Defining moment for affirmative action: Supreme Court will rule - Page 4 - Stormfront
01-15-2003, 08:54 PM #31
don't forget that the University of Michigan's current policy says nothing about Asians or Arabs. They still have plenty of ways to shove "diversity" down the throats of white students even if they won't have crips and bloods hanging out in the philosophy department anymore.
01-16-2003, 03:18 AM #32
Bush assails race based admissions
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 — On what would have been the 74th birthday of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., President Bush condemned the race-based admissions system at the University of Michigan and said his administration would file a brief Thursday challenging its constitutionality in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court hears the case in March.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/859854.asp?0sl=-31
There is also a poll connected with this article. Here were the results of that poll at the time I voted.
How do you feel about the president opposing affirmative action in college admissions?
* 15,815 responses
I agree with Bush: An admissions policy that includes race is fundamentally unfair
I disagree with Bush: It is a calculated decision and does nothing to correct injustices past and present
01-16-2003, 03:56 AM #33
“I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity,” the president said, “but the method used by University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed.”
There are the weasel words which betray.No big victory here.
01-16-2003, 04:46 AM #34
Another News Story on the Same Issue
Jan 15, 08:45 PM EST
The complete article here..... http://daily.webshots.com/content/ap...h35915591.html
01-16-2003, 05:02 AM #35
I wasn't suggesting it was a victory. I do think though that it is unusual of him to do this and I wonder what his true motives are and perhaps you are correct in suggesting he wants something more acceptable to replace AA laws something the sheeple can't argue with or find fault in. Or maybe he really means it when he says, "Quota systems that use race to include or exclude people from higher education and the opportunities it offers are divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution." You decide.
01-16-2003, 05:59 AM #36
I'd love to know what the President really thinks on this issue..too bad we'll never know. Oh to be a bug on the wall!
01-16-2003, 06:53 AM #37
"I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education. But the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed." Jorge Bush
It's all right there, in Bush's own words. He's NOT against a thoroughly race-mixed non-White American future. All that he even says he's against is the method for getting there at one school!
This is just a sop put together by the Karl Rove types who handle Bush to give an appearance of being against the multi-racial tidal wave sweeping away traditional America.
Sops like this PR stunt are designed to keep the Republican elite's bamboozle of White America running.
Speaking of the Republican Party......I'd like to toss out my thought that a remarkable strategic opportunity exists for White Nationalists to lead a revolutionary movement within the Republican Party.
Last edited by Charles A Lindbergh; 01-16-2003 at 07:44 AM.
01-16-2003, 08:26 AM #38
Last night on NIGHTLINE only one person even broached the fact that blacks and "latins" need AA because they could not by merit alone be accepted by colleges and universities... Actually, she said that she thought negroes and "latins" could rise to the challenge and that AA was demeaning...
No one would just say that without AA there would be harldy any minorities in higher education... If biologically they cannot compete mentally, than socially their giving no value to education is the cause... The answer I am sure lies in both reasons... But will we ever hear anyone say that out loud???
And then... How the damn word DIVERSITY was thrown about... I hate it... As if having by design several blacks in a classroom benefits anyone? I suppose if they don't disrupt things in any way it couldn't hurt- but given their loud, rude and violent inclinations and hunger for White women, I doubt it...
01-16-2003, 11:30 AM #39
I think that Bush's amicus brief was politically motivated -- he and his advisors knew that any additional pandering to "minorities" would likely keep many whites sitting out the next election, feeling that they had no stake in the outcome -- especially after the Trent Lott debacle. Same thing applies to re-nominating Pickering.
Charles A Lindbergh's analysis is absolutely masterful and inspired: this is an unparalleled opportunity to make the Repubs a de facto WN party. The Dems have totally sold out to the depraved black caucus. Any white liberal who stays with the Dems will more and more be subjected to abuse from the nonwhites in the party, and sound more and more ridiculous defending unfair nonwhite special rights and unearned privileges. Soon no white with any self-respect can possibly vote Dem.
I am considering changing my registration from Libertarian to Dem in order to vote for the most extreme anti-white Dems in the primaries. Then we can circulate factually truthful pro-minority/anti-white quotations from the Dems to the Repubs in order to polarize them toward actual pro-white/WN positions and candidates. This in turn will show Repubs that their core constituency is fed up with pro-minority legislative favortism.
01-16-2003, 05:04 PM #40
U of M in trouble
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/admit16_20030116.htm
The University of Michigan uses race as a factor in deciding whom to admit. Here's how the admissions policies work:
This makes me happy since U of M is one of the most leftist colleges around. Maybe this will lead to some of the courses that they teach on diversity and death to the white man.
