The PC Presidential Poll (Political) [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

Back

07-01-2004, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
This poll is in no way accurate. Minors can vote, and people can vote more than once under different IDs. Can the moderators see who voted for what? Also, can they see how many votes from the same IP?

Not that I care who voted how, just curious to know which candidate got stacked votes. heh.

LOL... your candidate's not winning.. so automatically, you scream foul.

OH SO typical.

Where am I crying foul? When I made this poll I completely understood what could happen with it, how it could be manipulated either way, and that its just a fun PC topic. Get over yourself. Yeesh.

07-01-2004, 10:25 AM

so you're saying you would have said the same thing if kerry had the most votes for?

Parkbandit

07-01-2004, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
This poll is in no way accurate. Minors can vote, and people can vote more than once under different IDs. Can the moderators see who voted for what? Also, can they see how many votes from the same IP?

Not that I care who voted how, just curious to know which candidate got stacked votes. heh.

LOL... your candidate's not winning.. so automatically, you scream foul.

OH SO typical.

Where am I crying foul? When I made this poll I completely understood what could happen with it, how it could be manipulated either way, and that its just a fun PC topic. Get over yourself. Yeesh.

Originally posted by Backlash
Can the moderators see who voted for what? Also, can they see how many votes from the same IP?

Back

07-01-2004, 10:31 AM

Without quoting all that...

Take it as you want. I'm not losing sleep over it. This poll is for fun. Wouldn't you be curious to know those kinds of things if you could? I'm not making demands. I don't care who votes how, because I know whats going to happen anyway.

For all you know, I could have voted 10 times for Kerry.

CrystalTears

07-01-2004, 10:31 AM

You can only vote once. :bleh:

DeV

07-01-2004, 10:47 AM

I don't see the big deal with Backlash saying what he did. I wouldn't mind knowing just out of curiosity as well. Either way, when it all comes down to it, it's for fun. At least I took it that way.
It's always interesting to see which way the tide will flow.

CrystalTears

07-01-2004, 11:29 AM

It's not all for fun for the poor bloke who would do the IP matching. That's boring and yucky.

Besides, I thought PC was composed of only 20 people. Maybe Backlash DID do all that voting. Who knew. ;)

Skirmisher

07-01-2004, 11:31 AM

Alright I'll come clean and admit that Backlash is my secret crime fighting identity.

longshot

07-01-2004, 12:05 PM

I'm still undecided.

I've always voted Republican.

I would still consider myself one.

I don't mind Bush. I don't think he deserves a lot of the demonization that he does.

What kills me is how the worst part of the Republican Party has become this rock solid base... and by worse, I mean this radical Christian element. It frightens. I see what Ascroft does, and it makes me think that were really not so far away from the Christian Taliban. I was really proud when Pat Buchanan left the Republican Party. Now? He's a complete nonfactor because his agenda is pretty much the same is the Republicans. Fiscal responsibilty and small government. State rights over federal laws. Tough on criminals. This used to be what the party stood for.

Now? Federal laws to say no to fags? All those corporate guys getting off unscathed. Huge deficits.

It's not the same party. It just isn't.

Also, the people who surround Bush and pull on his strings bother me. The arrogance of the administration. Ashcroft and Cheney especially. It stinks of cronyism.

Rummy gets a pass. He's the secretary of defense. He shouldn't have to be a pussy... but he loses big points for trying to fight 27 million hajis with nothing to lose on the cheap. That really pisses me off.

I've lived outside of the country for two years... I see how people think of us. It's not good. Even in "ally" countries. Many people say it doesn't matter, but if you're fighting a global war on terror, you need cooperation, especially for cutting off funding.

And then on the other side, is this total pussy. I have no clue what he stands for. I don't even think he knows which hand he uses to hold his cock when he pisses. The only thing I know is that he's not Bush. Is that good enough?

I'm really torn.

Part of me believes that if these are the two best candidates this country can field, then we are truly fucked, and much like Rome, our time in the sun is about to fade.

I know that I can't dodge the responsibility this time, and I have to vote. What a choice though...

Hulkein

07-01-2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Wezas
Which poll are you looking at?
This is from the American Research Group (no clue about political bias of them)

It was a battlegrounds poll shown on TV.. I'll look for it online.

Hulkein

07-01-2004, 12:42 PM

Bush tops Kerry by nine percentage points in a head-to-head matchup in Florida and by 10 points when Nader is included.

Bush and Kerry are most closely matched in Michigan, with Bush at 42 percent, Kerry at 40 percent and Nader at five percent (his highest level of support in the states tested). In the two-way Michigan race Bush and Kerry are virtually tied, with Kerry up by only one percent.

In Ohio and Pennsylvania, the race is also well within the poll’s margin of error. In Ohio, Bush is chosen over Kerry by a 45 percent to 41 percent margin, with Nader at four percent. Bush has a slight five-percentage point edge over Kerry in Pennsylvania, with Nader at three percent.

----

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123679,00.html

Wezas

07-01-2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein

Bush tops Kerry by nine percentage points in a head-to-head matchup in Florida and by 10 points when Nader is included.

Bush and Kerry are most closely matched in Michigan, with Bush at 42 percent, Kerry at 40 percent and Nader at five percent (his highest level of support in the states tested). In the two-way Michigan race Bush and Kerry are virtually tied, with Kerry up by only one percent.

In Ohio and Pennsylvania, the race is also well within the poll’s margin of error. In Ohio, Bush is chosen over Kerry by a 45 percent to 41 percent margin, with Nader at four percent. Bush has a slight five-percentage point edge over Kerry in Pennsylvania, with Nader at three percent.

----

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123679,00.html

Goes to show how two polls that are 1 day apart and are created by two different sources can have totally different outcomes.

Hulkein

07-01-2004, 12:55 PM

Yeah, very true.

Parkbandit

07-01-2004, 12:56 PM

Fox news claiming that Bush has a lead in a poll is like the New York Times saying Kerry has a lead.

I don't view either as a credible source.

Don't get me wrong.. I enjoy watching Fox news to get the other side of the story.. but they certainly are not an unbiased source.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

07-01-2004, 12:59 PM

I predict that Bush was winning in the early poll results because most the conservatives have jobs and get up early to go to them. I imagine after the left wing liberals wake up from their foodstamp bought Maddog 20/20 blackouts, Kerry will get more votes.

Heh.

.
.
.
.
Yes, I'm kidding. I tend to say out of politics on these boards, its just a shouting match for the most part.

Chadj

07-01-2004, 01:02 PM

Kerry.

Hulkein

07-01-2004, 01:03 PM

You're a fifthteen year old Canadian.

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by Hulkein]

DeV

07-01-2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by longshot
Everything stated. Made alot of fucking sense. There are alot of Democrats as well as Republicans that feel the same way. As it stands I'm at a complete loss on who to vote for and it really sucks being in this situation.

Parkbandit

07-01-2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage I tend to say out of politics on these boards, its just a shouting match for the most part.

FUCK YOU TAYVIN, IT IS NOT. TAKE IT BACK OR I'LL SCREAM IN YOUR FUCKING EAR!!!

:spaz:

Mint

07-01-2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Kranar

This ain't a democracy. I rule over you all with The Iron Fist of Doom.

Am I the only one that got a little thrill out of this? Hot...

Chadj

07-01-2004, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein
You're a fifthteen year old Canadian.

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by Hulkein]

Who enjoys politics and did essay research papers for advanced classes on Clinton when I was 9. I watch the news regularly, and make it a point to read up on current events (although I havn't spent much time paying attention to this election, I know enough to say that I dislike bush.). Hell, I could possibly know more than a hell of a lot of adult americans.

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by Chadj]

DianaBanana

07-01-2004, 06:36 PM

<-----Undecided, as both Kerry and Bush suck. :thinking:

Latrinsorm

07-01-2004, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Chadj

Originally posted by Hulkein
You're a fifthteen year old Canadian.
Who enjoys politics and did essay research papers for advanced classes on Clinton when I was 9. I watch the news regularly, and make it a point to read up on current events (although I havn't spent much time paying attention to this election, I know enough to say that I dislike bush.). Hell, I could possibly know more than a hell of a lot of adult americans.Ok, you're a 15 year old Canadian with way too much time on his hands.

HTF is Kerry winning, btw? Bad hippies! :nono:

Back

07-01-2004, 08:39 PM

The answer is simple. I've been stacking the votes. :unclesam:

Artha

07-01-2004, 08:43 PM

HTF is Kerry winning, btw? Bad hippies!

Someone's letting foreigners vote.

Back

07-01-2004, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Artha

HTF is Kerry winning, btw? Bad hippies!

Someone's letting foreigners vote.

Not to mention underage voters.

Still, its a global community now and I don't see why people under 18 couldn't have a say in the direction this country is going. Maybe 16. I know I had a lot to say when I was 16.

Remember, its only been 80 years since women have been allowed to vote, and barely 40 years for blacks.

As for global... it would be interesting to see what kind of leader a global community would elect, especially since in a global community, there aren't any, as of yet, enemies of the Earth. Besides ourselves of course.

