Unbelievable

[dissention]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=15&u=/ap/20031224/ap_on_re_us/campus_controversy_2

Now THAT was in bad taste and vulgar.

:mad: :rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=15&u=/ap/20031224/ap_on_re_us/campus_controversy_2

Now THAT was in bad taste and vulgar.

:mad: :rolleyes:

I can't believe in this day and age this kind of thing goes on. Stupid neocons. Maybe they should go to Bob Jones University instead.

[DrummerDeanna]

I heard about one of these a while ago...gee, good to know they're starting to spread :rolleyes: :distress:

Things like this not only anger me, but the arguments the groups use as to why they do it are so ridiculous...in my opinion...

[Rob67]

I tell you what...this is a far cry from some of the Liberal protests I saw at PSU. A FAR cry.

It's ok to call the president Hitler but when a group sets up a booth to make a point about Affirmative Action (And they said that was what it was for!), it's disgraceful...come on. Some of the Abortion protests on PSU's campus were ridiculous. But you know what? If I disagreed, I kept on moving and that was that. Protests and demonstrations should be allowed from all sides.

What is the BIG DEAL????

[The Chain]

"What's the World Comming To?':distress:

[strandinthewind]

:rolleyes:

[Jason T.]

...the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University...

I feel more ashamed than Natalie...this crap is sick...I'm so pissed right now I cannot even go on about this crapola. OMG, some people and their ignorance! :distress:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
I tell you what...this is a far cry from some of the Liberal protests I saw at PSU. A FAR cry.

It's ok to call the president Hitler but when a group sets up a booth to make a point about Affirmative Action (And they said that was what it was for!), it's disgraceful...come on. Some of the Abortion protests on PSU's campus were ridiculous. But you know what? If I disagreed, I kept on moving and that was that. Protests and demonstrations should be allowed from all sides.

What is the BIG DEAL????

It's racist.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It's racist.

I agree - but it does show a point as most protests do. So, in the spririt of the 1st Amend. - it sucks, but I support their right to do it.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It's racist.

Which is exactly their point....


Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree - but it does show a point as most protests do. So, in the spririt of the 1st Amend. - it sucks, but I support their right to do it.

Ah...the voice of reason among a sea of extremism!:laugh:

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Ah...the voice of reason among a sea of extremism!:laugh:

Rob:cool:

Just don't get caught in any elavators with him in Chicago.:laugh: ;) :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Just don't get caught in any elavators with him in Chicago.:laugh: ;) :wavey:

Well, I wouldn't sing (Ok BELT) the entire score of "Oklahoma" for just anyone!!!!!! :wavey: ;)

Seriously, the first amendment stuff is hard. I mean even the ACLU (or "communist femi-nazis" as my father calls them :laugh: ) defended the KKK's right to march/demonstrate - talk about a sickening case for any lawyer. But, rights are rights. :nod:

[darklinensuit]

What's that quote? - "The greatest of all rights is the right to be wrong."

- Jake

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, I wouldn't sing (Ok BELT) the entire score of "Oklahoma" for just anyone!!!!!! :wavey: ;)

It's one of my favorite memories of this year. I'm sure Ella will remember it on her birthday for many years to come.:)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It's one of my favorite memories of this year. I'm sure Ella will remember it on her birthday for many years to come.:)

:xoxo: (the best blushing emoticon I could find). That night was for me as well just great and will ive in my head for a long long time. I am so glad we/I "carried on" the night before the show and "behaved" the day of the show so we could be up for platters of fried food :laugh: and conversation afterward. :cool:

[Rob67]

Came across this article and remembered it was brought up here. Makes sense.

Rob


"The Conservative Cookie Rebellion"
By Wendy McElroy
Tuesday, December 16, 2003

Want to buy a cookie? If you are a white male, that'll be $1; for white females, 75 cents; blacks, 25 cents. The price structure is the message.

Through Affirmative Action Bake Sales, conservative groups on campuses across America are satirically and peacefully spotlighting the injustice of AA programs that penalize or benefit students based solely on gender and race. The cookie rebels are being slammed by such a backlash that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) -- dreaded by many university administrators -- just shot "an opening salvo" in the rebels' defense.

Thor Halvorssen, CEO of FIRE, declared in a press release last Friday: "Parody and political satire are not illegal in this country. College administrators appear to be under the mistaken impression that protesting affirmative action is not covered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Freedom of speech is a right enjoyed equally and fully by both supporters and opponents of affirmative action."

What are the AA bake sales, and why do they engender such furor?

The sales are intended to spark discussion, not profits. They are in the same genre as guerrilla theater -- an effective counterculture tactic usually associated with the Left -- through which societal assumptions are challenged by acting out scenarios. To the amazed query, "Are you allowed to do this?" one cookie rebel responded, "Admissions officers do it every day." By shifting the context from university policy to baked goods, the assumptions of affirmative action policies are not only challenged as sexist and racist but also revealed as nonsense.

The cookie rebels are doing the one thing political correctness cannot bear: revealing its absurdity and laughing in its face. They are not merely speaking truth to power; they are chuckling at it.

To regain the moral indignation they prize so highly, the politically correct must demonize the sale of baked goods. Thus, at Indiana University one student filed an official complaint, saying that the cookie sale would "create a climate of hostility against students of color and women and can easily turn violent." (The fact that those students were the ones given a price break didn't seem to occur to the irony-starved critic who equated a buyer's discount with a threat of violence.)

To its credit, Indiana University chose to protect the freedom of speech for both sides of the affirmative action issue; it allowed the bake sale to proceed. Other universities have made the opposite choice.

The College Republicans at the University of Washington sponsored an affirmative action bake sale on Oct. 7. CR President Jason Chambers reported, "Approximately 150 students were gathered around our booth discussing the issue [AA] by about 12:30 when our booth was attacked by leftist students who disagreed with our stance on affirmative action." The Leftists threw cookies to the ground, tore down the display and physically attacked one vendor.

When the leftists began making threats, one of the cookie rebels had called the police because he feared the discussion -- hitherto civil -- might turn violent. Chambers explained, "Unfortunately, rather than step in and arrest our attackers, the police stood by while the University said we, the peaceful ones, had to shut down because WE were creating an unsafe environment. ... Our protests that the CRs were peacefully demonstrating while the leftists got violent fell upon deaf ears."

[Johnny Stew]

I wholeheartedly agree that things often get taken too far when "protecting" a minority group from discrimination, but, folks should try putting themselves in the shoes of said minority group.

I mean, seriously, how bad do white male Republicans really have it, for example? Are they denied housing? Do people shun them when they move into the neighborhood? Are their kids harrassed at school for "being different"? Are they turned down for employment because of negative stereotypes about the work ethic of their "people"?

To me, the complaints come off like a spoiled child who's always had his way, and now realizes that he's no longer ruling the roost.
And I am a white male (though, being that I'm gay, I'm also a "minority").

Personally though, I don't think anyone should be treated any better than anyone else... we should ALL have the exact same rights and benefits.
Unfortunately, some people have been treated as second-class citizens (or worse) for so long, that overcompensation often exists as organizations search for a way to "make it all better."

Frankly, I dream of a world where we no longer have to have these types of discussions... because everyone is treated EQUALLY.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by dissention
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=15&u=/ap/20031224/ap_on_re_us/campus_controversy_2

Now THAT was in bad taste and vulgar.

:mad: :rolleyes:

When I looked at the subject title of this thread and then read dissention's description of the link, I was expecting to find some wretched and horrifying incident - instead I found a harmless protest. I must say I'm surprised by the violence of the reactions against something so minor. I guess that shows the protests' effectiveness in getting the word out about the issue, though.

They certainly made their point. Affirmative action is unfair and racist. Hmm, maybe that's why people are getting so angry.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
When I looked at the subject title of this thread and then read dissention's description of the link, I was expecting to find some wretched and horrifying incident - instead I found a harmless protest. I must say I'm surprised by the violence of the reactions against something so minor. I guess that shows the protests' effectiveness in getting the word out about the issue, though.

They certainly made their point. Affirmative action is unfair and racist. Hmm, maybe that's why people are getting so angry.

Affirmative Action is such a dividing issue. Many, many people, myself included, feel it is unfair. Here is why I do. How would you like it if you as a caucasian applied to school and/or for a scholarship with stellar grades and your application was denied solely because a person with with far worse grades got accepted in your place solely because he had 1/4 or so American Indian blood. A friend of mine got into school with a scholarship this way and his family is/was loaded with $$$$. He did NOTHING to deserve this and did not even know or acknowledge his heritage until it became lucrative to do so. I submit anyone would be pissed if they were the poorer white guy "left pissin in the wind." I sure would be.

