Holy cow! That AG thread got taken down?
- Thread starter IUT
- Start date
Lefties tried to imply all Republicans were racist.
Lefties tried to claim race and sex were irrelevant to the appointment of the new AG.
None of that was honest discussion.
I'm shocked you're shocked.
Lynch is AG because she was black and female and a prosecutor.
Gonzales was AG because he was Hispanic and a lawyer in Texass with Bush.
Race and sex matter to PC politicians - more than to anyone else.
Lefties tried to claim race and sex were irrelevant to the appointment of the new AG.
None of that was honest discussion.
I'm shocked you're shocked.
Lynch is AG because she was black and female and a prosecutor.
Gonzales was AG because he was Hispanic and a lawyer in Texass with Bush.
Race and sex matter to PC politicians - more than to anyone else.
If it had been about the AG it would have stayed up
And I welcome a post about the nominee's qualifications, or lack of them.
Instead we got into a discussion over whether or not a poster was a racist which eventually began to resemble a Pythonish argument.
And I welcome a post about the nominee's qualifications, or lack of them.
Instead we got into a discussion over whether or not a poster was a racist which eventually began to resemble a Pythonish argument.
I don't know, who is keeping score
It seems like you are the one keeping score as you point out Gonzalez and now Lynch. If you are keeping score, it must matter to you. So maybe it isn't just PC politicians?
It seems like you are the one keeping score as you point out Gonzalez and now Lynch. If you are keeping score, it must matter to you. So maybe it isn't just PC politicians?
Nope
I'm not "keeping score" - as you characterize it.
I'm pointing out facts after the silly little thread got taken down.
(Since race-based assumption about posters is all-the-rage, I assume since we both typed in black e-ink, we hate white people, right? It's as reasonable - nay, MORE reasonable - as the assumptions made in the missing thread.)
In the private sector, making job selections based on sex, race or national origin is illegal. When its a President making the hire, its a requirement.
I'm not "keeping score" - as you characterize it.
I'm pointing out facts after the silly little thread got taken down.
(Since race-based assumption about posters is all-the-rage, I assume since we both typed in black e-ink, we hate white people, right? It's as reasonable - nay, MORE reasonable - as the assumptions made in the missing thread.)
In the private sector, making job selections based on sex, race or national origin is illegal. When its a President making the hire, its a requirement.
Have you ever pointed out a white male getting a job?
Have there ever been white males who have gotten a job because they are white and male? If so, did you point it out in a thread such as this? Why or why not?
While it may be true in the private sector you can't hire someone because they are white, you can hire your fraternity brother. Of course the fact that 99.9 % of your fraternity brothers are white isn't supposed to mean anything. Or you can hire the person you know from church, of course the fact your church is 99% white isn't worth consideration. You can hire someone from your country club, which is 95% white (oh, and women aren't allowed in).
Those scenarios I just laid out, do they happen? If we don't think club membership, church membership, fraternity membership do not matter one iota I suspect we are being a bit naive, don't you agree? Heck, it has always been a selling point of fraternal organizations that you will make business contacts.
So what we take from this, the guy who hires his white fraternity brother is OK, the president who hires a black (Lynch) or a Hispanic (Gonzalez) is obviously playing the PC card. Let me ask this, name 5 people CLEARLY more qualified than Lynch who wanted the job? I have no idea, but you must know since you know for a fact this was a PC hire.
Have there ever been white males who have gotten a job because they are white and male? If so, did you point it out in a thread such as this? Why or why not?
While it may be true in the private sector you can't hire someone because they are white, you can hire your fraternity brother. Of course the fact that 99.9 % of your fraternity brothers are white isn't supposed to mean anything. Or you can hire the person you know from church, of course the fact your church is 99% white isn't worth consideration. You can hire someone from your country club, which is 95% white (oh, and women aren't allowed in).
Those scenarios I just laid out, do they happen? If we don't think club membership, church membership, fraternity membership do not matter one iota I suspect we are being a bit naive, don't you agree? Heck, it has always been a selling point of fraternal organizations that you will make business contacts.