Artha

07-01-2004, 09:13 PM

I'm 16, and I wouldn't want 16 year olds to vote.

Betheny

07-01-2004, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein
Latest polls show Bush ahead in a lot of crucial swing states. He's ahead in PA (I was very surprised), Minnesota, and Ohio.

Hopefully the election night is just as entertaining as the last one was... My mom and dad were watching it so I did too and that's what really got me interested in politics. Very entertaining.

To interject...

Minnesota's media is run by Republicans.

I kid you not. You hear/see nothing except what they want you to. It's pretty scary.

Back

07-01-2004, 09:50 PM

Longshots post

Christian Taliban. Thats good. Real good.

Cronyism. Thats exactly what it is. It amazes me how so many of the 98% of the masses can support their own raping and pilaging.

If by "haji", you mean Hadji from Jonny Quest... he was East Indian, not arabic. Unless you are in Japan fighting Sikhs... is there some kind of mystic war going on over there?

Artha

07-01-2004, 09:58 PM

A haji is someone who makes a pilgrimage to Mecca (called a hajj).

Kefka

07-01-2004, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Chadj

Originally posted by Hulkein
You're a fifthteen year old Canadian.
Who enjoys politics and did essay research papers for advanced classes on Clinton when I was 9. I watch the news regularly, and make it a point to read up on current events (although I havn't spent much time paying attention to this election, I know enough to say that I dislike bush.). Hell, I could possibly know more than a hell of a lot of adult americans.Ok, you're a 15 year old Canadian with way too much time on his hands.

HTF is Kerry winning, btw? Bad hippies! :nono:

Here's a simple answer. Bush is the incumbent. Bush and Kerry are neck and neck at this point. That means Bush is in trouble. The reason there are undecideds at this point is because they already know what they can expect from Bush. They're trying to see what Kerry is offering. Unless there's a landslide lead, which isn't the case here, it's been known fact that 80% of the undecideds vote for the challenger.

Valthissa

07-01-2004, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Kefka

Here's a simple answer. Bush is the incumbent. Bush and Kerry are neck and neck at this point. That means Bush is in trouble. The reason there are undecideds at this point is because they already know what they can expect from Bush. They're trying to see what Kerry is offering. Unless there's a landslide lead, which isn't the case here, it's been known fact that 80% of the undecideds vote for the challenger.

Can you reconcile this statement against history?

Do you recall that at a similar time in 1988 Dukakis was ahead of Bush by (hold your breath) 18 points?

Do you recall that at a similar time Mondale (he lost 49 states) was even with Reagan?

It will be hard (some might say impossible) to reconcile your conclusion with these two data points. good luck.

C/Valth

Kefka

07-01-2004, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Valthissa

Originally posted by Kefka

Here's a simple answer. Bush is the incumbent. Bush and Kerry are neck and neck at this point. That means Bush is in trouble. The reason there are undecideds at this point is because they already know what they can expect from Bush. They're trying to see what Kerry is offering. Unless there's a landslide lead, which isn't the case here, it's been known fact that 80% of the undecideds vote for the challenger.

Can you reconcile this statement against history?

Do you recall that at a similar time in 1988 Dukakis was ahead of Bush by (hold your breath) 18 points?

Do you recall that at a similar time Mondale (he lost 49 states) was even with Reagan?

It will be hard (some might say impossible) to reconcile your conclusion with these two data points. good luck.

C/Valth

Bush Sr. was vice president at the time. He was not the incumbent president.

As for Walter Mondale, he had a tie with Reagan in the Fall of 83. An entire year before the election. The rest of the time he trailed. He was the former vice president. Carter's running mate. Geraldine Ferrarro was his running mate during that election. Reagan's age was his platform. It was doomed from the start.

Wezas

07-01-2004, 11:32 PM

Wait Wait Wait.

This is hilarious.

When a few people (I believe it was Backlash with the assist from myself) stated that this poll may be skewed by the fact that underage and foreign people could vote - the right wingers were hitting hard saying that we were complaining because our candidate wasn't winning.

Originally posted by The Edine

Originally posted by Parkbandit
LOL... your candidate's not winning.. so automatically, you scream foul.

OH SO typical.
I was thinking the exact same thing.

Oh how the tables have turned.

Originally posted by Artha

HTF is Kerry winning, btw? Bad hippies!

Someone's letting foreigners vote.

imported_Kranar

07-02-2004, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Kefka
Here's a simple answer. Bush is the incumbent. Bush and Kerry are neck and neck at this point. That means Bush is in trouble. The reason there are undecideds at this point is because they already know what they can expect from Bush. They're trying to see what Kerry is offering. Unless there's a landslide lead, which isn't the case here, it's been known fact that 80% of the undecideds vote for the challenger.

Actually, the main reason why the incumbent is said to have a natural advantage is because of the undecided vote. In general, those undecided end up voting for the incumbent.

Artha

07-02-2004, 01:38 AM

Oh how the tables have turned.

I'm not complaining, I'm pointing it out. The results can be and are skewed because minors and foreigners can vote. I don't really care either way.

imported_Kranar

07-02-2004, 01:46 AM

<< The results can be and are skewed because minors and foreigners can vote. I don't really care either way. >>

Mostly because it's not a scientific poll. Even if only those over 18 living in the U.S. voted in this poll, the results would still be skewed and inaccurate.

Chadj

07-02-2004, 01:47 AM

if I were 18, the vote wouldn't be any different at all *shrugs*

PS: I don't have a lot of spare time on my hands. I make time, by lack of sleep.

Kefka

07-02-2004, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Kranar

Originally posted by Kefka
Here's a simple answer. Bush is the incumbent. Bush and Kerry are neck and neck at this point. That means Bush is in trouble. The reason there are undecideds at this point is because they already know what they can expect from Bush. They're trying to see what Kerry is offering. Unless there's a landslide lead, which isn't the case here, it's been known fact that 80% of the undecideds vote for the challenger.

Actually, the main reason why the incumbent is said to have a natural advantage is because of the undecided vote. In general, those undecided end up voting for the incumbent.

Polling Report suggests the opposite:

http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm

"But our analysis of 155 polls reveals that, in races that include an incumbent, the traditional answers are wrong. Over 80% of the time, most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger."

Artha

07-02-2004, 01:58 AM

if I were 18, the vote wouldn't be any different at all *shrugs*

PS: I don't have a lot of spare time on my hands. I make time, by lack of sleep.

You are, however, a Canadian.

GSTamral

07-02-2004, 06:20 AM

This election will revolve about the issues of polarization.

Liberals paste Bush as an ultra-conservative hawk.

Conservatives paste Kerry as an ultra-liberal.

What is hurting Kerry most of all is the perception that he is an entirely political person. Dole set a precedent while running for election when he resigned his senate seat while running for election. Why did he do this? because while running for president, he could not fulfill senate duties. Kerry maintains his seat, this despite not attending a single vote in the last 2 months. Kerry refuses to give up his seat until they overturn a massachusetts constitutional amendment which changes the way an interim senator is chosen.

Many people also believe that Kerry's purple hearts were tainted by his use of them for personal political gain. His chasing of high profile, rich women notwithstanding, there is very little of moral or ethical value in anything he has accomplished. Every major gain of his has come at the expense of others. He steps on others to get ahead. He is a pathological liar, and he is too arrogant to ever admit a mistake.

What is hurting Bush is the perception (and probable reality) that he isn't very smart, and has an almost childlike attitude in his vendettas. He is hawkish, and as a result, pushes for conflict where conflict isn't needed. He is also hurt by the fact that many people view the patriot act and other decisions of his as stepping on first amendment rights, which is one of the founding rights of the nation.

Bush is also hurt by his selections of Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, who are known in the political circles as being very abrasive and very hawkish. Cheney was selected due to his beliefs in supply side economics, but that entire perspective has been driven into the background by the hawkish behavoir of the rest of the staff.

The X-factor here is not Nader. It's the economy. If the economy continues to churn as it is now for the next 4 months, Kerry will be lucky to win 10 states. If the economy stalls, then Kerry will likely win by a significant majority.

But in the end, any man who basically instructs his own party to block any additional economic stimulii packages, especially in the lagging airline industry, for the sheer purpose of making people lose their jobs and making the economy do worse in the short term, in order to better his own chances to win an election cannot get my vote.

Whether or not I vote for Bush is in question, because he is a dangerous man. But I will never vote for an inhumane liar like Kerry.

Valthissa

07-02-2004, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by Valthissa

Originally posted by Kefka

Here's a simple answer. Bush is the incumbent. Bush and Kerry are neck and neck at this point. That means Bush is in trouble. The reason there are undecideds at this point is because they already know what they can expect from Bush. They're trying to see what Kerry is offering. Unless there's a landslide lead, which isn't the case here, it's been known fact that 80% of the undecideds vote for the challenger.

Can you reconcile this statement against history?

Do you recall that at a similar time in 1988 Dukakis was ahead of Bush by (hold your breath) 18 points?

