Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Alexandria Ocasoi-Cortez - Needs her own thread.....


swordfish

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Sure there are issues in the rest of the world, but I think what you are missing in the statement is that she's claiming that there are AMERICANS who have not experienced the American Prosperity.  When you look at the separation that's happening and the decline of the middle class and issues like, between 1973 and 2017, the productivity of the economy has grown 73% while compensation has only increased under 13%, then she's not fully off point in that comment.

http://fortune.com/longform/shrinking-middle-class-math/

 

And Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's push for full on 'democratic' socialism is supposed to grow "American Prosperity", aka the middle class?    Socialism kills prosperity, kills the middle class:  https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/25/5-ways-socialism-destroys-societies-n1800086

Quote

...

Strong economic growth is what produces jobs, tax revenue and a better standard of living for everyone, including the poor and middle class. That's what John F. Kennedy was driving at when he said, "A rising tide (in the economy) lifts all boats." Socialism strangles economic growth in the crib by penalizing success and rewarding failure. When you loot the successful people in a society to give it to the less successful, you quite naturally reduce the number of successful people and encourage more people to fail. This leads to a never-ending cycle. The more people in need there are, the more the successful must be penalized to pay for them. The more the successful are penalized, the fewer successful people there are. This causes wealth to concentrate in fewer hands, the economy slows down, and even more people need help. It goes on and on until you get a slow economy that can't produce enough tax revenue to sustain itself. That's exactly what killed the Soviet Union, it's killing Greece right now and sadly, the United States and most of Western Europe is on exactly the same path.

...

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's push for full on 'democratic' socialism is supposed to grow "American Prosperity", aka the middle class?    Socialism kills prosperity, kills the middle class:  https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/25/5-ways-socialism-destroys-societies-n1800086

 

Yes, we know that socialism is the boogeyman, but it doesn't address the fact that she's not wrong that there are Americans who have not shared in that American Prosperity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Sure there are issues in the rest of the world, but I think what you are missing in the statement is that she's claiming that there are AMERICANS who have not experienced the American Prosperity.  When you look at the separation that's happening and the decline of the middle class and issues like, between 1973 and 2017, the productivity of the economy has grown 73% while compensation has only increased under 13%, then she's not fully off point in that comment.

http://fortune.com/longform/shrinking-middle-class-math/

 

You are comparing the US kids of today with the US kids of yesterday Fox.  Again - visit almost any nation in the world, and compare their standard of living with the US.  Ms. AOC, growing up in NYC, attending Boston U, when she states "I have never seen that, or experienced that in my adult life" tells SF she needs a dose of reality, she grew up in American Prosperity and now cannot see it for what it is. 

It warms SF's heart to see his kids (an English teacher and an accountant) living their lives and worrying about paying rent, cell phones, car insurance and wireless internet, all the while actually appreciating what their mother and I did bringing them up, because now they get it, and understand how well we are doing in this country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, swordfish said:

You are comparing the US kids of today with the US kids of yesterday Fox.  Again - visit almost any nation in the world, and compare their standard of living with the US.  Ms. AOC, growing up in NYC, attending Boston U, when she states "I have never seen that, or experienced that in my adult life" tells SF she needs a dose of reality, she grew up in American Prosperity and now cannot see it for what it is. 

It warms SF's heart to see his kids (an English teacher and an accountant) living their lives and worrying about paying rent, cell phones, car insurance and wireless internet, all the while actually appreciating what their mother and I did bringing them up, because now they get it, and understand how well we are doing in this country. 

AOC talked about a generation of voters who have not shared in the American Prosperity.  The 73% productivity of the economy coupled with the roughly 13% in compensation has come over the past 40 years or so ... or two generations.  The two generations at play have seen a declining impact/influence of the American Prosperity ... the first generation is roughly 20 right now and the second would be roughly 40.  US kids today are watching the issues that their parents have impacting them.  Yes, I get the fact that in the rest of the world, the standard of living is lower in several places, but the statement that she made is about Americans in America, not Americans in the rest of the world.  It's similar to when some who is gay complains about not being treated equally when applying for housing in the US and some one says to them, "Shut up because if you were in Saudi Arabia you would be killed for being gay."  The issue isn't about how they WOULD fair ELSEWHERE, but how they fair WHERE THEY ARE. 