So what we take from this, the guy who hires his white fraternity brother is OK, the president who hires a black (Lynch) or a Hispanic (Gonzalez) is obviously playing the PC card. Let me ask this, name 5 people CLEARLY more qualified than Lynch who wanted the job? I have no idea, but you must know since you know for a fact this was a PC hire.
correction
Some lefties stated that a rightie was a racist.
That is a far cry from what you are claiming.
This board's conservatives are forcing me to defend its liberals because, frankly, the conservatives are doing a damned poor job of making their case. I see lots of Rush-like talking points and lots of broad brush emotion coming from my side of the fence, and very little in the way of thoughtful analysis or commentary.
I have not suddenly become a liberal, but the liberals on this board are taking the conservatives to the woodshed and beating the crap out of them when it comes to debate. If this is the best that conservatives have to offer then we might as well concede 2016 to the Democrats.
Some lefties stated that a rightie was a racist.
That is a far cry from what you are claiming.
This board's conservatives are forcing me to defend its liberals because, frankly, the conservatives are doing a damned poor job of making their case. I see lots of Rush-like talking points and lots of broad brush emotion coming from my side of the fence, and very little in the way of thoughtful analysis or commentary.
I have not suddenly become a liberal, but the liberals on this board are taking the conservatives to the woodshed and beating the crap out of them when it comes to debate. If this is the best that conservatives have to offer then we might as well concede 2016 to the Democrats.
There are red inks, blue inks, green inks, purple inks, magenta inks,
chartreuse inks, a broad spectrum of inks....
I am totally bumfoozled that this is allowed to stand. It is obviously racist.
You are all over this one..
chartreuse inks, a broad spectrum of inks....
I am totally bumfoozled that this is allowed to stand. It is obviously racist.
You are all over this one..
I Didn't Point This Out
The "pointing out" occurred in the original thread - by others not named me.
The other thread also included posts implying Republicans are all racists - at least all Republicans who posted in that thread - which I did not.
Ergo my response to IU1.
If you believe that Gonzales' Hispanic national origin meant nothing to Bush, and that Lynch's African-American national origin and gender meant nothing to Obama, you are entitled to believe that. After all, the jury declared OJ not guilty. People can deceive themselves all they want for any purpose they choose.
The realists among us will snicker snidely and quietly to the side.
As for who "wanted" the job, I think you have that backwards. Its not posted and applications are not solicited. The President picks up his phone and says "will you serve?" and about 100% of the folks who get those calls says something like "Sure - when the President calls, you can't refuse." It's like an AD hiring a new coach. The list is already compiled before its needed.
The "pointing out" occurred in the original thread - by others not named me.
The other thread also included posts implying Republicans are all racists - at least all Republicans who posted in that thread - which I did not.
Ergo my response to IU1.
If you believe that Gonzales' Hispanic national origin meant nothing to Bush, and that Lynch's African-American national origin and gender meant nothing to Obama, you are entitled to believe that. After all, the jury declared OJ not guilty. People can deceive themselves all they want for any purpose they choose.
The realists among us will snicker snidely and quietly to the side.
As for who "wanted" the job, I think you have that backwards. Its not posted and applications are not solicited. The President picks up his phone and says "will you serve?" and about 100% of the folks who get those calls says something like "Sure - when the President calls, you can't refuse." It's like an AD hiring a new coach. The list is already compiled before its needed.
I guess my
position (which I must not have stated very well) is that politicians do take race and gender into consideration when making appointments and it seemed like the liberals were saying that wasn't the case. Obviously that doesn't translate directly to the fact that the person is not qualified but I do think it translates to not picking the best person some of the time.
position (which I must not have stated very well) is that politicians do take race and gender into consideration when making appointments and it seemed like the liberals were saying that wasn't the case. Obviously that doesn't translate directly to the fact that the person is not qualified but I do think it translates to not picking the best person some of the time.
Does anyone point this out when a white is hired
OK, you didn't point it out, you seem to agree with it. Several conservative posters do, you point out you snicker at the idea that Gonzalez's origin didn't play a role. OK, fine, stop avoiding the point. Here is the point.
