Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 04DarkShadowGT
I understand the original intent of the law. When AA came about black students and workers where not given the same oppourtunities as whites.
The fact of the matter remains that a higher percentage of whites go to college and get better jobs than blacks.
That being said I have a problem with the government telling someone who they can and cant hire, If some ahole hates blacks and only wants to work with whites he should be able to do so if he chooses, same way if he wants to work with only blacks. I feel the same way about smoking laws in bars, I think the government should not be able to control smoking in a privatly owned place of business, if non smokers (which I am) doesnt like it, they can leave.
|
Well, I agree with the first to paragraph's of your statement because I know several black and latino people who are a product of AA and if it wasn't for it they wouldn't have had the opportunity to attend college.....I'm hoping someday we don't need it, but the fact is that if you look at drop out rates, income and many other indicators show people other races besides whites, and maybe asians as a whole are still below where whites are in terms of education and job pay.
When you have opportunities handed to you or have a stable home life where your family supports you in going to school it makes it a lot easier to sit back and say "well, I did it and it was tough, so why can't they". It's not that simple and I don't even try to pretent what it's like to live in the ghetto and be poor...but we shouldn't deny a kid that is smart and poor the same opportunity that someone with money has.....now I feel that way about all races of kids. So yes, AA is needed in that sense. Now, I wish we would get to a point where we didn't need AA in the work place because it should be who's qualified not what color they are.
As for saying the government shouldn't be able to tell a private business owner people can't smoke in the bar or restaurant...F that, yes they should. It's a public health risk to people around the smoker and if you don't believe me I'll send you documents from the United States Surgeon General that states second hand smoke is a public health risk. So why should everyone around that person be exposed to it just because that person decides to smoke?? That is the best law on the books in Cali and you know I've said this before, but you guys get so up in arms about this because you feel like it's taking away your "freedoms", but your freedoms don't include harming the health of others. I have the same freedom to be in that bar as a non-smoker, but that smoker does not have the freedom to harm my health! So why should I have to leave and not him???
People in Cali were PISSED off when this law went on the books and every bar and restaurant owner in Cali said they were going to be put out of business and it didn't happen and business didn't even suffer cause smokers just went right out side and did there thing.
It was the same things with motorcycle helmets....people were pissed off, but you know what it's saved a lot of their lives so they can just get over it! I'm not for government sticking their nose in everything, but there job is to protect health, welfare, safety, and freedoms of Americans so if they need pass a law that protects me from second hand smoke in indoor places then by all means go for it...and if that smoker wants to smoke in their home or in their car or outside then I don't give a rats ass.
Carry on! ha ha