If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
"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| |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Banking for long term world travel? | [email protected] | Travel - anything else not covered | 0 | April 9th, 2005 06:54 AM |
HAL Committed To Protecting Environment! | Ray Goldenberg | Cruises | 3 | April 24th, 2004 06:11 AM |
Seven Seas Voyager's 107-night first world cruise Jan. - April 2005. | Anchors Away Cruise Center | Cruises | 1 | April 2nd, 2004 12:39 AM |
Most of the World Still Does Without | Earl Evleth | Europe | 1 | December 26th, 2003 08:07 PM |
_Lonely Planet_ Threat to Environment | Tame | Africa | 1 | October 24th, 2003 05:53 PM |