Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

It was a left wing quote.

No, the study determined that almost all the editors were also left wingers.

Which study? where?

Several, actually. A few...http://www.mediaresearch.org/...rts/2004/report063004_p2.aspEditor and Publisherhttp://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp

You should read Bernard Goldberg's book on this. Here's a story on it:Page not found - The IHS

Then you have not read Revelations? By the way I have a thread opened in the Coffee House specifically on Islam's inherent nature toward science and democracy.It deals with actual concrete examples, rather than these glittering general statements. I'm sorry but how is that any different that evangelicals (who both are trying to take over and if not be an entity apart until they do) as well as proIsraeli Jews (who try to take over policy issues on that as well as live as an entity apart)? Is the difference that many of them were here "first" compared to muslims and hispanics, though not necessarily to other groups?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Revelations does not, in any way, command Christians on the Earth here and now and forever into the indefinite future to "slay all the non-believers, to beleaguer them, etc, etc."we live in an age when it is considered wrong to speak certain truths, lest we offend moral relativist sensibilities.However, despite Islam having the utterly vile Sword Verses (aka War Verses), I am not saying that Muslims are bad people, that they won't accept democracy, that peace with them is impossible. Rather, I point out why it is the Islamic world has such a passionate minority - MINORITY - who are bad, who won't accept democracy, with whom peace is impossible. Blair gave a speech on this the other day which I saw in my local paper. Although he was being a bit understandably pc (refused to actually say that the islamists are not untrue to the faith), he also spoke the truth: Muslims must confront and defeat the islamists within, people who see themselves acting in accordance with the faith. It was the first time a western politician has challenged "moderate' Muslims to take a stance against the islamists within and bear some responsibility for their actions for not having done so in past. If i recall, Blair specifically said Muslims must turn these people in to teh authorities.Evangelicals are part of teh founding people of the US. They cannot take over what they, as much or more than any other group, built. Regardless, you greviously misunderstand them. They do not want the things you assume they do. The vast majoirty, like Bush and Rice, are profound democrats. That is the heart and soul of their politics. Yes, they believe in right and worng...good. Yes, they understand that the family is the root of human emotional and mental health...good. They understand that there are bad guys out there who would bring down democracy...good.As for Jews...how incredibly wrong you are. The majority of Jews vote for the Democrats, even though Bush has been friendlier to israel than any president in 2 generations. That is because they vote as the leftist Americans they are, rather than according to Israel's better interests. ironically, as the only democracy in the ME (aside from, yes,Iraq), as having been a nuclear ally against the Soviet Union as it recruited Arab states, and for being an ally against islamism, it so happens that Israel's interests and the US's interests very closely align.A note of interest: Now that iraq is a nascent democracy with a parliament discussing minority rights, it is, at this moment debating whether thefre are enough Jews left in the country (somewhere between 20 and 60) to merit definition of a group needing legal protection. Only in a democracy could that happen. In all other arab countries, the only discussion is how to complete Hitler's holocaust.)

quote:

---

When i show up at an emergency ward with my very sick or injured child, i don't want to wonder whether the doctor is a doctor because she is a woman of colour, rather than because she proved herself objectively worthy of Med school entrance. Amd if she did earn her way in objectively, she doesn't want to me to wonder about that either.

---

Uh, if she has "MD" after her name, clearly she was worthy, right?What, do you think she didn't have to actually pass her MCATS, attend med school get good grades, pass her exams and complete a residency like everybody else who becomes a doctor?Getting into med school doesn't mean one will finish it, and plenty of white kids who get in never make it.

quote:

---

That is equally absurd. No person, who happens to be a woman should be denied entrance when she has earned her way in, when someone else, who happens to be a man, has proved less worthy.

