Gravitymaster 0 #26 June 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteCan you give me a link to a Right-Wing site you don't consider extremist? www.foxnews.com If thats your opinion of Fox news, you are in the minority of lefties here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #27 June 30, 2004 QuoteIf thats your opinion of Fox news, you are in the minority of lefties here. I wouldn't agree with that -- I think it reflects the views of the right far more than the left, but it's nothing close to extremist. There is a difference between "I disagree" and "you're an extremist" after all. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #28 June 30, 2004 QuoteThere is a difference between "I disagree" and "you're an extremist" after all. Unless of course, you yourself are an extremist. Then "I disagree" becomes interpreted as aid and comfort to the enemy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #29 June 30, 2004 cracks me up, all the people that say that union dues are not volunary are the same people that have no problem shouting: America love it or leave it. so, I guess it is much easier to leave a country and make a life for yourself in a different country than it is to work outside of a union. Personally I would rather be homeless than to work for a union. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #30 June 30, 2004 Yep, they're also the same people that bash unions saying that they're not needed and that if you can't make a living at your job without one then you should find another one or move somewhere that you can. oh, and you don't "work for a union" unless, of course, you are part of their adminstrative staff. The union works for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #31 June 30, 2004 QuoteThe spelling 'demoKKKrat' is an Anvil creation which I haven't seen replicated as I've told you before. What is scary is that you are arrogant enough to actually believe that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #32 June 30, 2004 QuoteRepublicans freed the slaves to but over the last fifty or more years they haven't exactly been the party of the blacks. And you think that maybe they should be? Preferring one race over another, what's that called? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #33 June 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf thats your opinion of Fox news, you are in the minority of lefties here. I wouldn't agree with that -- I think it reflects the views of the right far more than the left, but it's nothing close to extremist. The problem is liberals almost always refer to the Far Right and the Extreme Right as the same. I can't remember the last time I heard a lefty say just "Right". I'd suggest you reflect on your own views being the product of propoganda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #34 June 30, 2004 Like beauty, arrogance is in the eye of...oh never mind. A certain greenie always gets perturbed when I infer such - it's OK for you and PK to call me arrogant though because that's accepted practice. For the record, I don't frequent FreeRepublic.com nor can I recall ever seeing the 'demoKKKrat' mis-spelling used prior to me using it myself. PK's inference that I'm incapable of independent thought is hilarious. Use it all you like in Anvil-bashing. The laughter you hear directed AT you is my own. Since the thread-jackers here are so interested in the etymology of my calumnious billvon and chuckles to himself> mis-spelling of the word 'Democrat' let me expound upon Wendy's comment with this confession: in 1992 I was a democrat. I understand your aversion to discussing how the left has completely sold its soul to socialism. I also understand how hard it must be to hear the truth about how the left gets the majority of its funding. But the truth hurts sometimes and it's long past the time for that party to face the truth. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #35 June 30, 2004 >If thats your opinion of Fox news, you are in the minority of lefties here. Fox News isn't extremist. The Army of God is. Similarly, a great many republicans are not extremist; it's the minority that make most of the noise and get noticed most. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites migliore 0 #36 June 30, 2004 QuoteSlight problem with your analogy. AFLCIO and NEA are non-profit organizations whose sole purpose is to serve their members. Not a corporation whose sole purpose is to generate revenue. Not sure, but aren't non-profits forbidden from financially/materially supporting a single political party or candidate? If so, not many honest people will claim that the major unions are following this directive. Also, you're right...the purpose of a corporation IS to generate revenue. And one of the ways to maximize revenue is to (legally) support politicians that will not excessively tax/burden them for being productive. Shane Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #37 June 30, 2004 Quote First of all, union membership is voluntary WHAT? So what you are saying is that if you have a trade - You can work it anywhere? Try that with the Elevator trade - go ahead Voluntary - you cannot and will not get a job as an elevator installation mechanic and be Non union. Hence there is no "Voluntary" that is like saying that if you want to breath you have to buy my air - but it is optional to breathe.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #38 June 30, 2004 QuoteYep, they're also the same people that bash unions saying that they're not needed and that if you can't make a living at your job without one then you should find another one or move somewhere that you can. oh, and you don't "work for a union" unless, of course, you are part of their adminstrative staff. The union works for you. No - it does not - it undermines the"you " you are speaking of and serves ONLY the demokkkratic party (Runs away from vinnie). As far as the KKK in Demokkkrat is concerned - when you stop labeling people by their ethnic neiborhoods and let EVEYBODY do for them selves as they can - then there will be equality - you cannot have equality when special treatment is given to ANYONE. Anything else by definition is RACIST.