Affirmative Action

[Immanuel]

the Left has been throwing money at schools for decades. Money is not the problem. the problem os the parents and the people themselves

Maybe money is the problem or at least part of the problem? More money is not always the solution. How (and in this case where) it is spent is the question.

And yes, the left has been throwing money at schools for decades... but the question would be what schools and how is that money used. If my high school, which was an upper middle class high school got a significantly higher portion of the funds than the school across the railroad tracks, then the funds were not equally or equitably distributed. You know, my school really needed that Gym as the old one was 15 years old. Too bad the school across the tracks still have 25 year old textbooks.

Immie

The left hasn't been in charge for "decades." I'm sick to death of seeing every social failure for the past 100 years blamed on "the left."

To your point, bitch to your school board. How your town distributes federal money for education is THEIR problem.

First off, "the left" has been in charge of social issues for decades. That is why abortion is used almost exclusively as birth control in this country. That is why we have a piss poor Social Security System, Yes! Piss Poor! It is supposed to provide a living retirement and all it provides is a trip to the poor house. The left being in charge is why we have Affirmative Action that discriminates against middle class students keeping them out of higher education so that disadvantaged students can go to the big universities. The left is why we have a Welfare system that encourages people not to work and that encourages unwed mothers to have as many children as they can so that they can get bigger welfare checks and not have to work.

The left loves to run around like proud peacocks about how great they are and how successful all these so called progressive ideas are. Well, Maggie, maybe you should step back and take a real good look at what the left has done for us lately?

Oh, yes, the left has been in charge for a hell of a long time and they have done a hell of a lot towards screwing this country up. Of course, the right hasn't done much to make a difference either and if George Bush is a sample of what the right can do... well, you can just hang it up.

As to my point about school districts providing funds for upper middle class schools rather than schools that actually need help, it was nothing more than pointing out that this might just be what is wrong with just throwing money and more money at schools. It doesn't necessarily get where it is needed most... that was the point! I wasn't complaining. I was using it as an example. You want to help the disadvantaged students? Then make sure they get the proper materials to learn with. Make sure they get teachers that are compensated for what they provide this nation and teachers that actually want to teach... strike that enjoy teaching. Make sure that the students are encouraged to learn rather than thrown into a babysitting service seven or eight hours a day.

Immie

 

[Amanda]

Of course they don't want to answer. An honest answer would make them look bad.

You could do the same thing with pro-life supporters... How many unwanted, crack addicted babies will you take in? No make what then number they say (and honestly most would say 0) there are always more babies than families so it makes them look bad.

The way I look at abortion is that if men had to give birth, it wouldn't even be an issue.

I agree. I'm pretty conservative but I totally see where you're coming from and agree. If men could get pregnant there would be an clinic on every corner just like Starbucks.

 

[dilloduck]

Of course they don't want to answer. An honest answer would make them look bad.

You could do the same thing with pro-life supporters... How many unwanted, crack addicted babies will you take in? No make what then number they say (and honestly most would say 0) there are always more babies than families so it makes them look bad.

The way I look at abortion is that if men had to give birth, it wouldn't even be an issue.

I agree. I'm pretty conservative but I totally see where you're coming from and agree. If men could get pregnant there would be an clinic on every corner just like Starbucks.

and we could act like a psycho every month with a good excuse.

Sorry Amanda. This speculation on your part is just that. Women who are pro-life prove your theory wrong. Look elsewhere for your persecutors.

 

[Immanuel]

The way I look at abortion is that if men had to give birth, it wouldn't even be an issue.

I agree. I'm pretty conservative but I totally see where you're coming from and agree. If men could get pregnant there would be an clinic on every corner just like Starbucks.

and we could act like a psycho every month with a good excuse.

Sorry Amanda. This speculation on your part is just that. Women who are pro-life prove your theory wrong. Look elsewhere for your persecutors.

I'm not so sure pro-life women prove the theory to be wrong.

The point of the statement would be that men are selfish, a point that I am inclined to agree with. If men could get pregnant and still had the political power that they have then abortion would not be an issue because men would demand a clinic within easy walking distance to every home in the country. The reason this is still an issue is because men can't get pregnant. I think Amanda and others may have a point.

I'm pro-life. But, I got to admit that if I actually had a chance of becoming pregnant, maybe I'd have a different point of view?

Immie

 

[Amanda]

The way I look at abortion is that if men had to give birth, it wouldn't even be an issue.

