why america is screwed up... PART II
#1
08-22-2006 | 09:01 PM
Thread Starter
|
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,135
From: JACKSON NJ
why america is screwed up... PART II
Don't ask for cliff notes...
This something that is 100% true...
I wrote this up... and even cited sources...
Topic... affirmative action...
_________________
The United States is known as the land of opportunity. Up until a short time ago, every U.S. citizen was given equal opportunity in education and employment regardless of race, sex, religion, or disability. This enabled everyone to be the best that they could be. However, during the mid 60’s, this began to change. Bob Dylan warned that “The times, they are a changin’.” He sang, “The line, it is drawn, the curse, it is cast” then he prophesized that, “the first one now will later be the last” Now, the white male majority is discriminated against.
The better Jobs and Education opportunities are awarded to individuals who are a minority. Now, scholarships are no longer given the most successful students, but to students who are minorities. Someone may be awarded with a job, not because they were the most qualified, but because they are classified as a minority. How can this be allowed? Didn’t Thomas Jefferson say that, “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…?” It seems to me, that in employment and education, all men are not treated equal, and that their rights are being violated by affirmative action.
Employment and Education opportunities that are reserved for someone of a particular race is discrimination. In 1990, a Hispanic student filed suit against the University of Maryland. The student’s mother was born in Costa Rica. He had a 4.0 grade point average and scored 1340 on his SAT’s. His school performances had exceeded that of every other applicant except two. However, he was disqualified for the Banneker Scholarship, which only required a 3.0 average and a 900 SAT, for failing to meet the criteria of “being black.” The Judge ruled in favor of the school who awarded the scholarship to someone less qualified merely because they were “black”
Not only has the U.S. government failed to protect the rights of all citizens in employment and education, but White Male discrimination is encouraged. The government encourages its contractors to practice white male subcontractor discrimination, by ways of providing compensation for doing business with minorities. This was proven true when a Colorado prime contractor, after rejecting a white male’s low subcontracting bid on a highway guardrail job, gave the contract to a Hispanic owned firm and received a ten thousand dollar bonus from the federal road program. For some reason, minorities are considered disadvantaged under federal law. The federal road program, if a subcontractor subs out ten percent of its jobs to “disadvantaged” business enterprise, a 1.5 percent affirmative action bonus is awarded to them. How are these types of discrimination allowed? Doesn’t our constitution prohibit this type of discrimination?
Our constitution clearly does illegalize all types of discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Section 703 clearly states that,
“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…”
In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, this, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination. How can employers and the government manage to get away with these acts of discrimination?
The Pendleton Act of 1883 presented competitive entrance examinations for public employment seekers. The Act gave birth to the merit selection principal. A concept by which members of an organization are selected based on his or her personal achievements. These achievements are measured openly through fair and competitive competition. The white male majority, who founded this nation, prospered and left others behind.
The prospering white male majority and the merit system were then accused of writing “white man’s” laws. It was alleged that employment had been structured with “artificial barriers” in place to impede the advancement of minorities. So, the government decided to lower the standards for individuals who were classified as a minority. Now the best were no longer the best due to their accomplishments, but merely because they were a minority figure.
In March of 1961, John F. Kennedy signed Executive order 10925 which created the President’s Committee on Equal Opportunity. President Lyndon Johnson went on to publicly introduce affirmative action in 1965 as a discrimination neutralizing endeavor for “disadvantaged” groups. Preferential programs were introduced to override the merit system.
These preferential programs were made to ensure success to minority groups. Now a person no longer had to work to become successful, they only had to be black, female or some other type of minority.
This new type of Affirmative Action had diversity power. Recruiting, scholarships, and retention programs began to favor minorities. To help diversify work forces, Test preparation courses, test modification, and test elimination strategies emerged. Affirmative Action quotas resulted in race base selections. In the 1980’s, aptitude tests were introduced with ethnic point spreads.
These programs were discriminatory and very expensive. Not only did they limit what the white male majority could achieve, but they were paid for by the U.S. taxpayers. The Wall street journal released an article that stated, “Estimates have put the annual cost of affirmative action in excess of $100 billion.” Affirmative action is very discriminative and costly to the citizens of the USA.
