And the ultra-right seems to have forgotten that life can be better if we work together for the better of mankind, rather than following the mantra of: to rich go the spoils, caveat emptor, and every man for himself. And Brad, i don't think that you want to compare how hard you work (as a representative of the Republinazis) with how hard I work (as a demicommie) -- i bet we both often put in 80 hour weeks. Rodger
Yeah, who needs road, schools, firefighters, police officers etc etc. In other words MTK, WTF do you mean?? I'm beginning to think that you are just one of those ultra-right wing kooks that spouts B.S. with no real thoughtful foundation. When called on to show factual support for silly claims you refuse. When shown that there is a significant contradiction in what you puport to be factual support for your claims you change the subject. So, in the future, no more B.S. from you without at least an attempt to support what you have to say with real facts or at least a reference to what hte real facts are. And stop ducking the conflicting evidence. Rodger
In RCJohn's defense, I've never thought that he was a bigot and seems generally respectful of others opinions and others in general. I am a staunch defender of AA but I also recognize that just b/c you are agianst it doesn't mean that you are a Nazi. (Although you'd be on the same side as KKK ) Rodger
I'm glad you put the along with the comment about the KKK, otherwise I'd have to tag you as an idiot... (Note the ) I will agree that race (or religion, etc) should not be used against you when appling for a job, etc, but nor should it give you an advantage, either. In effect, the other applicants are having their race (etc) held against them. (I know, I know, thus the term "reverse discrimination") but it does happen. Which is the less evil of the two? I don't know. But I believe (or at least HOPE) that the need for AA is nearly (if not completely) gone. Yes, there are still bigots, sexists, racists, etc, in charge some places but IMO AA does little to address the real issue (see my first statement) but in some cases can make it worse. Give me one good reason that college or academies should have different acceptance requirements based on race?
AA doesn't have to mean quotas or lower strandards for minorities. AA can mean (and should) making an outreach to those who have been underrepresented in a school or job before. It can and should mean that factors actually related to the job or curriculum are considered rather than test scores that have no bearing. (Take the LSAT, for example ) I think that most of us can agree that making some effort to include minorities (and white males are a minority in some fields) is a good thing but that having a quota is a bad thing. The question is: How far should we go? Rodger
I'll agree with you in that is how it should be, but I think we all know that isn't how it is used. Take college entrance (for high school kids) what do you use instead of test scores and high school history (GPA, attendance, extra-cirr, etc)? If you want to lower the GPA or test score requirements for poor kids because they didn't get the education the middle/upper/rich kids did, fine, call it that, don't play the race card. But even then, the real purpose of entrance requirements is supposed to be to gage the likelyhood of success.... Damn, this is a hard question... I don't believe the current methods work, but I sure as heck don't know what the correct answer is...
Roger, Your "let's all work together" bullshit is just that, bullshit. It's pretty words to justify the theft of one from another, to fit YOUR personal moral compass. It's also well-proven that government is, by far, the most inefficent way to do what you suggest. Unless keeping beauraucrats employed is your goal. Your goal is MANDATORY charity on MY PART, at the point of a government tax gun, to causes I may or may not support. Like third-generation welfare familys, for one. That's not a hand-up, that's suckling at the public teet and for all I care they can all be homeless and starve. Harsh? Yep, but life is like that. That's why I get up and go to work every morning: so I won't be a piece of shit like them. If I choose to "work together for my fellow man," it's MY choice as to the nature and level of that work. It's MY money, not YOURS. It's really that simple. I earned it, not you, so it's mine to do with as I see fit. And as I said before, educating you isn't my job. There have been reams and reams of paper consumed in writing on Reaganomics; if you want info, go dig it up and read it. It's not my job to regurgitate it for you, not to mention I certainly can't do the topic justice compared to the original authors. So why should I bias my case because I can't present an eloquent arguement on the spur of the moment? Think of this as college and not grade school; i.e. I'm not going to spoon feed you. I've read enough on Reaganomics to convince me that Reagan was right and Clinton was a twit. Go do your own homework and draw your own conclusions. I did. And no, I didn't look at your "conflicting data" too closely, because when it gets right down to it, I don't give a shit about government revenues, I care about how much they steal from me every month. If they don't get enough money, they can do like I do: make do with what I've got. As for Affirmative Action, please explain to me how you can have anything but lowered standards and quotas when you deviate from the goal of the best person for the job? Answer: you can't. You either stick with excellence as a goal or you make excuses and accept lesser levels of achievement. There's no middle ground on that one. I'm not for including ANYONE for any reason other than they're the best person for the job, period. As for firefighters, hmmm, mine are all volunteer. No government required. Funny how that works. And I sleep just fine at night with that knowledge. Roads are built by private contractors in this area. Governments role in that one is to collect the money and then take the low bidder so we get shitty roads that fall apart in two years. Another government success story! But I will grant you that government does have a few useful functions. But in all honesty, if I had to take an all-or-nothing vote, I'd choose "nothing" since that's the only way to get rid of the 95% which is crap. If that means no cops, so be it. Law enforcement is more about revenue generation than protecting the populace anyway, particularly since they have no obligation to protect you in the first place. Only to clean up the mess, make a report, and see if they can find the perpetrator. They're not your personal bodyguards. If my neighbors are getting robbed, I'll grab a few firearms and come to their aide. Then we'll bury the robbers in the back yard. Problem solved. But that's not realistic, I admit. So let's just scale government (specifically Federal) back to the level spelled out in the US Constitution. That should eliminate about 90% of it. Then we could do away with income taxes because excise and other taxes could pay for the remaining functions. See Harry Browne's (the former Libertarian Presidential candidate) book for a complete blueprint of how it would work. And no, I won't regurgitate it here for you either. Again, more homework. And Roger, what you think of me, my opinions, or anything else makes absolutely NO difference to me. I could give a shit less. And until you're the CEO of 13X.com or WERA Inc., you can stick your "no more BS" right up your ass.
Even more drivel from the B.S.er who doesn't have the balls to back up what he says. But I agree with you: you should spend more time educating yourself and not worry about me -- you obviously need it more. Your unwillingness to substatiate your arguments (actually more like anti-gov frothing at the mouth) shows how devoid of "excellence" you actually are. How moronic are you anyway to think that volunteer fire departments will work in big cities? And if you hate it here so much get the fuck out!! (I slay me!!! ) Rodger
Thanks Rodger. For the record, I'm only against AA as it is currently used. I'm all for equal opportunities for all. Holy shit, the KKK... what a bunch of idiots. Do they like anyone?
Also for the record, all I meant to accuse you of was what I thought a poorly worded ( and easily misinterpreted) post. If I thought someone was a bonafide rascist, I wouldnt bother with a reply.
