Affirmative action necessarily discriminates again someone.



LSAT has a voluntary question regarding the examinees' race. There are no questions if requesting from which neighborhood or if they are related to an alumni of a college. Race plays a large part on the LSAT as one can declare one's race on the exam itself. Invitations mailed out to potential candidates by the Law Schools themselves take this into account. The UofM law School boosted weight of the LSAT score of black candidates by 20%ile points for admission to the law school. When universities which receive public funds discriminate in such a manner, such discrimination is unconstitutional and unjust. If a private university were to conduct themselves in such a manner that is not our concern; only those which accept monies from the public purse.



Sorry, but racial quotas are issued by cities, universities, cities, towns, federal, local and municipal governments. They can be voted on by a city council, issued by a mayor, POTUS, governors, heads of departments etc. No JUDGE is required to mandate a racial quota. As for private companies' hiring practices I have no issue. They can do whatever they want with their own money as long as the are not being provided funds from the public purse. They should be allowed to pursue their own policies in the hiring of people they chose one way or another, of course most of the time any such "discrimination" perpetrated by such private companies are in favor of the "protected minority" however if that discrimination was to have any semblance of going the other way all the self-appointed maven Reverends would amass a bunch of goons from the hood to intimidate corporate execs and employees to submitting to their whims as has occurred on many an occasion.

Of course the "protected minorities" as you so aptly deigned to describe such groups is goes to speak of an attitude and mindset of entitlement visible in certain segments of society who believe that special quotas, entitlements and considerations should be bequeathed to members of the "protected minority".



Of course this is not about balance or reparations as there are should not be any group rights but only individual rights. Hence there is no reason for compensation to any group of people. If that was the case we should be suing each and every member of Anthony Johnson's race for bringing bring slavery to the American colonies, but this would just as absurd a proposition as "reparations" (for what????) and balance (??? why ???). Everyone should be considered on individual merit.

Of course beneficiaries of affirmative action never find it repugnant of have themselves place ahead of a more deserving individual in the same vein as a burglar has no repugnance when stealing the goods of another's labor.

In reply to KerryO...

If you have the ability to read what was written I was merely showing how slavery came into being in the North America. Nowhere have I justified that, merely if one was to some blacks "house negros" because they are conservative if given a pass by the black leadership in America. I was merely illustrating the the precedence in common law in the American colony (under English Common Law) was set by a black who wanted to enslave another black in contravention of the general accepted practice of the time.

Attempting to blame others (as in "whites") for slavery or the current population of the United States is spurious. American did not go and grab slaves from Africa but rather Africans and Muslims sold slaves in market places all over Africa and Arabia. Mohamed (Islam's "prophet") kept and traded many slaves whom he took as booty in war (female slaves such as Safyia after her father, husband and brothers were killed by Mohamed) or purchased outright at the suq. The system of indentured servitude unlike slavery was a commonly accepted practice since feudal era to own land for peasants tied to the land.

It is noteworthy that it was the Republicans who fought for the freeing of the slaves and gave blacks the vote. When democrats voted 61% to 39% in favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while the Republicans voted 80%-20% in favor. Conservative have defended the rights of blacks while the Democrats have not. Now I mean real right not assumed right.

As far back as the 13th Century scholastic philosophers such as Aquinas have spoke about these rights (for Aquinas these were rights conferred by God). John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government again innumerates these rights (in a more secular vein). These rights are life liberty and pursuit of happiness (not the guarantee of). But these are not rights conferred to a group but to every individual.

The problem today is that special rights are being demanded by groups for groups. Take affirmative action for example which invariably requires discrimination against an innocent person. Take the LSAT, which is considered the hardest admission test, many applicants prepare a year beforehand for the LSAT). When one writes the LSAT you may chose to check which racial group one belongs too. Depending on the University, a black can be alloted for purposes of admission more points. A low score of 149 suddenly can be valued as a 169 which is good enough to be considered for Harvard or Yale.

Or take a government which has diversity requirements as some first responders (police firefighter or EMT). We would expect the individuals who score the highest would be called on to fill such positions. But depending on the city or state, a lesser qualified individual may have to be chosen ahead of a higher scoring individual to meet racial quota requirement.

Are these not repugnant to an individuals sense of justice? Yet these are rights demanded by groups for groups as rights or redresses.