On the other hand, I am sure or at least hope that this example is rare and clearly Affirmative Action has helped many, many people overcome the horrors of racism that occurred far more strongly and in some cases with the govt.'s consent 40 or so years ago. In fact, that is the legal basis behind it - to cure the racial wrongs and inequity of the past. I think although there is much left to do, things clearly are better now than in the 1960's - no one is being sent to the back of the bus, no separate water fountains exist, different races are allowed to marry, etc. Personally, I think it is time to get away from judging solely on race because it is becoming a crutch. I think instead poverty should be the deciding factor. I mean isn't the whole idea to help all of the disadvantaged, not just the minorities who happen to be disadvantaged?

But, that will never, ever sell politically because the minute someone questions the relevance of Affirmative Action, they are branded a racist and all logical arguments fall to the wayside because that word is so devisive even if untrue and falsely asserted.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I mean, seriously, how bad do white male Republicans really have it, for example? Are they denied housing? Do people shun them when they move into the neighborhood? Are their kids harrassed at school for "being different"? Are they turned down for employment because of negative stereotypes about the work ethic of their "people"?

With all due respect, you present in this post a negative stereotype with your statement. Why is your stereotype different or more tolerable? Why is it okay to assume the rich are all carefree, privileged white Republicans who deserve in application less opportunities than all poor non-white Democrats? I submit to live equally (which is my dream as well), we have to get away from the whole "You don't know what suffering is" mindset and quit putting people in these pidgeonholes. I mean clearly there are poor white disadvantaged kids whose parents happen to be Republican. I think they do not deserve less opportunity than a minority child based on that fact alone? That is why I say give the poor more opportunities regardless of race or political affiliation.

Note: Johnny - I am not picking on you personally and respect your opinion - I am just commenting on the general topic of your post. ;)

[jwd]

strandinthewind:
With all due respect, you present in this post a negative stereotype with your statement. Why is your stereotype different or more tolerable? Why is it okay to assume the rich are all carefree, privileged white Republicans who deserve in application less opportunities than all poor non-white Democrats? I submit to live equally (which is my dream as well), we have to get away from the whole "You don't know what suffering is" mindset and quit putting people in these pidgeonholes. I mean clearly there are poor white disadvantaged kids whose parents happen to be Republican. I think they do not deserve less opportunity than a minority child based on that fact alone? That is why I say give the poor more opportunities regardless of race or political affiliation.

Note: Johnny - I am not picking on you personally and respect your opinion - I am just commenting on the general topic of your post.

Agreed. I was thinking the same thing when reading Johnny's post. Not all white men are rich Republicans. Hell, not even all Republicans are rich. And even if a white man was rich and Republican, should he be denied an education or a job based solely on the the color of his skin and/or his gender. IMO that'd be an AFFIRMATIVE NO. I pity the poor white man these days.


Joe

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Agreed. I was thinking the same thing when reading Johnny's post. Not all white men are rich Republicans. Hell, not even all Republicans are rich.

Guys,

He wasn't saying all white men are rich Republicans, he was making an example of how white, male Republicans have it compared to certain minority groups (gays, blacks, latinos, etc.). He made his point perfectly well by giving examples of this, i.e. their children aren't minorities, so they don't have to worry about being called racial slurs. They aren't denied housing like some minorities just because of their race. They don't get denied jobs because they're of dark skin and look poor. At least that's how I read his post.

Agree with his opinion or don't, but don't put words in his mouth.

[jwd]

dissention:
Agree with his opinion or don't, but don't put words in his mouth.

Johnny Stew:
I mean, seriously, how bad do white male Republicans really have it, for example?

That's the quote, not putting words in his mouth. White male Republicans can be poor and in need of help/assistance too. Why even use Republican, there are rich white male Democrats too. It was a very stereotypical statement. Let's not use affirmative action based strictly on gender and race but more on one's poverty level.


Joe

[gldstwmn]

What percentage of Blacks, Hispanics and women live below the poverty line? Now, what percentage of white men live below the poverty line?

[jwd]

gldstwmn:
What percentage of Blacks, Hispanics and women live below the poverty line? Now, what percentage of white men live below the poverty line?

I'd say the percentage of the first group would be higher. However there ARE white men who live below the poverty line. Let's not forget them based upon the color of their skin or their gender.


Joe

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
I'd say the percentage of the first group would be higher. However there ARE white men who live below the poverty line. Let's not forget them based upon the color of their skin or their gender.


Joe

Nor should they be more important.

[jwd]

gldstwmn:
Nor should they be more important.

I would agree with that.


Joe

[jwd]

Needless to say there ARE rich Hispanics and Blacks. In this day and age their children would get preferential treatment, based on affirmative action, over a male from a poor white family. Let's just make it fair for everyone.


Joe

[Rob67]

Originally posted by jwd
Needless to say there ARE rich Hispanics and Blacks. In this day and age their children would get preferential treatment, based on affirmative action, over a male from a poor white family. Let's just make it fair for everyone.


Joe

Absolutely...If I start a business, I want to be able to hire the brightest and the best people I can find to help grow said business whether they are white, brown, yellow, green, purple with white polka dots, etc.

It should have nothing to do with race. A buddy of mine HATES affirmative action. He's black and considers it a slap in the face because he busted his $ss in school and doesn't think he or anyone else should be handed anything without working for it.

Plus...being rich and being Republican are not the same thing. Many times I hear people bitch about the "rich Republicans." I'm a Republican and I'm nowhere near being rich. Although, I believe in our system and the ability to make a decent living if you work hard at it.

Rob:cool:

[jwd]

Rob67:
Plus...being rich and being Republican are not the same thing. Many times I hear people bitch about the "rich Republicans." I'm a Republican and I'm nowhere near being rich. Although, I believe in our system and the ability to make a decent living if you work hard at it.


Amen brother, AMEN!


Joe

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Nor should they be more important.

Who said that they should be? I don't understand how judging people based on their qualifications rather than their race makes white men more important.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Who said that they should be? I don't understand how judging people based on their qualifications rather than their race makes white men more important.

Very true...

BTW, I love the PC banner you have.:nod:

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
That's the quote, not putting words in his mouth. White male Republicans can be poor and in need of help/assistance too. Why even use Republican, there are rich white male Democrats too. It was a very stereotypical statement. Let's not use affirmative action based strictly on gender and race but more on one's poverty level.

Your inferring too much from his comment. He *never* said that white male Republicans are necessarily rich, so therefore, his supposed "stereotypical" comment isn't a stereotypical comment. He was comparing groups: white male Republicans and minorities.

[jwd]

I think the inferences I drew from the quote were correct. I wasn't the only one who saw it that way. Why not say white male Democrats or white male Independents or what ever. There was a stereotypical comment that white male Republicans are not as disadavantaged as minorities or even the aforementioned other white males of other political denominations. It WAS a stereotypical comment.

I still love you Johnny Stew. :laugh:


Joe

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
I think the inferences I drew from the quote were correct. I wasn't the only one who saw it that way. Why not say white male Democrats or white male Independents or what ever. There was a stereotypical comment that white male Republicans are not as disadavantaged as minorities or even the aforementioned other white males of other political denominations. It WAS a stereotypical comment.

You're not actually going to challenge the fact that, in general, many minorities have more disadvantages than white male Republicans, are you? :confused:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Your inferring too much from his comment. He *never* said that white male Republicans are necessarily rich, so therefore, his supposed "stereotypical" comment isn't a stereotypical comment. He was comparing groups: white male Republicans and minorities.

I think the point Joe is trying to make is that being Republican has nothing to do with how well off someone is.

Johnny Stew said "I mean, seriously, how bad do white male Republicans really have it, for example?"
And I do believe that some people on the left stereotype Republicans as being rich and vice versa. I know plenty of minority Republicans.

But, alas, we are all just nitpicking...the original point was made and understood.:laugh:

Rob:cool:

[jwd]

dissention:
You're not actually going to challenge the fact that, in general, many minorities have more disadvantages than white male Republicans, are you?

NO! :laugh:

Rob67:
But, alas, we are all just nitpicking...the original point was made and understood.

Thank you Rob. :)


Joe

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I think the point Joe is trying to make is that being Republican has nothing to do with how well off someone is.

Republicans, when compared to Democrats, Greens, and Independents, are factually more wealthy and more advantaged. When compared to minority groups, they can be no doubt that they are. Eight years ago, Newsweek even conducted a poll and they concluded that almost 75% of the countrys richest were Republican.

