Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » How equal are we?
| How equal are we? [message #103763] |
Sat, 24 July 2004 05:44   |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I personally am not a fan of Affirmative Action. I don't like the idea of people getting a leg up because of their race, which, in the end, is what Affirmative Action really is. When you look at it on a larger scale, by elevating a middle-eastern man (or woman?) to a level greater than that to a white, black, purple, or whatever kind of person, that is racism.
The fact of the matter is, if equality is the name of the game, then Affirmative Action is contradictory. I know it is arguable that Kujar or Mohammed may have started out in less than satasfactory conditions, but that by no means equates to giving them a chance against someone who for fortunate enough to start off in better conditions. K9 is exactly right. He should have been picked on the first run through; not some people who are less then qualified.
It is a shame, but capitalism does not favour ALL people the same.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #103803] |
Sat, 24 July 2004 10:00 |
mahkra
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Believe it or not, there's an even worse situation than this whole firefighter thing:
I've been told that when you want to be in the army, you have to pass a bunch of physical tests. One of them involves being able to throw a grenade some minimum distance. Women couldn't throw the grenade far enough, so they lowered the distance required (only for women though) so that women could be soldiers. The absurd part, though, is that they lowered it to something that was LESS than the minimum safe distance to be from a grenade explosion! So women could pass the tests without being able to throw a grenade far enough not to kill themselves with it.
I have no idea if that story is true or not, but quite frankly I don't really care. Either way, it's amusing.
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #103810] |
Sat, 24 July 2004 10:21 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I seriously doubt the validity of that story, I think anyone can throw a grenade past safe distance if they try. It's not like they're throwing bowling balls or something else.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #103814] |
Sat, 24 July 2004 10:25 |
mahkra
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| mahkra |
I have no idea if that story is true or not, but quite frankly I don't really care. Either way, it's amusing.
|
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #103853] |
Sat, 24 July 2004 13:28 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Ok, I'm not attacking you for it, just my 2 cents are that it doesn't sound likely at all. The military is, of all places, the last place something like that would happen.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #103890] |
Sat, 24 July 2004 16:53 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Standards falling to the point where people are admitted in to the army sounds like something that won't happen. Not being able to throw grenades 10 or 15 meters sounds like a lie, too, I bet most, if not all, women can throw a grenade that far.
...Did someone edit my post? That first sentence looked off, I just fixed it, but I think someone switched around my post...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
[Updated on: Sat, 24 July 2004 18:21] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104042] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 11:47 |
 |
ViperFUD
Messages: 69
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Standards falling to the point where people are admitted in to the army sounds like something that won't happen. Not being able to throw grenades 10 or 15 meters sounds like a lie, too, I bet most, if not all, women can throw a grenade that far.
|
Here's another interesting army one:
Women don't have to do as many pushups as men do. At least, they didn't four years ago; I don't know it it's changed since then. Anyway, given that most women weigh less than men, and if they have to do fewer pushups, they definitely won't be as strong with the "pushing away" action.
Now, if a guerilla soldier (enemy) jumps one of our troops and tries to plant a knife in his heart, he can push the guy off his body. A weaker woman? No chance. And I would think that the women would want to be even stronger, since the men will usually just be killed, while the women will be taken back to camp and repeatedly raped before they're killed (not always, but often enough that _I_ wouldn't want it to happen if I were a woman).
Although, sometimes the men get raped too. Abu-graib(sp?) and shittzor.
~Vip
And shepherds we shall be,
For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from thy hand;
That our feet may swiftly carry out thy command.
And we shall flow a river forth to thee,
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104043] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 11:51 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| warranto |
heh, even the Canadian Air Cadet program has been afflicted by this. Most transition occured during my stint as an Air Cadet, and just a few years prior.
One thing that we can no longer do, is something I found very effective at correcting some drill flaws. When prefroming the "at ease" movement, if we didn't have our fingers straight, they got rapped with whatever the instructor happened to be holding. It's not overly cruel, but still highly effective.
|
In Abu Ghraib, they would call that "torture" or "abuse".
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104050] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 12:38 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Are you pretending that this whole Abu Ghraib scandal DIDN'T HAPPEN?!
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104057] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 13:23 |
 |
liberator
Messages: 246
Registered: May 2003
Location: Classified, Level Phi cle...
