patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
756,819 comments in 77,896 posts by 11,081 registered users, 3 online now: errc, mell, TwoScoopsMcGee

new post

An Indian and an African walk into a bar!!

By lostand confused   Apr 24, 9:56pm   2 links   2,447 views   37 comments   watch (1)   quote      

Comments 1-37 of 37     Last »

1   Peter P   Apr 24, 11:07pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

It is about the colors of the wind.

2   komputodo   Apr 24, 11:46pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Peter P says

It is about the colors of the wind.

If you meant "the colors of their wind", and wind being particulate, I'd guess it probably had a brownish tinge.

3   BlueSardine   Apr 25, 6:15am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Well at least they've composed themselves to look the part...

4   Blurtman   Apr 25, 6:55am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

lostand confused says

An Indian and an African walk into a bar!!

They are soon joined by a Latina.

5   someone else   Apr 25, 7:53am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Huh, didn't know that.

White was born Vanna Marie Angel in Conway, South Carolina,[2] the daughter of Joan Marie Rosich and Miguel Angel. Her father abandoned the family and White took the name of her stepfather, Herbert Stackley White Jr.

6   Ceffer   Apr 25, 8:00am     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Who cares as long as it gets you into Harvard.

7   HEY YOU   Apr 25, 10:04am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Donald Trump becomes President.
The Republican voters are the punchline.

8   Dan8267   Apr 25, 10:36am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

If the worst thing you can say about Elizabeth Warren is that she checked Native American on the ethnic background question of a job application 40 years ago, then you clearly don't have anything negative to say about Warren. Even if it were a lie, and there is absolutely no reason to believe it was, it would be an unimportant lie to a question that neither she nor anyone else should ever be asked.

If only there were any conservative who was as good of character as Elizabeth Warren. There isn't.

Nor can anyone make an argument against her reforms other than "rich parasites won't be able to own a third yacht if they are prevented from ass-fucking the common American". That's not exactly a compelling argument to make, which is why her opposition engages in such underhanded and infantile character assassination attempts.

9   Blurtman   Apr 25, 10:40am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Even if it were a lie, and there is absolutely no reason to believe it was

ancestry.com. What's holding her back?

10   Dan8267   Apr 25, 11:02am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Blurtman says

ancestry.com. What's holding her back?

The real question is why the fuck should she be motivated to release her private family information to the public? When you fill out your ethnic background on a job application, that information is suppose to be confidential. It's none of your business what her ethnic background is, nor should you care.

And what if she did get a genetic test and found that she was not Native American? That does not imply what you want it to imply. It does not mean she lied on the job application. She said she based her decision on what her family told her when she was growing up. And even if she did lie -- and there is absolutely no reason to believe that -- it would be a lie regarding an unimportant and personal question that neither she nor anyone else should ever be asked except perhaps in an anonymous scientific study.

So your implication that Elizabeth Warren is unethical for checking Native American on a job application 40 years ago is utter bullshit regardless of whether or not she is or whether or not she lied. I'd strongly recommend that white men lie like crazy about their ethnic background to avoid job discrimination due to Unconstitutional Affirmative Action quotas.

Do you believe in race-based quotas and Affirmative Action? Unless the answer is a resounding yes, then you are being a hypocrite right now. So man up and answer that question clearly and unequivocally. Do you believe in race-based quotas and Affirmative Action?

11   Blurtman   Apr 25, 11:06am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

she be motivated to release her private family information to the public?

She already has discussed her alleged Native American ancestry. As a good liberal, she must be for affirmative action. Clear it up and release the results.

12   Dan8267   Apr 25, 11:07am     ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Blurtman says

They are soon joined by a Latina.

Vanna White was so damn hot back in the 80s.

Young. Check.
Thin. Check.
Blonde. Check.
Not overly large breasts. Check.

Damn, I do have a type.

P.S. I miss public hair.

13   Rin   Apr 25, 3:36pm     ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Elizabeth Warren is that she checked Native American on the ethnic background question of a job application 40 years ago

Dan, this is Harvard Law School. They pretty much never offer faculty jobs to those who'd graduated from outside of the top 15 US law schools plus Oxford/Cambridge/London, on the other side of the pond.