I agree. I'm pretty conservative but I totally see where you're coming from and agree. If men could get pregnant there would be an clinic on every corner just like Starbucks.

and we could act like a psycho every month with a good excuse.

Sorry Amanda. This speculation on your part is just that. Women who are pro-life prove your theory wrong. Look elsewhere for your persecutors.

Please Duck, let's not pretend... men run this show. If they could get pregnant clinics would be on every corner. This isn't an indictment. I'm not hating on anyone. I'm just acknowledging a reality. If you don't see it maybe we can talk about it and come to a nice conclusion. I don't feel all oppressed or anything. I'm not getting ready to go all nutty and libby on you, but srsly don't you see that men still run things and if it was in their best interest abortion would be freely available?

I don't want any special treatment I just want to be equal so I can fail on my own terms.

 

[007]

So... the premise is, if men could get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner. Hmmm... so, then if men could get pregnant, and then women COULDN'T, I don't see as how things would be any different than they are now...

 

[JBeukema]

Amanda, the obvious stupidity of those claims are clear: you fail to account for the large number of women who oppose abortion- including your ilk's beloved Norma 'Roe' McCorvey

 

[Amanda]

So... the premise is, if men could get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner. Hmmm... so, then if men could get pregnant, and then women COULDN'T, I don't see as how things would be any different than they are now...

You don't?

Men wouldn't for a moment accept that they had to carry a child to term. Would you? If someone got you pregnant then left you never to be seen again would you really bear the responsibility for the rest of your life? I'll believe you if you say you would, but I don't think most men would. I've met a few men in my time (LOL) and I think I have a pretty good feel for them. It's just incomprehensible to me that abortion wouldn't be as easy as getting your oil changed if men had to deal with it.

And I know I sound like a libby nutcase saying it, but please don't misunderstand me, this isn't some anti-man NOW-kinda rant. I love men. I really, really do. This is just an observation about how things are.

 

[dilloduck]

So... the premise is, if men could get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner. Hmmm... so, then if men could get pregnant, and then women COULDN'T, I don't see as how things would be any different than they are now...

You don't?

Men wouldn't for a moment accept that they had to carry a child to term. Would you? If someone got you pregnant then left you never to be seen again would you really bear the responsibility for the rest of your life? I'll believe you if you say you would, but I don't think most men would. I've met a few men in my time (LOL) and I think I have a pretty good feel for them. It's just incomprehensible to me that abortion wouldn't be as easy as getting your oil changed if men had to deal with it.

And I know I sound like a libby nutcase saying it, but please don't misunderstand me, this isn't some anti-man NOW-kinda rant. I love men. I really, really do. This is just an observation about how things are.

Millions of women who CAN get pregnant oppose abortion. How do you explain that ?

 

[Immanuel]

So... the premise is, if men could get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner. Hmmm... so, then if men could get pregnant, and then women COULDN'T, I don't see as how things would be any different than they are now...

You don't?

Men wouldn't for a moment accept that they had to carry a child to term. Would you? If someone got you pregnant then left you never to be seen again would you really bear the responsibility for the rest of your life? I'll believe you if you say you would, but I don't think most men would. I've met a few men in my time (LOL) and I think I have a pretty good feel for them. It's just incomprehensible to me that abortion wouldn't be as easy as getting your oil changed if men had to deal with it.

And I know I sound like a libby nutcase saying it, but please don't misunderstand me, this isn't some anti-man NOW-kinda rant. I love men. I really, really do. This is just an observation about how things are.

Millions of women who CAN get pregnant oppose abortion. How do you explain that ?

Millions of men who could get pregnant under that scenario would also be pro-life. I would. But, men are selfish and men do control this country. If men could get pregnant, then you can bet that getting an abortion would be as easy as buying condoms are today, if not easier.

Immie

 

[RodISHI]

Not sure how y'all got from affirmative action to abortion.


I am sure there are those who will disagree with me but I have seen it in action. Affirmative action can protect a contractor from those in government agencies that would discriminate against a businesses employees.

I worked in government contracting for over fifteen years. In that I had a lot of employees of all kinds. From women, to disabled, aged and various races. I also worked with a lot of supers throughout the state. I had one that could not stand those of mexican heritage, one that despised Indians, one who did not like a crippled man I had working for me. Plus the fact that I am a woman bothered many over the years. Many men do not feel that they should have to work with women even today.

