University says it’s too white and asks how they can reduce the number of white students:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I don’t really think it’s about a matter of evidence. I think I provided plenty… If it were about fraud then Repubs would have also gone after absentee ballots, as there is more documented fraud there than in person voting.
What gets me is everyone on their political sides. For dems, they cover their heads in the sand when it comes to things like NSA, Obama’s various promises about Guantanamo and rights to privacy, things he campaigned on he doesn’t stay honest about.
With Repubs, you guys bury your heads in the sand when it comes to… Voting rights? WTF… You supposed Red Blooded patriots. You have fire and angst for people like Pelosi and the right to bear arms, good 'Merican shit right? This is some real Red China shit with the voter sequestration attempts, and you guys aren’t pulling your 'Mericuh stuff… WTF? I don’t want any of you fuckers claiming to be a proud American if you are okay with this bullshit voter I.D. Gambit. This voter shit is some shit I’d expect to see in a 3rd world country without electricity and a dictator in office. Guess all you repubs dont really have a sack when it comes down to it. Just like Romney’s whole family line, none of which ever served or took part in a war. Bunch of fake shits.
Repubs and Dems are sellouts. To what? To some parties that don’t even represent you?
[/quote]
Voter fraud on this scale is something I’d expect to see in a third world country.
'It�?�¢??s an article of the faith of the Democrats that voter fraud is nothing to worry about because it never happens. Kim Strach, the North Carolina director of elections, has living proof �?�¢?? and some dead proof �?�¢?? otherwise.
She has identified 35,750 persons who voted in North Carolina sharing a name and birth date with someone who voted in another state in 2012. Another 81 North Carolinians voted after they died. Ghosts have no constitutional rights, not yet, but Barack Obama and the Democrats think rigor mortis need not keep voters from practicing good citizenship.’
Maybe if you put your fingers in your ears and shout ‘nah! nah! nah! nah!,’ you can keep believing the 1 in 15 million bullshit.[/quote]
You mean, the one in N. Carolina that is currently being investigated? It’s still being investigated. There have been similar probes in places like Iowa that cost tax payer money that showed there is insignificant voter fraud there as well. But, go ahead… You guys will keep spending money to investigate this sort of stuff to achieve your political ends, and then out of the other side of your mouths whine and complain about taxes… Ask me, it’s typical.
Who knows? Maybe there is some fraud going on in N.C. But there isn’t any legitimate evidence of it yet, and on the contrary it looks like the initial findings are a bunch of bullshit. You are quick to jump on the bandwagon even though similar claims have been made elsewhere only to find out that upon closer scrutiny it’s insignificant, and costing taxpayers money.
Go on, spend those tax dollars Republican. Keep fishing for that red herring so you can prevent minorities from voting again. Good job, red blooded patriot… Hope you sleep well and think long and hard about it when it turns out to be more bullshit, just like happened in Iowa…
What’s really sad is this… Your party is spending those tax dollar to investigate some shit because you all hope so fucking dearly that there is fraud, so that you can prevent minority voting under some other guise.
Cant’ you see through the bullshit man?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
University says it’s too white and asks how they can reduce the number of white students:
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5549[/quote]
Oh no.
So, if I were to point out that in places like Harvard and other Ivy League schools, there are heaps and heaps of Amerasian students that are passed up because of alma mater and donation politics?
So, your saying it’s okay for a smarter, in some cases a much smarter kid to get passed up because someone’s mom or gramps went to Harvard? Naaah, never happens.
We all get that an education costs money. I don’t know, maybe we should make universities all private, that way we can get all the wealthy people educated from places like the United States, Japan, Saudi Arabia… Oh wait, we already do that. Which implies that there are already a lot of minority and poor U.S. students that don’t end up with an education because of lack of money.
If you look further into it, do you think the disparity is greater among ethnic minorities, or whites? What does that tell you?
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I don’t really think it’s about a matter of evidence. I think I provided plenty… If it were about fraud then Repubs would have also gone after absentee ballots, as there is more documented fraud there than in person voting.
What gets me is everyone on their political sides. For dems, they cover their heads in the sand when it comes to things like NSA, Obama’s various promises about Guantanamo and rights to privacy, things he campaigned on he doesn’t stay honest about.
