[quote]orion wrote:
It is a low, cowardly and effeminate way of dealing with dissenting opinions.
[/quote]
Simpletons must always resort to violence because they lack the intellectual means to do it any other way.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Thanks, Bill.
Let me add just in case there is anyone who thinks that I am “lukewarm” about the decision:
These are guys (Firefighters) who wouldn’t give a damn about WHAT my nationality or race was if I was caught in a fire; they would risk their lives to get me out. They are some of the LAST people that I would deny anything in terms of trying to better their lives.
I do have an issue with the City of New Haven, though. (As I’ve stated).
Mufasa
That is something that many who were involved in this politically seem to have missed, or chose to ignore. If you were in a burning building and needed help, would you want the most competent and capable of help available? Or would you want someone who was there because of reasons like affirmative action. People are so worried about other’s fragile sensibilities to just come out and say, “Hey, you failed the test required to attain this position. This has nothing to do with white, black, or anything else. You bombed a test.”[/quote]
Well I imagine the judges who dissented would argue that the firefighters available through affirmative action would be no less competent simply because they failed that test. Noone is saying objective tests of merit are useless, there is simply doubt about whether scores on this particular test correlated with performance as a firefighter.
from the dissenting opinion: â??Iâ??ve spoken to at least 10,000, maybe 15,000 firefighters in group settings in my consulting practice and I have never one time ever had anyone in the fire service say to me, â??Well, the person who answersâ??gets the highest score on a written job knowledge, multiple-guess test makes the best company officer.â?? We know that itâ??s not as valid as other procedures that exist.â?? Id., at A1033.
So in your view, when the “correct” result happens and given minorities do better than whites on the test then absolutely the test should not be thrown out and the stated plan of basing promotions on the test should be followed. Most certainly the test should not be thrown out and the promotions denied for a stated reason that not enough whites passed. But when it’s the other way around and whites in a given department do better on the test, then it is fine to throw it out, renege on the stated plan, and deny the promotions etc?
If so you are a racist.
Do you really want to state that you would be fine with the test being thrown out and for example blacks or Hispanics denied promotions because of not enough whites passing?
[quote]orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
Chushin wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Democracy – proving that the majority is ALWAYS just.
I guess we just need you to choose this “natural elite,” which only you can see, to make decisions for us.
Please hurry!
I nominate DrSkeptix!
And one for you, too.
and again.
See, it works like this.
You claim he does not know what he is talking about and I post the link again to demonstrate your laziness.
I can copy and paste all day long.
That your reptilian brainstem can replicate crap–“all day long”–does not make it any less crappier.
If Saint Rothbard speaks to you, his paroclete, I do not feel so compelled to embrace your religion.
It is sophomore crap, fit for fishwrap.
Yes, I will still take democracy. Especially after reading that gorp. Keep posting, Fraud.
Does my avatar insinuate a degree or “scepticism”?
[/quote]
Since an avatar seems to be of momentous importance to you, Fraud, and you cannot appreciate the joke, I will offer a clue: it is amphibolous.
…
Now, on fraudulence.
However meager my accomplishments, they are mine, and have been sufficient to propel me through promotions to four professorships at three of the better universities in the western U.S. Whatever few achievements I may have, it is immodest to proclaim them, even in an anonymous forum.
And credentials, here, in this forum are not important, to me or to others. I accept or reject the thoughts of others on their intrinsic value, or lack thereof. My observations stand or fall on their own, and where they have value, it is not based on some imposture of credentials.
I had written to your pathetic dullard buckfuddy, Lifty, that his ideas had been on display in the marketplace of ideas for years, and rejected. So, Mooncalf, you can imagine my amusement when I saw that in your Holy Website, cited above, Saint Rothbard’s own book had a strike through the price of $20, down to $15. Apparently his–and your-- excreta masquerading as ideas has been…DISCOUNTED! MARKED DOWN! UNPURCHASED, REMAINDERED and UNSOLD!