But alas, if Johnny had said Democrats, no one would have said a single thing. ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
NO! :laugh:

That's all the vindication I need. :D

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Eight years ago, Newsweek even conducted a poll and they concluded that almost 75% of the countrys richest were Republican.

But alas, if Johnny had said Democrats, no one would have said a single thing. ;)

Oh Boy, Newsweek. I'm sure that wasn't a biased article!!!;)

Rob:cool:

[jwd]

But can you say that ALL Republicans are wealthy? No you can't! Once again, there are Republicans and in particular poor white males who would not reap benefits from Affirmative Action, but would be reversely discriminated against. To borrow from Lindsey, "no one falls into a certain set of labels".


Joe

[jwd]

dissention:
That's all the vindication I need

Good. I hope you're happy now! ;) :)


Joe

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Oh Boy, Newsweek. I'm sure that wasn't a biased article!!!;)

Rob:cool:

Gallup conducted the poll/survey, Newsweek wrote the article and printed the results. Regardless of whether or not Newsweek had anything to dow ith it, I certainly wouldn't refute that the rich are mostly Republicans, and if I were Republican, I wouldn't see the point in denying it.

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Good. I hope you're happy now! ;) :)


Joe

Happier than a pig in ****, doll.

:laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Gallup conducted the poll/survey, Newsweek wrote the article and printed the results. Regardless of whether or not Newsweek had anything to dow ith it, I certainly wouldn't refute that the rich are mostly Republicans, and if I were Republican, I wouldn't see the point in denying it.

Even if they were, it just proves my theory that Republicans have a firmer grasp of economics!!:laugh:

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Even if they were, it just proves my theory that Republicans have a firmer grasp of economics!!:laugh:

Rob:cool:

Or a grasp on how to screw everyone else. ;)

[jwd]

Rob67:
Even if they were, it just proves my theory that Republicans have a firmer grasp of economics!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup:


And as a side note, I never thought that Johnny Stew could be so controversial. :laugh:


Joe

[jwd]

dissention:
Or a grasp on how to screw everyone else.

We do make better lovers! ;) :D


Joe

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Or a grasp on how to screw everyone else. ;)

If by "screwing everyone else" you mean not carrying everyone else on their backs, then yes, you are correct. :D

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
We do make better lovers! ;) :D


Joe

Only if you're a bible thumper in the mid-west, according to Queen Coulter. ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
If by "screwing everyone else" you mean not carrying everyone else on their backs, then yes, you are correct. :D

No, I mean by using the unfortunate to line their pockets. ;)

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
No, I mean by using the unfortunate to line their pockets. ;)

I've never "used the unfortunate" to line my pockets. I mean, hell, I pay over 25% income taxes to help pay for all the welfare programs out there and the rich pay much more then I do! So, in reality, the "unfortunate" are using me!!! :D

Rob:cool:

[Johnny Stew]

I don't have time to read every comment posted in this thread since my own comments last night, so I'm just going to respond to the first few that I've read.

First of all, I never said the word "rich"... that part was just an assumption made on the part of others. (By the way, when I said "white male Republicans," why was the idea that I also meant "rich" just assumed? Food for thought, eh?)

The sole reason behind my post was to point out the fact that, for white males, how much discrimination is there to face?
Hence my comment, "How bad do white male Republicans really have it."
I truly don't see how I presented some kind of negative stereotype (as Jason, Joe and Rob, have suggested) in my use of "white male Republicans" as an example.
I never said that they were rolling in dough, or that their daddies all pay their way so they're living the good life... I was ONLY saying that there really isn't any type of serious discrimination that they encounter in life.

Truth be known, I could have just as easily said "white male Democrats," but given that the Affirmative Action Bake Sale was sponsored by the University of Washington College Republicans, that was the political party I used to make my point.

Be honest, has anyone here been denied housing because they're a white man or a Republican? Have your children been harrassed at school because their father is a white man or a Republican?

Affirmative Action is HIGHLY flawed, but unfortunately it's still a necessity in this day and age, where prejudice and bigotry are still far too prevalent. And I do not see how white males can say they have it worse than various minority groups when it comes to discrimination.

Thank you dissention, for trying to explain what it is that I was REALLY referring to in my post, and not the assumptions and implications that followed. :)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
I've never "used the unfortunate" to line my pockets. I mean, hell, I pay over 25% income taxes to help pay for all the welfare programs out there and the rich pay much more then I do! So, in reality, the "unfortunate" are using me!!! :D

Rob:cool:

Yup. The largest welfare programs you are funding are in the Middle East. They're called Israel and Iraq.

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

Affirmative Action is HIGHLY flawed, but unfortunately it's still a necessity in this day and age, where prejudice and bigotry are still far too prevalent. And I do not see how white males can say they have it worse than various minority groups when it comes to discrimination.

That's just it. Affirmative Action itself is prejudiced. It does discriminate against the white male. The color of your skin or your gender should not dictate whether you get a job or not. I'm all for financial assistance in education, but to base it on race and gender is just absurd. Let's extend help to everyone who needs it.


Joe

[Sugar]

I'm liberal and I can say that my first reaction was, "Who cares?" These conservative Republicans wanted to have a little protest and they did. Big deal. If the KKK can parade through my town then why can't these kids do this? It has nothing to do with agreeing with the message.

It is lacking in perspective though; they should have only sold baked goods to whites for a month beforehand. ;)

[gldstwmn]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4305.htm

US Homelessness and Poverty Rates Skyrocket

While Billions are Spent Overseas on Occupation

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Behonest, has anyone here been denied housing because they're a white man or a Republican? Have your children been harrassed at school because their father is a white man or a Republican?

I dunno, I remember recieving some pretty shady grades on some theory papers I wrote in college. My professor happened to be an extremely liberal ex-hippie. So I guess I could count that. :laugh:


And I do not see how white males can say they have it worse than various minority groups when it comes to discrimination.

Thank you dissention, for trying to explain what it is that I was REALLY referring to in my post, and not the assumptions and implications that followed. :)

Now I really don't think anyone believes that white males are worse off then anybody else. I'm just saying why not treat everyone the same regardless of color.

I was just pointing out that there is this thing I have seen with liberals to lump every Republican into this rich, white male catagory and look at it as a negative. How is being rich, white or male a negative???

I wasn't knocking your statement...sorry for the confusion.

We are all buds!!! :wavey:

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yup. The largest welfare programs you are funding are in the Middle East. They're called Israel and Iraq.


:laugh:

[dissention]

After Christmas, the only who can save my ass is Jenny Craig.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Thank you dissention, for trying to explain what it is that I was REALLY referring to in my post, and not the assumptions and implications that followed. :)

You're very welcome. :)

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I've never "used the unfortunate" to line my pockets. I mean, hell, I pay over 25% income taxes to help pay for all the welfare programs out there and the rich pay much more then I do! So, in reality, the "unfortunate" are using me!!! :D

Rob:cool:

I thought we were discussing the rich, not middle-class Republicans?

And they do use the unfortunate to put money in their pockets. They hire immigrants to work for chump change in order to run their shady businesses, they cut useful federal programs so they can use it for oil to get money, the list goes on. And they invade countries based on imperialistic values.

:wavey:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
After Christmas, the only who can save my ass is Jenny Craig.

In my case it's Dr. Linda Huang and her canula.;)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
I thought we were discussing the rich, not middle-class Republicans?

And they do use the unfortunate to put money in their pockets. They hire immigrants to work for chump change in order to run their shady businesses, they cut useful federal programs so they can use it for oil to get money, the list goes on. And they invade countries based on imperialistic values.

:wavey:

How about all the middle class lives that were ruined by "Kenny-boy" Lay and his Enron scam?

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
How about all the middle class lives that were ruined by "Kenny-boy" Lay and his Enron scam?

You mean the scandal that Shrub and Dick were involved in? No! Say it isn't so! Not our Commander-In-Chief!!!

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
In my case it's Dr. Linda Huang and her canula.;)

:laugh:

In my case, I'd settle for a rubber band around my stomach and a huge plastic tube shoved into my backside beforehand.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh:

In my case, I'd settle for a rubber band around my stomach and a huge plastic tube shoved into my backside beforehand.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Sugar
I'm
It is lacking in perspective though; they should have only sold baked goods to whites for a month beforehand. ;)

lol! I have to say, that's a good one!

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/28/politics/28RECE.html

While Congress Is on Recess, Bush Fills 12 Panel Positions

"Clark Kent Ervin of Texas, to be inspector general, Homeland Security Department. Mr. Bush nominated Mr. Ervin on Jan. 10, and he has served as interim inspector general."