---

You do know that it has been demonstrated that people with similar or better qualifications for a job but who have "black sounding" names generally do not get called back for job interviews as often as caucasians. The same is true for female names in certain higher-end jobs.: linkPage Not Found | Yale UniversityNo webpage found at provided URL: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_2_48/ai_97873146linkI also found this report regarding gender bias in college entrance exams: Page not found | FairTestSo, clearly there is plenty of discrimination going on, it's just not so blatant anymore.You are naive if you think that people are color- or gender-blind.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-18-2005 03:40 PM

"Uh, if she has "MD" after her name, clearly she was worthy, right?What, do you think she didn't have to actually pass her MCATS, attend med school get good grades, pass her exams and complete a residency like everybody else who becomes a doctor?Getting into med school doesn't mean one will finish it, and plenty of white kids who get in never make it."But if affirmative action was a factor in her acceptance, then we know that someone, probably brighter and more capable, was turned down so she could get in, someone who probably would have had better grades before and during Med School.I'm aware of that study that indicated people assumed to be black had a harder time getting job interviews. That was limited to particular circumstances and, if i recall, locales. Whether that indicates outright prejudice versus experience, we do not know. For example, if many of the employers in question has experuiened higher failure rates among Black employees, then their prejudice was based on experience. It is noteworthy thatno studies of which i am aware have noted prejudice in hiring against jews, Asians or many other groups. If pure prejudice were the issue, that would more than likely generalize to other minorities too.Which is nto to deny that prejudice remains in society. of course it does. and, most likely, it always will. The question is how do we deal with it?With respect to university applications, objective data should be the only criteria. In fact, apps could be designed such that acceptance deosn't even recognize gender or ethnicity. For cerian, they shouldn't be asked for, or even have boxes to be ticked off.With respect to jobs...we can't prevent discrimination amongst those who will discriminate. The best we can do is to use social sanction and moral suasion. But we should bear in mind that large companies want good relations with all consumers. If Gm were considered to be racist when it hired, it would lose a lot of potential minority cutomers. Then there are Black owned companies: who says they won't discriminate against white employees? Should affirmative action quotas dictate that black owned companies hire Whites in proporion to their population - or whatever?The bottom line is that the best we can do is to ensure, as we did so long ago now, that there be no laws sanctioning racial discrimination. Affirmative action is, in fact, legal discrimination. And legal discrimination is worse than incidental discrimination.

Also Schraf,
I have read that there are some studies that showed a bias for attractive people over average looking folks.So in that respect perhaps we are biologically wired to discriminate.

quote:

---

But if affirmative action was a factor in her acceptance, then we know that someone, probably brighter and more capable, was turned down so she could get in, someone who probably would have had better grades before and during Med School.

---

How do you know they were brighter and more capable, and how do you know they would get better grades before and during med school?The point is, she earned her title of MD, didn't she?If she's working in a hospital, and she's a doctor, why do you question her ability to practice medicine, regardless of how she got there?

quote:

---

I'm aware of that study that indicated people assumed to be black had a harder time getting job interviews. That was limited to particular circumstances and, if i recall, locales. Whether that indicates outright prejudice versus experience, we do not know.

---

Um, the researchers certainly thought that discrimination was occuring.

quote:

---

For example, if many of the employers in question has experuiened higher failure rates among Black employees, then their prejudice was based on experience.

---

And it is just as likely, even more likely, that the employers in question are racists.The thing is, the qualifications listed on the applications were all similar. Only the names were different.

quote:

---

It is noteworthy thatno studies of which i am aware have noted prejudice in hiring against jews, Asians or many other groups. If pure prejudice were the issue, that would more than likely generalize to other minorities too.

---

None of those other groups are associated with slavery in the US.All of those other groups have been discriminated against in the past.

quote:

---

Which is nto to deny that prejudice remains in society. of course it does. and, most likely, it always will. The question is how do we deal with it?

​

With respect to university applications, objective data should be the only criteria. In fact, apps could be designed such that acceptance deosn't even recognize gender or ethnicity. For cerian, they shouldn't be asked for, or even have boxes to be ticked off.

---

So, when people list their community service and extracurricular activities, what if they were in a sorority (female) or a Big Brother (male)? OR played football. Or were a champion on the balance beam? Or a active member of the local chapter of the NAACP?To eliminate gender and race identification in the application process would also eliminate everyone's individualty and disable people from describing their unique personal qualities.

quote:

---

With respect to jobs...we can't prevent discrimination amongst those who will discriminate. The best we can do is to use social sanction and moral suasion.

---

I think the enforcement of the constitution is all that will preserve everyone's rights equitably, all the time."Community standards" tend to reflect the tyrrany of the majority.Thus, Matthew shepard gets killed by gay-hating rednecks in the South but gay people live happily in communities in the Northeast and in California.

quote:

---

But we should bear in mind that large companies want good relations with all consumers. If Gm were considered to be racist when it hired, it would lose a lot of potential minority cutomers.