What are your self-styled “ideas”–more like pathetic mimicry of the Auburn Department of Rejected Fallacies–that constitute fraud, Jabbernow? A exhaustive review of your broadcast nonsense is truly beyond an authoritative catalogue, but I will start:
–You hold yourself out as an expert on all things American, and you have never been here, proclaiming that it is sufficient to live 300m from the Embassy to Austria (in the Bat-Cave on the Danube, no doubt?)
–You do not need to have experience, since you can get all you need on the internet; and it seems that 90% of comes from the clown-shop, Mises.org. (And you have the gall to call others “lazy?”)
–From such dubious sources, you have brandished ridiculous assertions on the Constitution, American history, the Civil War, the motivations of Abraham Lincoln,the Navahos, the Munich travesty (insisting that your opinion was of greater value than that of the German General Staff at the time!)…and many more
–Your most audacious acts of rebellion are comprised of tax avoidance and growing marijuana? The horror! Even a social parasite should have some standards of excellence.
–Your arguments are typically a distortion of historical fact to suit a rigid ideology, whether the subject is the course of WWII or the value of civic society
and on and on.
With all your “axioms,” you know nothing. Nothing of value. Nothing at all.
It is their inherent falseness and the bitter bigotry of your offerings that mark your fraudulence, Your Fraudulence.
So, if that relentless bore, Lifty, can, alone among men, “see the ‘natural elite,’” I certainly can see that you are a fraud, a poseur, an impotent petulant.
Any further questions? Well, take them to someone who cares.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
It is a low, cowardly and effeminate way of dealing with dissenting opinions.
Simpletons must always resort to violence because they lack the intellectual means to do it any other way.
[/quote]
I would not call a bunch of little girls trying to giggle someone out of the room “violence”, but I recognize them for what they are.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
Chushin wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Democracy – proving that the majority is ALWAYS just.
I guess we just need you to choose this “natural elite,” which only you can see, to make decisions for us.
Please hurry!
I nominate DrSkeptix!
And one for you, too.
and again.
See, it works like this.
You claim he does not know what he is talking about and I post the link again to demonstrate your laziness.
I can copy and paste all day long.
That your reptilian brainstem can replicate crap–“all day long”–does not make it any less crappier.
If Saint Rothbard speaks to you, his paroclete, I do not feel so compelled to embrace your religion.
It is sophomore crap, fit for fishwrap.
Yes, I will still take democracy. Especially after reading that gorp. Keep posting, Fraud.
Does my avatar insinuate a degree or “scepticism”?
Since an avatar seems to be of momentous importance to you, Fraud, and you cannot appreciate the joke, I will offer a clue: it is amphibolous.
…
Now, on fraudulence.
However meager my accomplishments, they are mine, and have been sufficient to propel me through promotions to four professorships at three of the better universities in the western U.S. Whatever few achievements I may have, it is immodest to proclaim them, even in an anonymous forum.
And credentials, here, in this forum are not important, to me or to others. I accept or reject the thoughts of others on their intrinsic value, or lack thereof. My observations stand or fall on their own, and where they have value, it is not based on some imposture of credentials.
I had written to your pathetic dullard buckfuddy, Lifty, that his ideas had been on display in the marketplace of ideas for years, and rejected. So, Mooncalf, you can imagine my amusement when I saw that in your Holy Website, cited above, Saint Rothbard’s own book had a strike through the price of $20, down to $15. Apparently his–and your-- excreta masquerading as ideas has been…DISCOUNTED! MARKED DOWN! UNPURCHASED, REMAINDERED and UNSOLD!
What are your self-styled “ideas”–more like pathetic mimicry of the Auburn Department of Rejected Fallacies–that constitute fraud, Jabbernow? A exhaustive review of your broadcast nonsense is truly beyond an authoritative catalogue, but I will start:
–You hold yourself out as an expert on all things American, and you have never been here, proclaiming that it is sufficient to live 300m from the Embassy to Austria (in the Bat-Cave on the Danube, no doubt?)
–You do not need to have experience, since you can get all you need on the internet; and it seems that 90% of comes from the clown-shop, Mises.org. (And you have the gall to call others “lazy?”)