In June of 1997, the Christian Science monitor reported a case of affirmative action in higher education. Cheryl Hopwood, a very successful student with high grades and test scores applied to the University of Texas law school. However, her application was denied while others with lower grades and test scores were accepted because they were minorities. Cheryl went on to file suit. After years of fighting the school’s decision in court, she won the case and Texas went on to prohibit considering race as a factor for admission and/or aid. Why was there ever a program ever introduced that allowed admission to a law school, not because of school performance, but because of race?
Affirmative action is discrimination and limits the ability of those who are not a minority. Affirmative action polices are used everywhere in employment. What will happen if affirmative action is used in the recruiting process of this country’s police officers, firefighters, and medical technicians? Those important people who are selected to protect the safety and well being of this county’s citizens may not be the best that they can be. Now, a police officer may not have received his or her job because they scored better then everyone else on their proficiency exams, or because they performed better then everyone else in the police academy. They may have been selected merely because they are a minority. While they are protecting us, someone more qualified may be on the unemployment line.
It seems that now, the United States of America is the land of Opportunity only if you are a minority. Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes said, ”We are supposed to be judged as individuals, based on what we are able to achieve.” However, with affirmative action, you do not have to do well or accomplish much, you only have to be a minority to accomplish anything.
“…our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…,” Abraham Lincoln stated in his famous Gettysburg Address. America was founded as a place where everyone is treated equal, however, Affirmative action promotes unequal treatment. America is no longer a place where, if you work hard, you can achieve anything. As an attempt to diversify working America, affirmative action has succeeded. But, its overall effect is much worse. The cost of affirmative action alone has been a burden to the country. However, when someone fails to receive a chance in education or employment that they worked for and may rightfully deserve, then affirmative action is appalling. And when affirmative action pokes it’s head into employment fields such as law enforcement, fire fighting, and medical practice, then it claims more victims outside of employment. Affirmative action is a violation of our Constitutional Rights and it is discrimination.
“Equality consists in the same treatment of similar persons.”
(Aristotle)
This something that is 100% true...
I wrote this up... and even cited sources...
Topic... affirmative action...
_________________
The United States is known as the land of opportunity. Up until a short time ago, every U.S. citizen was given equal opportunity in education and employment regardless of race, sex, religion, or disability. This enabled everyone to be the best that they could be. However, during the mid 60’s, this began to change. Bob Dylan warned that “The times, they are a changin’.” He sang, “The line, it is drawn, the curse, it is cast” then he prophesized that, “the first one now will later be the last” Now, the white male majority is discriminated against.
The better Jobs and Education opportunities are awarded to individuals who are a minority. Now, scholarships are no longer given the most successful students, but to students who are minorities. Someone may be awarded with a job, not because they were the most qualified, but because they are classified as a minority. How can this be allowed? Didn’t Thomas Jefferson say that, “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…?” It seems to me, that in employment and education, all men are not treated equal, and that their rights are being violated by affirmative action.
Employment and Education opportunities that are reserved for someone of a particular race is discrimination. In 1990, a Hispanic student filed suit against the University of Maryland. The student’s mother was born in Costa Rica. He had a 4.0 grade point average and scored 1340 on his SAT’s. His school performances had exceeded that of every other applicant except two. However, he was disqualified for the Banneker Scholarship, which only required a 3.0 average and a 900 SAT, for failing to meet the criteria of “being black.” The Judge ruled in favor of the school who awarded the scholarship to someone less qualified merely because they were “black”
Not only has the U.S. government failed to protect the rights of all citizens in employment and education, but White Male discrimination is encouraged. The government encourages its contractors to practice white male subcontractor discrimination, by ways of providing compensation for doing business with minorities. This was proven true when a Colorado prime contractor, after rejecting a white male’s low subcontracting bid on a highway guardrail job, gave the contract to a Hispanic owned firm and received a ten thousand dollar bonus from the federal road program. For some reason, minorities are considered disadvantaged under federal law. The federal road program, if a subcontractor subs out ten percent of its jobs to “disadvantaged” business enterprise, a 1.5 percent affirmative action bonus is awarded to them. How are these types of discrimination allowed? Doesn’t our constitution prohibit this type of discrimination?
Our constitution clearly does illegalize all types of discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Section 703 clearly states that,
“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…”
In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, this, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination. How can employers and the government manage to get away with these acts of discrimination?
The Pendleton Act of 1883 presented competitive entrance examinations for public employment seekers. The Act gave birth to the merit selection principal. A concept by which members of an organization are selected based on his or her personal achievements. These achievements are measured openly through fair and competitive competition. The white male majority, who founded this nation, prospered and left others behind.