My very first contract on my very first day I heard this from the super when I met him, "We've never had a woman in this position before. It doesn't look like you have enough ass for the job to me." I was twenty-five and very naive. I looked back towards my backside and considered what the guy said and thought well "I suppose he that may have a point." I wore a size 4 pants, "but what does my ass have to do with getting the job done?"

I got home that night after midnight. It took me from five in the morning till past midnight to get that first day's work done. I asked Rod what the guy meant when he said that. He just told me he didn't know. Now Rod laughs and say I felt so sorry for my sweety.

Ten years later I bid on a sixteen million dollar contract in Iowa. At the time I was the only contractor in the US of my type that was actually currently contracting in an entire state and Iowa was looking for a contractor to do their whole state. I was treated with contempt by a few of the DOT people here. (men of course) Mine was the lowest responsive bid in that letting. (responsive means the bid was complete for those who don't know the lingo) The contract was awarded to company with an incomplete bid.

Some things simply do not change. More recently a DOT person was overheard telling another man, "That bitch will never get certified if I have any say in it." He did do his best to interfer with my business. He also became threatening and offensive to me on my own property. Prior to that the same DOT man had his underling contact the people I leased the mine site from to convince them to cancel my lease. The guy did get the job done. It caused a suit that lasted a little more than a year. (Not being certified meant I would not be able to sell materials that would go in state or federal projects. And I would not recieve any protection from the EEO portion of DOT. Even if the materials were what they needed)

I know a lot of you may not feel affirmative action is needed but then you all probably are not on this side of the fence being discriminated against even if you personally do not discriminate against others.

 

[MaggieMae]

Maybe money is the problem or at least part of the problem? More money is not always the solution. How (and in this case where) it is spent is the question.

And yes, the left has been throwing money at schools for decades... but the question would be what schools and how is that money used. If my high school, which was an upper middle class high school got a significantly higher portion of the funds than the school across the railroad tracks, then the funds were not equally or equitably distributed. You know, my school really needed that Gym as the old one was 15 years old. Too bad the school across the tracks still have 25 year old textbooks.

Immie

The left hasn't been in charge for "decades." I'm sick to death of seeing every social failure for the past 100 years blamed on "the left."

To your point, bitch to your school board. How your town distributes federal money for education is THEIR problem.

First off, "the left" has been in charge of social issues for decades. That is why abortion is used almost exclusively as birth control in this country. That is why we have a piss poor Social Security System, Yes! Piss Poor! It is supposed to provide a living retirement and all it provides is a trip to the poor house. The left being in charge is why we have Affirmative Action that discriminates against middle class students keeping them out of higher education so that disadvantaged students can go to the big universities. The left is why we have a Welfare system that encourages people not to work and that encourages unwed mothers to have as many children as they can so that they can get bigger welfare checks and not have to work.

The left loves to run around like proud peacocks about how great they are and how successful all these so called progressive ideas are. Well, Maggie, maybe you should step back and take a real good look at what the left has done for us lately?

Oh, yes, the left has been in charge for a hell of a long time and they have done a hell of a lot towards screwing this country up. Of course, the right hasn't done much to make a difference either and if George Bush is a sample of what the right can do... well, you can just hang it up.

As to my point about school districts providing funds for upper middle class schools rather than schools that actually need help, it was nothing more than pointing out that this might just be what is wrong with just throwing money and more money at schools. It doesn't necessarily get where it is needed most... that was the point! I wasn't complaining. I was using it as an example. You want to help the disadvantaged students? Then make sure they get the proper materials to learn with. Make sure they get teachers that are compensated for what they provide this nation and teachers that actually want to teach... strike that enjoy teaching. Make sure that the students are encouraged to learn rather than thrown into a babysitting service seven or eight hours a day.

Immie

Since the left must be blamed for wasting your tax dollars, according to your logic, I still wonder how come a Republican majority never found a way to smack down those social programs you think are screwing up the country. GWB's spending spree aside, there certainly has been complicity by Republicans over many, many years. I simply tire of the right always lambasting the left as being the ONLY party responsible for "throwing money at" social programs. It's as if you guys turn a blind eye unless the dems are in power.

If you need to go back further in history, the Wikipedia link for this entry follows.