–From such dubious sources, you have brandished ridiculous assertions on the Constitution, American history, the Civil War, the motivations of Abraham Lincoln,the Navahos, the Munich travesty (insisting that your opinion was of greater value than that of the German General Staff at the time!)…and many more
–Your most audacious acts of rebellion are comprised of tax avoidance and growing marijuana? The horror! Even a social parasite should have some standards of excellence.
–Your arguments are typically a distortion of historical fact to suit a rigid ideology, whether the subject is the course of WWII or the value of civic society
and on and on.
With all your “axioms,” you know nothing. Nothing of value. Nothing at all.
It is their inherent falseness and the bitter bigotry of your offerings that mark your fraudulence, Your Fraudulence.
So, if that relentless bore, Lifty, can, alone among men, “see the ‘natural elite,’” I certainly can see that you are a fraud, a poseur, an impotent petulant.
Any further questions? Well, take them to someone who cares.
[/quote]
More of the same?
Not that I did expect any more.
Just to show what an obvious idiot you are, all books from the Mises Insitute can be downloaded for free.
You can however buy them if you want to.
Since they are a non profit organisation, slashing prizes might indicate that they have sold so many books that they can now offer them at a lower price.
Economics of scales professor ?
As for the rest of your strawmen, repeating lies does not make them true girlyman.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
As for the rest of your strawmen, repeating lies does not make them true girlyman.
No, the fact that they ARE true does, bitch.[/quote]
Sure.
Neither you nor DrConventionalWisdom ever care to make a coherent argument.
Oh excuse me,
I am right, you are wrong?
I assume that that counts as an argument in your circles?
Let me guess , whoever shouts the loudest wins?
How do we do that on ze interwebz?
She calls herself a wise Latina. LOL. A wise or smart person does not refer to themselves as wise or smart. That’s something simple people with insecurities do. Wise Latina = contradiction of terms.
Ginzberg in her dissenting opinion tries to put the City’s attempt to deny promotion to the white firefighters into “context”. Historical “context” is a convenient way to dance around the impact to individual firefighters who somehow managed to pass the test.
Interesting article in the NYT about one of the firefighters that passed the test (sixth highest score) and sued the city when they threw out the results. Oh yeah, he was the one hispanic who passed and was in line for promotion, but he didn’t know that when he joined the suit.
I think America has made a 180 turn with racism.
[quote]matko5 wrote:
I think America has made a 180 turn with racism. [/quote]
Apparently, Eric Holder (the US Attorney General) doesn’t agree. He seems to think that the feds need to pass “hate crime” legislation (in addition to laws that already exist) to protect victims of crimes motivated by racial bias.
The funny thing is, the law would only apply if the victim is a “historical minority”. So there would be no protection for white victims, without regard to whether the crime was motivated by racial bias.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iMOzzJsP-MVqKUTzifzW2AW8esFgD991S5K00
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
matko5 wrote:
I think America has made a 180 turn with racism.
Apparently, Eric Holder (the US Attorney General) doesn’t agree. He seems to think that the feds need to pass “hate crime” legislation (in addition to laws that already exist) to protect victims of crimes motivated by racial bias. The funny thing is, the law would only apply if the victim is a “historical minority”. So there would be no protection for white victims, without regard to whether the crime was motivated by racial bias.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iMOzzJsP-MVqKUTzifzW2AW8esFgD991S5K00
[/quote]
Didn’t you know? Only Whites can be Racist. And isn’t any crime against another person a crime of hate? Duh, obviously LOVE is not the reason for a crime.
This is all about politics and sensationalism for politicking and career building. It’s one of the problems inherent to democratic politics. You have to do what’s in vogue or popular.
And a historical minority is interesting. Im Polish and can claim to be a historical minority also. There is a level of absurdity in wanting to eliminate racism and stereotypes based on color by implementing laws that are based on skin color and stereotypes.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
matko5 wrote:
I think America has made a 180 turn with racism.
