Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Affirmative Action President

2008-08-29T17:10:36Z

AdamE: /* Majority / Minority */

==Somebody's Missing Something Here==

I added the following:

"However, in the past blacks and women couldn't vote or run for President, and white males did benefit from their race and gender."

And got the following helpful advice:

That really has nothing to do with an Affirmative Action president does it? --TrueValues 19:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Don't continue to reinsert incorrect information. There's never been racial or gender restrictions on becoming president.--Aschlafly 22:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

But I'm still unenlightened. I thought what I added was relevant to Conservapedia's definition of an "affirmative action president" as having an advantage based on "race or gender", as stated at the beginning of the article, followed by the assertion that no President has had such an advantage up to now. Also, back when women and blacks couldn't vote, does that mean they could still have a reasonable chance of getting elected? And I thought I knew something about history.[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 22:50, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:Sir, is that statement correct? Women were granted the right to vote by the 18th amendment to the constitution. I'm no American so perhaps I'm wrong but if someone isn't on the electoral roll, how could they possibly stand for office.[[user:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]]
::Good question. It was actually the Nineteenth Amendment that allowed women the right to vote in 1920, and many African-Americans couldn't vote until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Before the American Civil War, only a few New England states allowed blacks an equal right to vote. Illinois and Indiana had laws excluding free blacks from their states. Other free states excluded blacks from skilled occupations and wouldn't allow them to serve on juries.[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 23:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the correction Pluto. I still want to hear from Andy though, he's a lawyer and therefore knows something we haven't considered[[user:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]]

Not racism, not at all. In any case, Barack would be a terrible choice... Remember what happened the last time you elected [[Abraham Lincoln|an Illinois senator with only two years in office]]? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:59, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Here are the Google results from a search for "Affirmative Action president" and "Barack Obama." There are 265 on the entire Internet. Most are from blogs, not from reputable news sources. Many - if not more than half of these hits contest, not reinforce, the idea that Obama is such a thing. Please justify your case for saying that "many" people make the claim in question before reverting my edits. Peace. [[User:Rodney|Rodney]] 14:51, 10 February 2008 (EST)
:I see you've edited without providing a source. So be it. Please provide a source prior to removing the relevant tag. peace. [[User:Rodney|Rodney]] 15:59, 10 February 2008 (EST)

"An Affirmative Action President is strongly supported by some liberals who favor affirmative action. As they support affirmative action for other positions, it is a logical extension for them to favor it for the presidency also. " While is may be true, as presented here it just sounds like complete hearsay. While there may be individuals who indeed feel this way but there is no centralized liberal authority or association that has officially expressed these views. It is irresponsible and disgraceful to imply that thi is the main reason for the endorsement of Senator Obama by people who cal themselves liberals.
:I agree. It seems to imply that a minority could never become president on their own merits. I personally feel that his race is hurting him, I can't count the number of times I've seen bloggers saying 'I'll never vote for that n----r'. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 12:06, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

== A note on the sources ==

There are three sources given as they contain Affirmative Action President in the headline. However the first two seem to be positively disavowing (perhaps even criticising the suggestion) that they think Obama would be an affirmative action president. The third source can be used as a reference to support the proposition in the article. Therefore I suggest that we remove the first two sources as they only superficially appear to support the proposition - not the ideal we are seeking here.

By the way I have no problem as far as the article stands except for this point. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
: Sorry, a correction. I am commenting on sources 2 and 3.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::Is there no interest in this? Well I shall give it another day and then take another look at how best to proceed. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:00, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Since no one argues, I am going to delete the sources as they do not support the contention being made.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 10:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

== Majority / Minority ==

I object to the following sentence:

:"There is nothing wrong with a Vice President representing a minority, as long as the President represents the majority"

After I removed it, it was swiftly reinstated by editor AdamE with a note that "[t]he President represents the majority of Americans by definition (he gets the majority of votes)". While this is certainly true in terms of majority ''political'' support, the article is concerned with a President being chosen on grounds of ''racial'' minority.

The point of the article is that a President should not be chosen on grounds of race alone - but then neither they should they be excluded on grounds of race alone. If this sentence is included within the article, it suggests that the President must represent the ethnic majority - I.E. the President must be white - and I think that that is an argument best avoided, and likely to debase this article and its message.

Please note that I am not accusing any editor of being racist as I assume good faith, but I believe that if this sentence is left in place, it puts quite a racist message in the article. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 12:45, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

(edit conflict) I was going to remove that section for being silly, but I thought I should post here first. The section is full of opinion and conjecture, and makes little sense.

:"There is nothing wrong with a Vice President representing a minority, as long as the President represents the majority."