Liz was undergrad Univ of Houston (and no, it wasn't Petroleum Engineering which is UH's one and only Ivy-like program) plus post-graduate Rutgers Law.

In contrast, Asian-American Jeannie Suk, had attended Yale undergrad, Oxford PhD, and Harvard Law, to be able to be able to be a faculty member there. Her ancestors had escaped North Korea during the war and were in fact, refugees in the South post-Armistice. She didn't arrive in America with a silver spoon.

In contrast, when I will apply for medical schools, I'd be a noveau riche silver spooner, which will get me into better programs than just a middle classer by virtue of having worked for this hedge fund. My senior partner has already written that letter of recommendation, a.k.a Rin the Rainmaker.

The idea is this ... there are favored minorities (excluding Asians) and rich ppl with connections.

Jeannie was a model minority and thus, needed to overachieve to be in HLS's faculty.

14   Dan8267   Apr 25, 4:49pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

Rin says

The idea is this ... there are favored minorities (excluding Asians) and rich ppl with connections.

The solution is simply to stop such favoritism. The first step in that is to prohibit rather than require ethnic background questions.

15   Blurtman   Apr 25, 4:52pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

The first step in that is to prohibit rather than require ethnic background questions

Warren would likely disagree. She is likely pro-affirmative action, as is likely Rachel Dolezal.

16   Dan8267   Apr 25, 4:57pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

Blurtman says

As a good liberal, she must be for affirmative action.

That's bullshit. First, I don't even know if Warren is a liberal. She's mainly known for banking and finance industry reform and economic policies to protect the middle class. That's all economic policies, not social policies. Regardless, liberals don't have to be for Affirmative Action. I'm a living, breathing, in your face contradiction of what you just said. I'm the most liberal person you'll ever interact with, yet I'm stoutly against Affirmative Action precisely because I'm a liberal. Affirmative Action violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and it goes entirely against the liberal philosophy of equality under law and privileges for none. How do you square that circle?

Dan8267 says

Do you believe in race-based quotas and Affirmative Action? Unless the answer is a resounding yes, then you are being a hypocrite right now. So man up and answer that question clearly and unequivocally. Do you believe in race-based quotas and Affirmative Action?

You still didn't have the courage to answer this question, so I'll give the world your answer. Clearly from your posts, you despise Affirmative Action and race-base quotas. Therefore, it is utterly hypocritical of you to oppose anyone lying on an AA question for the purpose of not being discriminated against by such quotas. You have no case that Warren lied, and even if she had, you have no case that it is unethical to lie to prevent being discriminated against by the very quotas you object to in the first place.

Have a little political integrity, please. I know you are a conservative, but do you have to directly contradict everything you claim to believe? If you cannot live by your own beliefs, why should I accept them?

I live by my beliefs. Affirmative Action is discriminatory and Unconstitutional. No race quotas should exist. No preferential treatment should exist. And anyone who lies to prevent being discriminated against, whether it's a black man passing for white or a white man checking African American, has done nothing wrong. The only wrong doing is asking such questions and using them to discriminate against anyone in hiring practices. It's real easy to live by your beliefs when your beliefs aren't self-contradictory.

17   Blurtman   Apr 25, 5:13pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Regardless, liberals don't have to be for Affirmative Action.

The Democrat party would disagree. Ask Pelosi or the cuck head of the DNC.
Dan8267 says

Clearly from your posts, you despise Affirmative Action and race-base quotas. Therefore, it is utterly hypocritical of you to oppose anyone lying on an AA question for the purpose of not being discriminated against by such quotas.

I am against the hypocrisy.
Dan8267 says

I live by my beliefs. Affirmative Action is discriminatory and Unconstitutional.

I agree. But we have one scumbag SCJ who has advanced her career due to AA.

18   Dan8267   Apr 25, 5:27pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

Blurtman says

Dan8267 says

Regardless, liberals don't have to be for Affirmative Action.

