U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-17-2008, 05:49 PM
 
Location: Wilmington, NC
8,575 posts, read 6,330,479 times
Reputation: 835

Advertisements

I would be willing to bet that you hadn't ever heard the term neocon before about a year ago. so telling people for 8 years? I think not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonian08 View Post
Bush was a NEOCON.

Let me spell that out for you. N-E-O-C-O-N.

NEOCON.

NEOCON.

No liberal in America voted for Bush. For eight years we tried to tell you Dumbya was a neocon, but you all didn't want to hear it. You rightwingers brought GWB upon the world.

Stop throwing your garbage in our backyard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2008, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Dallas
4,625 posts, read 8,825,762 times
Reputation: 3838
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarquise View Post
I would be willing to bet that you hadn't ever heard the term neocon before about a year ago. so telling people for 8 years? I think not.
http://blogs.townonline.com/newton/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/head-in-sand.JPG (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 05:57 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth/Dallas
11,878 posts, read 33,483,762 times
Reputation: 5566
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarquise View Post
I didn't vote for him. don't point your finger at the wind. he is the most liberal president in united states history. he makes clinton look like barry goldwater.
I agree. He's definitely no fiscal conservative, and his policies are not conservative for the most part.

However, he does have an (R) next to his name and Republicans did vote him back into office (not me, I am an independent like jmarquise).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 06:04 PM
 
Location: Wilmington, NC
8,575 posts, read 6,330,479 times
Reputation: 835
you didn't like him because he was from texas you SOONER!

he was just a bad president. he spent too much and didn't come up with revenue to pay for things. I am of the belief that we will never again see a fiscal conservative in the white house. the media is too powerful. if there is a bill that is vetoed, the media will find the people it affects and do some sort of human interest story and label the president a monster. we saw that withe the SCHIP program. sad really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synopsis View Post
I agree. He's definitely no fiscal conservative, and his policies are not conservative for the most part.

However, he does have an (R) next to his name and Republicans did vote him back into office (not me, I am an independent like jmarquise).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 06:07 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,993,200 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarquise View Post
hopefully there will be something left of NC for you to come back to. who knows once bev purdue gets done with it! the local elections here were VERY discouraging. see, bush is a liberal spender. he's not 100% fiscally liberal. he spends all he wants, and doesn't increase revenue, which leads to debt. he's the worst of both worlds. you are probably more libertarian like I am. I don't think he wanted hussein over oil. I think he wanted revenge for his father. it was a waste of money. we should have destroyed bin laden, and been done with it. instead, we blow money blowing up churches and rebuilding them. I am actually anti affirmative action. I believe in letting the best man/woman have the job.
I always show up as libertarian on the political tests, though I am a strong environmentalist.

I was also against affirmative action until I had to study it in detail in a Public Administration class. Essentially all it means is that if things are equal a company or non-profit should strive for a diverse work place. Generally in hiring the employer sets what they would want as ideal qualifications and what they have as minimum qualifications. Most people fall somewhere in between. It is illegal to hire a person below the minimum qualifications because of race, gender etc. and it is also illegal to hire someone who has minimum qualifications but is not as qualified as another applicant because of race, gender etc. (though that is somewhat less easy to prove). Essentially, what affirmative action says is that if two people are equally qualified then race, gender, military service, age etc. may be a tip factor for who gets the job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 06:17 PM
 
4,406 posts, read 5,453,290 times
Reputation: 2894
So many people complain about who got elected yet sat back and did nothing to mitigate the elected's impact. That pretty much describes most of us. We point fingers of blame and completely divest ourselves of our own power. Now after this election, we've got the conservatives screaming about how Obama will destroy America. They will actually sit back and LET it happen because a) they feel powerless, and b) their need to be right is so overpowering.

We argue about ideological labels in an attempt to better understand everything, all the while missing the opportunity to solve the problem. None of us is exempt from this sin of omission. Obviously, Bush voters didn't really know they would get the list of items on the face of this magazine. But did they do anything in his eight years to stop those things dead in their tracks?

We Americans are a powerless population. We abdicated our thrones at birth, drowned ourselves in the blue glow of the television, and drank the KoolAid of stupidity.