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
No, but it's not as big a deal as the Left is making it. The Big Problem that I have with the Left is not so much that they are amoral bastards in search of political power, but that they are willing to damage something as vital as National Security to make it a political tool in their pursuit of power, as if it was something less critical like the welfare system or sommat.
The first Duty of the Government of the United States is ensure that United States citizens are safe in the World At Large by ensuring that the United States has a military capable of defending against all comers.
There was a time when people were impressed that I have the firepower to decimate a planet in under 10 minutes.
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104078] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 16:16 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
The left is not INFLATING this scandal! What is happening here is positively terrible! We're torturing people, and it's positively terribe. It's not some little fraternity prank, as Rush Dumbass would have you think.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104081] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 16:39 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Yeah, and how come the Abu Ghraib scandal got so much more publicity than the Sandy Burglar one, eh?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104082] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 16:41 |
mahkra
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| liberator |
The Big Problem that I have with the Left is not so much that they are amoral bastards in search of political power, but that they are willing to damage something as vital as National Security to make it a political tool in their pursuit of power, as if it was something less critical like the welfare system or sommat.
The first Duty of the Government of the United States is ensure that United States citizens are safe in the World At Large by ensuring that the United States has a military capable of defending against all comers.
|
I agree with you, to some extent.
Personally though, I think Bush totally fucked up with his foreign policy. He sent the rest of the world the message that we're going to go ahead and do whatever the hell we want to, regardless of whether it's justified or not. He basically spit in the face of the UN. If people like Dubya stay in power for very long, it will cost us all of our allies. And then where will we be?
I know we've got the best military in the world. But it's not strong enough to rule the entire world with an iron fist. (And it never will be.) We NEED allies. I think Dubya made the World At Large a much more dangerous place for US citizens.
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104083] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 16:43 |
|
liberator
Messages: 246
Registered: May 2003
Location: Classified, Level Phi cle...
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
It is bad, but if they give up a piece of vital information after a little embarrasment(it's not torture, torture would involve lit cigars, electrodes in various places, medieval devices of various sizes), I'm fine with that. What your prcecious Left is doing is minimizing the fact that they are CUTTING PEOPLE'S HEADS OFF, not for information but because they are animals and most likely get off on it.
There was a time when people were impressed that I have the firepower to decimate a planet in under 10 minutes.
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104085] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 16:46 |
mahkra
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Crimson |
Yeah, and how come the Abu Ghraib scandal got so much more publicity than the Sandy Burglar one, eh?
|
It's the same reason they show stories about kittens caught in trees on the evening news. People pay more attention to emotional stories. People being beat up in prison camps makes much better news than someone sneaking documents out of an archive.
Also, the war in Iraq was already getting absurd amounts of publicity. Every time ANYTHING happened over there, we heard about it constantly for days or even weeks. It's no surprise that that stuff got so much attention.
Don't get me wrong, here -- I think the whole Abu Ghraib stuff is total BS. (Well, not ALL of it... but people are making too big a deal about a lot of it. I mean, except for the fact that we broke lots of international laws. But I think some of those laws are silly...) But I don't think it's a ploy by the Left to make the current government look bad. I think it's just an emotional story that most major news sources know will sell papers and attract viewers.
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104097] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 17:28 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
Yeah, and how come the Abu Ghraib scandal got so much more publicity than the Sandy Burglar one, eh?
|
Because the Sandy Berger case has an assload of holes in it. That's why only FOX will run it, saying things like "An unnamed staff archive guard told an unidentified source that he saw Sandy Berger removing documents from the archive! Now, this makes no sense, because if a guard SAW someone taking files, shouldn't the guard have stopped him, since it's his JOB? And FOX likes to run it to cover up on the 9/11 commission report being released.
| liberator |
It is bad, but if they give up a piece of vital information after a little embarrasment(it's not torture, torture would involve lit cigars, electrodes in various places, medieval devices of various sizes), I'm fine with that. What your prcecious Left is doing is minimizing the fact that they are CUTTING PEOPLE'S HEADS OFF, not for information but because they are animals and most likely get off on it.