---

That's true. And that's pretty new. See, black people and women had to fight for the right to have equal access to better education and better pay in order to get any economic clout. If not for affirmative action (including Title 9) and the doors it opened, women and minorities wouldn't be in that more economically powerful position that you mention.

quote:

---

Then there are Black owned companies: who says they won't discriminate against white employees?

---

The law.

quote:

---

Should affirmative action quotas dictate that black owned companies hire Whites in proporion to their population - or whatever?

---

Have white men historically and to this day been disciminated against and disadvantaged solely because of their skin color and gender?

yes, i read about that study too. And, yes, we are wired to discriminate. That had survival value in evolutionary times. That is, we could count on our own tribe to protect us, but had reason to be wary of others. A miracle of democracy is that it has taught us to identify with all peoples as fellow members of our national tribe. And hence, one way of expressing the serious problem of multiculturalism and affirmative action is this: They teach us to think, instead, in terms of tribes again, rather than idenitfy as one large, unified tribe, independent of various characteristics. Of course, it's not that ideal; there are prejudices; there remains identity with sub groups. But we must not re-emphasize sub-identities to the point that we erode the miraculous sense of a collection of individuals forming an overall, collective identity as a single people. Which is precisely what leftist thinking unwittingly does by over recognizing and promoting sub-groups and sub-identities, as evidenced through social engineering, victim identity, obsession with race and racial politics, redical feminism, affirmative action, multiculturalism, etc.

There are better and worse doctors. There are also thousands upon thousands of people who would have made it through med school and become doctors, but didn't becausde using the best evaluation standards we have, there were others deemed more capable who got in before them. At least, that's how it used to be and still should.You say teh researchers thought discrimination was occuring. Yes they did and i didn't say otherwise. the issue is on what basis? Was it discrimination based on racism? Or were other factors on play?Racism is racism. It has nothing to do with slavery, unless you're positing the notion that residual discrimination is aimed at Blacks only because they had been slaves. That might be an argument to maintain affirmative action (although I do not accept it), but it is a highly dubious argument for why there might be employer discrimination against Blacks but not other minority groups.When peopel apply for university, points can be awarded for community service and other activities, but typically that will not have to have an ethnicity or gender factor attached. And when it is, that part can gain points, but refrences to ethnicity or gender eliminated when final decisions are made. of course, if universities simply dropped affirmative action of any kind, then it wouldn't matter really.Yes, the constitution is the best means of protecting rights, rights based on the individual - the basis of democracy, which is undermined by collective rights based on particular sub-groups within society.As for mathew Shephard, that is irrlevant. Is it worht mentioning that soon after that incident two gay men kidknapped and raped a young teenage boy for 24 hours before leaving him for dead? No, it isn't, because it says no more about gays in general than did the killers of shephard say anything in general about non gays. (There is a message about media and pc and liberal agendas in that, though: the first got huge coverage; the second barely a trickle.)As I said, immediately after the successful drive to get blacks equal rights, very temporary affirmative action made sense to redress a priori legal discrimination. But the past due date on that is history now. Once we accept the principle of using stats and quotas, there's no end to it. Should universities now use affirmative action to ensure that men get into university at teh same rate as women? If so - and the gap is wide and widening - then there's no reason not to ensure that Black businesses don't discriminate against whites either. the whole thing just gets completely out of hand; it becomes nuts; it undermines the fundamentals of democracy. And so it has. How nuts: White (straight) men are now the only legal and socially sanctioned target of discrimination.

No, there's not, if you apply some common sense. Murders based on prejudice are rare and therefore newsworthy. Murders based on sexual assault are common and therefore not newsworthy.No "liberal agenda." Just the calculus of of corporate news.

First, there's this comment of yours:
"No, there's not, if you apply some common sense..." It's interesting how impolite the left has become. Leftists claim the right is such, but the evidence suggests the contrary overall.Second: "Murders based on prejudice are rare and therefore newsworthy."If one believes the race industry, murder based on race is all too common.The simple truth is that the left, with its obsession with race, gender, gays, and every other identifiable minority, will promote its attribution of victim status to any minority - and thus all the coverage on the Shephard tragedy - and will not, conversely, allow coverage that would suggest any minority might make others the victim. They're right about the latter, and wrong about teh former.