| User | Comment |
|---|
| Glassa | | posted 10-Jul-2004 12:57pm |
"There's a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled."
And he's proving it with his movie by misleading his followers. I think he might be doing it on purpose to expose how stupid people can be.
Osama's half-brother was on "Dateline NBC" last night. He's so disgusted with how Moore lied about his family, that he's come forward to tell the truth.
He hasn't talked to his brother in 20 years.
His family got NO special treatment from the Bush Administration. If anything it was completely opposite: He was basically given an anal exam with all his records.
He grills Senators and Reps about why they haven't sent their kids to war. Yet leaves out one Rep. who said "My son is over there" Plus, Sen. Kit Bond's (R-MO) son just graduated from Sniper School and will be going over there soon.
Besides the fact that you CAN'T MAKE an 18 year old do anything they don't want to do!!
Then again, this is common knowledge, but who cares about the truth when it comes to Michael Moore?
His movie is even being distributed by the terrorist group "Hezzbollah" in the Middle East. |
| kaleb777 | | posted 10-Jul-2004 2:09pm |
Strange how after 9/11 AND the Unibomber AND the bombs at Atlanta Olympics AND Oklahoma City, some fools still believe Moore when he says there is no terrorist threat in the US. Amazing! Talk about gullible! |
| Biggles | | posted 10-Jul-2004 2:54pm |
"Americans are...dumbest people on the planet" depends on your definition of "dumb". If it's the general populous being uneducated when they have no reason to be, then maybe.
America *is* known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe. It's also known to bring other stuff, but still, the misery and sadness remains. But hey, look what the might British Empire did...
I believe that the US has committed acts of bloodshed that were unnecessary and have harmed the regard in which it is held.
I don't think that the Iraqi insurgents will win. I do think that if someone else was writing the history, they would be recorded in a similar way to the French Resistance (who, we should not forget, carried out various acts that might be labelled terrorism).
There is of course a gullible side to the American people. I don't think they are alone in that though.
I think that September 11th has been exploited so that personal agendas can be pursued. I'm not sure that martial law in the US will be where that culminates though.
I don't think that notivation for war is *ever* simple.
Clearly, there is a terrorist threat in the US. There are lots of people that want American people dead. But it should not be forgotten that the US has suffered more terrorist attacks at the hands of its own people than from abroad.
The dumbest Brit is *not* smarter than the smartest American. We have Prince Charles...you have people like romkey and bill. The IQ gap there favours the Americans by quite a long way!
I like America to some extent. I like some of the ideology that it represents. I'm not a big fan of its foreign policy or arrogance though. |
Frostbrand   | | posted 10-Jul-2004 4:15pm |
Two problems with this survey. One, some of these comments were sarcastic and/or ironic jokes, and others were taken out of context. Like the whole "no terrorist threat" thing. There is a whole chapter in his book Dude, Where's My Country? about how the whole terrorist threat thing has been blown out of porportion by the governemnt. And he's right. Do you know how many Americans died as the result of a terrorist attack in 2000 or 2002? None. But you relaly haev to read THE WHOLE Chapter, and not three little on-the-surface damning sentences.
Let me guess, Kaleb made this survey? The man is a master of lies and spin. He should get his own show on the Fox News Network, except they like their Right Wing nuts to at least APPEAR sane. Say what you will about Sean Hannity, at least he can keep his temper more often than K. |
| Frostbrand | | posted 10-Jul-2004 4:17pm |
Oh man, did I call it or what? But rather than waste time putting all these quotes (some of which look sort of edited) back in their proper context, I'm just going to start working on a retalitory survey featuring actual verbatim on the record quotes from kaleb777. It'll tkae a couple of days becuase I want to be thourough. Expect it some time next wek. |
| Dino | | posted 10-Jul-2004 5:02pm |
I believe the gullible thing.
|
| Biggles |
It will get HFed in qual, so I wouldn't bother if I was you.... |
| Frostbrand | | (reply to Biggles) posted 10-Jul-2004 5:26pm |
Good point. Look to the Forum isntead.  |
| Biggles |
Why make trouble just for the sake of making trouble? Have some maturity. Debate in a reasonable way, avoiding personal attacks, or keep it to yourself. I can't be alone in being sick of your bickering which seems to be more about keeping a personal feud running than anything else.