LOL Perhaps you should query a dictionary regarding the definition of "analogy". Perhaps the name of the Angolan having an English name vexes your mind, perhaps that is why baby names such as Aushaniquia, Bonquawalaqweisha, Cheoniquiana, Deshamanequa, Equashenay ... Shanishaniquaisanana ... Zimonquillashawnda and other excessive wastage of the Latin alphabet mystify many. I guess someone can write a book on how such names get manufactured to confuse those of us who get tongue tied. Of course nowhere in Africa are there such wastages a paper just to write one's name. Appears to be an American phenomena.

Back to the subject, the 20 year term of indenture was considered a contract. Breaking of a contract could bring a lengthened period of indenture. Crimes such as murder, theft of the master's property can and did extend the such terms of indenture. Such cases can be foudn well before 1640 and are found in common law. Indentures were not limited to the blacks came from Africa but to also many immigrants especially those arriving from feudal states in Europe.

Prior to Johnson v. Parker there was no slavery per se. Johnson who owned several indentured servents did not want to loose the headright land that would have to be transfered to his servants. It was Johnson who was the first slave master and Casor the first slave in the true sense as in being owned by right. Whereas prior it was conferable only by a court upon judgement in the colonies.

As for slavery we did not grab Africans and drag them over here. Slavery was endemic in Africa. Traders were either Muslims or tribesmen who captured them in war or just sold a fellow neighbor. In the beginning there were no slaves in America only indentured servitude of 20 years after which he was given freedom, money and 250 acres of land in return for his service also known as the headright system. However, then came Anthony Johnson who owned a slave John Casor who claimed the very same compensation from Johnson. However, Johnson was not about to pay Casor for his work. Johnson took Casor to court and claimed that he was a servant for life in 1653. John Casor thereby became the first slave in the colony. Who was Anthony Johnson? A black African from Angola! Because of precedence in common law other merchants, farmers etc claimed that black African servants were now slaves and in doing so did not have to pay the servants with money and land.

A little history regarding the origin of slavery in the United States.

The whole housing crisis was caused BECAUSE of bad government policies and incorrect signalling caused by these policies.

Fanny and Freddy which are extensions of the US government began providing low interest loans to home buyers who met their criteria: minorities and black who's credit were in the ditch, were under-employed and therefore could not access credit markets unless they did so a very high or unfordable interest rates.

Here we have in essence the government creating a corporation within the marketplace handing out loans at cut rate to people who could not purchase a home otherwise at prime plus 5% and later dropping down to the sub prime rates. With a such low rates, how were the banks supposed to lend and make a profit? The banks are not backed by the government so as to make loans that would eat into profit.

So if the government is giving low interest and later sub-prime loans to the undeserving (because they are from some loud mouthed minority which claim special rights) due to their lack of good credit what are banks supposed to do to bring customers who have better credit ratings? Should they not get mortgages at even lower rates than those who could get loans from Freddy and Fanny? Fanny and Freddy were competing with the banks for customers after all undercutting thier ability to make a profit.

The whole housing bubble was created by the government, re. Democrats who started the program and pursued a policy to lower interest rates through market manipulation.

Other factors were the deregulation of money markets (a good thing) but high corporate taxes (bad thing). So there was much a glut of money waiting to be invested but not enough business to invest in due to regulation and high taxes which causes over investment and inevitably PE ratios climbed and there was less return per $ invested. The government should have lowered corporate tax rates and eased regulations (especially start up regulations) for businesses. In Hong Kong it takes but a day to do the paperwork tho start up a company, but it takes about 3 to 4 months in the US, for what?

Replying to KerryO's last comment

People are hurting not because corporations or the rich, they are because the government is persuing bad policies. If Obama (and yes Bush) had just let the companies fail other more efficient companies would have taken their place. GM should have been alowed to die, yet Obama's administration in essence nationalized GM (not a bailout per se) in an effort to keep his union friends employed. What did the real owners (ordinary people who held stock in the company, retirement savinges etc)? nothing. The fat cat union members got to keep their jobs and hosed the owners of the company. Obama with the help of Goldman Sacks launched a new fresh IPO carrying the GM name. GM should have been alowed to sink, after all the union fat cats are the ones who brought it down. Oh and those retired GM workers really did get to keep their gold plated pensions plans thanks to Obama knew on which side his bread was buttered.