The Republicans six year control over the Senate ended in 1986, after the Iran-Contra Affair damaged the popularity of President Reagan and his administration. The Republicans finally returned to a majority position, in both houses of Congress, in the election of 1994, thanks in part to: 1) President Clinton's unpopular attempt to establish universal health care; and 2) Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, which was promoted heavily by the entire Republican Party. By the 1996 US Presidential Election, Clinton's economic programs prevailed and the President was elected to a second term in a landslide victory. Despite Clinton's huge victory, however, the Democrats were still not able to regain control of either the US House of Representatives or Senate.

For most part between 1995 and 2007, the Republicans controlled both houses. In the wake of the unpopularity of President Clinton's impeachment trial, the 107th Congress (2001-2003) saw the Democrats and Republicans split control of the US Senate 50-50, ending effectively tied; though Republican Vice-President Dick Cheney did have the tie breaking vote in the Senate during the first four months of 2001 as well. In May 2001, Republican US Senator from the state of Vermont, Jim Jeffords, ended his affiliation with the Republican Party, following a disptue with Bush's tax cut proposals, and became an Independent. After departing from the Republican Party, Jeffords also agreed to caucus with the Democrats and control of the Senate switched back to the Democrats once again.

The 108th Congress (2003-2005) saw the Senate return to a GOP majority of 51-49, as Republican President George W Bush had gained some popularity for his fight against Al Qaeda terrorists. In 2006, opposition to Bush's continuation of the Iraq War had grown to new heights. As a result, the 110th Congress saw the Democrats regain majority control of both the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives.

History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree. I'm pretty conservative but I totally see where you're coming from and agree. If men could get pregnant there would be an clinic on every corner just like Starbucks.

and we could act like a psycho every month with a good excuse.

Sorry Amanda. This speculation on your part is just that. Women who are pro-life prove your theory wrong. Look elsewhere for your persecutors.

Please Duck, let's not pretend... men run this show. If they could get pregnant clinics would be on every corner. This isn't an indictment. I'm not hating on anyone. I'm just acknowledging a reality. If you don't see it maybe we can talk about it and come to a nice conclusion. I don't feel all oppressed or anything. I'm not getting ready to go all nutty and libby on you, but srsly don't you see that men still run things and if it was in their best interest abortion would be freely available?

I don't want any special treatment I just want to be equal so I can fail on my own terms.[/QUOTE]

Hey Amanda, there's your new signature! That's a great line.

 

[MaggieMae]

So... the premise is, if men could get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner. Hmmm... so, then if men could get pregnant, and then women COULDN'T, I don't see as how things would be any different than they are now...

You don't?

Men wouldn't for a moment accept that they had to carry a child to term. Would you? If someone got you pregnant then left you never to be seen again would you really bear the responsibility for the rest of your life? I'll believe you if you say you would, but I don't think most men would. I've met a few men in my time (LOL) and I think I have a pretty good feel for them. It's just incomprehensible to me that abortion wouldn't be as easy as getting your oil changed if men had to deal with it.

And I know I sound like a libby nutcase saying it, but please don't misunderstand me, this isn't some anti-man NOW-kinda rant. I love men. I really, really do. This is just an observation about how things are.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but men in general wouldn't be able to adapt to the emotional and hormonal changes for nine months if their brains weren't wired for pregnancy. Then there's the best part: Birth itself which, even with no complications, HURTS LIKE A SUNOVABITCH for hours on end. They usually understand that part best when you give them an analogy, like trying to push a live chicken through one nostril by blowing your nose hard.

 

[Immanuel]

The left hasn't been in charge for "decades." I'm sick to death of seeing every social failure for the past 100 years blamed on "the left."

To your point, bitch to your school board. How your town distributes federal money for education is THEIR problem.

First off, "the left" has been in charge of social issues for decades. That is why abortion is used almost exclusively as birth control in this country. That is why we have a piss poor Social Security System, Yes! Piss Poor! It is supposed to provide a living retirement and all it provides is a trip to the poor house. The left being in charge is why we have Affirmative Action that discriminates against middle class students keeping them out of higher education so that disadvantaged students can go to the big universities. The left is why we have a Welfare system that encourages people not to work and that encourages unwed mothers to have as many children as they can so that they can get bigger welfare checks and not have to work.

The left loves to run around like proud peacocks about how great they are and how successful all these so called progressive ideas are. Well, Maggie, maybe you should step back and take a real good look at what the left has done for us lately?

Oh, yes, the left has been in charge for a hell of a long time and they have done a hell of a lot towards screwing this country up. Of course, the right hasn't done much to make a difference either and if George Bush is a sample of what the right can do... well, you can just hang it up.

As to my point about school districts providing funds for upper middle class schools rather than schools that actually need help, it was nothing more than pointing out that this might just be what is wrong with just throwing money and more money at schools. It doesn't necessarily get where it is needed most... that was the point! I wasn't complaining. I was using it as an example. You want to help the disadvantaged students? Then make sure they get the proper materials to learn with. Make sure they get teachers that are compensated for what they provide this nation and teachers that actually want to teach... strike that enjoy teaching. Make sure that the students are encouraged to learn rather than thrown into a babysitting service seven or eight hours a day.

Immie

Since the left must be blamed for wasting your tax dollars, according to your logic, I still wonder how come a Republican majority never found a way to smack down those social programs you think are screwing up the country. GWB's spending spree aside, there certainly has been complicity by Republicans over many, many years. I simply tire of the right always lambasting the left as being the ONLY party responsible for "throwing money at" social programs. It's as if you guys turn a blind eye unless the dems are in power.

If you need to go back further in history, the Wikipedia link for this entry follows.


The Republicans six year control over the Senate ended in 1986, after the Iran-Contra Affair damaged the popularity of President Reagan and his administration. The Republicans finally returned to a majority position, in both houses of Congress, in the election of 1994, thanks in part to: 1) President Clinton's unpopular attempt to establish universal health care; and 2) Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, which was promoted heavily by the entire Republican Party. By the 1996 US Presidential Election, Clinton's economic programs prevailed and the President was elected to a second term in a landslide victory. Despite Clinton's huge victory, however, the Democrats were still not able to regain control of either the US House of Representatives or Senate.

For most part between 1995 and 2007, the Republicans controlled both houses. In the wake of the unpopularity of President Clinton's impeachment trial, the 107th Congress (2001-2003) saw the Democrats and Republicans split control of the US Senate 50-50, ending effectively tied; though Republican Vice-President Dick Cheney did have the tie breaking vote in the Senate during the first four months of 2001 as well. In May 2001, Republican US Senator from the state of Vermont, Jim Jeffords, ended his affiliation with the Republican Party, following a disptue with Bush's tax cut proposals, and became an Independent. After departing from the Republican Party, Jeffords also agreed to caucus with the Democrats and control of the Senate switched back to the Democrats once again.

The 108th Congress (2003-2005) saw the Senate return to a GOP majority of 51-49, as Republican President George W Bush had gained some popularity for his fight against Al Qaeda terrorists. In 2006, opposition to Bush's continuation of the Iraq War had grown to new heights. As a result, the 110th Congress saw the Democrats regain majority control of both the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives.

History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maggie, my friend, don't get me wrong. I in no way support the Republican Party. Yes, they are as complicit with regards to the condition of this country as the Democrats are. However, you seem to think that left and right is as different as the terms Democrat and Republican used to be. They are not. There has been a blending of the two parties and conservatives have been on the losing end by far. The powers that be are liberal to a core and that is hurting this country.

Now, please, do not get me wrong. I am not saying that Social Security was a bad program to begin with, nor was Welfare or Affirmative action... note: I AM leaving abortion policy out of that statement as no good can come from killing, but those three policies and others have been trampled upon by human greed. The good ideas that they once represented have been usurped (for lack of a better word) by our own greed. Social Security for instance was a policy with a good purpose. A purpose of providing a living retirement for an aging work force. The idea was good in its time. But the time has come for it to be changed, not eliminate it, but change it.

The same goes for welfare. I for one believe that we as the richest civilization throughout history should do everything in our power to make sure that our people and especially our children do not go hungry, but the system is abused. It is time to change it.

Affirmative Action is no different. We have not defeated racism. However, AA is abused. Again, it is time to change it and make it better.

There are many social programs that were given to us by the "left". In there times, they were mostly good ideas, but like every social program they have their problems and people have found ways to abuse them. Unfortunately, we are not willing to allow them to evolve. The left lays claim to ownership of them and God help the people that think that these programs can be improved!

You write as if you think that all Republicans are religious right conservatives. That is not the case. There are such things as "compassionate conservatives". They simply are not welcomed by either party.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

First off, "the left" has been in charge of social issues for decades. That is why abortion is used almost exclusively as birth control in this country. That is why we have a piss poor Social Security System, Yes! Piss Poor! It is supposed to provide a living retirement and all it provides is a trip to the poor house. The left being in charge is why we have Affirmative Action that discriminates against middle class students keeping them out of higher education so that disadvantaged students can go to the big universities. The left is why we have a Welfare system that encourages people not to work and that encourages unwed mothers to have as many children as they can so that they can get bigger welfare checks and not have to work.

The left loves to run around like proud peacocks about how great they are and how successful all these so called progressive ideas are. Well, Maggie, maybe you should step back and take a real good look at what the left has done for us lately?

Oh, yes, the left has been in charge for a hell of a long time and they have done a hell of a lot towards screwing this country up. Of course, the right hasn't done much to make a difference either and if George Bush is a sample of what the right can do... well, you can just hang it up.

As to my point about school districts providing funds for upper middle class schools rather than schools that actually need help, it was nothing more than pointing out that this might just be what is wrong with just throwing money and more money at schools. It doesn't necessarily get where it is needed most... that was the point! I wasn't complaining. I was using it as an example. You want to help the disadvantaged students? Then make sure they get the proper materials to learn with. Make sure they get teachers that are compensated for what they provide this nation and teachers that actually want to teach... strike that enjoy teaching. Make sure that the students are encouraged to learn rather than thrown into a babysitting service seven or eight hours a day.

Immie

Since the left must be blamed for wasting your tax dollars, according to your logic, I still wonder how come a Republican majority never found a way to smack down those social programs you think are screwing up the country. GWB's spending spree aside, there certainly has been complicity by Republicans over many, many years. I simply tire of the right always lambasting the left as being the ONLY party responsible for "throwing money at" social programs. It's as if you guys turn a blind eye unless the dems are in power.

If you need to go back further in history, the Wikipedia link for this entry follows.


The Republicans six year control over the Senate ended in 1986, after the Iran-Contra Affair damaged the popularity of President Reagan and his administration. The Republicans finally returned to a majority position, in both houses of Congress, in the election of 1994, thanks in part to: 1) President Clinton's unpopular attempt to establish universal health care; and 2) Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, which was promoted heavily by the entire Republican Party. By the 1996 US Presidential Election, Clinton's economic programs prevailed and the President was elected to a second term in a landslide victory. Despite Clinton's huge victory, however, the Democrats were still not able to regain control of either the US House of Representatives or Senate.

For most part between 1995 and 2007, the Republicans controlled both houses. In the wake of the unpopularity of President Clinton's impeachment trial, the 107th Congress (2001-2003) saw the Democrats and Republicans split control of the US Senate 50-50, ending effectively tied; though Republican Vice-President Dick Cheney did have the tie breaking vote in the Senate during the first four months of 2001 as well. In May 2001, Republican US Senator from the state of Vermont, Jim Jeffords, ended his affiliation with the Republican Party, following a disptue with Bush's tax cut proposals, and became an Independent. After departing from the Republican Party, Jeffords also agreed to caucus with the Democrats and control of the Senate switched back to the Democrats once again.

The 108th Congress (2003-2005) saw the Senate return to a GOP majority of 51-49, as Republican President George W Bush had gained some popularity for his fight against Al Qaeda terrorists. In 2006, opposition to Bush's continuation of the Iraq War had grown to new heights. As a result, the 110th Congress saw the Democrats regain majority control of both the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives.

History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maggie, my friend, don't get me wrong. I in no way support the Republican Party. Yes, they are as complicit with regards to the condition of this country as the Democrats are. However, you seem to think that left and right is as different as the terms Democrat and Republican used to be. They are not. There has been a blending of the two parties and conservatives have been on the losing end by far. The powers that be are liberal to a core and that is hurting this country.

Now, please, do not get me wrong. I am not saying that Social Security was a bad program to begin with, nor was Welfare or Affirmative action... note: I AM leaving abortion policy out of that statement as no good can come from killing, but those three policies and others have been trampled upon by human greed. The good ideas that they once represented have been usurped (for lack of a better word) by our own greed. Social Security for instance was a policy with a good purpose. A purpose of providing a living retirement for an aging work force. The idea was good in its time. But the time has come for it to be changed, not eliminate it, but change it.

