With The World Environment Day Conference.....

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"pigo" enscribed:

Enron was going in the toilet during the excesses and anything
goes
policy of the previous democrat administration. The same folks
that

The previous democrat administration extended to November 9, 2001?
What was Bush between January and November

You think that they just decided to start plundering the company in
Jan. 2001 or had it been going on for some time and finally crumbled
in Nov?

are more interested in making things difficult for President Bush
than what's best for the country. Clinton used Haliburton to
rebuild
Kosovo. But no one brings that up when they bash Bush for using
them.

Al Gore didn't financially benefit from Haliburton in Kosovo.
That's what conflict of interest is all about. Cheney's relation to
Haliburton, Bush's relation to Enron or ADM throws suspicion on
their decisions.

Double standard again.

The same ones that are now complaining about the insurgency in
Iraq
that would have squealed like Ned Beatty had we killled those guys
rather than let them fade back into the population. The same ones

The ones complaining about the insurgency in Iraq (Bush, Rumsfield,
et al) are the same ones who dismissed accurate predictions that
Iraq would be a tar baby. Given their past ability to predict the
location of WMD, American troops being cheered by locals, how it
would be a cakewalk, how Iraqi oil would pay for it all, do you
really believe Cheney when he tells us that back of the insurgency
has been broken?

It would be alot easier to break their backs without many democrats
giving the enemy aid and comfort.

Of course, the Downing Street memos show that Bush knew along he
was lying about WMD.

Wrong.

that whine "why did we attack Iraq when N. Korea and Iran are such
threats" when you know damn well had we attacked Iran they'd just
substitute Iraq in that sentence.

Or you could get your head out of your butt long enough to realize
the question points out Bush's hypocrisy. For all of Bush's blather
about democracy, he remarkably blase about Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe,
Pakistan, PRC, Sudan, etc. And Bush cheered on the coup d'etat of
the democratically elected government of Venezula (or participated
in the plot). His bone headed bashing of Iranian elections brought
an anti-American candidate into second place. Then again a hostile
Iran really is in Bush's interest.

So which one of those countries do you want him to liberate next?

It took the Democrats 40 years to **** things up as badly as it
has
gotten. It's going to take a long time to correct especially with
an
opposition more interested in regaining power than doing what's
best
for America.

When exactly did that forty year period end? Before or after the
WTC was destroyed? Before or after the debt was doubled again
making Social Security untenable? Before or after high paying jobs
were outsourced to Asia? Before or after the Army was bogged down
in war it can't extricate itself from? Before or after 1700 dead
and 12000 wounded American soldiers? Before or after the first
balanced budget since before Reagan? Before or after Army
recruiting plummeted? Before or after DPRK withdrew from NPT?
Before or after religious whackos were allowed to violate the First
Amendment? Before or after the Senate was prepared to abandon two
centuries of unlimited or nearly unlimited debate? Before or after
most countries of the world listed the USA as the greatest threat
to world peace? Before or after Manhattan sized icebergs broke off
Antarctica? Before or after medical costs are driving middle class
families into bankruptcy? Before or after middle class families are
driven into perpetual debt because of medical costs? Before or
after the only medical care available to most poor people is
expensive emergency care?

He inherited a recession. It's improving.
Unions and affirmative action are responsible for outsourcing jobs.
If your going to be force to hire underqualified workers you might as
well get them where they're cheaper.
The army isn't bogged down except to the extent that the liberals
won't let them win because of their pollitically correct bull****.
You mean the Korea that clinton gave the nuclear technology to.
How did the religious wacko's violate the first ammendment? You're
here aren't you?
This is the first time that a vote on judges have not been allowed.
If you can't afford medical care maybe you shouldn't have kids.
I'm paying for medical care for poor people.
The US is a threat to peace when "peace" means that our security is
threatened. And it's about time.
Perhaps it would help if you listed specifically what you consider
a "**** up."