Instead of guessing what list of atrocities will be attributed to Obama to be placed on the cover of some future magazine, why not take back your power, question everything, and assert what you want this country to be. The only moment of importance is right now because it's the only moment in which you have any say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Wilmington, NC
8,575 posts, read 6,330,479 times
Reputation: 835
I am a bit ignorant on affirmative action. what if you live in maine, and the population of the town is 98% white. how can you strive for diversity? do they have the same rules for someplace like detroit which is 85% black, or el paso with a large hispanic population?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
I always show up as libertarian on the political tests, though I am a strong environmentalist.

I was also against affirmative action until I had to study it in detail in a Public Administration class. Essentially all it means is that if things are equal a company or non-profit should strive for a diverse work place. Generally in hiring the employer sets what they would want as ideal qualifications and what they have as minimum qualifications. Most people fall somewhere in between. It is illegal to hire a person below the minimum qualifications because of race, gender etc. and it is also illegal to hire someone who has minimum qualifications but is not as qualified as another applicant because of race, gender etc. (though that is somewhat less easy to prove). Essentially, what affirmative action says is that if two people are equally qualified then race, gender, military service, age etc. may be a tip factor for who gets the job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 06:44 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,993,200 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarquise View Post
I am a bit ignorant on affirmative action. what if you live in maine, and the population of the town is 98% white. how can you strive for diversity? do they have the same rules for someplace like detroit which is 85% black, or el paso with a large hispanic population?
That is funny because my professor was from Maine. Essentially it is largerly about making the work place match the avalible workforce if apropriate. In Maine he said a lot of it was about allowing more women into professional jobs. Based on people with qualifications there was far higher % of qulified women avalible for employment then the % women in possitions. Thus in the particular example they set a non-binding goal: 14% female job holders, because those in the employment pool who had qualifications for the particular job set, education and skill wise, 22% were women. In largely minority areas it is the same if roughly 60% of qualified people in a wider employment pool for hiring are Black or hispanic a company may set a goal that at least roughly 45% of possitions should theoretically be filled by Blacks or Hispanics. These goals however are non-binding and it is illegal to consider race, gender or other factors if applicants are not roughly equal in qualifications. In some cases Affirmitive action is not even applied because the % of those theoretically qualified match the % employed though this is not as common.

Last edited by Randomstudent; 11-17-2008 at 06:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Wilmington, NC
8,575 posts, read 6,330,479 times
Reputation: 835
I am of the mindset that you hire the best person for the job. I have worked with lazy men, women, whites, blacks, latinos, asians, arabs, the list goes on. hell, if I had a company in maine, and there was an influx of hispanics who wanted to work hard, they would all have a job. as long as they were legal. I think we derailed this thread! not that the thread really had a topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
That is funny because my professor was from Maine. Essentially it is largerly about making the work place match the avalible workforce if apropriate. In Maine he said a lot of it was about allowing more women into professional jobs. Based on people with qualifications there was far higher % of qulified women avalible for employment then the % women in possitions. Thus in the particular example they set a non-binding goal: 14% female job holders, because those in the employment pool who had qualifications for the particular job set, education and skill wise, 22% were women. In largely minority areas it is the same if roughly 60% of qualified people in a wider employment pool for hiring are Black or hispanic at least roughly 45% of possitions should theoretically be filled by Blacks or Hispanics. These goals however are non-binding and it is illegal to consider race, gender or other factors if applicants are not roughly equal in qualifications. In some cases Affirmitive action is not even applied because the % of those theoretically qualified match the % employed though this is not as common.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 07:04 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,993,200 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarquise View Post
I am of the mindset that you hire the best person for the job. I have worked with lazy men, women, whites, blacks, latinos, asians, arabs, the list goes on. hell, if I had a company in maine, and there was an influx of hispanics who wanted to work hard, they would all have a job. as long as they were legal. I think we derailed this thread! not that the thread really had a topic.
The business theory behind it is that if one's corporation or non-profit better matches the make up of the general population it will be more successful as it will better know how to deal with all differant communities and issues it faces.

The ethical reason is to help people who have been historically marginialized become more represented in the fields they are qualified for. Mostly women, veterans, minorities, and the elderly though it varies by state.

It is also voluntary though there are strong incentives to be an equal oppertunity employer so most corporations are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top