Apparently, Eric Holder (the US Attorney General) doesn’t agree. He seems to think that the feds need to pass “hate crime” legislation (in addition to laws that already exist) to protect victims of crimes motivated by racial bias. The funny thing is, the law would only apply if the victim is a “historical minority”. So there would be no protection for white victims, without regard to whether the crime was motivated by racial bias.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iMOzzJsP-MVqKUTzifzW2AW8esFgD991S5K00
Didn’t you know? Only Whites can be Racist. And isn’t any crime against another person a crime of hate? Duh, obviously LOVE is not the reason for a crime.
This is all about politics and sensationalism for politicking and career building. It’s one of the problems inherent to democratic politics. You have to do what’s in vogue or popular.
And a historical minority is interesting. Im Polish and can claim to be a historical minority also. There is a level of absurdity in wanting to eliminate racism and stereotypes based on color by implementing laws that are based on skin color and stereotypes.
[/quote]
At the very least, it seems like the anti-hate crime legislation would violate the “equal protection” clause of the Constitution.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
This, from the most universally laughed-at poster in this forum.[/quote]
We both have cause for laughter but for different reasons.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
matko5 wrote:
I think America has made a 180 turn with racism.
Apparently, Eric Holder (the US Attorney General) doesn’t agree. He seems to think that the feds need to pass “hate crime” legislation (in addition to laws that already exist) to protect victims of crimes motivated by racial bias. The funny thing is, the law would only apply if the victim is a “historical minority”. So there would be no protection for white victims, without regard to whether the crime was motivated by racial bias.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iMOzzJsP-MVqKUTzifzW2AW8esFgD991S5K00
Didn’t you know? Only Whites can be Racist. And isn’t any crime against another person a crime of hate? Duh, obviously LOVE is not the reason for a crime.
This is all about politics and sensationalism for politicking and career building. It’s one of the problems inherent to democratic politics. You have to do what’s in vogue or popular.
And a historical minority is interesting. Im Polish and can claim to be a historical minority also. There is a level of absurdity in wanting to eliminate racism and stereotypes based on color by implementing laws that are based on skin color and stereotypes.
At the very least, it seems like the anti-hate crime legislation would violate the “equal protection” clause of the Constitution.[/quote]
The constitution? what’s that? Does it even matter anymore? lol.
If we followed the constitution there would not be a lot for the Politicians to do. They have to meddle to justify their jobs. Worthless self important egotistical leaches that do pretty much nothing. In fact they could dissapear overnight and the world and country would go on.
[quote]orion wrote:
More of the same?
Not that I did expect any more.
[/quote]
Feeling unloved and neglected by your betters, are you? The reason, Your Fraudulence, that you can expect no more is that your disappointing little ejaculations merit nothing more than ridicule, if not studied neglect.
The humor of it escapes you and this is the flatfoot response?
Oh, I see now! Your religion will spread its crap around for free, but some suckers can donate money to the cause. Do they burn candles, too?
It seems to me that that their–and your–frauds can’t even be given away.
And, BTW, the comic opera title is Herr Professor Doktor to the undergraduates of a drafty middling university on the Slovak border.
"Strawmen? " Hmmm…Is that when I list your arrogant and unrepented errors, derived from a cut-and-paste website for failures, and I make you look like the fool you are? Sputter away, Fraud, and why not join that other towering intellect, Lifticus Microcephalicus, in a circle jerk for two?
Oh, I see you have already done that…
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I can’t understand why something like this even had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, it seems pretty clear cut in my eyes. Opinions please, do you think the idea of “reverse racism” exist?
Max:
These cases are NEVER as “simple” as us “know-it-alls” on Internet Forums try to make them.
I will be willing to bet that there were legal complexities that we all don’t completely understand.
(Where is BostonBarrister when we need him?)
Mufasa[/quote]
I haven’t followed this case as closely as I could have. But reading the dissent as well as the district court opinion is a good start to understanding the complexities and the other side to this (haven’t done this myself yet). At this point, I personally think the Supreme Court got it right, and Sotomayor erred in upholding the district court opinion (until and unless I look at it more closely and conclude otherwise. But doubt i would based on what I’ve read so far)