With Repubs, you guys bury your heads in the sand when it comes to… Voting rights? WTF… You supposed Red Blooded patriots. You have fire and angst for people like Pelosi and the right to bear arms, good 'Merican shit right? This is some real Red China shit with the voter sequestration attempts, and you guys aren’t pulling your 'Mericuh stuff… WTF? I don’t want any of you fuckers claiming to be a proud American if you are okay with this bullshit voter I.D. Gambit. This voter shit is some shit I’d expect to see in a 3rd world country without electricity and a dictator in office. Guess all you repubs dont really have a sack when it comes down to it. Just like Romney’s whole family line, none of which ever served or took part in a war. Bunch of fake shits.
Repubs and Dems are sellouts. To what? To some parties that don’t even represent you?
[/quote]
Voter fraud on this scale is something I’d expect to see in a third world country.
'It�??�?�¢??s an article of the faith of the Democrats that voter fraud is nothing to worry about because it never happens. Kim Strach, the North Carolina director of elections, has living proof �??�?�¢?? and some dead proof �??�?�¢?? otherwise.
She has identified 35,750 persons who voted in North Carolina sharing a name and birth date with someone who voted in another state in 2012. Another 81 North Carolinians voted after they died. Ghosts have no constitutional rights, not yet, but Barack Obama and the Democrats think rigor mortis need not keep voters from practicing good citizenship.’
Maybe if you put your fingers in your ears and shout ‘nah! nah! nah! nah!,’ you can keep believing the 1 in 15 million bullshit.[/quote]
You mean, the one in N. Carolina that is currently being investigated? It’s still being investigated. There have been similar probes in places like Iowa that cost tax payer money that showed there is insignificant voter fraud there as well. But, go ahead… You guys will keep spending money to investigate this sort of stuff to achieve your political ends, and then out of the other side of your mouths whine and complain about taxes… Ask me, it’s typical.
Who knows? Maybe there is some fraud going on in N.C. But there isn’t any legitimate evidence of it yet, and on the contrary it looks like the initial findings are a bunch of bullshit. You are quick to jump on the bandwagon even though similar claims have been made elsewhere only to find out that upon closer scrutiny it’s insignificant, and costing taxpayers money.
Go on, spend those tax dollars Republican. Keep fishing for that red herring so you can prevent minorities from voting again. Good job, red blooded patriot… Hope you sleep well and think long and hard about it when it turns out to be more bullshit, just like happened in Iowa…
What’s really sad is this… Your party is spending those tax dollar to investigate some shit because you all hope so fucking dearly that there is fraud, so that you can prevent minority voting under some other guise.
Cant’ you see through the bullshit man?
[/quote]
I only care about dogs, dead people and illegals voting. But you keep pretending otherwise if you like.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Oh no.
So, if I were to point out that in places like Harvard and other Ivy League schools, there are heaps and heaps of Amerasian students that are passed up because of alma mater and donation politics?
[/quote]
Not sure how that changes anything I said.
Is that what I said? You like to throw red herrings around don’t you?
[quote]
We all get that an education costs money. I don’t know, maybe we should make universities all private, that way we can get all the wealthy people educated from places like the United States, Japan, Saudi Arabia… Oh wait, we already do that. Which implies that there are already a lot of minority and poor U.S. students that don’t end up with an education because of lack of money.
If you look further into it, do you think the disparity is greater among ethnic minorities, or whites? What does that tell you? [/quote]
I’m not talking about disparity. I just posted an example of left-wing craziness.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Oh no.
So, if I were to point out that in places like Harvard and other Ivy League schools, there are heaps and heaps of Amerasian students that are passed up because of alma mater and donation politics?
[/quote]
Not sure how that changes anything I said.
Is that what I said? You like to throw red herrings around don’t you?
[quote]
We all get that an education costs money. I don’t know, maybe we should make universities all private, that way we can get all the wealthy people educated from places like the United States, Japan, Saudi Arabia… Oh wait, we already do that. Which implies that there are already a lot of minority and poor U.S. students that don’t end up with an education because of lack of money.
If you look further into it, do you think the disparity is greater among ethnic minorities, or whites? What does that tell you? [/quote]
I’m not talking about disparity. I just posted an example of left-wing craziness.[/quote]
There’s craziness on both sides.