For the past, almost 20 years, at a minimum, especially in the mid-west, that prosperity hasn't been recognized by the voting populace.  If it was, then Trump wouldn't likely have won.  Recall that he talked about how bad of shape the country was in and how people were stealing all of the jobs and how folks couldn't get by.  Obviously there must be MANY who bought into that.  If everyone was sharing in the prosperity, then there wouldn't have been a need to have made America great again, right?  Having worked with the homeless, and knowing some personally and hearing their stories, I would be hard pressed to say that the idea of Americans not sharing in America's Prosperity is something that I could buy into as a false idea.  There are many that get to share, but there are also many who don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, foxbat said:

Yes, we know that socialism is the boogeyman, but it doesn't address the fact that she's not wrong that there are Americans who have not shared in that American Prosperity.

 

And exactly whose fault is that, foxbat?  Is everybody supposed to share in that American Prosperity?

 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, foxbat said:

For the past, almost 20 years, at a minimum, especially in the mid-west, that prosperity hasn't been recognized by the voting populace.  

Looks pretty good in our neck of the mid-west:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INTIPP7URN

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INCLIN3URN

And I don't understand your fascination with the word "sharing" when it comes to "American Prosperity".  Can you please elaborate?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And exactly whose fault is that, foxbat?  Is everybody supposed to share in that American Prosperity?

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Looks pretty good in our neck of the mid-west:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INTIPP7URN

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INCLIN3URN

And I don't understand your fascination with the word "sharing" when it comes to "American Prosperity".  Can you please elaborate?

 

 

 

When some 40 million people struggle with having enough to eat, then there are folks that are not sharing in that American Prosperity.  For a country with the resources and abilities that we do, it's not something to write home about.  Yes, I understand that no one owes anyone anything in your eyes and that the world isn't fair, but that's not something that I subscribe to nor how I live my life in dealing with people.  Yes, there are folks that have "dug their own graves," but in my work with the less-fortunate, I've come across many that aren't in the position that are in out of their own ignorance, laziness, etc.  There are also many that still end up being excluded from or restricted in the education, housing, employment, etc. opportunities because of issues like redlining.  In my somewhat longish life, I've come across so many instances where I reflect, "There but by the grace of God go I," that I attempt where possible to help open doors, give a leg up, etc.  Yes, I know you don't believe in God, but that doesn't exclude the idea of altruism and recognition sometimes being in the right place at the right time sometimes tips the scales.  When there are items in place that tend to impede that, especially in a country with the resources and opportunity that we have as a whole, it becomes a lost chance for a badge of honor for the country.  Dostoevsky is quoted as saying, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."  I also think similarly that is reflected in the access of of its citizenry to the prosperity of the country.

There's no "fascination" in the word "sharing" ...  most likely it triggers the socialism boogeyman Bat Signal.  Sharing in this case is nothing more than an all-encompassing item that includes items like access to, opportunity, and yes, even in some case, the dreaded actual presentation of aid.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, foxbat said:

 

When some 40 million people struggle with having enough to eat, then there are folks that are not sharing in that American Prosperity.  For a country with the resources and abilities that we do, it's not something to write home about.  Yes, I understand that no one owes anyone anything in your eyes and that the world isn't fair, but that's not something that I subscribe to nor how I live my life in dealing with people.  Yes, there are folks that have "dug their own graves," but in my work with the less-fortunate, I've come across many that aren't in the position that are in out of their own ignorance, laziness, etc.  There are also many that still end up being excluded from or restricted in the education, housing, employment, etc. opportunities because of issues like redlining.  In my somewhat longish life, I've come across so many instances where I reflect, "There but by the grace of God go I," that I attempt where possible to help open doors, give a leg up, etc.  Yes, I know you don't believe in God, but that doesn't exclude the idea of altruism and recognition sometimes being in the right place at the right time sometimes tips the scales.  When there are items in place that tend to impede that, especially in a country with the resources and opportunity that we have as a whole, it becomes a lost chance for a badge of honor for the country.  Dostoevsky is quoted as saying, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."  I also think similarly that is reflected in the access of of its citizenry to the prosperity of the country.

There's no "fascination" in the word "sharing" ...  most likely it triggers the socialism boogeyman Bat Signal.  Sharing in this case is nothing more than an all-encompassing item that includes items like access to, opportunity, and yes, even in some case, the dreaded actual presentation of aid.  

