Michigan: now officially the stupidest state in the nation

[pro28]

Well, you sure got me thinking...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks.

[chris1216]

It's definitely extremely touchy and complicated.

[Viktorkrum77]

Wait! I thought Prop 2 said yes to demolish AA. Which is why I was glad it passed, or so I thought. What was prop 2 saying then?

[chris1216]

You are correct, proposal 2 demolished affirmative action.

[-mbball-]

Me living in Michigan I am really mad that this passed. Both of my parents voted no due to the stupidity of this proposal. I definitely think this was due to uninformed voters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My mom(a teacher) said that now there won't be separated gender teams for sports and schools due to this proposal including education. Along with many other things like college admission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait until this thing causes the Michigan Massacre of people suing each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on a Mac,

 

 

 

mbball

[chris1216]

What apparently happened is that some people might not have read too closely, seeing as how the proposal calls itself the "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative", making it sound like it's actually progress in civil rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd call that misleading, but what do i know? At my college, a group calling itself the "Young Americans for Freedom" tried to sponsor "catch an illegal immigrant day".

[Viktorkrum77]

I hate AA!! I'm bloody happy it passed.

[killersushipunk]

I hate AA!! I'm bloody happy it passed.

 

 

 

But why do you hate it?

 

 

 

Making up for all those years of those people being oppressed?

[Viktorkrum77]

 

I hate AA!! I'm bloody happy it passed.

 

 

 

But why do you hate it?

 

 

 

Making up for all those years of those people being oppressed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's unfair, we had a discussion on it. It's not right to judge people based on race or sex. It should be based on your intelligence, your work ethic, etc...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as far as making up for all those years. I'm not to blaim for slavery, I wasn't personally there. My ancestors came to America slightly after WWII from Germany. I live in the north, segregation wasn't huge there. Why blaim all white people for the mistakes of their ancestors. Blaim the responsables ancestors, or blaim the ones alive that were there and did something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate when people use that arguement! It's reverse discrimination.

[chris1216]

 

 

I hate AA!! I'm bloody happy it passed.

 

 

 

But why do you hate it?

 

 

 

Making up for all those years of those people being oppressed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's unfair, we had a discussion on it. It's not right to judge people based on race or sex. It should be based on your intelligence, your work ethic, etc...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as far as making up for all those years. I'm not to blaim for slavery, I wasn't personally there. My ancestors came to America slightly after WWII from Germany. I live in the north, segregation wasn't huge there. Why blaim all white people for the mistakes of their ancestors. Blaim the responsables ancestors, or blaim the ones alive that were there and did something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate when people use that arguement! It's reverse discrimination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate when people like you make it all about YOU, as if affirmative action ever blamed anyone for anything. No one ever said this was someone's fault, you did.

[killersushipunk]

 

 

I hate AA!! I'm bloody happy it passed.

 

 

 

But why do you hate it?

 

 

 

Making up for all those years of those people being oppressed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's unfair, we had a discussion on it. It's not right to judge people based on race or sex. It should be based on your intelligence, your work ethic, etc...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as far as making up for all those years. I'm not to blaim for slavery, I wasn't personally there. My ancestors came to America slightly after WWII from Germany. I live in the north, segregation wasn't huge there. Why blaim all white people for the mistakes of their ancestors. Blaim the responsables ancestors, or blaim the ones alive that were there and did something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate when people use that arguement! It's reverse discrimination.

 

 

 

You seem to say that racism is old, that it does not happen today. It does. We need to counteract that racism with AA.

[Viktorkrum77]

 

 

 

I hate AA!! I'm bloody happy it passed.

 

 

 

But why do you hate it?

 

 

 

Making up for all those years of those people being oppressed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's unfair, we had a discussion on it. It's not right to judge people based on race or sex. It should be based on your intelligence, your work ethic, etc...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as far as making up for all those years. I'm not to blaim for slavery, I wasn't personally there. My ancestors came to America slightly after WWII from Germany. I live in the north, segregation wasn't huge there. Why blaim all white people for the mistakes of their ancestors. Blaim the responsables ancestors, or blaim the ones alive that were there and did something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate when people use that arguement! It's reverse discrimination.

 

 

 

You seem to say that racism is old, that it does not happen today. It does. We need to counteract that racism with AA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both types of racisim occur today, reverse and nonreversive. I've been told things based upon my race, and even though I never have myself, I know it to happen the other way around.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's part of our currupt society.

