Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Curious George on Meet the Press
Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion
Pages: 1, 2
bobby78751
QUOTE
HulaBoy:
He hasn't declared us less worthy.  In fact, he has appointed many gay men & lesbians to prominent positions, to cite one example, the US Ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, who is openly gay and whose partner was recognized by Colin Powell at his swearing in.  Bush's words in the State of the Union and in related remarks since then were very carefully measured.  He said if the people decide they want to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, there is a process available for the people to do so.  (Just as the people of Massachusetts, a heavily Democratic state, are now in the process of considering amending their own state constitution to prohibit gay marriage.)  He didn't say he's going to support that, he didn't say he's going to make it an issue in the campaign, and he certainly never said gay people are less worthy of equality.  

So that's why I'm voting for Bush.
If W doesn't scare you, the people in his administration should. Are you aware of the people in his administration (Ashcroft, et al.) and behind his back (Rove, Santorum, et al.) who HATE you? How you can vote for a man, or anyone, from that party makes no sense at all! The Republican Party is evil and they aren't ashamed to let the whole world know they HATE gays. And that's just one reason why I will NEVER vote for Bush or any other Republican!

[ February 09, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
HulaBoy
Bobby,

One of the other people "behind his back" is Ed Gillespie, who scripted the 2000 Republican convention and ensuing campaign based on a strategy of inclusion.

Yes, they have to pay lip-service to shore up the right wing base, but I haven't seen any anti-gay legislation proposed or enacted during the last three years.

And those folks are definitely smart enough to know that this election is going to be decided by the independent voters in the middle. Even if they don't want to admit it out loud, they fully understand the Log Cabin slogan "Inclusion Wins!"
fantomas
HulaBoy, if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Chicago I want to sell you on the cheap....

Back to Incurious George: in a fairly sympathetic discussion of W in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Page, Republican Peggy Noonan, Raygun's speechwriter, had this to say:

QUOTE
The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse. He did not seem prepared. He seemed in some way disconnected from the event.
She also noted of the transcript that

QUOTE
It reads better than it played.
Noonan on W
HornFan
QUOTE
...based on a strategy of inclusion.
EXACTLY, it's just a strategy (or in bushspeak "strategeria"), not a principle of the GOP. They want your vote to be included in their tally and that's the only inclusion they have in mind for gays. Period. Read the party platform and get a clue.

Vote smart, not suicidal. rolleyes.gif
gmginsfo
QUOTE
Joe in Philly
290 million Americans did NOT elect him. Even if you believe he was legally elected and not installed by the Supreme Court (and we need not rehash that again), he still didn't even win the popular vote. A large majority either voted against him or didn't vote at all. [/QB]
In your eagerness to dispute, JIPper, you misread my post, which incorporated one of FT's arguments and never said that 290 million Americans voted to elect President Bush. The fact is: he won the election, so yes, let's not rehash that again. Or in the parlance of the left: MoveOn.
Joe in Philly
Your EXACT QUOTE is: "the 290 million American people could not have done better when they elected him to the Oval Office." That is making a very strong implication that he went into office with a great deal of support from the American people. This is FAR from the case.

Using the figures at this website, there were approximately 205.8 million people old enough to vote. If you factor in the estimate at the site that 10 percent of them were not allowed to vote (felons or non-citizens) that leaves about 185.2 million. Bush got 50.4 million votes, or about 27.2 percent. That leaves nearly 73 percent of voting-age Americans who didn't think well enough of Bush to vote for him. And based on his administration's record, they were absolutely right.
bobby78751
Excellent follow-up, JiP. smile.gif
BPT-336
A little humor for this topic from whitehouse.org. Bush's Interview with Russert
bobby78751
QUOTE
BPT336:
A little humor for this topic from whitehouse.org.   Bush's Interview with Russert
Finally...the truth is out! smile.gif
QUOTE
from whitehouse.org
QUOTE
The \"capture\" is supposed to be a surprise. Besides which, until we make that public, I don't want anyone wasting their time thinking about the guy who was actually behind 9/11 when I've gone and created this whole righteous quagmire in Iraqistan just so I could take out old Saddam Hussein. I keep saying in my speeches, \"Nine-Eleven/Iraq, Nine-Eleven/Iraq, Nine-Eleven/Iraq.\" That's all people need to know about Osamadama until such time as we pull him out of solitary at Camp X-Ray and parade him in front of the cameras.
CPT_Doom
QUOTE
He hasn't declared us less worthy. In fact, he has appointed many gay men & lesbians to prominent positions, to cite one example, the US Ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, who is openly gay and whose partner was recognized by Colin Powell at his swearing in. Bush's words in the State of the Union and in related remarks since then were very carefully measured.  
What Bush said, in his State of the Union, was that if "activist judges impose their arbitrary will on the people," the people will have to resort to a Constitutional amendment - clearly we are not part of the "people" and any opinion that agrees with the concept that gay people are human beings and should have all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of citizenship is "arbitrary."

