| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#151
January 26th 05, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:01:09 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in : "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message .. . snip We live in a society. This has obvious benefits, but it also demands some responsibilities. One of those responsibilites is to make sure everyone has a reasonable opportunity to succeed and not become a burden on our society. If one goes to school, gets an education, promotes that education by further schooling, aggressively seeks employment, maintains that employment showing a commitment to the employer and his business, then he's is not being a burden on society. That opportunity is there for almost everyone, they have to "want" it, not expect it. See below. But because there are racist attitudes among many employers, there are fewer opportunities for people of other races. It then becomes the responsibility of everyone else to pick up the slack left by the racists. That's why we have affirmative action. I don't believe that's prevalent anymore. If we were in the 50's, 60's & even the early 70's I would say yes, but I feel it's not the case now. I used to think that way. But over the years I've seen that racial discrimination is present just as much as it was before -- it's just not as visible. So don't blame the government and don't blame people "of color". Blame Canada..... (hehe, just kidding). Nope, don't blame them, but do blame Canada  The problem originates with racist attitudes which have been around for quite a while and aren't going away anytime soon. Those will always be around, affirmative action or not, but again I feel that's far & few in between. If you have a scanner, spend a few days listening in on some of your neighbors' telephone conversations. You might be suprised. By cooperating with Affirmative Action you are shouldering the responsibilities that are shirked by racist employers, and for that you should be commended -- after all, nobody is forcing you to do business with Issaquah, are they? If my business is with them, why must I be forced to "not" do business with them? Because my company has 12 employee's, all qualified to do the job, but none are of "color" or just one person, so that's not enough. If I remember right, there's a minimum number of employees you must have before you are required to comply with AA. Is 12 over that threshold? My last job I was a manager, I did the hiring & firing and to me I didn't care what color you were, just so you did the job & did it well. That attitude is the same where I'm at now. We have people of color, women working there. I remember a person of color hired and was asked to take the owners truck over to the car wash and have them wash it. He refused and said it was a job that degraded him. I LOL!!! I had done that very same job a dozen times, among many others when I first started there, I didn't care, just as long as I was paid. I understand what you are saying and I agree completely. It would be great if everyone was color-blind. But that's just not the case. It has lot to do with attitude, people have become complacent and started to live off of welfare, SSI, disability etc. Those programs were only meant as a crutch, but have grown into basically an income for those that don't want to work ......people like Eric, (I saw it for years when working in SF). Some truly need those programs and don't abuse them, but more than not abuse it and almost never have to work because people like you & I support them with "our" hard earned taxes. Yep. But eliminating the programs hurt the people they were intended to help. The problem is the abuse, not the programs. |
|
#153
January 26th 05, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#154
January 26th 05, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N3CVJ wrote:
Where is the proof that Bush is a "criminal"? (How about his conviction for DUI? That alone defines him as a criminal.) What is your basis for making such an outlandishly absurd and so typically partisan claim? (Now there's a loaded question if I ever heard one. Regardless, I think Twisty would me more than eager to provide an answer so I'll let him take the first jab.) Of interesting note, is when one has a conviction in a court of law on his record, Dave vehemently lobbies his view they are innocent...not a criminal. Ditto for when one is listed on the rainreport and reported by the fcc as breaking communication law.,,Dave lobbied for the innocence of N8WWM..yet, when one is not found guilty in court of law, not charged with a crime, Dave somehow feels qualified to pronounce one a federal criminal, based only on what he refers his "empirical observational skills", which bring us imaginary hams and hallucinations he acknowledges but refuses to share. Dave's world is no longer a factor. |
|
#155
January 26th 05, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:12:26 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:57:57 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip It's also no secret that his psychobabble seems to keep you going. Newsflash: I argue with Twisty to keep my own wits sharp. You admitted it yourself, Twisty "debates" by playing head games with people. That's hardly your style Frank. Certainly not something worthy enough to be called "sharpening your wits". On the contrary (and I mean that quite literally), I have to stay on my toes -because- of his 'head-game' style. Why? If you are telling the truth, his "spin" is quite evident for what it truly is. Hardly something that one needs to defend. I argue with you because you are ignorant. Which started coincidentally when you found out that I support the opposite political party. Wrong. It started when you came running to the defense of baby-G after I raked his policies over the coals. The specific post where you started it was: Yes, and after deflecting your vicious and unsubstantiated claims, or the hypocrisy of using one set of opinions to offset another, you had a problem. Before that we were on good terms. Now you "think" (and I use the term loosely) that I'm an idiot for it. Wrong. I think you are quite intelligent. You just don't use those brains whenever the facts conflict with your belief system. But you have YET to provide more than a few true facts. Your "facts" are