The Democrat party would disagree. Ask Pelosi or the cuck head of the DNC.

Who gives a shit. If you disagree with a fact, you are wrong. Facts aren't opinions.

It is an empirical fact that liberals don't have to be for Affirmative Action. I am indisputable proof of that fact. I meet the definition of liberal, and I oppose Affirmative Action.

Again, how do you square your notion of what liberals are with a living, breathing example proving you wrong? Do you think I'm a figment of your imagination and you've gone crazy? If not, you have to acknowledge that you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG about what liberals actually believe because a god-damn liberal is telling you he opposes something you think all liberals support.

God, it's like talking to a wall.

Blurtman says

Dan8267 says

Clearly from your posts, you despise Affirmative Action and race-base quotas. Therefore, it is utterly hypocritical of you to oppose anyone lying on an AA question for the purpose of not being discriminated against by such quotas.

I am against the hypocrisy.

Then stop practicing it. To condemn Warren for allegedly lying on a question to not be discriminated against by racial quotas you oppose is utter hypocrisy. To resolve this hypocrisy, you must do one of two things.
1. Embrace Affirmative Action and racial quotas.
2. Revoke your condemnation of Warren and anyone else you think might have lied on such questions.

Pick your way out. Until you do, you are a hypocrite.

If you pick option 1, I'll disagree with you but still respect you. If you pick option 2, we are in agreement. If you don't pick either, you choose hypocrisy and deserve no respect, doubly so for claiming to be against hypocrisy.

Blurtman says

But we have one scumbag SCJ who has advanced her career due to AA.

I have no idea what you mean by SCJ, but referring to Warren as a scumbag for defending the middle class just makes me have even less respect for you. If you are going to make a case that Warren is a scumbag, especially given all the other senators in Congress, then you better have a damn good justification, and so far you have presented nothing to indicate Warren is anything but noble.

Just because you don't like her reforms and would like to see the wealth gap increase, does not make Warren a scumbag. It might, however, make you one. Impoverishing three hundred million Americans in order to allow a few million to buy a third yacht is a very scumbag thing to do.

The rich are wealthy enough. Our policies need to save the other 99% of the American population.

19   Blurtman   Apr 25, 6:30pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

o condemn Warren for allegedly lying on a question to not be discriminated against by racial quotas you oppose is utter hypocrisy.

Not at all. It is wrong to deny non-colored people an equal chance, whether you take advantage of this authorized racism as a colored person or faux colored person. Your argument is, if you are a Jew in a concentration camp, you should participate in gassing your own people.Dan8267 says

I have no idea what you mean by SCJ, but referring to Warren

Warren is not a SCJ. Think "wise Latina."

20   Rin   Apr 25, 6:40pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

The first step in that is to prohibit rather than require ethnic background questions.

Absolutely and likewise, the application should exclude all family member information because that's also a way of determining one's racial/ethnic background and/or rich person status. For example, if my app read ...

Applicant: Rin Humpalot
Occupation: Public Relations Consultant, ABC Capital Group

Parent: Jack Rockefeller V
Occupation: Custodian of the Rockefeller Foundation

etc, etc, it's pretty clear that I'd be a preferred candidate over a typical white applicant.

Dan8267 says

I have no idea what you mean by SCJ

Supreme Court Justice

Blurtman says

It is wrong to deny non-colored people an equal chance, whether you take advantage of this authorized racism as a colored person or faux colored person.

There's no equality if all white applicants (minus Rin Rockefeller) by default, were expected to have attended Harvard, Yale, or Oxford law before having applied. That's a highly pre-selected pool of talent where in effect, only the work performed at the Ivy Law, is even considered 'true' experience. And then, how many of those pre-selected, were from well off families to start with?

21   Blurtman   Apr 25, 6:59pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rin says

There's no equality if all white applicants (minus Rin Rockefeller) by default, were expected to have attended Harvard, Yale, or Oxford law

Expected by whom? There is no racism at work when students are admitted as legacies, i.e., their parent is an alum, unless you somehow think there are no wealthy colored people alums. Clearly they have an advantage over non-legacy students. Likewise, when AA is practiced, non-colored people are disadvantaged. So when you take all into account, the poor non-colored person gets screwed. Legacies are admitted with inferior qualifications. Colored people are admitted with inferior qualifications.