Why rise to the bait when you know what it will descend into? |
| heyzeus1 | | posted 10-Jul-2004 6:30pm |
i agree with 7 comments, and disagree with six. |
| heyzeus1 | | (reply to Glassa) posted 10-Jul-2004 6:39pm |
his 'followers' what does that mean? i think its great that someone has balls to speak of unpopular opinion (which is actually quite prevalant). i agreed on a lot of points with moore before i ever heard of him, that doesnt make me a 'follower'.
who knows, i havent seen the movie, and won't till i come across it years from now in a video store. seems like he presented a biased one-sided argument in his movie from what everybody says. no big deal, that's pretty typical of american media. but, since i agree with more of the statements this survey was based on than not, i would say moore and i probably agree on a lot of points.
did you see the movie? |
gambler   | | posted 10-Jul-2004 8:42pm |
I Put the gullible one, because in my heart I feel its true, However as a non-american I really dont feel qualified enough to pick any other one.
Good Survey though |
| Glassa | | (reply to heyzeus1) posted 11-Jul-2004 11:41am |
By "followers" I mean people who agree with him or believe anything in that movie.
No, I haven't seen it. So much of that movie has been proven to be untrue, misleading, and hateful, that I really don't see the point. And I sure as hell am not going to give that man $1 of my money. It's not like I can afford it right now, since my husband was laid off.
One book I'd like to read is called "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" by David Hardy and Jason Clarke. It shows how Moore edits movies to be in his favor, and how incredible his lies are. They've really done their research for this book.
|
Maarten  | | posted 11-Jul-2004 12:44pm |
All but 4:
"Since September 11, the Bush Administration has used that tragic event as a justification to rip up our constitution and our civil liberties. And I honestly believe that [with] one or two September 11s martial law will be declared in our country."
"The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."
"although Chacra says he and his company feel strongly that Fahrenheit is not anti-American, but anti-Bush, 'we can’t go against these organisations (Hezbollah) as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria.'"
"The dumbest Brit here is smarter than the smartest American."
|
| dora | | posted 11-Jul-2004 1:33pm |
"[America] is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.'' (partly, I agree that the fighters in Iraq, even though I don't share their opinions, aren't terrorists. A terrorist is a very definite thing. They are those who resort to violence when it's time of peace. if there's a war and the enemy uses violence, it's called war, not terrorism. )
"I like America to some extent"
the others are only provocations and not really fair statements. Quite offensive really.
I don't think that most Americans are dumb, I think that they are naive and that their country is politically and socially underdeveloped.
|
| Zang | | posted 11-Jul-2004 3:58pm |
Four of them I agree with entirely:
1. "[America] is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe."
2. "We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants."
3. "Since September 11, the Bush Administration has used that tragic event as a justification to rip up our constitution and our civil liberties. And I honestly believe that [with] one or two September 11s martial law will be declared in our country."
4. "I like America to some extent."
A couple of them I agreed with only partly, so I didn't select them. The parts I agreed with were:
1. "Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not...terrorists..."
2. "There's a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled." |
| Zang | | (reply to Glassa) posted 11-Jul-2004 4:13pm |
Interesting how you are so quick to criticise a film you haven't even seen. I saw it last week. Let me set you straight on a few things:
1. Osama's half-brother is never specifically mentioned in the film.
2. The one Senator (or whatever it was) who has a son serving in Iraq WAS mentioned.
3. Nothing in the film has been "proven to be untrue". A group of lawyers were hired to go over the film with a fine-tooth-comb to make sure that every statement of fact was correct. I would be very interested in hearing which facts stated in the film have been "proven to be untrue". Go ahead. I'm waiting...
|
| Zang | | posted 11-Jul-2004 4:28pm |
I find it very interesting to see how some people react to Michael Moore. He is essentially a documentary filmmaker who uses humour to make his point. He has also dabbled in television and books. His stance is primarily Populist. He stands up for regular Americans against big corporations and government corruption. He is in opposition to racism and white-collar crime.
Now I can understand how he could make someone angry if they were a corrupt politician, a racist or a white-collar criminal. What I don't understand is why he makes other people so angry. Go figure!  |
| Enheduanna | | posted 11-Jul-2004 9:14pm |
The third, sixth, and seventh ones. I don't understand the ninth one--I mean, I know what it's referring to, but it's out of context and I don't quite follow it.