little more than conclusions that someone else arrived at based loosely on probability and conjecture. What true facts you have provided are not relevant to the core issue. If that isn't a partisan pundit attitude, I don't know what is. I see you discovered a new word -- 'pundit'. But you use it much to frequently to be effective. If the shoe fits....... Only an idiot argues with another idiot Frank. You "argue" with me, because you are unable to present your "side" with anything other than your own opinions. The fact that I can effectively deflect your "facts" as the op-ed opinions that they truly are frustrates you. What makes you think you can do anything of the sort? So far you haven't accomplished anything that would substantiate your claim (which is certainly no suprise). I can and I have. Can you prove that Bush was a deserter? Can you prove that he dodged the draft? Can you prove that he's a "criminal? The facts are not in your favor Frank. At least back before you guys found a common love for the wrong side of the political spectrum.... Your political spectrum analyzer is out of alignment, Dave. You certainly are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it might be..... And you haven't read a single word I've written because, and to put it simple enough for a 1st grader, I don't take sides when it comes to politics. I oppose Bush because he's a criminal, not because he's a Republican. Where is the proof that Bush is a "criminal"? How about his conviction for DUI? That alone defines him as a criminal. And Clinton never inhaled (But did dodge the draft) so what's your point? How does a DUI conviction that happened many years ago affect his leadership of the country now? You're grasping at straws Frank... What is your basis for making such an outlandishly absurd and so typically partisan claim? Now there's a loaded question if I ever heard one. Regardless, I think Twisty would me more than eager to provide an answer so I'll let him take the first jab. Coming from someone who disregards and disrespects the law, and then makes all sorts of lame excuses for it, whatever he says is already suspect. And if you had any evidence..... or even a reasonable suspicion that Kerry was in any way a criminal, I could accept it. The evidence is there. It came out of Kerry's own mouth. He admitted to taking part in the atrocities in Vietnam on Meet the Press on April 18th 1971. He admitted the same at the congressional hearing. Now Frank, you are a man who claims to embrace logic, so riddle me this then. If Kerry is telling the truth about his part in these "atrocities", then is he not guilty of a war crime? Truth is relative to the observer. Facts are not. Kerry may have been telling the truth as he saw it but the facts may be different (and frequently are when testimony is based on nothing but recollection of events). If the details from his testimony could be verified as factual then he might indeed be a criminal. If that isn't the biggest double talking tap dance I ever saw, I don't know what is. The facts are quite clear: Either he was truthful and he took part in war crimes, or he lied about it. Either way, he's a an opportunistic slimeball. But there are two parts to his testimony: 1) that war crimes were committed in Vietnam, which has since been verified as factual. There are many statements from other servicemen that say pretty much the opposite. While some atrocities may have occurred, they were in no way condoned, endorsed, or pardoned by the command structure. The problem is that everybody knew stuff like that was going on so it wasn't any big shock when Kerry made the claim in front of congress. Everybody didn't know, as evidenced by the testimony of other servicemen. And isn't it odd that Kerry, a swiftboat captain, saw more atrocities in the 4 months that he was there, than other guys saw in 2 or more full tours of duty? 2) that -he- committed war crimes in Vietnam, which has -not- been verified as factual. IOW, either he provided specific information regarding his conduct which the government chose not to verify, or his claims were nonspecific generalities which could not be verified. Assuming the former (that he made specific references to specific acts) then the question becomes one of why the crimes were not prosecuted. There were plenty of war crimes in Vietnam that -were- prosecuted, so war crimes were not always ignored. Nixon wanted him silenced, and it would have certainly been easy enough if he -was- prosecuted for war crimes, but that never happened. Which then lends credibility to the notion that HE LIED. Along with the other stuff he did while a part of the VVAW. So the only issue left is one of perception. What one person perceives as a crime may only be an act of war in the mind of another (a problem that is still evident today but you refuse to admit). That seems to be the case, and therefore it doesn't matter what he said. The -fact- is that Kerry's acts were never addressed by the government as war crimes -regardless- of how Kerry perceived his own actions. IOW Kerry lied. On the other hand, if he didn't take part, and the whole issue was a blown up fabrication, doesn't that make him a liar? No. As I stated before, people have different perceptions and interpretations about what constitutes a "crime", and the subject has been addressed in this newsgroup on many occasions when discussing the legality of FCC rules. The FCC rules are pretty cut and dry. You operate above 4 watts of power and/or on non-assigned frequencies, you are committing a violation of federal law. The only "perception" issue is the one kept alive only by those who refuse to deal with the reality of what they are doing, or who try to justify it somehow by trivializing it. Would you want someone who lied like that to be your CNC? How many other lies did he make in the aftermath of the who winter soldier debacle and the VVAW movement which followed? But so far you have offered nothing but excuses, logical fallacies, and websites with forged documents and paranoid rants. As opposed to the sites you provided which were nothing more than the flip side of what I provided? Do you think Kerry's official military records are forgeries? No, but they only tell part of the story. You discard what I provided because you refuse to acknowledge the possibility. You don't want to believe it so you deny it. You came