Those dickweeds couldn't wait to crucify Sen. Lott for some
remarks
made at a birthday party. But nary a word when one of their own

At what point has Lott repudiated Thurman's bigotry he was cheering
on? At what point did Lott repudiate his connection to the racist
CCC and apologize for it? At what point did Republicans repudiated
the openly racist Dixiecrats that swelled their party ranks in the
fifties? At what point did Republicans stop pointing Byrd's KKK
past or did they start pointing out the Byrd utterly repudiated
that past and apologized for his decisions in his youth?

compares treatment of illegal combatants by US soldiers at Gitmo
to
that of the people in Nazi Concentration Camps and Soviet Gulags
where millions were tortured and killed. During a time of War no
less. What a pitiful sack of ****.

I've noticed one thing about the whole Durbin brouhaha: Durbin
asked a question. Nobody has yet answered his question. It seems as
the question is so embarrassing that people would rather stifle the
question that deal with it.

What about? If you had read accounts of what was done without
knowing who had done it, would you assume that it been American
soldiers?

If liberals want redistribute wealth and force the hiring of

Do you think it stabilizes the country to have a vast and
increasing gulf between rich and poor? Do you think other countries
like this are models are political stability? Why do you feel that
the profit from productivity increases should only go to small
fraction of people who neither work more productivity nor invent
the productivity increases? Is it fair that the laborer whose sweat
and blood increases the company's value should sink into poverty?

unqualified persons why don't they just take it upon themselves
and
do it? We won't stop them.

Only bigoted scum still believe some groups of people are
inherently inferior or superior. Even Mississippi is walking away
from that sewer.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"pigo" enscribed:

Enron was going in the toilet during the excesses and anything
goes
policy of the previous democrat administration. The same folks
that

The previous democrat administration extended to November 9, 2001?
What was Bush between January and November

You think that they just decided to start plundering the company in
Jan. 2001 or had it been going on for some time and finally crumbled
in Nov?

I'm still not clear what you're whining about. Do you want more government regulation? I thought only evil Democrats believed in government regulation, instead of letting the free market seek its own rewards and punishments. Or are you claiming Clinton forced Lay to ruin his own company? What exactly did you want the government to do? And why did Bush wait ten months not to do it?

Al Gore didn't financially benefit from Haliburton in Kosovo.
That's what conflict of interest is all about. Cheney's relation to
Haliburton, Bush's relation to Enron or ADM throws suspicion on
their decisions.

Double standard again.

How did Al Gore profit from Haliburton's business? Cheney got money from them after he left. The situations are not the symmetrical.

It would be alot easier to break their backs without many democrats
giving the enemy aid and comfort.

What aid and comfort? Be specific. Or are you claiming that any dissent whatsoever is treason? Are you saying democracy is not robust enough to function during war? That during a war the president becomes god emperor and can rule by fiat?

That's what other dictators do. They declare a state of emergency and shut down the legislature and outlaw all dissent. Is that the standard of government you aspire to?

Of course, the Downing Street memos show that Bush knew along he
was lying about WMD.

Wrong.

Liar, liar pants on fire. Point out the specific clause in the memo you are referring to. Of course, you'll have to read them first instead of puppeting what Rush Limbaugh told you say.

So which one of those countries do you want him to liberate next?

What is the rule of law that allowed him to invade Iraq? Saddam Hussein was complying with all UN demands. The UN inspection teams were on the verge of proving he had no WMD. Downing Street memo shows Bush was going to invade no matter what.

He inherited a recession. It's improving.

Clinton inherited a recession and followed by an improved economy for everyone. How many Americans earning less than two hundred thousand a year feel their economic outlook has improved over the last four and half years?

Unions and affirmative action are responsible for outsourcing jobs.

So basically the only way to keep jobs in the USA is to reduce people to slavery?

If your going to be force to hire underqualified workers you might as
well get them where they're cheaper.

Racist claptrap. Nobody is forced to hire under-qualified workers: they are forced to hire fairly. Actually it's better for the company.

The army isn't bogged down except to the extent that the liberals

How soon are they leaving Iraq? Rumsfield was talking a decade or more. They're still talking years. If it was safe and happy and nobody was trying to kill them, they could leave today. Instead they're there for years being constantly mortared and bombed and shot at. What do you think 'bogged down' means?

won't let them win because of their pollitically correct bull****.

So what is it that liberals aren't permitting the Army to do? Be specific. What weapons have liberals forbidden the Army to use? What targets have they forbidden the Army to attack? Are you complaining because the torture chambers of Abu Ghraibh were shut down?

