Originally Posted by
Onfinal
TonyC:
I'm afraid I have to disagree with those who think you would be an excellent lawyer.
Well, I'm just crushed. I don't know if I can go on another day.
Originally Posted by
Onfinal
Again, you've failed to read the post.
...
For the second time, Please read and re-read posts before you write.
...
Please try to respect this by reading, considering, and then posting.
You know, son, you're really starting to annoy me with this recurring accusation.
I thought I already addressed this:
Originally Posted by
Onfinal
Dude take the time to read and re-read the posts. It seemed like you responded before I even hit the SUBMIT button.
In this, you accused me of posting
Post #55 at 9:02 PM before you could hit the Submit button on your
Post #53 at 8:49 PM. It's impossible to quote your post before you Submit it, but that didn't keep you from making the ridiculous claim.
What seems to baffle you is that I DO read your posts, and it doesn't take that long to find weaknesses in your arguments. Letting them set for a while doesn't make them more correct. It took me less than 13 minutes to read your 8 sentences, and answer the most outrageous. WOW. Perhaps I should teach speed reading.
The problem is not my reading, it's what you're writing.
Originally Posted by
Onfinal
Then you went on with a quite lengthy discussion of various civil rights laws that really became quite a bore.
Well I'm so sorry if you find the laws boring, but it's very clear that you don't understand them. For you to lump EEOC law with AA, MBE, WBE, and DBE betrays your ignorance of them.
But you don't want to hear that. You want to think that there is a fundamental difference between the law and "programs." OK, fine. Let's try this little exercise. Name one program started under Equal Employment Opportunity Law that your theoretical neo-con (a term which you have subsequently admitted you don't understand) wants to eliminate. Name one program that is in place to ensure equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, religion, creed, gender, or disability that your "neo-con" wants to eliminate.
And when you find it, write slowly so I can read it, please.
Originally Posted by
Onfinal
It seems that you're so eager to make your point, that you leave out the opportunity to reflect on what the poster is saying. Certainly we will never come to agreement, or even closer to the middle if we behave in this way. And we won't have a Republic for long if we sanction this behavior.
When you present something new, something that I haven't heard before, something that hasn't been preached before, I'll take time to consider it. So far, you've just regurgitated the same ole lines. I don't need opportunity for further reflection. And I don't think the security of our Republic is in danger because I can give you a speedy response.
Originally Posted by
Onfinal
So many on this thread have attempted to have a stimulating discussion of the topic without allowing it to turn into a slugfest. Please try to respect this by reading, considering, and then posting.
I'm not sluggin', yet. But I do find it odd that the one who called me "dude" is preaching about respect.
Originally Posted by
Onfinal
In a nutshell, I spoke about the elimination of programs I said nothing about eliminating Laws. The Legislative branch of our government is tasked with creating Laws. The Executive Branch has tasked the various adminsitrative divisions to carry out the Laws. Sometimes this is done by creating among other things various programs through their offices, if they believe that the program will enhance or further the intent (spirit) of the Law. These programs and Laws can be challenged and then reviewed by the Judicial Branch of government in case they are found to be illegal or unconstitutional, respectively.
Please forgive me for all the bolding, but I am trying to be perfectly clear.
Oh, I am so glad that you've exlpained the Three Branches of Government for me. I was a little bit fuzzy on that concept. Tell me, do those three branches kinda balance out the power of each other, so one isn't more powerful than the other? I seem to recall reading about that stuff somewhere. I'm not a very good reader, though, so I might have gotten a little confused.
Originally Posted by
Onfinal
Oh, by the way: I have to admit, I really butchered LBJs quote.
Lyndon B. Johnson June 4, 1965
"But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.
You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.
Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.
This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result."
In his commencement speech to Howard University.
Yeah, you really did, not only in words, but in meaning.
"equality as a fact and equality as a result"
He did not advocate stacking the deck in favor of minorities, as Affirmative Action does.
.