|
Yes, it is torture, you uninformed fool. They've been torturing people long and hard, with torture tactics that you wouldn't necessarily think of, like strapping people to boards and holding them underground until they think they will drown. It's not movie torture. It's torture. Also, one of the discoveries of the 20th century is that torture really isn't that effective. People being tortured want the torture to stop, they don't care about actually giving up facts. And no, torture is not justifiable. Pretending it is makes you a moron.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104120] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 18:26 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| Crimson |
Yeah, and how come the Abu Ghraib scandal got so much more publicity than the Sandy Burglar one, eh?
|
Because the Sandy Berger case has an assload of holes in it. That's why only FOX will run it, saying things like "An unnamed staff archive guard told an unidentified source that he saw Sandy Berger removing documents from the archive! Now, this makes no sense, because if a guard SAW someone taking files, shouldn't the guard have stopped him, since it's his JOB? And FOX likes to run it to cover up on the 9/11 commission report being released.
|
1) CNN ran it, Washington Post ran it...
2) This is an ongoing investigation, and also it's a story that was leaked. No one has denied this. Berger's lawyer and Berger ADMIT to the act, yet say it was an accident.
3) You can't pretend to know the proper procedure when theft is suspected in the White House.
4) There's nothing in the 9/11 commission report for FOX to want to cover up.
The question remains: What papers were important enough for Sandy Berger to risk his reputation and career and fall on his sword for this way? What did he take notes on? That's what needs to be released here.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104139] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 19:04 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
1) CNN ran it, Washington Post ran it...
2) This is an ongoing investigation, and also it's a story that was leaked. No one has denied this. Berger's lawyer and Berger ADMIT to the act, yet say it was an accident.
3) You can't pretend to know the proper procedure when theft is suspected in the White House.
4) There's nothing in the 9/11 commission report for FOX to want to cover up.
The question remains: What papers were important enough for Sandy Berger to risk his reputation and career and fall on his sword for this way? What did he take notes on? That's what needs to be released here.
|
1) FOX ran all over it...
2) Yes, it is, but it has some holes, to say the least.
3) If a security guard spots someone taking documents from the archives, you'd think it would be THEIR JOB to make sure those files don't leave when they are not supposed to. I doubt they're told to sit down and wait for the story to break in the news.
4) Yeah there is. The report shows that we've done very little of what we should to stop terrorism since 9/11.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104172] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 20:56 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
So, because a right-leaning news outlet decides to run with a story that makes the left look bad... and that's somehow incriminating?? I don't know where you're trying to go with that.
Maybe it has some holes because the entire fucking story hasn't been told in the news? Hardly exonerates him.
You keep focusing on all this other stuff and not WHAT IS IN THE DOCUMENTS HE "LOST"? WHAT IS IN THE MISSING DOCUMENTS THAT HE WAS WILLING TO FALL ON HIS SWORD TO REMOVE/DESTROY??!
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104178] |
Sun, 25 July 2004 22:42 |
|
liberator
Messages: 246
Registered: May 2003
Location: Classified, Level Phi cle...
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
That's the question of decade.
Understand something:
The documents Sandy Berger admits to leaving the National Archives with are classified well above United States Nuclear Secrets.
The posession of those documents outside the sight of Archives staff without permission or clearance is a Federal Offense. Mr. Berger is going to go to prison for a very long time. None of this is in dispute. What they are doing is attemping to cover up what he stole and why he stole.
Come to think of it, shouldn't Berger's clearance to be in the Archives expired with Clinton's term of office?
There was a time when people were impressed that I have the firepower to decimate a planet in under 10 minutes.
|
|
|
|
| How equal are we? [message #104189] |
Mon, 26 July 2004 08:56 |
 |
K9Trooper
Messages: 821
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
I seriously doubt the validity of that story, I think anyone can throw a grenade past safe distance if they try. It's not like they're throwing bowling balls or something else.
|
It is true and more. Women in the military have lower requirements for physical training. They have to do fewer pushups, situps, pullups and run 2 miles in a longer time frame. Their pushups, situps and pullups are also modified to make it even easier.
Question here that no one can seem to give a straight answer to.
How the hell do you accidently walk out of the National Archives with classified documents in your pants? I suppose he ran out of room in his brief case and decided to shove them in his briefs.
R.I.P. TreyD. You will be missed, but not forgotten.
[Updated on: Mon, 26 July 2004 09:01] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Nov 01 00:31:22 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01235 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