Do you recall that at a similar time Mondale (he lost 49 states) was even with Reagan?

It will be hard (some might say impossible) to reconcile your conclusion with these two data points. good luck.

C/Valth

Bush Sr. was vice president at the time. He was not the incumbent president.

As for Walter Mondale, he had a tie with Reagan in the Fall of 83. An entire year before the election. The rest of the time he trailed. He was the former vice president. Carter's running mate. Geraldine Ferrarro was his running mate during that election. Reagan's age was his platform. It was doomed from the start.

So we agree that there are many reasons that might lead to this race being won by either candidate that are not obvious five months before an election. Projecting the results forward five months based on current polling data and assumptions about how undecideds will vote is idle speculation (the LA Times made this same miscaculation in the Davis recall).

I'll speculate the opposite - the more Kerry is forced to reveal his positions the more the undecided voter will choose the known quantity, Bush.

My recollection is that Mondale was very close at the convention - I was really looking forward to evicting the evil Ronald Reagan (ah youth, how simple the choices were then....)

C/Valth

Back

07-02-2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by GSTamral
A whole bunch of stuff, then the last line...

But I will never vote for an inhumane liar like Kerry.

Care to expound a bit on this? You make him sound like the devil's right-hand man. What you wrote leading up to that last line didn't give me any indication of why, especially considering how bad you described Bush to be in comparison.

Hate to be a hard-ass about it, but providing articles from unbiased sources would go a long way to making the point.

People want to, and should, know these things.

Latrinsorm

07-02-2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Chadj
if I were 18, the vote wouldn't be any different at all *shrugs*Speaking as a person who has been both 16 and 18, I can guarantee that you will be a different person at 18.

Also, Kerry is still winning?? :stare:

Suppa Hobbit Mage

07-02-2004, 02:29 PM

Wait til you are 30. Or make more than 70k a year...

Everyone changes.

Betheny

07-02-2004, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Wait til you are 30. Or make more than 70k a year...

Everyone changes.

Ask me in 7 years, or when I make more than 70 grand a year.

I doubt it'll change, because I'll never forget when I got fucked over and couldn't see a doctor or couldn't get help when I needed it.

Delirium

07-02-2004, 05:53 PM

When you were 16 did you think your views would change at 23? Im assuming not. The one thing i know for sure is my views change and i keep hoping as i get older they stop but they havent yet.

Mistomeer

07-02-2004, 05:59 PM

Actually, Bush is smart, He has an Ivy League education, and he did well there. He can't be as dumb as opponents would like to paint him.
What hurts Kerry is that in order to win, he needs to win alot of Southern states and other rural areas, which is hard to do as a Mass. Democrat. If he chooses Edwards, he has a much better chance at winning. Keep in mind that had Gore won his home state of TN in 2000, Florida wouldn't have mattered at all.

Betheny

07-02-2004, 06:06 PM

I don't think I'm going to change what I believe just because I make more money. And I'm not going to agree with republicans just because I'm in their age bracket.

BZZZT, WRONG, GOOD DAY SIR.

Hulkein

07-02-2004, 06:11 PM

That's just a stereotype.. I don't fit it, but I still agree with Republican ideals for the most part.

Betheny

07-02-2004, 06:12 PM

I'm not the one perpetuating a stereotype here.

Delirium

07-02-2004, 06:14 PM

Im not saying you are going to turn into a republican but your views will change over time. Some of them will change to the right and some will move further left im sure. When i was 10 years old i was a unicorn heart and now that im older i doubt anyone who has read my posts would label me as that now. Also people in your life can make you change your mind on things regardless of your age or income. Ravenstorm has changed mine twice and thats just online. Thats half the reason i enjoy discussing things as it helps me form or change my views as needed. Being truly open minded doesnt mean you dont judge people who have sex with goats,its knowing you could be wrong and listening to the opposing view point.

Hulkein

07-02-2004, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Maimara
I'm not the one perpetuating a stereotype here.

Yeah I know, I was talking to them too... I didn't quote you or anything, just happened to post after you.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

07-02-2004, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Maimara
I don't think I'm going to change what I believe just because I make more money. And I'm not going to agree with republicans just because I'm in their age bracket.

BZZZT, WRONG, GOOD DAY SIR.

I'm not surprised you missed my point. It was that circumstances change everything. Age, income, lifestyle, sexuality, whatever. I think things today I didn't when I was 16, or 18, or 23.

PS - Republican's have an age bracket now?

Betheny

07-02-2004, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Wait til you are 30. Or make more than 70k a year...

Everyone changes.

According to you, they do.

07-03-2004, 05:42 PM

Few things make me not want to vote a democrat into office.

1. I hate affirmative action. It is a rascist policy and democrats seem to support it a lot more.

2. While Bush is doing a piss poor job of this now, Kerry would do a lot worse at securing our borders with Mexico.

3. I like the tax cut I got. In essence, I got a pay raise. Kerry said he'd repeal that and take my money away, I worked hard for that loot.

4. I just don't see democrats being able to go forward and be tough on issues such as Iraq and terror.

5. Kerry flip-flops way too much. He seems to be dishonest, while with Bush, I generally believe him to be upfront.

6. I despise the notion of gay marrage. I hope there is a constitution change to keep it between one man and one woman.

7. After the way Clinton gutted our military, I'm scared of it happening again due to another Democrat. Thanks, but no thanks.

- Arkans

Kefka

07-03-2004, 06:38 PM

<<1. I hate affirmative action. It is a rascist policy and democrats seem to support it a lot more.>>

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Standing in the same room where President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, President Bush celebrated "a great anniversary of justice and equality" Thursday, reaching out to a predominantly black audience four months before the presidential election.

"Forty years ago, in many parts of America, basic rights were observed or denied based entirely on race," Bush said in the East Room.

"A person looking for a job or even a place to stay the night could be turned away merely because the color of the skin, and that person had very little recourse under federal law," Bush said. "Forty years ago this week, that system of indignity and injustice was ended by the Civil Rights Act signed into law in this very room."

Affirmative Action was created because of racism.

Artha

07-03-2004, 06:49 PM

Two wrongs make a right, obviously.

Kefka

07-03-2004, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Artha
Two wrongs make a right, obviously.

Yeah... God forbids every legal citizen gets a fair shake, eh Artha?

07-03-2004, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by Artha
Two wrongs make a right, obviously.

Yeah... God forbids every legal citizen gets a fair shake, eh Artha?

You're right. So, how is it fair when an inferior job canidate is chosen due to race?

- Arkans

Artha

07-03-2004, 07:45 PM

Yeah... God forbids every legal citizen gets a fair shake, eh Artha?

Wait. Are you agreeing, or disagreeing with me?

Kefka

07-03-2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Arkans

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by Artha
Two wrongs make a right, obviously.

Yeah... God forbids every legal citizen gets a fair shake, eh Artha?

You're right. So, how is it fair when an inferior job canidate is chosen due to race?

- Arkans

As oppose to chosing an inferior white male candidate over everyone else who isn't a white male? Affirmative Action was the government's spanking to all those who thought they could get away with their racist practices. That goes for all other races. That goes for all women including white women.

Not only for jobs, but consideration into certain colleges, qualification for loans, even buying a house. Did Affirmative Action stop you from getting a job, loan, consideration from an apartment or house? I just see it as silly to complain about something that hasn't affected you in any way.

Artha

07-03-2004, 08:16 PM

Did Affirmative Action stop you from getting a job, loan, consideration from an apartment or house? I just see it as silly to complain about something that hasn't affected you in any way.

Generally, this is hard to answer as most employers, colleges, banks, realators etc don't tell you why you're not getting the job, slot, loan, or house. You just don't.

It stands to reason that there's only a limited amount of jobs, slots, money, or houses. So yes, it's extremely possible AA stopped someone from getting them.

CrystalTears

07-03-2004, 08:34 PM

Heh, Affirmative Action reminds me of the South Park episode where "future" residents came back in time and worked next to nothing to make money. The locals kept screaming, "They took our jobs!". But I digress.

I don't think affirmative action is needed anymore. For some companies it forces them to make a decision they don't want, such as hiring someone who's of color or of ethnic decent, just to have one on their payroll, and have to deny it to the non-ethnic person who is probably just as much, if not better qualified.

It was good to implement at one time to encourage tolerance, however now it's being used as a crutch for minorities to scream about unfairness instead of focusing on improving their abilities. Jobs should be acquired by education and experience, not where you were born or what color your skin is.

Went on a little tangent there, sorry.

[Edited on 7/4/2004 by CrystalTears]

Kefka

07-03-2004, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Artha

Did Affirmative Action stop you from getting a job, loan, consideration from an apartment or house? I just see it as silly to complain about something that hasn't affected you in any way.

Generally, this is hard to answer as most employers, colleges, banks, realators etc don't tell you why you're not getting the job, slot, loan, or house. You just don't.

It stands to reason that there's only a limited amount of jobs, slots, money, or houses. So yes, it's extremely possible AA stopped someone from getting them.