Did anyone see the recent Daily Show segment about the guy making the film "Michael Moore Hates America"? It was hilarious! |
dab  |
I didn't see that one but I saw the Daily Show when Michael Moore was on. He sort of chortled but with a little kids voice. Seemed almost creepy, in a sad sort of way. There's something not quite right with that guy. |
| Enheduanna | | (reply to dab) posted 12-Jul-2004 9:55am |
That's definitely true! The one I was talking about was especially funny because it was a piece about this guy who's making a documentary about Michael Moore, but Moore refuses to talk to him. The Daily Show person doing the piece (Samantha Bee) is talking about how Moore is known to be reclusive and camera-shy, and then they have a shot of her walking past him. I just love that they got him to be in the piece. |
| Glassa | | (reply to Zang) posted 14-Jul-2004 3:34pm |
|
| spidertea | | posted 14-Jul-2004 6:41pm |
I knew this was a kaleb survey.
|
| LuridHope | | posted 15-Jul-2004 1:01am |
God Bless the English |
| Zang | | (reply to Glassa) posted 15-Jul-2004 10:49am |
No it doesn't. The movie states (quite correctly) that the Saudis who were airlifted out of the country, did so beginning September 13th when limited flights were allowed.
Nor does it state that "bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI." What it says is that they only had very brief interviews. Nothing even close to the detentions and interrogations that some people (with nebulous ties) were subjected to shortly thereafter.
The report from the 9/11 panel is the same source they were using.
So, yes you are correct about the information, but you are incorrect about what the film says. Based on the links you've posted here, it is understandable that you think this way. Apparently the people who wrote those articles didn't see the film either...
I've actually read most of the links you posted already. I find it interesting that these critics hold Michael Moore to a much higher standard than their elected officials. It would seem that it is totally acceptable for the president and various other white house staff to be deceitful by telling outright lies. Michael Moore is expected to provide balanced information in his films. They call him a liar simply because he hasn't told the whole truth. Who does? Do you? I certainly don't. I don't know anyone who does. |
| anonymous | | posted 15-Jul-2004 5:58pm |
Interesting, the high scoring answers put most of you as liberal commie pigs. You'all gonna vote Kerry and the sheister lawyer? You want the Heinz ketchup lady as First Lady? |
| Biggles | | (reply to anonymous) posted 15-Jul-2004 6:04pm |
liberal commie pigs?  |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Zang) posted 24-Jul-2004 12:28pm |
I don't care what your politics are, you can't seriously call Moore's work "documentary". Documentaries don't contain vision that is used to mock an individual, and documentaries avoid drama and bias. Moore is not a documentary maker. I've seen real documentaries about Bush. |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 24-Jul-2004 12:29pm |
Do you think someone is trying to impersonate me? |
| Zang | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 27-Jul-2004 11:11am |
Apparently we have different ideas about the meaning of the word "documentary". By your definition, I wouldn't imagine very many films would be called "documentaries". I can't even think of any that would fit that description. Particularly the part about avoiding bias.
I think a documentary is a film which primarily contains footage of actual events, often edited together with interviews, and usually contains narration or voice-over and soundtrack music. Depending on the topic, there is very often an obvious bias. Political documentaries are unavoidably biased. |
| Frostbrand | | (reply to Zang) posted 27-Jul-2004 3:22pm |
Nicely put Zang. Can I quote you next time I have an argument about F 9/11 elsewhere?  You'll get full credit of course. |
| FordGuy | | (reply to Zang) posted 27-Jul-2004 4:13pm |
Zang - does "JFK" ring a bell? |
| athame1983 | | posted 27-Jul-2004 9:24pm |
I do not think that americans are the dumbest ppl on the planet....that's going a little far when there are countries where the majority of ppl can't read and men believe they can cure themselves of aids by fudging ten year old virgins....i do think that the majority of americans will swallow any crap that the media feeds them
But as someone who was living in new york on sept 11 i think that it is understandable that ppl were easily deceived when they were in such a hyper emotional state....and i think that bush took advantage of that
Most ppl my age are against the war in iraq...
|
| Zang |
Thanks! Yes you may! |
| Zang | | (reply to FordGuy) posted 27-Jul-2004 11:24pm |
I assume you mean the film. I haven't seen it. I was under the impression that it was more of a "what if?" historical fact/fiction kind of thing. Not having seen it, I really don't know... |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Zang) posted 28-Jul-2004 3:06pm |
I've seen plenty of real documentaries that allow me to make up my own mind about the situation discussed. Even socialists i talk to at work said F911 was sensationalist rubbish.
