Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions and says race cannot be a factor

  • Thread starter Thread starter psychodave
  • Start date Start date
Just read something interesting:

Isn't legacy admissions a form of wealth based affirmative action?

If I earn my way in, and I'm rich, my kids get in on a first dibs basis regardless their of academic achievements.

Should legacy admissions be barred also?
It's extremely discriminatory.
 
Strandberg Junkie said:
Just read something interesting:

Isn't legacy admissions a form of wealth based affirmative action?

If I earn my way in, and I'm rich, my kids get in on a first dibs basis regardless their of academic achievements.

Should legacy admissions be barred also?
It's extremely discriminatory.
Click to expand...
I think it's okay to buy your kids way in via paying for building or stadium as long as you don't bribe the rowing team's coach.

For what it's worth, if I had the ambition and talent to be a high powered executive, I wouldn't hire any rich kids from Ivy League schools unless they started in the custodial/maintenance department and earned the respect of the maintenance crew.
 
Strandberg Junkie said:
Just read something interesting:

Isn't legacy admissions a form of wealth based affirmative action?

If I earn my way in, and I'm rich, my kids get in on a first dibs basis regardless their of academic achievements.

Should legacy admissions be barred also?
It's extremely discriminatory.
Click to expand...
The Constitution has been read to bar discrimination based upon race.
It does not (yet) prevent discrimination based upon looks, kinship, wealth, friendship.
Don't get me wrong, there are no doubt thousands if not millions of so-called progressives that would like the power to tell you that you cannot hire or promote your loser brother because he needs a job and could probably manage.
Instead, they want the power to decide that instead you should be forced to hire/promote/admit to school/ etc., some black guy because of "inequity."
But for now at least, that is not the case.
 
Strandberg Junkie said:
How about a redneck spin?
giphy.gif
Click to expand...

 
Bluesuede said:
I don't know how factually correct that article is but is a thought provoking one that elevates the forum as opposed to a response saying "do what I think is right or GTFO" or a homophobic slur. Thank you.
Click to expand...
100% factual. And one of many examples where Supreme Court justices cherry pick - or distort - or repeat lies as facts - to support a legal position. They all do it on occasion. It is reprehensible in every case. And because they all do it - does not mean that it is anything less than despicable in these cases, particularly as they go to the heart of such contentious issues.
 
Prof. Lawnchair said:
100% factual. And one of many examples where Supreme Court justices cherry pick - or distort - or repeat lies as facts - to support a legal position. They all do it on occasion. It is reprehensible in every case. And because they all do it - does not mean that it is anything less than despicable in these cases, particularly as they go to the heart of such contentious issues.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt it and I whole heartedly agree on how reprehensible it is.
 
Fuck the 14th amendment.

Soldiers?
Wait, let's make an exception......

Reprehensible is too nice a word.
 
Strandberg Junkie said:
Fuck the 14th amendment.

Soldiers?
Wait, let's make an exception......

Reprehensible is too nice a word.
Click to expand...
Here's a thought............you're so bent outta shape on many things so WHY don't YOU run for office. For real.....

Pete Buttplug did it so there's hope YOU could do it too........for real.

Imagine.............lying and getting paid for it and able to legally go after your opposition.........it's a Dem's wet dream I tell you.

Think about how many Strandbergs and Boogies you could have...maybe even get an endorsement because YOU could be trusted spreading honest goodwill about a product you got for free.

By my estimation and expectation YOU could surpass Adam Schiff.
 
YabbaDabbaDoo said:
Here's a thought............you're so bent outta shape on many things so WHY don't YOU run for office. For real.....

Pete Buttplug did it so there's hope YOU could do it too........for real.

Imagine.............lying and getting paid for it and able to legally go after your opposition.........it's a Dem's wet dream I tell you.

Think about how many Strandbergs and Boogies you could have...maybe even get an endorsement because YOU could be trusted spreading honest goodwill about a product you got for free.

By my estimation and expectation YOU could surpass Adam Schiff.
Click to expand...
Off topic, but did you completely retire the “Bagman” handle?
 
Strandberg Junkie said:
Fuck the 14th amendment.

Soldiers?
Wait, let's make an exception......

Reprehensible is too nice a word.
Click to expand...
I have not read the decision yet but am troubled by the distinction that exempts the military - I will advise my thoughts after I have looked into it further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top