up with some sort of "font analysis" on one document, and concluded that it was a forgery, so then you projected that conclusion to all the rest of the evidence. Once again, I used the same standards that were used to discredit the CBS documents. Has it occurred to you that the font issue could be explained by the OCR software used to digitize the documents? And the rest of the website was nothing more than speculation without facts. Such as assumption of guilt in the absense of evidence, and misinterpretation of official military records. Many murderers have been put in prison based on circumstantial evidence. When this much smoke is generated, there will be a fire somewhere. If you are really a supporter of the Republican party then you should keep quiet on political issues because you are giving your party some very poor representation. I am a conservative, That's fine. Label yourself if you want. But don't label me a liberal just because I don't share your beliefs. Fine then. But I find it odd, but perhaps enlightening, that most of the people I know with conservative ideals are quick to admit it, almost proudly. While most of the people I know who are liberals hide from the term, almost like it was holy water to a vampire. I have to wonder why they feel the need to hide what they are? If you are committed to your beliefs, then you should be able to admit them with confidence. That being said, what are your political leanings Frank? You are certainly no conservative. And please don't try to pull a cop out and claim to be "moderate". and I support those who best represent my political views. I also believe in the history and honor of our country, its military Were you ever in the military, Dave? Irrelevant. and the judgement of its leader in matters of national security and enemies of the state. You do understand that there are three branches to the government, don't you? Bush isn't in the Judicial branch. And your point is? The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the law. Dave |
|
#156
January 26th 05, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:15:33 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:11:41 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip No, not at all. But trust me, the liberal side of the political equation has done little to help and far more to ruin this country at practically every turn. From the creation of the welfare state, to frivolous lawsuits, to the creation and expansion of federal taxes, to affirmative action..... What's your problem with affirmative action? It's an institutionalized form of reverse discrimination. Dave |
|
#157
January 26th 05, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:27:04 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: We live in a society. This has obvious benefits, but it also demands some responsibilities. One of those responsibilites is to make sure everyone has a reasonable opportunity to succeed and not become a burden on our society. No, that is not necessarily true. We have the responsibility as a society to provide opportunities. But we bare no responsibility to guarantee success. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. But because there are racist attitudes among many employers, there are fewer opportunities for people of other races. It then becomes the responsibility of everyone else to pick up the slack left by the racists. That's why we have affirmative action. I think we all understand why AA came to be. The problem is that what AA does in essence, is to fight discrimination with reverse discrimination. Is it fair, that someone who is not a part of the recognized minority (And this is not just blacks. It could be women, latinos, gays, or anyone who isn't a WASP male), who goes through the right hoops, studies hard, and works to make his place in society, only to have his "place" taken from him and given to an arbitrary person of recognized minority status, who did not work nearly as hard? So don't blame the government and don't blame people "of color". Blame Canada..... (hehe, just kidding). The problem originates with racist attitudes which have been around for quite a while and aren't going away anytime soon. Minority people share much of the responsibility for their own situation. Many throw up their hands when things get tough and simply blame it on the "white folks". While racism is still alive and well in many places, it's a shadow of what it was 50 years ago. By cooperating with Affirmative Action you are shouldering the responsibilities that are shirked by racist employers, and for that you should be commended -- after all, nobody is forcing you to do business with Issaquah, are they? I'd be curious as to some of the claims of racism. How many people of recognized minority status who claim "racism" or discrimination, are simply playing that card as a cover for simply being inferior to another potential job candidate? Then you have to consider that the more we make laws and policies that highlight and call attention to our differences, the more they will remain? The answer to true equality in not to emphasize our differences, but to eliminate them. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#158
January 26th 05, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:01:09 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: We live in a society. This has obvious benefits, but it also demands some responsibilities. One of those responsibilites is to make sure everyone has a reasonable opportunity to succeed and not become a burden on our society. If one goes to school, gets an education, promotes that education by further schooling, aggressively seeks employment, maintains that employment showing a commitment to the employer and his business, then he's is not being a burden on society. That opportunity is there for almost everyone, they have to "want" it, not expect it. That's called personal responsibility. It's at the core of the conservative mantra. But because there are racist attitudes among many employers, there are fewer opportunities for people of other races. It then becomes the responsibility of everyone else to pick up the slack left by the racists. That's why we have affirmative action. I don't believe that's prevalent anymore. If we were in the 50's, 60's & even the early 70's I would say yes, but I feel it's not the case now. I