Among other things, the recently-passed American Rescue Plan Act provides aid to "socially disadvantaged" farmers and ranchers.
The Department of Agriculture has interpreted that phrase to include African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Alaskan natives, Asian-Americans, and Pacific Islanders, to the exclusion of all others.
A class action has been filed on behalf of all of the excluded groups.
(1) Is it ok under the constitution to provide Federal benefits to a limited number of groups, when the limitation is set solely by referring to racial heritage?
(2) If a socially disadvantaged person is half white and half black, for instance, do they get any benefits? Half?
(3) If a black man is married to a white woman, do they get benefits? Half?
(4) If a person with only a tiny, but provable, percentage of (for example) Native American ancestry applies for benefits, does he get anything?
A link to the complaint (which is relatively simple and easy to read, considering that it is a legal document) is below.
https://wordpress.aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/20210425-Complaint.pdf
Bob
PS. Don't bother trying to read the attachment to the complaint (the text of the Act unless you are REALLY having trouble getting to sleep.
I am filing a lawsuit against Bob for the deceptive use of the term "balance" as there is nothing "balanced" about ONLY presenting the lawsuit by Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller a conservative Republican which is sponsored by America First Legal
Rich: There was utterly no doubt in my mind you would point that out, but I do have an explanation. I saw this case as another opportunity to ask some really "tough" (possibly unanswerable) questions.
It is a time-honored technique for provoking thought. There are a lot of bright people here, and such people usually respond well when prodded in such a manner, IMO.
I meant to mention in the first thread... the "balance" to which I am referring is not one member versus another. Rather, it's the balance in each person's own thinking (you versus yourself; me versus myself).
Bob
What it feels like is that the Front Porch is becoming FOX News the BBH edition. We have a climate denial thread, we have a thread claiming conservatives are the victims of a sinister conspiracy to "cancel" them, and now we have a thread contending that White People are being persecuted by our federal government.
Even if we look past your exclusive effort to pick subjects championed by the right-wing propaganda machine and that you are framing the topics in the same way as the right-wing propaganda machine, it's hard not to notice that every discussion starts from the far right. You have a post that uses an article from the NY Post, the other is a propagandist website that hides its ownership and people clicking in see sinister signs flashing messages of how conservatives are being persecuted just for their beliefs and finally you post an utterly one-sided lawsuit created by an entity dedicated to opposing the civil liberties and equality that the ACLU is dedicated to fighting for which is run by Stephan Miller a man who frequented white nationalist websites and would forward articles from the site to friends and co-workers (the emails are a matter of public record).
So there is no real conversation to be had. You are not addressing mainstream stories. You are certainly making no effort to present both sides of an issue or to be unbiased in framing the issue. As I said, Fox News, the BBH edition
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 29, 2021, 08:14:32 AM
What it feels like is that the Front Porch is becoming FOX News the BBH edition. We have a climate denial thread, we have a thread claiming conservatives are the victims of a sinister conspiracy to "cancel" them, and now we have a thread contending that White People are being persecuted by our federal government.
Even if we look past your exclusive effort to pick subjects championed by the right-wing propaganda machine and that you are framing the topics in the same way as the right-wing propaganda machine, it's hard not to notice that every discussion starts from the far right. You have a post that uses an article from the NY Post, the other is a propagandist website that hides its ownership and people clicking in see sinister signs flashing messages of how conservatives are being persecuted just for their beliefs and finally you post an utterly one-sided lawsuit created by an entity dedicated to opposing the civil liberties and equality that the ACLU is dedicated to fighting for which is run by Stephan Miller a man who frequented white nationalist websites and would forward articles from the site to friends and co-workers (the emails are a matter of public record).