You mean the Korea that clinton gave the nuclear technology to.

You got any proof of such an inflammatory accusation? Have you got any evidence whatsoever of any transfer of nuclear weapons technology by any American at all to Korea?

How did the religious wacko's violate the first ammendment? You're
here aren't you?

You can start with whole gay marriage issue. The only rational argument against it is an appeal to religion. Government is not allowed to appeal to religion.

This is the first time that a vote on judges have not been allowed.

Do you really believe that? Try again. Jesse Helms bottled up judicial nominations because he wouldn't allow black to become judges in his state. Many other Clinton nominees never got a vote. The fact that you repeat such a blatant lie only shows you're just a puppet for Fox.

If you can't afford medical care maybe you shouldn't have kids.

And you shouldn't break a limb, have cancer, have a heart attack, etc. Isn't strange that the nation that considers itself the most affluent cannot afford reasonable health care for all of its citizens.

I'm paying for medical care for poor people.

So am I. At twice the cost I would have to pay if there was rational system of health care.

The US is a threat to peace when "peace" means that our security is
threatened. And it's about time.

How many countries have the US threatened to regime change now? Ever hear of national sovereignty? Is the US the only country allowed to have national sovereignty?

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" enscribed:

EEO/AA applies to pool of job applicants, not the entire population.

And if the entire pool of job applicants doesn't share the same level of
qualification?

And if nobody claimed they did?

What people claim or not doesn't matter. Nobody has to deny any accusation
you can't substantiate...

Your continued, and nauseating, attempts to qualify your way around this
truth are just excuses for your bigotry. Be a man and accept your bigotry
for what it is.

Ah, yes, the old "you must be a racist/bigot/sexist/homophobe because you
disagree with me" routine... Talk about the most worn-out line in the
liberal playbook... :O|

In ba.transportation Stan de SD wrote:

"Merlin Dorfman" wrote in message
...
In ba.transportation Frank F. Matthews
wrote:


Merlin Dorfman wrote:

...

only

2-3% of the students in those programs were black to begin with? I

recall

that out of nearly 1000 students in the natural sciences department
(Chemistry, Physics, Biology) there were maybe a dozen black
students -

and

half of those were Africans. Fact of the matter was that black
students
simply weren't intrested in that academic track, despite the effort
of

the

CC to offer all sorts of minority "outreach" programs to minorities.

And why do you suppose that is? And do you see that as a
problem,
or should we just shrug our shoulders and move on?


I don't see that as a "problem" if there aren't a bunch of PC assholes
insisting that the reason these groups are "underrepresented" is
somehow due
to "racism"...


Suppose all us PC assholes disappeared overnight, and we still
had a situation where only 2-3% of the students in the hard sciences
are black. Do you see that as a problem that the universities, or
the government, or private organizations ought to address, or do you
believe it will correct itself over time, or is it simply not a
problem and therefore it should be ignored?


If you want to force all students to take courses in mathematics and
science then, perhaps, you can do something. You can provide students
with an opportunity to take classes but it is difficult to see how to
force them into a major.

I was thinking more along the lines of working at the root cause
of the lack of minority students in these programs...surely it's not
a cultural aversion to high-paying, respected jobs...

You sure of that? I lived in a racially mixed, fairly "liberal" neighborhood
in Southern California in the 1970's. Our neighbor was a black aerospace
engineer who worked for Hughes and who saved and scrimped to bring his
family out of the ghetto and into the suburbs. Both his kids attended the
same suburban, racially mixed schools I did, but both of them became
ne'er-do-well types who dropped out of school, shacked up with their
girlfriends, and got in various scrapes with the law. Going to school and
getting good grades was considered "acting white" by their peers who lived
in the projects in northwest Pasadena, and the last thing any black kid
wanted back then was to be accused of being "white". Despite the fact that
the Pasadena Unified School District did all the good and right liberal
things such as implementing a court-ordered busing plan, electing a hispanic
superitendent (Ramon Cortinez), promoting plenty of black and hispanic
teachers as "role models", and striving for AA, there was still an almost
predestined effort to fail among some of the black kids. The fact that
blacks and hispanics aren't making it in the year 2005 has less and less to
do with vestiges of some era of racial discrimination that ended 2
generations ago and more to do with cultural attitudes of people who not
only do not hold the same values as the rest of society, but often hold them
in contempt. Now whose fault is that?