[Adam007]

I'm completely eccstatic that this passed. There is no sense in someone taking a spot that they don't deserve. I would support AA only in occasions where there was a bar that had to be reached, and the people who were of a certain race and offered the exception didn't take the spots of more deserving people. If there was no space issue, I would support it. Only in such a scenario. The fact is that you can't classify a person based on a race. http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=545 ... ght=action

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economic factors are one thing - I woudl support AA based on that soleley. But race is just idiotic. Once again, I am glad affirmative action has been removed in Michigan. It's about time people had equal opportunities. Race and stereotypes are just illusions that give people excuses to not put in their all.

[jonstark7x8]

I voted NO. I don't get why it was passed. I am extremely dissapointed with the people of Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard for me too explain why it should not be banned. But affirmitave action promotes diversity and would nullify a bosses power to choose employees based on race/ethinic background/culture/gender/etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't say that race/gender/etc. never plays a role. You can ALWAYS say that, but it will NEVER happen. Everybody is a little racist/prejudice inside. YOU cannot say that yourself. I have never met anyone that has ever said they were ONE HUNDRED PERCENT non-biased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ask yourself that question, and you'll answer it yourself.

[Adam007]

I voted NO. I don't get why it was passed. I am extremely dissapointed with the people of Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard for me too explain why it should not be banned. But affirmitave action promotes diversity and would nullify a bosses power to choose employees based on race/ethinic background/culture/gender/etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't say that race/gender/etc. never plays a role. You can ALWAYS say that, but it will NEVER happen. Everybody is a little racist/prejudice inside. YOU cannot say that yourself. I have never met anyone that has ever said they were ONE HUNDRED PERCENT non-biased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ask yourself that question, and you'll answer it yourself.

 

 

 

Either way the system won't work. If you have affirmative action, it's reverse racism towards the majority race. Businesses are supposed to be equal opportunity anyway. If there is evidence an employer rejected an equally qualified person based on race, I believe that's a lawsuit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a difference between having equal opportunity and having required quotias to fill. With quotias, businesses and universities are filled with people who don't deserve their position, and are underqualified, and basically dilute the quality of the worker/student. If you're not qualified, you don't belong in the position in the first place. It makes no sense for an unqualified person to take the spot of a qualified person. If they have that supposive glowing inner talent that's being suppressed by their race, they should be able to compensate by being able to rise above that in the first place. I'm assuming that's the reason they're hired. That they're able to move ahead once they're given the opportunity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But enough with that. I'm wondering what else besides job and university options were taken away? While I completely support removing affirmative action in general, I was told that free vaccines for women were also taken away? That part of the proposal I wouldn't necessarily agree with. I'd just like to know more about that, since from what I did read I heard nothing of.

[apinagez]

I still don't quite get Proposal 2. #-o

 

 

 

So, if you vote yes, you are voting against Affirmative Action and voting for the prohibition of discrimination by public institutions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That sounds contradictory. Usually, people who are against discrimination are for Affirmative Action, from what I know.

[Viktorkrum77]

I still don't quite get Proposal 2. #-o

 

 

 

So, if you vote yes, you are voting against Affirmative Action and voting for the prohibition of discrimination by public institutions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That sounds contradictory. Usually, people who are against discrimination are for Affirmative Action, from what I know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voting Yes means you are for the removal to a certain point of AA.

 

 

 

Voting No means you are against the removal of AA.

[Bufoman]

affermitive action is a old system that barely worked in the first place. now with the dramatic changes in society and the majority of young people imitateing black rap stars it would seem absured to tell someone they must meet a certain quota. correct me if I am wrong but isent that quota based on a state or natinal ratio? if it is then it is truely absured as minoritys tend to be more common in big citys and a general rareity in rural areas. so if a employer is told for every 10 or so white people he hires he must hire a black person what if theirs only 5 black people in the entire town of working age and less than half of them are qualified as the job requires a collage education? furthermore in big citys minoritys praticaly are the majority. so how does afermitive action help them?

[chris1216]

you do realize, adam, that affirmative action sets the precedent for destroying Title IX?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More later after i eat dinner

[chris1216]

 

I still don't quite get Proposal 2. #-o

 

 

 

So, if you vote yes, you are voting against Affirmative Action and voting for the prohibition of discrimination by public institutions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That sounds contradictory. Usually, people who are against discrimination are for Affirmative Action, from what I know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voting Yes means you are for the removal to a certain point of AA.

 

 

 

Voting No means you are against the removal of AA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To a certain point? That's crap and you know it. Voting Yes ends affirmative action. PERIOD.

[Viktorkrum77]

 

 

I still don't quite get Proposal 2. #-o

 

 

 

So, if you vote yes, you are voting against Affirmative Action and voting for the prohibition of discrimination by public institutions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That sounds contradictory. Usually, people who are against discrimination are for Affirmative Action, from what I know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voting Yes means you are for the removal to a certain point of AA.