Share all you want foxbat, just don't use the force of government to compel others to do that same.  

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your bleeding heart, throwaway statistic of 40 million "hungry" Americans:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/08/usda-hunger-charade-food-insecurity-column/71880492/

Quote

The Agriculture Department announced this morning that 48 million Americans live in "food insecure" households. Soon you’ll hear we’re suffering an epidemic of hunger. While the federal government is already feeding more than 100 million Americans, we’ll be told that it just isn’t enough.

But it isn’t true. “Food insecurity” is a statistic designed to mislead. USDA defines food insecurity as being “uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food.”  USDA noted: “For most food-insecure households, the inadequacies were in the form of reduced quality and variety rather than insufficient quantity.”

The definition of “food insecure” includes anyone who frets about not being able to purchase food at any point. If someone states that they feared running out of food for a single day (but didn’t run out), that is an indicator of being “food insecure” for the entire year regardless of whether they ever missed a single meal. If someone wants organic kale but can afford only conventional kale, that is another “food insecure” indicator.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have criticized USDAfor how these statistics are contorted from a measure of household "security" into a misleading estimate that millions of individuals go hungry. After the 2009 USDA food security report was released, President Obama announced that “hunger rose significantly last year. ... My administration is committed to reversing the trend of rising hunger." The latest report will likely be heavily exploited  by Democratic presidential candidates and others who see a chance to burnish their benevolent image. (Sen. Bernie Sanders has claimed that “hunger is at an all-time high.”)

Private nonprofit organizations exploit USDA statistics to create a crisis atmosphere. Feeding America proclaimed September as Hunger Action Month, encouraging people to “take selfies while balancing orange spoons on their noses and sharing the photos, tagging their friends and challenging them to participate and raise awareness.” The North Carolina governor’s executive mansion was lit up with orangelast week to promote Hunger Action Month.

USDA food security reports, by creating the illusion of a national hunger epidemic, have helped propel a vast increase in federal food aid in recent years. But that has been a dietary disaster across the land. A Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics study concluded that “food insecure” adults are far more likely to be obese than “food secure” adults — indicating that a shortage of food is not the real health problem. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, “seven times as many (low-income) children are obese as are underweight.” President Obama proclaimed September as National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month.

Most federal food aid is poorly targeted to boost nutrition. Forty percent of food-stamp recipients are obese. And food-stamp recipients are far more likely to be obese than low-income Americans not on food stamps. A 2014 Stanford University study concluded that prohibiting the use of food stamps for sugary drinks would prevent 141,000 kids from becoming fat and save a quarter million adults from Type 2 diabetes, but the Obama administration fiercely resists any constraints on how food stamps are spent. When food stamps are distributed on weekends, recipients purchase up to 7% more beer during the month (even though beer is not covered by the stamps), according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research report.

The insecurity = hunger switcheroo  is also fueling campaigns to compel schools to give free breakfasts to all kids after school starts each day. An American Journal of Public Health study warned that such programs “may contribute to excess calorie intake;” the survey found that more than half of all kids participating in such programs eat twice in the morning. USDA’s nationwide 2012 School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study found that the average elementary school breakfast provided almost all of children’s daily recommended calories from solid fats and added sugars. Donuts continue to be a popular item on school breakfast menus.

Some Americans are going hungry but USDA has never attempted to create an accurate gauge to measure actual hunger. Instead, citizens are supposed to be satisfied with federal reports that are little more than a subsidy for political grandstanding. Unfortunately, bogus numbers rarely spawn good policies.

At Wal-Mart last night they were out of organic bananas, so I had to purchase the non-organic bananas.  According to the U.S. government that is "food insecurity."  Guess I'm now a statistic.  Where is my free stuff?

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.chicksonright.com/youngconservatives/2019/03/21/ocasio-cortez-is-outraged-fox-news-is-calling-her-a-stereotypical-hispanic-name-2/?fbclid=IwAR1k_xxfZLibfq46YmGDeg9lBrabMiBo-S4ct5s8Q9U8XbqSwM33gVpwgFk

Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to social media on Wednesday evening to flip out on Fox News. She alleged the network hosts were conspiratorially saying her last name wrong in order to scare some of their viewers.