If Clark Kent can't find the terrorists, nobody can.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
I thought we were discussing the rich, not middle-class Republicans?

And they do use the unfortunate to put money in their pockets. They hire immigrants to work for chump change in order to run their shady businesses, they cut useful federal programs so they can use it for oil to get money, the list goes on. And they invade countries based on imperialistic values.

:wavey:

Do you mean the illegal immigrants that we provide benefits for or the legal immigrants who agree to work for such wages (what's wrong with that?)?

So you are saying that all rich, Republican businesses are shady? And , you are talking about the imperialistic values that have created this great country we live in with freedom to do and say just about anything we want?

Invasion for "imperialistic values" is an opinion and a conspiracy theory of the left. I don't buy the pessimism!

Rob:cool:

PS. Since our country and values are so terrible..what country do you feel we should model ourselves after?

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
PS. Since our country and values are so terrible..what country do you feel we should model ourselves after?

I'm not talking about our country and its values (some of which I disagree with, including the death penalty); I'm talking about the people who are running this country at the present moment. Our country has been bastardized by these people and it will take a helluva to fix it.

You obvioulsy aren't in tune to what immigrants are being used for. Bush's PR move of giving benefits to illegal immigrants (just to get some lefties on his side) is such a small thing when you look at the whole scope of things. The rich in our country have, for generations, used immigrants and unfortunate people to further their agendas. Nowadays, they do so by gathering illegal immigrants, paying them two dollars a day, and making them clean toilets and chop down sugar cane. They use these people and then have the balls to cut necessary welfare programs. It's sickening.

You can spout how, at present moment, our country is run by humanitarians, but it will do no good to me; it isn't. We can't begin to call ourselves humanitarians until we take steps to abolish the death penalty or stop invading countrys for our own selfish reasons. Our joke of a president actually believes that God speaks to him and forces his staff to partake in group prayers or they will face punishment (being excluded from meetings, etc.). Well, doll, if God speaks to him, why doesn't Bush know that "thou shalt not kill"? I suspect that it's because money is the bottom line.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
I thought we were discussing the rich, not middle-class Republicans?

Nope...it was Republicans, in general.

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
I'm not talking about our country and its values (some of which I disagree with, including the death penalty); I'm talking about the people who are running this country at the present moment. Our country has been bastardized by these people and it will take a helluva to fix it.

You obvioulsy aren't in tune to what immigrants are being used for. Bush's PR move of giving benefits to illegal immigrants (just to get some lefties on his side) is such a small thing when you look at the whole scope of things. The rich in our country have, for generations, used immigrants and unfortunate people to further their agendas. Nowadays, they do so by gathering illegal immigrants, paying them two dollars a day, and making them clean toilets and chop down sugar cane. They use these people and then have the balls to cut necessary welfare programs. It's sickening.

You can spout how, at present moment, our country is run by humanitarians, but it will do no good to me; it isn't. We can't begin to call ourselves humanitarians until we take steps to abolish the death penalty or stop invading countrys for our own selfish reasons. Our joke of a president actually believes that God speaks to him and forces his staff to partake in group prayers or they will face punishment (being excluded from meetings, etc.). Well, doll, if God speaks to him, why doesn't Bush know that "thou shalt not kill"? I suspect that it's because money is the bottom line.

I respect your opinion but I have to disagree with your reasoning. What makes me not in tune with what immigrants are being used for? And why do you assume that all rich people participate in this practice of “the man keeping us down?” (I love that phrase!):D

First, I don't believe illegal immigrants should be given anything. They are ILLEGAL. I completely disagree with giving benefits to immigrants who come here illegally. But in regards to legal aliens, no one is forcing anyone else to work in this country. A legal alien can easily go to McDonalds and make 6-7 dollars an hour, they hire anyone. Would I clean toilets for $2 and hour? Would You?? No, but if someone will, more power to them. That is their CHOICE.

And, I disagree with your stance that we invaded another country for selfish reasons. Again, this logic is based on assumptions and conspiracy theories. But, that’s an ideological difference. We will have to agree to disagree.

Again, Bush hatred does not make me feel any differently. I viewed Clinton hatred from the far right with the same humorous curiosity. It immediately throws up a red flag to me and screams “AGENDA!”

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Good news on the Job front! (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&refer=us&sid=agsA_Qyi8pUU) :)

Rob:cool:

[CarneVaca]

With all due respect, saying that Affirmative Action discriminates against white males is a crock. Plain and simple. I'll start to take conservatives seriously on Affirmative Action when they stop using coded language to disguise racism. "States' rights" anyone?

Affirmative Action exists to correct a historic wrong. That is not a trivial thing. And if it weren't for this historic wrong, you wouldn't have as many minority kids growing up in desperate poverty. So should those kids continue to pay and be denied opportunity because a handful of white suburban kids might not get into the college of their choice? Hell, just send them to their second-choice college. They can deal.

Scores of black and Latino kids are growing up in neighborhoods where opportunity is scarce or nonexistent. If they have lower grades than a white applicant, is it because they had to contend with social, monetary and family pressures the white suburban kid didn't experience? Or is it because the inner-city minority kid is less capable? I'll let you answer that question. Of course white suburban kids have their issues, but to begin to understand why Affirmative Action is necessary we must make an effort to put ourselves in the shoes of the less fortunate.

And don't give me that crap about anyone can succeed in this country. That simply is unrealistic. Though we still do pretty good in the good ole US of A, too many people are falling by the wayside.

As for the issue of illegal immigrants. I say give them all the benefits we enjoy (which are dwindling daily anyway, courtesy of the corporate-sponsored greedy Republicans in Washington). Illegal immigrants will always be drawn to this country. And as long as greedy employers continue to hire them for ****ty wages, they will keep coming.

I say grant them amnesty, give them a decent wage and send them off to college under Affirmative Action. Then we'll start to see some justice.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
First, I don't believe illegal immigrants should be given anything. They are ILLEGAL. I completely disagree with giving benefits to immigrants who come here illegally. But in regards to legal aliens, no one is forcing anyone else to work in this country. A legal alien can easily go to McDonalds and make 6-7 dollars an hour, they hire anyone. Would I clean toilets for $2 and hour? Would You?? No, but if someone will, more power to them. That is their CHOICE.

So, based on that logic, should we just abolish minimum wages? Let the employers dictate how much they want to pay? And if they decide on paying all of their employees $2.75 an hour, should we just turn our heads and say 'Tough tacos, they chose to work there.'?

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
And don't give me that crap about anyone can succeed in this country. That simply is unrealistic. Though we still do pretty good in the good ole US of A, too many people are falling by the wayside.

As for the issue of illegal immigrants. I say give them all the benefits we enjoy (which are dwindling daily anyway, courtesy of the corporate-sponsored greedy Republicans in Washington). Illegal immigrants will always be drawn to this country. And as long as greedy employers continue to hire them for ****ty wages, they will keep coming.

I say grant them amnesty, give them a decent wage and send them off to college under Affirmative Action. Then we'll start to see some justice.

I disagree, anyone CAN succeed in this country. Do you know that it is easier for an immigrant to get a small business loan in this country to start a business then it is for a citizen? You are right, life is not fair and we are all dealt a different hand to deal with.

I completely disagree with supporting illegal immigration. I cannot agree with the rationalization of your last two paragraphs. EVERY politician is "corporate-sponsored" in Washington.

I'll just stand at the border and hand over my paycheck...;)

We just have to agree to disagree....

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
I disagree, anyone CAN succeed in this country. Do you know that it is easier for an immigrant to get a small business loan in this country to start a business then it is for a citizen? You are right, life is not fair and we are all dealt a different hand to deal with.
I

Funny you should mention that. Back in the 80's when you were still in grade school, a guy named Neil BUSH was getting an awful lot of SBA loans in the state of Wyoming. They were being handed out through Silverado Banking. Guess what? The companies all folded and those government backed loans were paid by guess who? And guess what happened to Silverado, a company that Neil Bush was heavily mixed up in? I was talking to a client of mine yesterday, who is a Hispanic woman. She was trying to get a government backed loan (SBA) at the same Neil Bush was and guess what? You get the picture now. She didn't get it. Poppy's boy did. Since the inception of the Patriot Act, it has in fact been more difficult for immigrants to get government backed loans.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Good news on the Job front! (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&refer=us&sid=agsA_Qyi8pUU) :)

Rob:cool:

Not necessarily:

http://www.lioninc.com/L/lion_market_commentary1

"Not all of the claims data was bullish. Continuing claims rose by 81,000 to 3.315 million in the week of December 20 (continuing claims must be at least a week old) from 3.234 million the week before."