22   P N Dr Lo R   Apr 25, 7:06pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

23   Rin   Apr 25, 7:20pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Blurtman says

Clearly they have an advantage over non-legacy students.

Yes, this is the only reason why law school flunk out, Vice President Al Gore Junior, got into Harvard undergrad. I'd wager that 95% of the ppl who Harvard annually rejects, would have outperformed Gore's F's during law school. As a matter of fact, I don't know a single person who'd failed all his finals in law school.

Blurtman says

Expected by whom?

Ppl who hire for faculty positions at law schools. They expect Ivy law backgrounds.

24   Rin   Apr 25, 7:21pm     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Blurtman says

when AA is practiced, non-colored people are disadvantaged. So when you take all into account, the poor non-colored person gets screwed.

Yes, because the spots are taken by the Gores or the children of ppl like Bill Cosby.

25   Dan8267   Apr 25, 7:31pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Blurtman says

Not at all. It is wrong to deny non-colored people an equal chance, whether you take advantage of this authorized racism as a colored person or faux colored person. Your argument is, if you are a Jew in a concentration camp, you should participate in gassing your own people.

If you think that, then your grasp of logic is too twisted to make any sense of. My real argument would be that if you are Jew in a concentration camp, it would be perfectly ethical to convince the Nazis that you are an Aryan Christian to avoid getting gassed.

You have a very sick sense of reality.

Nonetheless, you remain a hypocrite until you retract either your opposition to race quotas or your condemnation of Warren for allegedly trying to avoid being screwed over by those race quotas. It is no surprise to me that you choose to embrace hypocrisy when given this choice. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised, but your behavior is as predictable as it is dishonorable.

Would you like a second chance at redemption? Try again.

26   Dan8267   Apr 25, 7:33pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Rin says

Supreme Court Justice

That wasn't clear from Blurtman's statement. I thought he was talking about Warren.

27   Dan8267   Apr 25, 7:36pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Rin says

Harvard

Harvard and all Ivy league schools are even more bullshit than regular schools. They are simply country clubs for people born into ruling class families. A degree is only worth as much as the dumbest person awarded such a degree. George W. Bush demonstrates that Harvard degrees are worthless. Sure there may be some very smart Harvard graduates, but you can't tell whose smart and whose a dumb crony by the degree, so the degree is worthless.

The real solution is a single, national, virtual university with no campus that is free to all to learn as much as they want and be tested vigorously on it against a universal standard. In other words, we need to kill college.

28   mell   Apr 25, 7:55pm     ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Nonetheless, you remain a hypocrite until you retract either your opposition to race quotas or your condemnation of Warren for allegedly trying to avoid being screwed over by those race quotas. It is no surprise to me that you choose to embrace hypocrisy when given this choice. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised, but your behavior is as predictable as it is dishonorable.

Normally white people - in opposition of AA or not - do not try to game the system by (knowingly) falsely claiming to be a minority (there is nothing to prove as nobody ever found a shred of evidence that she is even 1/32 NA, so she isn't). I'm pretty sure she is aligned with the party stance and pro-AA, but of course we don't have a definitive answer. Either way she remains a hypocrite even if she admittedly had some good arguments against the big banks and Wall Street.

29   someone else   Apr 25, 7:57pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

The first step in that is to prohibit rather than require ethnic background questions.

Yes, this.

France has the right idea.

30   Dan8267   Apr 25, 8:08pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

mell says

Normally white people - in opposition of AA or not - do not try to game the system by (knowingly) falsely claiming to be a minority (there is nothing to prove as nobody ever found a shred of evidence that she is even 1/32 NA, so she isn't). I'm pretty sure she is aligned with the party stance and pro-AA, but of course we don't have a definitive answer. Either way she remains a hypocrite even if she admittedly had some good arguments against the big banks and Wall Street.