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites migliore 0 #39 July 1, 2004 Quotewhen you stop labeling people by their ethnic neiborhoods and let EVEYBODY do for them selves as they can - then there will be equality - you cannot have equality when special treatment is given to ANYONE. Anything else by definition is RACIST. I agree with your general point, but I want to clear up one thing...I would call the behavior you describe prejudicial, not necessarily racist. The people who enact policies that give special treatment to certain groups do not necessarily believe they are racially superior (as a racist would), but they do prejudge a person's ability based solely on their skin color, race, etc. It was MLK who longed for a nation in which people would be "not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I do not believe many of the current-day policies including Affirmative Action accomplish this. Shane Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #40 July 1, 2004 What's this runs away from Vinnie shyte? I'm a friendly JACKASS. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites newsstand 0 #41 July 1, 2004 Quote QuoteRepublicans freed the slaves to but over the last fifty or more years they haven't exactly been the party of the blacks. And you think that maybe they should be? Preferring one race over another, what's that called? - Jim I was pointing out how things change, people change, groups change, not saying that anyone should be anything in particular. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #42 July 1, 2004 QuoteWhat racists ideas are they pushing now? Racial equality? Using race based preferences to pursue racial equality is what I find objectionable. Raises some troubling questions like is it appropriate even if someone is new to the country, therefore even their family had never been a victim of the historical racism? How do you categorize people by race? Use a color meter on their skin? Some objective judge looks at you and decides? Some % of blood as the Native Americans do to determine your ability to be considered a member of the tribe? These questions should have to be answered in order to support race based preferences, in my opinion. To not bother with these questions is to admit you will apply a remedy for past injustice without showing that an individual suffered the injustice. At least the Japanese detainees could definitely show they were connected to the unjust policy.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites newsstand 0 #43 July 1, 2004 While I certainly have problems with affirmative action I also have a hard time calling it racist. Misguided, good intentions gone bad and prone to abuse yes, racist no. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #44 July 1, 2004 Racial discrimination is racial discrimination, regardless of its intent. Racial discrimination for purposes of employment, collegiate admission, awarding of scholarships, etc is WRONG.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,587 #45 July 1, 2004 QuoteRacial discrimination for purposes of employment, collegiate admission, awarding of scholarships, etc is WRONG And when it happens in less obvious ways, it's easy to say that the other guy was more qualified, or the person doing the admitting to college is right to want a certain type of student, or of course people want to work with folks who are like them. Which ends up as discrimination too. Of course, that kind of discrimination isn't usually against white men, is it? And we can talk about what a shame it is that some people just can't get ahead, but we don't really have to do anything about it. I'll admit that the NBA and Hooters do discriminate. Of course, Spud Webb is only 5'7" and he was in the NBA, and even won the dunking contest. I think discrimination based on talent is still ok, isn't it? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #46 July 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteRacial discrimination for purposes of employment, collegiate admission, awarding of scholarships, etc is WRONG And when it happens in less obvious ways, it's easy to say that the other guy was more qualified, or the person doing the admitting to college is right to want a certain type of student, or of course people want to work with folks who are like them. Which ends up as discrimination too. Of course, that kind of discrimination isn't usually against white men, is it? And we can talk about what a shame it is that some people just can't get ahead, but we don't really have to do anything about it. I'll admit that the NBA and Hooters do discriminate. Of course, Spud Webb is only 5'7" and he was in the NBA, and even won the dunking contest. I think discrimination based on talent is still ok, isn't it? Wendy W. So you will discriminate to make sure that there is equality - right. Sounds oxymoronic.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,587 #47 July 1, 2004 QuoteSo you will discriminate to make sure that there is equality - right. Sounds oxymoronic Actually, I don't have to personally. I have no quotas to fill when I hire. But it sounds like you'll just let the status quo (which is discriminatory) go on. Which is perpetuating the system. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #48 July 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo you will discriminate to make sure that there is equality - right. Sounds oxymoronic Actually, I don't have to personally. I have no quotas to fill when I hire. But it sounds like you'll just let the status quo (which is discriminatory) go on. Which is perpetuating the system. Wendy W. It may sound that way to you - Which is worse - 1 or 2 1) giving special treatment to those that did little except be a certain race or ethic background while at the same time denying those same services to another racial group completely or at least making the requirements so high that it isn't plausible to reach them. or 2) Treating everyone the same and holding standards equally for every race and creed?