I'm not getting through, am I, Stan? I keep asking you whether
we should consider this a problem (and if so whether we should try to
do something about it), or just assume it will fix itself, or just
ignore it. And you keep describing (accurately or not) the symptoms
of what I believe is a problem (and one that has, and will continue to
have, serious consequences for the problem), and whose fault it is.

In ba.transportation Stan de SD wrote:

....

Why do you think blacks are less "interested" in science and
technology? Is it genetic?

Many African-American academics and commentators have already answered this,
and believe it is a cultural factor. Try reading "Race and Culture" and
"Black Rednecks, White Liberals" by Dr. Thomas Sowell for his take on this
issue.

Hmmm, the views of (one) upper-class black seem to have a lot
of influence on you.

But, indeed, why should the ethnic distribution of college students
within
specific majors match the ethnic distribution of the general population?
Why must everyone like to study what American WASP culture likes to
study?

So it's not genetic, it's cultural...blacks are interested in
rap music and sports, while American WASPS (not to mention Asians,
Catholics, Jews, and other groups) are interested in things that
have a much better chance of leading to well-paying jobs. And you
are OK with that?

The fact that you and I may not be OK with that doesn't seem to affect the
fact that a noticeable proportion of those people see it as just fine.
Again, that's not to say we shouldn't try to change the situation, but do we
need to continually accept the blame for it?

I'm not blaming you for it, Stan. I'm not asking you to humble
yourself or wear a hair shirt or flagellate yourself. I'm just asking
if you think this is a problem that is causing serious problems for
the country, and will continue to do so, and whether some effort to
remedy it is in order.
You don't say we shouldn't try to change the situation, but you
don't say we should either.

Top post intentional....My opinion (take it for what its worth).

Merlin is very cordial in this thread. I applaud that. DC you are not
arguing fairly with Stan in that you keep accusing him of racism where he
has a different yet valid point of view that he is substantiating and
offering his reference material to the group to verify. You all make valid
points. As a school board member in a diverse district, I can tell you that
the facts are pretty accurate all the way around here. Minorities are not
equally represented in Math and Science jobs or post secondary education.
Quotas are patently unfair because at the end of the day the Asian kids with
the 4.0 are turned away in favor of "targeted" minority groups who are
underrepresented. The way to rectify that is continued efforts to improve
education at the primary and secondary level, and community outreach. When
you are constantly bombarded with slang being "cool" and the steretypical
white male buffoon or Asian geek on TV and the Movies, is it any wonder that
the younger generation is not identifying with the engineering professional
but rather with the hip blue collar guy who makes 1/8 the money?

Bottom line, you want underserved minorities to "want" the high paying jobs
and do the associated work necessary to get those jobs. Currently the
suburban white kid and the urban Asian kid has parents that seek those
educational opportunities actively. The rest of the population does not do
so on an active level. But there are many cultural obstacles to overcome to
reach that objective, and it won't happen overnight in a fair manner.

Rizzo


"Merlin Dorfman" wrote in message
...
In ba.transportation Stan de SD wrote:

...

Why do you think blacks are less "interested" in science and
technology? Is it genetic?

Many African-American academics and commentators have already answered
this,
and believe it is a cultural factor. Try reading "Race and Culture" and
"Black Rednecks, White Liberals" by Dr. Thomas Sowell for his take on
this
issue.

Hmmm, the views of (one) upper-class black seem to have a lot
of influence on you.

But, indeed, why should the ethnic distribution of college students
within
specific majors match the ethnic distribution of the general
population?
Why must everyone like to study what American WASP culture likes to
study?

So it's not genetic, it's cultural...blacks are interested in
rap music and sports, while American WASPS (not to mention Asians,
Catholics, Jews, and other groups) are interested in things that
have a much better chance of leading to well-paying jobs. And you
are OK with that?

The fact that you and I may not be OK with that doesn't seem to affect
the
fact that a noticeable proportion of those people see it as just fine.
Again, that's not to say we shouldn't try to change the situation, but
do we
need to continually accept the blame for it?

