Englebert

Wow. This statement coming from someone that is completely ignorant of recent history and is too good to shop at WalMart. And this is just based on your last two posts.

You are so privileged to the point of being spoiled. I guess you are too good to go to McDonald's also.

Are you just ignorant of all history? Did you learn about Congress investigating Obama's birth certificate in one of those special secret history books?

Do you really want to talk about falsified information? I bet you don't. But in case I'm wrong and I can recover from the resulting aneurism, let's talk about the falsified information that Hillary is pushing. Gender Pay Gap. The initial research that brought this to the attention of the American public was based on faulty research methodology. Some of the studies didn't even compare the same jobs. Subsequent researched compared the same jobs with years of experience, and lo and behold, the gender pay gap disappeared. So why is Hillary continuing the lie? And what are her solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. Let's say I hire an employee who works for me for ten years. My company grows and I give him yearly pay raises. My company grows to the point where I can hire another employee. If I hire a woman should I have to pay her the same amount as my ten year veteran? I might as well just hire another man so I won't have to deal with Hillary's gender pay gap lie. Man Made Global Warming (now changed to Climate Change). Where to begin on falsified data. NASA even admits the data has been manipulated. But lets get back to the theory. The theory claims that the Earth is warming, the warming is catastrophic, and the warming is caused by man. Hillary (and the current administration) claims that 97% of climatologists agree. If the theory is true and 97% of climatologists have studied the issue and agree, the evidence that man is causing global warming should be abundant. Can Hillary show me the evidence that man is the culprit...excluding all other possible factors? Can you show me the evidence? Hillary wants to spend trillions on solutions to a problem that can't be defined. Will the solutions (which again, will cost trillions and put the U.S. in financial ruin) "save" the U.S.? Will the costly solutions even have a slim beneficial impact? Show me the evidence. You like to say Trump is pathetic (and I don't really disagree), but you actively support Hillary who champions two of the biggest lies ever bestowed on the American public. Why is Trump so pathetic and not Hillary? I breathlessly await your enlightened response.

I agree, let the candidates hash it out. I though Holt did a good job of letting them spar. I don't think either one should have been on that stage, so I have no problem with them acting "unpresidential". I wish they would have starting brawling right there on the debate floor...would have been more entertaining. In full disclosure, I had the debate on my TV, but was doing some work on my computer. The debate was more of just background noise for me. I don't think this debate will change any minds. Trump haters will still hate and Hillary haters will still hate. Of course, I can't imagine anyone can still be undecided at this point, so I have no clue as to what is going through their minds. I hope the background checkers don't conveniently leave out Hillary's biggest lie tonight, the Gender Pay Gap. I know for a fact (read the studies myself firsthand and my girlfriend at the time wrote a paper on it) that when you compare job vs job (same jobs) with years of experience, no gender pay gap exists. This has be known at least all the way back to the 1990s when I read the studies.

Have you been reading some of those secret history books Bluedove is so found of? Can you please show me one of them. I would love to see your "real" history and how it stacks up with everything I've been taught.

So you are saying the greedy corporations wouldn't even consider hiring a black applicant even though he would make a better employee and earn them more money? Racism trumps greed? Tell that to the NBA and NFL owners, or any company owner. Affirmative Action gives special consideration to skin color and allows companies to hire less qualified applicants over more qualified applicants if that applicant is a minority. Cannot define racism any better than that. The theory behind it is that this reverse racism will allow the minority races to get established creating more equal opportunities over time. Anyway you slice it, Affirmative Action is still racism, and some white people have been hurt by the practice. Whether or not the effect has benefitted the country overall can be debated, but there is no debate that Affirmative Action laws are discriminatory by nature. And I call total BS about your son. If he did score 4.9 on a 4.0 scale (a statistical impossibility) then he would have been accepted into Baylor regardless of who knew the President. Some other applicant might have been pushed out, but it wouldn't have been someone who scored in the top 1 percentile.

