The Right Wing Needs To Grow Up!

[Pellaken]

Talking with some on the right, I get some pretty clear impressions

first of all, a single "right" and "wrong" defnition, either given by the bible, or what they think, that is blanketed on the world. if you think something is right, but they think it's wrong, then they are right, and you (depending on the bible) are going to hell to burn for ever and ever and ever.

next, is the simplifacation of things in the family unit. Some right wingers, though not all, would want a family to stay togethor, for the sake of a family staying togethor, no matter if someone is being abused or not.

also, is another simplifacation of economics. Capatilisim is the easiest way to make money, but not nesacarly the best.

I was thinking about that... then realized... Kids look at the world this way too. black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. simple. they dont have mature minds yet.

Most of the smarter people on earth (einstien, hawking, edison) were left leaning... perhaps right wingers just need to grow up? perhaps...

[dnsfurlan]

Aren't you playing the exact same game you claim "right wingers" play? Aren't you simplifying, categorizing, and accusing in the same way believe some on the right do? Being conservative means being many things. Yet you seem to pick out a few and draw your own conclusions from them. Accusing people on the right of being childish. Yes, that's real grown up.

Whats wrong with wanting to preserve the institution of the family? I think you fall victim to a kind of thinking prevelant among people on the Left. If there are examples of some things that are bad, just thwow it all away, right? Because some families aren't working doesn't mean that people still shouldn't strive to have families. Is that what you are advocating. That we should forget families altogether? Don't you think that families are better than the alternatives, even if some families have trouble working? What is so childish about such a perspective on life?

Capatilisim is the easiest way to make money, but not nesacarly the best.

What in the world are you talking about? What other way is there to make money? What other economic system works? Even socialist countries rely on capitalism as the engine of their economies, despite their attempts to stifle it. For someone who believe in maturity, I don't see much mature thought in what you are criticizing here. I don't know where this stuff comes from, since it doesn't come from reason and logic.

Kids look at the world this way too. black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. simple. they dont have mature minds yet.

This is rich, coming from such mature thinking that you display on these boards. And I don't quite understand the alternative you are advocating. What, you don't think people should have convictions and be capable of acting upon them? You don't think good and evil exist in this world? You think it is immature to actually take stands on issues? Again, I don't know where some of this stuff comes from.

Most of the smarter people on earth (einstien, hawking, edison) were left leaning... perhaps right wingers just need to grow up? perhaps...

Oh, those leaders of men are the ones you consider so wise and intelligent. I've got some news for you. Those guys might be great scientists, but do such men lead people with thought and action? Are such men responsible for for the freedom and prosperity we all enjoy today?

And if you're going to throw around some accusations, and call people on the right immature, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to suggest that much of what you have to say betrays something not uncommon on the Left- weak thinking.

[Craig Read]

What the snivelling left calls 'nuanced thinking' is a cloak for confused, rudderless philosophical nonsense.

The Left have been wrong on every major issue in the past 50 years. Their manly defense is slander and lies. Clinton is their priest. Chretien their saint. If they can't win the argument on facts and empiricism they put their hands on their hips and stick their tongue out, and then start to cry. Liberals love winning arguments by crying, preferably while hugging a baby seal.

Treason, lies, demagoguery all wrapped up in nationalism, saving the world, or crying for the poor. Forget the fact that there are a thousand ways to help the poor, only the left know the CORRECT and MORAL way. No debate is needed on health care - my god you want to reform it - BABY KILLER !!!

Cowardice in foreign affaris [oh come on the Muslims will love us if we just hug them and kiss them], is reflected by limp wristed inactivity at home. Rising debts, taxes and budgets - all used to buy off whomever screams the loudest and uses their 'Charter of Rights' to achieve 'equality.' This appeals to the Left, they love vague jargon and legalese - it makes them appear smart.

Churchill saw this nonsense coming. So too did Orwell. Go back to the 30s and 40s and read their works. They criticise the grand illusion that is National Socialism.

[Mr Farrius]

What's wrong with conservatives is that they are not rational. They refuse to realize the nuances of politics and believe their viewpoint to be the only one. They counter liberals by not providing valid facts or reasons, but by recrimination. The liberals accuse conservatives of something. The conservatives accuse right back. It is the liberals who are willing to be flexible and wanting reform, which is what the U.S. is constantly in need of. Canada on the other hand is a much more politically stable nation than the United States.

[dnsfurlan]

What is so rational about your post? What valid facts and reasons do you provide? Its easy to think you are rational. But where is your proof?