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/31/opinion/31WED4.html?th

The Budget Politics of Being Poor

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
So, based on that logic, should we just abolish minimum wages? Let the employers dictate how much they want to pay? And if they decide on paying all of their employees $2.75 an hour, should we just turn our heads and say 'Tough tacos, they chose to work there.'?

Not at this point, we can't. I do think that a minimum wage is a Catch 22 that has valid pros and cons. I just think that the skill level and market should influence the worth of a job. Supply and demand, if you will.

You could look at the unions who grossly overpay for menial labor jobs (see PennDOT) as part of this problem, on the other end of the spectrum. I mean, the guy who holds the "stop\slow" roadsign makes almost $20.00 on a road crew. WTF.
You could cut that guy's salary in half and support two people.

But that's a whole other discussion....

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Funny you should mention that. Back in the 80's when you were still in grade school

Ahhh....the true left....

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
You could cut that guy's salary in half and support two people.


Read 'Nickel and Dimed.'

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Ahhh....the true left....

Rob:cool:

Insightful.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Read 'Nickel and Dimed.'

You mean after some of these glowing reviews???

"If good writing is something that makes you react, then this book is great writing .... er,I guess ...because it made me alternately furious and irritated. Most of the criticism I long to deliver has already been given in greater detail and more eloquently in the "Have your quiche and eat it, too" review - but I will add this: the author makes ONE [and only one] excellent point, and makes it repeatedly: the lack of affordable housing at the lower end of the economic scale is a disgrace in a country as affluent as ours, and by consuming such a high percentage of the net take-home pay of the minimum-wage worker, poor housing condemns him/her to remain a renter, not an owner, because he/she can never seem to accumulate enough capital to get a few steps ahead - a long term lease on a decent apartment or a down payment and mortgage on some thing permanent. There are many possible solutions to this problem, but the author never pauses in her self-centered litany of backaches and toilet-bowl brushes to consider them.

Ms. Ehrenreich's basic scenario is true: a single, unskilled worker with very little money and no friends, family or ties in a community arrives and tries to "start up" a decent life - and it's terribly hard - but the book presents at least one possible source of aid which Ms. Ehrenreich obviously disdains [the African-American aunt who says " find a church - you always find a church" and tells how church members drove her to a food bank the first day].
In spite of reminding us various times about her Ph.d in Biology and her daughter at Harvard she is absolutely vitriolic [Envy? Hate? Class warfare?] toward the homeowners of the houses she has to clean - their square-footage, their decorative copper pots, their balsamic vinegar and olive oil - she seems to long to take all large-home-owners out and line them up against the garden wall.... Whose houses did she think she was going to be hired to clean?

The bottom line is this: the author never lived the life she was supposed to be investigating for more than a week or two - and she took breaks between the three skimpy months that she "worked" for minimum wage -- a lot of each month was spent job hunting or housing hunting, she failed to get anything in writing during interviews, she marched off jobs the minute the going got very tough, sometimes she didn't even bother to resign, just gave her uniforms to a co-worker to turn in, blew off a better-paying job that she had already landed because she had drunk coffee the day before and was just "too exhausted" to report to work the first day, complains endlessly about the drug tests and how she had to pay $30 for medicine to eliminate the results of her own illegal drug use, so she could pass the test. Frankly, she lacked the common sense [splurging on $11 "burger and a glass of wine" dinners when she really needs to conserve money -- not much ingenuity about cooking for herself] and the tenacity needed to start at the bottom and stick with it as a truly desperate person would simply have to do. Simply put, she was the kind of "flaky" worker who rarely gets ahead, and whom co-workers and supervisors learn not to count on, no matter what her academic pedigree might be."

and

"After extensive study and field investigation, Barbara Ehrenreich came to a conclusion that the lower 95% of the population have always known: Starting from scratch aint easy. The only people who might be enlightned by this book are other self-rightous, liberal, elitist brats who have never punched a time card or bothered to stop and talk to the "underclass".

Reportedly, her next book will be entitled "Fat and Ugly: (not) Getting Laid in America."

I can't wait to be enlightened. "


One of my good friends has no high school education and has been living on his own since he was 16, working minimum wage jobs. Sometimes he would work 80 hour weeks for months at a time, but, during that time he didn't become complacent in his position and took the necessary steps to improve his life. He isn't rich but he is making a living and living life to the fullest that he knows.

What are the book's solutions for Poverty?

Rob:cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Rob67
I just think that the skill level and market should influence the worth of a job. Supply and demand, if you will.

You could look at the unions who grossly overpay for menial labor jobs (see PennDOT) as part of this problem, on the other end of the spectrum.Menial laborists are "grossly overpaid"?
Exactly how tough is it for all of those white-collar, upper-management pencil-pushers, who sit in climate-controlled offices every day?
If anyone is "grossly overpaid," they are.

The man or woman who stands on the road and holds the "Stop/Slow" sign, has to do so while being exposed to varying weather conditions, and at the risk of personal injury.

I'm not saying it's the most "important" job around, but it's a necessity, and not a job that many people would want to be doing.

I say if someone is jealous of that 20 bucks an hour, they should go apply for the job.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Menial laborists are "grossly overpaid"?
Exactly how tough is it for all of those white-collar, upper-management pencil-pushers, who sit in climate-controlled offices every day?
If anyone is "grossly overpaid," they are.

The man or woman who stands on the road and holds the "Stop/Slow" sign, has to do so while being exposed to varying weather conditions, and at the risk of personal injury.

I'm not saying it's the most "important" job around, but it's a necessity, and not a job that many people would want to be doing.

I say if someone is jealous of that 20 bucks an hour, they should go apply for the job.

:rolleyes:

It's got nothing to do with jealousy from my point of view..I am all for making as much money as you can. That is part of the American dream. But ANYONE could do that job...

I know what the "stop\slow" sign job entails and I know I could do it easily. I also know that there are some "white-collar, upper-management pencil-pushers, who sit in climate-controlled offices" that have extreme workloads and responsibilities.

Comparing the two are apples and oranges especially if you generalize "white-collar workers" and compare them to a particular profession.

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Menial laborists are "grossly overpaid"?


I didn't say that...

I said, look at the unions who grossly overpay for menial jobs.

Rob:cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Rob67
One of my good friends has no high school education and has been living on his own since he was 16, working minimum wage jobs. Sometimes he would work 80 hour weeks for months at a time, but, during that time he didn't become complacent in his position and took the necessary steps to improve his life. He isn't rich but he is making a living and living life to the fullest that he knows.I feel for your friend, and it's great that he's making a (hopefully) decent living.

But the intimation is, that someone who hasn't had the benefit of a high school or college education, must work 80 hour weeks, etc., in order to deserve whatever success they have.

I realize that you're really only trying to say that "hard work pays off," but why should someone have to work inhuman hours, probably in physically demanding jobs, and probably at the expense of their families and at the risk of their health, just because they didn't have the benefit of a better education?

It's as if it's being said that people should be somehow penalized for not graduating high school and/or going to college.

Mind you, I'm not saying that anyone should just be handed a cushy life... but for those of us who "have it good," what's wrong with trying to help people on their feet?

Welfare... Affirmative Action... anything can, and will be, abused... but we can't just wipe our hands of it, and say, "well, I earned the money I'm making, so they don't deserve any help."

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
What are the book's solutions for Poverty?

Rob:cool:

You fail to mention that most of the detractors of the book are conservatives. I distinctly remember quite a few protests about the book conducted by conservative groups where they crudely flamed the author and called her a devil-worshipper, a communist, and a disgusting atheist.

If you want "solutions," read the book as I suggested, notably for the final section of the book entitled "Evaluation."

I get a kick out of you searching the internet for reviews to post for me. Helping to advance the insidious conservative agenda? Name sources next time.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Rob67
I know what the "stop\slow" sign job entails and I know I could do it easily.I'll wave to you the next time I'm on the road. :D

My point was that, while "anyone" could probably do it... few people want to.

No child says, "I want to clean toilets when I grow up," but someone has to do the job, so why not pay our menial laborists well for doing the tasks that most people would turn their nose up at?

[jwd]

CarneVaca:
With all due respect, saying that Affirmative Action discriminates against white males is a crock. Plain and simple.

With all due respect you're wrong. Not all white males are from middles class suburbia. There are white males who grow up in inner cities too who are poor. Where is the justice for them? Affirmative Action discriminates, plain and simple, based on color and gender.