So there is no real conversation to be had. You are not addressing mainstream stories. You are certainly making no effort to present both sides of an issue or to be unbiased in framing the issue. As I said, Fox News, the BBH edition
Rich: Those are YOUR characterizations of the threads. I'm sure not everyone agrees, and I certainly don't see them that way. Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on April 29, 2021, 09:11:51 AM
Rich: Those are YOUR characterizations of the threads. I'm sure not everyone agrees, and I certainly don't see them that way. Bob
The part in bold is a tactic I have seen used frequently by the RWPM. I pointed out in great detail the way your threads are trending to make this forum FOX News the BBH edition. Now you could have disputed this with facts, examples, and the like. You know like showing a topic you posted on that isn't a RW favorite or perhaps one where you presented both sides or started in the middle. Instead, you opt for the Argumentum ad populum tactic and say I must be wrong because others agree with you. The underlying assertion in that tactic is that truth, logic, and reality give way to a system of votes. Reality and morality are only what the majority says it is. Of course, the right, when employing this tactic, also counts the votes and determines whose votes count
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 29, 2021, 08:14:32 AM
What it feels like is that the Front Porch is becoming FOX News the BBH edition. We have a climate denial thread, we have a thread claiming conservatives are the victims of a sinister conspiracy to "cancel" them, and now we have a thread contending that White People are being persecuted by our federal government.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember anyone claiming to deny that climate has changed. The issue has never been that climate doesn't change as science and history prove that climate is anything but static. The big issue is the pinpointing by the left that a specific variable controls the weather and there is a lot of disagreement - among well respected scientists in the field of heliophysics . By targeting CO2 as the ONLY factor, it allows politicians the opportunity to demand enormous amounts of unchecked funds that are loosely (more like "not at all") audited and responsibly controlled and can get bills passed using fear and scaring the masses. There are actually young people who have taken their own lives believing that the world is near the end and it's too late to fix it. Imagine the millions of little brains being taught every day that the world will no longer exist if we don't reduce our carbon footprint - i.e., cut CO2 emissions. It's a shame what politicians, academia, and a left wing media has done to instill fear into the hearts of children...all to have a reason to bilk billions (maybe trillions in the end) out of taxpayers and divert it to themselves and their swamp friends.
Climate will always change because we don't control climate, nor can we ever by spending untold billions of dollars. As far as green energy goes, I'm all for it because I know that fossil fuels have a limited supply that will eventually run out. Probably not until the year 3000, but at some point in the far distant future it will run out (say goodbye to all things made of plastic). I also like the idea of less pollution and cleaner air and water. However, there is a tradeoff when forcing things in too short of a time frame. Switching to as much green energy as possible is something that should be a goal of everyone...it just has to be done using common sense with a planned transition that takes into account that not every person on the planet can afford to drive a 60,000 dollar Tesla in the next few years. Nor does it take into account that solar, wind, and any other source of clean energy cannot support a planet that uses electricity to drive all vehicles, commerce, and controlling home temperatures. We have a long way to go and should understand that before scaring the ever-loving bejeesus out of everyone and fleecing hardworking people of their earnings.
(I'm still working on your other challenge. Having a hell of a time coming up with things I agree on with liberals - really hard!)
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 29, 2021, 09:28:29 AM
The part in bold is a tactic I have seen used frequently by the RWPM. I pointed out in great detail the way your threads are trending to make this forum FOX News the BBH edition. Now you could have disputed this with facts, examples, and the like. You know like showing a topic you posted on that isn't a RW favorite or perhaps one where you presented both sides or started in the middle. Instead, you opt for the Argumentum ad populum tactic and say I must be wrong because others agree with you. The underlying assertion in that tactic is that truth, logic, and reality give way to a system of votes. Reality and morality are only what the majority says it is. Of course, the right, when employing this tactic, also counts the votes and determines whose votes count
Rich: I don't feel under an obligation to "dispute" anything you say. If you ask a question about the subject matter of the threads, I'll try to answer it.
So far, there have been few substantive questions and a lot of criticism about tangential matters.
In any event, it's now IMO officially football season, so I think there will be very little "traffic" on the Front Porch in the near future other than long-term threads that have withstood the test of time.
Bob
Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on April 29, 2021, 09:51:07 AM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember anyone claiming to deny that climate has changed. The issue has never been that climate doesn't change as science and history prove that climate is anything but static. The big issue is the pinpointing by the left that a specific variable controls the weather and there is a lot of disagreement - among well respected scientists in the field of heliophysics . By targeting CO2 as the ONLY factor, it allows politicians the opportunity to demand enormous amounts of unchecked funds that are loosely (more like "not at all") audited and responsibly controlled and can get bills passed using fear and scaring the masses. There are actually young people who have taken their own lives believing that the world is near the end and it's too late to fix it. Imagine the millions of little brains being taught every day that the world will no longer exist if we don't reduce our carbon footprint - i.e., cut CO2 emissions. It's a shame what politicians, academia, and a left wing media has done to instill fear into the hearts of children...all to have a reason to bilk billions (maybe trillions in the end) out of taxpayers and divert it to themselves and their swamp friends.