Ah ok... Had nothing to do with being the better candidate at all. :rolleyes:

Kefka

07-03-2004, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Heh, Affirmative Action reminds me of the South Park episode where "future" residents came back in time and worked next to nothing to make money. The locals kept screaming, "They took our jobs!". But I digress.

I don't think affirmative action is needed anymore. For some companies it forces them to make a decision they don't want, such as hiring someone who's of color or of ethnic decent, just to have one on their payroll, and have to deny it to the non-ethnic person who is probably just as much, if not better qualified.

It was good to implement at one time to encourage tolerance, however now it's being used as a crutch for minorities to scream about unfairness instead of focusing on improving their abilities. Jobs should be acquired by education and experience, not where you were born or what color your skin is.

Went on a little tangent there, sorry.

[Edited on 7/4/2004 by CrystalTears]

Unfortunately, it won't go away until race, sex, religion, etc. stops becoming a factor. Affirmative Action isn't simply a 'for blacks' law. Do you honestly see a white employer chosing a turban wearing genius over a white applicant with mediocre skill?

Would you want your religion to serve as a factor when applying for financial aid? Imagine being turned down for a loan without the banker checking your qualifications.

After considering sex, race, religion etc., if you can say that all legal American citizens have a level playing field, then there'd be no need for affirmative action.

Artha

07-03-2004, 09:32 PM

After considering sex, race, religion etc., if you can say that all legal American citizens have a level playing field, then there'd be no need for affirmative action.

Making the playing field uneven for the other side, even if 'they deserve it,' does NOT make it even.

Heh, Affirmative Action reminds me of the South Park episode where "future" residents came back in time and worked next to nothing to make money. The locals kept screaming, "They took our jobs!". But I digress.

That episode was more about illegal immigration. I'm pretty sure they did an episode on AA though.

Edaarin

07-03-2004, 09:32 PM

I'm a minority. I think affirmative action is counter productive. I could go into detail about how I got dicked in the college application process, but I won't bother.

If we're going to have a system like affirmative action, it needs to be based on socioeconomic status, not the color of your skin.

Edaarin

07-03-2004, 09:33 PM

That South Park episode was more about outsourcing (jobs going overseas) than immigration, I thought.

"Ney nook nour nobs!"

Kefka

07-03-2004, 09:39 PM

<<Making the playing field uneven for the other side, even if 'they deserve it,' does NOT make it even. >>

Ah so actually competing on fair terms makes the field uneven for you?

Artha

07-03-2004, 09:40 PM

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT EVEN TERMS, IT GIVES THE ADVANTAGE TO MINORITIES.

Maybe the caps will help.

Hulkein

07-03-2004, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Kefka
Ah so actually competing on fair terms makes the field uneven for you?

Are you a fucking moron?

If two people are taking a test to become a cop in a certain city, and one is a minority, the minority has an advantage.

Suppose the white student scores a 90, but the minority scores an 85. They need another minority because of Affirmative Action, so the minority gets the job.

How is that an even field?

Kefka

07-03-2004, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Artha
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT EVEN TERMS, IT GIVES THE ADVANTAGE TO MINORITIES.

Maybe the caps will help.

FOCUSING in particular on education and jobs, affirmative action policies required that active measures be taken to ensure that blacks and other minorities enjoyed the same opportunities for promotions, salary increases, career advancement, school admissions, scholarships, and financial aid that had been the nearly exclusive province of whites. From the outset, affirmative action was envisioned as a temporary remedy that would end once there was a "level playing field" for all Americans.

Who has the advantage if you have more pay and benefits tho everyone else is doing an equal amount of work? Perhaps you're still unaware about how the world works.

Edaarin

07-03-2004, 09:56 PM

Who has the advantage if I have to score XX much higher than my black roommate on an entrance exam to get into a program? Certainly not me, that's not a level playing field.

He got accepted into the major program, I had to wait 2-3 months on the wait list before I got accepted even though I did better. His parents make twice what my parents do.

That's fair though, isn't it.

Kefka

07-03-2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Kefka
Ah so actually competing on fair terms makes the field uneven for you?

Are you a fucking moron?

If two people are taking a test to become a cop in a certain city, and one is a minority, the minority has an advantage.

Suppose the white student scores a 90, but the minority scores an 85. They need another minority because of Affirmative Action, so the minority gets the job.

How is that an even field?

Are these actual facts? Or are just running numbers out of your ass? Please spare me your theories.

Kefka

07-03-2004, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Edaarin
Who has the advantage if I have to score XX much higher than my black roommate on an entrance exam to get into a program? Certainly not me, that's not a level playing field.

He got accepted into the major program, I had to wait 2-3 months on the wait list before I got accepted even though I did better. His parents make twice what my parents do.

That's fair though, isn't it.

No, I don't think it's fair. I'm pretty sure he didn't think it was fair either. Unfortunately, it's the school that made the decision. He didn't ask for the advantage. Are you sure Affirmitive Action played a hand in this? If his parents are rich, then that also goes a long way in the decision making process.

Edaarin

07-03-2004, 10:10 PM

His parents aren't like bloody rich. They're well off, household income of like 200k-250k.

If it was an isolated incident, I'd say whatever. But I've seen it time and again since high school. As a matter of fact, the Governor's school where I went to high school recently expanded the number of students it accepts, from 400 to 450, and all of a sudden the number of minority students more than doubled. Strange coincidence. Also a strange coincidence that the proposed redistricting of how many students can be accepted from which high school happened to allow for districts with underrepresented minorities more slots for students.

Affirmative action is nice in principle. It might even serve toward its intended purpose if, like I suggested, it worked based on socioeconomic status instead of blind race.

Hulkein

07-03-2004, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Kefka
Are these actual facts? Or are just running numbers out of your ass? Please spare me your theories.

No the exact numbers aren't facts I merely chose 85 and 90 as an example. However, the principle is fact, and I have been told by multiple members of the Philadelphia PD.

That is how Affirmative Action works.

[Edited on 7-4-2004 by Hulkein]

Kefka

07-03-2004, 10:28 PM

Wouldn't really call that an advantage. An opportunity for more minorities opened up. I doubt their goals were any different from your goals. I'm willing to bet their GPA was on par with yours. A door opened that wasn't available to them before. They earned their diploma just like everyone else.

Hulkein

07-03-2004, 10:30 PM

Kefka, for the record, what race are you?

I'm curious what your motives are to argue these occurences when there is no attempt to hide that it happens quite often.

Delirium

07-03-2004, 10:35 PM

From the outset, affirmative action was envisioned as a temporary remedy that would end once there was a "level playing field" for all Americans.

The problem with this is who is to say when the time to end it is? The White oppressors? The minority themselves? Its a lot like saying the Patriot Act will end once we win the war on terror. Whens that likely to happen? Who is EVER going to claim racism is over we are all equal and everyone knows it,what a great world. There will always be a division of people who see other people as different. I think the important thing is to even the field as much as possible. Not tilt it the other way in a ridiculous effort(now,not when it was first implented) to make it "fair". Out of curiousity wasnt it Nixon who introduced affirmative action? I think i read that somewhere recently.

Edaarin

07-03-2004, 10:36 PM

I once argued with my buddy Andrew for a solid hour about how we didn't need affirmative action anymore. He's Jewish, and is quite possibly the strongest proponent of it that I personally know.

Warriorbird

07-03-2004, 10:40 PM

Except, sans affirmative action (which is often badly implemented)...who's to say it wouldn't go to even worse inequality? I know a hell of a lot of racists...of all ethnic backgrounds.

Edaarin

07-03-2004, 10:40 PM

That's just it. Most of the time, their GPA/standardized scores are NOT on par with mine.

Again, going back to the example of my roommate from first year of college. My composite SAT score (highest from two attempts of each math/verbal sections) is 1560, highest from any one attempt is 1520. His is 1120 and 1090 respectively. Our college's 50th percentile is somewhere around 1340ish.

I know that it's just one factor among many that go into admissions, but it's the only one I have solid numbers for.

Delirium

07-03-2004, 10:45 PM

Except, sans affirmative action (which is often badly implemented)...who's to say it wouldn't go to even worse inequality? I know a hell of a lot of racists...of all ethnic backgrounds.

Then you could always reimplement it i guess. If you never think it will be the right time though cause things might go back then you're digging a hole im afraid.

I know a lot of racists as well but i dont know any who are in charge of hiring people or own a business. Not to say they dont exist but in my experience most racists(of any race) are poor trash.

Hulkein

07-03-2004, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Except, sans affirmative action (which is often badly implemented)...who's to say it wouldn't go to even worse inequality? I know a hell of a lot of racists...of all ethnic backgrounds.

If they can enforce it currently, making sure minorities get jobs with lower qualifications, then what makes you think that they can't make sure that minorities aren't passed up if they have a higher score?

I'm not saying let anything go, just get rid of the handicaps given out.

Kefka

07-03-2004, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein
Kefka, for the record, what race are you?

I'm curious what your motives are to argue these occurences when there is no attempt to hide that it happens quite often.