Page generated in 0.35295 seconds with 13 queries
Defining moment for affirmative action: Supreme Court will rule - Page 4 - Stormfront
01-15-2003, 08:54 PM #31
don't forget that the University of Michigan's current policy says nothing about Asians or Arabs. They still have plenty of ways to shove "diversity" down the throats of white students even if they won't have crips and bloods hanging out in the philosophy department anymore.
01-16-2003, 03:18 AM #32
Bush assails race based admissions
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 — On what would have been the 74th birthday of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., President Bush condemned the race-based admissions system at the University of Michigan and said his administration would file a brief Thursday challenging its constitutionality in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court hears the case in March.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/859854.asp?0sl=-31
There is also a poll connected with this article. Here were the results of that poll at the time I voted.
How do you feel about the president opposing affirmative action in college admissions?
* 15,815 responses
I agree with Bush: An admissions policy that includes race is fundamentally unfair
I disagree with Bush: It is a calculated decision and does nothing to correct injustices past and present
01-16-2003, 03:56 AM #33
“I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity,” the president said, “but the method used by University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed.”
There are the weasel words which betray.No big victory here.
01-16-2003, 04:46 AM #34
Another News Story on the Same Issue
Jan 15, 08:45 PM EST
The complete article here..... http://daily.webshots.com/content/ap...h35915591.html
01-16-2003, 05:02 AM #35
I wasn't suggesting it was a victory. I do think though that it is unusual of him to do this and I wonder what his true motives are and perhaps you are correct in suggesting he wants something more acceptable to replace AA laws something the sheeple can't argue with or find fault in. Or maybe he really means it when he says, "Quota systems that use race to include or exclude people from higher education and the opportunities it offers are divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution." You decide.
01-16-2003, 05:59 AM #36
I'd love to know what the President really thinks on this issue..too bad we'll never know. Oh to be a bug on the wall!
01-16-2003, 06:53 AM #37
"I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education. But the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed." Jorge Bush
It's all right there, in Bush's own words. He's NOT against a thoroughly race-mixed non-White American future. All that he even says he's against is the method for getting there at one school!
This is just a sop put together by the Karl Rove types who handle Bush to give an appearance of being against the multi-racial tidal wave sweeping away traditional America.
So
ps like this PR stunt are designed to keep the Republican elite's bamboozle of White America running.
Speaking of the Republican Party......I'd like to toss out my thought that a remarkable strategic opportunity exists for White Nationalists to lead a revolutionary movement within the Republican Party.
Last edited by Charles A Lindbergh; 01-16-2003 at 07:44 AM.
01-16-2003, 08:26 AM #38
Last night on NIGHTLINE only one person even broached the fact that blacks and "latins" need AA because they could not by merit alone be accepted by colleges and universities... Actually, she said that she thought negroes and "latins" could rise to the challenge and that AA was demeaning...
No one would just say that without AA there would be harldy any minorities in higher education... If biologically they cannot compete mentally, than socially their giving no value to education is the cause... The answer I am sure lies in both reasons... But will we ever hear anyone say that out loud???
And then... How the damn word DIVERSITY was thrown about... I hate it... As if having by design several blacks in a classroom benefits anyone? I suppose if they don't disrupt things in any way it couldn't hurt- but given their loud, rude and violent inclinations and hunger for White women, I doubt it...
01-16-2003, 11:30 AM #39
I think that Bush's amicus brief was politically motivated -- he and his advisors knew that any additional pandering to "minorities" would likely keep many whites sitting out the next election, feeling that they had no stake in the outcome -- especially after the Trent Lott debacle. Same thing applies to re-nominating Pickering.
Charles A Lindbergh's analysis is absolutely masterful and inspired: this is an unparalleled opportunity to make the Repubs a de facto WN party. The Dems have totally sold out to the depraved black caucus. Any white liberal who stays with the Dems will more and more be subjected to abuse from the nonwhites in the party, and sound more and more ridiculous defending unfair nonwhite special rights and unearned privileges. Soon no white with any self-respect can possibly vote Dem.
I am considering changing my registration from Libertarian to Dem in order to vote for the most extreme anti-white Dems in the primaries. Then we can circulate factually truthful pro-minority/anti-white quotations from the Dems to the Repubs in order to polarize them toward actual pro-white/WN positions and candidates. This in turn will show Repubs that their core constituency is fed up with pro-minority legislative favortism.
01-16-2003, 05:04 PM #40
U of M in trouble
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/admit16_20030116.htm
The University of Michigan uses race as a factor in deciding whom to admit. Here's how the admissions policies work:
This makes me happy since U of M is one of the most leftist colleges around. Maybe this will lead to some of the courses that they teach on diversity and death to the white man.
Page generated in 0.35295 seconds with 13 queries