I'm not blaming you for it, Stan. I'm not asking you to humble
yourself or wear a hair shirt or flagellate yourself. I'm just asking
if you think this is a problem that is causing serious problems for
the country, and will continue to do so, and whether some effort to
remedy it is in order.
You don't say we shouldn't try to change the situation, but you
don't say we should either.

"Bill Pittman" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Stan de SD" wrote:

Ever considered the fact that with all your intervention in public
policy
and education, the fact that you Lefty Liberals still can't get the
Utopian
results you hope for in terms of "representation" might be due to the
fact
that your own cultural blinders (and the desire to find a convenient
scapegoat for all the world's problems) prevent you from acknowledging
that
some of your assumpions may not be valid?

I don't think we "Lefty Liberals" need "a convenient scapegoat) for
problems in this country, anyway. Everything I see tells me that the
problems we presently have involve a single scapegoat organization: the
"Righty Neanderthal" Republicans in the administration and in Congress.

Many of these problems have been around for decades. The Democrats have
controlled the congress for 45 of the past 55 years (or so). Perhaps we
should give the Republicans a couple more terms to unravel the beurocracy
before blaming them for all the problems that they didn't create as well as
a few that they did.

Rizzo

"Frank Rizzo" enscribed:
Top post intentional....My opinion (take it for what its worth).

Merlin is very cordial in this thread. I applaud that. DC you are not
arguing fairly with Stan in that you keep accusing him of racism where he

Accuse nothing. He states his racism himself.

Unless you think it's not racist to declare some people are inherently inferior or superior based solely on color, creed, national origin, etc.

points. As a school board member in a diverse district, I can tell you that

You're diverting from the issue. Employers are not held responsible for whom schools graduate, only that they hire from fairly from those graduates.

the facts are pretty accurate all the way around here. Minorities are not
equally represented in Math and Science jobs or post secondary education.

Irrelevant to EEO. EEO applies to available applicants. Whether those applicants match society as a whole is not the responsibility of employers. Whether schools are serving the best interests of society is a separate issue.

I haven't said anything about people who claim schools produce biassed results. I only mark the people who excuse unfair hiring practices.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...

Unless you think it's not racist to declare some people are
inherently inferior or superior based solely on color, creed,
national origin, etc.

He hasn't done that. Recognizing that there are groups that can be
seperated by color or whatever doesn't mean that he is saying that
they are "inherently" inferior. They might be perfoming that way for
any number of reasons.

You're diverting from the issue. Employers are not held responsible
for whom schools graduate, only that they hire from fairly from
those graduates.

And fairly, for some, means the ones that get the most questions
right on tests graduate higher in the class and get better jobs as a
result. For others, like you apparently, think that fair is for some
people to get considerations based on the color of their skin.
Classic racism.

the facts are pretty accurate all the way around here. Minorities
are not
equally represented in Math and Science jobs or post secondary
education.

Irrelevant to EEO. EEO applies to available applicants. Whether
those applicants match society as a whole is not the responsibility
of employers. Whether schools are serving the best interests of
society is a separate issue.

I haven't said anything about people who claim schools produce
biassed results. I only mark the people who excuse unfair hiring
practices.

But people want employees that can speak understandable english.
Maybe that can spell or not swear over the phone. Maybe they have to
add and subtract. So they're going to hire the ones that scored the
best in those skills when tested in school. And *fair* would be for
them to be allowed to choose the one that scored best in those tasks.
Whether or not 100 blacks (for example) and two white applied for the
job. If the white scored higher in those tests, he deserves the job.

"pigo" enscribed:

You made allegations of treason against Clinton and Democrats. I still haven't seen back up your words yet.

Unless you think it's not racist to declare some people are
inherently inferior or superior based solely on color, creed,
national origin, etc.

He hasn't done that. Recognizing that there are groups that can be
seperated by color or whatever doesn't mean that he is saying that
they are "inherently" inferior. They might be perfoming that way for
any number of reasons.

Are you really so stupid you cannot realize what you just typed? Or do you think I'm going to swallow that crap.

Recognizing that there are groups that can be
seperated by color

What exactly do you think racism is?

I've seen your spew three times so far, and I've already detected a pattern. You make wild, unsubstantiated allegations, and when challenged on them, you run away. How Republican of you.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.