never see racism in my daily conduction of business. We employ all sorts of diverse ethnic people. Nobody even thinks about it. In fact, when I see some of the older members of my family and they let out a racially insensitive comment, it makes me cringe. But there are people of recognized minority status who "play" the system. The problem is that when the majority tries to open up dialog to address this subject, they are shouted down and demonized by the opposition by calling the discussions "racist", "sexist", or "xenophobic". I applaud Bill Cosby for speaking out and highlighting many of the problems which are affecting the black community. Maybe coming from one of their own, the dialog might stand a better chance of happening. So don't blame the government and don't blame people "of color". Blame Canada..... (hehe, just kidding). Nope, don't blame them, but do blame Canada You're such a hoser! Take off eh? The problem originates with racist attitudes which have been around for quite a while and aren't going away anytime soon. Those will always be around, affirmative action or not, but again I feel that's far & few in between. By cooperating with Affirmative Action you are shouldering the responsibilities that are shirked by racist employers, and for that you should be commended -- after all, nobody is forcing you to do business with Issaquah, are they? If my business is with them, why must I be forced to "not" do business with them? Because my company has 12 employee's, all qualified to do the job, but none are of "color" or just one person, so that's not enough. My last job I was a manager, I did the hiring & firing and to me I didn't care what color you were, just so you did the job & did it well. That attitude is the same where I'm at now. That is the only criteria that should be considered IMHO. We have people of color, women working there. I remember a person of color hired and was asked to take the owners truck over to the car wash and have them wash it. He refused and said it was a job that degraded him. And some wonder why many minority people are still falling short in the wealth category........ I LOL!!! I had done that very same job a dozen times, among many others when I first started there, I didn't care, just as long as I was paid. It has lot to do with attitude, people have become complacent and started to live off of welfare, SSI, disability etc. Those programs were only meant as a crutch, but have grown into basically an income for those that don't want to work (I saw it for years when working in SF). Some truly need those programs and don't abuse them, but more than not abuse it and almost never have to work because people like you & I support them with "our" hard earned taxes. And you can thank the liberals for creating the "entitlement" generation... Your tax dollars NOT at work........ Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#159
January 26th 05, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:12:59 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:21:07 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... At least back before you guys found a common love for the wrong side of the political spectrum.... Dave "Sandbagger" What makes you think that "they" are on the wrong side of the political spectrum? Now think about it Dave, Frank has said a number of times he is not a liberal, he just doesn't like Bush's policy's. Yet he voted for Nader?(While also defending Kerry to the teeth) Doesn't that sound a bit off to you? If a conservative or even a moderate had a problem with Bush politically, do you think that they would vote for Nader? My dad's a republican, he voted for Nader. He hated Kerry, but disliked Bush just as much, so rather than not vote at all he voted for who "he" wanted. Was it simply a "protest" vote, or did he actually agree with his platform? Twist is what I would say a liberal, but how does that make him on the "wrong side"? Because you don't agree with them, that makes them on the wrong side? No, not at all. But trust me, the liberal side of the political equation has done little to help and far more to ruin this country at practically every turn. From the creation of the welfare state, I'll agree there. to frivolous lawsuits, I don't see that being any fault of a political agenda. It's the whole liberal culture of deflecting responsibility. A conservative believes in personal responsibility. Meaning that if you run your foot over with a lawn mower, you smack yourself in the head for being an idiot, and then head to the emergency room. You don't now sue the lawn mower company and try to make a windfall from it. to the creation and expansion of federal taxes, Nixon, I think Regan, Bush Sr. raised taxes, along with Clinton so I again don't see a liberal agenda there. But if you look at WHY the taxes need to be raised, and the social programs that eat up much of it, you'll discover that they're not conservative. to affirmative action, I'll agree there to mollycoddling terrorists, liberals have been on the wrong side of history, and the wrong side for Americans. I could list a whole host of examples, but this is not the place for that. What about Saddam, Samosa, Shah of Iran, among many other dictators, heads of state that the US under many different administrations supported? We pick our business partners according do what they can do for us. If they later turn out to be "bad" people, we deal with them then. Liberals have all the best intentions. They are not "evil" people. They are just hopelessly naive and overly idealistic. It's no wonder that most Hollywierd types tend to be liberals. What about Arnold, Bo Derek, Bruce Willis, Tom Selleck, Dennis Miller, Mel Gibson, Chuck Norris, Ben Stein, Pat Sajak, Kelsey Grammer, Danny Aiello, Patricia Heaton and James Woods? What about them? I didn't say *all* Hollywierd types, I said most. Hell, Ronald Reagan, who was arguably the model of the modern conservative, was a former actor. But I can make a much longer list of the Hollywood Limousine liberals. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#160
January 26th 05, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Roger Wiseman Dictionary 2005 Edition | General | |||
| Why are Roger Beeps Illegal on CB? | CB | |||
| N3CVJ claims Roger Beeps illegal | CB | |||
| Roger Wiseman's Greyhound Men's Room Band | General | |||
Linear Mode