 

 

 

Voting No means you are against the removal of AA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To a certain point? That's crap and you know it. Voting Yes ends affirmative action. PERIOD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, whatever. I doubt our goverment has that much ambition. Besides, the more we rid of it, the better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where were all you people during the AA debate? Everyone sided with me, saying it was bad. And now everyone's, well mostly everyone, is against it? :-s

[Adam007]

 

 

 

I still don't quite get Proposal 2. #-o

 

 

 

So, if you vote yes, you are voting against Affirmative Action and voting for the prohibition of discrimination by public institutions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That sounds contradictory. Usually, people who are against discrimination are for Affirmative Action, from what I know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voting Yes means you are for the removal to a certain point of AA.

 

 

 

Voting No means you are against the removal of AA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To a certain point? That's crap and you know it. Voting Yes ends affirmative action. PERIOD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, whatever. I doubt our goverment has that much ambition. Besides, the more we rid of it, the better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where were all you people during the AA debate? Everyone sided with me, saying it was bad. And now everyone's, well mostly everyone, is against it? :-s

 

 

 

A lot has to do with the presentation of the initial thread's topic. Calling everyone who is against affirmative action idiots tends to isolate supporters. But still, on an anonymous forum like this, I'm surprised by the resulting posts, especially based on the other thread.

[Viktorkrum77]

 

 

 

 

I still don't quite get Proposal 2. #-o

 

 

 

So, if you vote yes, you are voting against Affirmative Action and voting for the prohibition of discrimination by public institutions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That sounds contradictory. Usually, people who are against discrimination are for Affirmative Action, from what I know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voting Yes means you are for the removal to a certain point of AA.

 

 

 

Voting No means you are against the removal of AA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To a certain point? That's crap and you know it. Voting Yes ends affirmative action. PERIOD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, whatever. I doubt our goverment has that much ambition. Besides, the more we rid of it, the better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where were all you people during the AA debate? Everyone sided with me, saying it was bad. And now everyone's, well mostly everyone, is against it? :-s

 

 

 

A lot has to do with the presentation of the initial thread's topic. Calling everyone who is against affirmative action idiots tends to isolate supporters. But still, on an anonymous forum like this, I'm surprised by the resulting posts, especially based on the other thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ditto, that's why I bumped it. It's like the support just went to the other end of the spectrum.

[lawrencekill]

 

I voted NO. I don't get why it was passed. I am extremely dissapointed with the people of Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard for me too explain why it should not be banned. But affirmitave action promotes diversity and would nullify a bosses power to choose employees based on race/ethinic background/culture/gender/etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't say that race/gender/etc. never plays a role. You can ALWAYS say that, but it will NEVER happen. Everybody is a little racist/prejudice inside. YOU cannot say that yourself. I have never met anyone that has ever said they were ONE HUNDRED PERCENT non-biased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ask yourself that question, and you'll answer it yourself.

 

 

 

Either way the system won't work. If you have affirmative action, it's reverse racism towards the majority race. Businesses are supposed to be equal opportunity anyway. If there is evidence an employer rejected an equally qualified person based on race, I believe that's a lawsuit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a difference between having equal opportunity and having required quotias to fill. With quotias, businesses and universities are filled with people who don't deserve their position, and are underqualified, and basically dilute the quality of the worker/student. If you're not qualified, you don't belong in the position in the first place. It makes no sense for an unqualified person to take the spot of a qualified person. If they have that supposive glowing inner talent that's being suppressed by their race, they should be able to compensate by being able to rise above that in the first place. I'm assuming that's the reason they're hired. That they're able to move ahead once they're given the opportunity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But enough with that. I'm wondering what else besides job and university options were taken away? While I completely support removing affirmative action in general, I was told that free vaccines for women were also taken away? That part of the proposal I wouldn't necessarily agree with. I'd just like to know more about that, since from what I did read I heard nothing of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The people that looked at this thread probably only saw the cover, and didn't bother to open up the inside of the book and read that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I voted NO. I don't get why it was passed. I am extremely dissapointed with the people of Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard for me too explain why it should not be banned. But affirmitave action promotes diversity and would nullify a bosses power to choose employees based on race/ethinic background/culture/gender/etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't say that race/gender/etc. never plays a role. You can ALWAYS say that, but it will NEVER happen. Everybody is a little racist/prejudice inside. YOU cannot say that yourself. I have never met anyone that has ever said they were ONE HUNDRED PERCENT non-biased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ask yourself that question, and you'll answer it yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Promotes diversity? Nullify a bosses power to choose employees based on certain characteristics?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok you're right it does do those things. But does it do these?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Giving jobs to more qualified people, even if they're majority race.