The prospering white male majority and the merit system were then accused of writing “white man’s” laws. It was alleged that employment had been structured with “artificial barriers” in place to impede the advancement of minorities. So, the government decided to lower the standards for individuals who were classified as a minority. Now the best were no longer the best due to their accomplishments, but merely because they were a minority figure.
In March of 1961, John F. Kennedy signed Executive order 10925 which created the President’s Committee on Equal Opportunity. President Lyndon Johnson went on to publicly introduce affirmative action in 1965 as a discrimination neutralizing endeavor for “disadvantaged” groups. Preferential programs were introduced to override the merit system.
These preferential programs were made to ensure success to minority groups. Now a person no longer had to work to become successful, they only had to be black, female or some other type of minority.
This new type of Affirmative Action had diversity power. Recruiting, scholarships, and retention programs began to favor minorities. To help diversify work forces, Test preparation courses, test modification, and test elimination strategies emerged. Affirmative Action quotas resulted in race base selections. In the 1980’s, aptitude tests were introduced with ethnic point spreads.
These programs were discriminatory and very expensive. Not only did they limit what the white male majority could achieve, but they were paid for by the U.S. taxpayers. The Wall street journal released an article that stated, “Estimates have put the annual cost of affirmative action in excess of $100 billion.” Affirmative action is very discriminative and costly to the citizens of the USA.
In June of 1997, the Christian Science monitor reported a case of affirmative action in higher education. Cheryl Hopwood, a very successful student with high grades and test scores applied to the University of Texas law school. However, her application was denied while others with lower grades and test scores were accepted because they were minorities. Cheryl went on to file suit. After years of fighting the school’s decision in court, she won the case and Texas went on to prohibit considering race as a factor for admission and/or aid. Why was there ever a program ever introduced that allowed admission to a law school, not because of school performance, but because of race?
Affirmative action is discrimination and limits the ability of those who are not a minority. Affirmative action polices are used everywhere in employment. What will happen if affirmative action is used in the recruiting process of this country’s police officers, firefighters, and medical technicians? Those important people who are selected to protect the safety and well being of this county’s citizens may not be the best that they can be. Now, a police officer may not have received his or her job because they scored better then everyone else on their proficiency exams, or because they performed better then everyone else in the police academy. They may have been selected merely because they are a minority. While they are protecting us, someone more qualified may be on the unemployment line.
It seems that now, the United States of America is the land of Opportunity only if you are a minority. Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes said, ”We are supposed to be judged as individuals, based on what we are able to achieve.” However, with affirmative action, you do not have to do well or accomplish much, you only have to be a minority to accomplish anything.
“…our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…,” Abraham Lincoln stated in his famous Gettysburg Address. America was founded as a place where everyone is treated equal, however, Affirmative action promotes unequal treatment. America is no longer a place where, if you work hard, you can achieve anything. As an attempt to diversify working America, affirmative action has succeeded. But, its overall effect is much worse. The cost of affirmative action alone has been a burden to the country. However, when someone fails to receive a chance in education or employment that they worked for and may rightfully deserve, then affirmative action is appalling. And when affirmative action pokes it’s head into employment fields such as law enforcement, fire fighting, and medical practice, then it claims more victims outside of employment. Affirmative action is a violation of our Constitutional Rights and it is discrimination.
“Equality consists in the same treatment of similar persons.”
(Aristotle)
#2
08-22-2006 | 09:03 PM
Thread Starter
|
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,135
From: JACKSON NJ
sources
BOOKS
• Whitaker, William A. WHITE MALE APPLICANT : An Affirmative Action Expose’ Smyrna DE: APROPOS PRESS, 1996.
• Multiple Authors. DISRIMINATION : OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS. California: Greenhaven Press, 1997
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
• Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence
• Multiple Authors. The US Constitution : The Bill of Rights
HISTORICAL SPEECHES
• Abraham Lincoln. The Gettysburg Address
Internet Recources
• Alan Keyes. www.fightthisbias.com/Quotes/alan_Keyes.htm
• Aristotle. www.giga-usa.com/quotes/topics/equality_t001.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an old post... wanted to see what some of the new members think... Could a mod close the ol' 1 please
BOOKS
• Whitaker, William A. WHITE MALE APPLICANT : An Affirmative Action Expose’ Smyrna DE: APROPOS PRESS, 1996.