[strandinthewind]

[i]But alas, if Johnny had said Democrats, no one would have said a single thing. ;) [/B]

I would have. I just do not think it is fair to saqy one group should have an advantage over another based on anything but poverty. :cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
You fail to mention that most of the detractors of the book are conservatives. I distinctly remember quite a few protests about the book conducted by conservative groups where they crudely flamed the author and called her a devil-worshipper, a communist, and a disgusting atheist.

If you want "solutions," read the book as I suggested, notably for the final section of the book entitled "Evaluation."

I get a kick out of you searching the internet for reviews to post for me. Helping to advance the insidious conservative agenda? Name sources next time.

Just taking cues from my leftist friends!!

[dissention]

We'll agree to disagree on his post. :laugh:

How's New Yawk? Having a good time? Fill us in!

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Just taking cues from my leftist friends!!

*flutters eyes*

We've taught you well...somewhat. :laugh:

Seriously though, what were your sources?

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I feel for your friend, and it's great that he's making a (hopefully) decent living.

But the intimation is, that someone who hasn't had the benefit of a high school or college education, must work 80 hour weeks, etc., in order to deserve whatever success they have.

I realize that you're really only trying to say that "hard work pays off," but why should someone have to work inhuman hours, probably in physically demanding jobs, and probably at the expense of their families and at the risk of their health, just because they didn't have the benefit of a better education?

It's as if it's being said that people should be somehow penalized for not graduating high school and/or going to college.

Mind you, I'm not saying that anyone should just be handed a cushy life... but for those of us who "have it good," what's wrong with trying to help people on their feet?

Welfare... Affirmative Action... anything can, and will be, abused... but we can't just wipe our hands of it, and say, "well, I earned the money I'm making, so they don't deserve any help."

You make valid points...and I agree. All of these programs are meant for good but they tend to try and fix the symptoms and not address the causes.

Also...education has almost always resulted more income. It has been that way throughout most of history and in most societies. A person with a Masters degree would get paid much more for the same job as a person with a Bachelors degree and so on...a fact of life, i guess.

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67

Also...education has almost always resulted more income. It has been that way throughout most of history and in most societies. A person with a Masters degree would get paid much more for the same job as a person with a Bachelors degree and so on...a fact of life, i guess.

Rob:cool:

Wrong.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
*flutters eyes*

We've taught you well...somewhat. :laugh:

Seriously though, what were your sources?

I never heard of the book and looked it up on amazon...they are reviews from some of the readers....

Maybe I will give it a read. Although from the reviews, both positive and negative, it seems to point out things that are already common knowledge to anyone with a brain. Of course it's hard to make a living on minimum wage.

But I wouldn't be me if I didn't play Devil's Advocate!!!:D

Rob:cool:

PS.. Time to celebrate! Woo-Hoo! Happy New Year!!:wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Also...education has almost always resulted more income. It has been that way throughout most of history and in most societies. A person with a Masters degree would get paid much more for the same job as a person with a Bachelors degree and so on...a fact of life, i guess.

Not necessarily Show me a social worker with a masters that makes more than $28,000 and I'll show you Bush's left ass cheek.

Bachelors and masters don't make much of a difference.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Wrong.

Uh...right.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I thought we were discussing the rich, not middle-class Republicans?

And they do use the unfortunate to put money in their pockets. They hire immigrants to work for chump change in order to run their shady businesses, they cut useful federal programs so they can use it for oil to get money, the list goes on. And they invade countries based on imperialistic values.

:wavey:

Hmm - the democrats don't have their hands in those pies as well? Of course they do. But, not all rich people do this. So, it is wrong IMO to say they do or that they are all Republicans.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Maybe I will give it a read. Although from the reviews, both positive and negative, it seems to point out things that are already common knowledge to anyone with a brain. Of course it's hard to make a living on minimum wage.


I like it because it doesn't just discuss the wages, it talks about the way of life of the workers; how they act, the things they feel, their emotions.

Great read. :nod:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Not necessarily Show me a social worker with a masters that makes more than $28,000 and I'll show you Bush's left ass cheek.

Bachelors and masters don't make much of a difference.

Well if you were concerned about money then you wouldn't pursue a career in social work! ;) But, yes, that is an exception to the rule.

Most jobs in the private sector follow that trait...In my business, the tech industry, you pretty much need a masters to get into middle management. And having one allows you to climb the corporate ladder faster. My brother is a HR manager for a huge automotive parts manufacturer. He said that a person with a masters commands an average of 25% more for the same job at entry level in his industry...

A college degree has become the standard level of education for most white collar positions in this country.

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Well if you were concerned about money then you wouldn't pursue a career in social work! ;) But, yes, that is an exception to the rule.

Most jobs in the private sector follow that trait...In my business, the tech industry, you pretty much need a masters to get into middle management. And having one allows you to climb the corporate ladder faster. My brother is a HR manager for a huge automotive parts manager. He said that a person with a masters commands an average of 25% more for the same job at entry level in his industry...

A college degree has become the standard level of education for most white collar positions in this country.

Rob:cool:

Except that most of those jobs are being exported overseas now.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Except that most of those jobs are being exported overseas now.

Yes..definitley the software programming jobs. Sad, really. But I understand why some of these companies do. The tech industry is dominated by a few big players and a bunch of small "mom & pop" shops. The only way the little guys can compete is to cut their costs. And an Indian programmer can accomplish the same job as an American for 1/4 of the salary.

A dilemma for our industry.

Actually, Dell, one of my competitors, got into a lot of trouble for outsourcing all their phone support to India. When they did, they dropped their prices to almost unbeatable levels, but their support tapered off. They got hammered for it.

It will be interesting to see what unfolds...

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Not necessarily Show me a social worker with a masters that makes more than $28,000 and I'll show you Bush's left ass cheek.

Bachelors and masters don't make much of a difference. Darling - what is so special about showing us the same thing he shows for free everytime he opens his mouth :laugh: :wavey: :nod: ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Darling - what is so special about showing us the same thing he shows for free everytime he opens his mouth :laugh: :wavey: :nod: ;)

:laugh:

Good one!!!

:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh:

Good one!!!

:wavey:

My New Year's Day quip just for you.

I am HUNGOVER beyond words - But I did have a Met Soprano sing the mad scene from Donizetti's "Lucia Di Lammermoor" directly to me at about 1:30 this morning at some party. Then, I BELTED Mozart's "Exultate Jubilate" in full tenor even if was slurred a little. Despite her obviously shocked perhaps horrified expression, she was kind!!! AND - she was a Stevie fan and went to the SYW concert in the Garden. Go Figure!!!!!

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
My New Year's Day quip just for you.

I am HUNGOVER beyond words - But I did have a Met Soprano sing the mad scene from Donizetti's "Lucia Di Lammermoor" directly to me at about 1:30 this morning at some party. Then, I BELTED Mozart's "Exultate Jubilate" in full tenor even if was slurred a little. Despite her obviously shocked perhaps horrified expression, she was kind!!! AND - she was a Stevie fan and went to the SYW concert in the Garden. Go Figure!!!!!

Oh to have been there! I'm glad you had such a wonderful time.:) :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

Here's a very interesting read on our job situation in America. Before you slam this as partisan, you might want to note the author's name.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36355

Bu****e betrayal of working America

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Rob67
I completely disagree with supporting illegal immigration. I cannot agree with the rationalization of your last two paragraphs. EVERY politician is "corporate-sponsored" in Washington.

You haven't addressed the issue, though, have you? It's very easy to sit back and say I agree or disagree without having to explain your position. The fact is illegal immigration exists because employers hire foks who come into this country illegally. I say end the charade, give these folks a decent wage and grant them amnesty. Otherwise, knock it off and start penalizing the greedy bastids who knowingly exploit these vulnerable people.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by jwd
With all due respect you're wrong. Not all white males are from middles class suburbia. There are white males who grow up in inner cities too who are poor. Where is the justice for them? Affirmative Action discriminates, plain and simple, based on color and gender.

I challenge you to quote any part of my statement alluding to "all white men" being from suburbia. Never said it. Never will. The fact you bring up that point indicates to me that you do not understand the "historical wrong" part of my argument. And frankly that is the problem with a lot of opponents of Affirmative Action -- a lot of opinion and entirely too little historical perspective.

Black people were plucked from their homeland and brought here as slaves, traded like cattle and worked like dogs. They did not make a choice to come to this country. Many generations lived in conditions hardly fit for beasts of burden. Now you have a legacy of a disproportionate number of black people being denied opportunity in this country in comparison to white folk.

