Republican Voter Suppression!

[sanantone]

I don’t think it’s necessarily a discredit to someone in a debate if they have their opponent break things down.
I think the reason someone should break down their thoughts depends on their purpose. If you only want to win an argument then no one should care whether you break down everything for me or not. However, if your purpose is to try and reason with me to bring me to another point of view, you should be glad to break things down.

Well, it is a discredit if the person is so adamant about arguing something of which they know little. My goal is to relieve ignorance and to stop it from spreading, but I become irritable when people refuse to acknowledge facts and think logically. It's even more infuriating when people express agreement with someone who has repreatedly been proven wrong and, yet, they don't express the reasoning behind this.

I believe I understand your point now, about proportional representation. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you meant that if a minority is 30% of a population then in any given business in that population, 30% of the business should be made up of a minority. If that’s correct I’d like to ask how that fits in with free enterprise or freedom? I mean you can’t guarantee that an open-minded business manager will hire 30% of his work force from a minority. You can’t even guarantee that enough of the minority will apply and be available to that business for hiring. So if the opportunities are not guaranteed available naturally, in an already free society, why do we need affirmative action to correct this ‘problem’ of disproportionality? After all, there is freedom. Anyone can apply and hire/fire who they want, and I would assume you can agree that you can’t punish or regulate hatred or racism unless you want to be the thought police.
All that affirmative action does is cut down more personal freedoms in an attempt to regulate irregulateable things such as thoughts, emotions etc.

I couldn't have given a better explanation of how EEO laws work than Mrs B., so I'll address some other issues. What I've noticed is that the people who seem to gripe the most about things like Affirmative Action, the Civil Rights Act, the abolition of slavery, desegregation etc. usually end up showing tendencies of prejudice. If you dig long and deep enough, they usually reveal their bigotry in things such as having outdated views on women's rights, intolerance and gross misconceptions of other religions, praise of Confederate "heroes" who partook in forcing people into slavery but show disgust for someone who forced them to give up the evil institution, and a penchant for stereotyping ethnic groups outside of their own. These people really aren't concerned with the freedom of those who do not think like them to discriminate; these people are really concerned with their own freedom and the freedom of those like them to deny the natural and civil rights of others. The most maddening are those who believe in upholding states' rights (an entity) over individual rights (a human being). None of this makes sense to me, but I have to often remind myself that bigotry is caused by ignorance and an irrational thought process. Some people are open to and capable of learning and others will either insist on or are just doom to forever wallow in their ignorance.

The fact that the Jim Crow laws were made is only the same example of affirmative action. They are both sides of the same coin. You can’t outlaw racism because its an emotion, but when you try to regulate it with affirmative action you are only empowering one person above another and creating an imbalance that can promote the same issue once again, racism. It’s like over-correcting a car. Democracy is a wild ride and when you try to curb its excesses with laws you can’t go too far and over correct. The civil rights movement was good because it brought to light the mal-functions of our current laws. But the civil rights movement was aimed at upholding the freedoms and rights for black folks that every American already had. Affirmative action is an over-correcting of the car of democracy. When the car of democracy slid off the road with Jim crow, Martin Luther King guided it back into the lane of the law. I believe that anything more would be right back off the road into racism. Affirmative action by the definition of racism, is just another form of such.

A vehicle is one thing but people are another. A car is not sentient but people are. By ‘protecting’ other people from ‘discrimination’ by insuring they will always have a ‘fair’ shot is all based on trying to regulate people’s free thoughts and choices and trying to create a perfect world when there is none. As long as someone’s free choices don’t contradict another person’s rights then they should retain the freedom to make those choices. Americans have never been assured that they will always have a job. The Pilgrims didn’t land on Plymouth and demand England to provide for them because they had a right to survive. They knew the risks of freedom and assumed the responsibility to take care of themselves.

What are the signs of this overcorrection? Do blacks and Hispanics have higher employment rates than white people? Do they have higher high school and college graduation rates? Are their incomes higher? Minorities were disenfranchised by Jim Crow Laws and it showed in the statistics. How are white people being disenfranchised by Affirmative Action, especially when white women have benefitted the most from it?

Finally, you haven’t given me any real proof of the military being discriminated against, until then your question is irrelevant.
Discrimination is an attitude. Is it right to make laws against attitudes in a free country?

The proof is in the history behind laws addressing discrimination. Veterans would not be a protected class if there wasn't a history of discrimination against them.
Do Employers Discriminate Against Veterans?
Are Employers Discriminating Against Hiring Veterans? | Veterans Today
http://jobsforveterans.military.com/849/...stice-act/

Discrimination is an act; prejudice is an attitude. Regulating discriminatory practices is regulating actions, not thoughts.