The New York Democrat said in a series of tweets that Fox News hosts like Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity were saying only “Cortez” because “that sounds more stereotypically Hispanic and probably incites more anxiety for” viewers.

“Pro Tip,” she also said in the tweets. “My last name is not ‘Cortez,’ just as theirs isn’t ‘Ingra’ or ‘Carl’ or ‘Hann.’”

 

9 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

As for your bleeding heart, throwaway statistic of 40 million "hungry" Americans:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/08/usda-hunger-charade-food-insecurity-column/71880492/

At Wal-Mart last night they were out of organic bananas, so I had to purchase the non-organic bananas.  According to the U.S. government that is "food insecurity."  Guess I'm now a statistic.  Where is my free stuff?

FYI - all bananas (that grow on a tree) are "organic"......

Edited by swordfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, swordfish said:

FYI - all bananas (that grow on a tree) are "organic"......

Oh man,  you mean I'm being ripped of by paying about an extra 30 cents a pound for really no difference?  Where is government to stop this injustice?

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Oh man,  you mean I'm being ripped of by paying about an extra 30 cents a pound for really no difference?  Where is government to stop this injustice?

 

Not really Muda.......anything that is grown is by definition organic.......What you are wanting is probably something that you can feel reasonably assured is grown either pesticide-free or non-GMO, or some other "pure/natural" methodology......

Had this discussion 2 years ago at a Christmas party with a federal USDA inspector who was auditing the processes at my wife's company (a poultry company) to ensure they meet the requirements of the "level" of purity from hatch to grow-out to be able to put the "organic" label on the food they grow, slaughter and package.......In other words, it's all organic, it just has to meet certain requirements to be labeled organic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Not really Muda.......anything that is grown is by definition organic.......What you are wanting is probably something that you can feel reasonably assured is grown either pesticide-free or non-GMO, or some other "pure/natural" methodology......

Had this discussion 2 years ago at a Christmas party with a federal USDA inspector who was auditing the processes at my wife's company (a poultry company) to ensure they meet the requirements of the "level" of purity from hatch to grow-out to be able to put the "organic" label on the food they grow, slaughter and package.......In other words, it's all organic, it just has to meet certain requirements to be labeled organic.

Then why doesn't the label just say "organic" and not "pesticide-free", "non-GMO",  "pure", etc.?  Oh wait, it's government controlled.  Just answered my own question........

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Then why doesn't the label just say "organic" and not "pesticide-free", "non-GMO",  "pure", etc.?  Oh wait, it's government controlled.  Just answered my own question........

 

Oh it was enlightening.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ocasio-Cortez Calls For Radical Gun Ban, Champions Confiscation: https://www.dailywire.com/news/44971/ocasio-cortez-calls-radical-gun-ban-champions-ryan-saavedra

Quote

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called for banning all semi-automatic firearms on Thursday night after championing New Zealand's radical new gun control measures, which includes government confiscation of nearly all semi-automatic firearms.

The 29-year-old congresswoman tweeted on Wednesday: "Sandy Hook happened 6 years ago and we can’t even get the Senate to hold a vote on universal background checks w/ #HR8. Christchurch happened, and within days New Zealand acted to get weapons of war out of the consumer market."

Included in that tweet was a video of liberal New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announcing the new gun control laws.

"This is what leadership looks like," Ocasio-Cortez added.

Ardern specifically stated in that speech that the government was going to be confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens. Arden said:

In the meantime, we are asking all current holders of military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles to visit www.police.govt.nz. There they will find details of the weapons included in this ban. In the next 48 hours, a form will be available on this site that we are asking these gun owners to complete, identifying what banned guns they hold. The police will then arrange for these weapons to be handed over, and eventually destroyed. Details of the weapons handed back by owners that are covered by the ban will also be taken to ensure that fair and reasonable compensation is paid once the buyback is in place. If owners are unable to complete the online form, they are able to contact the police on the phone to arrange the handover of these now-banned guns...

...As the legislation is developed, we will determine the time available for the return of military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles, and the duration of the buyback scheme. I can assure people that there will be time for the returns to be made, and that they will not be criminalized overnight. After a reasonable period for returns, those who continue to possess these guns will be in contravention of the law. Currently, the penalties for this range from fines of up to $4,000 and or three years in prison. The draft legislation will look to increase these penalties.

