patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,260,061 comments by 15,047 users - AmericanKulak, mell, Patrick online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 15 - 54 of 94 Next » Last » Search these comments
freak80
2013 Aug 21, 2:01am
No, because there is already such a distinction.
Well there is, but how many political leaders and media pundits are out there actively promoting the idea?
I guess political leaders/media pundits *want* conflict and confusion over the issue in order to get votes/ratings.
Same sex marriage cheapens Larry Craig's marriage.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/us-senator-gets-flushed
MershedPerturders
2013 Aug 21, 2:29am
The proposal is to add sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran’s status to the city’s nondiscrimination policies.
in other words gay people get special treatment.
in other words gay people get special treatment.
It would save everyone a lot of time if they just made a policy that explicitly states preferential treatment for anyone who isn't a straight white male instead of having to name every other person that isn't a straight white male.
That's the sole purpose of "anti discrimination" laws.
in other words gay people get special treatment.
It would save everyone a lot of time if they just made a policy that explicitly states preferential treatment for anyone who isn't a straight white male instead of having to name every other person that isn't a straight white male.
Nobody is asking for being treated special here. They are seeking if anything- the same rights that everyone else has. So that is nothing special at all. Its the same rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution. Those whom disagree seem confused by presenting double standards.
freak80
2013 Aug 21, 2:46am
This is a culture war. The side opposing gay marriage does not want homosexuality to exist at all, would criminalize it if they could, and they want homosexuals to be a second-class citizen with inferior rights.
Is that true? I'm not aware of any serious proposal to criminalize homosexual behavior. I'm also not aware of any serious attempt to take away (for example) the right to vote, free speech, etc based on sexual activities.
I could be wrong, can you give examples?
I think much of the opposition to gay marriage comes from fear (rational or not) that government will interfere with "religious freedom" and religious marriages.
They're asking to have their degenerate minority lifestyle to be catered to and excused as being normal at the expense of the majority.
That is asking for special treatment.
Shaman
2013 Aug 21, 2:49am
in other words gay people get special treatment.
It would save everyone a lot of time if they just made a policy that explicitly states preferential treatment for anyone who isn't a straight white male instead of having to name every other person that isn't a straight white male.
Nobody is asking for being treated special here. They are seeking if anything- the same rights that everyone else has. So that is nothing special at all. Its the same rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution. Those whom disagree seem confused by presenting double standards.
That's the tag line. The reality of these laws is indeed special treatment. If a gay Asian guy is rejected for a job at Marie Calendar's, he can sue for possible discrimination. If a poor white kid is rejected for a job at the Won Ton Palace because he can't speak Mandarin, he has no such recourse. That's the very definition of special treatment.
finehoe
2013 Aug 21, 3:02am
The reality of these laws is indeed special treatment.
Liar.
Sec. 2-550. - Non-Discrimination Policy.
(a) It shall be the general policy of the City of San Antonio to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability, as set forth in the Divisions following, unless exempted by state or federal law or as otherwise indicated.
Disingenuous. It is the implicit policy of all government to hire and fire based on "diversity" and not merit.
10 normal white males show up as the best candidates for 10 jobs. They will not all be hired. There will be less qualified women and browns hired instead to fill a quota that a lawyer says won't get them sued. This directly affects the livelihood of the straight white males. It is an insult to his previous achievements and possibly decades of work reduced to nothing because of his sex and/or race.
10 current employees need to be let go due to downsizing. It would make sense to fire low productivity employees or eliminate redundant positions. This will not be the case. A lawyer will be checking the race/sex/whatever of those being let go before anything happens to make sure they won't get sued. If they must fire a nonwhite, you can believe a white person will be fired as well to keep the quota in balance. A nonwhite with a previous complaint to HR about discrimination, with merit to the claim or not, is far less likely to be let go than a normal white male.
Some of you seem incapable of comprehending what this particular post about. I believe finehoe made is rather crystal, by actually posting the law above, which if any of you read simply states that there is not to be any discrimination and that goes not just for race or sexual orientation, but age, military past experience, and so on. So that is an ALL-INCLUSIVE statement.
Some of you seem hell-bent on trying to make this into an argument that it isn't. This is about overall general rights for all. Duh!
finehoe
2013 Aug 21, 3:44am
Some of you seem incapable of comprehending what this particular post about.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
-John Stuart Mill
False.
Anti discrimination laws are about maintaining racial quotas that the powers that be created.
