Juror#8 Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 Do you have a credible link to this? "Big lipped !@#$ going after the white man's job" mischaracterizes his post and is what I was objecting to. We can argue the issue without you making it racial. I think that I pointed out very clearly who made it racial. But in the event that you misunderstood the post order, LA said: You can't confuse "I want to hire women because they're great workers" with "I need to hire more blacks because of the color of their skin." That was the point that race was injected into the conversation. My subsequent post was polemic, but it emphasized the inanity of saying that one thing is ok because it's from this group, but the other must be bad because it concerns the other group. My point was replete with flamboyance, but how was I not right on the substance? And how can you reconcile his points? If they're not reconcilable, why the distinction in the two groups? Why is one good and one is bad when facially they are doing the same thing? What about one group makes it laudable but for the other group it's loathsome? All I did was make his bias, whatever it's origins, animate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 If you are specifically looking for any group because of some so-called 'underrepresentation' you are looking to fill quotas more than you are looking for great workers. Exactly. That is what Mitt said he was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 OK, Sue. Or is it BF4E? Both, mixed with the disembodied spirit of Hogboy and Ice. It's terrifying to be me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 So... the party of moral values is okay with their nominee shifting core values just to win an election. Gotcha. Wait, not promoting qualified women is a "core value" of Republicans? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Wait, not promoting qualified women is a "core value" of Republicans? LOL! You're better than that. And smarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 You're better than that. And smarter. Wait, didn't you just say that Romney only promoted women in his cabinet because some advocacy groups approached him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Follow closely: My questions would be so what if conservatives thought he was advocating affirmative action? Are they not going to vote for him now? Doubtful. Could it help him gain more female voters? Possibly. So the outrage is wasted So... the party of moral values is okay with their nominee shifting core values just to win an election. Gotcha. Wait, not promoting qualified women is a "core value" of Republicans? LOL! See what you did? I never said not promoting women is a core value of the conservatives. You dismissed Romney's advocating for affirmative action as being okay if it helps him get women voters -- which, goes directly against the core values of the conservatives. It's okay to admit it. It's already out there in print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I think that I pointed out very clearly who made it racial. But in the event that you misunderstood the post order, LA said: You can't confuse "I want to hire women because they're great workers" with "I need to hire more blacks because of the color of their skin." That was the point that race was injected into the conversation. My subsequent post was polemic, but it emphasized the inanity of saying that one thing is ok because it's from this group, but the other must be bad because it concerns the other group. My point was replete with flamboyance, but how was I not right on the substance? And how can you reconcile his points? If they're not reconcilable, why the distinction in the two groups? Why is one good and one is bad when facially they are doing the same thing? What about one group makes it laudable but for the other group it's loathsome? All I did was make his bias, whatever it's origins, animate. You've lost your mind. You're picking a battle for the sake of picking a battle and I'm not interested. The simple fact is that regardless of what your version of George Sierfert at the airport told you, I spend more than my share of time at conservative websites and the ONLY time anyone discusses Romney's binder comment is in reference to the absolutely, unbelievably stupid way the Obama campaign has brought it to the stump. We can't possibly believe that THIS is all the current POTUS can bring to the table. It's only made more embarrassing by the fact that he dropped the Big Bird story for the binder story. My reference to hiring blacks is a microcosm of the larger issue about affirmative action; you get hired not for what you can do, but for what you represent. Yes, that includes black people. So please...get over yourself and at least pretend to see both sides of things. Or at least come back when your company lost a bid project because it wasn't minority-owned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 I was. And I don't doubt you trust this person and he (Ron?) has insight into campaign strategy. However sometimes you can be too close to the action. My questions would be so what if conservatives thought he was advocating affirmative action? Are they not going to vote for him now? Doubtful. Could it help him gain more female voters? Possibly. So the outrage is wasted. Call it "evolving." It's an acceptable excuse for a turd like Barry. I agree with you Doc. i think that the benefit outweighs any minimal cost that there might be. The way that it was explained to me was that it implicated a concern that conservatives had about Romney - that he would court whatever group he needed at that time; even if it meant going against a traditionally held belief or something that he advocated against, or advocated for, or advocated around, or whatever. Everybody evolves. Not everybody evolves about everything. My friend never said that it would cause a mass defection or even that people wouldn't vote for Romney. Quite the opposite acutally - he feels good about Romney's prospects. But then again, he felt good about McCain when I had lunch with him (Ron) about 7 weeks before the election. He only mentioned that it implicated a concern. I was interested because in all the media attention that the debate received, all the "binder full of women" talk that happened afterwards, and all the detailing of every point - the affirmative action angle never came out. I never thought