Do you have any evidence to support those statements aside from a television show and your own speculation?

Yes I completely agree with you that the best program would be affirmative action based upon socioeconomic status. But let's be honest, how many more minorities would be helped by racial affirmative action who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds than minorities who come from high socioeconomic backgrounds. The best case would be if it were done purely by socioeconomic status, but I think we can agree that by race isn't the horrible thing everyone makes it out be because the kind of situations that you mentioned are much more rare than their counterparts.

Oh well then I take back what I said Jake. I'm glad you're starting to believe more strongly in personal liberties. Good work showing him the light Pyg :)

Isn't it only someone's body at a certain point? Do you honestly believe that a fertilized egg is human body? That just one single cell is equally as important as a being sentient being capable of thoughts and emotions?

And for the record, you're not a libertarian unless you have radically changed your beliefs. Libertarians are socially liberal and are fervently in favor of person freedoms. You are not socially liberal by any means and in addition to the abortion issue that you mentioned you also disagree with the following positions that the Libertarian Party officially endorses the legalization of all drugs for both recreational and medicinal purposes, the legalization of gay marriage, and the elimination of all laws that enforce actions which have no victims. Ex: Prostitution. Libertarians are also strongly against governments endorsing any form of religion, so putting the ten commandments on public space and teaching creationism in school would be a big no no. Things I believe you expressed support or at least indifference toward, correct me if I am wrong.

While I don't agree with Libertarians on everything, especially economic issues, I strongly respect their beliefs that we should not be governed by a nanny state that involves itself in our personal lives, so I therefore take issue with you proclaiming to be a Libertarian. To allude to Lloyd Bentsen- I know Libertarians, and you sir are no Libertarian.

You really have trouble with identifying causation don't you. First of all 99% of blacks didn't vote for Obama. 96% of blacks did. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html However there is something you are forgetting. Blacks always overwhelmingly vote Democrat. In fact Democrats almost always get more than 90% of the black vote. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/08/national/08VOTE.html?pagewanted=all Blacks In fact "no Republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 15 percent of the black vote since [1965]." http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/when_did_blacks_start_voting_democratic.html

Blacks voted exactly the same way they always do -solidly Democrat. The only reason that people are even bringing this up now is that Obama is black. Obama being black did not help him at all. In fact it most likely hurt him as many white voters did not vote for Obama simply because he is black.

Affirmative action has nothing to do with being racist. Please stop ascribing racism to every racial issue with which you disagree.

There are social conditions that make is it less likely for ethnic minorities to succeed. This is clearly not fair. Blacks especially, while still struggling to achieve social equality, would have never made it this far without affirmative action. The problem lies in the fact you can't be in the middle class if you didn't go to college, and it is incredibly difficult to go to college if your parents do not belong to the middle class. So through no fault of your own if your parents are not moderately wealthy, you are significantly less likely to go to college. Due to this vicious cycle, after slavery was abolished the only schools blacks were able to get into were all black schools. They unfortunately, however, were of significantly less quality than white schools because the schools themselves had very little money. If affirmative action had not been used blacks would be in the same terrible position they were during the Reconstruction Period, and it needs to continue to be used until true equality is achieved for everyone.

No it isn't. Just as only finding the opposite sex attractive doesn't make you homophobic.

First of all congratulations on taking a high school statistics class, but using basic statistics terms completely out of place is not only an attempt at being pedantic, but it is not impressive.

I don't know why you are even discussing blame. Neither I nor any of the feminist movement is trying to place blame upon anyone. It is completely and totally irrelevant what percentage of the fault lies with whom.

This is the reality of the situation. Minorities are underrepresented in Congress. If you don't think is a problem that needs to be change then we have nothing to debate that's your opinion. If you do think that having upper-class Protestant old white men make decisions for an entire diverse country is a problem then we need to figure out a way to change that. Before you make strawmen let me say I am not suggesting effecting this change through legislation, let me state what I think we should do. I think as a society, we need to take responsibility for the way we portray people especially in the media so that everyone is encouraged equally and given the same opportunities to succeed in their goals.

"It'll never steer you wrong" except when it steers you and the plane you are flying into the Twin Towers.

First of all you didn't respond to my question, but to respond to yours, no that is not what I am saying. If an individual doesn't do something that isn't enough of a sample size to draw any conclusions. But let's just think about this logically. For example, gays are a huge underrepresented minority. They make up approximately 10% of the population, but there have only been 6 LGBT members of congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress#Sexual_orientation). Either there is something implicit about being gay that makes a person not want to go into politics, or something about the culture of this country is getting in the way. You have a very romanticized, immature view of success that people who succeed did it because they worked hard and people who don't didn't because they didn't work hard. Though I doubt you will take this to heart I highly recommend you read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. In it he analyzing the success of many individuals and turns the common view of success on its head.

You can't just call something a null argument and use that alone in a debate. If you go through the steps to prove that an argument is invalid then fine, but then you don't really need to explicitly state that it is invalid if you just proved it. So that was basically just a glorified way of saying "You are wrong because."

How do you answer to the fact that every single minority group in the United States in underrepresented in Congress. Just so you don't get confused because apparently math or logic is not your strong suit, that means that the percentage of people in the group is less than the percentage of that group in Congress. Atheists, gays, women, blacks, hispanics etc. etc. Does this mean that straight Christian upper-class males are the only people who care about politics and EVERYONE else just doesn't, or might it possibly mean that there is something about the socio-political climate in this country that prevents or discourages others from even trying. You tell me which is more likely.

I can't follow what you initially said and you cited no sources so I am going to ignore it. Referring to the second half, the "human shield" excuse holds no weight. First of all you really think someone would willingly be used as a human shield? Don't be absurd. Secondly so what if Hamas is even doing that. That does not give Israel any excuse. If the police are in a shootout with someone and they take a hostage to protect themselves, the police don't say "Oh darn they are using the old human shield trick, nothing we can do. Just mow them both down with a machine gun and let's call it a day."