Of course they happen. I never argued against it. I argued against calling it an advantage. It's not. It forces employers or administrators or whoever's in charge to consider the candidate regardless of any prejudice they may hold against them.

You downplay the efforts of the candidate by crying Affirmative Action. You're using theories as a base for your arguement, and somehow they validates what little you know about Affirmative Action. When it was first introduced, 99% of the police force were white males. I'm sure they have nothing but nice things to say about Affirmative Action.

As for your question, I'm African American. No, Affirmative Action never was the case for anything I've accomplished. Just as I know you're a white male. Unsurprisingly, the harshest critics against Affirmative Action.

Back

07-03-2004, 10:52 PM

As a white american male, I can confirm the fact that racism exists. It makes me misrable that people still want to blame other people for their woes.

Delirium

07-03-2004, 10:56 PM

Just as I know you're a white male. Unsurprisingly, the harshest critics against Affirmative Action.

Of course they are the most vocal,they are the ones getting bypassed. You make it sound like every white male against AA is racist. Is that what you think? The ones being affected by something are always the ones bitching.

GSLeloo

07-03-2004, 10:57 PM

I just want to say that I really like how split everyone is. It's better to have that than the majority on one side.

Hulkein

07-03-2004, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Kefka
I argued against calling it an advantage. It's not. It forces employers or administrators or whoever's in charge to consider the candidate regardless of any prejudice they may hold against them.

Wrong. It doesn't make them 'consider' the candidate, it mandates who they have to select based on criteria, no matter who actually has better scores or who is better suited for the job/school. It is a disadvantage to many people, not just white males.

Originally posted by Kefka
You downplay the efforts of the candidate by crying Affirmative Action. You're using theories as a base for your arguement, and somehow they validates what little you know about Affirmative Action.

They aren't theories, it's a known fact. Many employers are forced to higher someone as a direct result of affirmative action based solely on their skin color, not their skills or scores.

Originally posted by Kefka
When it was first introduced, 99% of the police force were white males.

Is this percentage an actual fact? Or are you just running numbers out of your ass?

Originally posted by Kefka
As for your question, I'm African American.

Thank you for answering that truthfully.

[Edited on 7-4-2004 by Hulkein]

Kefka

07-03-2004, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Delirium

Just as I know you're a white male. Unsurprisingly, the harshest critics against Affirmative Action.

Of course they are the most vocal,they are the ones getting bypassed. You make it sound like every white male against AA is racist. Is that what you think? The ones being affected by something are always the ones bitching.

Not at all. I have plenty of white friends who don't believe in affirmative action. But they're not so blind to the world around them as to why it's there. But who's affected? Did it affect you? Hulkein? Theories are being thrown around but no actual facts. Edaarin may have a case for it but that's hardly the norm.

Many who don't know much about affirmative action passes it off like that candidate got a free ride. They didn't. They earned their way to that position or raise or advancement. You compete for a job, you lose. But crying 'affirmative action' is alot easier on you than sour grapes.

Betheny

07-03-2004, 11:20 PM

Affirmative Action shouldn't mean that JUST because you're a minority you get special privelidges. You should get the SAME privelidges. I don't have much experience with it, except when I was trying to get state health care in Minnesota, but I"m not even going to go into that right now.

Delirium

07-03-2004, 11:27 PM

Not at all. I have plenty of white friends who don't believe in affirmative action. But they're not so blind to the world around them as to why it's there. But who's affected? Did it affect you? Hulkein? Theories are being thrown around but no actual facts. Edaarin may have a case for it but that's hardly the norm.

Im not affected by it at all(i think). But is that the point? When Rodney King was beat did it affect you? Have you ever been beat down by a cop? You're implying that if you hadnt you cant be outraged by it. No one is saying it shouldnt have ever existed. Some are just saying the time for it has passed and if it hasnt then other protections should be in place to make sure the field is leveled. And by leveled i mean equal for all.

Hulkein

07-03-2004, 11:31 PM

No it hasn't affected me yet to my knowledge but that doesn't mean jack shit.

Does AIDS affect you? Does poverty affect you? Do the American hostages getting beheaded affect you? If not, then why do you care? /sarcasm

Edited to add - And I just read Deliriums post, is there an echo in here? :D I said the exact same thing, heh, my bad.

<<Many who don't know much about affirmative action passes it off like that candidate got a free ride. They didn't. They earned their way to that position or raise or advancement.>>

You STILL fail to realize that if two candidates are applying for a job, and one is a minority, that the minority may not need the same scores as the other guy. THAT IS A DISADVANTAGE, THAT MAY NOT BE A FREE RIDE, BUT HE GOT THE JOB BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

[Edited on 7-4-2004 by Hulkein]

Edaarin

07-03-2004, 11:32 PM

I'm sure this has been beaten to death, but look at Michigan State as an example. In their old application process, being a member of an under represented minority awarded you 20 points. Having a perfect SAT score was worth 5. I *believe* it was either a 120 or 150 point system.

Let's break it down a little further. Let's take a family who immigrates (legally or illegaly) into the United States. They have a young 2 year old child (among other children). Now, they start off poor as dirt because they spent all their money to make it into the States in the first place. The mother doesn't speak English very well, nor will she ever. The father speaks it well enough to land a decent job, and within a few years they work hard enough to afford a house. Both parents are constantly working so the child, while instilled with the need for education by his parents, is pretty much on his own as far as education goes. He grows up, along the way losing the ability to converse with his parents in their native tongue because they're at home hardly at the same time anymore and he's now in an environment where English is the principal language spoken except for maybe a few hours a week at home.

So he's leaped over a few hurdles. Not being born into an English speaking country, learning a new language, parents always working. Now, say he's from Mexico. Any college would snap him up in a second if he had even halfway decent credentials.

Reread that, and this time assume he's Asian. Big freaking deal, right? You know lots of Chinese/Korean/Japanese/etc people that have done the same thing. He's got to be a real stand out to have the same shot the Mexican kid did.

Ravenstorm

07-04-2004, 12:00 AM

Mmmmmmm... Another controversial subject for me to poke my nose into. Though I don't have the passion to go into a lengthy debate on this one nor do I know enough about it to give more than my opinion.

I'm not a huge fan of affirmative action as it stands now but I'm not ready to say that it's no longer needed. Racism is still a problem and minorities will still be passed over in favor of whites, especially in certain parts of the country. However, like welfare, it is flawed and in need of revision.

Ideally, affirmative action should mean that all else being equal, take the minority if they're under represented. Measuring that 'all else' however would be nearly impossible. Further, the measures used to test the 'all else' are in themselves inequal in many instances. Culture neutral IQ tests for instance acknowledge that and take it into account. Likewise, in the case of college admission as an example, someone who appears less qualified on paper might end up being the much better student on graduation since getting out of an unhealthy or unpleasant environment can cause someone to thrive.

It's not a black and white issue, if you'll pardon the pun. Too many factors go into it and often they're immeasurables. It is, though, quite clear that the need for /something/ to ensure a level playing field is still needed.

Raven

Kefka

07-04-2004, 12:04 AM

I guess this point is just a matter of which side of the fence you're looking from. Racism still exist. Outside and inside the workplace. You can close your eyes to it but that fact still remains.

And Rodney King did affect me. Especially the verdict as did the Diallo case. When 4 cops are beating on someone on video tape and found innocent, that has a major effect on me. When a guy is shot 41 times for pulling out his wallet and found innocent, that also has an effect on me.

AIDS don't affect me. That's why I'm not calling to close down any clinics. There's alot of things that don't personally affect me, so I keep those opinions to myself.

Delirium

07-04-2004, 12:09 AM

Yes but have you been shot 41 times while trying to pull our your wallet? :) Im not arguing racism doesnt exist. Im arguing you create more ill will between the races by giving one of them an advantage. If they give anyone an advantage id want it to be people from a poor background regardless of color or whatever.

CrystalTears

07-04-2004, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Kefka
Many who don't know much about affirmative action passes it off like that candidate got a free ride. They didn't. They earned their way to that position or raise or advancement. You compete for a job, you lose. But crying 'affirmative action' is alot easier on you than sour grapes.

Many times they didn't. When two people go for the same job, both equally qualified, of equal age, of equal education, guess who has to bust their ass right now to get the job? The one who isn't a minority. It should go to the one who deserved it and up to the company to decide who they want, not who they have to get for affirmative action purposes.

When they go with the other guy, the minority person starts with the bullshit of "oh I didn't get it cause I'm black/hispanic/whatever" and have a hissy fit. I've seen it happen.

I'm a hispanic woman. A double minority in many instances. Luckily I grew up in a place where most people were minorities. However I have no problem proving myself because of my skills, not because of my ethnic background. That's just bullshit logic and this country doesn't need it anymore. The minorities are getting lazy and it's time to take away their cot and make them get their own bed and lie in it.

Hulkein

07-04-2004, 01:35 AM

Exactly CT. Frankly, I believe that if I were a minority, I would be annoyed by it all. Knowing that so many people think 'he only got there because of affirmative action' when that may not even be true would bother me horribly.