about it until my buddy mentioned it. He mentioned it because that was internal talk in his conservative circles. So I wanted to share cause I thought that since we discuss politics in a slightly more nuanced way here, it was worth mentioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 You've lost your mind. You're picking a battle for the sake of picking a battle and I'm not interested. The simple fact is that regardless of what your version of George Sierfert at the airport told you, I spend more than my share of time at conservative websites and the ONLY time anyone discusses Romney's binder comment is in reference to the absolutely, unbelievably stupid way the Obama campaign has brought it to the stump. We can't possibly believe that THIS is all the current POTUS can bring to the table. It's only made more embarrassing by the fact that he dropped the Big Bird story for the binder story. My reference to hiring blacks is a microcosm of the larger issue about affirmative action; you get hired not for what you can do, but for what you represent. Yes, that includes black people. So please...get over yourself and at least pretend to see both sides of things. Or at least come back when your company lost a bid project because it wasn't minority-owned. You do realize talking to people on a conservative website is not the same thing as talking to political insiders, right? That's like saying talking to people on TSW is the same as talking to Russ Brandon or Buddy Nix. Conservative websites, like Bills' websites, are homes to fanatics. The people who work in the trenches in DC every day are not fanatics. Thus, they're more in tune (sometimes) to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I think that I pointed out very clearly who made it racial. But in the event that you misunderstood the post order, LA said: You can't confuse "I want to hire women because they're great workers" with "I need to hire more blacks because of the color of their skin." That was the point that race was injected into the conversation. My subsequent post was polemic, but it emphasized the inanity of saying that one thing is ok because it's from this group, but the other must be bad because it concerns the other group. My point was replete with flamboyance, but how was I not right on the substance? And how can you reconcile his points? If they're not reconcilable, why the distinction in the two groups? Why is one good and one is bad when facially they are doing the same thing? What about one group makes it laudable but for the other group it's loathsome? All I did was make his bias, whatever it's origins, animate. Argue the real points and keep the racial stereotypes out of it. You know f'n well that "fat lipped !@#$" doesn't belong in the conversation. I've had real experience in expanding the qualified pool by targeting woman. That is what Romney was doing. What do you think of the NFL's program for getting more blacks into the position to be chosen as head coaches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 You do realize talking to people on a conservative website is not the same thing as talking to political insiders, right? That's like saying talking to people on TSW is the same as talking to Russ Brandon or Buddy Nix. Conservative websites, like Bills' websites, are homes to fanatics. The people who work in the trenches in DC every day are not fanatics. Thus, they're more in tune (sometimes) to reality. Yes, and the reality is it's the fanatics who would have a problem with the binder thing based on their anti-affirmative action positions. Just like it's the Christian fanatics who have a problem with gay marriage. The average person-on-the-street Republican/Conservative who doesn't pay extra attention to politics is NOT going to take this position the operative says he's aware of. That person is out of work, saving money, and could give a rat's asshair about binders or Big BIrd...which is why Obama is currently falling in every poll you can find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) You've lost your mind. You're picking a battle for the sake of picking a battle and I'm not interested. The simple fact is that regardless of what your version of George Sierfert at the airport told you, I spend more than my share of time at conservative websites and the ONLY time anyone discusses Romney's binder comment is in reference to the absolutely, unbelievably stupid way the Obama campaign has brought it to the stump. We can't possibly believe that THIS is all the current POTUS can bring to the table. It's only made more embarrassing by the fact that he dropped the Big Bird story for the binder story. My reference to hiring blacks is a microcosm of the larger issue about affirmative action; you get hired not for what you can do, but for what you represent. Yes, that includes black people. So please...get over yourself and at least pretend to see both sides of things. Or at least come back when your company lost a bid project because it wasn't minority-owned. Good dodge and awesome job not reconciling your point. The fact is this - I don't have a George at the airport story. I have friends who work for politicians in DC cause I live in DC and have worked in DC and my brother works for the WH. I don't need some serendipity moment of running into someone at the Cosi on 19th. I'll just pick up the Galaxy S3, text, have lunch, and talk. Usually I learn something. The only thing that your little ditty about no one mentioning such and such on such and such websites demonstrates is that your breadth of knowledge is slightly constrained. Romney's comments obviously suggest an affirmative action effort. Conservatives are traditionally loathe to support affirmative action efforts. You do the math son. So you think no conservative, who think beyond the scope of independent websites, have ever put two and two together? I'll trust my sources of knowledge, you trust yours. Edited October 22, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Yes, and the reality is it's the fanatics who would have a problem with the binder thing based on their anti-affirmative action positions. Just like it's the Christian fanatics who have a problem with gay marriage. The average person-on-the-street Republican/Conservative who doesn't pay extra attention to politics is NOT going to take this position the operative says he's aware of. That person is out of work, saving money, and could give a rat's asshair