Climate will always change because we don't control climate, nor can we ever by spending untold billions of dollars. As far as green energy goes, I'm all for it because I know that fossil fuels have a limited supply that will eventually run out. Probably not until the year 3000, but at some point in the far distant future it will run out (say goodbye to all things made of plastic). I also like the idea of less pollution and cleaner air and water. However, there is a tradeoff when forcing things in too short of a time frame. Switching to as much green energy as possible is something that should be a goal of everyone...it just has to be done using common sense with a planned transition that takes into account that not every person on the planet can afford to drive a 60,000 dollar Tesla in the next few years. Nor does it take into account that solar, wind, and any other source of clean energy cannot support a planet that uses electricity to drive all vehicles, commerce, and controlling home temperatures. We have a long way to go and should understand that before scaring the ever-loving bejeesus out of everyone and fleecing hardworking people of their earnings.
(I'm still working on your other challenge. Having a hell of a time coming up with things I agree on with liberals - really hard!)
Since it's clear that you have completely denied these facts on Climate change, in favor of wild right-wing conspiracy theories involving evil left-wing cabals
QuoteIn its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 414 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.
Let me ask you something, is there anything in the world that could convince you that climate change is real and that man's activity is contributing to it?
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 29, 2021, 10:23:12 AM
Since it's clear that you have completely denied these facts on Climate change, in favor of wild right-wing conspiracy theories involving evil left-wing cabals
Let me ask you something, is there anything in the world that could convince you that climate change is real and that man's activity is contributing to it?
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf
I believe that climate is changing. I also believe it has always been changing. I believe that having 8+ billion people on the planet has an effect on the general environment - especially in deforesting, strip mining, etc. I also believe that 99%+ of climate change has everything to do with the heliosphere of which mankind has zero control. I believe unethical sleazy politicians see a chance to turn this issue into a "crisis" which in turn gives them opportunity to increase control over people while enriching them beyond belief in the process. I'm a realist
Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on April 29, 2021, 10:32:28 AM
I believe that climate is changing. I also believe it has always been changing. I believe that having 8+ billion people on the planet has an effect on the general environment - especially in deforesting, strip mining, etc. I also believe that 99%+ of climate change has everything to do with the heliosphere of which mankind has zero control. I believe unethical sleazy politicians see a chance in turning this into a "crisis" which in turn gives them opportunity to increase control for themselves while enriching them beyond belief.
So the answer is, no? There is nothing to convince you that what the 1300 independent climate change experts from around the world said is true. Your beliefs in your conspiracy involving "sleazy" left-wingers are that firm and sure. I am curious, what evidence did you see of this left-wing cabal creating this manmade climate change hoax to further their sinister agenda convinced you to the point where you believe that you are 100% right in your position and that there is zero point zero chance you are wrong? I mean even the 1300 scientific experts qualified their conclusions with "95% certainty"
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 29, 2021, 10:40:06 AM
So the answer is, no? There is nothing to convince you that what the 1300 independent climate change experts from around the world said is true. Your beliefs in your conspiracy involving "sleazy" left-wingers are that firm and sure. I am curious, what evidence did you see of this left-wing cabal creating this manmade climate change hoax to further their sinister agenda convinced you to the point where you believe that you are 100% right in your position and that there is zero point zero chance you are wrong? I mean even the 1300 scientific experts qualified their conclusions with "95% certainty"
Man, you really like to argue don't you.. :laugh: No problem
I have to take my 90 year old mother to the doctors so I'll be gone for a few hours. As far as answering the above supposition, yes, I think left-wing politicians tend to be sleazy - very sleazy. I think money and power overwhelms their sense of decency and honor. I think they believe that they can do no wrong and if they have to use media manipulation and biased teachers programming (more like poisoning) children's minds and anything else to get their way, they will do it without as much as a light blush. I believe most liberals are so entrenched in their opinions that they are unable to grasp common sense and liberal politicians play their constituents like a fiddle.
As far as 1300 scientific experts go - there is a sizeable list of scientific experts with a polar opposite view. For laymen to argue the point using that method, it's nothing more than confirmation bias.