• Multiple Authors. DISRIMINATION : OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS. California: Greenhaven Press, 1997
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
• Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence
• Multiple Authors. The US Constitution : The Bill of Rights
HISTORICAL SPEECHES
• Abraham Lincoln. The Gettysburg Address
Internet Recources
• Alan Keyes. www.fightthisbias.com/Quotes/alan_Keyes.htm
• Aristotle. www.giga-usa.com/quotes/topics/equality_t001.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an old post... wanted to see what some of the new members think... Could a mod close the ol' 1 please
#3
08-23-2006 | 06:59 PM
Senior Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 544
From: OH
I don't like AA at all (not refering to Alcoholic's Annoymous). I don't have a problem with other races and women having the same pay and rights and what-not as white males, but I think they take it too far. They think they should have more opportunities and stuff then white males because they "suffered" for so long. I didn't pay anyone less then me and I didn't refuse to hire anyone based on sex, religion, race etc. so I don't see why I have to be a victim of AA.
Just my $.02
P.S. I didn't mean this to sound like I don't think everyone should have the same opportunities as any other person in this country, I'm just saying that the way most "under-privilaged" people take it is that they can have more opportunities because they didn't have as many in the past. That is what I think it wrong.
Just my $.02
P.S. I didn't mean this to sound like I don't think everyone should have the same opportunities as any other person in this country, I'm just saying that the way most "under-privilaged" people take it is that they can have more opportunities because they didn't have as many in the past. That is what I think it wrong.
#4
08-24-2006 | 06:49 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,095
From: Ft Wayne, IN
I understand the original intent of the law. When AA came about black students and workers where not given the same oppourtunities as whites.
The fact of the matter remains that a higher percentage of whites go to college and get better jobs than blacks.
That being said I have a problem with the government telling someone who they can and cant hire, If some ahole hates blacks and only wants to work with whites he should be able to do so if he chooses, same way if he wants to work with only blacks. I feel the same way about smoking laws in bars, I think the government should not be able to control smoking in a privatly owned place of business, if non smokers (which I am) doesnt like it, they can leave.
The fact of the matter remains that a higher percentage of whites go to college and get better jobs than blacks.
That being said I have a problem with the government telling someone who they can and cant hire, If some ahole hates blacks and only wants to work with whites he should be able to do so if he chooses, same way if he wants to work with only blacks. I feel the same way about smoking laws in bars, I think the government should not be able to control smoking in a privatly owned place of business, if non smokers (which I am) doesnt like it, they can leave.
#5
08-24-2006 | 10:26 AM
jjtgiants
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,177
From: Dublin, CA
Originally Posted by 04DarkShadowGT
I understand the original intent of the law. When AA came about black students and workers where not given the same oppourtunities as whites.
The fact of the matter remains that a higher percentage of whites go to college and get better jobs than blacks.
That being said I have a problem with the government telling someone who they can and cant hire, If some ahole hates blacks and only wants to work with whites he should be able to do so if he chooses, same way if he wants to work with only blacks. I feel the same way about smoking laws in bars, I think the government should not be able to control smoking in a privatly owned place of business, if non smokers (which I am) doesnt like it, they can leave.
The fact of the matter remains that a higher percentage of whites go to college and get better jobs than blacks.
That being said I have a problem with the government telling someone who they can and cant hire, If some ahole hates blacks and only wants to work with whites he should be able to do so if he chooses, same way if he wants to work with only blacks. I feel the same way about smoking laws in bars, I think the government should not be able to control smoking in a privatly owned place of business, if non smokers (which I am) doesnt like it, they can leave.
When you have opportunities handed to you or have a stable home life where your family supports you in going to school it makes it a lot easier to sit back and say "well, I did it and it was tough, so why can't they". It's not that simple and I don't even try to pretent what it's like to live in the ghetto and be poor...but we shouldn't deny a kid that is smart and poor the same opportunity that someone with money has.....now I feel that way about all races of kids. So yes, AA is needed in that sense. Now, I wish we would get to a point where we didn't need AA in the work place because it should be who's qualified not what color they are.