The USA already has equal opportunity, but what they really want is equal outcome regardless of ability. Without forced equal outcome, people would come up with reasons why there are disparities in achievement between the races and sexes.
There is an ugly, factually correct scientific answer to that question that the PC crowd won't even allow to be asked.
Anti discrimination laws are about maintaining racial quotas that the powers that be created.
Dude, not sure how much easier it is to make it. Read the law above. The law is so blatantly all-encompassing... as in this covers not only all races, but all religions, all age groups, and all former associations with the military.
Your argument that somehow anti discrimination causes problem is a joke. Its written in our US Constitution that all men are created equal, and furthermore we do not formerly recognize any particular religion as the religion of the country, meaning all religion is respected and you can practice as you please but the government has nothing to do with it.
Either way, keep right on trying with your lame straw man argument. Its wrong in any sense of the word anyway.
finehoe
2013 Aug 21, 4:00am
There is an ugly, factually correct scientific answer to that question that the PC crowd won't even allow to be asked.
You of course are too dense to see the irony of calling something "PC" in response to an article about people booing someone (a wounded veteran no less) who has a different opinion than they do.
As I've explained above with real life situations, anti discrimination laws are for the detriment of the normal straight white male. It is complete racial and sexual discrimination against straight white males.
The world the constitution was created in was 100% white European. They did not feel they had to define 'men' for something so obvious and ingrained in everyone at the time.
The forefathers could not imagine a world of racial diversity because no racially diverse nation existed at the time. They all fail due to natural tension between 2 or more genetically different groups.
The USA is held together as a semi diverse nation because of fiat money backed by the worlds largest and best military. If the USA becomes less than 50% whites of European decent, the USA will cease to exist.
Dan8267
2013 Aug 21, 4:05am
What's worse though is that Bradley Manning gets 35 years in prison from your beloved administration (I am sure most Republicans are on board with this as well though)
Yeah, Obama has become the worst president ever, taking the prize from Bush. If Obama had any integrity at all, he would have pardon Manning and awarded him the Medal of Honor.
Luckily most Democrats in office aren't as evil as Obama. Unfortunately, most Republicans are.
What's worse though is that Bradley Manning gets 35 years in prison from your beloved administration (I am sure most Republicans are on board with this as well though)
Yeah, Obama has become the worst president ever, taking the prize from Bush. If Obama had any integrity at all, he would have pardon Manning and awarded him the Medal of Honor.
Luckily most Democrats in office aren't as evil as Obama. Unfortunately, most Republicans are.
The Libertarians and libertarian republicans mostly stand with the whistleblowers and for civil liberties though.
The world the constitution was created in was 100% white European. They did not feel they had to define 'men' for something so obvious and ingrained in everyone at the time.
The forefathers could not imagine a world of racial diversity because no racially diverse nation existed at the time. They all fail due to natural tension between 2 or more genetically different groups.
Oh, I see, so now you're basically saying that the writers of the Constitution were full of it and that the document isn't legit? How fitting. In that case I would also assume that you feel the same about the second amendment as well, seeing as how back then people actually had to use guns to hunt and obtain food but now we get all of our food from the grocery store. So glad that the constitution is apparently open to loose interpretation to fit whatever political ideology someone has. Brilliant!
If the USA becomes less than 50% whites of European decent, the USA will cease to exist.
This is the silliest thing I've read. California has the 7th largest economy in the world if it were a foreign country. Over half of the population is of minority origin and a large number of the largest companies here were founded by immigrants.
Stop making this about race because it isn't. Besides, the article above was about a US vet getting booed at. That was the subject of this post and instead of focusing on that, a lot of people here decided to get right down to the whole race thing.
Yeah, Obama has become the worst president ever, taking the prize from Bush.
I just read that today is actually opposite day. In that case I concur with your statement.
Oh, I see, so now you're basically saying that the writers of the Constitution were full of it and that the document isn't legit?
No. I'm saying your definition of 'men' differs from theirs.
CA is a poor example of racial harmony. It is also extreme financial trouble and is being propped up by the government's fiat money. The money is being produced by whites and Asians in CA, not blacks or latinos. Those non Asian minorities are a huge expense to the government because they can't take care of themselves.
Every problem in the USA has a racial component to it. Many problems would cease to exist or be greatly lessened if the USA was still 85% white as it was until the 1960's.
I find your argument to be sad and utterly backwards. Thus I see no reason to continue debating with you. Guess what? Its not 1960 anymore.