Its been my experience that people on the left do not provide reasons and facts in the slightest. As an example, you might want to look at Black Dogs attempts at argumentation in the forum about Paul Jackson.

What exactly are the reforms you are looking for? In what way is the United States less stable than Canada?

I'm just waiting to read what reason and logic you are going to provide for us on those counts, for example. You didn't want to do it the first time around. Maybe the second time's the charm, right? Let's see.

[Mr Farrius]

No problem. Let's start with reforms. We liberals want change. What kind of change? We want equal rights for all people. I personally support affirmative action. I've noticed people throughout this forum saying affirmative action is racist. However it is not. All affirmative action merely does is be conducive to diversity. It does not discriminate. It does not restrict. All it does is attempt to include a more variety of races and ethnicities into colleges or the workplaces. After all, the American constitution states all men are created equal right? I as a liberal Canadian shake my head when I see conservatives complaining about not getting all the opportunities they already get. Another type of reform is economic reform. Right now America is in over a trillion dollar deficit. Regardless of what anyone says, America needs to get rid of that. The only thing conservatives have done right is in regards to the defense of our nation. Domestically, they have plunged America deeper into a deficit. It started declining when Bush came into office neh?

Canada is a more politically stable nation, because whatever it wants to get done isn't influenced by a divide in politics. We are not at each other's throats because one of us disapproves of the action of another. In other words, we get what we need to get done without constant bickering.

Good enough? Or do you need more explanation?

[Hugo]

  All affirmative action merely does is be conducive to diversity. It does not discriminate.

Excuse me, but how can a system that penalises some people because of ethnicity while it promotes others for the same reason not discriminate?

The AA system is unfair to the minorities it tries to serve anyway. I read an account from the dean of a university praciticing AA, who reported that many black and hispanic students who didn't make the academic grades were being allowed in anyway. They paid all their tuition fees (usually with loans), studied for 3 years and then failed, because they were not academically capable enough for the course.

So, the white students get the degree. The black students get no degree and a student debt. This policy helps ethnic minorities how, exactly, other than relieving them of their money for little to no gain?

[Mr Farrius]

Okay. I see your point. BUT, since diversity is extremely important in a society such as the United States, what would YOU propose to facilitate it within the workplace and education? If affirmative action is such a bad idea you know. If you can criticize it surely you have an idea that's much better?

[SirRiff]

why do people assume there is another way to change societies bad habatis besides being lead by progressive laws?

how many genetions would we have waited for racist whites to stop harassing blacks?

for womens claims of rape to be shrugged off?

for gays to be denied jobs they are quaified for?

without AA, people would just sit on thier asses and things would never get better. it is the absolute hallmark of a civil society to have society changed for the better by government.

anybody who things AA is wrong should suggest another viable alternative that would have equalized minority representation over the last few decades. because considering human nature, i cant see anything less then government policies that would force beneficial changes without generations of suffering.

SirRiff

[FastNed]

Hi Pell, there is no question but that people on both sides of the spectrum are rather narrow in their statements.

Peoples ethics and morality are shaped by their education, upbringing and religion what else would you expect? There remains a small minority of what I would call religious fanatics who believe their "morality" is superior and they have some God given right to impose this on others. In their day, they had some pleasant pass-times such as burning people at the stake and the Inquisition and a few of them remain with us here in the West. For quite some time their numbers have been declining which is to be celebrated. To form a blanket opinion of the many based upon the statements and actions of these few is an error.

The ability or quality called "genius" has long been an interest of mine. I do not believe their political leanings should be a guide. Might I suggest to you that you consider that genius is a 'sport', a genetic variance among us? While exceptional in specific fields, historically many have had physiological and/or mental problems and exceptional difficulties in social adjustments. The genius gene often appears to be connected to undesirable characteristics which leads me to believe that Mother Nature doesn't have it quite right yet. I wonder if SirRiff could add some genetic knowledge to this point?

[dnsfurlan]

Good enough? Or do you need more explanation?

I'm not the one who came on here accusing conservatives of not being able to support their positions with reasons and facts. You should have been trying to explain things before making the accusations.

Is it enough? Lets' see:

Let's start with reforms. We liberals want change. What kind of change? We want equal rights for all people

This is a reform? Affirmative action has been around for decades.People trying to use the goverment to advance their minority agenda is nothing new.

I thought it was curious when you said you wanted reform, because the Left has not come up with a new idea since the 1960's.