Have a great day, I'll be back when I have some free time
Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on April 29, 2021, 10:57:24 AM
Man, you really like to argue don't you.. :laugh: No problem
I have to take my 90 year old mother to the doctors so I'll be gone for a few hours. As far as answering the above supposition, yes, I think left-wing politicians tend to be sleazy - very sleazy. I think money and power overwhelms their sense of decency and honor. I think they believe that they can do no wrong and if they have to use media manipulation and biased teachers programming (more like poisoning) children's minds and anything else to get their way, they will do it without as much as a light blush. I believe most liberals are so entrenched in their opinions that they are unable to grasp common sense and liberal politicians play their constituents like a fiddle.
As far as 1300 scientific experts go - there is a sizeable list of scientific experts with a polar opposite view. For laymen to argue the point using that method, it's nothing more than confirmation bias.
Have a great day, I'll be back when I have some free time
So you are 100% certain with 0.0% chance of error that liberals are "so entrenched in their positions that they are unable to grasp common sense" Do you see the possibility of irony in that statement?
Whenever I hear the "well there are lots of scientists on the other side" argument, I always think about this spot on comedy sketch by John Oliver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
I haven't forgotten you Mighty. I've come up with a couple things I agree with on liberals and disagree with on conservatives. It's been a hellish week and weekend for me. My very old mother fell and broke her hip a couple weeks ago and was sent home from rehab about 5 weeks earlier than she should have. While she was in the hospital and then rehab, I became primary care taker of my 94 yr old father who needs all kinds of help. When my mother was sent home unexpectedly, I now have two very needy people that I have to care for...and it isn't always pretty!
Then Thursday night my daughter called with a family emergency. So I went and picked up two of my grandsons and took them to dinner before bringing them home with me to watch the draft for which they complained because they wanted to watch something else. I bribed them with ice cream and snacks so I could follow the draft. Then I continually fielded calls all night from my daughter with updates. I finally decided to put the kids to bed about 10:30 only to get a call from my daughter saying she was coming home and wanted to pick up the kids so they wouldn't miss school in the morning. I got to sleep about 1:30.
Then Yesterday, my son (who recently moved from Wisconsin to New York) called and needed help desperately - he had three truck loads of stuff to move and his best friend and helper had to be away for the weekend as he's in the reserves. So I helped him move all day and my body absolutely is paying the price.
And of course, I've been up to my eyeballs in the draft since Thursday.
Anyway, I have not forgotten my promise to get back to you. Unfortunately, I have to make a run for my mother to refill prescriptions and pick up some stuff she feels is vital...so I'm off to the city. But I will be back and I will give you an answer
Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on May 03, 2021, 11:24:25 AM
I haven't forgotten you Mighty. I've come up with a couple things I agree with on liberals and disagree with on conservatives. It's been a hellish week and weekend for me. My very old mother fell and broke her hip a couple weeks ago and was sent home from rehab about 5 weeks earlier than she should have. While she was in the hospital and then rehab, I became primary care taker of my 94 yr old father who needs all kinds of help. When my mother was sent home unexpectedly, I now have two very needy people that I have to care for...and it isn't always pretty!
Then Thursday night my daughter called with a family emergency. So I went and picked up two of my grandsons and took them to dinner before bringing them home with me to watch the draft for which they complained because they wanted to watch something else. I bribed them with ice cream and snacks so I could follow the draft. Then I continually fielded calls all night from my daughter with updates. I finally decided to put the kids to bed about 10:30 only to get a call from my daughter saying she was coming home and wanted to pick up the kids so they wouldn't miss school in the morning. I got to sleep about 1:30.
Then Yesterday, my son (who recently moved from Wisconsin to New York) called and needed help desperately - he had three truck loads of stuff to move and his best friend and helper had to be away for the weekend as he's in the reserves. So I helped him move all day and my body absolutely is paying the price.
And of course, I've been up to my eyeballs in the draft since Thursday.
Anyway, I have not forgotten my promise to get back to you. Unfortunately, I have to make a run for my mother to refill prescriptions and pick up some stuff she feels is vital...so I'm off to the city. But I will be back and I will give you an answer
sorry to hear about your struggles
Okay, here's my best shot.
Things I agree with that are policies (past and present) of the Democrat party:
1) I am a proponent of food stamps. I believe it is a good cause. Feeds the poor while keeping small farmers from going under and having to fill job voids for which they are typically unqualified. Keep the mom and pop farms going.
