[AP] Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dies after being shot at Utah college event

What does affirmative action have to do with not letting blacks golf at a golf course?

 

Affirmative action has to do with underlying principle for why not letting black people into a golf club is problematic, which you spelled out as: “You can't have a functioning society when race becomes a decider in how people are treated. Americas strength is equality and judging people by merit and character - move way from that, and you weaken our society.”

If the ideal is a purely meritocratic society in which race is not factored at all in how we treat one another, then affirmative action would seem to be inconsistent with that unless it is considered an imperfect temporary strategy for eliminating systemic barriers. Is that how you see it?

 

My philanthropic efforts cover a wide spectrum

 

I think I took some remedial math classes at UT in this building. Thank you @Buck Turgidson

 

I know. This was about government discrimination. I already said the government has no business regulating private businesses and who they choose to interact with.

Yes, and it was wrongly decided. Shockingly, sometimes the Supreme Court makes incorrect decisions. I think I talk more about wrong SCOTUS decisions than anyone else on this board.

Yes, unconstitutionally. It should be eliminated.

No, I don't see the CRA as necessary to get rid of Jim Crow laws, the 14th Amendment is sufficient.

 

Triangles, I assume?

 

Affirmative Action is a flawed mechanism to be sure.

But it's critical to note that diversity is not affirmative action - there are tons of studies that show diverse teams outperform homogeneous teams both in the military and corporate worlds.

 

Yeah we never made it to squares

 

I bet you really sucked at this game

 

That’s woke critical race theory DEI and now banned.

 

Except it wasn't until Brown vs Board of Educ and the CRA of 1964.

 

The rights attempt to make him a martry is ridiculous - he was a bigot, and a mysoginist - he wasn't a good guy at all - he shouldn't be shot for his dumbass thoughts but he shouldn't be celebrated either.

He was also backed by the Oligarchy to indoctrinate kids - he and others like him are a big reason this country is falling.

DD

 

related

 

So he hadn't heard of Kirk before his death but after watching some videos for a few days, he's ready to declare him a "modern-day St. Paul."

"He was a missionary, he's an evangelist, he's a hero. He's one I think that knew what Jesus meant when he said the truth will set you free," Dolan said Friday on Fox & Friends.

Okay.

Anyway, I was interested to learn there apparently is also a "Catholic left" that has an opposing view on this topic.

https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/c...charlie-kirk-modern-day-st-paul-im-not-making

 

yep. so Kirk's got THAT goin' for him . . . which is nice

 

Don't forget a missionary, an evangelist, AND a hero.

 

Brown v. Board of Education was 10 years before the CRA of 1964. It is literal proof that the 14th Amendment was sufficient, the cases just had to be brought to the court.

 

What am I missing here then? "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

 

You don't need to pass a law that says you have free exercise of religion, because it is already in the text of the First Amendment. You don't need to pass a law against the government quartering troops in people's homes in times of peace, because it is already in the text of the Third Amendment. You don't need to pass a law that says the government cannot discriminate against one specific group of citizens, because it is already in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. I suppose you can it you want to, but you don't need to. The problem with the CRA of 1964 is it goes beyond what is stated in the Fourteenth Amendment and limits private entities, not just public ones. That's what you are missing.