DO WHITE MALEWS EVER GET HIRED BECAUSE THEY ARE WHITE?
Answer the questions, I'll wait while you Google, call others, whatever you need to do.
Ok, fine, I assume you know admit that somewhere today this is happening (and it used to happen far more frequently, like the days when NO ONE but white males had these jobs. OK, so let's go to the next question,
has any conservative ever complained about that? Look back to the threads here going back through Bush, has anyone on the right ever said "gee, he got that job because he's a white male"?
I'm sure it happens, I don't see a need to be selectively upset that a black woman MAY have received this job because of these factors. Why, I have no bloody idea when else this happens. I am sure it does happen, is happening, with whites. I'm not pouring through the resumes of everyone hired by the government to compare. I never criticized Bush's hires, nor his Supreme Court nominees. I have no idea what considerations a President needs to make. I assume resume is one, but in there somewhere is "can I get along with this person".
In your life, was there ever a hire by a president that was clearly made because he was a white male? Can you find a paper trail of your being upset by it?
OK, you didn't point it out, you seem to agree with it. Several conservative posters do, you point out you snicker at the idea that Gonzalez's origin didn't play a role. OK, fine, stop avoiding the point. Here is the point.
DO WHITE MALEWS EVER GET HIRED BECAUSE THEY ARE WHITE?
Answer the questions, I'll wait while you Google, call others, whatever you need to do.
Ok, fine, I assume you know admit that somewhere today this is happening (and it used to happen far more frequently, like the days when NO ONE but white males had these jobs. OK, so let's go to the next question,
has any conservative ever complained about that? Look back to the threads here going back through Bush, has anyone on the right ever said "gee, he got that job because he's a white male"?
I'm sure it happens, I don't see a need to be selectively upset that a black woman MAY have received this job because of these factors. Why, I have no bloody idea when else this happens. I am sure it does happen, is happening, with whites. I'm not pouring through the resumes of everyone hired by the government to compare. I never criticized Bush's hires, nor his Supreme Court nominees. I have no idea what considerations a President needs to make. I assume resume is one, but in there somewhere is "can I get along with this person".
In your life, was there ever a hire by a president that was clearly made because he was a white male? Can you find a paper trail of your being upset by it?
I'm sure they do......
They are, after all, politicians. The problem with Dave's post is that he basically said that Lynch was unqualified for the job, and that race and gender were the only reason she was nominated, and that without doing much legwork to check her out.
That approach presumes tokenism on the part of Obama, but doesn't do anything to move past the presumption. A presumption is not proof, and it usually stops people from looking for proof. Rock rightfully pointed out that Obama has appointed many whites to cabinet level positions.
At this point, let the confirmation hearings begin.
They are, after all, politicians. The problem with Dave's post is that he basically said that Lynch was unqualified for the job, and that race and gender were the only reason she was nominated, and that without doing much legwork to check her out.
That approach presumes tokenism on the part of Obama, but doesn't do anything to move past the presumption. A presumption is not proof, and it usually stops people from looking for proof. Rock rightfully pointed out that Obama has appointed many whites to cabinet level positions.
At this point, let the confirmation hearings begin.
Re: I'm sure they do......
no one has any difficulty understanding what Dave said, or his motives, so he doesn't, and we don't, need you putting Dave's posts in your words, while removing his words.
and as to Dave implying tokenism on Obama's part, or that being the basis of the nomination, yes he did, but that's totally his prerogative and nothing about that warrants removal of his post and the replies.
i'm guessing there's a definite element of the conservative universe that agree's 100% with what Dave said, and Dave's censorship of that take on the subject has the appearance or your wanting to hide that that element exists.
and since Dave is a prolific poster here, his take on this gives insight and background as to his other posts.
as to your response to my initial post on this subject, you were more than welcome to respond to anything and everything i stated.
yet you didn't, you just deleted my post because you had no credible rebuttal, even though there was absolutely nothing in my post that warranted it's removal, other than making a credible argument that opposed your actions.
