Why is it that the radical left...

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Why would someone respond to you? You'll just re-crap your first post. That's because you are close-minded. You have no interest in learning or listening to other people. Cheers.

where is that pot and kettle again?? Info you really should learn to stop describing yourself in your responses.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

And you have no interest in addressing the question so you obfuscate.

You have no interest in addressing responses so you re-crap.

Bozack: shut up. Thanks.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
only supports the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It isn't really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

because we're jerks. deal.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
only supports the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It isn't really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

because we're jerks. deal.

Since when did you join the ranks of the radical left?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
only supports the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It isn't really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

because we're jerks. deal.

Since when did you join the ranks of the radical left?

only on social issues.

back to the OP, how did you come to this conclusion about the far left?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
only supports the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It isn't really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

because we're jerks. deal.

Since when did you join the ranks of the radical left?

only on social issues.

back to the OP, how did you come to this conclusion about the far left?

He read an editorial, and paraphrased it. Same way he comes to any other conclusion; he lets others do his thinking for him.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
only supports the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It isn't really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

Give me an example of us not caring for minorites.

Condi might be a lying b1tch, but she is extremely intelligent.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
only supports the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It isn't really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

because we're jerks. deal.

Since when did you join the ranks of the radical left?

only on social issues.

back to the OP, how did you come to this conclusion about the far left?

I've been observing the radical left's reaction to Bush's cabinet appointments and the speculation that Clarence Thomas will be elevated to Supreme Court Justice.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
only supports the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It isn't really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

because we're jerks. deal.

Since when did you join the ranks of the radical left?

only on social issues.

back to the OP, how did you come to this conclusion about the far left?

I've been observing the radical left's reaction to Bush's cabinet appointments and the speculation that Clarence Thomas will be elevated to Supreme Court Justice.

just because they're minorities doesn't mean people should blindly support them if they disagree with their politics.

 

[Riprorin]

So affirmative action isn't really about race it's about perpetuating an ideology.

If the black man doesn't fall in line with your world view, you should him down, eh?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If the black man doesn't fall in line with your world view, you should him down, eh?

in politics, where their ideology has an affect on how I life my life, yes. race/gender shouldn't be a factor.

 

[TuxDave]

What a worthless flamebaiting thread. Can you at least share some personal experience or an article or a story with your opinion? Geez, I should make a thread saying...

Why does the radical right promote religion in our government as long as it's the Christian religion.....
It's not really about civil rights and personal freedoms anymore is it?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
only supports the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It isn't really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

because we're jerks. deal.

Since when did you join the ranks of the radical left?

only on social issues.

back to the OP, how did you come to this conclusion about the far left?

I've been observing the radical left's reaction to Bush's cabinet appointments and the speculation that Clarence Thomas will be elevated to Supreme Court Justice.

I'm not seeing your point. Are you saying that the "radical left" should have a positive reaction to an appointment they disagree with politically JUST because that person is a minority? In other words, are you suggesting that the radical left bases (or should base or proclaims to base) all of their feelings about an individual on their race?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I've been observing the radical left's reaction to Bush's cabinet appointments and the speculation that Clarence Thomas will be elevated to Supreme Court Justice.

I'm not seeing your point. Are you saying that the "radical left" should have a positive reaction to an appointment they disagree with politically JUST because that person is a minority? In other words, are you suggesting that the radical left bases (or should base or proclaims to base) all of their feelings about an individual on their race?

I think Rip just has a twisted way of understanding things.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If the black man doesn't fall in line with your world view, you should him down, eh?

in politics, where their ideology has an affect on how I life my life, yes. race/gender shouldn't be a factor.

Like I said, it's all about ideology.

The radical left doesn't give a darn about minorities, it's all about power.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If the black man doesn't fall in line with your world view, you should him down, eh?

in politics, where their ideology has an affect on how I life my life, yes. race/gender shouldn't be a factor.

Like I said, it's all about ideology.

The radical left doesn't give a darn about minorities, it's all about power.

Why does this have to be a binary situation? Isn't is possible to care about both and judge individuals based on a number of traits?

This whole theory of your's neatly ignores this possibility. And again I ask the question, do you think supporting the advancement of minorities requries a person to support ANY advancement, no matter what the other circumstances are? Should I cheer when a guy gets a job I feel he'll be bad at just because he's black?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not seeing your point. Are you saying that the "radical left" should have a positive reaction to an appointment they disagree with politically JUST because that person is a minority? In other words, are you suggesting that the radical left bases (or should base or proclaims to base) all of their feelings about an individual on their race?

The point is pretty clear. Dr. Rice has been disparaged publicly as a minority who's sold out to The Man instead of holding firm to what people stereotype her values to be, being as she is a nonwhite American. She's also seen as (to reiterate) the "token minority" or maybe just the "token female" in the administration.

There are those on the far left who push equality with such zeal are doing the causes of minorities a grave disservice by reducing this intelligent woman to someone who's supposedly been elected solely because of her skin colour or gender. Because her ideology is not agreed with, she must be "for show". Taking that stance exemplifies the advancement of minorities only when a particular ideological camp agrees with them. That eliminates that camp from actually caring for the welfare of minorities - it becomes a vote grab.

Note: I am not accusing anyone specifically in P&N of this stance, or even liberals or the far leftists. But it does occur with frightening regularity.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If the black man doesn't fall in line with your world view, you should him down, eh?

in politics, where their ideology has an affect on how I life my life, yes. race/gender shouldn't be a factor.

Like I said, it's all about ideology.

The radical left doesn't give a darn about minorities, it's all about power.

Why does this have to be a binary situation? Isn't is possible to care about both and judge individuals based on a number of traits?