On Thursday night, Ocasio-Cortez flat out called for banning all semi-automatic firearms, which would include handguns, and called for banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines.

Quote

You know, instead of training children, teachers, houses of faith, & concertgoers to prep for being shot, we could just:

-Pass Universal Background checks (#HR8!)
-Disarm domestic abusers
-Mandate safe storage
-Ban bump stocks, semiautos, & high cap mags designed to kill people https://t.co/5SaLxEfYBT

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 22, 2019

People with violent criminal records are already prohibited from owning and possessing firearms and bump stocks have already been banned.

...

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Share all you want foxbat, just don't use the force of government to compel others to do that same.  

You mean like this?  

Image result for school girl integration national guard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

?  Please explain the exact government compulsion(s) taking effect in this photo.

 

 

Clearly you aren't that isolated.

4 hours ago, Muda69 said:

As for your bleeding heart, throwaway statistic of 40 million "hungry" Americans:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/08/usda-hunger-charade-food-insecurity-column/71880492/

At Wal-Mart last night they were out of organic bananas, so I had to purchase the non-organic bananas.  According to the U.S. government that is "food insecurity."  Guess I'm now a statistic.  Where is my free stuff?

So as to the other issues of education, employment, housing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Clearly you aren't that isolated.

So as to the other issues of education, employment, housing?

No, but I want to read the answer in your eloquent words.

What about these other issues?  You know my stance, government has no business regulating or providing resources in those areas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

No, but I want to read the answer in your eloquent words.

What about these other issues?  You know my stance, government has no business regulating or providing resources in those areas.

 

My "sharing," as I posted before, isn't quite as limited as your your take on it.  As with the picture, those government troops weren't "sharing" by giving, they were providing access to potential prosperity.  Similarly, in those other areas, I'm not talking about aid in those areas, but providing access; especially equal access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, foxbat said:

My "sharing," as I posted before, isn't quite as limited as your your take on it.  As with the picture, those government troops weren't "sharing" by giving, they were providing access to potential prosperity.  Similarly, in those other areas, I'm not talking about aid in those areas, but providing access; especially equal access.

It is not the job of government to provide equal access.   

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/the-resegregation-myth/

 

Quote

The era of federally engineered school integration is coming to a close.

In the wake of Brown v. Board of Education, and in the face of a horrific racial caste system, federal courts took control of hundreds of school districts, primarily in the South. The courts not only took aim at legally enforced segregation, but redrew school-attendance boundary lines and often mandated that students be bused far from home to attend an integrated school. By the 1970s, schools in the South were more integrated than those in the North.

Since the 1990s and especially the 2000s, however, courts have been turning matters back over to local governments. More than half of the orders are gone; many more are no longer being actively monitored. It is still illegal for these governments to segregate their schools on purpose, of course, and some agreed to continue certain integration policies as a condition of regaining control. But in general, they are free once again to give each neighborhood its own school and leave it at that, and many have done so. Schools in these particular jurisdictions are, unsurprisingly, less integrated than they were when the federal government forced them to achieve a more even racial balance.

But contrary to a popular liberal narrative of nationwide resegregation, this has merely balanced out a fortunate (and mostly unengineered) trend of residential integration, leaving American schoolchildren writ large no more segregated than they were a couple of decades back — and roughly as segregated in schools as they are in their neighborhoods. This bodes well for the future. Assuming neighborhoods continue to integrate, schools will become increasingly integrated as well once desegregation orders are fully left in the past and their steady elimination no longer cancels out gains within neighborhoods.

In other words, we are — however slowly — integrating ourselves voluntarily and leaving a system of forced integration behind. The former development is one to be proud of, even as we still struggle to overcome our history and ensure that all children have access to a decent education. And the latter was inevitable, given our federalist system and the legally dubious nature of basing children’s school assignments on the color of their skin. In terms of policy, the future lies in empowering families to make the best decisions for their kids — and letting the benefits of integration flow from there — rather than in deliberately setting each school’s demographic profile through the brute force of government.

As of 1988, according to the University of California–Los Angeles Civil Rights Project, 44 percent of black children in the South attended majority-white schools. By 2011 that had fallen to 23 percent — and there’s a similar trend in the nationwide data. These and similar statistics are often deployed to support the notion that schools are resegregating. A recent piece in Vox, for instance, presented the Civil Rights Project’s numbers as a reason that school districts should start “gerrymandering” their attendance zones to integrate schools.