All affirmative action merely does is be conducive to diversity. It does not discriminate. It does not restrict. All it does is attempt to include a more variety of races and ethnicities into colleges or the workplaces

Affirmative action does not discriminate? By definition it discriminates. It chooses a certian group of people over others based solely on their minority status.

And why does diversity have to be achieved by AA? Isn't Canada already diverse enough without the need to implement a program that rewards people for their skin colour and gender?

Why do people need a hand out from the government in order to get ahead? Can't people make it without getting favors from the government. Are you people afraid that minorities can't make it on their own. Are Canadians by nature a racist people? I don't think so.

There are numerous example of how minorities have succeeded without so called affirmative action. I'll give you two:

-Back Athletes: once they were given the opportunity to play Big League sports owners would have been crazy to prevent the best players from playing on their teams. And black athletes now dominate professional sports.

-IT experts from India thriving in silicon valley. India produces some of the finest IT experts in the world and California can't hire enough of them. These people didn't neeed affirmative action. They simply made themselves better than the rest.

as a liberal Canadian shake my head when I see conservatives complaining about not getting all the opportunities they already get

Who in the world is denying minorities opportunities? Again, are white Canadians a racist people? I don't think so. People get ahead by displaying excellence. Aren't minorities capable of excellence? Or do you just like the idea of trying to stick it to successful white people, or having the government do things for people instead of people actually doing things for themselves?

Another type of reform is economic reform. Right now America is in over a trillion dollar deficit. Regardless of what anyone says, America needs to get rid of that

The only time people on the Left ever care about defecits is when conservatives make them. George Bush is pursuing a policy of economic growth - which is starting to pay off - while at the same time fighting terrorism, getting rid of enemies of freedom, recovering from a recession left by Clinton/Gore which they lied about, and dealing with the Enron scandals which were allowed to occur under Bill Clinton's good times presidency. And, despite this, many conservatives are not happy with Bush's spending habits. They think he is liberal in this regard.

Canada is a more politically stable nation, because whatever it wants to get done isn't influenced by a divide in politics. We are not at each other's throats because one of us disapproves of the action of another. In other words, we get what we need to get done without constant bickering.

Do you actually know anything about Canadian politics? I can't believe you actually wrote that. We have had a seperatist party as our official opposition, we have had two referendums on seperation over the last twenty-five years, we have a region in the West that has felt alienated for generations, our last federal election was as personal as they come, and people have been calling the Alliance racist and intolerant since I can remember. For one thing, I don't remember the Americans worrying about whether their country will break up within the foreseeble future.

Where does some of this stuff come from?

what would YOU propose to facilitate it within the workplace and education? If affirmative action is such a bad idea you know. If you can criticize it surely you have an idea that's much better?

What about some ambition and hard work, like everyone else who wants to succeed?

i cant see anything less then government policies that would force beneficial changes without generations of suffering.

Don't you have any faith in people? Do we need government to solve all our problems? Are Canadians a bunch of racists just waiting to punish minorities who want to make a better living for themselve?

We keep hearing from the Left that Canadians are a compassionate and kind people. Yet here you are telling us that we need government to be compassionate on our behalf.

And what generations of suffering are you talking about? Where is all this human misery that the rest of us seem to be missing out on?

[Mr Farrius]

dnsfurlan, it's not about a lack of faith in minorities. It's about statistics. Statistically minorities just DO NOT do as well as majorities. As a result, liberals want to change that through affirmative action. Like I said, we need diversity and people in America want a better solution than "hard work".

[dnsfurlan]

dnsfurlan, it's not about a lack of faith in minorities. It's about statistics. Statistically minorities just DO NOT do as well as majorities. As a result, liberals want to change that through affirmative action. Like I said, we need diversity and people in America want a better solution than "hard work".

I'm not sure when this changed into a topic about America. This is a forum about Canadian politics.

Nevertheless, even talking about the United States, I still see affirmative action as wrong-headed. Are there some serious racial issue still to be addressed in that country? Yes. I fear, however, that leftist policies such as AA tend to make the problems worse rather than better. Like so much on the Left, it sound nice. But does it really fix the problem? You mentioned statistics about race in America. What about statistics about AA? Does it actually work? Does it adress some of the deeper problems of racism in America?

Frankly, even some conservatives in America favor AA, partly because fixing the real problems involves a lot more work. Indeed, I think the Left actaully contributes to some of these problems, because teachers unions, black leaders, and leftist organizations tend to berate any changes that could affect their own interest and agendas.

