McCain backs ban on affirmative action in Arizona

Presidential candidate John McCain on Sunday endorsed a proposal to ban affirmative action programs in his home state, a policy that Democratic rival Barack Obama called a disappointing embrace of divisive tactics.

In the past, McCain has criticized such ballot initiatives.

In an interview that aired Sunday, McCain was asked whether he supported an effort to get a referendum on the ballot in Arizona that would do away with race and gender-based preferences, known as affirmative action.

"Yes, I do," said McCain in an interview on ABC's "This Week." The Republican senator quickly added that he had not seen the details of the proposal. "But I've always opposed quotas."

His reversal comes as McCain seeks to tailor his policies and rhetoric to independent-minded voters who will determine the outcome of November election. Both McCain and Obama have accused each other â?? with good reason â?? of "flip-flopping," a charge that carries weight with voters seeking consistency and authenticity in their political leaders.

Speaking to a conference of minority journalists on Sunday, Obama said he was "disappointed" by McCain's position.

"I think in the past he had been opposed to these kinds of Ward Connerly referenda or initiatives as divisive. And I think he's right," Obama said, referring to a leading critic of affirmative action.

Obama also said he has little interest in an official government apology for slavery or reparations for descendants of slaves. The government's focus, he said, should be on providing jobs, education and health for people still struggling today.

The proposed referendum in Arizona involves a constitutional amendment to bar preferential treatment by public entities on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Supporters say the measure levels the playing field, giving everyone an equal chance at every job.
McCain backs ban on affirmative action in Arizona - Yahoo! News

"giving everyone an equal chance at every job"....except for "white male non-vet". Affirmative action laws had their place in the past....not anymore.

Have a good one!:s4:

I agree. Affirmative action did have its place in the past but for the last few years its become a joke.

So now instead of giving an equal chance to everyone, it now discriminates against white people. Colleges and jobs now have to give up seats for minorities who might not have the credentials so the government can come in and say everythings "fair and equal". Otherwise these schools and businesses lose funding.

I feel that minorities bitch and moan that things aren't "fair" and that white people are constantly pointing out their race. But then later use their race as an advantage.

Either your in or your out. Pick a side people.

(And I must point out that if a minority is indeed more superior for a job (which many are) they obviously should get it over someone who doesn't, whether they be white, black, brown, whatever.)

affirmative action=reverse racism.............:stoned:

I disagree with this. Affirmative action still has it's place. Infact if anything, it should be expanded beyond race. I don't believe companies should be forced to participate in affirmative action but get tax breaks if they do.

Many jobs out there don't hire "the best person out there." They hire the best looking, their best friend, a certain personality they like. Do a salary comparison between fit people and fat people and you'll notice such a skew in salary. Fat women earn 17% less than their fit peers.

"Economists Susan Averett and Sanders Korenman studied the effects of obesity on wages, using a sample consisting of individuals aged 16-24 in 1981 who were 23-31 in 1988. They showed that women who were obese according to their Body Mass Index (BMI) in both 1981 and 1988 earned 17 percent lower wages on average than women within their recommended BMI range. However, women who became obese between those two survey years earned only slightly less than women of recommended BMI. When comparing by race, the authors found a wage penalty for obesity among white women but no significant penalty for black women. Among white men, they found a much lower wage penalty for obesity than for their white female counterparts. A small positive relationship was actually found between obese black men and wages."

The Regional Economist

Goes to show, affirmative action should be expanded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

I agree. Affirmative action did have its place in the past but for the last few years its become a joke.

So now instead of giving an equal chance to everyone, it now discriminates against white people. Colleges and jobs now have to give up seats for minorities who might not have the credentials so the government can come in and say everythings "fair and equal". Otherwise these schools and businesses lose funding.

---

It's even worse when schools lower their standards in order to accept people based on race. My girlfriend is planning on attending law school so we were looking around lsac.org at perspective schools. Southern Law, which is a predominantly black school actually accepted a black student with a 1.99 GPA and a 140 LSAT score (really low). Yet there are white students being rejected with 155 LSAT scores and 2.5 GPA's.

They also accept their own 4 year students before excepting outside students. No other law school I know of does that, but it is their "legal" way of giving the black students priority over other races.

It is complete B.S. People should be accepted into schools and jobs based on their qualifications and scores, not their race or gender.

In the case of schools, most of them accept a person with out an interview, if they just didn't ask for applicants to provide their race, no one could argue they were rejected because of their skin color.

Affirmative action should be done away with...Just like a few others, rebgirl, ldg have said, its turned into reverse racism...I literally had an ass. manager at the hard rock I cooked at tell me they had to let me go, because they couldn't fire the black dude, and they had to let one of us go...(shit was getting slow) And they didn't wanna lawsuit...which also goes to show the irony of "affirmative action". They were not the LEAST bit worried about a lawsuit from me!!...why? because supposedly, they didnt fire me based on race...Which is exactly what they did...
ANYHOO...sorry for ranting...

Granted that was 4 years ago...but I dont see shit being much different now...
stupid people are stupid people....great workers are great workers...Qualifications should be the basis. But to be honest, it will NEVER be like that....This isn't Camelot...This country will ALWAYS be a racist country...just my :twocents: though...
:joint1:
whiskeytango

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

I disagree with this. Affirmative action still has it's place. Infact if anything, it should be expanded beyond race. I don't believe companies should be forced to participate in affirmative action but get tax breaks if they do.

Many jobs out there don't hire "the best person out there." They hire the best looking, their best friend, a certain personality they like. Do a salary comparison between fit people and fat people and you'll notice such a skew in salary. Fat women earn 17% less than their fit peers.

"Economists Susan Averett and Sanders Korenman studied the effects of obesity on wages, using a sample consisting of individuals aged 16-24 in 1981 who were 23-31 in 1988. They showed that women who were obese according to their Body Mass Index (BMI) in both 1981 and 1988 earned 17 percent lower wages on average than women within their recommended BMI range. However, women who became obese between those two survey years earned only slightly less than women of recommended BMI. When comparing by race, the authors found a wage penalty for obesity among white women but no significant penalty for black women. Among white men, they found a much lower wage penalty for obesity than for their white female counterparts. A small positive relationship was actually found between obese black men and wages."

The Regional Economist

Goes to show, affirmative action should be expanded.

---

First, I totally agree with you it should not be law.
People should be free to discriminate if they choose to.

Second,
I bet all those "fatties" had "really nice personalities!":D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

Goes to show, affirmative action should be expanded.

---

the concept of affirmative action was flawed to begin with. the intent may seem laudable, but the results have been nothing short of laughable. in an attempt to change the longstanding views of the old boys' club, it has merely strengthened the resolve of those ignorant enough to believe that "the darkies should be kept in their place" and "a woman's place is in the kitchen and the bedroom" and perpetuated the stereotype of the whining minority. the heavy hand of government is far too clumsy to succeed at such social engineering and its duty is to enforce existing rights, not to repair the people's flawed morality.

it is the people's place to adjust their own morality and delegating that responsibility to a collection of petty bureaucrats is merely another way in which we run away from our own duties. attempting to legislate morality has always led to the sort of excess shown in the above quote. there will always be those who feel they are being unfairly discriminated against and there will always be those who are willing to take up their cause.

sooo....mccain supports the right for a state to make its own laws in direct opposition to federal law?...interesting:wtf:

be nice if he could expand that theory towards other old, pointless, expensive to enforce laws.:thumbsup:

db:smokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity

the concept of affirmative action was flawed to begin with. the intent may seem laudable, but the results have been nothing short of laughable. in an attempt to change the longstanding views of the old boys' club, it has merely strengthened the resolve of those ignorant enough to believe that "the darkies should be kept in their place" and "a woman's place is in the kitchen and the bedroom" and perpetuated the stereotype of the whining minority. the heavy hand of government is far too clumsy to succeed at such social engineering and its duty is to enforce existing rights, not to repair the people's flawed morality.

it is the people's place to adjust their own morality and delegating that responsibility to a collection of petty bureaucrats is merely another way in which we run away from our own duties. attempting to legislate morality has always led to the sort of excess shown in the above quote. there will always be those who feel they are being unfairly discriminated against and there will always be those who are willing to take up their cause.

---

If there wasn't demand for government, the government would have never gotten bigger and more powerful. If everyone could manage their own morality, their own behavior in ways which is respectful to all, there would be no purpose for government. People kill, people steal, people are animals. Complex and intelligent but still animals. We fight for territory, we fight for those most similar to us. What makes you think people can handle themselves in an uncontrolled environment?

I don't see how the results are laughable. The results have been pretty damn good. We don't have a joke of Affirmative Action like various countries in Europe, in which the quotas are fair. We have a large minority population that are more educated and have access to good jobs, which helps lessen the effects of racism. Racism is a natural human behavior which needs to be regulated because has been shown time and time again that most individuals can't govern themselves without affecting the lives of others.

Look at the concept "reverse-racism." Why is it even addressed in such a way? Wouldn't it just be racism? You fire someone because they exceeded a quota based on race? The majority want to be seperated from the struggles of minories. They'll always be racism in one form or another.

Without affirmative action, there would be no equal opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

Without affirmative action, there would be no equal opportunity.

---

Disagree completely, doesn't affirmative action mean favour someone because of their race? If you want your equal utopia it's laws like this that are standing in the way and contradicting your entire philosophy. No one should have anything other looked at than their qualifications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

If there wasn't demand for government, the government would have never gotten bigger and more powerful. If everyone could manage their own morality, their own behavior in ways which is respectful to all, there would be no purpose for government. People kill, people steal, people are animals. Complex and intelligent but still animals. We fight for territory, we fight for those most similar to us. What makes you think people can handle themselves in an uncontrolled environment?

---

thcbongman, this isn't really an argument agains what DelusionsofNormality was saying. He said it's the government's place to uphold citizen's rights, not police subjective morality. The duties of government you just described are about upholding rights. Every single basic human right is a factor based in morality, but the "moral policing" going on today isn't a matter of human rights, it's a matter government discrimination against a particular group (in this case, white people). You say "people kill, people steal", and these things are prevented by law because it's a basic human right not to have your property stolen, and a basic right not to have your life taken from you. It is not a basic human right to be discriminated or given an advantage based on your race. Killing, stealing, assault; freedom from these is guaranteed to all people. Affirmative action is guaranteed to select few, which is completely against the spirit of equallity and fairness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fugitive

Disagree completely, doesn't affirmative action mean favour someone because of their race? If you want your equal utopia it's laws like this that are standing in the way and contradicting your entire philosophy. No one should have anything other looked at than their qualifications.

---

Affirmative Action isn't about race. It's about gender, veteran and handicap status as well. It isn't about an equal utopia because the world was made to be unfair. To say there is this notion of equality of ridiculous. Some people are born more beautiful, stronger, etc. than the other. It's keeping the level field, ensuring people of all backgrounds competitive fairness. Companies don't only hire based on qualifications only even if there wasn't any affirmative action. It's such a simplistic view of a companies individual needs. Dispel this notion that they hire "the best person out there." That's because the best person is usually expensive. They might need an employee on the cheap. They might need one with a certain personality. Companies can hire who the hell they want.

People are still human still influenced by a culture where less than 40 years ago, it was one of the most racist states in the world. Why do people propose to remove one of the controls, a piece of legislation that did the most to help minorities intergrate into white, American culture? The scope should be narrowed to only making hiring choices based on the scope of the job duties itself which is what Affirmative Action ensures, hiring people within the quota. Sure, once in a while some high-paid white dude gets cut because the company needed to lower cost, but that's more of the fact the guy gets overpaid than the fact he's white. In turn white guy accuses using affirmative action as an excuse he's firing rather than the fact he's expense to the company was a liability. There are some instances where a company had to make a choice based on race regarding employees of the same pay-grade, which results in discrimination. Doing away with the control isn't the solution to it.

Affirmative action isn't perfect, it needs redefinition of quotas to factor it in on a local level. It also does not account for a variety of factors that influence hiring decisions such as cost, company culture and simply an excuse for a human emotional anger at not being hired. However it's shown time and time again that in a completely uncontrolled environment, humans will revert back to the animal-pack mentality.

Quote:

---

"thcbongman, this isn't really an argument agains what DelusionsofNormality was saying. He said it's the government's place to uphold citizen's rights, not police subjective morality. The duties of government you just described are about upholding rights. Every single basic human right is a factor based in morality, but the "moral policing" going on today isn't a matter of human rights, it's a matter government discrimination against a particular group (in this case, white people). You say "people kill, people steal", and these things are prevented by law because it's a basic human right not to have your property stolen, and a basic right not to have your life taken from you. It is not a basic human right to be discriminated or given an advantage based on your race. Killing, stealing, assault; freedom from these is guaranteed to all people. Affirmative action is guaranteed to select few, which is completely against the spirit of equallity and fairness.

---

I don't see what's so subjective about the right not to be discriminated being a human right. History has shown many companies made hiring choices based on race. Look at other countries in the world without affirmative action programs and people are denied opportunity based on discrimination. Rather than doing away with a control, affirmative action, it should be tweaked to fix the favortism, this "guarantee" that sometimes happens. Which is why I think only school and companies that want to participate on affirmative action can do so in exchange for a fair tax break that does not disparge companies/schools into forced compliance. Percentages should not be fixed but variable because of an ever-changing population.. The standards of the school should be accounted in the formula to not accept people sub-standard of their criteria.

Without controls, a group of people may never get hired. The group that affirmative action benefits the most isn't blacks like most people here think. It's the handicap which has a vast disadvantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

Affirmative Action isn't about race. It's about gender, veteran and handicap status as well.

---

Affirmative action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

The term affirmative action describes policies aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically, minority men or women of all racial groups) intended to promote its access to education or employment. Motivation for affirmative action is a desire to redress effects of actual or perceived, past or current discrimination that is regarded as unfair.[who?] It also serves to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals and police forces to be more representative of the population[1].

---

You didn't notice the "as well" part? :rolleyes:

So white males have an advantage because they are white males? We're all equal but some are more equal? Well I still think it's a ludicrously contradicting policy brought by the minions of political correctness. Any way no need to keep arguing about that since weâ??re not going to agree, my question is what do you suggest once minorityâ??s hit 50%?

CBS News Video - Top Stories and Video News Clips at CBSNews.com

Yeah, John Kennedy, that minion of political correctness. I'll accept since the majority of you are white, that getting rid of affirmative action would benefit you all slightly making jobs and slots less competitive, theres no doubt why you are for it. After all if minorities were hired fairly in the first place, there would never been a need for affirmative action.

And the video you have shown should emphasize why affirmative action would still be needed if whites become a minority population. Affirmative action quotas are flexible and reflect on an ever-changing population. There could be a few tweaks to the system to allow more exemptions to exceed quotas like in instance of having a choice to retain a superior candidate to a far inferior one.

All human life isn't equal and it'll never be. No matter how many dream about it. It's regulations such as this that ensures a more equal playing field for all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

If there wasn't demand for government, the government would have never gotten bigger and more powerful. If everyone could manage their own morality, their own behavior in ways which is respectful to all, there would be no purpose for government. People kill, people steal, people are animals. Complex and intelligent but still animals. We fight for territory, we fight for those most similar to us. What makes you think people can handle themselves in an uncontrolled environment?

I don't see how the results are laughable. The results have been pretty damn good. We don't have a joke of Affirmative Action like various countries in Europe, in which the quotas are fair. We have a large minority population that are more educated and have access to good jobs, which helps lessen the effects of racism. Racism is a natural human behavior which needs to be regulated because has been shown time and time again that most individuals can't govern themselves without affecting the lives of others.

Look at the concept "reverse-racism." Why is it even addressed in such a way? Wouldn't it just be racism? You fire someone because they exceeded a quota based on race? The majority want to be seperated from the struggles of minories. They'll always be racism in one form or another.

Without affirmative action, there would be no equal opportunity.

---

That is CRAP. Discrimination is illegal based on race, whether there is affirmative action or not. Quotas only give opportunity to the LESS QUALIFIED.

No disrespect intended, bongman but, you never hired anybody have you????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McDanger

That is CRAP. Discrimination is illegal based on race, whether there is affirmative action or not. Quotas only give opportunity to the LESS QUALIFIED.

---

You are basically insinuating that minorities are less qualified. Most companies aren't hard pressed to find qualified candidates with the selected quotas. Affirmative Action may have some flaws where exceptions happen pertaining to small businesses but overall it's been great for integrating minorities into US society.

Just having anti-discrimination laws only invokes theory and idealness. It's extremely hard for anyone to prove discrimination. With affirmative action, it turns theory into fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McDanger

No disrespect intended, bongman but, you never hired anybody have you????

---

I was never in a position of manager where I had to select the candidates itself, but I worked in HR as a coordinator for incumbent captures, so I'm aware of the various issues that arises in the hiring process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

You are basically insinuating that minorities are less qualified.

---

No you and affirmative action are, why not make it illegal to not hire the most qualified person instead?

Alls I gots to say broham is WOO HOO!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fugitive

No you and affirmative action are, why not make it illegal to not hire the most qualified person instead?

---

Sensitive, aren't we that you have to result to something personal? Or did that quote strike a chord?

The fact is whites tend to have higher salaries so when a company needs to trim their budget, who do you think they look at? The higher paid guys? They tend to get cut and blame affirmative action. Sure they are exceptions when reverse discrimination happens, but ask yourself, how often does this happen? Heck, I'll let one of you anti-affirmative action people come up with these facts to prove me wrong.

The question you ask is absurd. The most qualified person tend to be the one asking for the most money. Companies hire the most qualified person for the job within their price range so that person they end up hiring isn't "the most qualified."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

I agree. Affirmative action did have its place in the past but for the last few years its become a joke.