Apart from being a blatant opinion, is this about ethnicities or views? If it's about ethnicities, then it's sating a President must be white. I hope that's not what anyone's trying to say. If it's about viewpoints, then I have to question first, whether its true (shouldn't the VP and President be of the same mind on most issues?) and secondly, what it has to do with affirmative action, which is about ethnicity and gender, not about views.

:"Having a minority Vice President makes more Americans feel represented by the President, as it should be."

So having a VP who's out of touch makes the President seem more in touch by comparison? Is that a real strategy? Or are we talking about races? Would a darker VP make the President look more white?

:" Besides, there is no doubt on the Presidential Candidate choosing the best Vice President for him. Would he risk his possible election with a less-than-ideal Vice President candidate? "

Of course there's doubt. Also, there is probably no such thing as an "ideal" VP, as everyone has advantages and disadvantages. Some people are already questioning McCain's choice of Palin, and Obama's selection of Biden, and others have certainly been questioned in the past. Also, since when do encyclopedias ask questions?

:"Certainly not. Therefore it would be absurd to call the Vice President an Affirmative Action Vice President."

I don't see how it's any more absurd than an affirmative action president. Especially when Presidential candidates are elected through primaries, and VP candidates are appointed. This should be removed. [[User:JohnA|JohnA]] 12:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::Please guys. Is it so difficult to spot parodists? I must suck at it. Check every edit of mine. Is there one sane edit? Geez. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 13:01, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Thank you for being so candid. [[User:JohnA|JohnA]] 13:03, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::::No problem. And good luck with this wonderful article. This is a farewell, I imagine. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 13:10, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Affirmative Action President

2008-08-29T17:01:11Z

AdamE: /* Majority / Minority */

Affirmative Action President

2008-08-29T16:30:07Z

AdamE: The President represents the majority of Americans by definition (he gets the majority of votes)

An '''Affirmative Action President''' is someone selected for that office based partly or entirely on the person's race or gender. As of 2008, [[affirmative action]] has not yet been successfully used to fill the position of President of the [[United States]].

An Affirmative Action President is strongly supported by some [[liberals]] who favor [[affirmative action]]. As they support [[affirmative action]] for other positions, it is a logical extension for them to favor it for the presidency also.

These supporters of an Affirmative Action President are likely to support a candidate based in part on the candidate's race or gender in order to bring historical [[diversity]] to the position and promote broader acceptance of [[affirmative action]].

Under [[affirmative action]], a candidate's race or gender is as important as, and perhaps more important, than traditional criteria of qualifications and experience.

On Feb. 4, 2008, ten days after this entry appeared here, Michael Savage commented that, if elected, [[Barack Obama]] will be the first Affirmative Action President, as he has such a small amount of political (or military) experience.<ref>For example, popular radio commentator [[Michael Savage]] observed, "We have a woman and a multi-ethnic man running for office on the Democrat side. Is this not akin to a -- an affirmative action election? Isn't that why the libs are hysterical, tripping over themselves to say [[amen]] and yes to this affirmative election vote?" Savage added, "America's not ready for an affirmative action presidency." [http://mediamatters.org/items/200802040008]</ref>

On March 12, 2008, Joseph Farah, founder of Worldnetdaily.com, published a column entitled, "The affirmative-action president."<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=58632</ref>

== "Affirmative Action" Vice President ==

There is nothing wrong with a Vice President representing a minority, as long as the President represents the majority. Having a minority Vice President makes more Americans feel represented by the President, as it should be. Besides, there is no doubt on the Presidential Candidate choosing the best Vice President for him. Would he risk his possible election with a less-than-ideal Vice President candidate? Certainly not. Therefore it would be absurd to call the Vice President an Affirmative Action Vice President.

==See Also==
[[Nepotism President]]

== Reference ==

<references/>

[[category:politics]]

Affirmative Action President

2008-08-29T15:36:06Z

AdamE:

Talk:Sarah Palin

2008-08-29T15:24:08Z

AdamE: New page: Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --~~~~

Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?

2008-08-29T15:22:08Z

AdamE: /* Absolutely not */

{{Move|Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?}}

{{debate}}

==YES==

If you start with any of these, you are likely to move on to harder stuff. -- (unsigned remark by [[User:Ed Poor]], who gave starting comments for both the "yes" and "no sections")

:Please define "likely" and your evidence that it is true. I drink and have never used either marijuana or nicotine. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 18:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:I say, first, medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle! An' the next thing ya know, your son is playin' for money in a pinch-back suit. And list'nin to some big out-a-town Jasper hearin' him tell about horse-race gamblin'. One fine night, they leave the pool hall, headin' for the dance at the Arm'ry! Libertine men and scarlet women, and ragtime, shameless music that'll grab your son and your daughter with the arms of a jungle animal instinct: mass-steria!
::—Meredith Willson, "Trouble," from ''The Music Man''
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