ThisOtherKingdom

07-04-2004, 02:02 AM

I think you'd be more annoyed by the fact that people weren't hiring you based only on your ethnicity.

Hulkein

07-04-2004, 12:38 PM

Again, why is it we're able to enforce employers and schools to hire/admit students with lower credentials just because they are of a certain race, but we cannot just simply make sure the best candidate gets the job regardless of race?

Seems simple to me.

Latrinsorm

07-04-2004, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Kefka
Did Affirmative Action stop you from getting a job, loan, consideration from an apartment or house?Yes.
When it was first introduced, 99% of the police force were white males.Please research Irish-American history before mentioning the police force in the same breath as Affirmative Action.

Scott

07-04-2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Kefka
And Rodney King did affect me. Especially the verdict as did the Diallo case. When 4 cops are beating on someone on video tape and found innocent, that has a major effect on me. When a guy is shot 41 times for pulling out his wallet and found innocent, that also has an effect on me.

Rodney King is a worthless drug addicted drunk that beats his wife and has no regard for others. Nobody remebers that he robbed and assulted a store clerk before this. Or his like 50 DIU's, driving while on PCP, beating his wife some more..... He's trash.

Rodney King certainly wasn't innocent. Rodney King charged an officer before he was hit. The guy was nuts and wouldn't listen to officers. He charged an officer and got hit.... he was knocked to the ground and still wouldn't put his hands behind his back to get cuffed. He was hit and hit until he complied. Was it excessive force..... possibly. This wasn't a black and white issue..... If he had listened and got on the ground, this wouldn't have happened.

Rodney King is trash, and I'm suprised he was upset when he got beat..... since it's OK for him to beat his wife, but it's not OK for him to get beat. :rolleyes:

EDITTED: To add....

The guy that pulled his wallet our.... that's another story. But no offense, in todays world cops have to make split second decisions. They're the ones putting their life on the line every single time they pull some guy over for speeding and the guy shoots them because he doesn't want a ticket. You better believe that if I think some guy is pulling out a gun on me, my clip will be empty...... It's the cops life or the "suspects." The cops thought it was a gun and just let loose...... it was a mistake, I don't think they wanted to kill an innocent guy because he was black.

[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Gemstone101]

imported_Kranar

07-04-2004, 10:40 PM

<< They're the ones putting their life on the line every single time they pull some guy over for speeding and the guy shoots them because he doesn't want a ticket. You better believe that if I think some guy is pulling out a gun on me, my clip will be empty...... It's the cops life or the "suspects." >>

If a cop isn't disciplined enough to accept a certain level of risk and instead just go gun happy anytime something may go wrong, then that cop should step down and find himself another job.

Hulkein

07-04-2004, 10:47 PM

All I know is that cop would've never been shot first.

Call it a lack of discipline all you want, but it's his life or some guy shooting him for a ticket.

If I had to guess I'd say that most likely that guy must've been acting odd and didn't say he was getting his wallet, that's his fault. I'm guessing the cop didn't say 'show me your ID' or anything like that or he would've have been shot.

imported_Kranar

07-04-2004, 10:53 PM

<< Call it a lack of discipline all you want, but it's his life or some guy shooting him for a ticket. >>

You could say that about anything then. If you're paranoid enough then you could justify shooting anyone for virtually any reason. However, I think that cops should accept a certain level of risk and if they are unable to do so they should let someone who can do the job instead.

Shooting an individual 42 times is an act of absolute negligence. Real criminals who really do carry guns and are willing to use them don't even get shot 42 times.

Kefka

07-04-2004, 11:57 PM

Diallo was on his way home from his job. He made it to his front porch when he was approached by 4 plain clothes officers who didn't identify themselves. One asked what he was doing there, and in an attempt to identify himself, he got shot 41 times.

That went for beyond no discipline. To the point where 2 of the officers unloaded a full clip. Please don't insult me by saying that maybe it was something he did.

As for Rodney King, whether he deserved it or not was not the call of those officers. I'm quite sure they didn't ask him about his family life before beating him to the ground. Of course he kept trying to get up, he thought he was gonna die right there. Even as he fell he was being beat. That was clear cut police brutality on tape.

Hulkein

07-05-2004, 12:00 AM

Yeah the 42 time thing is out of hand, I don't know the whole story.

But shooting someone who is acting suspicious and started reaching for something without telling the cop, then I see that as acceptable.

longshot

07-05-2004, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Hulkein
Again, why is it we're able to enforce employers and schools to hire/admit students with lower credentials just because they are of a certain race, but we cannot just simply make sure the best candidate gets the job regardless of race?

Seems simple to me.

It would be, except you would have to do something about the other side of the equations.

If you get rid of affirmative action, you would need to get rid of nepetism and legacies.

Artha

07-05-2004, 06:31 AM

That doesn't bother me a bit.

Scott

07-05-2004, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Kranar
<< They're the ones putting their life on the line every single time they pull some guy over for speeding and the guy shoots them because he doesn't want a ticket. You better believe that if I think some guy is pulling out a gun on me, my clip will be empty...... It's the cops life or the "suspects." >>

If a cop isn't disciplined enough to accept a certain level of risk and instead just go gun happy anytime something may go wrong, then that cop should step down and find himself another job.

They are accepting a level of risk. When a guy pulls a black object out of his pocket, what are you going to do? Yeah, the cops made a mistake, but it wasn't "Hey he's black, lets go talk to him and shoot him when he makes a threatening move."

Scott

07-05-2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Kefka
As for Rodney King, whether he deserved it or not was not the call of those officers. I'm quite sure they didn't ask him about his family life before beating him to the ground. Of course he kept trying to get up, he thought he was gonna die right there. Even as he fell he was being beat. That was clear cut police brutality on tape.

They chased the guy down after a 10 mile chase. He got out of his car started shouting out random words and comments. The cops jumped on him in an attempt to restrain him, he threw them to the ground. They shot him with a taser twice, he got up again and charged an officer. The cop that he charged whacked him in the head with the baton, he dropped....

He kept trying to get up because he thought he was going to die? No.... he kept getting up because he was doing what he was doing from the start..... resisting arrest because he didn't want to go to jail. He wasn't afraid he was going to die..... he was just fighting back like he was doing from the start.

Also, people don't realize that what they saw on TV was an editted tape, there were parts of it that were never shown. Why was it editted? Oh because they wanted to not show the part where Rodney King attacked the officers.

[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Gemstone101]

Artha

07-05-2004, 08:55 AM

Also, people don't realize that what they saw on TV was an editted tape, there were parts of it that were never shown. Why was it editted? Oh because they wanted to not show the part where Rodney King attacked the officers.

Not to mention that someone started taping it around the middle.

Betheny

07-05-2004, 10:58 AM

Vote for me!!!!!!!!!

Delirium

07-05-2004, 11:53 AM

Im sure Rodney King deserved to be beat by someone. I just dont think it should have been the police to hand it to him. When you outnumber someone by that much even if they are on pcp or whatever you should be able to bring them down with the training the police recieve.

As for the guy who got shot 40+ times reaching for a wallet i agree with Kranar. If you arnt ready to accept some risk, being a cop probably isnt the job for you. If the cops wernt even in uniform they should have told him who they were first before asking questions.

Edaarin

07-05-2004, 11:59 AM

You are aware that there are stories of people so high on PCP and crack that they don't feel pain and seem to have like superhuman strength...?

As in...they've been shot, in places that should have paralyzed them, and yet they kept on fighting?

Scott

07-05-2004, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Delirium
Im sure Rodney King deserved to be beat by someone. I just dont think it should have been the police to hand it to him. When you outnumber someone by that much even if they are on pcp or whatever you should be able to bring them down with the training the police recieve.

As for the guy who got shot 40+ times reaching for a wallet i agree with Kranar. If you arnt ready to accept some risk, being a cop probably isnt the job for you. If the cops wernt even in uniform they should have told him who they were first before asking questions.

The whole Rodney King thing is really an opinion. I don't believe it was as bad as it was made out to be. He could have easily been shot. You make a lunge at an officer who has a gun, you have no idea if he's going to grab that gun and fire after all the crazy stuff he'd been doing earlier. They subdued him without deadly force...... Rodney King should be happy he wasn't killed.....

The guy who got shot for pulling out his wallet..... There was a lot of mistakes that night. Yeah they should have said they were cops and told him to put his hands on his head. However the cops thought he was dangerous, and when a guy pulls a dark object out of his pocket, that's definately a scary scenario. When a cop fires a gun, they aren't suppose to aim for legs, arms, and stuff you see on TV. When a cop fires a gun, it is meant for one purpose and that is to kill. You aim center mass and that's it. You make sure that other guy isn't going to kill you, which is what the officers thought. It's always the last option, but when that decision is made, that's what you have to do.....

Scott

07-05-2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Edaarin
You are aware that there are stories of people so high on PCP and crack that they don't feel pain and seem to have like superhuman strength...?

As in...they've been shot, in places that should have paralyzed them, and yet they kept on fighting?