Oh jut a FYI, the HP-33 has to go it is a sign of a wannabe. HP-28S 48GX are for the real guys who do RPN. :)

In response to KerryO

Yes we did something in Canada about it. We elected a conservative government which is more amiable to at least a two tiered system. Next we kicked your backsides economically because we followed a more conservative economic policy. We were the first industrial nation to come out of the recession and we recorded the highest growth coming out of it. Furthermore, we spent the least on bailouts.

I doubt the the loudest opponents are the most likely to freeload as such assertions which are thrown willy nilly are usually pulled out of one's rectum and flung around.

As for virtual slave labor, you should talk to your socialist fellow travelers in Peking about not enslaving their people. As a socialist I am sure you might have some clout with your fellow ideologues.

The median rate of corporate tax around the world is between 20-25% yet the united states is 38%-50%. Why would anyone what to do conduct business in the US? You vilify businessmen and corporations as being greedy etc. and you expect them to give you a job?

There are flaws in every intervention of government into the market place, Germany model included. That said, the German model is fairer in that people have an option of a "two tiered" health insurance system.

msharmony's take on Clarence Thomas being a "house Negro" is quite typical of the black population in the United States which derides and disqualifies exceptionalism but rides shotgun for the race baiting welfare pimps like Jesse Jackson, Sharpton and their posse. It stereotyped people such as Colin Powell as not being black and only became black when he supported Obama. Somehow the black population believes that their stereotypes and the racism they espouse should be beyond reproach and those who take offense at their racism are the real racists.

Again with the corporate greed. Corporations should be greedy, they need to turn a profit for their shareholders who invest their hard earned money in them. If a corporation was not greedy I will not have any part in them. In fact each one of us is greedy for something. That is what the pursuit of happiness that is enshrined in the constitution is all about. With the highest tax rate in the developed world why do you keep attacking corporations? It shows ingratitude and you are biting the hand that feeds you. Do you really believe that governments create jobs? Stop whipping corporations, no wonder they are moving out and for good reason. Perhaps you envision the socialist paradise of Fidel's Cuba? No one's stopping you.

sorry about some of the errors in posting. I tend to jump from thought to thought while writing and sometimes the sentence does not make sense. My bad.

You might want to tell that to Clarence Thomas. Read his biography and you will understand why few now have sympathy for your point of view.


Well with training and discipline one can compete. Again I point you to Clarence Thomas' biography. The problem is that many of these ne'er-do-well keep bouncing Bballs around wanting to become NBA stars. That is the problem there are only a few job openings a year dribbling Bballs. It is a choice.



Stop driving businesses and the rich out with high corporate and individual tax rates. The rich do not put money in banks; they invest creating more jobs. But with Obama and his fellow ***** (as in idiot, donkey, democrat) trying to sodomize the rich and corporations at every turn why should corporations or the rich outsource overseas?



What illnesses do they not cover? Pre-existing illnesses? You are darn right that they should not cover these. This would be unfair unless there is a premium. How did people live when the technology was not there to provide expensive medical care? Medical care is not a right!


Actually the company pays in your stead. When co-pay investments are made then you can get per amount over a period of time if you did not whose fault is that? Again one of choice.



As I have shown each of these are choices people make. There is the 2% of poor who really had bad luck. I don't mind if these are taken care of... by church groups but not the government.

By what Standards?

How about leaving a shovel ready job of "hope and change" on the hood a police cruiser?

How about people living in the neighborhood complaining of being "harassment, lewdness, groping" being perpetrated on them, or the sleeping protesters blocking drive ways and walk ways or the drug use at all hours of day and night.

They live in a pigsty but won't let anyone clean up their pigsty.

What working poor? Choices one makes has a direct bearing on poverty. Anyone who is willing to study and work hard will get somewhere. If one was to get knocked up by the age of 18, or get hitched under 20 without first getting an education is going to be living in poverty for a while but that has to do with choices one makes.

50% of Americans do not pay taxes, that is a fact. The poor certainly do not. Yes some sales taxes but all in all get more than they pay. The majority of the poor "work the system".

We are giving the poor an incentive to stay poor. Cut welfare, food stamps etc. That is the greatest incentive to get people back into the workforce.