Problem is so many are quick to point out the craziness of the opposing party while they have a plank in their eye when it comes to acknowledging the problems of their own.
Like you, claiming conservatives only want to be left alone.
There’s two sides to every story. You seem to be the sort to do things like look at the few examples where whites experience discrimination, but you are like a fucking newborn when it comes to recognizing white privilege and how it applies to Ivy League. Are you even open to learning about the other side, or are you only interested in what your party has to say? Maybe the Koch brothers and all their bullshit can enlighten you.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
There’s craziness on both sides.
Problem is so many are quick to point out the craziness of the opposing party while they have a plank in their eye when it comes to acknowledging the problems of their own.
[/quote]
I never mentioned parties. You are the one who keeps bringing everything back to party politics.
I’m not speaking for everyone who labels themselves a conservative. I’m speaking about the conservative movement in general.
Princeton and Harvard are ultra-liberal campuses.
I’ve heard a great deal of what the Democrats have to say. Much of it is extremely concerning and depressing.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
There’s craziness on both sides.
Problem is so many are quick to point out the craziness of the opposing party while they have a plank in their eye when it comes to acknowledging the problems of their own.
[/quote]
I never mentioned parties. You are the one who keeps bringing everything back to party politics.
I’m not speaking for everyone who labels themselves a conservative. I’m speaking about the conservative movement in general.
Princeton and Harvard are ultra-liberal campuses.
I’ve heard a great deal of what the Democrats have to say. Much of it is extremely concerning and depressing.
[/quote]
Princeton and Harvard are campuses that have lots of liberals but still things like white privilege don’t escape them. They are actually places that acknowledge the problem.
You hear what democrats have to say? Or do you hear 2nd hand what democrats have to say via conservatives who tweak their message to piss you off? The Koch brothers are masters of this and seem to own the, “Tea party.”
Same dudes who want to drug test welfare folks, but then when it ends up costing shit loads of money and proves to not really catch anyone, you just point the finger cry about wasted tax dollars while their buddy who owns the drug testing company gets paid. Aren’t you tired of being manipulated?
What’s worse is they always target programs that help the needy and scorn taxes that hit the top 1%. You have some people living on government peanut butter and cheese, having that threatened. And other people fretting over whether they should own a 5th summer home claiming the poor are thieves while they find little avenues to write off the spa or restaurant attached to the resort they own as a tax writeoff. I’m not joking.
There are an incredible amount of rebates and gambits for the wealthy to legally evade paying taxes. Fuckers get loop holes written into law every single year… Me, I pay lol, and I don’t make shit. After cost of living, food, insurance, bills I’m not able to save. I’m content, I have work, so I have things to be happy about overall. But I’m not going to pretend to myself that things are fair or that either party is honest.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Princeton and Harvard are campuses that have lots of liberals but still things like white privilege don’t escape them. They are actually places that acknowledge the problem.
You hear what democrats have to say? Or do you hear 2nd hand what democrats have to say via conservatives who tweak their message to piss you off? The Koch brothers are masters of this and seem to own the, “Tea party.”
[/quote]
I hear what liberals say firsthand and it’s extremely concerning. For example Obama during the '08 campaign saying he was going to create a ‘civilian force just as powerful and well funded as the military.’ Advocating the creation of brownshirts should concern any normal person who knows anything about history. But the mainstream media just ignored it.
After WWII traditional conservatism and libertarianism merged together to create a uniquely American form of conservatism. I think you’ll find that most American conservatives don’t support drug testing welfare recipients.
That’s nonsense. Show me one conservative that advocates lower taxes for the rich. They advocate lower taxes for everyone.
Many conservatives have advocated a true flat tax rate. That sounds much more reasonable than liberal class warfare IMO.
Are you aware of the impact of something like a flat tax?
Last I checked it leads to exactly what I was saying, but I haven’t researched it in a while. If I remember right it basically engineers lower taxes on the top 1% but I’m just shooting from the hip, I’d have to look at it some more… I’m just taking a, “wild guess.” As when you look into these issues someone’s interest is found on the 2nd page.
I’d wager there are some pretty nice benefits for the top 1% in a flat tax, just saying before I research… Do you think my prediction will be wrong?