As for containing footage of actual events, you can use any footage to sell your point of view. In fact, a few days ago there was an Australian reporter who came forward (on channel 9 Australia)to say that footage he shot which he allowed Moore to use was used out of context.
Also, for a summary of Moores lies I quote Andrew Bolt.
"Let's now look at the "facts" behind Moore's Big Lie. Fahrenheit 9/11 opens with scenes from the US presidential race in 2000. We see Democrat candidate Al Gore boogying under a big "Florida Victory" sign, as TV anchors declare he's won the vote in Florida and, therefore, the election.
But, Moore says, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News channel, which hires a Bush cousin, suddenly breaks in to announce there's been a mistake and Bush has won instead. Conspiracy! But how could Bush steal the election in Florida?
Simple, says Moore. "Make sure the chairman of your campaign (Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris) is also the vote count woman." And knock voters off the rolls "who aren't likely to vote for you - you can usually tell them by the colour of their skin".
Lastly, get your pals on the Supreme Court to ban another recount of votes, because, as an "expert" tells Moore in the film, "under every (recount) scenario Gore won the election".
ALREADY we're up to our knees in Moore manure. The shots of Gore partying were taken before the polls opened. It was not Fox, but the Left-wing CNN which was the first network to say Gore hadn't won, after all. Harris was not in charge of counting votes. Convicted felons, not specifically blacks, were cut from the rolls under a Florida law that was nevertheless widely ignored.
And a six-month study of the Florida votes by mainly Left-wing media organisations, including the New York Times and Washington Post, found Gore would still have lost even if disputed votes had been counted just the way he wanted.
Sorry about this detail, but I want to show that from the start of this lying film there is barely one "fact" that can be trusted.
Then comes September 11. Moore shows none of the bodies - not even the hijacked planes hitting the World Trade Centre.
Such unusual restraint - from a propagandist who later gives us pornographic close-ups of Iraqi children blown up by American bombs or shot in cross-fire. But where in the film does Moore show any real interest in the terrorists who have declared war on the West? Where does this grotesquely irresponsible man even hint how he would deal with fanatics who have pledged to destroy our cities with any weapon they can find - nuclear, if possible?
Instead, Moore dodges these grim truths that real leaders must confront, and whisks us into yet another conspiracy - that Bush was bought off by Saudi money, and so didn't go hard after the real villains. The Saudis.
First, the "White House" is accused of letting 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the huge bin Laden family, fly out of the US just after September 11 without even being grilled.
What Moore doesn't say is that these Saudis were allowed to leave by the Bill Clinton-appointed counter-terrorism boss at the time, Richard Clarke, who Moore uses elsewhere in the film to dish dirt on Bush. Also not mentioned is that 30 of the Saudis were closely interviewed by the FBI before being allowed to leave. But why spoil the Big Lie?
Moore then says an old friend of Bush, James Bath, managed money for members of the huge bin Laden family (which is estranged from Osama) and Bath "in turn invested in George W. Bush" and his oil company.
Again, not mentioned is that Bath insists his $50,000 investment was all his own money, not the bin Ladens'.
Moore also implies Bush was guilty of insider trading, selling $US848,000 of shares in Harken Energy, of which he was a director, just two months before it posted a big loss. Moore typically fails to say that this loss was caused largely by factors not known when Bush sold, and the shares still doubled in value within a year.
He next claims the Saudis invested $US1.4 billion in the Bush family, their friends and associates through the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm that has Bush's father as an adviser of its Asian arm.
"Is it rude to suggest that when the Bush family wakes up in the morning they might be thinking about what's best for the Saudis instead of what's best for you?" he leers.
In fact, around 90 per cent of that Saudi money was invested in Carlyle before Bush Sr joined it. Carlyle's boss, and many other advisers, aren't Bush Republican cronies, but former officials of Democratic presidents.
What's more, George W. Bush has done few favors for Carlyle. In fact, a Carlyle company was one of the few to have a big defence contract scrapped by Bush -- the $US11 billion Crusader self-propelled gun project.
But I'll say it again -- what do facts matter to the conspiracists of the Left?
Take Moore's claim that our liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban dictatorship and its al-Qaida allies was "really" to help America's Unocal company get a gas pipeline built across that country.
Look, Moore, says -- Taliban envoys visited Texas when Bush was governor, the new Afghan president Hamid Karzai worked for Unocal, and a gas pipeline is now indeed being built.