As for saying the government shouldn't be able to tell a private business owner people can't smoke in the bar or restaurant...F that, yes they should. It's a public health risk to people around the smoker and if you don't believe me I'll send you documents from the United States Surgeon General that states second hand smoke is a public health risk. So why should everyone around that person be exposed to it just because that person decides to smoke?? That is the best law on the books in Cali and you know I've said this before, but you guys get so up in arms about this because you feel like it's taking away your "freedoms", but your freedoms don't include harming the health of others. I have the same freedom to be in that bar as a non-smoker, but that smoker does not have the freedom to harm my health! So why should I have to leave and not him???
People in Cali were PISSED off when this law went on the books and every bar and restaurant owner in Cali said they were going to be put out of business and it didn't happen and business didn't even suffer cause smokers just went right out side and did there thing.
It was the same things with motorcycle helmets....people were pissed off, but you know what it's saved a lot of their lives so they can just get over it! I'm not for government sticking their nose in everything, but there job is to protect health, welfare, safety, and freedoms of Americans so if they need pass a law that protects me from second hand smoke in indoor places then by all means go for it...and if that smoker wants to smoke in their home or in their car or outside then I don't give a rats ***.
Carry on! ha ha
#7
08-24-2006 | 12:12 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,095
From: Ft Wayne, IN
Originally Posted by jjtgiants
As for saying the government shouldn't be able to tell a private business owner people can't smoke in the bar or restaurant...F that, yes they should. It's a public health risk to people around the smoker and if you don't believe me I'll send you documents from the United States Surgeon General that states second hand smoke is a public health risk. So why should everyone around that person be exposed to it just because that person decides to smoke?? That is the best law on the books in Cali and you know I've said this before, but you guys get so up in arms about this because you feel like it's taking away your "freedoms", but your freedoms don't include harming the health of others. I have the same freedom to be in that bar as a non-smoker, but that smoker does not have the freedom to harm my health! So why should I have to leave and not him???
It would be no different if the government outlawed Beer anywhere but in the home. Beer can be dangerous too.
#8
08-24-2006 | 04:23 PM
jjtgiants
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,177
From: Dublin, CA
Originally Posted by 04DarkShadowGT
No one is arguing that second hand smoke is harmful, I am not a smoker and do not like smoking or smelling it. That being said as long as it is legal to smoke in the USA imo it should be up to the business owner to allow smoking or not. If you as a non smoker and do not want to be around smoke, its quite simple, eat elsewhere.
It would be no different if the government outlawed Beer anywhere but in the home. Beer can be dangerous too.
It would be no different if the government outlawed Beer anywhere but in the home. Beer can be dangerous too.
Oh, and yes beer can be dangerous when people drink and drive...ect...but if I'm sitting there having a beer, the smell or oder of my beer doesn't drift over into the baby's lungs sitting 3 tables over. So it's apples and oranges, but we can keep going if you'd like.
#9
08-24-2006 | 04:34 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
All i know is this country is filled with a bunch of bitchy crybabys who get all offended at other people, so all these ****ed up laws get put in place and make it a worse place to live.
Anti Smoking laws are bull****, i can understand office enviornments and such, but when it comes to bars and restaraunts it should be up to the owners of the establishment to make the decision.
As for the 2nd hand smoke, ok, yeah, if you spend all damn day in a room with a smoker or driving around with a smoker i can see it, but there is no evidence that going to a restaraunt and smelling somone's smoke will cause cancer. Get ****in real, for christs sake, people will sit for an hour in gridlock traffic suckin up exhaust fumes then say the slight smell of somone's cigar is gonna give em cancer? ARE YOU KIDDING ME????
Here is a great one, i love this law. WALKING WHILE IMPARED.
Check this out. There is a bar about a 10 minuit walk or 1 minuit drive near my house.
I could
A) Drive to the bar, get drunk, and drive home, figuring it is relativly safe because i drive the equivalant of 4 city blocks when the roads are deserted.
B) Go to the bar and WALK home, however, if im walking for 10 minuits there is a higher chance of getting spotted by the police, which they WILL pull up next to me and throw me in DETOX if i so much as have a single beer.
Right now, DRIVING DRUNK seems the safest bet.
However, i have lately been taking taxi rides home. $4.25 to go home. Safter all the way around, but i STILL dont understand why if i WALK home i will be thrown in DETOX and have to pay $450 to get out. SHouldnt they say "Thankyou for not driving??"
Here, let me rant on another subject.
YOU CAN NOT BUY ANY ACHOHOL OVER 3.2% ON SUNDAY IN COLORADO.