Take school vouchers, for example. Black parents tend to like them. Liberal interest groups don't because they infringe upon the public education school system - which often is part of the cause of the problem. Most of the schools blacks attend are public. Yet they are clearly not doing the job. And whenever reforms are suggested, the liberal establishment, including teacher's unions, stand in the way of any attempt to change the system.

In my opinion, society should try to offer oppportunity. This is not being done in public schools in America. Affirmative Action will not change it. If anything, it will only reward it, I fear.

Just a note: at the University of Michigan, where blacks have been chosen on the basis of race, its not only whites who have been kept out. Asian students have also been made casualties of the University's desire to be selective about race. This adds to my belief that Leftist programs quite often make the problem worse rather than better. (Public financing of campaings I think is another example of this, but that is clearly off topic).

[Neal.F.]

Affirmative Action is most insulting to those it is purported to help. It implies that without the help of "Nanny-State" , minorities are just too damned stupid or lazy to make something of themselves.

Moreover it is criminal, since in the case of universities, better students are being turned down in the name of diversity (Liberals define "diversity" as being based on outside tangible or visual traits, not on ideas) in favour of those who clearly don't have what it takes. I wonder if the doctor who could have cured Cancer or MS was refused entry to Med School so that someone else could get in because tehy are a politically favoured minority?

It also hurts universities, since their reputation and standing is contingent upon the success of the graduates they produce.

Affirmative Action can be summed up in 6 words: "White Christian Males need not apply".

THe world has changed greatly, but not because of anything whiny liberals have done. It is highly competitive out there in world, and nowhere more so than in business. Companies have to hire the best employees they can , and if they want to turn down an Indian, or a gay, who happens to the best qualified, their competition will snap them up.

Get real. We don't need Liberals telling us how many people of what ethnicity or sexual orientation we need to hire... We just want the best we can hire.

[Hugo]

Dnsfurlan, Neal, you are both right. Some more points about AA:

1) To "fix" discrimination by discriminating against someone else does not resolve the problem, it just moves it.

2) To promote the idea that certain ethnicities need special treatment just furthers the wrongful idea that people of other ethnicities are different from and somehow inferior to "the rest of us". Far from moving towards a more egalitarian and colour-blind society, it moves away from it and actually encourages discrimination.

3) It not only insults minorities by implying that they lack the skills to succeed on their own, it actively encourages them to fail by placing the less qualified of them in positions they are unable to fulfill. In that way, it actually furthers ideas of, say, black inferiority by ensuring that more blacks than ever are failing university courses - just looking at the statistics, it would be easy to conclude that blacks are just stupid.

To that end, more discrimination will result. If you are conducting job interviews, with universal educational AA you could safely assume that any black applicants were not as smart as the white ones (since the blacks had gotten their degrees through quotas, not skills, and the whites had been good enough to fit into the reduced white-student quota and thus probably exceeded the minimum requirements). On that basis, I can see many companies just dismissing black applicants out of hand.

4) As with any cheating, it raises the question: would you have succeeded anyway, on your own merit? Even if AA does succeed in producing more minority doctors, lawyers and politicians, the question will still be there: would they still have been able to be those things were it not for AA?

[Mr Farrius]

Without AA, blacks, hispanics, and native americans DO NOT get into decent colleges. Simple as that.

[Neal.F.]

Hogwash!!!!!

Since when do you send a picture with a university application?

How the hell would someone in the admissions office know someone is black?

[Mr Farrius]

High school records, college admissions applications, scholastic aptitude tests. Believe me, they know what race you are.

[dnsfurlan]

Come on. Its these universities who are bending over backwards to implement affirmative action policies. They want minority students to be accepted. The problem is that not enough of them are getting grades that allow them to do so. That is at the core of the problem. Qualified minorities are not being turned away. Otherwise unqualified minorities are being accepted because of racial preferences.

Without AA, blacks, hispanics, and native americans DO NOT get into decent colleges. Simple as that.

Simple as that, eh? What do you make of Colin Powell, Condy Rice, Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, etc, etc. How in the world did they get in to good schools?

Lets not kid ourselves. If a student has the grades, they will get into a good school somewhere. This is not 1940. Its 2003. Society changes, even without governmnet intervention.