At one time in my life, I thought marijuana was great, why the hell is illegal? I thought that it was much better to smoke pot than drink alcohol (nobody beat their wife from smokin pot). I figured out later in life that the people I grew up with who smoked, no longer found the buzz suffucient, experimented with stronger drugs then they all ended up with coke problems, crack, ultimately strung out on prescription drugs like oxycotin. Weed: gateway drug? you bet it is. Alcohol is a gateway to insanity. Nicotine is a gateway to a painful decline of health and ultimately ones death.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Marihuana, yes, but only because it is illegal. Yes for the same reason to a lesser extent for the ethyl and the other leaf (illegal for under-21 and under-18). Why? Well, to quote an old friend, it gets you used to meeting seedy types in suspect environments and transacting clandestine deals. If it was legal, no one using it would learn how to buy illegal drugs. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:So if Marijuana were legalized, would it help prevent people from going on to harder drugs? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::That the conclusion that can be drawn from his theory, yes. They would still have yet to learn how to find drug dealers and interact with them, for example. [[User:Human|Human]] 12:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

There's another reason to say "yes", which also relates to society and its rules rather than the drugs in question. That is that the herbal jazz cigarettes are described to the uninitiated as being a terrible, terrible thing (in various education programs and pamphlets). If and when the youth actually ''tries'' the sweet leaf, they discover it's "not so bad" after all. Then they might very well question the things they have been told about "harder" drugs. [[User:Human|Human]] 12:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I feel that weed GENERALLY, not always, is a gateway drug. Most people I know that smoke Marijuana are not taking anything else. However I believe that once taken the need or the drive to take something stronger is felt.--[[User:DudeImJon|DudeImJon]] 14:32, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: I had some friends that started to experiment with alcohol, marijuanna, and cigarettes during senior year of high school. Now all of them are on harder stuff like crystal meth and cocaine. So yes, they are gateway drugs. Marijuanna is already illegal and I believe that we need to ban substances such as alcohol and nicotine. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

==NO==

There is no evidence for this. That's all a bunch of moralistic hooey. -- (unsigned remark by [[User:Ed Poor]], who gave starting comments for both the "yes" and "no sections")

There is ABSOLUTELY no medical evidence to say that one drug leads to another.

:''Experts Discount Marijuana as Big Factor in Crime but Drive on It Will Be Pressed.'' Studies by the Committee on the Marijuana problem in the City of New York, appointed by Mayor La Guardia in January, 1939, have led the committee to the conclusion that ... "juvenile delinquency is not associated with the practice o smoking marijuana." Further findings are ... that its use "does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocain[sic] addiction" and that "the publicity concerning the catastropic effects of marijuana smoking in New York City is unfounded."
::—''New York Times,'' January 12, 1945, p. 22
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dpbsmith: most people drink alcohol (some more than others) and most of them probably started in their teens, yet most people do not became heavy drug users as they get older, it's as simple as that.

:I think you mistook what I was saying. I didn't write the sentence that opened the section, Ed Poor did. I did indeed post a quotation from a news story about a 1945 mayor commision that concluded that the use of marijuana did not lead to the use of heroin or "cocain." In terms of which side I'm on, all I can say is that I haven't seen any convincing reason for treating alcohol and marijuana as being in ''different categories'' in terms of the law or public policy. Nicotine is interesting because it is probably more damaging to health and more addictive than either alcohol or marijuana, but does not cause intoxication, so nicotine users pose less of a risk to others... there's no issue of "driving while smoking." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:05, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

As for Marijuana, how many of today's businesspeople, doctors, scientists, etc have smoked some while they were in college?
I don't claim to know the exact percentage, but I think that proves a point.
:::[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::::Add "ex-Presidents of the United States" to the list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Add current Presidents to this list. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:33, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I smoked marijuna every week for three years, but never tried anything harder. Since I moved back to the US in 2001, I haven't touched it. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:My various addictions, habits, and chemical/herbal recreations over the decades have never shown any correlations. And none of the good stuff (like single malt) led to nasty white powder problems. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
There is no such thing as a "gateway" drug, saying marijuana led to heroin is like saying Florida led to North Pole. It's all the Orwellian government and its corrupt minions. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 15:25, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

All the statisitcs I've seen on this look at it backwards. They say X% of cocaine users started out using marijuana. The significant statistic is the percentage of marijuana smokers who go on to use cocaine. I never see those statistics quoted. Perhaps French fries are a gateway drug; I bet more than 90% of cocaine users in this country had previously eaten French fries at some point. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:19, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

