- This topic has 1,886 replies, 52 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
Jazzman.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 30, 2009 at 11:39 PM #440246July 30, 2009 at 11:56 PM #439486
SK in CV
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]OK spinmeister, spin this:
On page 909 the bill states:
“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?
A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html%5B/quote%5D
LOL! That’s really all you’re left with? A problem with preferential grants to schools that serve minorities and the underpriveleged? Not preferential grants to minorities or the poor. But to the schools that serve them. Digging pretty deep to find objections. No reason to spin it. It is what it is, I have no problem with it.
July 30, 2009 at 11:56 PM #439688Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]OK spinmeister, spin this:
On page 909 the bill states:
“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?
A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html%5B/quote%5D
LOL! That’s really all you’re left with? A problem with preferential grants to schools that serve minorities and the underpriveleged? Not preferential grants to minorities or the poor. But to the schools that serve them. Digging pretty deep to find objections. No reason to spin it. It is what it is, I have no problem with it.
July 30, 2009 at 11:56 PM #440012Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]OK spinmeister, spin this:
On page 909 the bill states:
“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?
A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html%5B/quote%5D
LOL! That’s really all you’re left with? A problem with preferential grants to schools that serve minorities and the underpriveleged? Not preferential grants to minorities or the poor. But to the schools that serve them. Digging pretty deep to find objections. No reason to spin it. It is what it is, I have no problem with it.
July 30, 2009 at 11:56 PM #440084Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]OK spinmeister, spin this:
On page 909 the bill states:
“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?
A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html%5B/quote%5D
LOL! That’s really all you’re left with? A problem with preferential grants to schools that serve minorities and the underpriveleged? Not preferential grants to minorities or the poor. But to the schools that serve them. Digging pretty deep to find objections. No reason to spin it. It is what it is, I have no problem with it.
July 30, 2009 at 11:56 PM #440256Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]OK spinmeister, spin this:
On page 909 the bill states:
“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?
A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html%5B/quote%5D
LOL! That’s really all you’re left with? A problem with preferential grants to schools that serve minorities and the underpriveleged? Not preferential grants to minorities or the poor. But to the schools that serve them. Digging pretty deep to find objections. No reason to spin it. It is what it is, I have no problem with it.
August 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM #440707Zeitgeist
ParticipantYes we can! Federal tax revenues plummeting
WASHINGTON – “The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation’s plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.”
“The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.”
August 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM #440907ParticipantYes we can! Federal tax revenues plummeting
WASHINGTON – “The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation’s plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.”
“The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.”
August 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM #441240ParticipantYes we can! Federal tax revenues plummeting
WASHINGTON – “The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation’s plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.”
“The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.”
August 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM #441311ParticipantYes we can! Federal tax revenues plummeting
WASHINGTON – “The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation’s plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.”
“The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.”
August 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM #441483ParticipantYes we can! Federal tax revenues plummeting
WASHINGTON – “The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation’s plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.”
“The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.”
August 4, 2009 at 6:16 PM #440788ParticipantNewsflash- Abortion okayed by Church. Why not just use birth control?
“The overall impression given by Church leadership thus far is that universal health care coverage is so badly needed that they are not willing to endanger the legislation by protesting too loudly against abortion coverage.”
Catholic Charities USA has received a five-year, 100 million dollar federal contract to aid in disaster relief throughout the United States. The contract is the charity’s first ever federal contract.
Proving everyone including large organizations have their price.
http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2009/08/04/catholic-charities-usa-received-fiveyear-100-million-dollar-federal-contract-aid-disaster-relief-united-states-contract-charitys-federal-contract/August 4, 2009 at 6:16 PM #440987ParticipantNewsflash- Abortion okayed by Church. Why not just use birth control?
“The overall impression given by Church leadership thus far is that universal health care coverage is so badly needed that they are not willing to endanger the legislation by protesting too loudly against abortion coverage.”
Catholic Charities USA has received a five-year, 100 million dollar federal contract to aid in disaster relief throughout the United States. The contract is the charity’s first ever federal contract.
Proving everyone including large organizations have their price.
http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2009/08/04/catholic-charities-usa-received-fiveyear-100-million-dollar-federal-contract-aid-disaster-relief-united-states-contract-charitys-federal-contract/August 4, 2009 at 6:16 PM #441320ParticipantNewsflash- Abortion okayed by Church. Why not just use birth control?
“The overall impression given by Church leadership thus far is that universal health care coverage is so badly needed that they are not willing to endanger the legislation by protesting too loudly against abortion coverage.”
Catholic Charities USA has received a five-year, 100 million dollar federal contract to aid in disaster relief throughout the United States. The contract is the charity’s first ever federal contract.
Proving everyone including large organizations have their price.
http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2009/08/04/catholic-charities-usa-received-fiveyear-100-million-dollar-federal-contract-aid-disaster-relief-united-states-contract-charitys-federal-contract/August 4, 2009 at 6:16 PM #441390ParticipantNewsflash- Abortion okayed by Church. Why not just use birth control?
“The overall impression given by Church leadership thus far is that universal health care coverage is so badly needed that they are not willing to endanger the legislation by protesting too loudly against abortion coverage.”
Catholic Charities USA has received a five-year, 100 million dollar federal contract to aid in disaster relief throughout the United States. The contract is the charity’s first ever federal contract.
Proving everyone including large organizations have their price.
http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2009/08/04/catholic-charities-usa-received-fiveyear-100-million-dollar-federal-contract-aid-disaster-relief-united-states-contract-charitys-federal-contract/ -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.