...

How did school segregation hold steady despite the end of so many desegregation orders? The answer is that residential segregation fell, progress that carried over to schools by virtue of the simple fact that most children go to school based on where they live. To perfectly integrate whites and blacks in 1980, you would have needed to move more than 60 percent of blacks to new neighborhoods, according to work by the Brookings Institution demographer William Frey. By 2000 that figure declined to about 50 percent, and it fell still further by 2010.

Frey writes:

One of the trends spurring this shift is the continued integration of southern communities that are magnets for both blacks and whites. . . . In the North, black population losses in cities, the destruction of large public housing projects, and increased suburbanization of blacks are contributing to declines in segregation.

Another impetus toward less segregation is the growth of the Hispanic and Asian populations. Although all minority groups still show a preference for members of their own group as neighbors, tolerance for other groups is strongest in settings that are already multiracial. . . . The 2010 census shows that some of the lowest black-white segregation scores are in areas with large or growing new minority populations.

Frey has also drawn attention to a growing pattern of intermarriage. Today about a seventh of newlywed couples are interracial.

It’s a long way to a society that mixes freely, but we are unambiguously headed in that direction, and our progress has staved off the school resegregation about which so many on the left fret.

...

To abandon the project of government-engineered racial balancing, then, is not to abandon the quest to ensure that all children have access to good schools. Indeed, it is not even to abandon the goal of integration. Americans of different races are, of their own volition, living side by side more and more as time goes on. And we can coax this trend along by helping people achieve their preferences, rather than by overriding those preferences.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

It is not the job of government to provide equal access.   

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/the-resegregation-myth/

 

 

I'm not talking about forced integration.  I'm talking about making sure that there isn't an impediment to integration ... and there's a very distinct difference.  There's a very distinct difference between having an environment where integration or access to facilities is made available vs. balancing racial mixes.  There's a very distinct difference between making a school integrate by busing and making sure that a kid who wants to attend a public school who lives in that district can attend it without impediment, harassment, etc.  or, even outside of that district, should that be allowed by the district like when open enrollment applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I'm not talking about forced integration.  I'm talking about making sure that there isn't an impediment to integration ... and there's a very distinct difference.  There's a very distinct difference between having an environment where integration or access to facilities is made available vs. balancing racial mixes.  There's a very distinct difference between making a school integrate by busing and making sure that a kid who wants to attend a public school who lives in that district can attend it without impediment, harassment, etc.  or, even outside of that district, should that be allowed by the district like when open enrollment applies.

No, I don't believe it is the governments job to "balance racial mixes." 

Now if you are talking about a child being agressed against while on their way to or from the government school, then yes, government has a valid role in that.  Should that occur the individual(s) responsible should be arrested and charged accordingly.  Can you please link to stories where such impediment, harassment, etc. is occurring here in Indiana today?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

No, I don't believe it is the governments job to "balance racial mixes." 

Now if you are talking about a child being agressed against while on their way to or from the government school, then yes, government has a valid role in that.  Should that occur the individual(s) responsible should be arrested and charged accordingly.  Can you please link to stories where such impediment, harassment, etc. is occurring here in Indiana today?

 

 

None of my posts have indicated that I am in favor of balancing either.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure in the previous quote that I specifically stated that there's a difference between using government resources to allow access vs. balancing.  Just a couple from two different side of the spectrum, but I'm pretty sure you already knew this.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/local-education/lebanon-schools-pay-150-000-settle-racial-discrimination-case/LkyN5pCuMeKYOdNfPCJsaO/

https://nypost.com/2018/05/25/school-officials-discriminated-against-white-coaches-suit/

https://www.essence.com/news/indiana-high-school-girls-told-by-racist-bully-they-would-be-sold-into-slavery/

 

Here's another one linking back to hunger issues and racism too.

https://www.thenation.com/article/hunger-food-insecurity-racism-mariana-chilton/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure in the previous quote that I specifically stated that there's a difference between using government resources to allow access vs. balancing.  Just a couple from two different side of the spectrum, but I'm pretty sure you already knew this.

 

I don't understand.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...