This post was edited on 11/10 9:19 PM by i'vegotwinners
no one has any difficulty understanding what Dave said, or his motives, so he doesn't, and we don't, need you putting Dave's posts in your words, while removing his words.
and as to Dave implying tokenism on Obama's part, or that being the basis of the nomination, yes he did, but that's totally his prerogative and nothing about that warrants removal of his post and the replies.
i'm guessing there's a definite element of the conservative universe that agree's 100% with what Dave said, and Dave's censorship of that take on the subject has the appearance or your wanting to hide that that element exists.
and since Dave is a prolific poster here, his take on this gives insight and background as to his other posts.
as to your response to my initial post on this subject, you were more than welcome to respond to anything and everything i stated.
yet you didn't, you just deleted my post because you had no credible rebuttal, even though there was absolutely nothing in my post that warranted it's removal, other than making a credible argument that opposed your actions.
This post was edited on 11/10 9:19 PM by i'vegotwinners
I don't expect you to accept this...
And, frankly, I don't care if you do or not.
There is no rule that says this board must allow complete freedom of speech. There was no such rule when Terry created this board 15 years ago. There was no such rule when he turned the board, and it's moderation over to me so he could raise his new son without being tied to the moderator duties. There was never any such rule when this board was part of the IIBF, nor when that board system merged with Peegs, and Peegs has always encouraged well moderated boards.
This is Peegs' board now, and he wants his boards to be lightly moderated.
It is not your board.
No one gives a damn what you think about whether or not the board should be moderated. I certainly don't.
This board is not an extension of the United States government and the First Amendment to the Constitution has no bearing here.
This board is not about me, and if you try to make it about me those posts will be deleted.
That's how this board works.
If you don't like it, leave.
This post was edited on 11/10 9:34 PM by DougS
And, frankly, I don't care if you do or not.
There is no rule that says this board must allow complete freedom of speech. There was no such rule when Terry created this board 15 years ago. There was no such rule when he turned the board, and it's moderation over to me so he could raise his new son without being tied to the moderator duties. There was never any such rule when this board was part of the IIBF, nor when that board system merged with Peegs, and Peegs has always encouraged well moderated boards.
This is Peegs' board now, and he wants his boards to be lightly moderated.
It is not your board.
No one gives a damn what you think about whether or not the board should be moderated. I certainly don't.
This board is not an extension of the United States government and the First Amendment to the Constitution has no bearing here.
This board is not about me, and if you try to make it about me those posts will be deleted.
That's how this board works.
If you don't like it, leave.
This post was edited on 11/10 9:34 PM by DougS
Not. The. Issue.
The thread was about whether Obama picked his AG in part because she was a she and in part because she was African American - not whether white guys throughout history got jobs over black guys (of course they did) or whether black guys throughout history did not get jobs because they were black (again, duh).
You (and others) raise that so you can (a) divert the discussion and (b) call Republicans racists, and (c) divert the issue.
The thread was about whether Obama picked his AG in part because she was a she and in part because she was African American - not whether white guys throughout history got jobs over black guys (of course they did) or whether black guys throughout history did not get jobs because they were black (again, duh).
You (and others) raise that so you can (a) divert the discussion and (b) call Republicans racists, and (c) divert the issue.
I will mention
At no point have I suggested tepublicans are racist. I will suggest that it has happened, and will happen again that color and/or gender works in favor of white males. There also have been and will be times it works against them. If I am not going to get upset at one direction why the hell should I get upset st the other? In other words, I don't read every appointment of an old white guy and assume he was appointed only because he is 1) white and 2) a he. If I am not going to do that, why should I stand on guard against a black woman?
Do you follow the appointment of every white male with concern they only got the job because of those 2 qualifications?
At no point have I suggested tepublicans are racist. I will suggest that it has happened, and will happen again that color and/or gender works in favor of white males. There also have been and will be times it works against them. If I am not going to get upset at one direction why the hell should I get upset st the other? In other words, I don't read every appointment of an old white guy and assume he was appointed only because he is 1) white and 2) a he. If I am not going to do that, why should I stand on guard against a black woman?
Do you follow the appointment of every white male with concern they only got the job because of those 2 qualifications?