2) I loved the policy of Jimmy Carter that has since fallen by the wayside. Carter called for America to switch to the metric system and to do so in phases. It got off to a good start, but then he fell out of favor with the country and no subsequent President bothered to keep it going. There are only three countries in the world that still use the Imperial System of Measurement: the U.S., Liberia and Myanmar (great company we keep with those high tech wonders). The metric system is far, far superior to the imperial system. Everything in the metric system is done using base 10 measures. It's incredibly simple and it's probably one of the biggest reasons other countries beat the pants off the U.S. in math. Instead, the U.S. uses things like "foot" which was some geniuses foot size in the 1500's broken into 12 pieces (probably some guys toe length) using the base 12 mathematics system and then breaking the "inch" into another base 16 system so we have things like 1/64th of an inch. A "rod" was the length of a branch some guy had back in the 1600's. A "mile" was a measurement used by the Romans in 1500 based on the revolution of a wooden wheel on a cart (of course, all wheels were not the same size). I could go on and on...a "gallon" based on ten lbs of water in some shopkeeper's pail...and of course, a "pound" weight originated in Troyes, France as the weight of gold held in a container in a goldsmith's shop, etc., etc. In short, we should have gone to the metric system years ago and Carter had the insight to see just how antiquated the U.S. system is compared to the world - and it holds us back. Now we use both measurements for things we measure mixing imperial with metric and most kids are utterly clueless how to use metric
3) I agree with FDR's social security policy. If not for the implementation of that, millions of elderly people who can no longer work would starve to death or eat cat food or lose their homes, etc. It was a good intention at the time and still is. However, the politicians who believe we should give all the benefits of the social security system to non-residents of this country is insane. It's like begging poor people from other countries to invade the U.S. for those benefits and the way the system is financed, it's going broke as it is. Of course, it didn't help when LBJ in 1968 made a change in the budget process by including Social Security and all other trust funds into a"unified budget." That allowed fiscally reckless politicians to raid the SS funds - which they did, over and over again until it has become just another boondoggle. As much as I despise Al Gore, he was absolutely right that SS funds belonged back in a "lock box", the funds out of the reach of politicians.
4) Speaking of FDR, he was spot on when he systematically opposed any government job to be unionized. He had it right! There is NO competition in government jobs. Regular civilian jobs were contested between worker and owner/management. Both sides had to compromise in order to remain competitive in their market and keep the business alive. Government workers can demand all they want and politicians simply give everything they want to them and consequently, raise taxes on everyone else to pay for it. There is no incentive for politicians to deny government workers outrageous demands. FDR called it "foolishness on its face, and no man with common sense would suggest it". He was right.
Things I disagree with that are policies (past and present) of the Republican party:
1) For years the GOP has been guilty of "crony capitalism", i.e., funding companies that fund their political elections. It's gotten a little better in the past 20 years or so and politicians like Marco Rubio have led the charge in getting the GOP to back off their old strategy. Kudos to him. However, even though the Democrats cried "foul" for years and years, they have taken up the mantel and exploit it themselves even stronger than what the GOP used to do and now have Big Tech, Big Media, Hollywood elitists, and the Billionaires Club in their pockets to join in with their own version of crony capitalism. It all sucks!
2) I disagree with every Republican since Ronald Reagan who promised to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. In fairness, every single President since Reagan, democrat and republican, made that same campaign promise crystal clear. Trump was the only President in the past 40 years to actually do it for which I say, "Bravo - bout f...n time!"
3) Too many in the Republican party spend like a drunken sailor (I used to say, "drunken democrat", but I'll spare you - LOL). Most republicans are not fiscally conservative other than in words only. They all wave their arm in the air out of a near sleep and in unison say "aye" for their yearly raises and cushy benefit packages including "free lifetime medical insurance" (the Golden Cadillac kinds) and give themselves raises for staff, expenditures, etc., regardless if the country is going through an economic downturn and millions of regular people are hurting across the nation and there is little to no inflation to take into account.
Oh well, that's all I got.
I'm bumping this thread up, hopefully so we can hear from others concerning the subject matter.
I'm trying to raise for discussion this issue... Should ANY law EVER apply only to a group of people defined by "race."
I'm also trying to indirectly pose this question... what is "race" anyway? To my knowledge and belief, there is only one race of sentient beings on this planet.
Bob
Aid should go to those most in need, race and color should not apply. That's my H.O.
I can think of one possible situation where a law might be legit although it applies to a limited group of people defined with reference to race: a law dealing with a disease that appears only in those of certain races. Bob