In response to KerryO

It is a well known fact that Canada does have a single payer system (depending on the province). However, we have been beset by the usual problems associated with it.

1. The more able/better doctors left of the United States as they believed that they were not being paid upon their merit and ability as every procedure is paid out the same sum across the board. The doctors who could not make it stayed put. This was a huge problem between 1992 and 1999 as our best left to the United States. We had to bring in doctors from India where MDs can graduate with a passing mark of 33%.

2. The government in effect insures the doctors and limits payouts and stacks legal procedure against litigants. The doctors are not forced to purchase individual insurance and therefore cannot be forced out by the insurance companies when things go wrong. In the US this is one of the quickest was to get a doctor to stop practicing is thanks to the insurance companies which make doctors pay for instances of malpractice. There is very little redress in the Canadian system and a great amount in the United States as the free market forces out the inept who just come over to Canada. When the single payer system was enacted the government made promises to the Medical Associations that this would be the case.

3. Until the Conservative government allowed for more private procedures there were long lines waiting for procedures. Persons who could pay like my parents went to the US for treatment or operations where there were better doctors. The ones who could not died waiting in line.

4. As there is only a single payer, the government, only procedures allowed by actuaries and various boards were permitted and this was not based on best treatment but on funds available to the specific board. So if there was a medication which would cost $5000 per month no one was allowed to get it - even if you were willing to pay for it.

5. Everyone gets the same service in Canada. You cannot go out an pay to get better service. In the government's eyes it was wrong for the rich to get treated better... (of course they went to the United States) My parents living in Canada carried health insurance in Ohio.

6. In Calgary, the richest city in Canada, there was but a single MRI and a long line up ensured...for humans waiting time was 1.5 years. Five veterinary clinics in Calgary had MRI machines for pets and livestock. Humans could not go to the vet to get an MRI scan.

Technologist? Me... No.. I am a Network Admin very good at what I do but I never saw myself as a technologist :) I was a math/Physics major with Phil/PoliSci as minors and a law school dropout.

As for people moving off shore to do business, why would anyone what to do business in the US at with it high corporate taxes one of the highest in the world of between 38% - 50% and the highest among industrialized nations. The United States is currently driving business out. It is more lucrative for people to do business in anywhere in the EU, Japan China or elsewhere. Yet the protestors and all the Obama junkies, say that the corporations don’t pay their fair share. Furthermore labor unions work to put the corporations out of business and against business. Steve Jobs would be an idiot to do manufacture anything in the United States with high taxes and labor union protections.

The Socialists on the march in New York and Washington, behaving like uncivilized uncouth louts and barbarians demand more free money without earning or achieve anything.

The taking of wealth from the productive, taking a cut and handing out to the ne’er-do-wells is unfair and unjust. If you are can’t work don’t expect to eat. Begging on the street for a hand out is by magnitudes more just than having the government use their coercive force to appropriate money for you. That seems to be the attitude of many in the United States.

This is again an issue with the Commerce clause. Wickard v. Filburn and United States v. Lopez dealt with similar issues. If you want to have cases such these overturned you will need judges like Thomas and Scalia. If the case goes to SCOTUS it is likely to appeal to the commerce clause.

Actually Obamacare is more important that the Jobs Bill for many reasons. First of all it is unconstitutional by any standard. It forces citizens to purchase something. You may argue that we force individuals to purchase insurance for cars so why is it different with health care? Well, the reason is that you do not need to drive, however, if one choses to live in the United States you will be required to buy health insurance whether you like it or not. This is an over-reaching application of the commerce clause. The over-reaching of the commerce clause came with the FDR's New Deal as FDR repeatedly was able to launch an assault on the US Constitution and the people loved him for it because he was "doing something" and could give great speeches even intimidating and threatening the Supreme Court and business leaders because he had the people on his side - Remember he was a four term president.

While these policies can be overturned early one, once entrenched over time these abrogations of the Constitution became accepted and even SCOTUS' opinion concurred that while these were unconstitutional acts they have become acceptable and entrenched that undoing these would have consequences which might not be acceptable.

That is the reason we must halt Obamacare. It is a great threat to the Constitution. I am a Canadian, but there is no document such as the US Constitution which checks the power of government. Every other Constitution delimits the rights of the people or defines their rights whereas the US Constitution delimits what the government can do. But if people fueled by class envy stirred by the vile rhetoric of the race baiting welfare pimps and their socialist enablers who would surrender freedom for a handouts and free money do you think the Constitution will stand a chance?