about binders or Big BIrd...which is why Obama is currently falling in every poll you can find. So conservative values can be summed up as such: Non existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Follow closely: See what you did? I never said not promoting women is a core value of the conservatives. You dismissed Romney's advocating for affirmative action as being okay if it helps him get women voters -- which, goes directly against the core values of the conservatives. It's okay to admit it. It's already out there in print. What do you think I did, greg? First of all, I never called it "affirmative action." Because to me, "affirmative action" is promoting unqualified people because they are a minority in that field. I don't believe that the women he hired were as a result of AA. So I don't believe he went against any core belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 Argue the real points and keep the racial stereotypes out of it. You know f'n well that "fat lipped !@#$" doesn't belong in the conversation. I've had real experience in expanding the qualified pool by targeting woman. That is what Romney was doing. What do you think of the NFL's program for getting more blacks into the position to be chosen as head coaches? It's affirmative action. Expanding the qualified pool to increase the candidacies of traditionally under-represented groups...affirmative action. What you did...affirmative action. What Mitt did...affirmative action. I went to Columbia for my masters when I left UVA with only a 3.5 and not top 5% GRE....probably affirmative action. The problem is the distinction that LA tried to make. But noooooo...you're more concerned with my characterization. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I agree with you Doc. i think that the benefit outweighs any minimal cost that there might be. The way that it was explained to me was that it implicated a concern that conservatives had about Romney - that he would court whatever group he needed at that time; even if it meant going against a traditionally held belief or something that he advocated against, or advocated for, or advocated around, or whatever. Everybody evolves. Not everybody evolves about everything. My friend never said that it would cause a mass defection or even that people wouldn't vote for Romney. Quite the opposite acutally - he feels good about Romney's prospects. But then again, he felt good about McCain when I had lunch with him (Ron) about 7 weeks before the election. He only mentioned that it implicated a concern. I was interested because in all the media attention that the debate received, all the "binder full of women" talk that happened afterwards, and all the detailing of every point - the affirmative action angle never came out. I never thought about it until my buddy mentioned it. He mentioned it because that was internal talk in his conservative circles. So I wanted to share cause I thought that since we discuss politics in a slightly more nuanced way here, it was worth mentioning. Fair enough. But for an insider to express surprise that a politician would say anything to get elected is...surprising. And anything that helps broaden the base I would think would be welcomed. As for the AA angle, and why Repubs may be against it, as well as why it hasn't been broached with the "binders" comment, as I said to greg above, AA has traditionally meant hiring less/unqualified people for appearances sake. I don't think that Romney hired any women he thought were less qualified than their male counterparts, but I don't know for sure because I didn't see their CV's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) What do you think I did, greg? First of all, I never called it "affirmative action." Because to me, "affirmative action" is promoting unqualified people because they are a minority in that field. I don't believe that the women he hired were as a result of AA. So I don't believe he went against any core belief. You're talking about filling a quota (filling a certain number of spots with certain groups type even if they don't meet the qualifications)...which I guess is a subset of an affirmative action effort. Affirmative action is saying that "there are not enough ________ for this _________ so let's go out and find some _________ not because they'e more qualified than Sam or Chip here, but just because they're __________ and that is a traditionally underrepresented group." Edited October 22, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 You're talking about filling a quota (filling spots with certain groups even if they don't meet the qualifications)...which I guess is a subset of an affirmative action effort. Affirmative action is saying that "there are not enough ________ for this _________ so let's go out and find some _________ not because they'e more qualified than Sam or Chip here, but just because they're __________ and that is a traditionally underrepresented group." To me, AA is filling quotas. Whereas what should be done is filling positions with the best possible candidates, regardless of race, color, or creed. Again I can't say that the women Romney hired were less qualified than men that didn't get the jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Here's a couple of other things you may not have known (that I think)... 1. The election polls number were massaged for months to make it seem like this was a race Obama was winning. 2. As the end nears, the sampling of the polls has to balance out to save face if Romney "somehow" won in November. So Romney was going to gain poll numbers no matter what but his perfect debate performance only exacerbated the trend in his direction and now it's a runaway train independents are jumping on that Team Obama can't stop. 3. FL, NC, VA, MS and CO are red again. OH, NV, IA, NH and now PA are toss ups. A few more traditional blue states (WI, MN and MI) that very likely could change hands as well, especially if there are more Obama blunders. 4. If I had to guess today, I'd say 305-233 for Romney. Obama wins HI, CA, OR, WA, NV and NM out west; MN, WI, MI and IL in the central states (barely winning the first three). DC, MD, DE, NJ, NY, VT, CT, MA and ME in the northeast. Romney's winning share will include NH, PA, OH and IA. 5. My guess is that more states will fall into the red corner (WI, NV) making the closest election ever anything but. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts