up in has a lot of racists. some of you here think that AA perpetuates the bigots and fuels their sterotypes. i personally feel that the metro area as a whole can benefit from helping minorities get a good education and jobs. the system is not perfect, but making it illegal isn't the answer i'm looking for. it's just easier than the alternative - electing strong, intelligent leaders who can reform policies and work together for the greater good of the state. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 289 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 68.62.6.138 |
Udmmphikapbob: The MCRI ballot doesn't make 'all kinds' of affirmative action unconstitutional...just those programs that give preferential treatment based on race, gender, color ethnicity or national origin...and even then, it's limited to public employment, public education and public contracting... The MCRI ballot leaves the door open for AA based on socio-economic status, which is what AA should be based on...and it is SES that public universities will turn to when they can no longer give preferential treatment based on the other criteria... And since this law only applies to the public sector, private universities and private businesses will be free to continue using whatever form of AA they please...though one would hope that private universities would eventually adopt SES-based AA as well... | ||
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter Post Number: 276 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 141.217.225.108 |
You beat me to the punch, I was gonna say that AA based on one's soci-economic status would be totally acceptable and I would even adovcate it. The idea that it should be based on race, though, is totally racist. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 300 Registered: 06-2006 |
Latest poll (9/15/06) shows Proposal 2 leading 48% to 37% with 15% undecided... http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20060915/POLIT ICS01/609150364&SearchID=73258 247130317 | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1509 Registered: 10-2004 |
How come this thread isn't with the others relating to the elections??? | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 631 Registered: 10-2003 |
From the article: "Even though I've lost promotions on two occasions -- once to a minority man and once to a woman -- I still favor affirmative action," said Dace-Smith, 63, an EDS project manager from Davisburg. ______________________________ ___________________ Note he didn't say if they were better choices or more qualified than him. The point is that you choose the best candidate, which we must assume they did here since he didn't mention preferential treatment. | ||
Imperfectly Member Username: Imperfectly Post Number: 133 Registered: 06-2004 |
I will admit that the props on the ballots confuse the heck out of me. Thanks to everyone contributing this thread!!! I come from the mindset that everything is not equal and that needs to be taken into consideration. I also do no believe that jobs are being taken away from white males. I just argued about this subject with my brother. In the end of course life is much easier if you are white and male. I dont see how someone can argue with that. Im still not sure how I will vote.... keep the info coming on here! | ||
Mrjoshua Member Username: Mrjoshua Post Number: 903 Registered: 03-2005 |
"NO how about you elaborate? How is this law making things so much better for us and so much harder for 'working class white men' (when we still struggle to get into everywhere even with this law in place) on a daily basis?" Stylin, this sounds like more of a personal problem to me. You are an inherently negative, paranoid and conspiratorial individual, and employers are surely picking up on this when they interview you. Do you think anyone would in their right mind want to hire someone who chooses to not only carry these personality traits but then attempt to pass them onto others like a virus? When you begin to manifest your own destiny and stop blaming society, the government and your pigmentation for your failures, you will stop being treated with discrimination. What those who estimate your worth are conspiring against is your attitude, and it sucks. | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2390 Registered: 10-2003 |
Mr. Jo's prose flows. | ||
Bongman Member Username: Bongman Post Number: 1295 Registered: 12-2003 |
How far we have fallen to have a bill like this presented as a "Civil Rights Initiative". It speaks volumes to me about the spin that has become so prevalent in our society recently. Affirmative action policies came about as an attempt to level the playing field for those who were discriminated against by society. Look around...scan you own environment....come to a conclusion on your own by what you see, feel, and encounter every day. Is the playing field level ? The same people who would dare to call this a "Civil Rights Initiative" are the same folks who recruit, interview, and hire based on "gut feeling" and "fit". The same folks who will do the safe thing by hiring their relative, friend, or neighbor as opposed to you regardless of your qualifications. Those same people don't want you sitting next to them in class....They don't want you as a co-worker...they don't want you as a neighbor...they don't want you making their money...they don't want you period. Look at Shelby Twp. They canned their Police Chief because he openly sought some diversity. Look at the people who work for your city...lots of the same last names. Women on average still only make 70% of the wages men make. Look into your heart and ask yourself why ? | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 303 Registered: 06-2006 |
Bongman: Yes, the name sucks and is deliberately deceptive. That's irrelevant. If it were called something else, it wouldn't change who would be voting for it and who would be voting against it. I believe AA should be based on SES and not skin color, and that's exaclty what this bill wil do, so it's getting a 'Yes' vote from me, regardless of what it's called. | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 3029 Registered: 10-2003 |
Remember...vote NO.... Afirmative action is NOT soley based on race. If this passes then so many programs, not only for African Americans, but also programs for women, gay men and women, other minoroties, and the disabled are endangered... Voting yes to this will do nothing but open a societal Pandora's Box. For real... | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 304 Registered: 06-2006 |
Remeber...vote YES!!!!! This proposal will have no effect on programs for women, such as breast cancer screenings and battered womens' shelter...NONE WHATSOEVER...this is just a scare tactic by the opposition The biggest effect of this proposal's passage will be that AA will have to be based on Socio-economic status and not race...blacks who actually need the help will still get it, but so will whites who come from underprivileged backrounds... | ||
Mw2gs Member Username: Mw2gs Post Number: 233 Registered: 03-2005 |
What does Affirmative Action have to do with the availability of breast cancer screenings? So you admit.....AA's are your opposition. Interesting!!!!!! (Message edited by mw2gs on October 17, 2006) | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 306 Registered: 06-2006 |
Mw2gr: AA has nothing to do with breast cancer screenings. The pro-AA group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) has used this as a scare tactic, warning that the passage of the MCRI proposal would somehow make it illegal for the state to provide funding for gender-based programs like breast cancer screenings...this is false as the MCRI only applies to public universities, public employment, and public contracting...also, sub section (5) of the proposal allows for bona fide qualification based on sex for the normal operation of public universities, employment and contracting. Also AA's are not my 'opposition'and nothing in my post suggested it. | ||
Herbpowell Member Username: Herbpowell Post Number: 20 Registered: 07-2004 |
I am guessing this would have to be decided by the courts but would you the state be allowed to have programs that target underprivileged children or underprivileged neighborhoods, cities regions etc., because minorities would be over represented? These are the types of questions that scare me. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 311 Registered: 06-2006 |
The law makes it illegal to discriminate or give preferential treatment based on race...it says nothing about socio-economic status, so basing programs on SES would not violate the law... |