The "manner you see fit" is just you stereotyping people with no justification to back it up. That was the point being made.

Nobody on this board "has made that clear". Sounds like you are just another typical stereotyper. You only read what you want to read.

FIFY

So why do they keep getting re-elected? When you look at the approval rating for individual congress members amongst their constituents, many have high approval ratings, higher than Obama. The approval rating for the group is low. And if you use approval ratings as a gauge for action, shouldn't Obamacare be repealed immediately?

I have no idea what point you are trying to convey. The "friend of a friend" was just that...and told me point blank that the company was going to hire the best minority. You might try and hide in your plastic bubble, but to call him an idiot points to your blindness of facts. And not only did this happen to me personally (more than once), but I've also seen it happen with my very own eyes...way more than once. And I know about plenty of other instances. I actually had a company ask me to apply for a job opening in their HR department (I was doing contract work there) based on the fact that I was male and their whole HR department was female. The HR director told me I would be hired on the spot because they needed diversification in the department. Diversity is one of the key factors, if not the top key factor, in hiring practices in most of today's companies. Which can often translate to "Whites need not apply". If you want to call someone an idiot for this then you are going to be throwing out that card plenty. Apparently you need to walk an "inch" in my shoes and let reality set in.

Although cute, I don't agree with this analogy at all. The middle does not need government interference. Congress fails when both sides agree that they need to stick their noses into places it doesn't belong.

Affirmative Action laws, soft quotas, fear of DOJ prosecution...to the point that companies can't hire the most qualified. Are you really interested in learning about Affirmative Action. There are volumes written on the subject, both for and against. Well, not as much against. Anyone against will be labeled as racist in short order.

When you believe that Socialism is "open-minded" and fair and that Capitalism allows White people to suppress minorities then yes.

I applied for a job and the HR manager (a friend of a friend) told me point blank (but in confidence...not to be repeated) not to waste my time applying because the company was going to hire the best minority candidate. Whites need not apply. I have also personally seen this happen other times while doing contract work for a few companies. Companies hire the "best minority" candidate all of the time. It's been happening for years. And you are exactly right, they won't admit it publically.

Yes it is. Expressing my 1st amendment right. Can't get any more American than that. Why are you trying to mock and bully me? Are you trying to deny me my rights? Maybe it's time you learn how to walk on egg shells and quit being insensitive and passive aggressive towards my right to express myself. I see a need for sensitivity training in your near future.

What's your point?

Maybe you should read a little more. Sounds like you haven't the foggiest clue as to what went into the writing of the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. They didn't just cut and paste from other documents.

Read a book. Plenty of evidence. You can take the lazy way out and just ask PNGBamaKid. We had a brief discussion (and mutual agreement) on this a while back.

And yet you willfully ignore the fact that Jim Crow laws were repealed over 50 years ago (the main point), but it is abundantly clear you will continue to use them as the basis for your failed arguments.

That reference seems to have went way over your head. I feel explaining it would fruitless and a waste of time for the rest of the board.

There is a possibility that 30,40,50 years or so humans will no longer eat meat. The caging and slaughtering of animals will be considered as cruel and even worse than slavery. If and when that time comes, should all traces of Obama be removed from the history books since he indulged with a steak or two? Or should he be judged according to the time he lived? Now think about our "pos" fore-fathers.

The recent New York bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami is being charged with "the use of weapons of mass destruction". I found this on Big Girl's favorite site, Huffington Post: [Hidden Content] If fact, it is Count One. Did Rahami have a nuclear bomb?

I'm assuming you are being rhetorical with that question. But the last time you asked a simplistic question such as this, you demanded an answer. So I'll answer: Of course. Any person with two functioning brain cells would blame Whites for Jim Crow laws...specifically (if you knew your history) the blame would fall squarely on the Democrats. And those laws where repealed over 50 years ago weren't they. (rhetorical) As for the rest of your post, I have no clue as to what you are trying to convey. Don't bother trying to explain, I don't really care.