As for his appointment of, what is it 4? 5? openly gay people - big whoop - he had to do something to keep the "compassionate conservative" lie alive.
gmginsfo
Gee, JIP, for a guy who didn't want to "rehash" the election contretemps, you sure do like to sling it around. Draw what inferences, however unreasonable and stretched, you will from my post and from the FACT that President Bush IS our President; my post, and FT's from which it is drawn in part, says what it says, however you may choose to ignore its context or play the numbers:* this President DID go into, and remains in, office "with a great deal of support from the American people." Just because you don't support your boss doesn't mean nobody else does. For all his faults, a lot of us kind of like the guy! :cool: And absolutely recoil when we think where we might be today under a Gore-Billary regime. sad.gif
_____
*Your link was helpful in reminding me of BC's own low numbers; what did the WSJournal call his first victory, "the 43% mandate?" rolleyes.gif
Joe in Philly
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
Gee, JIP, for a guy who didn't want to \"rehash\" the election contretemps, you sure do like to sling it around.  
What I didn't think should be rehashed was the illegal installation of a president by the right wing of the Supreme Court.
bobby78751
QUOTE
Joe in Philly:
   
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
Gee, JIP, for a guy who didn't want to \"rehash\" the election contretemps, you sure do like to sling it around.  
What I didn't think should be rehashed was the illegal installation of a president by the right wing of the Supreme Court.
A Supreme Court which was cheered by conservatives when W was appointed and then jeered when they struck down the Texas Sodomy Law. Wow, those Repugs sure are a fair-weather, finicky bunch of wackos. smile.gif

He might be the prsident, but I sure don't consider him MY president (MY president would reflect my values and ideals)...I don't respect the man at all for what he has done to this country. And if you have to ask "what" he has done, you are as clueless and the PAC.

[ February 10, 2004, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
gmginsfo
QUOTE
bobby78751:
Thank you for proving your point.  Consider yourself ignored and denied of any credibility from this point onward.  I think posting links (as I do ALL the time) to commentary I make as establishing credibility.  Just goes to show that you have no idea what you are talking about...gee, thanks for nothing.  If you want to discuss lack of credibility, how about this Bushie administration.  Ignore and Deny button activated.
Hey, look guys, Bobby's let me out of his gulag! (It was an even trade: Razorback goes in, I "come out." )

Originally posted by bobby78751:
Are you saying it's okay to be tolerant of homophobia, racism, greed, and hate? I totally agree that it's okay to be intolerant of intolerance and ideas that encourage intolerance. Would you PLEASE give an example where "leftists" have been intolerant of a positive, progressive idea?

OK, first let's get our definitions straight. When you say "progressive," I know better than to expect anything fair, reasonable and actually workable like the policies Teddy Roosevelt and Robert LaFollette espoused when they and other Republicans founded the Progressive Movement back in the early 1900s, so I'll accept the current working definition of "progressive" as "anything that doesn't hurt anybody," ( pace, JSMill), and originates from the left.

Some examples of fair, rational and workable proposals that most current "progressives" oppose? Ending affirmative action and replacing it with a pure merit standard; home and charter schooling; strict and evenhanded enforcement of immigration laws; tax relief for the middle class, the folks who work the hardest and lose the most to state-sponsored support of indolent - and often itinerant - indigents; pay raises for the military so they don't have to live like dogs in the nation they defend with their lives; teaching abstinence on an even basis with other birth control and safe-sex techniques; ... the list goes on and on.