If I'm reading the original Huffington Post article correctly, the only evidence of booing was described by Alva(the vet) in a Facebook post. Before getting all worked up over this, I would think people would like to hear evidence of the booing from the many witnesses at the event, other than just from the self perceived victim.
The link goes to a site with pro gay agenda right on the header, who took a story from HuffPost then put a piece forward that they would probably even admit was not very objective
finehoe
2013 Aug 21, 5:01am
Before getting all worked up over this, I would think people would like to hear evidence of the booing from the many witnesses at the event
Well, there is a precedent:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/debate-crowd-booed-gay-soldier/
Shaman
2013 Aug 21, 7:19am
Anti discrimination laws are about maintaining racial quotas that the powers that be created.
Dude, not sure how much easier it is to make it. Read the law above. The law is so blatantly all-encompassing... as in this covers not only all races, but all religions, all age groups, and all former associations with the military.
Your argument that somehow anti discrimination causes problem is a joke. Its written in our US Constitution that all men are created equal, and furthermore we do not formerly recognize any particular religion as the religion of the country, meaning all religion is respected and you can practice as you please but the government has nothing to do with it.
Either way, keep right on trying with your lame straw man argument. Its wrong in any sense of the word anyway.
It's not written in our Constitution that men are created equal. That's from the Declaration of Independence, and was never either a true or a binding statement. Just flowery egalitarian language for the purpose of aggrandizing a document of secession.
Humans are clearly not equal in virtually any regard. Whether in innate gifts or bequeathed power, they are not equal. Their situations are not equal. Their choices are not equal.
The first rule of life is simply this: "life's not fair."
Get used to it.
It's not written in our Constitution that men are created equal. That's from the Declaration of Independence, and was never either a true or a binding statement. Just flowery egalitarian language for the purpose of aggrandizing a document of secession.
Humans are clearly not equal in virtually any regard. Whether in innate gifts or bequeathed power, they are not equal. Their situations are not equal. Their choices are not equal.
The first rule of life is simply this: "life's not fair."
Get used to it.
I have no clue what you are trying to say other than it also smells generally of the same lameness as some of the other comments have alluded to in an attempt to skirt the issue. Once more, you seem to somehow easily confuse the matter here. Do you or do you not agree that all Americans deserve equal rights? Yes or no. That is the matter here.
The topic of the pro gay website is an anti discrimination law that is not about equal rights. It is about taking natural rights from the straight white male citizens who are descendants of the straight white males who created the USA and those that legally immigrated to the USA.
On that level, I do not support "equal rights" for all Americans because it is disingenuous and false in this case.
Shaman
2013 Aug 21, 8:15am
Edvard2 says, "I have no clue what you are trying to say"
Should you really advertise your lack of reading comprehension when trying to win a written argument? Seems to me as if that would undermine whatever point you were trying to make. My words were clear, concise, and eloquent. Any well educated person would be able to understand them.
Should you really advertise your lack of reading comprehension when trying to win a written argument? Seems to me as if that would undermine whatever point you were trying to make. My words were clear, concise, and eloquent. Any well educated person would be able to understand them.
Seems to me that you should form an actual response to a response that isn't nonsense before you claim victory. Your words don't mean much when the thoughts they are supposedly representing are rather pointless and wrong to begin with. Lastly- you failed to answer my question. You did so of course because in answering it that would have basically made your entire argument moot. So I'm waiting. Answer the question I stated above.foxmannumber1 says
It is about taking natural rights from the straight white male citizens who are descendants of the straight white males who created the USA and those that legally immigrated to the USA.
I'm sorry, but whatever conspiracy you're trying to make out of this is really bizzare. Go back to watching your FOX news, " foxmannumber1"
It's not bizarre at all. I think it's plain as day.
The government tells you they want to end discrimination of sex/race/whatever by discriminating against straight white males.
It's doublespeak that the average person doesn't question as long as they get theirs.
The government tells you they want to end discrimination of sex/race/whatever by discriminating against straight white males.
But they're not fucking discriminating against straight white males. Gah!!!!
10 normal white males show up as the best candidates for 10 jobs. They will not all be hired. There will be less qualified women and browns hired instead to fill a quota that a lawyer says won't get them sued. This directly affects the livelihood of the straight white males. It is an insult to his previous achievements and possibly decades of work reduced to nothing because of his sex and/or race.