Waita minuit.... so..... if i want to have a shot and a beer, and i dont already have it in the safety of my own home, i have to drive to a BAR and order it THERE and drink it THERE and then DRIVE HOME after drinking?
Doesent that sound like they are ENCOURAGING drinking and driving?
Thiss couiyntry is going to **** on many levels. They used to teach TOLERANCE, but now why TOLERATE something if you can get a lawsuit against it and win?
Im sick of other people telling me how to run my life, what i can watch, where i can go, what i can listen to.
People in this country are too goddamn spoiled. They dont appreciate freedom anymore and love nothing more than to bar other peoples freedom for thier own selfish needs.
End rant.
Anti Smoking laws are bull****, i can understand office enviornments and such, but when it comes to bars and restaraunts it should be up to the owners of the establishment to make the decision.
As for the 2nd hand smoke, ok, yeah, if you spend all damn day in a room with a smoker or driving around with a smoker i can see it, but there is no evidence that going to a restaraunt and smelling somone's smoke will cause cancer. Get ****in real, for christs sake, people will sit for an hour in gridlock traffic suckin up exhaust fumes then say the slight smell of somone's cigar is gonna give em cancer? ARE YOU KIDDING ME????
Here is a great one, i love this law. WALKING WHILE IMPARED.
Check this out. There is a bar about a 10 minuit walk or 1 minuit drive near my house.
I could
A) Drive to the bar, get drunk, and drive home, figuring it is relativly safe because i drive the equivalant of 4 city blocks when the roads are deserted.
B) Go to the bar and WALK home, however, if im walking for 10 minuits there is a higher chance of getting spotted by the police, which they WILL pull up next to me and throw me in DETOX if i so much as have a single beer.
Right now, DRIVING DRUNK seems the safest bet.
However, i have lately been taking taxi rides home. $4.25 to go home. Safter all the way around, but i STILL dont understand why if i WALK home i will be thrown in DETOX and have to pay $450 to get out. SHouldnt they say "Thankyou for not driving??"
Here, let me rant on another subject.
YOU CAN NOT BUY ANY ACHOHOL OVER 3.2% ON SUNDAY IN COLORADO.
Waita minuit.... so..... if i want to have a shot and a beer, and i dont already have it in the safety of my own home, i have to drive to a BAR and order it THERE and drink it THERE and then DRIVE HOME after drinking?
Doesent that sound like they are ENCOURAGING drinking and driving?
Thiss couiyntry is going to **** on many levels. They used to teach TOLERANCE, but now why TOLERATE something if you can get a lawsuit against it and win?
Im sick of other people telling me how to run my life, what i can watch, where i can go, what i can listen to.
People in this country are too goddamn spoiled. They dont appreciate freedom anymore and love nothing more than to bar other peoples freedom for thier own selfish needs.
End rant.
#10
08-24-2006 | 05:23 PM
Thread Starter
|
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,135
From: JACKSON NJ
Originally Posted by jjtgiants
Well, I agree with the first to paragraph's of your statement because I know several black and latino people who are a product of AA and if it wasn't for it they wouldn't have had the opportunity to attend college.....I'm hoping someday we don't need it, but the fact is that if you look at drop out rates, income and many other indicators show people other races besides whites, and maybe asians as a whole are still below where whites are in terms of education and job pay.
When you have opportunities handed to you or have a stable home life where your family supports you in going to school it makes it a lot easier to sit back and say "well, I did it and it was tough, so why can't they". It's not that simple and I don't even try to pretent what it's like to live in the ghetto and be poor...but we shouldn't deny a kid that is smart and poor the same opportunity that someone with money has.....now I feel that way about all races of kids. So yes, AA is needed in that sense. Now, I wish we would get to a point where we didn't need AA in the work place because it should be who's qualified not what color they are.
As for saying the government shouldn't be able to tell a private business owner people can't smoke in the bar or restaurant...F that, yes they should. It's a public health risk to people around the smoker and if you don't believe me I'll send you documents from the United States Surgeon General that states second hand smoke is a public health risk. So why should everyone around that person be exposed to it just because that person decides to smoke?? That is the best law on the books in Cali and you know I've said this before, but you guys get so up in arms about this because you feel like it's taking away your "freedoms", but your freedoms don't include harming the health of others. I have the same freedom to be in that bar as a non-smoker, but that smoker does not have the freedom to harm my health! So why should I have to leave and not him???