More than any of these, though, is the left's overweening insistence that it has a monopoly on "social justice,"* and knows all the answers to all the world's problems, as so often reflected in the juvenile and ad hominem attacks we see on this board against anyone who disagrees with its programme. Keep it up, guys, you're doing a great job of alienating people from the entire gay community! Just don't be surprised whenever you hear that a lot of us don't want any part of your crackpot ideas - and will actively work to defeat them.
_____
*Is there such a thing as "anti-social justice?" These cliches - "Are you saying it's okay to be tolerant of homophobia, racism, greed, and hate?" - add nothing to the debate except, like so much else the left spews forth - to dumb it down.
bobby78751
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
 
QUOTE
bobby78751:
Thank you for proving your point.  Consider yourself ignored and denied of any credibility from this point onward.  I think posting links (as I do ALL the time) to commentary I make as establishing credibility.  Just goes to show that you have no idea what you are talking about...gee, thanks for nothing.  If you want to discuss lack of credibility, how about this Bushie administration.  Ignore and Deny button activated.
Hey, look guys, Bobby's let me out of his gulag! (It was an even trade: Razorback goes in, I \"come out.\" )
This was a slip of judgement on my part...it's good to know some are hanging on every word I say. The ignore button has been reactivated. Thanks for the reminder of why you drive me up the wall.
TomFord
re: gmginsfo wrote: "Ending affirmative action and replacing it with a pure merit standard."

I agree. But don't let it stop at schools. Fire departments, police departments, any number of organizations that, for decades, have practiced and continue to practice affirmative action for certain kinds of white males need to have to spotlight shined on them as brightly as the universities. Unless, of course, your beef with affirmative action is based on an axe to grind about undeserving blacks, while conveniently ignoring the countless examples of undeserving whites getting a leg up.

End legacy admissions while you're at it and replace it with a merit standard. Sports admissions. Children of university employees. Please tell me those are on your list of fair, rational and workable proposals gmginsfo. The issue is merit, right? Don't limit your effort to blacks. Go the whole way!

[ February 10, 2004, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
Joe in Philly
QUOTE
Some examples of fair, rational and workable proposals that most current \"progressives\" oppose?  Ending affirmative action and replacing it with a pure merit standard;
Except that prior to affirmative action, when theoretically we HAD a \"pure merit\" standard, whatever that is, discrimination ran rampant.

QUOTE
home and charter schooling;
Why should my tax dollars be used to pay for private and religious education, when the public school system is in desperately bad shape? Fix the public schools before doing anything else with my tax money.

QUOTE
strict and evenhanded enforcement of immigration laws;
Who's against this, in theory? In practice, we have the barring of people with HIV, among other things.

QUOTE
tax relief for the middle class, the folks who work the hardest and lose the most to state-sponsored support of indolent - and often itinerant - indigents;  
In other words, welfare queens driving Cadillacs -- right, Ronnie Reagan? But the biggest welfare queens are the giant corporations that get billions in tax breaks. The Reagan and Bush administrations claim to want tax relief for the middle class, but in reality only the wealthy get it.

QUOTE
pay raises for the military so they don't have to live like dogs in the nation they defend with their lives;  
Who's against this? This is just another example of the utter lies spread by the right wing. The fact is, however, that pay raises would be easily paid for if we stopped blowing billions of dollars on Star Wars weapons systems, Hallburton contracts and other corporate giveaways.

QUOTE
teaching abstinence on an even basis with other birth control and safe-sex techniques;  
Except that the right-wing Bush administration doesn't want to teach birth control or safe-sex. They ONLY want to teach abstinence.
fantomas
QUOTE
TomFord:

I agree.  But don't let it stop at schools.  Fire departments, police departments, any number of organizations that, for decades, have practiced and continue to practice affirmative action for certain kinds of white males need to have to spotlight shined on them as brightly as the universities.  Unless, of course, your beef with affirmative action is based on an axe to grind about undeserving blacks, while conveniently ignoring the countless examples of undeserving whites getting a leg up.
THANK YOU! As MIB will attest, we are witnessing the gross effects of favoritism and affirmative action in Chicago right now--our WHITE mayor/dictator has seen his white budget director, his white cousin, and the Latino former leader of a gang (yes!) resign over yet another outrageous financial scandal that just keeps growing wider and wider. This same stupid person--because whatever you may say about Richard M. Daley, he is not very smart; shrewd, cunning, canny, ruthless, all yes, smart, no--has been at the center of repeated scandals, involving the airport concessions, involving various city programs, etc., often involving other unqualified white people, many of them his relatives or friends or cronies (most of whom are white), who are robbing Chicago and Illinois blind. My tax dollars are going to support his sinecures and hangers on, and I can tell you, I'd much rather they were going towards a homeless shelter or affordable housing or whatever than losers with no more goal in life than to amass as much of the public's money before they get caught. The same was true of the previous Republican governor, George Ryan, who was about as corrupt as they come. He also practiced affirmative action for white people--and then cynically pulled his commutation stunt once he was on his way out of office.