My work experience is strange.
Military, GI Bill BA and Juvenile Justice. I might add that the road map is still open, graduate, join the service, earn the GI Bill, graduate and go to work. In my experience, I was at the back of the line as a white male. I never got promoted with my peers. African Americans and Women were at the head of the line. I had to wait. I waited ten years to get my first break. I only got it because they needed a military guy to run a boot camp for delinquents. I watched for years people with less resume and experience got opportunities to meet quotas. I was forced to pay because of the sins of the past.
This post was edited on 11/11 12:22 AM by Rockport Zebra
Military, GI Bill BA and Juvenile Justice. I might add that the road map is still open, graduate, join the service, earn the GI Bill, graduate and go to work. In my experience, I was at the back of the line as a white male. I never got promoted with my peers. African Americans and Women were at the head of the line. I had to wait. I waited ten years to get my first break. I only got it because they needed a military guy to run a boot camp for delinquents. I watched for years people with less resume and experience got opportunities to meet quotas. I was forced to pay because of the sins of the past.
This post was edited on 11/11 12:22 AM by Rockport Zebra
I don't think you quite get the point.
The point isn't whether or not white males have ever been given an advantage for being white and male.
The point is that when a white male is appointed, no one bothers to ask if that's why. When a black woman is appointed, it's all of a sudden a concern.
To steal a line from a Republican speechwriter, it's the "soft bigotry of low expectations." It's immediately suspected that Lynch isn't qualified. That's she's a diversity hire. That's the problem, that the mind goes there first.
goat
The point isn't whether or not white males have ever been given an advantage for being white and male.
The point is that when a white male is appointed, no one bothers to ask if that's why. When a black woman is appointed, it's all of a sudden a concern.
To steal a line from a Republican speechwriter, it's the "soft bigotry of low expectations." It's immediately suspected that Lynch isn't qualified. That's she's a diversity hire. That's the problem, that the mind goes there first.
goat
Re: I'm sure they do......
I posted out her attributes which IMO are very limited. A corporate lawyer with compliance experience and two limited terms as an US Attorney does not present the high level of legal and managerial qualifications this job demands - again IMO.
I posted out her attributes which IMO are very limited. A corporate lawyer with compliance experience and two limited terms as an US Attorney does not present the high level of legal and managerial qualifications this job demands - again IMO.
I don't think Y'ALL quite get the point.
How many times has Obama made an appointment of a black person, Hispanic person, or a female, or a minority of any persuasion, and NOBODY mentioned it here?
Dozens?
A hundred?
More?
Where is the enlightened recognition of THAT in these threads?
But when it was mentioned ONE TIME that he may have been impacted by race/sex in ONE APPOINTMENT, the left IMMEDIATELY lept to:
"The FACT that it was mentioned is evidence that the person (Dave) who mentioned it is a racist - and anybody who defends Dave in this thread is a racist - and anybody who didn't but discusses the deletion of the thread in another thread and says they think Presidents like Bush and Obama are/were impacted by race/sex in political appointments are ALSO racist because mentioning even 1 equates to the CERTAINTY that you fail to acknowledge the historic discrimination against blacks and women because you (and all Republicans) are just unknowingly racists and can't even help yourself, and when you try to point out that you did not mention even the one and DO acknowledge historic discrimination, it just really means that you don't get it and are trying to compensate and cover up the certain racism from which you unknowingly suffer, because - as we said earlier when you didn't get it - the issue is NOT the one occasion under discussion but the historic discrimination which proves that even mentioning the one is a sign of certain racism that you don't get."
THAT is what passes for enlightened and progressive discussion of race in this country.
ANY discussion of ANY race issue ALWAYS draw this response from the left.
THIS is why the problem never improves.
You cannot discuss race EVER.
How many times has Obama made an appointment of a black person, Hispanic person, or a female, or a minority of any persuasion, and NOBODY mentioned it here?
Dozens?
A hundred?
More?
Where is the enlightened recognition of THAT in these threads?
