Reproductive rights

[scott]

One day, when they find Wild Cobra in the backwoods of Oregon wearing a skinsuit, playing Kansas songs on a xylophone made of human bones and teeth with a hundred rotting moose carcases in the background... we're all going to look back on this thread and think "Wow, he was right. We really didn't understand him."

[Wild Cobra]

So you think the playing field is level BEFORE affirmative action?

When the program started a half century ago, no. Today yes. As level as it can be for anyone.

[Wild Cobra]

One day, when they find Wild Cobra in the backwoods of Oregon wearing a skinsuit, playing Kansas songs on a xylophone made of human bones and teeth with a hundred rotting moose carcases in the background... we're all going to look back on this thread and think "Wow, he was right. We really didn't understand him."

I feel sorry for you fantasizing about me in a skinsuit.

[LnGrrrR]

When the program started a half century ago, no. Today yes. As level as it can be for anyone.

If the playing field is level, why do minorities fare so poorly in some instances? For instance, why are they represented in jails, in poorer neighborhoods, etc etc much more than their numbers would suggest?

[ChumpDumper]

If the playing field is level, why do minorities fare so poorly in some instances? For instance, why are they represented in jails, in poorer neighborhoods, etc etc much more than their numbers would suggest?

Obviously not enough have had their tubes tied yet.

[Wild Cobra]

If the playing field is level, why do minorities fare so poorly in some instances? For instance, why are they represented in jails, in poorer neighborhoods, etc etc much more than their numbers would suggest?

Please now.

A level playing field for the same qualifications. Do you want a quota systems for jails too, where we find ways of incarcerating more whites, or less blacks?

What you ask has to do with factors outside of equal opportunity for equal merit.

[CuckingFunt]

Please now.

A level playing field for the same qualifications. Do you want a quota systems for jails too, where we find ways of incarcerating more whites, or less blacks?

What you ask has to do with factors outside of equal opportunity for equal merit.

That did not, in any way, answer the questions asked.

[Wild Cobra]

That did not, in any way, answer the questions asked.

It deserves it's own thread. So does this other tangent we went off on.

[ChumpDumper]

Jesus, you're authoritarian when it comes to thread topics, too.

[TE]

Wrong.

I am aware of how affirmative action was originally intended, and how it later became a quota system. It is only the quota system aspect I am against.

Please...

I know you aren't that stupid. Why are you applying reason that isn't true against me? Are you bigoted against me?

I simply used an example with the word "if." You can assign all the incorrect meaning to my words you want. I'm sorry you have such a closed mind and are incapable of thinking outside the box. My example was to show the harm affirmative action does. It does not mean I think blacks are inferior. It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, but to assign such meaning to my words.

Go yourself .

I wonder.

What type of evil are you?

I have explained that several times, yet you are unwilling to give me the benefit of doubt. How is it you can be so ing positive that I am as you assume. Do you have such a pathetic life, you have to try to make others look worse?

[TE]

Oh god. What did I just read?

[CuckingFunt]

Right?

[ElNono]

[LnGrrrR]

Double post

[LnGrrrR]

A level playing field for the same qualifications. Do you want a quota systems for jails too, where we find ways of incarcerating more whites, or less blacks?

I think you missed my point. Do you think that all job candidates come from the same backgrounds, have the same resources available to them?

As I have mentioned before, let's look at real life example. When the NFL ins uted a rule mandating interviews with minorities, the number of black coaches increased significantly in just a few years. Why would this be the case?

Remember, this rule didn't even implement a quota hiring system, just an interview. Why do you think there were more black head coaches after the rule was implemented? Do you think it was just a coincidence that the rule was implemented right when a few quality minority coaching candidates popped up?

[John Basedow]

Holy what a classic thread

R.I.P. Wild Cobra

[ElNono]

See, I think Cobra is missing a beautiful opportunity to further self-sustenance and the libertarian spirit by urging social cleansing instead of modestly proposing that those who depend on upon the government for their sustenance take advantage of the ready-made food source that their copious reproduction affords. Swiftly, I think, the drain on public resources could be eradicated.

[Wild Cobra]

I think you missed my point. Do you think that all job candidates come from the same backgrounds, have the same resources available to them?

