On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:26:22 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

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.


I said nothing about a guarantee of success, only the opportunity to
succeed.


You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.


Your horse is drinking from the wrong end if you think an
"opportunity" is also a "guarantee".


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.


Yes it is. The difference is that opportunities are lost when racial
discrimination is based on prejudice; lost opportunities are regained
when discrimination is used to counter the consequences of prejudice.


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?


I think you switched positions in mid-speech, but I understood what
you were saying. I lost my job at HP because of AA but I didn't lay
down a die. I had a pretty good resume and a fine recommendation. It
wasn't long before I had another job. And it worked out for the best
since the local HP plant turned sour a short time later. I have plenty
of opportunities and I can afford to give up a few for a good cause.


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".


You actually think that kind of projection is exclusive to minorities?
Look in the mirror, Dave -- in many of your posts over the years you
have clearly stated that you don't want to share the responsibilities
of society, so you blame all the country's problems on the liberals.
That's prejudice, Dave.


While racism is still alive and well in
many places, it's a shadow of what it was 50 years ago.


It's just hiding in the shadows. And in the airports since the Patriot
Act went into effect. Racial profiling, despite Bush's excuse that it
weeds out terrorists, is nothing more than racial discrimination based
upon prejudice.

BTW, ever hear of Mark Fuhrman? He lives in Idaho right across the
state line from here, and just a few miles from where Richard Butler
had his neo-Nazi compound which drew support from anonymous people all
across the nation. But I suppose you're right, racism is pretty much
dead, huh?


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?


I'd be curious to know how many people use that argument to justify
their racism?


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.


Just one "master race", huh Dave?

N3CVJ wrote:
Where is the proof that Bush is a "criminal"?

Frank Gilliland wrote:

(How about his conviction for DUI? That alone defines him as a
criminal.)

N3CVJ wrote:
And Clinton never inhaled


Focused, Dave, remain focused on your inquiry.

(But did dodge the draft) so what's your point?

Your failure to grasp what's given to you is the point,,,you asked what
makes Bush a criminal, you were proven it, and you are pooping yourself
tlaking about Clinton ,,,,,
Only conviction of a crime makes one a criminal, not your self-professed
"empirical observations" which bring us your acknowledged hallucinations
of hams agreeing with your ridiculous claim that roger beeps are
illegal.

How does a DUI conviction that happened

many years ago affect his leadership of the

country now? You're grasping at straws

Frank...


You were answered. The straws are yours.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:55:08 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
I'm not the one who changes my screen name
at the drop of a hat.

Quite right,,you're the one who changes their access path to the group
with different servers at the drop of a hat..

You give me far more credit than I deserve.


I give you credit for exactly what you deserve.

I use a single newserver to access this

newsgroup. Nothing else.


Nevertheless, your access path has changed


You have failed to prove otherwise. Your opinion in that regard is
worthless.

You're the one that can
not distinguish between fiduciary and judiciary, resulting in your
inability to explain any differences between a dx'er and a speeder in
regards to this "federal law" you incorrectly harp about.

I never made that claim.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ


It's not a difficult matter, Dave, but it has you beside yourself with
confusion and pain.
Being forced to face yourself yields some interesting retreats from your
dulled senses.
The only criteria you submitted for your ignorant and erroneous claim
that one who dx'es is a "federal criminal", is that they are breaking a
law enacted by the federal government....so goes the 70 MPH mandate. Let
us know when you prevail over this inner struggle I caused you, and let
us know which side of you won.

David Berkowitz; either the dog spoke or he

lied about it.


Son of Sam maintained regular communication with the neighbor's dog.

"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote in message ...
Frank Gilliland wrote in
:

If you have a scanner, spend a few days listening in on some of your
neighbors' telephone conversations. You might be suprised.

That would make you a criminal Frank. ****ing Hypocrite assclown



Only cell phone conversations are protected.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:58:07 GMT, "U Know Who"
wrote in :


"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote in message ...
Frank Gilliland wrote in
:

If you have a scanner, spend a few days listening in on some of your
neighbors' telephone conversations. You might be suprised.

That would make you a criminal Frank. ****ing Hypocrite assclown



Only cell phone conversations are protected.


Don't waste your time responding to Race Warrior -- he's just bitter
and refuses to do anything constructive with his miserable life.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
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.

That maybe so, but where I live and have gone I don't see it.


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.

Nah, no thanks. I've got way to much stuff to do before I
start to worry about my neighbors.


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?

I don't own a business, I was using that as an example. I thnk
you are right though, it's probally more like 20 or 30 people.


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,


Don't know. If what that guy posts about him yes, that's
correct, but again, I don't know 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.

Agreed. every time you start to investigate abuse of these programs,
"activist" jump & down about the poor being singled out. You'll never see
these programs shut down, to many people that are getting rich off them,
will complain to the activist and they in-turn will protest and get a hold
of the media and start their little show of "they are trying to persecute us
because we are poor".

Landshark

--
Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder?
Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder.
I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.''
This game that we animals play is a winner.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

Oh it's out there Dave, it's just not as bad or prevalent as it was.


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.


Yup, that's true too, but again, it's a mind set that was caused because
of the large amount of racism, a long time ago.

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...


Dave. Both sides of the spectrum play the game, Demo's
play that side a little harder. Liberals & conservatives keep
the country from swinging one way or the other politically.

Your tax dollars NOT at work........

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Landshark


--
__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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
m...
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?


Protest


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.

Oh, Regan had at the time the largest military budget in history
that ate up the most money (I liked Regan).



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"



Landshark


--
__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `

"Landshark" wrote:
Oh, Regan had at the time the largest military budget in history
that ate up the most money (I liked Regan).

Yup, he had to make up for the peanut farmer and friends before him. They
donut want to spend what it takes to be us.

Best money spent lately..closed the Soviets right down.