The same goes for welfare. I for one believe that we as the richest civilization throughout history should do everything in our power to make sure that our people and especially our children do not go hungry, but the system is abused. It is time to change it.

Affirmative Action is no different. We have not defeated racism. However, AA is abused. Again, it is time to change it and make it better.

There are many social programs that were given to us by the "left". In there times, they were mostly good ideas, but like every social program they have their problems and people have found ways to abuse them. Unfortunately, we are not willing to allow them to evolve. The left lays claim to ownership of them and God help the people that think that these programs can be improved!

You write as if you think that all Republicans are religious right conservatives. That is not the case. There are such things as "compassionate conservatives". They simply are not welcomed by either party.

Immie

Fair enough, but when you begin right out of the box with "the left has...", what else should I have thought? It's the constant characterization of the left as being the sole evildoers that sticks in my craw. If you took the time to do some research, you would know that there are thousands of wasteful non-social programs dear to the hearts of so-called Republicans, but the cost to the taxpayer of those go unmentioned.

 

[editec]

Question: Would any of the affirmative action supporters on this board ever quit their job so a minority or someone not as qualified could have it?

Question: Who ARe those "affirmative action supporters on this board" ?

Seriously, I cannot think of a single person on this board who doesn't have complaints about that program.

 

[RodISHI]

Question: Would any of the affirmative action supporters on this board ever quit their job so a minority or someone not as qualified could have it?

Question: Who ARe those "affirmative action supporters on this board" ?

Seriously, I cannot think of a single person on this board who doesn't have complaints about that program.

And miy complaint would be that the many of the ones that are supported in business today under AA programs are props. Heck I could have been one in the last go around. When you refuse to play the game of making the already rich more powerful you become dead meat. From my personal experience attacked from all sides it is pretty hard to sustain an ethical minority or woman own/operated business.

 

[editec]

Question: Would any of the affirmative action supporters on this board ever quit their job so a minority or someone not as qualified could have it?

Question: Who ARe those "affirmative action supporters on this board" ?

Seriously, I cannot think of a single person on this board who doesn't have complaints about that program.

And my complaint would be that the many of the ones that are supported in business today under AA programs are props.

But - hey !- that Willy Mays sure can play some baseball, huh?

AA was designed to fail and it did so with spectacular results.

That's a damned shame, becasue anyone with a half a clue could have designed an affirmative action program that might have actually helped those who need it...regardless of race or gender.

Instead it did nothing but drive a wedge between the White poor and working classes and the poor minorities.

As far as I am concerned that's exactly what AA was designed to do, too.

Well that, and give insiders the opportunity to channel money and opportunity to their pals behind the veil of woman and minority owned businesses (which were basically shams)

Heck I could have been one in the last go around. When you refuse to play the game of making the already rich more powerful you become dead meat. From my personal experience attacked from all sides it is pretty hard to sustain an ethical minority or woman own/operated business.

editors note...this god blessed multiple quote features are driving me mad!

 

[RodISHI]

But - hey !- that Willy Mays sure can play some baseball, huh?

AA was designed to fail and it did so with spectacular results.

That's a damned shame, becasue anyone with a half a clue could have designed an affirmative action program that might have actually helped those who need it...regardless of race or gender.

Instead it did nothing but drive a wedge between the White poor and working classes and the poor minorities.

As far as I am concerned that's exactly what AA was designed to do, too.

Well that, and give insiders the opportunity to channel money and opportunity to their pals behind the veil of woman and minority owned businesses (which were basically shams)











editors note...this god blessed multiple quote features are driving me mad!

Was it designed to fail or a failed designed?

Sorry I'm not into multi quotes.

When I bid that sixteen million dollar contract here I actually gave IDOT the format with which they wrote their contracts on. (I know Rod already told me dumb move.) They did add that affirmative action policy part into it though. I had to call my attorney and ask, "What the heck is affirative action". He got a good chuckle from my question then he told me. My company was already in compliance. And the laughs I heard from the local bonding companies here when I called to see what the bonding and insurance cost would be. I heard impossible at least a half a dozen times.

You are correct it is a buddy system. A buddy's wife registers the company and walla one minority business is created. Or they get a minority of some kind to partner with and kickbacks are created via a percentage of the company.

The question is, "How do you design a program that is actually an equal opportuniy program without drawing all the parasites into it?"


There was a state congress member here a year or two ago that told a news reporter something along these lines, "backroom deals is how we have always done it."