HERE we go again: Bush didn't meet the Taliban team, Karzai never worked for Unocal, Unocal scrapped its project three years before the war, and the pipeline Moore shows now being built is a different project with different partners in a different bit of Afghanistan.
So many deceits. So many wickedly doctored quotes. So many half-truths.
No, Bush didn't cut anti-terrorist funding to the FBI. No, his Attorney-General was never told terrorists were training as pilots in the US. No, Bush didn't fail to read a report warning of al-Qaida attacks. No, the Saudis do not own anywhere near "7 per cent of America". No, that was not a dead Iraqi being mocked by US soldiers, but a drunk.
More deceits: no, the US soldiers who died in Iraq were not disproportionately blacks. No, the coalition of the willing which freed Iraq didn't just include tiny countries with no army, but also Britain, Australia and Italy, none of whom Moore mentions. And on and on.
But perhaps Moore's foulest distortion is to portray Saddam's Iraq as a happy, harmless country. Iraq before the war is all laughing children, with boys flying kites and riding bikes, as giggling girls cuddle smiling mothers. Nice men sip tea.
Moore shows not a single sign of Saddam's mass graves, his gassed Kurds, his torture centres, his official rape rooms, his critics with their tongues cut out -- nothing to suggest, as Amnesty International said in 2002, that Iraq was a place of "all-pervasive repression . . . and widespread terror".
Instead, Moore suggests, that terror came only with the American bombs and bullets -- in an onslaught so savage that every US soldier he shows seems shocked or warped by the devastation.
FROM his film, you'd think not one soldier backs this war, never mind one Iraqi. But how carefully Moore must step to avoid knocking over his cardboard fiction.
We're shown, for instance, a US National Guardsman, Peter Damon, who's had his hands blown off, but we're not told he's furious to find he appears in this foul film.
Likewise, Moore shows us the burial of US Air Force Major Gregory Stone, without adding that Stone's grieving relatives say he remained a "totally conservative Republican", and by exploiting his death Moore is a "maggot that eats off the dead".
Moore ends his film by quoting George Orwell -- "the war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects . . . to keep the very structure of society intact".
Bush's America is the true terrorist, Moore argues, at war with its own people. But to believe that, you must believe every foul smear, every childish deception, in his deeply deceitful movie.
Sadly, though, many smart people do want to believe it. Facts mean nothing -- they just want to hate the country that has fought hardest against tyrants and terrorists, from communists to Islamists.
They will not even wonder what it means that the Hizbollah terrorist group has offered to help distribute this film they so love.
So heaven help America. Heaven help its allies, too, and all who defend freedom."
Sorry if facts ruin the fun.
|
| STH84 |
Fat, disguting, slob. Did anyone see him on Bill O'rielly he acted like a little kid. Did this guy ever grow up? |
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 15-Aug-2004 2:38pm |
Two kalebs? I have nightmares like that!  |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 15-Aug-2004 9:49pm |
Huh? |
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 16-Aug-2004 5:39am |
Sorry - just realised I replied to a comment almost a month old! |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 16-Aug-2004 11:32pm |
Where have you been young lady!? |
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 17-Aug-2004 5:28am |
At home in Sheffield for about 4 weeks. Very slow internet connection and a computer that crashes if there is more than one browser window open at once - as soon as there's a pop-up *kazam* But I'm back in Oxford now to work on a project for my course - superfast internet on my nice laptop And no irritating brothers! |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 19-Aug-2004 2:29pm |
You need adaware to block the popups. Do you have to pay for internet at uni? |
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 19-Aug-2004 2:53pm |
I pay a small college facilities charge. It includes a lot of things lke maintaining the kitchens, the laundry service, having a scout in every weekday to collect rubbish and once a week to vacuum and clean the sink, maintain the laundry rooms, computer rooms, provide electricity, water etc. The internet's included in that somewhere, so really it's dirt cheap. |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 19-Aug-2004 2:59pm |
A boy scout? |
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 19-Aug-2004 3:01pm |
No, but that would be pretty funny It's just what we call our cleaners. It's an old-fashioned thing, left-over from the days when Oxford students would all be very upper-class so would be woken in the morning by their "scout" and be brought food, drink, newspapers, their washing, etc. |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 19-Aug-2004 3:04pm |
It would be weird to be at a university older than Australia! |
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 19-Aug-2004 3:05pm |
It would be weird to live in a country younger thanmy university! |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 19-Aug-2004 3:44pm |
The oldest buildings in Australia are in Tasmania and Sydney. Still only around 200 years old. |
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 20-Aug-2004 8:00am |
That's amazing. Part of my college is almost 800 years old! |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 20-Aug-2004 8:21am |
Of course we are taught to be ashamed of everything the British did here in those 200 years including ending cannibalism, infanticide and famine. Go figure. |
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 20-Aug-2004 9:06am |
Really including those, or is it more that they are skimmed over? |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 20-Aug-2004 1:22pm |
You wouldn't believe it. It has been recently blown apart because it came out that some loony left university radicals made up a lot of the stories. We also get real stories about what happened to white orphans ignored totally.
