| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gary DeWaay" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2005 09:33:06 PM |
| Object: |
Clarence Thomas quote: |
http://sheldman.blogspot.com/2005/01/i-would-like-to-believe-that-
somebody.html
or http://tinyurl.com/4u2wl
....quote...
"Justice Thomas expressly believes that "a judge should be evaluated by
whether he faithfully upholds his oath to God, not to the people, to the
state or to the Constitution"?"
....end quote....
(thanx to Atrios)
--
Gary
"Ban Republican marriage... WAR is unnatural".
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud " |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 12:46:17 PM |
|
|
Gary DeWaay wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
Gary DeWaay wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
Helping people get a leg up is a good thing. There will now be
generations and generations of Thomas's that will no longer need a leg up.
The problem is he doesn't want people like the person he once was to have
the same leg up he benefited from.
It isn't fair to give someone a leg up based on race.
Why not?
It isn't fair to that person since it stigmatizes him
Ya suppose Thomas felt stigmatized on his way up to the SC as a token
black conservative?
Probably.
and it isn't fair
to other people who are equally in need of the help but don't happen to
fit the genetic mandate.
Yes... all those poor whities that have had so many hardships over the
years in the USA.
You telling me that the poor whites in Appalachia didn't have as many
hardships as many blacks did? Why should rich blacks get government help
if poor whites aren't getting similar help? Doesn't this disparity
generate animus?
Why don't you just come out and say you don't like blacks getting a leg
up?
I believe that all Americans should be treated equally by government.
Any government assistance should be based entirely on need or available
to all regardless of need, not based on race, sex, ethnic origin,
religion or anything else like that.
It's also racist.
Do you even know what the word means?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racist
#begin quote
rac·ism Audio pronunciation of "racist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key
(rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character
or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
#end quote
In fact, it is the
definition of racism and is one of the reasons why Affirmative Action
causes problems.
Only with white bigots, such as yourself, from your words right here.
I am not a racist. You can't find anything I've said that is racist.
I didn't call you a racist.
You said I was a 'white bigot' when the discussion was about Affirmative
Action. A racial bigot is a racist.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot
#begin quote
big·ot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or
politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
#end quote
Plus he is an imbecile.
Did you read the article about "stare decisis"?
Didn't think so.
I don't read blog "cites".
It was not a cite from a blog.
I went to the start of this thread and it seems to have been initiated
by someone with a blog cite.
But that is not what I was referring to.
OK.
I got it from good ol' Google, although
you don't read cites from that either.
Why don't you just say, "I don't read cites"?
A cite is a short quote with backing URL that defends a claim clearly
stated right before or after the quote. Sending readers to websites
which you just tell them to read and learn the 'truth' isn't really
citing anything.
Gawd you are a dumass.
No, I'm stating facts and you can't deal with them.
I took the time to post the relevant parts of the article RIGHT IN THE
POST so imbeciles such as yourself could figure it out. You didn't even
have to click on anything unless you wanted to read the article in it's
entirety for clarity.
Here it is again, so you can again make excuses for not seeing it:
...quote...
[..]
Specifically, Scalia told Foskett that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare
decisis, period." Clarifying his remark, Scalia added that "if a
constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it
right. I wouldn't do that."
Stare decisis is a fancy Latin term that stands for a bedrock proposition
of U.S. law: that the Supreme Court will uphold precedent and not disturb
settled law without special justification. As Justice Thurgood Marshall
explained for the court in 1986, stare decisis is the "means by which we
ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop
in a principled and intelligible fashion."
[..]
The proof is in 35 lone Thomas opinions that express a willingness to
reexamine a breathtaking range of well-settled constitutional law. A
little-known but telling example is a 1998 opinion by Thomas that
expresses a willingness to reexamine the court's opinion in Calder v.
Bull, which decided that the Constitution's prohibition against
retroactive punishments applies only to criminal (not civil) laws.
Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the case, it is a unanimous
1798 opinion by the court that has not been seriously challenged in more
than 200 years. It is the dictionary definition of established case law.
[..]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31117-2004Oct13.html
...end quote....
Yes, I did read that at the time. Do you think that retroactive civil
laws should be constitutional? The SCOTUS is essentially a conservative
body yet Thomas is one liberal bugger. What's wrong with that?
--
Personally, I believe that 9/11 should have taught us the lesson that we
can't let these countries simmer endlessly in disillusionment without
doing something about it because people become susceptible to delusional
ideas and delusional actions. Iraq, in my view, is but the first of many
efforts, certainly not all military, to remake the very face of the
world as constitutional representative democracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary DeWaay" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 04:49:08 PM |
|
|
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
<snip>
You telling me that the poor whites in Appalachia didn't have as many
hardships as many blacks did?
I'm in favor of giving them a leg up also.
Why should rich blacks get government help
if poor whites aren't getting similar help?
I don't know this to be true.
Doesn't this disparity
generate animus?
Did Bill get a new Thesaurus for Xmas?
Why don't you just come out and say you don't like blacks getting a leg
up?
I believe that all Americans should be treated equally by government.
Any government assistance should be based entirely on need or available
to all regardless of need, not based on race, sex, ethnic origin,
religion or anything else like that.
Easy to say if you are a white male.
<snip>
--
Gary
Press Briefing 4/10/03 Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that
they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and
it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. "
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud " |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 05:16:26 PM |
|
|
Gary DeWaay wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
<snip>
You telling me that the poor whites in Appalachia didn't have as many
hardships as many blacks did?
I'm in favor of giving them a leg up also.
Then what are we arguing about?
Why should rich blacks get government help
if poor whites aren't getting similar help?
I don't know this to be true.
If you were black and rich, you'd get the same Affirmative Action help
on your college entrance tests, wouldn't you?
Doesn't this disparity
generate animus?
Did Bill get a new Thesaurus for Xmas?
I don't use a thesaurus unless I can't figure out how to spell a word
and have to use a word similar to the one sought in order to try to find
the word I cannot spell. None of those words were particularly effuse.
Why don't you just come out and say you don't like blacks getting a leg
up?
I believe that all Americans should be treated equally by government.
Any government assistance should be based entirely on need or available
to all regardless of need, not based on race, sex, ethnic origin,
religion or anything else like that.
Easy to say if you are a white male.
Less easy to say if you are a black person who was helped by the system
you are now speaking against.
--
Personally, I believe that 9/11 should have taught us the lesson that we
can't let these countries simmer endlessly in disillusionment without
doing something about it because people become susceptible to delusional
ideas and delusional actions. Iraq, in my view, is but the first of many
efforts, certainly not all military, to remake the very face of the
world as constitutional representative democracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 06:45:55 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <> wrote:
Gary DeWaay wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
<snip>
You telling me that the poor whites in Appalachia didn't have as many
hardships as many blacks did?
I'm in favor of giving them a leg up also.
Then what are we arguing about?
Why should rich blacks get government help
if poor whites aren't getting similar help?
I don't know this to be true.
If you were black and rich, you'd get the same Affirmative Action help
on your college entrance tests, wouldn't you?
Doesn't this disparity
generate animus?
Did Bill get a new Thesaurus for Xmas?
I don't use a thesaurus unless I can't figure out how to spell a word
and have to use a word similar to the one sought in order to try to find
the word I cannot spell. None of those words were particularly effuse.
For starters, animus, while it usually means a spirit of hostility,
doesn't always have that meaning. So "animosity" would have been
clearer and allow for no other interpretations such as the Jungian
meaning attached to "animus." Besides, animosity is much more common.
If your goal is to communicate then you really ought to choose the
simplest word which expresses what you want to say. You don't always
do that.
And then there's "effuse". The word animus isn't effuse (whatever you
precisely meant by effuse isn't really clear...profuse? prodigal?
extravagant?) It's simply that its meaning isn't as clear and
unequivocal as hostility or animosity.
Perhaps you really should start using a thesaurus in order to find
simpler words. As long as it says what you want to say, a simpler word
will almost always be a better choice, don't you think?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud " |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 08:54:31 PM |
|
|
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" < > wrote:
Gary DeWaay wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
<snip>
You telling me that the poor whites in Appalachia didn't have as many
hardships as many blacks did?
I'm in favor of giving them a leg up also.
Then what are we arguing about?
Why should rich blacks get government help
if poor whites aren't getting similar help?
I don't know this to be true.
If you were black and rich, you'd get the same Affirmative Action help
on your college entrance tests, wouldn't you?
Doesn't this disparity
generate animus?
Did Bill get a new Thesaurus for Xmas?
I don't use a thesaurus unless I can't figure out how to spell a word
and have to use a word similar to the one sought in order to try to find
the word I cannot spell. None of those words were particularly effuse.
For starters, animus, while it usually means a spirit of hostility,
doesn't always have that meaning.
I never claimed that 'animus' always had one single meaning.
So "animosity" would have been
clearer and allow for no other interpretations such as the Jungian
meaning attached to "animus."
Readers can use context to disambiguate meanings. If that were not the
case, then words couldn't have more than one meaning.
Besides, animosity is much more common.
I just wrote down what I thought as I thought it. I'm sorry that I
didn't consider certain words off limits. Do you have an acceptable
words list?
If your goal is to communicate then you really ought to choose the
simplest word which expresses what you want to say. You don't always
do that.
Why would I want to always choose the simplest word? Why should English
lose all those words that it has but aren't the simplest, most common?
And then there's "effuse". The word animus isn't effuse (whatever you
Oh Bog. Where did I say that 'animus' was 'effuse'? This is what I said:
"None of those words were particularly effuse."
precisely meant by effuse isn't really clear...profuse? prodigal?
extravagant?)
You could look up the word in the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=effuse&r=67
#begin quote
effuse
v 1: pour out; "effused brine" [syn: pour out] 2: flow or spill forth
[syn: flow out] 3: give out or emit (also metaphorically); "The room
effuses happiness"
#end quote
It's simply that its meaning isn't as clear and
unequivocal as hostility or animosity.
I was referring to the word choices.
Perhaps you really should start using a thesaurus in order to find
simpler words. As long as it says what you want to say, a simpler word
will almost always be a better choice, don't you think?
"Doesn't this disparity generate animus?" is an eminently readable,
concise response to the person's comment. Attacking it without actually
responding to the comment is clearly the venue of the Liberal.
--
Personally, I believe that 9/11 should have taught us the lesson that we
can't let these countries simmer endlessly in disillusionment without
doing something about it because people become susceptible to delusional
ideas and delusional actions. Iraq, in my view, is but the first of many
efforts, certainly not all military, to remake the very face of the
world as constitutional representative democracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
20 Jan 2005 06:36:21 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" < > wrote:
Gary DeWaay wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
<snip>
You telling me that the poor whites in Appalachia didn't have as many
hardships as many blacks did?
I'm in favor of giving them a leg up also.
Then what are we arguing about?
Why should rich blacks get government help
if poor whites aren't getting similar help?
I don't know this to be true.
If you were black and rich, you'd get the same Affirmative Action help
on your college entrance tests, wouldn't you?
Doesn't this disparity
generate animus?
Did Bill get a new Thesaurus for Xmas?
I don't use a thesaurus unless I can't figure out how to spell a word
and have to use a word similar to the one sought in order to try to find
the word I cannot spell. None of those words were particularly effuse.
For starters, animus, while it usually means a spirit of hostility,
doesn't always have that meaning.
I never claimed that 'animus' always had one single meaning.
So "animosity" would have been
clearer and allow for no other interpretations such as the Jungian
meaning attached to "animus."
Readers can use context to disambiguate meanings. If that were not the
case, then words couldn't have more than one meaning.
Besides, animosity is much more common.
I just wrote down what I thought as I thought it. I'm sorry that I
didn't consider certain words off limits. Do you have an acceptable
words list?
If your goal is to communicate then you really ought to choose the
simplest word which expresses what you want to say. You don't always
do that.
Why would I want to always choose the simplest word? Why should English
lose all those words that it has but aren't the simplest, most common?
And then there's "effuse". The word animus isn't effuse (whatever you
Oh Bog. Where did I say that 'animus' was 'effuse'? This is what I said:
"None of those words were particularly effuse."
precisely meant by effuse isn't really clear...profuse? prodigal?
extravagant?)
You could look up the word in the dictionary:
Oh I think it's you who didn't look it up before using it.
(and BTW you should have used an adjectival definition)
Let's substitute a typical meaning of effuse (as an adjective) in your
original sentence.
"None of those words were particularly poured out."
or
"None of those words were particularly spilled forth."
And this you call clear and communicative?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=effuse&r=67
#begin quote
effuse
v 1: pour out; "effused brine" [syn: pour out] 2: flow or spill forth
[syn: flow out] 3: give out or emit (also metaphorically); "The room
effuses happiness"
#end quote
It's simply that its meaning isn't as clear and
unequivocal as hostility or animosity.
I was referring to the word choices.
No. You said "none of those words were particularly effuse."
You only used one word in each case, not a number of them.
Perhaps you really should start using a thesaurus in order to find
simpler words. As long as it says what you want to say, a simpler word
will almost always be a better choice, don't you think?
"Doesn't this disparity generate animus?" is an eminently readable,
concise response to the person's comment. Attacking it without actually
responding to the comment is clearly the venue of the Liberal.
And substituting animosity for animus would be even clearer.
"Attacking it without actually responding to the comment is clearly
the venue of the Liberal."
I wasn't interested in the argument, just the language used.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud " |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
20 Jan 2005 12:19:56 PM |
|
|
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" < > wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" < > wrote:
Gary DeWaay wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
<snip>
You telling me that the poor whites in Appalachia didn't have as many
hardships as many blacks did?
I'm in favor of giving them a leg up also.
Then what are we arguing about?
Why should rich blacks get government help
if poor whites aren't getting similar help?
I don't know this to be true.
If you were black and rich, you'd get the same Affirmative Action help
on your college entrance tests, wouldn't you?
Doesn't this disparity
generate animus?
Did Bill get a new Thesaurus for Xmas?
I don't use a thesaurus unless I can't figure out how to spell a word
and have to use a word similar to the one sought in order to try to find
the word I cannot spell. None of those words were particularly effuse.
For starters, animus, while it usually means a spirit of hostility,
doesn't always have that meaning.
I never claimed that 'animus' always had one single meaning.
So "animosity" would have been
clearer and allow for no other interpretations such as the Jungian
meaning attached to "animus."
Readers can use context to disambiguate meanings. If that were not the
case, then words couldn't have more than one meaning.
Besides, animosity is much more common.
I just wrote down what I thought as I thought it. I'm sorry that I
didn't consider certain words off limits. Do you have an acceptable
words list?
If your goal is to communicate then you really ought to choose the
simplest word which expresses what you want to say. You don't always
do that.
Why would I want to always choose the simplest word? Why should English
lose all those words that it has but aren't the simplest, most common?
And then there's "effuse". The word animus isn't effuse (whatever you
Oh Bog. Where did I say that 'animus' was 'effuse'? This is what I said:
"None of those words were particularly effuse."
precisely meant by effuse isn't really clear...profuse? prodigal?
extravagant?)
You could look up the word in the dictionary:
Oh I think it's you who didn't look it up before using it.
(and BTW you should have used an adjectival definition)
Sorry for quoting the wrong part of the definition, thought you were
smart enough to adjective a verb without getting a headache.
Let's substitute a typical meaning of effuse (as an adjective) in your
original sentence.
"None of those words were particularly poured out."
or
"None of those words were particularly spilled forth."
And this you call clear and communicative?
No, although something that is 'effuse' is difficult to pick up, get
hold of, understand. The actual point though was to move your complaint
from "Doesn't this disparity generate animus?" to 'effuse'. In that, it
worked admirably. BTW, the meaning is more obvious with 'effusive',
parallel to your claim that 'animosity' was clearer than 'animus'.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=effuse&r=67
#begin quote
effuse
v 1: pour out; "effused brine" [syn: pour out] 2: flow or spill forth
[syn: flow out] 3: give out or emit (also metaphorically); "The room
effuses happiness"
#end quote
It's simply that its meaning isn't as clear and
unequivocal as hostility or animosity.
I was referring to the word choices.
No. You said "none of those words were particularly effuse."
You only used one word in each case, not a number of them.
None of those words, 'disparity', 'generate', 'animus', were
particularly effuse.
Perhaps you really should start using a thesaurus in order to find
simpler words. As long as it says what you want to say, a simpler word
will almost always be a better choice, don't you think?
"Doesn't this disparity generate animus?" is an eminently readable,
concise response to the person's comment. Attacking it without actually
responding to the comment is clearly the venue of the Liberal.
And substituting animosity for animus would be even clearer.
Only because you didn't know what 'animus' meant. And the dental
plosive-fricative-plosive alliteration of 'Doesn't this dis' sets up a
nice sound to the rhythm following in 'parity generate animus'.
'Animosity' ruins that.
"Attacking it without actually responding to the comment is clearly
the venue of the Liberal."
I wasn't interested in the argument, just the language used.
I'm fine with discussing the language used as long as that isn't just
used to avoid the argument.
--
Personally, I believe that 9/11 should have taught us the lesson that we
can't let these countries simmer endlessly in disillusionment without
doing something about it because people become susceptible to delusional
ideas and delusional actions. Iraq, in my view, is but the first of many
efforts, certainly not all military, to remake the very face of the
world as constitutional representative democracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
20 Jan 2005 05:02:58 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" < > wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" < > wrote:
Gary DeWaay wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
<snip>
You telling me that the poor whites in Appalachia didn't have as many
hardships as many blacks did?
I'm in favor of giving them a leg up also.
Then what are we arguing about?
Why should rich blacks get government help
if poor whites aren't getting similar help?
I don't know this to be true.
If you were black and rich, you'd get the same Affirmative Action help
on your college entrance tests, wouldn't you?
Doesn't this disparity
generate animus?
Did Bill get a new Thesaurus for Xmas?
I don't use a thesaurus unless I can't figure out how to spell a word
and have to use a word similar to the one sought in order to try to find
the word I cannot spell. None of those words were particularly effuse.
For starters, animus, while it usually means a spirit of hostility,
doesn't always have that meaning.
I never claimed that 'animus' always had one single meaning.
So "animosity" would have been
clearer and allow for no other interpretations such as the Jungian
meaning attached to "animus."
Readers can use context to disambiguate meanings. If that were not the
case, then words couldn't have more than one meaning.
Besides, animosity is much more common.
I just wrote down what I thought as I thought it. I'm sorry that I
didn't consider certain words off limits. Do you have an acceptable
words list?
If your goal is to communicate then you really ought to choose the
simplest word which expresses what you want to say. You don't always
do that.
Why would I want to always choose the simplest word? Why should English
lose all those words that it has but aren't the simplest, most common?
And then there's "effuse". The word animus isn't effuse (whatever you
Oh Bog. Where did I say that 'animus' was 'effuse'? This is what I said:
"None of those words were particularly effuse."
precisely meant by effuse isn't really clear...profuse? prodigal?
extravagant?)
You could look up the word in the dictionary:
Oh I think it's you who didn't look it up before using it.
(and BTW you should have used an adjectival definition)
Sorry for quoting the wrong part of the definition, thought you were
smart enough to adjective a verb without getting a headache.
Let's substitute a typical meaning of effuse (as an adjective) in your
original sentence.
"None of those words were particularly poured out."
or
"None of those words were particularly spilled forth."
And this you call clear and communicative?
No,
Then why use it? Oh I know. You don't care if it's clear and
communicative.
although something that is 'effuse' is difficult to pick up, get
hold of, understand. The actual point though was to move your complaint
from "Doesn't this disparity generate animus?" to 'effuse'. In that, it
worked admirably. BTW, the meaning is more obvious with 'effusive',
parallel to your claim that 'animosity' was clearer than 'animus'.
I'm curious. What dictionary are you using which defines effuse as you
do in the above sentence when you say
"No, although something that is 'effuse' is difficult to pick up, get
hold of, understand"?
I would think "diffuse" was closer to that particular meaning. Not
that it would be suitable in the sentence where you used "effuse" mind
you.
In any case I don't recall ever having come across that use of effuse.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=effuse&r=67
#begin quote
effuse
v 1: pour out; "effused brine" [syn: pour out] 2: flow or spill forth
[syn: flow out] 3: give out or emit (also metaphorically); "The room
effuses happiness"
#end quote
It's simply that its meaning isn't as clear and
unequivocal as hostility or animosity.
I was referring to the word choices.
No. You said "none of those words were particularly effuse."
You only used one word in each case, not a number of them.
None of those words, 'disparity', 'generate', 'animus', were
particularly effuse.
Perhaps you really should start using a thesaurus in order to find
simpler words. As long as it says what you want to say, a simpler word
will almost always be a better choice, don't you think?
"Doesn't this disparity generate animus?" is an eminently readable,
concise response to the person's comment. Attacking it without actually
responding to the comment is clearly the venue of the Liberal
And substituting animosity for animus would be even clearer.
Only because you didn't know what 'animus' meant.
That's snotty, insulting, and untrue Bill.
I knew what animus meant and I also knew that it has several meanings
which was, after all, my point.
And the dental
plosive-fricative-plosive alliteration of 'Doesn't this dis' sets up a
nice sound to the rhythm following in 'parity generate animus'.
'Animosity' ruins that.
That's just a rather pompous analysis (justification) of the sentence
after the fact. "Dental plosive-fricative-plosive" indeed. And yes I
know what all those words mean.
One can just imagine the unspoken but implied "you dunces couldn't
possibly appreciate the subtle interplay of sounds I devise with my
cunningly constructed sentences.
"Attacking it without actually responding to the comment is clearly
the venue of the Liberal."
I wasn't interested in the argument, just the language used.
I'm fine with discussing the language used as long as that isn't just
used to avoid the argument.
Well that's what we're doing...discussing the language.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary DeWaay" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 05:27:09 PM |
|
|
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
You telling me that the poor whites in Appalachia didn't have as many
hardships as many blacks did?
I'm in favor of giving them a leg up also.
Then what are we arguing about?
Beats me Bill. I'm in favor of giving lotsa people a leg up.
Your party seems to disagree strongly.
--
Gary
Press Briefing 4/10/03 Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that
they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and
it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. "
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary DeWaay" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 05:36:19 PM |
|
|
Beats me Bill. I'm in favor of giving lotsa people a leg up.
Your party seems to disagree strongly.
Correction, they seem to be very interested in giving Iraqi citizens a leg
up, it's Americans they don't give a ***** about.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud " |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 05:57:35 PM |
|
|
Gary DeWaay wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
You telling me that the poor whites in Appalachia didn't have as many
hardships as many blacks did?
I'm in favor of giving them a leg up also.
Then what are we arguing about?
Beats me Bill. I'm in favor of giving lotsa people a leg up.
Your party seems to disagree strongly.
No. We don't believe that huge government is the solution. We don't
believe that groups should be separated out by race for special
privileges.
--
Personally, I believe that 9/11 should have taught us the lesson that we
can't let these countries simmer endlessly in disillusionment without
doing something about it because people become susceptible to delusional
ideas and delusional actions. Iraq, in my view, is but the first of many
efforts, certainly not all military, to remake the very face of the
world as constitutional representative democracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary DeWaay" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 06:50:24 PM |
|
|
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
Beats me Bill. I'm in favor of giving lotsa people a leg up.
Your party seems to disagree strongly.
No. We don't believe that huge government is the solution. We don't
believe that groups should be separated out by race for special
privileges.
If you don't want ANY people to have help, why do you get your undies in a
bunch if help goes to people of race?
It would seem irrelevant.
--
Gary
Press Briefing 4/10/03 Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that
they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and
it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. "
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 05:59:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:27:09 -0600, Gary DeWaay
<dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
You telling me that the poor whites in Appalachia didn't have as many
hardships as many blacks did?
I'm in favor of giving them a leg up also.
Then what are we arguing about?
Beats me Bill. I'm in favor of giving lotsa people a leg up.
What about a leg over?
Your party seems to disagree strongly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud " |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 05:58:17 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:27:09 -0600, Gary DeWaay
<dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at wisdom:
You telling me that the poor whites in Appalachia didn't have as many
hardships as many blacks did?
I'm in favor of giving them a leg up also.
Then what are we arguing about?
Beats me Bill. I'm in favor of giving lotsa people a leg up.
What about a leg over?
This is reminding me of John Wayne's last film.
--
Personally, I believe that 9/11 should have taught us the lesson that we
can't let these countries simmer endlessly in disillusionment without
doing something about it because people become susceptible to delusional
ideas and delusional actions. Iraq, in my view, is but the first of many
efforts, certainly not all military, to remake the very face of the
world as constitutional representative democracy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
20 Jan 2005 05:18:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:54:25 -0600, Gary DeWaay
<dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle's at wisdom:
It's also racist.
Do you even know what the word means?
Discrimination or prejudice based on race, perhaps?
Or is it only whites that are racist?
Black people are racist towards other black people,
But not to whites?
is what you are saying
in regards to "Uncle Tom"?
I spoke nothing of Uncle Tom.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary DeWaay" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
20 Jan 2005 10:28:17 PM |
|
|
Daniel Kolle's at wisdom:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:54:25 -0600, Gary DeWaay
<dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle's at wisdom:
It's also racist.
Do you even know what the word means?
Discrimination or prejudice based on race, perhaps?
Or is it only whites that are racist?
Black people are racist towards other black people,
But not to whites?
Well sure.
is what you are saying
in regards to "Uncle Tom"?
I spoke nothing of Uncle Tom.
Umm... the rest of us were. What are you discussing?
Gary
Press Briefing 4/10/03 Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that
they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and
it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. "
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud " |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
20 Jan 2005 10:30:52 PM |
|
|
Gary DeWaay wrote:
Daniel Kolle's at wisdom:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:54:25 -0600, Gary DeWaay
<dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle's at wisdom:
It's also racist.
Do you even know what the word means?
Discrimination or prejudice based on race, perhaps?
Or is it only whites that are racist?
Black people are racist towards other black people,
But not to whites?
Well sure.
LOL. You don't think it's racism when someone of a racial group,
whatever that means, insists that another member of that racial group,
whatever that means, not marry someone of another racial group, whatever
that means. Because that certainly sounds like racism to me.
--
Personally, I believe that 9/11 should have taught us the lesson that we
can't let these countries simmer endlessly in disillusionment without
doing something about it because people become susceptible to delusional
ideas and delusional actions. Iraq, in my view, is but the first of many
efforts, certainly not all military, to remake the very face of the
world as constitutional representative democracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
20 Jan 2005 11:02:08 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:41F0857C.FAB0C56E@backpacker.com...
Gary DeWaay wrote:
Daniel Kolle's at wisdom:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:54:25 -0600, Gary DeWaay
<dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle's at wisdom:
It's also racist.
Do you even know what the word means?
Discrimination or prejudice based on race, perhaps?
Or is it only whites that are racist?
Black people are racist towards other black people,
But not to whites?
Well sure.
LOL. You don't think it's racism when someone of a racial group,
whatever that means, insists that another member of that racial group,
whatever that means, not marry someone of another racial group, whatever
that means. Because that certainly sounds like racism to me.
You know, if you were serious about being taken seriously, you'd build much more
convincing strawmen.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
18 Jan 2005 04:06:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:01:04 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Thank you for showing one of the dangers of Affirmative Action, that a
person who receives this assistance will forever be called into question
for his possible lack of merit compared to those who didn't get that leg
up.
Did I say one word about his competence? No. I merely pointed out the
rank hypocrisy.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud " |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
18 Jan 2005 10:27:31 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:01:04 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Thank you for showing one of the dangers of Affirmative Action, that a
person who receives this assistance will forever be called into question
for his possible lack of merit compared to those who didn't get that leg
up.
Did I say one word about his competence? No. I merely pointed out the
rank hypocrisy.
What hypocrisy?
--
Personally, I believe that 9/11 should have taught us the lesson that we
can't let these countries simmer endlessly in disillusionment without
doing something about it because people become susceptible to delusional
ideas and delusional actions. Iraq, in my view, is but the first of many
efforts, certainly not all military, to remake the very face of the
world as constitutional representative democracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 01:10:30 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:27:31 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
What hypocrisy?
That Thomas, who got into college and law school through affirmative
action programs, now spaeaks out against them.
That would be like me complaining about military pensions while still
cashing my VA check every month.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud " |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 01:13:05 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:27:31 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
What hypocrisy?
That Thomas, who got into college and law school through affirmative
action programs, now spaeaks out against them.
So if he was assisted by some programme, he can never speak against it?
Should we have Affirmative Action in a thousand years? Why should it be
based on race?
That would be like me complaining about military pensions while still
cashing my VA check every month.
What if you stopped cashing your VA check? Could you complain even
though you'd cashed it in the past?
--
Personally, I believe that 9/11 should have taught us the lesson that we
can't let these countries simmer endlessly in disillusionment without
doing something about it because people become susceptible to delusional
ideas and delusional actions. Iraq, in my view, is but the first of many
efforts, certainly not all military, to remake the very face of the
world as constitutional representative democracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 06:21:27 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:27:31 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
What hypocrisy?
That Thomas, who got into college and law school through affirmative
action programs, now spaeaks out against them.
So if he was assisted by some programme, he can never speak against it?
Should we have Affirmative Action in a thousand years? Why should it be
based on race?
That would be like me complaining about military pensions while still
cashing my VA check every month.
What if you stopped cashing your VA check? Could you complain even
though you'd cashed it in the past?
Well if you actually needed the VA during the time you were cashing
them then no, it would seem strange to complain about the fact that
they helped you live a reasonable life. And if you truly didn't need
them yet cashed them anyway then you are the problem, not the checks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud " |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 11:46:18 AM |
|
|
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:27:31 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
What hypocrisy?
That Thomas, who got into college and law school through affirmative
action programs, now spaeaks out against them.
So if he was assisted by some programme, he can never speak against it?
Should we have Affirmative Action in a thousand years? Why should it be
based on race?
That would be like me complaining about military pensions while still
cashing my VA check every month.
What if you stopped cashing your VA check? Could you complain even
though you'd cashed it in the past?
Well if you actually needed the VA during the time you were cashing
them then no, it would seem strange to complain about the fact that
they helped you live a reasonable life. And if you truly didn't need
them yet cashed them anyway then you are the problem, not the checks.
This is only an attempt at an analogous situation. I'm sure there are
people who'd like the VA cash but don't get it because they don't
qualify; one is supposed to have earned VA benefits by service in the
military. In the case of Affirmative Action, apparently you 'earn' the
benefit by being born of an included race. Since you could be born of
the included race and not need the benefit, being rich or otherwise
successful without the assistance, why base the assistance on race?
--
Personally, I believe that 9/11 should have taught us the lesson that we
can't let these countries simmer endlessly in disillusionment without
doing something about it because people become susceptible to delusional
ideas and delusional actions. Iraq, in my view, is but the first of many
efforts, certainly not all military, to remake the very face of the
world as constitutional representative democracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 06:00:01 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:27:31 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
What hypocrisy?
That Thomas, who got into college and law school through affirmative
action programs, now spaeaks out against them.
So if he was assisted by some programme, he can never speak against it?
Should we have Affirmative Action in a thousand years? Why should it be
based on race?
That would be like me complaining about military pensions while still
cashing my VA check every month.
What if you stopped cashing your VA check? Could you complain even
though you'd cashed it in the past?
Well if you actually needed the VA during the time you were cashing
them then no, it would seem strange to complain about the fact that
they helped you live a reasonable life. And if you truly didn't need
them yet cashed them anyway then you are the problem, not the checks.
This is only an attempt at an analogous situation. I'm sure there are
people who'd like the VA cash but don't get it because they don't
qualify; one is supposed to have earned VA benefits by service in the
military. In the case of Affirmative Action, apparently you 'earn' the
benefit by being born of an included race. Since you could be born of
the included race and not need the benefit, being rich or otherwise
successful without the assistance, why base the assistance on race?
Why base benefits on military service since you could have served in
the military and still be successful and rich having found a good job
for which you were qualified after such service. In either the race or
the military case you could need assistance or not -- ça dépend.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud " |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
19 Jan 2005 06:25:38 PM |
|
|
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:27:31 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
What hypocrisy?
That Thomas, who got into college and law school through affirmative
action programs, now spaeaks out against them.
So if he was assisted by some programme, he can never speak against it?
Should we have Affirmative Action in a thousand years? Why should it be
based on race?
That would be like me complaining about military pensions while still
cashing my VA check every month.
What if you stopped cashing your VA check? Could you complain even
though you'd cashed it in the past?
Well if you actually needed the VA during the time you were cashing
them then no, it would seem strange to complain about the fact that
they helped you live a reasonable life. And if you truly didn't need
them yet cashed them anyway then you are the problem, not the checks.
This is only an attempt at an analogous situation. I'm sure there are
people who'd like the VA cash but don't get it because they don't
qualify; one is supposed to have earned VA benefits by service in the
military. In the case of Affirmative Action, apparently you 'earn' the
benefit by being born of an included race. Since you could be born of
the included race and not need the benefit, being rich or otherwise
successful without the assistance, why base the assistance on race?
Why base benefits on military service since you could have served in
the military and still be successful and rich having found a good job
for which you were qualified after such service. In either the race or
the military case you could need assistance or not -- ça dépend.
Presumably the military pension and benefits after service are
encouragements and part of the payment of service. Are you going to say
that about Affirmative Action and blacks? Is that payment for being
black? What does 'being black' even mean?
--
Personally, I believe that 9/11 should have taught us the lesson that we
can't let these countries simmer endlessly in disillusionment without
doing something about it because people become susceptible to delusional
ideas and delusional actions. Iraq, in my view, is but the first of many
efforts, certainly not all military, to remake the very face of the
world as constitutional representative democracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
20 Jan 2005 06:18:21 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:27:31 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
What hypocrisy?
That Thomas, who got into college and law school through affirmative
action programs, now spaeaks out against them.
So if he was assisted by some programme, he can never speak against it?
Should we have Affirmative Action in a thousand years? Why should it be
based on race?
That would be like me complaining about military pensions while still
cashing my VA check every month.
What if you stopped cashing your VA check? Could you complain even
though you'd cashed it in the past?
Well if you actually needed the VA during the time you were cashing
them then no, it would seem strange to complain about the fact that
they helped you live a reasonable life. And if you truly didn't need
them yet cashed them anyway then you are the problem, not the checks.
This is only an attempt at an analogous situation. I'm sure there are
people who'd like the VA cash but don't get it because they don't
qualify; one is supposed to have earned VA benefits by service in the
military. In the case of Affirmative Action, apparently you 'earn' the
benefit by being born of an included race. Since you could be born of
the included race and not need the benefit, being rich or otherwise
successful without the assistance, why base the assistance on race?
Why base benefits on military service since you could have served in
the military and still be successful and rich having found a good job
for which you were qualified after such service. In either the race or
the military case you could need assistance or not -- ça dépend.
Presumably the military pension and benefits after service are
encouragements and part of the payment of service. Are you going to say
that about Affirmative Action and blacks? Is that payment for being
black? What does 'being black' even mean?
Well you just said VA payments are at least in part "encouragements".
Then too, one criterion for getting VA payments is to be someone who
is "younger than 65 and can't work because of their disability." For
many blacks I would imagine being black has been a "disability" all
their lives when trying to get a job or even accommodation let alone a
decent education in a black neighbourhood with an inadequately funded
school system anywhere to be found.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud " |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
20 Jan 2005 12:25:47 PM |
|
|
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:27:31 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
What hypocrisy?
That Thomas, who got into college and law school through affirmative
action programs, now spaeaks out against them.
So if he was assisted by some programme, he can never speak against it?
Should we have Affirmative Action in a thousand years? Why should it be
based on race?
That would be like me complaining about military pensions while still
cashing my VA check every month.
What if you stopped cashing your VA check? Could you complain even
though you'd cashed it in the past?
Well if you actually needed the VA during the time you were cashing
them then no, it would seem strange to complain about the fact that
they helped you live a reasonable life. And if you truly didn't need
them yet cashed them anyway then you are the problem, not the checks.
This is only an attempt at an analogous situation. I'm sure there are
people who'd like the VA cash but don't get it because they don't
qualify; one is supposed to have earned VA benefits by service in the
military. In the case of Affirmative Action, apparently you 'earn' the
benefit by being born of an included race. Since you could be born of
the included race and not need the benefit, being rich or otherwise
successful without the assistance, why base the assistance on race?
Why base benefits on military service since you could have served in
the military and still be successful and rich having found a good job
for which you were qualified after such service. In either the race or
the military case you could need assistance or not -- ça dépend.
Presumably the military pension and benefits after service are
encouragements and part of the payment of service. Are you going to say
that about Affirmative Action and blacks? Is that payment for being
black? What does 'being black' even mean?
Well you just said VA payments are at least in part "encouragements".
To join the military.
Then too, one criterion for getting VA payments is to be someone who
is "younger than 65 and can't work because of their disability." For
Don't they have to be veterans? It seems absurd to get VA benefits if
you didn't serve in the military. I would think that some other
programme would apply to disabled non-military, probably Social
Security.
many blacks I would imagine being black has been a "disability" all
their lives when trying to get a job or even accommodation let alone a
decent education in a black neighbourhood with an inadequately funded
school system anywhere to be found.
One idea would be to fix these problems irrespective of the race of the
people affected. By doing that, you'd remove the stigma of Affirmative
Action, which is certainly being used even in this thread against
Clarence Thomas.
--
Personally, I believe that 9/11 should have taught us the lesson that we
can't let these countries simmer endlessly in disillusionment without
doing something about it because people become susceptible to delusional
ideas and delusional actions. Iraq, in my view, is but the first of many
efforts, certainly not all military, to remake the very face of the
world as constitutional representative democracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
20 Jan 2005 05:06:08 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:27:31 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
What hypocrisy?
That Thomas, who got into college and law school through affirmative
action programs, now spaeaks out against them.
So if he was assisted by some programme, he can never speak against it?
Should we have Affirmative Action in a thousand years? Why should it be
based on race?
That would be like me complaining about military pensions while still
cashing my VA check every month.
What if you stopped cashing your VA check? Could you complain even
though you'd cashed it in the past?
Well if you actually needed the VA during the time you were cashing
them then no, it would seem strange to complain about the fact that
they helped you live a reasonable life. And if you truly didn't need
them yet cashed them anyway then you are the problem, not the checks.
This is only an attempt at an analogous situation. I'm sure there are
people who'd like the VA cash but don't get it because they don't
qualify; one is supposed to have earned VA benefits by service in the
military. In the case of Affirmative Action, apparently you 'earn' the
benefit by being born of an included race. Since you could be born of
the included race and not need the benefit, being rich or otherwise
successful without the assistance, why base the assistance on race?
Why base benefits on military service since you could have served in
the military and still be successful and rich having found a good job
for which you were qualified after such service. In either the race or
the military case you could need assistance or not -- ça dépend.
Presumably the military pension and benefits after service are
encouragements and part of the payment of service. Are you going to say
that about Affirmative Action and blacks? Is that payment for being
black? What does 'being black' even mean?
Well you just said VA payments are at least in part "encouragements".
To join the military.
Then too, one criterion for getting VA payments is to be someone who
is "younger than 65 and can't work because of their disability." For
Don't they have to be veterans? It seems absurd to get VA benefits if
you didn't serve in the military. I would think that some other
programme would apply to disabled non-military, probably Social
Security.
many blacks I would imagine being black has been a "disability" all
their lives when trying to get a job or even accommodation let alone a
decent education in a black neighbourhood with an inadequately funded
school system anywhere to be found.
One idea would be to fix these problems irrespective of the race of the
people affected. By doing that, you'd remove the stigma of Affirmative
Action, which is certainly being used even in this thread against
Clarence Thomas.
I do honestly think that most people are saying he isn't a very good
supreme court judge which has nothing to do with Affirmative Action.
Some think you're avoiding that particular issue, i.e., his
competence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud " |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas quote: |
20 Jan 2005 09:34:25 PM |
|
|
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Rob wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:27:31 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
What hypocrisy?
That Thomas, who got into college and law school through affirmative
action programs, now spaeaks out against them.
So if he was assisted by some programme, he can never speak against it?
Should we have Affirmative Action in a thousand years? Why should it be
based on race?
That would be like me complaining about military pensions while still
cashing my VA check every month.
What if you stopped cashing your VA check? Could you complain even
though you'd cashed it in the past?
Well if you actually needed the VA during the time you were cashing
them then no, it would seem strange to complain about the fact that
they helped you live a reasonable life. And if you truly didn't need
them yet cashed them anyway then you are the problem, not the checks.
This is only an attempt at an analogous situation. I'm sure there are
people who'd like the VA cash but don't get it because they don't
qualify; one is supposed to have earned VA benefits by service in the
military. In the case of Affirmative Action, apparently you 'earn' the
benefit by being born of an included race. Since you could be born of
the included race and not need the benefit, being rich or otherwise
successful without the assistance, why base the assistance on race?
Why base benefits on military service since you could have served in
the military and still be successful and | | | | | | | | | | | | |