But when it was mentioned ONE TIME that he may have been impacted by race/sex in ONE APPOINTMENT, the left IMMEDIATELY lept to:
"The FACT that it was mentioned is evidence that the person (Dave) who mentioned it is a racist - and anybody who defends Dave in this thread is a racist - and anybody who didn't but discusses the deletion of the thread in another thread and says they think Presidents like Bush and Obama are/were impacted by race/sex in political appointments are ALSO racist because mentioning even 1 equates to the CERTAINTY that you fail to acknowledge the historic discrimination against blacks and women because you (and all Republicans) are just unknowingly racists and can't even help yourself, and when you try to point out that you did not mention even the one and DO acknowledge historic discrimination, it just really means that you don't get it and are trying to compensate and cover up the certain racism from which you unknowingly suffer, because - as we said earlier when you didn't get it - the issue is NOT the one occasion under discussion but the historic discrimination which proves that even mentioning the one is a sign of certain racism that you don't get."
THAT is what passes for enlightened and progressive discussion of race in this country.
ANY discussion of ANY race issue ALWAYS draw this response from the left.
THIS is why the problem never improves.
You cannot discuss race EVER.
I've had my
disagreements of varying seriousness with owners and moderators over the years dating back to Terry's board, the old Star News, IIBF - not so much - and the current set up.
Given the history of moderation of this board, I'll take what we have right now, thank you very much.
Doug does this with a good heart and velvet gloves - unless thoroughly provoked - and I've known him in this arena for nearly all of those 15 years - GEESH, Doug, is it 15???? now?
We're well advised to accept this place as it is today. It could return to the days of the martinets dictating what you're allowed to think.
disagreements of varying seriousness with owners and moderators over the years dating back to Terry's board, the old Star News, IIBF - not so much - and the current set up.
Given the history of moderation of this board, I'll take what we have right now, thank you very much.
Doug does this with a good heart and velvet gloves - unless thoroughly provoked - and I've known him in this arena for nearly all of those 15 years - GEESH, Doug, is it 15???? now?
We're well advised to accept this place as it is today. It could return to the days of the martinets dictating what you're allowed to think.
I'll have to say
that Doug has been more patient with you than I would be. The board is what it is and you aren't going to change it. If you don't like it then leave because I, and I suspect others, am getting tired of you constantly griping about the board and how Doug moderates it.
that Doug has been more patient with you than I would be. The board is what it is and you aren't going to change it. If you don't like it then leave because I, and I suspect others, am getting tired of you constantly griping about the board and how Doug moderates it.
It is too bad that happened
I'm not at all in favor of quotas, which is my frustration with this thread. It seems the argument must be that Obama is over quota on hiring minorities.
What happened to you shouldn't happen, not even to make up for the sins of the past. At the same point, I don't think we should wonder why Obama had the audacity to appoint another minority.
I'm not at all in favor of quotas, which is my frustration with this thread. It seems the argument must be that Obama is over quota on hiring minorities.
What happened to you shouldn't happen, not even to make up for the sins of the past. At the same point, I don't think we should wonder why Obama had the audacity to appoint another minority.
Wrong
The problem was Dave jumped to the conclusion only because she was a black woman. He had no other justification for it. She is perfectly qualified, as he could have figured out with about 15 seconds worth of research.
That other minorities and women can be appointed without comment is great. Good for you guys. But we weren't talking about those times. As far as I know, no one said "all Republicans are racist." And I don't think anyone said anything like what you put in that large paragraph there, despite the fact that you put it inside quotations.
In this case, someone jumped to the conclusion that a black woman was appointed because she was a black woman, and the only evidence he had of this was that she was a black woman.
The problem was Dave jumped to the conclusion only because she was a black woman. He had no other justification for it. She is perfectly qualified, as he could have figured out with about 15 seconds worth of research.
That other minorities and women can be appointed without comment is great. Good for you guys. But we weren't talking about those times. As far as I know, no one said "all Republicans are racist." And I don't think anyone said anything like what you put in that large paragraph there, despite the fact that you put it inside quotations.
In this case, someone jumped to the conclusion that a black woman was appointed because she was a black woman, and the only evidence he had of this was that she was a black woman.