In fact, this process goes on all the time. Furthermore, as many studies have shown, with REAL affirmative action over the period 1970-1995, the majority of beneficiaries have been WHITE WOMEN, since most affirmative actions programs were open not only to blacks but other minorities (including some Asian groups), and women, who continue to be discriminated against in terms of rising up the corporate ladder. So all the rhetoric about affirmative action is a smokescreen; and our current resident is proof of how elitism and legacy affirmative action truly operate. I mean, did he express himself as poorly at Yale College and Harvard Business School when he attended them? Certainly Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry, and Howard Dean all demonstrate that at least in responding to intellectual questions and arguments they can hold their own. W can't even get out prepared statements!

[ February 10, 2004, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
fantomas
Back to W--as Andrew Sullivan said in a recent column, either the man is just totally out of touch, or he's a liar pure and simple, but here are a series of W's claims on the Russert show, with the truthful facts that challenge nearly all of them (and the facts are backed up by a range of sources).

Center for American Progress: The President on Meet the Press

Just a few of the whoppers:

QUOTE
DAVID KAY'S REPORT

CLAIM: \"And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out.\"

FACT – KAY ACTUALLY SAID WMD HAD BEEN DESTROYED AFTER 1991: David Kay didn't say we haven't found the stockpiles of chemical weapons because they are destroyed, hidden or transported to another country. Kay said that they were never produced and hadn't been produced since 1991. As he said, \"Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections.\" [Kay Testimony, 2004]

CLAIM: \"The reason why we gave it time is because we didn't want it to be hurried... it's important that this investigation take its time.\"

FACT – OTHER COMMISSIONS SHOW THAT THE REPORT IS BEING DELAYED FOR POLITICS: Regardless of upcoming Parliamentary elections, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has set up a similar commission to investigate intelligence that will report by July. Additionally, in 1983 after the terrorist attack on U.S. troops in Beirut, a commission was appointed and completed its report within 2 months.

CLAIM: \"We have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton.\"

FACT – WHITE HOUSE HAS STONEWALLED THE 9/11 COMMISSION: According to the Baltimore Sun, President Bush \"opposed the outside inquiry\" into September 11th. When Congress forced him to relent, Time Magazine reported he tried to choke its funding, noting, \"the White House brushed off a request quietly made by 9-11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean\" for adequate funding. Then, the NY Times reported, \"President Bush declined to commit the White House to turning over highly classified intelligence reports to the independent federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, despite public threats of a subpoena from the bipartisan panel.\" And as the Akron Beacon Journal reported last week, \"the 9/11 panel did not receive the speedy cooperation it expected. In a preliminary report last summer, the panel's co-chairmen, Thomas Kean, a Republican and former governor of New Jersey, and Lee Hamilton, a Democrat and former congressman from Indiana, complained about lengthy delays in gaining access to critical documents, federal employees and administration officials. They warned the lack of cooperation would prove damaging, ensuring that a full investigation would take that much longer to complete, if at all.\" [Source: Baltimore Sun, 6/14/02; Time Magazine, 3/26/03; NY Times, 10/27/03; Akron Beacon Journal 2/2/04]

CLAIM: \"How about the fact that we are now increasing jobs or the fact that unemployment is now down to 5.6 percent? There was a winter recession and unemployment went up, and now it's heading in the right direction.\"

FACT – THE JOB MARKET CONTINUES TO STAGNATE: Since President Bush's first tax cut in March 2001, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs. He will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with a net job loss record. Additionally, the White House Counsel of Economic Advisors pledged that the President's \"jobs and growth\" package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 as part of its pledge to create 5.5 million new jobs by 2004. But the economy added 221,000 jobs since the last tax cut went into effect, meaning the White House has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of their mark. [Source: EPI, 2/4/2003; Jobwatch.org]

JOB CREATION

CLAIM: \"There is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs.\"

FACT – STATISTICS SHOW THERE IS NOT GOOD JOB MOMENTUM: In the last two months we've seen an average of 73,000 private sector jobs created. At this pace, we wouldn't see a new net job created until May 2007. Even beyond the recession and 9/11, just looking at the recovery since November 2001, the current pace of job growth puts us on track to have the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression.