Absolutely not. Still, the best candidate should get the position.

As I have mentioned before, let's look at real life example. When the NFL ins uted a rule mandating interviews with minorities, the number of black coaches increased significantly in just a few years. Why would this be the case?

Great. This was what affirmative action started as. See, it works without using quota systems.

Damn, I wee thread topic are screwed up again.

What does this have to do with instilling responsibility for ones own actions?

Remember, this rule didn't even implement a quota hiring system, just an interview. Why do you think there were more black head coaches after the rule was implemented? Do you think it was just a coincidence that the rule was implemented right when a few quality minority coaching candidates popped up?

I will say again. Great. This was what affirmative action started as. See, it works without using quota systems.

I have no problems with affirmative action as long as quota systems are not used.

[Wild Cobra]

holy what a classic thread

r.i.p. Wild cobra

rip?

[RandomGuy]

What if...

What if we changed the laws so that anyone getting pregnant that didn't have a proper financial future could be subject to legal recourse?

I'm thinking something along two basic ideas. First of all, those who depend on the state to raise their children, that they were irresponsible to have to begin with. Would it be too much to mandate both the man and women have their tubes snipped if they cannot attempt and make their own finances work? If they cannot support one child, why should society bear the cost of a second? Wouldn't two operations be cheaper than another child?

The second idea has to do with abortions. Same basic idea though. If the government is to pay for an abortion, why not tie the woman's tubes too? We can make the normal rape and incest exceptions, but legal papers must be signed, and if later proven wrong... Well perjury is a crime too!

Let the flames begin!

So... you would punish people who can't "afford" to have kids by taking their kids away?

Who gets to decide what "afford" means?

What happens if you have a child, then lose a job and can't "afford" the kid then?

For a libertarian, you certainly seem to want to give a rather large amount of authority and power to the Federal Government. Maybe we should just rebrand you as a fascist? Not trying to be glib or add to the flamage, but I am not sure how one would describe a "libertarian" who wants to vastly scope up the power of the central government. Let me know what you prefer.

[Wild Cobra]

So... you would punish people who can't "afford" to have kids by taking their kids away?

I never said that. I think we need to discourage people from having kids who cannot afford them. If they are incapable of exercising responsibility, and place a burden on society, then shouldn't society be able to say enough? No more?

Who gets to decide what "afford" means?

If they can provide by their own means or not.

What happens if you have a child, then lose a job and can't "afford" the kid then?

That's what safety nets are for. If a couple had children and were responsible going in to it, then they shouldn't be punished for cir stances beyond their control. Now I would expect they didn't have more kids in the meantime, until they can support their own family again without assistance.

For a libertarian, you certainly seem to want to give a rather large amount of authority and power to the Federal Government.

Actually, I want the opposite. I am simply of the belief that all recipients of tax dollars need to be responsible for wise spending. I wish we could have utopia, but I know that will never be. Anyone who chooses to use other peoples money need to be held accountable some how. I believe it shouldn't be an easy way of life, to live on other peoples money. It needs to be discouraged hard enough that people decide to do all they can to work rather than take.

Maybe we should just rebrand you as a fascist?

Why? I only think those irresponsible need it instilled upon them. If they do not agree to the terms of using other people's money, let them go without.

Not trying to be glib or add to the flamage, but I am not sure how one would describe a "libertarian" who wants to vastly scope up the power of the central government. Let me know what you prefer.

My intent is to make it such that people don't want to be on the take from the government.

[ElNono]

If they are incapable of exercising responsibility, and place a burden on society, then shouldn't society be able to say enough? No more?

'incapable of exercising responsibility' applies to equally to politicians, wall street bankers, subsidized Industries, etc etc etc.

Yet, I only see you ing about the poor...

[Wild Cobra]

'incapable of exercising responsibility' applies to equally to politicians, wall street bankers, subsidized Industries, etc etc etc.

Yet, I only see you ing about the poor...

You're wrong. Look again in the related threads.

[Winehole23]

Or you could just speak for yourself in this one.

[Wild Cobra]

Or you could just speak for yourself in this one.

Why do you want to change the subject? Starting to agree with me, but don't want to admit it by chance?