Like getting shot with 2 tasers of 50,000 volts and still getting up to charge an officer?

However if I remember correctly, the cop THOUGHT he was on PCP because of after all that beating and being hit with tasers and getting up and still fighting back against the officers. But really he was drunk and on weed, that's it.

I did a report on this in college, which is why after reading about the other side of the story I side with the police. I really suggest to everyone to read into the subject, it's a very interesting subject. If you have an open report that is due, do it on Rodney King, it was one report I actually enjoyed doing.

Delirium

07-05-2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Edaarin
You are aware that there are stories of people so high on PCP and crack that they don't feel pain and seem to have like superhuman strength...?

As in...they've been shot, in places that should have paralyzed them, and yet they kept on fighting?

Im sure thats true and it happened so long ago i dont really remember the video but didnt they outnumber him like 7 or 8 to 1? With the training the police recieve they should have knowledge how to subdue someone in that kind of situation. My dad was a police officer when i was younger and i remember every year he had to get training even after 20 years on the force.

Back

07-05-2004, 12:48 PM

Rodney was really upset by the whole thing as evidenced by the now famous line, "Can't we all just get along?"

Kefka

07-05-2004, 01:01 PM

Briseno puts his hand in front of Powell, who is ready to strike King.
Powell strikes King in the back as he attempts to rise.
Briseno stomps on King's shoulder, forcing King's face down.
King begins to get up from his hands and knees.
King is up and charges in the direction of Powell.
Powell hits King in the shoulder area with his baton and King falls on his face.
King hit by numerous blows from Powell to various parts of his body, probably including one blow to the head.
King is on his stomach. No blows are struck.
Powell has baton raised and appears ready to strike King. Briseno puts his hand in front of Powell.
King is rising. Powell strikes King in arms and chest.
Wind strikes King near buttocks.
After Powell strikes King in upper chest, King topples over and turns.
Powell strikes King in arm and shoulder area.
Powell strikes King in back while King attempts to rise.
Powell hits King in left arm as King rises from his knees.
Wind swings at King as King begins to fall.
King falls. His face appears to hit asphalt.
Powell strikes King on knee, while Wind hits King in shoulder.
King's head his up. Powell and Wind deliver hard blows to King's back, buttocks, and thighs.
King rolls to left and cocks right leg.
After two-second break, officers resume force, striking King's legs.
King lifts his upper torso.
Powell strikes King's ankle while Wind strikes his back.
ing rolls on ground while Koon puts arms in form of cross, showing the position he wants King to assume.
King, on his back, cocks his left leg.
King rolls as Powell strikes his hand.
Powell reaches for his handcuffs.
King raises his torso. Briseno stomps on Kings shoulder and Kings head hits asphalt.
Briseno points to King. Powell and Wind strike King's right arm.
King is on his hands and knees.
Wind strikes King's back three times.
Powell strikes King's left arm.
Wind delivers three kicks to King's shoulder and back area.
Video back in focus. Powell swings at King.
King is sitting on his calfs. Koon is pointing at King.
King puts his hands on his head.
Briseno begins handcuffing King.
King is put in handcuffs after officers.

07-05-2004, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Kefka
Briseno puts his hand in front of Powell, who is ready to strike King.
Powell strikes King in the back as he attempts to rise.
Briseno stomps on King's shoulder, forcing King's face down.
King begins to get up from his hands and knees.
King is up and charges in the direction of Powell.
Powell hits King in the shoulder area with his baton and King falls on his face.
King hit by numerous blows from Powell to various parts of his body, probably including one blow to the head.
King is on his stomach. No blows are struck.
Powell has baton raised and appears ready to strike King. Briseno puts his hand in front of Powell.
King is rising. Powell strikes King in arms and chest.
Wind strikes King near buttocks.
After Powell strikes King in upper chest, King topples over and turns.
Powell strikes King in arm and shoulder area.
Powell strikes King in back while King attempts to rise.
Powell hits King in left arm as King rises from his knees.
Wind swings at King as King begins to fall.
King falls. His face appears to hit asphalt.
Powell strikes King on knee, while Wind hits King in shoulder.
King's head his up. Powell and Wind deliver hard blows to King's back, buttocks, and thighs.
King rolls to left and cocks right leg.
After two-second break, officers resume force, striking King's legs.
King lifts his upper torso.
Powell strikes King's ankle while Wind strikes his back.
ing rolls on ground while Koon puts arms in form of cross, showing the position he wants King to assume.
King, on his back, cocks his left leg.
King rolls as Powell strikes his hand.
Powell reaches for his handcuffs.
King raises his torso. Briseno stomps on Kings shoulder and Kings head hits asphalt.
Briseno points to King. Powell and Wind strike King's right arm.
King is on his hands and knees.
Wind strikes King's back three times.
Powell strikes King's left arm.
Wind delivers three kicks to King's shoulder and back area.
Video back in focus. Powell swings at King.
King is sitting on his calfs. Koon is pointing at King.
King puts his hands on his head.
Briseno begins handcuffing King.
King is put in handcuffs after officers.

Notice how King is resisting arrest there? Only a man doing serious drugs is able to resist arrest after being subdued as he was.

- Arkans

Kefka

07-05-2004, 10:30 PM

Wow.... Just wow....

Artha

07-05-2004, 10:36 PM

Briseno puts his hand in front of Powell, who is ready to strike King.
Powell strikes King in the back as he attempts to rise.
Briseno stomps on King's shoulder, forcing King's face down.
King begins to get up from his hands and knees.
King is up and charges in the direction of Powell.
Powell hits King in the shoulder area with his baton and King falls on his face.
King hit by numerous blows from Powell to various parts of his body, probably including one blow to the head.
King is on his stomach. No blows are struck.
Powell has baton raised and appears ready to strike King. Briseno puts his hand in front of Powell.
King is rising. Powell strikes King in arms and chest.
Wind strikes King near buttocks.
After Powell strikes King in upper chest, King topples over and turns.
Powell strikes King in arm and shoulder area.
Powell strikes King in back while King attempts to rise.
Powell hits King in left arm as King rises from his knees.
Wind swings at King as King begins to fall.
King falls. His face appears to hit asphalt.
Powell strikes King on knee, while Wind hits King in shoulder.
King's head his up. Powell and Wind deliver hard blows to King's back, buttocks, and thighs.
King rolls to left and cocks right leg.
After two-second break, officers resume force, striking King's legs.
King lifts his upper torso.
Powell strikes King's ankle while Wind strikes his back.
King rolls on ground while Koon puts arms in form of cross, showing the position he wants King to assume.
King, on his back, cocks his left leg.
King rolls as Powell strikes his hand.
Powell reaches for his handcuffs.
King raises his torso. Briseno stomps on Kings shoulder and Kings head hits asphalt.
Briseno points to King. Powell and Wind strike King's right arm.
King is on his hands and knees.
Wind strikes King's back three times.
Powell strikes King's left arm.
Wind delivers three kicks to King's shoulder and back area.
Video back in focus. Powell swings at King.
King is sitting on his calfs. Koon is pointing at King.
King puts his hands on his head.
Briseno begins handcuffing King.
King is put in handcuffs after officers.

Bolded are things you probably shouldn't be doing after making officers chase you and being hit by two 50,000 volt tasers.

Kefka

07-05-2004, 10:44 PM

Hmm. There's 4 cops. He's unarmed. Instead of beating him, they could've just subdued him and cuffed him. If you don't think the beating was racially motivated, then there's no reason to go on about this subject. You're either blind or you don't care.

Artha

07-05-2004, 10:47 PM

You don't call tasering him twice subduing?

Suppa Hobbit Mage

07-05-2004, 10:48 PM

I think he's blind or doesn't care Artha.

Kefka

07-05-2004, 10:53 PM

Rodney King was stopped by the Los Angeles Police Department, Officers Lawrence M. Powell and Timothy Wind, and Sgt. Stacy C. Koon who was responsible for the control of the officers.

Koon fired a 50,000-volt Taser electric dart gun at King. King suffered numerous injuries in the attack. According to police officials, King was hit between 53 and 56 times by officers wielding their batons. The bones holding his eye in its right socket were broken, and he suffered 11 broken bones at the base of his skull.

The police officers reported that King appeared to be on PCP. However, subsequent tests showed that King had neither PCP nor alcohol nor any other drugs in his system.

Hulkein

07-06-2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Kefka
Hmm. There's 4 cops. He's unarmed. Instead of beating him, they could've just subdued him and cuffed him. If you don't think the beating was racially motivated, then there's no reason to go on about this subject. You're either blind or you don't care.

Nah it's cool, the beating seemed to subdue the drug addict wife beating criminal pretty well.

He deserved what he got.

Scott

07-06-2004, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Kefka
Rodney King was stopped by the Los Angeles Police Department, Officers Lawrence M. Powell and Timothy Wind, and Sgt. Stacy C. Koon who was responsible for the control of the officers.

