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.
Originally Posted by doctorhugo ...allow me to offer up some anecdotal evidence pertaining to this:
August 3, 2008 Delicate Obama Path on Class and Race Preferences
By RACHEL L. SWARNS In 1990, as his fellow students rallied to protest the dearth of black professors at Harvard Law School, Barack Obama wrote a vigorous defense of affirmative action. The campus was in an uproar over questions of race, and Mr. Obama, then the first black president of The Harvard Law Review, decided to take a stand. Mr. Obama said he had “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” in his own academic career, and he praised the intellectual heft and wide-ranging views of his diverse staff. “The success of the program speaks for itself,” he said of the law review’s affirmative action policy in a letter published in the school’s student newspaper. Mr. Obama, a Democrat, has continued to support race-based affirmative action, calling it “absolutely necessary” when he was a state senator in Illinois and criticizing the Supreme Court for curtailing it in his time in the United States Senate. But in his presidential campaign, he has unsettled some black supporters by focusing increasingly on class and suggesting that poor whites should at times be given preference over more privileged blacks. (continues here>>> Obama WTF: Obama concedes he “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” ; what a surprise )
[/font]
Position understood, but I was setting up a quite different scenario for you to contend with. I've show that Obama supported affirmative action, whether he was a beneficiary of it proven or not. So i put it to you When you reward one class of person anything at the expense of another calss of person and do it be codifying law to accomplish it. This is whatyoiu've done.
You have sanctified by the letter of law as "public policy" that TWO WRONGS MAKE ONE RIGHT and equity and justice for the abused party becomes a casualty. There is now SCOTUS acknowledgement, by precedent, for my position and I predict that it will soon be used to kill affirmative action. I speak of the reversal of the Sotomayor ruling involving the firefighters she ruled against up in New Haven, CT. Ginsburg in her dissenting opinion must really be slipping with age by her fallacious and hypocritical comments, which I'll explain if you wish. That story is found here:
CNSNews.com - Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor’s Ruling in Firefighters’ Reverse Discrimination Case (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/50255 - broken link)
While clearly I don't have a problem with going off-topic, I think that what you wish to discuss needs to have a separate thread. You might want to review some of the Sotomayor threads and the SCOTUS threads on the firefighter ruling as well, where I've gone to great lengths to explain my position.
My translation of O'Reilly's comments is that he's speaking for the GOP as they proceed to distance themselves from a political know-nothing who will bring nothing but scorn and doom to the GOP.
Palin understands that she was used badly, hung out to dry and is now taking out her bitterness on the GOP by thumbing her nose at them with her book tour, speaking engagements and rabble rousing, which will continue with her upcoming speech to the NRA convention.
Mike. I know that you're a liberal from back East, but why such dedicated zeal for deprecating a person that you'll never, ever vote for? It doesn't bother me at all as I've previousy noted here, because you (and other lefties here) are actually serving as her cheerleader for those uncommitted who read your comments minimizing her for a lack of intellect, etcetera. Just curious as to why? It makes no sense save for a self-indulgent display. If that's it, fine. Keep on keepin' on...
Quote: Originally Posted by doctorhugo ...allow me to offer up some anecdotal evidence pertaining to this:
August 3, 2008 Delicate Obama Path on Class and Race Preferences
By RACHEL L. SWARNS In 1990, as his fellow students rallied to protest the dearth of black professors at Harvard Law School, Barack Obama wrote a vigorous defense of affirmative action. The campus was in an uproar over questions of race, and Mr. Obama, then the first black president of The Harvard Law Review, decided to take a stand. Mr. Obama said he had “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” in his own academic career, and he praised the intellectual heft and wide-ranging views of his diverse staff. “The success of the program speaks for itself,” he said of the law review’s affirmative action policy in a letter published in the school’s student newspaper. Mr. Obama, a Democrat, has continued to support race-based affirmative action, calling it “absolutely necessary” when he was a state senator in Illinois and criticizing the Supreme Court for curtailing it in his time in the United States Senate. But in his presidential campaign, he has unsettled some black supporters by focusing increasingly on class and suggesting that poor whites should at times be given preference over more privileged blacks. (continues here>>> Obama WTF: Obama concedes he “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” ; what a surprise )
Position understood, but I was setting up a quite different scenario for you to contend with. I've show that Obama supported affirmative action, whether he was a beneficiary of it proven or not. So i put it to you When you reward one class of person anything at the expense of another calss of person and do it be codifying law to accomplish it. This is whatyoiu've done.