== Marijuana is, but alcohol and tobacco aren't ==
No, I don't happen to believe this is true, but of course this ''is'' the conventional wisdom, and an often-cited rationale for treating marijuana in a different way, in the law and as a matter of public policy, from alcohol and tobacco. Hey, Ed, exactly what were you up to when you put all three of them together? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:Agree, I would say it is people's natural instinct to resist change, "addiction to status quo". [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 15:27, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
::Let's not forget that the only reason alcohol is legal in this country is that when it was made illegal, that caused new problems without stopping people from drinking. I don't think anyone who has considered the question honestly can maintain that alcohol is not a far more dangerous drug than marijuana or nicotine or probably many other illegal drugs. Alcohol causes violence, reckless behavior, etc., in ways that even the strongest opiates cannot. It is not as addictive as many other drugs, but addiction to it is among the most damaging addictions to health, both physical and mental, and the most resistant to cure. (This may be only because it is so widely available.) Moreover, there is a substantial youth culture centered around drinking. If the worst thing that could be said about this culture was that it brought youth to other drugs, that would be an improvement. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 20:45, 17 November 2007 (EST)

== Definitely ==

== That's difficult ==
I would say that Marijuana is, but only because it is illegal, and therefore must be purchased from a guy who'd also like to hook you on anything he can, and isn't real scrupulous about how that gets done. Tobacco is, maybe. I think people are unlikely to try smoked drugs without first smoking cigarettes, but that may be because those two things are attractive to the same people, and cigarettes are a bit easier to come by. Alcohol is not.

== Absolutely not ==
Marijuana is not a gateway drug in any sense of the word. If you smoke/have been smoking marijuana for a while, you will not eventually start heroine, cocaine, meth, etc. The whole myth of it being a gateway drug is just that: A myth, mostly created by the government during the "Just say no" period of the Drug War. In addition, marijuana is not lethal (Unless you smoke a couple THOUSAND.), and it does not kill braincells. These are, once again, just myths/lies/fibs/etc created by the government. Simple, really. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:43, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:Oh thank you. Now I'll start to use Marijuana because you completely convinced me with your facts, proofs and logic. Not. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?

2008-08-29T15:18:05Z

AdamE: /* YES */

{{debate}}

== NO ==

It is very simple - Jesus was born to rescue us from the [[original sin]]. If there is no [[Adam]] and [[Eve]], there is no original sin. Hence the whole premise for Christianity will break down. So every true Christian should believe in creation account - literally. {{unsigned|Heffalump}}

Reply: So are you saying that all evolutionists deny original sin? Because Darwin didn't deny original sin. -Ethan

== YES ==

As humans are capable of believing two or more contradictory things, it entirely possible (and quite common) for someone who is truly a Christian to have a wrong view about parts of the Bible, including the parts that contradict evolution. So believing in evolution does not mean that you are not truly a Christian, even though you believe something quite anti-biblical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:59, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

This is very difficult to answer. I agree with Mr. Rayment - probably yes. --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 08:15, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

As said above. --[[User:UaSsAu|UaSsAu]] 08:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't understand. How can someone believe in two contradictory things? --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 18:31, 16 March 2008 (EDT) Can you give me an example of some thing you contradictory you believe in? --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 18:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Most people who believe in two contradictory things don't realise that they believe in two contradictory things. They've never really thought through the implications of the things they believe to realise that there is a contradiction. That's not always true, though. Sometimes people do realise that they believe in two contradictory things, but choose to keep believing both of them. This I cannot understand, and I can't recall any examples. More common, however, would be those that have realised that two of the things they believe in are contradictory, but don't yet know how to solve that contradiction. Many people have become Christians but continued to believe in evolution. At first, they don't see the contradiction (believing, for example, that God used evolution to create). Later, many of them realise that there is a contradiction (their compromise doesn't actually work), but don't know how to resolve that. Fortunately, many of them ultimately resolve the contradiction by rejecting evolution, but there's many others who haven't done that last step, or haven't reached that last step ''yet''.
::: But the point is, salvation is not dependent on the believer accepting every last detail of what the Bible says. Those described above who eventually come to reject evolution haven't finally become Christians at the point that they reject evolution; they were already Christians before that.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

That is a great explanation, Philip. That kind of opened my eyes. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:14, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:As a theistic evolutionist I think that the story of creation is more of an allegory. As for Adam and Even and Original Sin I haven't really decided whether or not they literally existed and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, or if that is an allegory as well. To be honest, I'm more of a passive evolutionist, fully realizing that I could very well be wrong while being glad that I'll be forgiven if I am. I'm just glad that the creationism v. evolution isn't really central to Christianity. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 00:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::That's a defeatist attitude (don't take it personally!). Today you are a "passive evolutionists", tomorrow a "passive liberal". When will you be a "passive atheist"? Sorry for kidding, but think about it. If you don't take Creation literally, everything else in the Bible can be an "allegory". There are many allegories, metaphors, parables in the Bible, but the account of Creation is not. Nowhere it mentions that it shouldn't be taken literally. I'm sure Mr.Rayment will explain it better. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:18, 29 August 2008 (EDT)