I feel for anyone who is unfortunate, but you cannot deny the historical wrong that led to the creation of Affirmative Action. Like it or not, it is there because it needs to be there.

[jwd]

CarneVaca:
If they have lower grades than a white applicant, is it because they had to contend with social, monetary and family pressures the white suburban kid didn't experience? Or is it because the inner-city minority kid is less capable?

Could you possibly understand that those roles could be reversed, with the minority being from midle class suburbia and the white applicant having grown up in the inner city, poor and down on his luck. Would it be fair to give the middle class minority from suburbia the job over the poor white applicant from the inner city because a quota had to be met? I completely understand the historical perspective on why Affirmative Action was implemented. I never said not to help minorities or ANYONE who needs it. My problem is that Affirmative Action has made the generalization that all minorities should get a "boost" whether they really need it or not, and it excludes/discriminates against a race and or gender simply based on that alone. It's just not fair.


Joe

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Black people were plucked from their homeland and brought here as slaves, traded like cattle and worked like dogs. They did not make a choice to come to this country. Many generations lived in conditions hardly fit for beasts of burden. Now you have a legacy of a disproportionate number of black people being denied opportunity in this country in comparison to white folk.

I feel for anyone who is unfortunate, but you cannot deny the historical wrong that led to the creation of Affirmative Action. Like it or not, it is there because it needs to be there.

I agree - but the same could be said for the Irish, who were imported during the famine - they were actually cheaper to pay than slaves and they usually died which was a financial boon to the owner who did not then have to care for them in old age. So, why aren't they included in AA. Similar instances exist for indentured servants who were mostly white. Moreover, I am sure now that the human race is ten generations from the end of slavery in 1864, a significant portion of American society has a bloodline related to a slave. I base this on the horror of the white master taking advantage of the many female slaves and/or the flight of the mulatto children to the North and "passing" for white and the fairly common interracial marrying since the 1960's. So, certainly those white progeny should also deserve the same treatment under AA.

So, I say forget about the past (which I assert no amount of time will be able to cure) and concentrate on a future that includes everyone and base social advantage a la AA on poverty alone. :cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Funny you should mention that. Back in the 80's when you were still in grade school, a guy named Neil BUSH was getting an awful lot of SBA loans in the state of Wyoming. They were being handed out through Silverado Banking. Guess what? The companies all folded and those government backed loans were paid by guess who? And guess what happened to Silverado, a company that Neil Bush was heavily mixed up in? I was talking to a client of mine yesterday, who is a Hispanic woman. She was trying to get a government backed loan (SBA) at the same Neil Bush was and guess what? You get the picture now. She didn't get it. Poppy's boy did. Since the inception of the Patriot Act, it has in fact been more difficult for immigrants to get government backed loans.

How can you compare his criminal actions with Silverado to every other institution that processes these loans? The younger Bush has been leading a shady life, and I believe he got a slap on the wrist for Silverado. But this doesn't change the fact that it is still easier for immigrants and minorities to get a SBL then it is for me. It's not that I couldn't get one or that I think there shouldn't be some incentive for minorities. I am just against this claim that no one can succeed in this country if they come from poverty. It is simply an overblown statement.

The Owners of my company are a married couple who have an equal stake. She technically owns 51% of the business because they found that they could get better credit lines and better rates on loans if she was the majority owner. She thinks that it is unfair but why not play the game and take advantage.

I suggest a good book called "Hunger of Memory : The Education of Richard Rodriguez" by Richard Rodriguez. It tells a good tale of making it in this country and minority views on Affirmative Action...a good read.

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
How can you compare his criminal actions with Silverado to every other institution that processes these loans?
Rob:cool:

Silverado was just the tip of the iceberg.
Did it ever occur to you that your boss's wife may simply have better credit and less personal debt? The Equal Credit Opportunity Act specifically prohibits lending or not lending to borrowers on the basis of gender, race, religion, naitonal origin, marital status or age. So if in fact what you are saying is correct then the owners of your company have the basis for one hell of a lawsuit against whomever told them that she could get a better rate and more credit because she was a woman. Do they have it in writing?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67

The Owners of my company are a married couple who have an equal stake. She technically owns 51% of the business because they found that they could get better credit lines and better rates on loans if she was the majority owner. She thinks that it is unfair but why not play the game and take advantage.
Rob:cool:

Is anyone else speechless at the utter hipocrasy of this statement?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Is anyone else speechless at the utter hipocrasy of this statement?

I am never speechless darlin' :laugh: :laugh: :wavey: :wavey:

Marissa and I are having cocktails as we speak!!!!! Wish you were here!!!! :cool:

[CarneVaca]

If you understand the historical perspective, how can you make this statement:


Originally posted by jwd
It's just not fair.


Joe

Take the other crap aside. The fact is Affirmative Action exists to correct a wrong. And nothing could be more fair.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree - but the same could be said for the Irish, who were imported during the famine - they were actually cheaper to pay than slaves and they usually died which was a financial boon to the owner who did not then have to care for them in old age. So, why aren't they included in AA.

Oh, come on! You didn't just make that comparison. You can't possibly believe the experience is that similar. Take a look at Irish-descent people and African Americans now. How can you possibly draw a parallel between them?

All immigrant groups go through some sort of hardship. I know, I belong to one. But never in my wildest dreams would I compare myself to the slave experience. That's just silly.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am never speechless darlin' :laugh: :laugh: :wavey: :wavey:

Marissa and I are having cocktails as we speak!!!!! Wish you were here!!!! :cool:

:xoxo: :xoxo: to both of you!

[jwd]

CarneVaca:
If you understand the historical perspective, how can you make this statement:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jwd
It's just not fair.


Joe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Take the other crap aside. The fact is Affirmative Action exists to correct a wrong. And nothing could be more fair.



It's not fair to the people it discriminates against. Two wrongs don't make a right.


Joe

[CarneVaca]

You still don't get it. It doesn't discriminate against anyone. It's correcting a wrong. It's that simple.

[jwd]

NO..... YOU DON'T GET IT! We can only hope that a white male relative of yours is denied admission to a school or a job because he's a white male. Now, that would be justice! :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Oh, come on! You didn't just make that comparison. You can't possibly believe the experience is that similar. Take a look at Irish-descent people and African Americans now. How can you possibly draw a parallel between them?

All immigrant groups go through some sort of hardship. I know, I belong to one. But never in my wildest dreams would I compare myself to the slave experience. That's just silly.
In Louisiana, the Irish were hauled into Amercia because their labor was cheaper than slaves because they would die (perhaps from yellow fever) instead of growing old, which required more care, which cost more money. I submit that is harsher than slavery (not all slave oweners were bad, my family 150 years ago had slaves and all of the legal documents from that era indicate when they were freed, they all got a portion of the land (rare I admit). So, I say, the Irish, not to mention the Chinese, who built the railroas on the cost of their lives, deserve AA protection under the current system.

In the end, I say all wrongs have been righted after about 40 years. I mean in theory when ever will be enough - 100 years 200 years, etc.? So, let's concentrate on the poor, which encompasses everyone.

Meant with respect and to provoke our usual debate as always my friend :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
NO..... YOU DON'T GET IT! We can only hope that a white male relative of yours is denied admission to a school or a job because he's a white male. Now, that would be justice! :nod:

I really don't think you get it. AA is needed not only to fix wrongdoings in the past, but to keep further wrongdoings from happening today and in the future. I think you're looking at it from only one side, the negative side, and are not fully comprehening the positive impact that AA has on society.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I really don't think you get it. AA is needed not only to fix wrongdoings in the past, but to keep further wrongdoings from happening today and in the future. I think you're looking at it from only one side, the negative side, and are not fully comprehening the positive impact that AA has on society.

But, the point I am making is that using AA as a mechanism "to keep further wrong doings from happening today and in the future" is not effective in that AA as it stands today is not inclusive enough. Rather, AA as it stands today benefits many (not all) people who have never had anything to with any selectively perceived and selected wrong. So, I say the debt for the past wrongs has been paid and to acheive the goal of preventing any wrong deeds in the furure, AA must be changed to include all of the poor regardless of race and race should never be considered a factor. I cannot see how that would not be fairer than saying one race regardless of means get a better chance over another race. :cool:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by jwd
NO..... YOU DON'T GET IT! We can only hope that a white male relative of yours is denied admission to a school or a job because he's a white male. Now, that would be justice! :nod:

OK, I can see from the maturity level of that remark that I've been wasting my time.