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #49 July 1, 2004 Justify your support of racial discrimination however you like. Conservatives don't support racial discrimination - lefties do. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,587 #50 July 1, 2004 Obviously treating everyone equally is better. That doesn't happen most of the time in the real world. So we have a couple of flavors of treating people according to criteria that include race -- either the way it seems to happen in the real world or the legislated way. Any minority person I have hired was fully qualified to do the job they were hired for; there are qualities besides GPA that I look for (that applies to everyone who hires here as far as I know); it's definitely not the only determinant. In another thread, someone made it clear that he'll select a candidate with a lower GPA who put himself through school -- that's a valid criterium for some jobs, and it makes it clear that pointing out inferior GPA as a sign of racial discrimination is using what serves a current agenda. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
TheAnvil 0 #34 June 30, 2004 Like beauty, arrogance is in the eye of...oh never mind. A certain greenie always gets perturbed when I infer such - it's OK for you and PK to call me arrogant though because that's accepted practice. For the record, I don't frequent FreeRepublic.com nor can I recall ever seeing the 'demoKKKrat' mis-spelling used prior to me using it myself. PK's inference that I'm incapable of independent thought is hilarious. Use it all you like in Anvil-bashing. The laughter you hear directed AT you is my own. Since the thread-jackers here are so interested in the etymology of my calumnious billvon and chuckles to himself> mis-spelling of the word 'Democrat' let me expound upon Wendy's comment with this confession: in 1992 I was a democrat. I understand your aversion to discussing how the left has completely sold its soul to socialism. I also understand how hard it must be to hear the truth about how the left gets the majority of its funding. But the truth hurts sometimes and it's long past the time for that party to face the truth. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #35 June 30, 2004 >If thats your opinion of Fox news, you are in the minority of lefties here. Fox News isn't extremist. The Army of God is. Similarly, a great many republicans are not extremist; it's the minority that make most of the noise and get noticed most. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
migliore 0 #36 June 30, 2004 QuoteSlight problem with your analogy. AFLCIO and NEA are non-profit organizations whose sole purpose is to serve their members. Not a corporation whose sole purpose is to generate revenue. Not sure, but aren't non-profits forbidden from financially/materially supporting a single political party or candidate? If so, not many honest people will claim that the major unions are following this directive. Also, you're right...the purpose of a corporation IS to generate revenue. And one of the ways to maximize revenue is to (legally) support politicians that will not excessively tax/burden them for being productive. Shane Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #37 June 30, 2004 Quote First of all, union membership is voluntary WHAT? So what you are saying is that if you have a trade - You can work it anywhere? Try that with the Elevator trade - go ahead Voluntary - you cannot and will not get a job as an elevator installation mechanic and be Non union. Hence there is no "Voluntary" that is like saying that if you want to breath you have to buy my air - but it is optional to breathe.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #38 June 30, 2004 QuoteYep, they're also the same people that bash unions saying that they're not needed and that if you can't make a living at your job without one then you should find another one or move somewhere that you can. oh, and you don't "work for a union" unless, of course, you are part of their adminstrative staff. The union works for you. No - it does not - it undermines the"you " you are speaking of and serves ONLY the demokkkratic party (Runs away from vinnie). As far as the KKK in Demokkkrat is concerned - when you stop labeling people by their ethnic neiborhoods and let EVEYBODY do for them selves as they can - then there will be equality - you cannot have equality when special treatment is given to ANYONE. Anything else by definition is RACIST.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
migliore 0 #39 July 1, 2004 Quotewhen you stop labeling people by their ethnic neiborhoods and let EVEYBODY do for them selves as they can - then there will be equality - you cannot have equality when special treatment is given to ANYONE. Anything else by definition is RACIST. I agree with your general point, but I want to clear up one thing...I would call the behavior you describe prejudicial, not necessarily racist. The people who enact policies that give special treatment to certain groups do not necessarily believe they are racially superior (as a racist would), but they do prejudge a person's ability based solely on their skin color, race, etc. It was MLK who longed for a nation in which people would be "not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I do not believe many of the current-day policies including Affirmative Action accomplish this. Shane Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #40 July 1, 2004 What's this runs away from Vinnie shyte? I'm a friendly JACKASS. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #41 July 1, 2004 Quote QuoteRepublicans freed the slaves to but over the last fifty or more years they haven't exactly been the party of the blacks. And you think that maybe they should be? Preferring one race over another, what's that called? - Jim I was pointing out how things change, people change, groups change, not saying that anyone should be anything in particular. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #42 July 1, 2004 QuoteWhat racists ideas are they pushing now? Racial equality? Using race based preferences to pursue racial equality is what I find objectionable. Raises some troubling questions like is it appropriate even if someone is new to the country, therefore even their family had never been a victim of the historical racism? How do you categorize people by race? Use a color meter on their skin? Some objective judge looks at you and decides? Some % of blood as the Native Americans do to determine your ability to be considered a member of the tribe? These questions should have to be answered in order to support race based preferences, in my opinion. To not bother with these questions is to admit you will apply a remedy for past injustice without showing that an individual suffered the injustice. At least the Japanese detainees could definitely show they were connected to the unjust policy.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #43 July 1, 2004 While I certainly have problems with affirmative action I also have a hard time calling it racist. Misguided, good intentions gone bad and prone to abuse yes, racist no. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #44 July 1, 2004 Racial discrimination is racial discrimination, regardless of its intent. Racial discrimination for purposes of employment, collegiate admission, awarding of scholarships, etc is WRONG.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #45 July 1, 2004 QuoteRacial discrimination for purposes of employment, collegiate admission, awarding of scholarships, etc is WRONG And when it happens in less obvious ways, it's easy to say that the other guy was more qualified, or the person doing the admitting to college is right to want a certain type of student, or of course people want to work with folks who are like them. Which ends up as discrimination too. Of course, that kind of discrimination isn't usually against white men, is it? And we can talk about what a shame it is that some people just can't get ahead, but we don't really have to do anything about it. I'll admit that the NBA and Hooters do discriminate. Of course, Spud Webb is only 5'7" and he was in the NBA, and even won the dunking contest. I think discrimination based on talent is still ok, isn't it? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #46 July 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteRacial discrimination for purposes of employment, collegiate admission, awarding of scholarships, etc is WRONG And when it happens in less obvious ways, it's easy to say that the other guy was more qualified, or the person doing the admitting to college is right to want a certain type of student, or of course people want to work with folks who are like them. Which ends up as discrimination too. Of course, that kind of discrimination isn't usually against white men, is it? And we can talk about what a shame it is that some people just can't get ahead, but we don't really have to do anything about it. I'll admit that the NBA and Hooters do discriminate. Of course, Spud Webb is only 5'7" and he was in the NBA, and even won the dunking contest. I think discrimination based on talent is still ok, isn't it? Wendy W. So you will discriminate to make sure that there is equality - right. Sounds oxymoronic.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #47 July 1, 2004 QuoteSo you will discriminate to make sure that there is equality - right. Sounds oxymoronic Actually, I don't have to personally. I have no quotas to fill when I hire. But it sounds like you'll just let the status quo (which is discriminatory) go on. Which is perpetuating the system. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #48 July 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo you will discriminate to make sure that there is equality - right. Sounds oxymoronic Actually, I don't have to personally. I have no quotas to fill when I hire. But it sounds like you'll just let the status quo (which is discriminatory) go on. Which is perpetuating the system. Wendy W. It may sound that way to you - Which is worse - 1 or 2 1) giving special treatment to those that did little except be a certain race or ethic background while at the same time denying those same services to another racial group completely or at least making the requirements so high that it isn't plausible to reach them. or 2) Treating everyone the same and holding standards equally for every race and creed?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #49 July 1, 2004 Justify your support of racial discrimination however you like. Conservatives don't support racial discrimination - lefties do. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #50 July 1, 2004 Obviously treating everyone equally is better. That doesn't happen most of the time in the real world. So we have a couple of flavors of treating people according to criteria that include race -- either the way it seems to happen in the real world or the legislated way. Any minority person I have hired was fully qualified to do the job they were hired for; there are qualities besides GPA that I look for (that applies to everyone who hires here as far as I know); it's definitely not the only determinant. In another thread, someone made it clear that he'll select a candidate with a lower GPA who put himself through school -- that's a valid criterium for some jobs, and it makes it clear that pointing out inferior GPA as a sign of racial discrimination is using what serves a current agenda. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