Koon fired a 50,000-volt Taser electric dart gun at King. King suffered numerous injuries in the attack. According to police officials, King was hit between 53 and 56 times by officers wielding their batons. The bones holding his eye in its right socket were broken, and he suffered 11 broken bones at the base of his skull.

The police officers reported that King appeared to be on PCP. However, subsequent tests showed that King had neither PCP nor alcohol nor any other drugs in his system.

Ummmm.... no? I don't know where you got that information, sounds like it's from Edines sources..... but Rodney King was both drunk and on weed. He was not on PCP though.

Kefka

07-06-2004, 12:18 AM

Somehow, I'm not surprised by your response.

Hulkein

07-06-2004, 12:28 AM

Two way street, pal.

Skirmisher

07-06-2004, 12:33 AM

I hope no one else here tries to somehow explain away what happened to Diallo as that was one of the most horrible things I have ever heard of.

The beating Rodney King is a questionable thing to me, I will agree with that. I dont see how anyone can try to bring anything into the equation except for what happened that night though. The cops don't have your full life history when they pull you over, they simply do not get the right to decide that this guy deserves a beating, but this one does not. I have not signed any paper or seen any law that was voted upon where i gave them that right.

Please do not fool yourselves into thinking that the probability of what happened to those men would be anywhere near the same if it had happened to a white suspect.

Regarding the afirmative action discusion, I am mixed on that as well. I think there was a definite need for it in the past, a need that has shrunk over time. I do not know if its need has totally faded. I discussed some personal anecdotes in other threads about seeing it affect my family personaly and also seeing how it affected business. The problem as I see it is knowing when exactly is the right time to pull back on it. Too soon and all the good may be undone, and too late and the resentment may also destroy much of the good it has done.

I will take issue with the reasoning that it automatically made things unfair for the non minority candidate in regards to school applications. This was not just an idea pulled from a hat, there were thoughts and studies put in and you may not agree with the results, but to dismiss it so simply is an error. The reasons minority students were given a bump to the scores is that they concluded that so many did/do not have the kind of support structure that other middle class students did. Most did not get to go to some Sylvan learning center or get the help of a tutor if they fell behind in school. Many did not have a parent active in school events. Many did not have a dedicated work area for homework. All these and many more made it much more difficult for students to achieve that those much better off did.

Of course many things have changed and the reasoning may not be as applicable to as large a group as it was, but to simply dismiss it as it seemed some were doing is just incorrect.

Latrinsorm

07-06-2004, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Skirmisher
The reasons minority students were given a bump to the scores is that they concluded that so many did/do not have the kind of support structure that other middle class students did. Most did not get to go to some Sylvan learning center or get the help of a tutor if they fell behind in school. Many did not have a parent active in school events. Many did not have a dedicated work area for homework. All these and many more made it much more difficult for students to achieve that those much better off didToo bad affirmative action is still racism, no matter how much you or anyone tries to justify it.

[Edited on 7-6-2004 by Latrinsorm]

Skirmisher

07-06-2004, 10:03 AM

I guess, the reason I take issue with the use of thr word racism when it is applied towards affirmative action is that while the way racism, institutional and otherwise, was used in this country in respects towards minorities was with a malevelant intent whereas affirmative action was thought of with an opposite equally good intent.

I don't like to get caught in games of semantics and do think the spirit a word may become imbued with over time should be taken into account.

Of course affirmative action is racist in the most sterile defininition of the word. In order to assist the minorities, the aid needed to be funneled to them and so yes race was used to descriminate as to whom would recieve such assistance.

I do not think in its implimentation however affirmative action worked in quite the same manner as lets say forcing people to the back of the bus, grandfather clauses, "steering" home buyers by realtors, or separate water fountains and that is why I take issue with the word racist being used without some clarification when applied to affirmative action.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

07-06-2004, 10:31 AM

In however many years, when whites are the minority, will I be eligible for affirmative action?

Skirmisher

07-06-2004, 10:33 AM

Oh just get on the love train Suppa.

DeV

07-06-2004, 10:56 AM

Affirmative Action benefits white women more than any other minority class, studies have shown.
Affirmative action was also put into place to combat camoflauged racism. So, without the need for the justification of 'racism' on either end, what are we left with. It's good, and its bad.

[Edited on 7-6-2004 by DarkelfVold]

Latrinsorm

07-06-2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Skirmisher
I don't like to get caught in games of semantics and do think the spirit a word may become imbued with over time should be taken into account.
You're right, of course. The problem I see is affirmative action is perhaps even more widely accepted than Jim Crow laws and the like. I don't remember hearing about millions of people marching against affirmative action, although to be fair I don't pay much attention to the news.

I'm all for making up for past mistakes, really. However, when I've lied to people, the solution isn't more lying. When I've hurt someone, the solution isn't hurting them more. I don't see how the solution to racism is more racism, regardless of the intent.

Now for a quip: I'd rather be at the back of the bus than the bottom of the application pile.

Delirium

07-14-2004, 05:47 AM

Found this and figured id post it as its pretty funny.

http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html

If anyone else has funny ones id be intrested in those as well.

Weedmage Princess

07-14-2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Now for a quip: I'd rather be at the back of the bus than the bottom of the application pile.

What about at the back of the bus AND your application tossed into the rubbish bin 10 minutes after you've filled it out? ;)

Edited to add: I agree, affirmative action is in a sense racist, and definitely unfair. However, do NOT kid yourselves into believing that things would be as they are now without it because I can tell you with 100% certainty, that is NOT the case. In this day and age, there are STILL people who won't hire a person on an account of race, religion and/or gender if they don't have to, no matter how qualified they might be for a job.

A manager at my job recently (as in 2-3 months ago) got fired for this comment:

"Oh, we have some of THOSE working here."

The THOSE he was referring to are women.

He had been a manager for quite some time, too. This firing was a long time coming and to be honest, quite unexpected, despite people knowing his sexist tendancies. So while Affirmative Action might not be as needed as much as it was when it first came into play, it still is needed.

[Edited on 7-14-2004 by Weedmage Princess]

DeV

07-14-2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Weedmage Princess

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Now for a quip: I'd rather be at the back of the bus than the bottom of the application pile.

What about at the back of the bus AND your application tossed into the rubbish bin 10 minutes after you've filled it out? ;)

[Edited on 7-14-2004 by Weedmage Princess] I'd consider that really shitty luck.

Edited cause Weedie edited hers.

[Edited on 7-14-2004 by DarkelfVold]

Weedmage Princess

07-14-2004, 01:13 PM

Heh I should have made that say "tossed into the rubbish bin without even being read" as that would have been more accurate. But Latrin is a smart dude, I'm sure he gets it ;)

Faent

07-14-2004, 02:11 PM

>>Keep in mind that had Gore won his home state of TN in 2000, Florida wouldn't have mattered at all.

The state of Tennessee has voted for the President the past ten presidential elections.

-Scott

GSTamral

07-14-2004, 07:54 PM

With the economy churning at record pace over the last 7 months now, and the general rebound of the market rates and investment M1 money supply, I think there will be a lot of people willing to overlook the stupidity of the war.

From what I have gathered from my own friends and associates, most people I know who were voting for kerry are still voting for kerry 4 months ago, and all of them who were voting for bush 4 months ago are still voting for bush. Most of the people I know who are split on the decision are leaning bush. Oddly enough, 3 of them are doing so after having watched Fahrenheit 9/11, which they believed to be one of the most propagandistic pieces of film ever made. What makes it even funnier is one of them said something in almost the same fashion that I had, in calling Moore's propaganda an idealistic match to the Nazi party propaganda.

There are very few people I know who support the war, and there are even fewer who support the ban on gay marriage. But most of them believe the administration to be legitimately trying hard to fight terrorism (I really don't give a shit what kind of slanted articles you want to post about how we still aren't prepared, to say that ANY administration could have done so is flat out stupid.)

Most of all, many of them who were seeking an alternative to Bush found nothing but a lying windbag. If anyone actually listens to Kerry's plans to double spending on AIDS research, increase by 20% public funding for schools, reduce taxes to the middle class, grant more federal aid for prescription drugs, etc.. all while reducing the national deficit would realize that not only is Kerry spouting wind about the economy, but he has no issue in lying carte blanche about everything. He, even moreso than Gore, has invented a new type of calculator in which everyone in the world will be a millionaire, education will be perfect, and health care will be socialized.

Coming from a state that ranks worse than Texas in availability of health care to minorities, 43rd in high school and secondary school education quality, and among the very highest in taxes, and still satiated in debt, I'd say John "Kennedy" Kerry's history speaks for itself.

I can only pray that John Kerry dies of a heart attack and Edwards takes the nomination, because god knows that he is the only candidate with even a fraction of a measure of integrity, even though he was a trial lawyer. Bush is a zealot, Kerry is a pathological liar (and perhaps because the children raised in massachusetts are so far inferior to the national average, maybe that would explain how he and kennedy kept getting re-elected in the first place), Cheney has conflicts of interest left and right, and Edwards is the only viable candidate who hasn't built his history by lying and stabbing other people in the back.

Until Kerry dies, I'm still voting Bush.