About the drug testing thing… Who supported it so vehemently in Fl where it was being proposed? Last I checked it was Conservative Republicans that want all up in your bedroom, all up in your drugs, but only if your on welfare.
So, I haven’t read a ton about it. But with the flat tax where does the income from taxes come from?
If you want to keep it fair, you need to not tax the very bottom as things are now.
If people at the middle to the very top are taxed the same, that would mathematically mean that middle income people would be taxed MORE if we are to be able to afford all of our costs.
It’s basically a pro corporate tax man… Who sold you that bullshit?
George W? Looking to hook up their corporate buddies is all. See though the bullshit already. It’s bullshit!
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Are you aware of the impact of something like a flat tax?
Last I checked it leads to exactly what I was saying, but I haven’t researched it in a while. If I remember right it basically engineers lower taxes on the top 1% but I’m just shooting from the hip, I’d have to look at it some more… I’m just taking a, “wild guess.” As when you look into these issues someone’s interest is found on the 2nd page.
I’d wager there are some pretty nice benefits for the top 1% in a flat tax, just saying before I research… Do you think my prediction will be wrong?
About the drug testing thing… Who supported it so vehemently in Fl where it was being proposed? Last I checked it was Conservative Republicans that want all up in your bedroom, all up in your drugs, but only if your on welfare. [/quote]
‘A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all income with no deductions or exemptions.’ - wikipedia
[quote]Severiano wrote:
So, I haven’t read a ton about it. But with the flat tax where does the income from taxes come from?
[/quote]
? Individual and corporate income. Where else?
Ah no. That’s unfair as it would only target the middle and upper class.
A true flat tax rate taxes everyone proportionally the same.
[quote]
It’s basically a pro corporate tax man… Who sold you that bullshit?
George W? Looking to hook up their corporate buddies is all. See though the bullshit already. It’s bullshit! [/quote]
Sigh…
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
So, I haven’t read a ton about it. But with the flat tax where does the income from taxes come from?
[/quote]
? Individual and corporate income. Where else?
Ah no. That’s unfair as it would only target the middle and upper class.
A true flat tax rate taxes everyone proportionally the same.
[quote]
It’s basically a pro corporate tax man… Who sold you that bullshit?
George W? Looking to hook up their corporate buddies is all. See though the bullshit already. It’s bullshit! [/quote]
Sigh…[/quote]
Yeah buddy. I’m sure that flat tax would benefit small businesses the same way it would Corps like Walmart. Would do great for the middle class as well, all while lowering the cost for the top 1%. It’s totally mathematically feasible.
You really believe that shit don’t you…
Even assuming a flat tax had a disproportionate impact on the poor, it has the benefit of being readily understandable and easy to apply. You no longer have to worry about the IRS crushing you with the most arcane and protean statutes known to man.
That is a net plus for everyone; rich or poor.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Gay Obama supporter and internet blogger Andrew Sullivan says ‘that the liberals are guilty of "trying to use easy remedies for a problem that knows no easy remedies; using the language of rights in an area where it is impossible to avoid the language of goods…’
[/quote]
Pretty much the issue in a nutshell. I find it somewhat disquieting of talking about rights as a means to compel another’s action.
[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Gay Obama supporter and internet blogger Andrew Sullivan says ‘that the liberals are guilty of "trying to use easy remedies for a problem that knows no easy remedies; using the language of rights in an area where it is impossible to avoid the language of goods…’
[/quote]
Pretty much the issue in a nutshell. I find it somewhat disquieting of talking about rights as a means to compel another’s action.
[/quote]
I don’t think there are competing rights. You cannot ever compare two rights of two people and start asking which one wins. If your equation is looking like that at all, the math somewhere is wrong
Some rights do compete, particularly when they both have a fundamental status. For instance, the right to life and the right to religious freedom. Say a JW child needs a blood transfusion, and a court order is sought to get the child one, against the parent’s wishes. In that instance the rights must, by definition, be in competition. The more problematic issue is when legal rights, such as goods provision, are given a false equivalence with actual Constitutional rights.
A government could restrict your legal right to purchase products, and often do. Things like opening hours for liquor stores are in that genus. But the problem is that many people like the legal rights more, so the false equivalence emerges. (apologies if this is unclear, I have been reading dry material for close to 12 hours, so my brain feels like cotton wool)