Still to this day FDR is considered a hero in the US for what he did during the great depression. But was it worth the assault on individual freedom for generations to come? The effects are still here with us today. The fact is if FDR has left the economy alone there would have been a recovery by 1935 but his policies prolonged the depression through the WWII.

The economic problem in the United States could have been over with quickly. No bailouts, let the companies that do not do well die and get out of the way... that is the way it should have been. Of all the countries which went through the recession Canada spent the lease per capita and only ended up spending $150 million (a mere pittance - at $5 per Canadian) in bailouts. The conservative government only spent even that because the opposition parties pushed them into it as the were only a minority government. The $150 million came with so many strings and conditions that no one wanted to touch the Canadian bailout. The US meanwhile spent 1.5 trillion ($5000 per American) within six months bailing out something or other and continues to have a stagnant economy. Canada on the other had spending 1000 times less than the US per capita which was the least spent by any nation was the first to recover and had the highest growth of post recession.

Leave the economy alone and cut taxes on the Wealthy. Wealthy people do not put money in banks! They are ambitious/greedy/go getters/doers (whatever it is) and make their money work for them which means only one thing and one thing only: Investments. Investments is what creates jobs, makes capital available for infrastructure and developments and a whole host of things that trickle (nay gush) down. If the US government cut capital gains to 0%, and made said that the rich do not have to pay ANY taxes at all but taxed the poor there would be 99% employment, wages would quickly rise as employers are forced to compete for labor which would be in short supply etc. Yes it seems unfair that the rich pay nothing and the poor would carry the tax burden but that is the fastest way to recover from a recession. The "greed of the rich" is good for everyone.

Not at all. The US did not provide any WMDs to Iraq and neither did they provide the technology. It is supposed that France or Russia may have provided this technology but even this is contentious as there is no solid paper trail to provide such evidence.

The fact is that the chemical weapons used by Iraq are fairly easily made. Iraq did possess the know how and the facilities to make these weapons without US, France, Russian or Chinese help.

The fact that they purchased piping from Germany which was used in the manufacture of chemical weapons does not make the German Government or the German company complicit in the Iraqi production of WMDs.

And no, The US government does not have any such invoices from Iraq as claimed by the poster.

"Geo II clearly violated his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

He and his administration have refused to answer the questions of congress. A congress that even when dominated by his own party had questions.

He acted in violation of international treaties and ignored the direction of the SCOTUS.

He engaged in domestic spying without warrant.

He asserted that because the President does it it is therefor legal. I bet Nixon (if alive) would have loved that and used it too.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg."

Anyone who agrees with the assertions of the dimwits are dimwits themselves.

Q: How did George Bush violate the Constitution? The fact one can claim that EVERY US president has violated the Constitution.

Q: Which questions did the Executive refuse to answer? Oh yes... Those to which Executive Privilege applied. Clinton refused to answer those questions, JFK refused to answer those questions and every Democratic Executive has refused to answer those questions. Answering questions to which Executive Privilege applies sets a dangerous precedence tying the hands of future presidents in carrying out their duties.

Q: Which treaties were violated? Which ones exactly? Is it the one that says somewhere that blah blah blah connot detain combatants etc etc blah blah. Well I called you ****heads idiots for a reason. Safeguards apply only to legal combatants designated by a country. Irregular combatants and illegal combatants do not have recourse to such safeguards in International Law. No matter how loudly you scream and repeat your mantra over and over it does not change the fact of law: an irregular or illegal combatant is not a legal combatant. A simple requirement is the wearing of a uniform to distinguish combatants from civilians etc. So Where the **** were their uniforms, up their asses … exactly where you all have your heads stuck in. How can they be combatants when they do even mean the most rudimentary test standard?

Q: Which SCOTUS ruling was ignored???? None!!! Lies said loudly and repeatedly do not change the truth.

Q: Domestic spying??? Have you dumb****s read the law itself? I bet you have not even passed an LSAT test. Read the safeguards and provisions of the law. If the law was unconstitutional it would have been ruled as such. It was not. It was in fact upheld by SCOTUS.