You have sanctified by the letter of law as "public policy" that TWO WRONGS MAKE ONE RIGHT and equity and justice for the abused party becomes a casualty. There is now SCOTUS acknowledgement, by precedent, for my position and I predict that it will soon be used to kill affirmative action. I speak of the reversal of the Sotomayor ruling involving the firefighters she ruled against up in New Haven, CT. Ginsburg in her dissenting opinion must really be slipping with age by her fallacious and hypocritical comments, which I'll explain if you wish. That story is found here: CNSNews.com - Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor’s Ruling in Firefighters’ Reverse Discrimination Case (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/50255 - broken link)
While clearly I don't have a problem with going off-topic, I think that what you wish to discuss needs to have a separate thread. You might want to review some of the Sotomayor threads and the SCOTUS threads on the firefighter ruling as well, where I've gone to great lengths to explain my position.
Ah , but I do and point well taken as my example would tend to do that. I shall peruse the subject matter and comment where I find it justified so you'll get a bump-up notifier.
Be advised though that it DOES weaken your position HERE regarding affirmative action, so off the hook you ain't quite yet! Legal precedents are everything in law. Later>>>>>>>>>>
Done!
Last edited by doctorhugo; 02-26-2010 at 02:17 PM..
Mike. I know that you're a liberal from back East, but why such dedicated zeal for deprecating a person that you'll never, ever vote for? It doesn't bother me at all as I've previousy noted here, because you (and other lefties here) are actually serving as her cheerleader for those uncommitted who read your comments minimizing her for a lack of intellect, etcetera. Just curious as to why? It makes no sense save for a self-indulgent display. If that's it, fine. Keep on keepin' on...
Yes, I shall keep on keeping on about the worst, most insulting VP candidate the GOP ever tried to shove down our throats, and there's been some bad ones, like Spiro Agnew (from my home county) and Dan (Potatoe Man) Quayle.
But I'm no liberal. Voted GOP most of my life, as far back as Nixon/Agnew, Ford, Reagan and Bush/Quayle. But not now, and maybe never again. I've ranted about the stupendous, stupefying, stunning stupidity of G. W. Bush for a long time (because he DESERVED it) and I'll damn sight keep blasting the new GOP idiot Palin for the vacuousness she represents. If being for health care and against racism and homophobia make me a liberal, so be it. If it's idiots you want, vote for Palin, but she's no conservative, she just an idiot mouthing off sound bites and bumper sticker slogans.
In the past election, the GOP played down the sorry-assed record of G. W. Bush and now the GOP is wisely distancing itself from Palin. Finally, the GOP is starting to show some tiny degree of good sense, just too bad they are so hopelessly clueless about the rest of the issues and problems.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo Mike. I know that you're a liberal from back East, but why such dedicated zeal for deprecating a person that you'll never, ever vote for? It doesn't bother me at all as I've previousy noted here, because you (and other lefties here) are actually serving as her cheerleader for those uncommitted who read your comments minimizing her for a lack of intellect, etcetera. Just curious as to why? It makes no sense save for a self-indulgent display. If that's it, fine. Keep on keepin' on...
Yes, I shall keep on keeping on about the worst, most insulting VP candidate the GOP ever tried to shove down our throats, and there's been some bad ones, like Spiro Agnew (from my home county) and Dan (Potatoe Man) Quayle.