[RB]

there was a report posted about 2 years ago in the financial post i believe regarding wealth and education with a conclusive view that the financially equipt child had done better than other students, and the geographical areas of where the students live supports their social structure and mix e.g. it was found that the york region student were getting better grades than say the students in say toronto....maybe they had the required 3 meals a day but also they had access to lots more resources, and their parents were also of some educational background

discrimination is not a thing of the past. and i allude this to a stuggle with a division of economic, social, and political unbalance between various groups of people.

some folks will never able allowed to rise above a level if no one will represent, lobby and speak on their behalf - your non-educated parent will continue to produce the not so bright child, because the not haves will never have, if you get the drift

but my point is if you were to conduct a survey to ask who is it that favors racial preference programs or AA. It would be those visible minorities and women because these are the people that need it most.

i was a diversity seminar recently, and one of the questions that surfaced is how many women in the group would consider NOT having kids because of racism – and more that half of the room of "the identifiable groups" hands shot up, the others I suspected wanted to be correct in their answers but there is always a glimmer of hope i am incorrect in this assumption.

as long a legacy exist dream on about competing equally for employment, competitive schools etc. your repeal of AA is mostly of nonsense to you but for others it is a tiny light of hope and has made a difference in many lives for what you subscribe to prescribe as constitutional charter of rights and freedoms, and as in equality, and what is fairness and whatever...some economic integration mostly is dismay

[Mr Farrius]

When I said minorities do not get into schools, I wasn't speaking for each and every single one. I thought everyone realized that. I was speaking for the majority of the minorities which is true; the majority of minorities don't get into good schools. Like RB pointed out, racism still exists. It always will. Without affirmative action, the majority of minorities will always get nothing but lower than the best, be it the workplace or in the realm of education.

[Morgan]

The reason that specific minorities like blacks and Hispanics would not get into good public or private colleges, were it not for affirmative action, has nothing to do with racism.

They would not get accepted because of their poor academic scores which would preclude acceptance at solid academic institutions. End of story.

And even with affirmative action, blacks and Hispanics have the highest rate of non-completion of their college degree programs, because they are unable to keep up with other students, who were accepted on merit. What does that tell you?

And where does it say all people should go to college? Where is it proven that all students have equal intellectual abilities suited for rigorous academic pursuits? Maybe some high school students , regardless of their colour or ethnicity or gender, would be better served by attending a post secondary trade school?

And here's another fact to consider...through all the years of major government spending on education and focusing on "disadvantaged" students, along with with busing and with the establishment of magnet schools in poor neighbourhoods, etc., the SAT scores for blacks and Hispanics have decreased, not increased, over the years.

Hello, Democrat social engineers! It's not racism that's causing the dismal SAT scores. It's the high percentage of single parenting in both racial groups. TThat's the single greatest predictor of academic success or failure for children-coming from a stable nuclear Mommy and Daddy home.

Also, affirmative action is discriminatory to other minority groups[not just Caucasian boys] who are successful without social engineering. Chinese and Japanese, regardless of gender, have to fight against "quota maximums" in the U of California college system. They're just too darn successful for liberal tastes, I guess.

With regards to giving preferential treatment to females, this society is in serious trouble because of the shameful way males are being treated in school. Fewer boys are going to college because of being discouraged through elementary, junior high, and high school by feminist minded educators.

So how is society any farther ahead with these misguided social engineering schemes, if affirmative action discriminates against certain minority groups and penalizes the male gender?

[RB]

for the ratios, i don't believe there are less males in colleges but an informed female increase accessing colleges and as we know there are more females than males in the population and to add the females are getting wiser and smarter

[Black Dog]

The reason that specific minorities like blacks and Hispanics would not get into good public or private colleges, were it not for affirmative action, has nothing to do with racism.

They would not get accepted because of their poor academic scores which would preclude acceptance at solid academic institutions. End of story.

I just HAD to say something about this.

The U.S. has...

...an education system wherein a blacks and Hispanics are denied education opportunities as a result of chronic underfunding of public schools...

... a criminal "justice" system that disproportionatly targets blacks and Latinos...

...chronic unemployment in black communities and a ever-growing economic gap between black and white.

...a deep, abiding cultural strain of racial inequality and intolerance.

And you wonder why blacks and latinos have low test scores. Jesus.

Think about it: it took 100 year after slavery for blacks to get the same rights across the U.S.A as whites. It's been 40 years since the Civil Rights movement: does anyone honestly believe that the attitudes and prejudices of yesteryear no longer exist? Does anyone actually think blacks and hispanics have access to the same opportunities as white folk? AA is certainly not perfect, but when you have a culture ingrained with the principle of white privilege, the status quo is not acceptable.

[westcoast99]

There is a historical legacy that needs to be overcome and this is one way of attempting the level the playing field.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy