Epicurus
Reasonable
lol just wow.
Judd Gregg drops out of consideration for Commerce
- Thread starter blackascoal
- Start date
lol just wow.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Gregg wasn't among them, which is my point.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
My reasoning is from my perspective, not yours .. and I don't really give a damn about what you think about "left wing on the dole government funded org." My point was that I give a damn.
Beyond that, irrespective of what you think of those organizations ...
He voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.
He voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.
He voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women.
He voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business.
Not sure if you even know what affirmnative action is .. but those things he's against .. that's what affirmative action is.
If you still have problems with my characterization of him .. that's your problem.
But it's just one of your problems because it seems you have bigger problems than me .. you don't appear to know what a census is. It's a count of everyone in the United States and notice there is no distinction between legal and illegal .. IN FACT, they'd really like to know how many illegals there are in the US and they are encouraged to participate without the fear of arrest.
IN FACT, there have been several proposals offered to skip counting illegals ALL eminating from the republican right-wing .. THUS, putting such a person in charge of the census, one as critically important as 2010, with democrats in charge, would indeed be stupid, would it not?
Of course you give a damn about being a broad brush painter in order to support your accusation that Gregg is a proponent of not counting blacks and latinos as if it were true, it is not.
Organizations who depend on funding from the governement are often not happy about politicians that get in their way. That they come out against a man who does not think "special categories" should be used to bilk more federal funds is not a suprise, it's called self interest, as in theirs.
You assume I am unaware of the stakes involved about counting illegals? Get over yourself! I understand all about what is at stake.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
What I assume is that you're a right-wing nutcase who doesn't know what either affirmative action or a census is.
You can save your lunatic definitions of what these organizations are .. the fact is the things Gregg is against IS affirmative action .. and a census counts everybody.
It's just that simple.
You have done nothing to prove your point. Jumping up and down and calling me names is not an argument nor a defense of one, it's just name calling.
The link I provided as to why Gregg is against counting "illegals" as opposed to your accusation that he does not want to count persons of ethnic background, explains quite clearly the argument for not counting illegals. I think I get it, no matter your denial of my knowledge.
Being against "special funding" for groups who either already get special deference and or funding is not equal to being against the policy of affirmative action. Revisiting the usefullness of affirmative action policy is likewise not the same as being against it. That groups who benefit from the policy and its subsequent funding take issue with someone who challenges it does make your accusation anything more than an accusation of a partisan supported by special interest groups.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Affirmative action is racism, pure and simple.
I disagree; for many years in this country being black meant not being considered for a position. In fact our country has a history of racial and gender preferences for employment. My grandparents certainly faced "Irish need not apply". My maternal great-grandparents had it even worse being American Indians.
This said, it is also true that because of the success of affirmative action we can cite cases of seeming reverse racism which supports the idea of revisiting its practical and necessary usefulness. I know having worked for a government agency in the past, if you were a white male on the list and they needed a black, Hispanic, female, or some other ethnic plug your position on the list became moot and you were passed over.
The current problem of racial disparity if it exists, is with employment in the private sector. I personally find it repugnant to think that bigotry like this still exists, but I would be naive to assume it does not.
The solution for business's in my mind, which might still practice racial bigotry of specific groups based on gender or race, is to tie hiring practices to tax breaks for the employer. Possibly giving tax breaks or credits to employers who have a racial and gender appropriate ratio in their staff and new hires for any given tax year. But let us stop being the bigot police of private business and trust the numbers that by and large show most people are inclined to hire, promote, and reward employees based on merit not on race.
Last edited:
Commerce usually handles the Census, Obama didn't trust him and wanted to take it away from Commerce, therefore Gregg and about 75% of the media started asking the question, "If you don't trust him to do the job you hired him for, then why are you hiring him?"
Judd left because it was clear that the Administration picked him solely to have a "more bipartisan" Administration than "ever before" but were not going to let him actually do the job they were hiring him for.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Well I sure appreciate your perspective although I find it a bit confusing.
Affirmative action has everything to do with being for special consideration in opportunity based on historical disadvantages for a particular group or demographic. That special consideration extends to all opportunity, especially when federal funds are being used and has nothing whatsoever to do with any funding a group may already get. Because women are either funded or given consideration in one area has little to do with them being funded in another. I used women as an example because they are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action.
If, as you've acknowledged, racism and sexism still exist in the private sector, is that not more reason not to interfere with opportunities in the public sector?
Additionally, whether you trust groups that are THE most trusted in determining if a particular politician is for or against affirmative action, there is a reason why THEY are THE most trusted and you are not. Feel free to express your disdain in any manner you choose .. but it doesn't change the fact that those groups MOST trusted in that determination and those who are adversly affected by discrimination do not agree with you.
Likewise my brother on you getting why you think someone who doesn't want to count people of color, irrespective of their legal status, when the law, duty, and responsibility of Commerce is to count everybody, irrespective of legal status, doesn't amount to undercounting people of color in the US. What is that? Logic?
You say you're aware of why the census is important and it's implications. If that's true, tell me where is the mystery that you don't get about why right-wing republicans don't want to count illegals and people of color?
And by the way ,, there's no need to "jump up and down to call you names" .. I can do so quite easily .. just as easily as you asuming "hyperbole" should be my middle name.
If you're squemish, don't throw stones.
Last edited:
I'm not squemish and it was you who were throwing stones, I merely pointed out that stone throwing does not amount to an argument or a defense. Your use of hyperbole is evidenced in many of your posts and in fact I showed how it was evidenced in the thread where I said that. You failed to show where I was wrong. Calling me a right wing whatever because I again showed how broad brush stroke attacks without evidence is not proof of a fact, and neither is marching out government funded partisan groups to support your suppositions.
Again, Gregg has fought against women and ethnic groups getting additional "special funding" for an already specially funded progam i.e. small business start up. This does not make him anti affirmative action, but it certainly provokes the special interest groups, that want the funding, to come out and claim he is anti affirnmative action. Likewise, wishing to revistsit the effectiveness of current affirmative action laws to consider whether they may need to be revised is not the same as being against affirmative action, but it certainly provokes those groups that seek federal funding for affirmative action.
And for the final time, there is a sound and logical reason with regards to why illegals should not be counted in the census. But regardless with whether you actually read the link and can at least know what that is, you still have not supported your accusation with any evidence that Gregg does not want to count latinos or blacks, I have shown that it is only illegal persons that he does not want counted no matter their color.
Last edited:
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
If you aren't squemish, stop whining. Don't run behind Marques of Queensbury rules now. Simply post what you think and I'll do the same.
You'll notice that I'm not real quick to "show where you were wrong" against things like "hyperbole." .. Meaningless .. particularly coming from someone with opinions such as yours my brother.
Who should be the body/organization that determines if Judd Gregg or anybody else supports the goals of affirmative action?
Republicans?
Conservatives?
Talk-show hosts?
Or should it be a body of those who not only support its goals, but have also been the victims of the very policies it addresses?
Are you also a proponent of having a body of men decide who supports women's issues?
Your use of "government" is very telling. Is that supposed to invoke fear or proof of inadequacy .. or bias? Should we go down the list of organizations that are funded and supported by the government that produce reliable data and critique and which are relied upon for policy decisions? Or is it just those bad organiations of the left?
That "government" thing was programmed into you sir.
"special interests"
.. that's funny .. and kinda' silly.Those "special interests" are those who've been adversly affected by policies, legislation, and aborhent societal behaviors that have historically adversly affected them and their group. Who else should be speaking for them? Who should speak for handicapped people .. an organization of janitors?
Gregg gets a 7% rating from the NAACP and you, in all your pompousness, don't believe that a rating from such a group should even be considered. This is why I say let's talk freely because it's difficult to feign any degree of respect for such an opinion.
Additionally, and even more silly, is according to you, Gregg isn't against .. what? .. the "concept" of affirmative action .. just the practical application of affirmative action. As I said to you before, and which you failed to address, the fact that a group may be getting special funding in one area, does not preclude them from getting funding in another, nor should it .. which is why by the way, Gregg's position is not the law, nor does it conform to guidelines of affirmative action. So, according to you, Gregg isn't against affirmative action, just its practical application, the law, and the guidelines of the actual policy.
That dumb shit may sound good in Peoria, but I don't live there.
What does the LAW require the census to do?
Not counting illegals is stupid .. no, REALLY STUPID. If you don't count them, how in the fuck will you have any idea how many are here? Even with the argument that they skewer analysis of congressional districts .. count them and indicate they are illegal, then exclude them from forming the districts .. which I don't agree with but at least that idea has logic. Yours and Gregg's does not .. which is why it is rejected.
Additionally, obviously you weren't serious when you claimed you understood the political implications of the census, Regardless of Gregg's supposed failed and rejected reasoning not counting illegals, it will amount to undercounting people of color regardless of what you call it. Are you suggesting Gregg is above politics and there is no political motivation for his positions? A career politician ..
Wouldn't that be more than just a bit silly?
Last edited:
If you aren't squemish, stop whining. Don't run behind Marques of Queensbury rules now. Simply post what you think and I'll do the same.
Are you always so hi fallutin or only when your panties are in a bunch? Now that's being personal!