1. Whether or not white people normally try to "game the system" is irrelevant. Can you really make a compelling argument that a white person should be condemned for trying not to lose a job simply because of his race?
2. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So claiming that a person lied requires proof. The default position is that the person did not lie.
3. Whether or not you are pretty sure of a politician's stance is irrelevant. What counts is the politician's actual stance as indicated by his voting record.
4. You have shown no contradiction in Warren's behavior relative to her stated beliefs. Therefore, you have demonstrated no hypocrisy.
5. You would have to demonstrate that she was pro-Affirmative-Action when she told the alleged lie and that it was a lie. Her opinions 40 years later don't apply. People can change their opinions over half a century.
6. All human beings that have ever existed or will ever exist lie at some point in their lives. Not all lies are equal. A lie that starts a war and kills a million people like Bush said is way more important than whether or not some person is Native American. If you are looking for a person over 1 year of age that has never lied, you will not find such a person ever.
7. If the only thing negative you can say about Warren is that maybe she lied about something unimportant on a job application 40 years ago -- and clearly, that's all her opponents can find on her -- then she's pretty much the best fucking human being who has ever lived including Jesus Christ.

31   Dan8267   Apr 25, 8:12pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Patrick says

France has the right idea.

Unfortunately, France also has some pretty dumb ideas like outlawing paternity tests. Of course, the answer to that is that the alleged father should at all times have full control over the legal status of his fatherhood. At any time he says he suspects he's not the father, he can walk away scot-free. If that law were put in place, I suspect that France would bring back paternity tests overnight, even making them compulsory.

32   BlueSardine   Apr 25, 8:33pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

How?
Dan8267 says

So your implication that Elizabeth Warren is unethical for checking Native American on a job application 40 years ago is utter bullshit regardless of whether or not she is or whether or not she lied.

33   MMR   Apr 25, 9:11pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

1. Whether or not white people normally try to "game the system" is irrelevant. Can you really make a compelling argument that a white person should be condemned for trying not to lose a job simply because of his race?

So you're implying indirectly that those who don't use the warren strategy are "dolts who didn't try hard enough?" After all, if it's ok for her to do it without absorbing criticism, then all white people should be doing this, correct?

Liberal or not, sounds like the norm for elitist Democratic Party thinking as documented by Thomas Frank in the book listen liberal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listen,_Liberal

34   Dan8267   Apr 25, 11:23pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

MMR says

So you're implying indirectly that those who don't use the warren strategy are "dolts who didn't try hard enough?"

No. That may be what you want me to say, but it's not what I'm saying. Also, I don't imply. I explicitly state. When it comes to debate, fuck subtly. I will always present my core argument in its bare form, and I will always attack the central point of the opponent head on.

MMR says

all white people should be doing this, correct?

All white people should either not answer the question or deliberately answer the question with misinformation in order to combat racism. This conclusion is independent of the existence of Elizabeth Warren or any actions she took in her life.

Since you seem to be against Warren's alleged lie -- and again, there is no reason to believe it was a lie anyway -- then I take it that you fully support Affirmative Action and race-base quotas? I mean, otherwise, it would be hypocritical to attack Warren.

35   Blurtman   Apr 26, 7:26am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Would you like a second chance at redemption? Try again.

I usually don't debate people debating themselves. Carry on.

36   Dan8267   Apr 26, 7:52am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Blurtman says

I usually don't debate people debating themselves. Carry on.

Translation: You have chosen hypocrisy even when the hypocrisy has been clearly pointed out and explained. Therefore, your opinions do not warrant consideration.

Bad move. The face-saving move would have been to simply retract the attack on Warren. That would have shown intellectual honest and personal integrity and would have commanded respect. The move you made just makes you look bad.

37   Blurtman   Apr 26, 7:58am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

attack on Warren

Do you have any evidence that Warren was pretending to be an Indian to strike a blow against AA? It is quite likely that she benefitted from self-identifying as a colored person, possibly the best, an Indian. Maybe she was led to believe that she had Indian ancestry, but there is no way this blonde white woman suffered racial discrimination as an Indian.

Comments 1-37 of 37     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home