CLAIM: \"But what the people must understand is that instead of wondering what to do, I acted, and I acted by cutting the taxes on individuals and small businesses, primarily. And that, itself, has led to this recovery.\"

FACT – BUSH TAX CUTS HAD LITTLE EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS The Bush tax cuts had little effect on small business owners. Under the first tax cut, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, small business owners \"would be far more likely to receive no tax reduction whatsoever from the Administration's tax package than to benefit\" because only 3.7% of small business owners are affected by the top tax rate cuts that were the bulk of the plan. Under the 2003 tax cut, the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates \"nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less than the amount\" while \"52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less.\" [Source: CBPP, 5/3/01; CBPP, 1/21/03]
Jim Allen
Wonkette does the Bush interview shorter version:
QUOTE
War against the terrorists . . . war against terrorists . . . war against terror. . . Yeah. . . Yeah. . . . this war on terror. . . fight the war on terror. . . . Yeah. . . . this is all in the context of war. . . war against terror. . . . this war on terror. . . Yeah. . . . Yeah. . . . the war on terror.  . . . the war is against terrorists . . . Yeah . . . Um hmm. . . . war against these terrorists. . . the war against terror. . . Yeah. . . . Yeah. . . Yeah.  . . . Yeah.  . . . Yeah. . . Um hmm. . . Um hmm. . . . we are at war. . . Yeah. . . Yeah. . . . I want to lead this great country to work with others to change the world in positive ways, particularly as we fight the war on terror. . . . Thank you, Tim
Wonkette? You're missing ".......madman......madman.......madman......"
gmginsfo
QUOTE
TomFord:
re:  gmginsfo wrote: \"Ending affirmative action and replacing it with a pure merit standard.\"

I agree.  But don't let it stop at schools.  Fire departments, police departments, any number of organizations that, for decades, have practiced and continue to practice affirmative action for certain kinds of white males need to have to spotlight shined on them as brightly as the universities.  Unless, of course, your beef with affirmative action is based on an axe to grind about undeserving blacks, while conveniently ignoring the countless examples of undeserving whites getting a leg up.

End legacy admissions while you're at it and replace it with a merit standard.  Sports admissions.  Children of university employees.  Please tell me those are on your list of fair, rational and workable proposals gmginsfo.  The issue is merit, right?  Don't limit your effort to blacks.   Go the whole way!
Actually - except for sports preferences, which reward achievement, not just birth, as much as academics do - I agree with you on this. These older, other forms of preferences, in whomever's favor they're given, are wrong. Just don't call them "affirmative action," though; that's a creature of a later age. These other types of prejudice have been around since Adam and Eve first realized they had grandkids, nieces and nephews - and wanted to "look out for them."
PhillyFan
[quote]fantomas:
CLAIM: \"How about the fact that we are now increasing jobs or the fact that unemployment is now down to 5.6 percent? There was a winter recession and unemployment went up, and now it's heading in the right direction.\"

FACT – THE JOB MARKET CONTINUES TO STAGNATE: Since President Bush's first tax cut in March 2001, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs. He will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with a net job loss record. Additionally, the White House Counsel of Economic Advisors pledged that the President's \"jobs and growth\" package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 as part of its pledge to create 5.5 million new jobs by 2004. But the economy added 221,000 jobs since the last tax cut went into effect, meaning the White House has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of their mark. [Source: EPI, 2/4/2003; Jobwatch.org]

JOB CREATION

CLAIM: \"There is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs.\"

FACT – STATISTICS SHOW THERE IS NOT GOOD JOB MOMENTUM: In the last two months we've seen an average of 73,000 private sector jobs created. At this pace, we wouldn't see a new net job created until May 2007. Even beyond the recession and 9/11, just looking at the recovery since November 2001, the current pace of job growth puts us on track to have the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression.

CLAIM: \"But what the people must understand is that instead of wondering what to do, I acted, and I acted by cutting the taxes on individuals and small businesses, primarily. And that, itself, has led to this recovery.\"

FACT – BUSH TAX CUTS HAD LITTLE EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS The Bush tax cuts had little effect on small business owners. Under the first tax cut, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, small business owners \"would be far more likely to receive no tax reduction whatsoever from the Administration's tax package than to benefit\" because only 3.7% of small business owners are affected by the top tax rate cuts that were the bulk of the plan. Under the 2003 tax cut, the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates \"nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less than the amount\" while \"52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less.\" [Source: CBPP, 5/3/01; CBPP, 1/21/03]
[/quote][/QUOTE]

Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah...