10 current employees need to be let go due to downsizing. It would make sense to fire low productivity employees or eliminate redundant positions. This will not be the case. A lawyer will be checking the race/sex/whatever of those being let go before anything happens to make sure they won't get sued. If they must fire a nonwhite, you can believe a white person will be fired as well to keep the quota in balance. A nonwhite with a previous complaint to HR about discrimination, with merit to the claim or not, is far less likely to be let go than a normal white male.
Explain how the above is factually false or incorrect.
blah blah blah blah blah.... The same crap I've heard for years from conservatives. Nothing new or nothing factual here to back up this. Moving on...
But anyway, WTF does this have to do with the article above? Do you think it was a good thing that a veteran was booed at a public event?
Shaman
2013 Aug 21, 8:55am
Edvard2 says, "Seems to me that you should form an actual response to a response that isn't nonsense before you claim victory. Your words don't mean much when the thoughts they are supposedly representing are rather pointless and wrong to begin with. Lastly- you failed to answer my question. You did so of course because in answering it that would have basically made your entire argument moot. So I'm waiting. Answer the question I stated above"
The question was silly, of course I believe that people should be granted equal rights and protections under government. But this does not make them equal! It never has and it never will. You can't legislate equality any more than you can demand that your pet goldfish learn to ride a bicycle! All you can do is give people the same protections, encourage behaviors that enhance this, and wait for culture to catch up. There's a lot of inertia to culture. It doesn't like to change, not quickly, and certainly not just because some pointy-headed politician passes a law.
The question was silly, of course I believe that people should be granted equal rights and protections under government. But this does not make them equal! It never has and it never will. You can't legislate equality any more than you can demand that your pet goldfish learn to ride a bicycle!
You are taking this out of context entirely. You need to understand what the statement " That all men are created equal" was meant in its original statement. That statement was to proclaim that all men are entitled to the same rights as others regardless of their background, race, or religion. As such the statements I made before still stand. Either way, I tire of this silly debate. I've wasted enough time already.
You use the word minority when referring to race in government policy. A more accurate word to use is 'nonwhite'. They seriously mean 'everyone but Whites' when using the word minority.
It's simply a fact that nonwhites are given 'points' in the hiring process. Any HR person knows they need minorities on the payroll or risk a shakedown. This is a de facto racial quota system. It is another fact that no government agency is all White males anymore, even though White males show the highest aptitude to virtually any job.
If the Forest Service really is all female and nonwhite males as you claim, I think we're on the same page that straight White males are discriminated against in their own country.
10 blacks are barely qualified to tie their own shoes. Speaking, reading and writing proper English is a rare trait for a black even today, much less 1960. There will always be a more qualified and willing straight White male out there for a job that hires any black. Those 10 "qualified" blacks would simply be told to go away in reality.
Your claims of murder or violence by Whites on blacks for applying for a job is ludicrous. Even modern Hollywood, who loves to rewrite history to show blacks are noble and intelligent figures who simply want to be equal to Whites don't go as far as you. Not yet anyway.
Even with the racist policies in place, straight White males still come out on top. The reason boils down to genetic intelligence.
American Whites have an average IQ of 100. American blacks have an average IQ of 85. You simply can't expect someone with an IQ of 85 to do a job that requires an IQ of 100.
The government's only option at that point is to dumb down the job so an 85 IQ person can do it, or hire both an 85 IQ black and a 100 IQ White and make the White person do the work while claiming a team effort. This tactic is very common.
Some jobs simply can't be dumbed down that far and remain White only. Scientific fields are one of them that remain largely White and Asian.
Shaman
2013 Aug 21, 11:00pm
If you want to group average intelligence by race, it should be noted that whites are only middle of the pack. In order: Arabs>Indians>Asians>Jews at the top.
Plenty of "minority" ranks above white people in intelligence. Making this about race isn't the way to go. I suspect our views on this are very very far apart.
« First « Previous Comments 15 - 54 of 94 Next » Last » Search these comments
Gay Vet Who Lost His Leg In Iraq Is Booed For Supporting San Antonio Nondiscrimination Bill
Eric Alva, a gay Marine veteran who lost a leg while serving in Iraq. So when Alva testified in favor of San Antonio’s nondiscrimination audience, you’d think he’d at least get a respectful reception. Instead. Alva was booed by audience members who objected to his support for the measure.
Alva was the first American to be injured in the Iraq war, when he stepped on a landmine. He has been a leading proponent of the nondiscrimination ordinance, which the religious right equates with Armageddon.
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/gay-vet-who-lost-his-leg-in-iraq-is-booed-for-supporting-san-antonio-nondiscrimination-bill-20130820/#ixzz2cbxEv8sA