People in Cali were PISSED off when this law went on the books and every bar and restaurant owner in Cali said they were going to be put out of business and it didn't happen and business didn't even suffer cause smokers just went right out side and did there thing.
It was the same things with motorcycle helmets....people were pissed off, but you know what it's saved a lot of their lives so they can just get over it! I'm not for government sticking their nose in everything, but there job is to protect health, welfare, safety, and freedoms of Americans so if they need pass a law that protects me from second hand smoke in indoor places then by all means go for it...and if that smoker wants to smoke in their home or in their car or outside then I don't give a rats ***.
Carry on! ha ha
When you have opportunities handed to you or have a stable home life where your family supports you in going to school it makes it a lot easier to sit back and say "well, I did it and it was tough, so why can't they". It's not that simple and I don't even try to pretent what it's like to live in the ghetto and be poor...but we shouldn't deny a kid that is smart and poor the same opportunity that someone with money has.....now I feel that way about all races of kids. So yes, AA is needed in that sense. Now, I wish we would get to a point where we didn't need AA in the work place because it should be who's qualified not what color they are.
As for saying the government shouldn't be able to tell a private business owner people can't smoke in the bar or restaurant...F that, yes they should. It's a public health risk to people around the smoker and if you don't believe me I'll send you documents from the United States Surgeon General that states second hand smoke is a public health risk. So why should everyone around that person be exposed to it just because that person decides to smoke?? That is the best law on the books in Cali and you know I've said this before, but you guys get so up in arms about this because you feel like it's taking away your "freedoms", but your freedoms don't include harming the health of others. I have the same freedom to be in that bar as a non-smoker, but that smoker does not have the freedom to harm my health! So why should I have to leave and not him???
People in Cali were PISSED off when this law went on the books and every bar and restaurant owner in Cali said they were going to be put out of business and it didn't happen and business didn't even suffer cause smokers just went right out side and did there thing.
It was the same things with motorcycle helmets....people were pissed off, but you know what it's saved a lot of their lives so they can just get over it! I'm not for government sticking their nose in everything, but there job is to protect health, welfare, safety, and freedoms of Americans so if they need pass a law that protects me from second hand smoke in indoor places then by all means go for it...and if that smoker wants to smoke in their home or in their car or outside then I don't give a rats ***.
Carry on! ha ha
Its race based which is wrong...
Now... if a person is dirt **** in the ghetto but would is capable of doing something yet doesn't have the money... then give to them... whether they be black, white, mexican, asian, or from finland... that shouldn't matter AT ALL...
thats why AA is wrong...
Just because the blacks more often then not live in poverty doesn't mean that they should receive more government graces then a white male...
Now if a white guy lives in a shed and can't afford school... he gets no help from AA, but a minority in the same shoes will... Is that what this county was founded on? Does that sound equal?
#11
08-24-2006 | 07:42 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,095
From: Ft Wayne, IN
Originally Posted by jjtgiants
Nope, the smoker can eat else where cause my eating there doesn't affect the little kid sitting next to me or 4 tables accross from me. But he does!
I guess I just dont think that someone should tell me how I should run my own business. I would assume all risks of losing business either way depending on my choice but it is a risk I think the owner should be able to make for themselves.
It all boils down to if you dont like what is going on at a particualr joint, dont go there. Give your business to another place.
#12
08-25-2006 | 08:04 AM
Cops Love Me!
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,499
From: Winder, GA
Originally Posted by jjtgiants
Nope, the smoker can eat else where cause my eating there doesn't affect the little kid sitting next to me or 4 tables accross from me. But he does!
Oh, and yes beer can be dangerous when people drink and drive...ect...but if I'm sitting there having a beer, the smell or oder of my beer doesn't drift over into the baby's lungs sitting 3 tables over. So it's apples and oranges, but we can keep going if you'd like.
Oh, and yes beer can be dangerous when people drink and drive...ect...but if I'm sitting there having a beer, the smell or oder of my beer doesn't drift over into the baby's lungs sitting 3 tables over. So it's apples and oranges, but we can keep going if you'd like.
My grandfather smoked (filterless) for over 60 years, never a problem with cancer or anything! Everyone that smokes, or who is around 2nd hand smoke will get harmed by it, it all depends on the person and their immune system...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Shorties2001gt
Modular 4.6L Tech
3
03-18-2011 10:27 PM