This is a country where you are labelled a racist if you want the truth of history to be taught and think it's a good idea that all people be treated equally. |
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 20-Aug-2004 6:34pm |
Sometimes it isn't obvious what it is to be treated equally. Is it giving everyone the same material things or providing everyone with the same opportunities? And if the opportunities are available, is it equal if some people don't have the means to actually take them? |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 21-Aug-2004 12:23pm |
The left misinterpret equal opportunity. They think it means equal outcome. You will never have an outcome for all that is exactly the same because people have different things to offer. Equal opportunity means all people have the same opportunity. It's then up to them. It's wrong to look at the outcome of anything and then make blanket judgments for all races or sexes based on the results. It seems to me that any races that don't do as well as what people think the majority of whites have done have to be given special treatment but it's stiff crap for the whites if the top achievers in university are always Asian. The double standard is disgusting.
Do you think white students are somehow denied opportunity and need special grants or access to allow them to succeed as well as Asian students, or should the whites just stop having lives outside academics and hit the books harder? What about the perception that African Americans do worse at school because they are discriminated against somehow?
It’s a cultural thing not a racial thing, and the culture of achievement is in people from all races. When the left seek to provide race based quotas or benefits they simply show they are racist and believe that some races are less intelligent than others.
|
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 23-Aug-2004 9:12am |
I think where affirmative action exists it should be on the basis of actual analysis of advantaged versus disadvantaged rather than along race lines. With university applications, what's wrong with looking at the average grades gained at a particular school and if they're really bad, making allowances for students who go there? Or means testing their parents? It isn't right that a privately educated black girl, whose parents are top lawyers and can afford to buy her all the things she needs for her studies should be asked for lower grades than a state school educated white boy whose parents have very low paid jobs and can barely buy food and pay the rent and certainly can't buy books or computers. The white boy would be the disadvantaged one there. It wouldn't require much extra work for the universities to set up a system that could recognise real disadvantage and make allowances accordingly.
I do think that such a system used in the UK and probably in the US would pick up *more* non-white students who were disadvantaged than white ones because ethnic minorities do tend to be concentrated in poor inner city areas without the good schools that largely exist in white middle-class areas. But it would be fairer because disadvantaged white kids would also get picked up and privileged black or asian kids would get treated the same way as privileged white kids. |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 24-Aug-2004 10:56am |
Yes. Any aid should be means tested, not race tested.
The ridiculous thing about affirmative action in the US is that the most disadvantaged social group in the US are the whites living in the rural Appalachians - Hillbillies - but because they are white they get nothing. Even if the worse schools were found where there are more non-whites, race should still have nothing to do with aid since means testing will still work. Race should be meaningless. |
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 24-Aug-2004 12:43pm |
Perhaps one day it will be. In the West at least. |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 24-Aug-2004 12:58pm |
Now don't get me started on religion. I'll just say that since religious adherance is a choice, and that since the ideology is created by humans, it should be open season. It's like Nazism. I think I should be able to deny a Nazi a job simply because of their beliefs. |
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 24-Aug-2004 1:07pm |
It's hard for me to argue with that. Except that it would be hard for the law to single out specific ideologies that could be discriminated against. |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 24-Aug-2004 1:17pm |
Any ideology that supports terrorism would be on the list surely. |
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 24-Aug-2004 2:31pm |
But where do you draw the line to exclude those who share the ideology but don't support the terrorism. Should no-one employ known animal rights protesters because some of them use terrorism to attempt to force their viewpoint on everyone? What about people who want the reunification of Ireland? Lots of them hate what the IRA does and has done. |
| kaleb777 | | (reply to Biggles) posted 24-Aug-2004 4:31pm |
I guess you would have to ask the individual. They would lie of course though. |
| Biggles | | (reply to kaleb777) posted 24-Aug-2004 6:36pm |
Exactly |