Jobs are a LAGGING idicator of the economy, which every commie pinko fails to point out. This is the last piece of the economy that you can bitch about folks. Why? Cause it's a lagging trend.

With the economy becoming stronger and production going up and up.. at some point companies must hire people. Those temp jobs become perm jobs ect ect ect.

It's all about cycles folks. Jobs after the recess. are the last to arrive.
bobby78751
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
It's all about cycles folks.
And thank God this four-year Cycle in Hell (a.k.a. the Bush II years) is almost over. It seems that God feels a need to punish us once every 8 years by throwing a babbking bush in the White House. So, I guees in 2012 Jeb WILL win the presidency. :mad:
TomFord
gmginsfo: Looking out for nieces and nephews doesn't apply to any number of institutions that, to this day, remain the province of white males. It's no accident that police and fire departments are staffed the way they are. And, please, no bs about how white men with high school educations are the only ones who deserve/can fill those slots. That we end up with white cops and firemen who live in the suburbs servicing the many non-white neighborhoods in this (and other) cities is no accident. And it's not because blacks from those economically depressed neighborhoods don't want jobs!

People with an axe to grind about affirmative action in universities seem to drop the ball when it comes to the issue of merit in any number of other institutions. If the issue is fairness, weigh up the probable instances of de-facto affirmative action for white males against the probable instances of affirmative action for black students. The weight falls on the former. So, why no call to fix this in your list of fair, rational and workable that a progressive person is interested in? Axe to grind about blacks? The issue is fairness and merit, right? Or is the term "affirmative action"--the shocking openness of it that gets to you? Would it be better if, like any number of places that have a covert whites-only/whites-first policy, we got rid of the term and simply thought of it as, um, "looking out for a class that has been discriminated against"? Or is that wrong/terribly unfair in a way that "looking out for nieces and nephews" isn't? Does your definition of merit somehow extend to birthright? Is the problem undeserving blacks or undeserving people in general? You want a uniform standard but you only want to apply it in instances of blacks getting a let up.

Of course, it doesn't have to be called affirmative action for white males. It's just how it is. If you want some vaunted merit system, demand it everywhere. It sure wasn't there when only white males ran the show. Now that others are crowding the field, we have to have a strict merit standard? Nice. But be prepared to send home lots of white males who practice on the job retirement daily and replace them with the scores of able female and non-white others who could do with the work.

Look, I'm all for getting rid of affirmative action. But you were listing fair, rational and workable proposals. The problem is people getting into positions not based on merit. And not just blacks. Be fair and apply the same standard in other places. Otherwise, you come off as someone with an axe to grind about blacks. In a nation that has more prisoners than farmers, it's a bit odd, to me at least, the the first issue you listed is affirmative action.

Jim Allen: Love Wonkette.

[ February 11, 2004, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
Bill W
Nice link, Fantomas.

QUOTE
MIB:
So Clinton, Albright, the UN, Powell, Cohen, et. al. are all liars, too?
When did the UN "lie" in this matter in regard to saying definitively that Iraqi WMDs existed? Isn't their lack of such a finding the beef Bushies have with the institution?

As for the individuals you named, yes, they're all excellent liars. Powell is the one who's relevant, of course.

Chimp smirked at Russert, "I think we were welcomed in Iraq..." 100 dead in bombings the last two days ... but then, they were just Iraqis who died for us.
hockeyTom
What's totally laughable is that Shrub claims the economy will supposedly produce 2. something million jobs this year? yeah right. If you believe that I have some snow to sell you in Antartica!!!!
gmginsfo
TF, what part about "I agree with you" don't you understand? :confused:

Perhaps it's the way, i.e. my way, that I agree with you, by not parrotting all your innumerable hypotheticals. I encounter this all the time when speaking with gay lawyers on the left - which is often. Support our common goals with anything other than slavish devotion to their usually confrontational and equally unsuccessful methods, and you're "marginalized," to use of of their favorite terms. For me, it's just independent thinking; for them, for whatever reason, it's positively jarring. There's enough work to be done safeguarding and advancing our rights than to waste time cossetting egos.
Jim Allen
TF: Yeah, Wonkette's new to me but she's bookmarked. Love the snark.
TomFord
ok gmg, truce!

Jim, glad to see you're back. You were gone for a bit, weren't you?
gmginsfo
QUOTE
TomFord:
ok gmg, truce!
TF, LOL! biggrin.gif Fair enough, bud; there'll be more debating down the line! :cool:
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.