So now instead of giving an equal chance to everyone, it now discriminates against white people. Colleges and jobs now have to give up seats for minorities who might not have the credentials so the government can come in and say everythings "fair and equal". Otherwise these schools and businesses lose funding.

I feel that minorities bitch and moan that things aren't "fair" and that white people are constantly pointing out their race. But then later use their race as an advantage.

Either your in or your out. Pick a side people.

(And I must point out that if a minority is indeed more superior for a job (which many are) they obviously should get it over someone who doesn't, whether they be white, black, brown, whatever.)

---

I totally agree with this post although I believe affirmative action should have never been put in place in the first place. I am also in a position where I do all the hiring and firing for my shift and its no easy job, especially when you get to know people personally and there families. Now I just try and keep my distance and never get to close to our employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

I agree. Affirmative action did have its place in the past but for the last few years its become a joke.

So now instead of giving an equal chance to everyone, it now discriminates against white people. Colleges and jobs now have to give up seats for minorities who might not have the credentials so the government can come in and say everythings "fair and equal". Otherwise these schools and businesses lose funding.

I feel that minorities bitch and moan that things aren't "fair" and that white people are constantly pointing out their race. But then later use their race as an advantage.

Either your in or your out. Pick a side people.

(And I must point out that if a minority is indeed more superior for a job (which many are) they obviously should get it over someone who doesn't, whether they be white, black, brown, whatever.)

---

so wait, what if we *gasp* stop hiring underqualified, unintelligent, and lazy people?! naaah it's too far fetched :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

so wait, what if we *gasp* stop hiring underqualified, unintelligent, and lazy people?! naaah it's too far fetched :rolleyes:

---

Cmon, say the rest coward. Which group of lazy, underqualified, unintelligent people do you refer to? Blacks? Latinos? Say it.

Utterly unbelieveable, a bunch of stoners that have a perception that the majority of minorities are underqualified and lazy like you opened a republican political ideologue book and repeat what they say. Most of all, you all are so politically correct that you say these applicants are underqualified and lazy, but fail to mention their race. Goddamn sickening and cowardly.

Heads up....this thread is starting to take a bit of a turn. This is a hot subject so watch how ya step. Lets keep this to discussing the issue and avoid racism at all cost. Thanks much!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

I want the SOB to say it. He already implied that people who benefit from affirmative action are "underqualified, untelligent, and lazy people." He should finish the damn sentence and not be such a (0) coward.

Since that comment is allowed and praised by all, I'm going to start ignorantly stereotyping, see how you fucks feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

I want the SOB to say it. He already implied that people who benefit from affirmative action are "underqualified, untelligent, and lazy people." He should finish the damn sentence and not be such a (0) coward.

Since that comment is allowed and praised by all, I'm going to start ignorantly stereotyping, see how you fucks feel.

---

You're still wrong. I don't believe he meant blacks, whites, latinos, asians, or any ethnic group in that. Hire the most qualified. If it happens to end up being a company that's 99% white, so be it.


Every you think of Affirmative Action, ask yourself this:

Do I approve of Affirmative Action?
and
Do I believe in equality of all races and getting the best man for the job?

If you answered 'yes' to both questions, you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. You cannot support one race over another because of quotas and past injustices and expect equality. You're actively fighting against equality.

I have to hope Stoner Shadow Wolf was referring to real qualifications, too, but only he can answer that and I don't really think most people could give a real, honest answer on this topic because it's a potential racial minefield to give anything other than a standard "I'm unbiased" answer.

DaBudha, THCBongman's not supporting one race over another because of quotas as a result of past injustices. He's aware of the very real injustices and inequalities that still exist in hiring practices and the job market. They still do. He's worked a lot more closely to the HR process than most people and has had in depth training in this topic, which is an eye-opener.

I don't know what I think about affirmative action, to be honest. I certainly believe in equal opportunity employment for all and think folks ought to be hired based on qualifications. I interviewed and hired people for a long time when I was working professionally, and the training we received on skills-based interviewing and non-discriminatory hiring practices has made me think long and hard about biases that exist almost unconsciously in hiring decisions (and in school admittance decisions, too). I do know this. Racial attitudes haven't come as far as they need to, and whether everyone admits it or not, surveys about hiring and racial bias consistently prove that.

I agree with P4B. This thread has taken a heated turn and seems to be threatening to devolve into an ugly-fest, which is too bad. It's an important discussion. If we have to, we'll close it up to pre-empt any more ugliness. Hope we don't have to do that, however.