You'll notice that I'm not real quick to "show where you were wrong" against things like "hyperbole." .. Meaningless .. particularly coming from someone with opinions such as yours my brother.
You use hyperbole to sound like you have authoritative evidence when all you have is a lot of loud squawking finger pointing "baffle em with bullshit" nonsense.
Who should be the body/organization that determines if Judd Gregg or anybody else supports the goals of affirmative action?
Republicans?
Conservatives?
Talk-show hosts?
That a partisan group makes claims against Gregg does not make it a fact, but a partisan opinion. No one is asking for their opinion. If you want to supply an opinion that is credible, then supply one from a group that has no stake in the game
Or should it be a body of those who not only support its goals, but have also been the victims of the very policies it addresses?
That groups like the NAACP exists to fight for black americans is not in question. What is in question is their ability to judge a mans motives and character when they have an obvious bias against any one that challenges a staus quo, a potential conflict of interest which might call into question a need for them to even exist any longer. When someone says that getting additional special funds to an already specially funded program is called anti affirmative action, that's just pure partisan bunk, making them not a credible defense of your accusation. Their ratings of political careers are self interested pure and simple.
Are you also a proponent of having a body of men decide who supports women's issues?
Your use of "government" is very telling. Is that supposed to invoke fear or proof of inadequacy .. or bias? Should we go down the list of organizations that are funded and supported by the government that produce reliable data and critique and which are relied upon for policy decisions? Or is it just those bad organiations of the left?
I am not the one using a biased organization to prove that a man is anti affirmative action. I am not the one unable to articulate how not wanting to double dip into special funding makes someone anti affirmative action...that would be you.
That "government" thing was programmed into you sir.
"special interests"
Those "special interests" are those who've been adversly affected by policies, legislation, and aborhent societal behaviors that have historically adversly affected them and their group. Who else should be speaking for them? Who should speak for handicapped people .. an organization of janitors?
Gregg gets a 7% rating from the NAACP and you, in all your pompousness, don't believe that a rating from such a group should even be considered. This is why I say let's talk freely because it's difficult to feign any degree of respect for such an opinion.
Additionally, and even more silly, is according to you, Gregg isn't against .. what? .. the "concept" of affirmative action .. just the practical application of affirmative action. As I said to you before, and which you failed to address, the fact that a group may be getting special funding in one area, does not preclude them from getting funding in another, nor should it .. which is why by the way, Gregg's position is not the law, nor does it conform to guidelines of affirmative action. So, according to you, Gregg isn't against affirmative action, just its practical application, the law, and the guidelines of the actual policy.
That dumb shit may sound good in Peoria, but I don't live there.
Asked and answered as nauseum.
What does the LAW require the census to do?
Not counting illegals is stupid .. no, REALLY STUPID. If you don't count them, how in the fuck will you have any idea how many are here? Even with the argument that they skewer analysis of congressional districts .. count them and indicate they are illegal, then exclude them from forming the districts .. which I don't agree with but at least that idea has logic. Yours and Gregg's does not .. which is why it is rejected.
Additionally, obviously you weren't serious when you claimed you understood the political implications of the census, Regardless of Gregg's supposed failed and rejected reasoning not counting illegals, it will amount to undercounting people of color regardless of what you call it. Are you suggesting Gregg is above politics and there is no political motivation for his positions? A career politician ..
See, I knew you did not read the link, or if you did, understand the very valid argument. Read the link and get back to me on why the census is at issue politically. I never stated that Gregg was above politics! Man do you always put words and ideas onto others that have never been said or claimed? You claimed he does not want to count blacks or latinos. That is a false and grossly inaccurate statement. Some might even call it hyperbole
Wouldn't that be more than just a bit silly?
What's silly is your thinking you are so right on my brother
Last edited:
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
No comment is even necessary.
You have shown your debate prowess to be equal to your bi-partisanship. Loved your ability to debate that link
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
You have shown your debate prowess to be equal to your bi-partisanship. Loved your ability to debate that link
The good news for me is that my debate prowess is not determined by you .. which is also good news for you because I don't find you much of a debater. You've skipped over and ignored many questions I've asked you .. but wonder why I've not bowed to someone else's opinion in a link. Sorry, don't find you much of an intellectual challenge or even an honest debater.
And, as I've said many times, bipartisanship is for losers.
Leaders lead.
I skipped over no questions that had not already been asked and answered. You may think that asking the same question and or dragging out armies of government funded partisan orgs. is proof of something or that good debate skills are showcased by failing to read something that was offered as a counter point, but I don't.
As to your opinion about what I have offered on this forum? Well, you certainly have run back to this thread to prove how little regard you have of my abilities.