Good day.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
In Louisiana, the Irish were hauled into Amercia because their labor was cheaper than slaves because they would die (perhaps from yellow fever) instead of growing old, which required more care, which cost more money. I submit that is harsher than slavery (not all slave oweners were bad, my family 150 years ago had slaves and all of the legal documents from that era indicate when they were freed, they all got a portion of the land (rare I admit). So, I say, the Irish, not to mention the Chinese, who built the railroas on the cost of their lives, deserve AA protection under the current system.

In the end, I say all wrongs have been righted after about 40 years. I mean in theory when ever will be enough - 100 years 200 years, etc.? So, let's concentrate on the poor, which encompasses everyone.

Meant with respect and to provoke our usual debate as always my friend :cool:

Jason, I understand your point. What I can't agree with is that you are saying all wrongs have been righted. Look at the current experience of African Americans in comparison with other ethnic groups. By and large, they go through a period of suffering very serious hardships, then they seem to pick themselves up. Black folks have had a considerably different experience. Can anyone deny that?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Jason, I understand your point. What I can't agree with is that you are saying all wrongs have been righted. Look at the current experience of African Americans in comparison with other ethnic groups. By and large, they go through a period of suffering very serious hardships, then they seem to pick themselves up. Black folks have had a considerably different experience. Can anyone deny that?

No, that race seems to be comparatively "worse" (for want of a better word). But, I guess I am looking at it from the point of view if things have not gotten better after the two or three generations, then the system needs to be reexamined and perhaps altered based on the results of the audit. Again, personally, I think advantage should be based on poverty to include all races, but I could easily be proved wrong by the results of such a study, etc.

[jwd]

strandinthewind:
But, the point I am making is that using AA as a mechanism "to keep further wrong doings from happening today and in the future" is not effective in that AA as it stands today is not inclusive enough. Rather, AA as it stands today benefits many (not all) people who have never had anything to with any selectively perceived and selected wrong. So, I say the debt for the past wrongs has been paid and to acheive the goal of preventing any wrong deeds in the furure, AA must be changed to include all of the poor regardless of race and race should never be considered a factor. I cannot see how that would not be fairer than saying one race regardless of means get a better chance over another race.


EXACTLY. Thank you Jason. :)


Joe

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Silverado was just the tip of the iceberg.
Did it ever occur to you that your boss's wife may simply have better credit and less personal debt? The Equal Credit Opportunity Act specifically prohibits lending or not lending to borrowers on the basis of gender, race, religion, naitonal origin, marital status or age. So if in fact what you are saying is correct then the owners of your company have the basis for one hell of a lawsuit against whomever told them that she could get a better rate and more credit because she was a woman. Do they have it in writing?

Being just an employee I do not know their personal details, just that it was a business decision by them as equal partners to make her the majority owner and register as a corporation. We are able to apply as a minority owned company with the County of Allegheney for project bidding incentives and other benefits. And, no, it is not because of a better credit rating on her part, at least as far as I was told.

Where is the hypocricy?

Rob:cool:

[Jason T.]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I wholeheartedly agree that things often get taken too far when "protecting" a minority group from discrimination, but, folks should try putting themselves in the shoes of said minority group.

I mean, seriously, how bad do white male Republicans really have it, for example? Are they denied housing? Do people shun them when they move into the neighborhood? Are their kids harrassed at school for "being different"? Are they turned down for employment because of negative stereotypes about the work ethic of their "people"?

To me, the complaints come off like a spoiled child who's always had his way, and now realizes that he's no longer ruling the roost.
And I am a white male (though, being that I'm gay, I'm also a "minority").

Personally though, I don't think anyone should be treated any better than anyone else... we should ALL have the exact same rights and benefits.
Unfortunately, some people have been treated as second-class citizens (or worse) for so long, that overcompensation often exists as organizations search for a way to "make it all better."

Frankly, I dream of a world where we no longer have to have these types of discussions... because everyone is treated EQUALLY.

Exactly! Another incredible entry from Johnny Stew. :D

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Being just an employee I do not know their personal details, just that it was a business decision by them as equal partners to make her the majority owner and register as a corporation. We are able to apply as a minority owned company with the County of Allegheney for project bidding incentives and other benefits. And, no, it is not because of a better credit rating on her part, at least as far as I was told.

Where is the hypocricy?

Rob:cool:

Bidding incentives are not loans.:)

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Bidding incentives are not loans.:)

Yup, you are right.

I am not sure of the specifics regarding the financial benefits they received (i.e. Loans and financing). But, the decision to make her the controlling owner instead of a joint partnership was a calculated decision to take advantage of various economic benefits offered to minority or female owned, small businesses.:)

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Jason, I understand your point. What I can't agree with is that you are saying all wrongs have been righted. Look at the current experience of African Americans in comparison with other ethnic groups. By and large, they go through a period of suffering very serious hardships, then they seem to pick themselves up. Black folks have had a considerably different experience. Can anyone deny that?

That's fine, and I agree with you. BUT, how far are we going to take this idea of "righting all the wrongs" done to people in America’s history? My ancestry is Scottish and Irish. My family wasn’t even in this country during the time of slavery. They were busy being persecuted by the English and then by Americans when they arrived hear in the late 1800’s. Every race has gone through periods of persecution in their histories, including the English AND the Germans. It is a terrible and unfortunately recurring reality throughout history.

In my circumstance, based on this reasoning and because of my Irish ancestry, I could argue to be included under Affirmative Action because of the horrendous persecution and regard for Irish immigrants in America during the 19th and 20th centuries. It sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?

Affirmative Action has a noble intention but it does not address the root problems of discrimination which is education. It is merely a Band-Aid that addresses the symptoms but not the cause of the problem. And, it’s like fighting fire with fire instead of water (how about that analogy!:D )

We all want equality, and AA, as it stands, is not equality.

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

No to mention, the Italians and Jews would still be paying back the Christians, who were fed to the lions for heavans sake! Then, the Catholics would have to pay back the Protestants and the Arabs, etc. :laugh:

Seriously, I submit as long as we as a society, no matter how noble the intention, continue to place one group over the other based on race, religion, or past wrongs we personally had nothing to do with causing, we will always be in trouble. So, again, I submit poverty, not race, should be the test. That way everyone who needs a break to better themselves but cannot afford one will get one. :cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Seriously, I submit as long as we as a society, no matter how noble the intention, continue to place one group over the other based on race, religion, or past wrongs we personally had nothing to do with causing, we will always be in trouble. So, again, I submit poverty, not race, should be the test. That way everyone who needs a break to better themselves but cannot afford one will get one. :cool:

Agreed! As long as there are incentives in place so that those people have to take steps to better themselves and not abuse the system as a means for survival.:nod:

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
Agreed! As long as there are incentives in place so that those people have to take steps to better themselves and not abuse the system as a means for survival.:nod:

Rob:cool: Touche :laugh:

I guess I was sort of looking at the program as that incentive.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Touche :laugh:

I guess I was sort of looking at the program as that incentive.

Only in an idealistic world, my friend...;)

[strandinthewind]

An example of political correctness gone awry - I mean come on people get a sense of humor :mad:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.s.mo.farmer.clinton.ap/index.html

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
An example of political correctness gone awry - I mean come on people get a sense of humor :mad:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.s.mo.farmer.clinton.ap/index.html

Exactly! WTF. :confused:

Life is too short to worry about a dumb joke, insensitive or not.

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
An example of political correctness gone awry - I mean come on people get a sense of humor :mad:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.s.mo.farmer.clinton.ap/index.html

My thoughts exactly. They jump all over everything she does. I would say they are quite threatened by her.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
My thoughts exactly. They jump all over everything she does. I would say they are quite threatened by her.

If it were a Republican instead of the Hillmeister would you look at it differently?;)

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
My thoughts exactly. They jump all over everything she does. I would say they are quite threatened by her. I disagree to the extent that they take everything too seriously. I even say, although I cannot stand Trent Lott and am glad he is gone, I think he meant his comments at Strom "Cock of the Walk" Thurmond's birthday party were meant in jest not derision. Yet, in this day and age, satire and wit (corny and bad taste though it may be) cannot be expressed for fear of the witless :cool: A good example is that Betty Bowers website. I think it is hysterical, yet I am sure someone will find it offensive and actually take it seriously. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Yet another example of political correctness run amuck!!!!

I mean come on! :laugh:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/01/19/slogan.denied.ap/index.html

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yet another example of political correctness run amuck!!!!

I mean come on! :laugh:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/01/19/slogan.denied.ap/index.html

Good lord! :rolleyes:

These people have alot of time on their hands!