 

 

 

Promote effectiveness in tasks done by people who got in because of their race, but are unqualified?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So let's say Harvard was getting ready to accept applications. Hypothetically:

 

 

 

On one hand, you have an African American, 4.5 GPA average, President of his/her school, on the Crew team, and spent over 500 hours doing volunteer work.

 

 

 

Let's say on another hand you have an Asians, 4.0 GPA, President of his/her homeroom, and spent only about 300 hours doing community service, but was one of the best to enroll.

 

 

 

Harvard, in a way, must meet a race balance or risk being called a "racist school" even though they might not be.

 

 

 

They are short on Asian students, and have a lot of African Americans. So then to not be called racist for having a low amount of Asians, they give the Asian student a little leeway (although in real life it might not be "that" much of a difference)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's better to play a smaller role than that of a bigger one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell me what's worse, a business with only 3 different races(just an example, could be more or less) that can achieve the task set on-hand and more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A group with one of every single race (improbable but not impossible), but some are underqualified for the job but were the highest in their racial class.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd pick the second.

[Turnip]

 

 

 

I hate AA!! I'm bloody happy it passed.

 

 

 

But why do you hate it?

 

 

 

Making up for all those years of those people being oppressed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's unfair, we had a discussion on it. It's not right to judge people based on race or sex. It should be based on your intelligence, your work ethic, etc...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as far as making up for all those years. I'm not to blaim for slavery, I wasn't personally there. My ancestors came to America slightly after WWII from Germany. I live in the north, segregation wasn't huge there. Why blaim all white people for the mistakes of their ancestors. Blaim the responsables ancestors, or blaim the ones alive that were there and did something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate when people use that arguement! It's reverse discrimination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate when people like you make it all about YOU, as if affirmative action ever blamed anyone for anything. No one ever said this was someone's fault, you did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uh, why is affirmative action there to begin with? To benefit for past discriminations against minorities, or to give them the opportunity due to a lesser environment conducive to learning? I don't see how it's hard to take away the race aspect of it all, and replace it with economy and their conditions. Picking someone for a school or job doesn't happen in 10 seconds, you need to take in all the factors, which includes how they have been disadvantaged, and race in itself isn't one; it's their ENVIRONMENT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I voted NO. I don't get why it was passed. I am extremely dissapointed with the people of Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard for me too explain why it should not be banned. But affirmitave action promotes diversity and would nullify a bosses power to choose employees based on race/ethinic background/culture/gender/etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't say that race/gender/etc. never plays a role. You can ALWAYS say that, but it will NEVER happen. Everybody is a little racist/prejudice inside. YOU cannot say that yourself. I have never met anyone that has ever said they were ONE HUNDRED PERCENT non-biased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ask yourself that question, and you'll answer it yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Promotes diversity? Nullify a bosses power to choose employees based on certain characteristics?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok you're right it does do those things. But does it do these?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Giving jobs to more qualified people, even if they're majority race.

 

 

 

Promote effectiveness in tasks done by people who got in because of their race, but are unqualified?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So let's say Harvard was getting ready to accept applications. Hypothetically:

 

 

 

On one hand, you have an African American, 4.5 GPA average, President of his/her school, on the Crew team, and spent over 500 hours doing volunteer work.

 

 

 

Let's say on another hand you have an Asians, 4.0 GPA, President of his/her homeroom, and spent only about 300 hours doing community service, but was one of the best to enroll.

 

 

 

Harvard, in a way, must meet a race balance or risk being called a "racist school" even though they might not be.

 

 

 

They are short on Asian students, and have a lot of African Americans. So then to not be called racist for having a low amount of Asians, they give the Asian student a little leeway (although in real life it might not be "that" much of a difference)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's better to play a smaller role than that of a bigger one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell me what's worse, a business with only 3 different races(just an example, could be more or less) that can achieve the task set on-hand and more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A group with one of every single race (improbable but not impossible), but some are underqualified for the job but were the highest in their racial class.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd pick the second.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only problem with this is that you make it sound as if if you're a certain race, you're automatically on a set limit of intelligence. Just because you're black, doesn't mean you can't achieve the same intelligence as an Asian or a white person, it's all about the person's culture/background which contributes to their working atmosphere, and as a result how much effort they put into their education.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, the guy is the best Asian that applied, but that doesn't automatically mean that they're qualified for the job/admission. If there was someone that was a complete idiot, but they were the "best of their kind", would you hire them over someone that you know would actually contribute to the working environment, despite there being many people like them? It just doesn't make sense to me.