But I'm no liberal. Voted GOP most of my life, as far back as Nixon/Agnew, Ford, Reagan and Bush/Quayle. But not now, and maybe never again. I've ranted about the stupendous, stupefying, stunning stupidity of G. W. Bush for a long time (because he DESERVED it) and I'll damn sight keep blasting the new GOP idiot Palin for the vacuousness she represents. If being for health care and against racism and homophobia make me a liberal, so be it. If it's idiots you want, vote for Palin, but she's no conservative, she just an idiot mouthing off sound bites and bumper sticker slogans.
In the past election, the GOP played down the sorry-assed record of G. W. Bush and now the GOP is wisely distancing itself from Palin. Finally, the GOP is starting to show some tiny degree of good sense, just too bad they are so hopelessly clueless about the rest of the issues and problems.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Holy Cow Mike! You had me fooled. You are a disenchanted Republican like me who despised the idiocy of Little Georgie-boy Bush, depised the dunderhead Quayle and couldn't take Spiro Agnopoulis (or whatever). Dammit though Mike... then you had madness overtake you. You went the irresponsible liberal route.
I note you said this. "being for health care and against racism and homophobia". If being for health care means what is says we're ALL for health care. Where we take divergent paths is we to the right do no want it run and controlled by government who screw up everything they do and are only the by-product of politicians whom most NONE of us bear any long-term trust for, party affiliation notwithstanding. I hope we can agree on that. Therefore, it's not logical that an intelligent fellow such as yourself would be for that.
We set up government to fend for our base necessity, but with respect for the capitalist private commerce system which is and was inherent to this nation and it's growth as the greatest in the world. There are no great socialist/Marxist nations on record Mike. We need government ONLY to make standardizing laws for the states to guide off of and basic non-corrupting regulations to impose restraints on greed in commerce and greed and power corruption in politicians. They don't do a very good job at that do they Mike? The same kind of job they'd do with health care...bet on it!
As to racism and homphobia, liberals are great proponents of racism. That's how they whored for the black and minority votes by assigning them as "target groups" for doling out federal do-re-mi beneficense to forever inure them in a state of parasitic dependency upon the government. They started perfecting that after the civil rights 60s. Whenever the right made the slightest effort to enact change and stop that you guys laid the old "mean-spirted Republican" race label on us...didn't you? And gutless Repubs backed off afraid of the old demonRATic Mark of Cain...r-a-c-i-s-m being placed on them....eeek by a liberal media.
Homophobia is a curve ball. You see you libs, though you likely don't own up to being such as you noted, have this philosophy that there is no word in our lexicon "abnormal". Somehow you find calling someone out of the conventional norm abnormal to be offensive. We, to the right, are not so encumbered. It's a social and societal thing. We like to define things accurately. Each to his/her own really and I freely acknowledge that homosexuals have equal rights as citizens,but NO special rights. They are unlike the disabled, what they are they are by their free choice. I'm sure you see that distinction. They cannot naturally procreate so are not potential parents and shouldn't be recognized as "married" or "legal parents". They are also not man and woman so can't be a married couple. Very simple and not mean-spirited, only calling it like it is.
Could you imagine Joe Biden as Sec. of State, with that foot in mouth disease of his, he could probably get us into a war with Canada, much less Russia or China.
And Harvard competes for the top scholars, black or white. Your entire argument rests on the presumption that if a person is a minority, then they must be sub-par intellectually. So if a black person gets into Harvard, he only got there because of Affirmative Action, not because he was extremely bright and a talented writer. Some of the smartest people I've met have been members of minorities. Some, because of poverty, would not have had the chance to show the world how brilliant they were but for Affirmative Action. But they were brilliant, they were geniuses. Affirmative Action opened the door, but these people were gifted to begin with, and finally had a chance to nurture their gifts.
Whether Affirmative Action played a role in Obama's admission to Harvard is something we don't know. But he excelled, by virtue of his intelligence and hard work, beyond many white students.
Just an observation, but many times book smart does not equal intelligence. May or may not be the case here...
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.
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.
and equity and justice for the abused party becomes a casualty
Mike from back East
by a liberal media.