This whole theory of your's neatly ignores this possibility. And again I ask the question, do you think supporting the advancement of minorities requries a person to support ANY advancement, no matter what the other circumstances are? Should I cheer when a guy gets a job I feel he'll be bad at just because he's black?

So I take it that your opposed to affirmative action?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If the black man doesn't fall in line with your world view, you should him down, eh?

in politics, where their ideology has an affect on how I life my life, yes. race/gender shouldn't be a factor.

Like I said, it's all about ideology.

The radical left doesn't give a darn about minorities, it's all about power.

Why does this have to be a binary situation? Isn't is possible to care about both and judge individuals based on a number of traits?

This whole theory of your's neatly ignores this possibility. And again I ask the question, do you think supporting the advancement of minorities requries a person to support ANY advancement, no matter what the other circumstances are? Should I cheer when a guy gets a job I feel he'll be bad at just because he's black?

So I take it that your opposed to affirmative action?

Yes, but I think efforts should be made to make sure under-represented minorities are given the SAME chances as white men. As an engineer, for example, I think women are way too under-represented in my field. So I support efforts to try and get women interested in engineering and efforts to make sure they are treated fairly when looking for jobs (it doesn't always happen). I am opposed, however, to giving a woman an engineering job she shouldn't be doing just because she's a woman.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not seeing your point. Are you saying that the "radical left" should have a positive reaction to an appointment they disagree with politically JUST because that person is a minority? In other words, are you suggesting that the radical left bases (or should base or proclaims to base) all of their feelings about an individual on their race?

The point is pretty clear. Dr. Rice has been disparaged publicly as a minority who's sold out to The Man instead of holding firm to what people stereotype her values to be, being as she is a nonwhite American. She's also seen as (to reiterate) the "token minority" or maybe just the "token female" in the administration.

There are those on the far left who push equality with such zeal are doing the causes of minorities a grave disservice by reducing this intelligent woman to someone who's supposedly been elected solely because of her skin colour or gender. Because her ideology is not agreed with, she must be "for show". Taking that stance exemplifies the advancement of minorities only when a particular ideological camp agrees with them. That eliminates that camp from actually caring for the welfare of minorities - it becomes a vote grab.

Note: I am not accusing anyone specifically in P&N of this stance, or even liberals or the far leftists. But it does occur with frightening regularity.

I agree with most of what you said, I see that stance taken by some people as well. And I'm not a big fan. But that's not what I got out of Rip, if that is what he's trying to get at, he could have picked better phrasing.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If the black man doesn't fall in line with your world view, you should him down, eh?

in politics, where their ideology has an affect on how I life my life, yes. race/gender shouldn't be a factor.

Like I said, it's all about ideology.

The radical left doesn't give a darn about minorities, it's all about power.

Why does this have to be a binary situation? Isn't is possible to care about both and judge individuals based on a number of traits?

This whole theory of your's neatly ignores this possibility. And again I ask the question, do you think supporting the advancement of minorities requries a person to support ANY advancement, no matter what the other circumstances are? Should I cheer when a guy gets a job I feel he'll be bad at just because he's black?

So I take it that your opposed to affirmative action?

Yes, but I think efforts should be made to make sure under-represented minorities are given the SAME chances as white men. As an engineer, for example, I think women are way too under-represented in my field. So I support efforts to try and get women interested in engineering and efforts to make sure they aren't treated fairly when looking for jobs (it doesn't always happen). I am opposed, however, to giving a woman an engineering job she shouldn't be doing just because she's a woman.

 

[Riprorin]

There's no ulterior motive there, is there.

I'd go one step further. If there are two equally qualified candidates, it wouldn't bother me if the position swung to a Black or Hispanic.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If the black man doesn't fall in line with your world view, you should him down, eh?

in politics, where their ideology has an affect on how I life my life, yes. race/gender shouldn't be a factor.

Like I said, it's all about ideology.

The radical left doesn't give a darn about minorities, it's all about power.

Why does this have to be a binary situation? Isn't is possible to care about both and judge individuals based on a number of traits?

This whole theory of your's neatly ignores this possibility. And again I ask the question, do you think supporting the advancement of minorities requries a person to support ANY advancement, no matter what the other circumstances are? Should I cheer when a guy gets a job I feel he'll be bad at just because he's black?

So I take it that your opposed to affirmative action?

Yes, but I think efforts should be made to make sure under-represented minorities are given the SAME chances as white men. As an engineer, for example, I think women are way too under-represented in my field. So I support efforts to try and get women interested in engineering and efforts to make sure they aren't treated fairly when looking for jobs (it doesn't always happen). I am opposed, however, to giving a woman an engineering job she shouldn't be doing just because she's a woman.

I just caught that. My bad, maybe my spelling mistakes reveal a secret bias

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
There's no ulterior motive there, is there.

I'd go one step further. If there are two equally qualified candidates, it wouldn't bother me if the position swung to a Black or Hispanic.

I agree, nor would it bother me if the position swung to a QUALIFIED white person. That's the key. If I think someone would make a terrible AG, for example, I'm not going to support them just because they are minority. That's silly.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I agree with most of what you said, I see that stance taken by some people as well. And I'm not a big fan. But that's not what I got out of Rip, if that is what he's trying to get at, he could have picked better phrasing.

Yeah I suppose there isn't really anyone who would conciously do this, but plenty seem to unconciously. Like Albright was, Rice is friggin' brilliant, and it annoyed me highly when we had a poll in OT about her looks of all things.

I disagree with most everything Riprorin says regarding social policy but sometimes he asks very good questions; this is one of them.

To everyone: If you stand for equality, you owe it to people like Dr. Rice to speak up when someone disparages her as the token whatever. Ask them where they spent their professorship (hers was at Stanford) or how many honourary doctorates they hold.