Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KaelGotDwarves]

Very first one was "Issued Presidential order to close Guantanamo Bay."  Not exactly batting a thousand.

He ordered the presidential order, it's up to Congress to figure out funding and where those people go.

The president is not a king, and you know what, thank goodness.

[Aqizzar]

Just saying, I voted for the guy, and I'm honestly not impressed by most of these.  Actually, every single one I can come up with caveats for.  In the case of the Guantanamo Bay one, he may have signed the order the day he took office, but two years on with no Congressional solution, and he's not exactly pushing for it.

Ended Bush administration's CIA program of 'enhanced interrogation methods' by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations

So long as Bradley Manning is still rotting in his iron maiden with no actual charges, this one is going to raise an eyebrow, even if it is genuinely true.  As long as "not torturing" is used as an acceptable mark on the step to "due process", I'm going to be a little more demanding.

Increased minority access to capital

I have no idea what this is supposed to be referring to, and the explanatory link goes to a pdf that's no longer hosted.

And then there's the loads and loads of "accomplishments" pointing to the Health Care Reform Bill (the Affordable Care Act now), which includes the huge caveat that most of it doesn't come into effect for several years yet, on top of a million little niggling issues.  Not to mention a sticking point for us who remember history, and just how little Obama had to do with the bill's construction.

[Andir]

Increased minority access to capital

I have no idea what this is supposed to be referring to, and the explanatory link goes to a pdf that's no longer hosted.

I assume something akin to Equal Opportunity, which steps all over equality and requires that my workplace have a special field in their database for Equal Opportunity Candidate that pushes him/her to the top of the pile based solely on their race rather than qualification or equality.  I'd rather they require that no racial information be displayed at all and people could compete on merit alone but that's too hard when their picture is part of the required material for promotion.

I'm sure someone will try to use the argument about poorer education and requiring businesses bite the bullet some times and hire minorities into higher positions to "force the hand" of the market to provide more income and better homes and all that blah blah.  There are other ways to do that.  Namely: Spending money on real education and community improvements for inner cities instead of giving someone a better job so they move out of that downtrodden area leaving it in the same situation as it was before.

And then there's the loads and loads of "accomplishments" pointing to the Health Care Reform Bill (the Affordable Care Act now), which includes the huge caveat that most of it doesn't come into effect for several years yet, on top of a million little niggling issues.  Not to mention a sticking point for us who remember history, and just how little Obama had to do with the bill's construction.

Sometimes it pays off to have the person getting all the credit be the one who is only going to be there for another few years.  As long as your name is only a byline and people only pay attention to the shiny bauble put in front of them.

[Aqizzar]

Just for future reference, when someone asks an open question for more specific information, "I assume something akin to" is not very helpful.  Not that talking about Equal Opportunity is a problem or anything, it just doesn't seem fair to automatically append a question to a topic on a pure guess.

I'd rather they require that no racial information be displayed at all and people could compete on merit alone but that's too hard when their picture is part of the required material for promotion.

That information is there because there is no other way to track if a company is actively discriminating against some slice of people.  What counts as "discrimination" is real meat of the question, and I can assure you, there are no "quotas" or any metric of the kind.  "Equal Opportunity" promotion is essentially non-existent; it's a legally reactionary system, and it's called up and enforced no where near as much or as successfully as it's critics always seem to think.

Namely: Spending money on real education and community improvements for inner cities instead of giving someone a better job so they move out of that downtrodden area leaving it in the same situation as it was before.

This being a thread largely dominated by the "sides" of American politics, the idea that Equal Opportunity should be outmoded by better community development and education funding cannot be proffered without acknowledging that the effective critics of Equal Opportunity and the effective critics of government spending, especially on public education and urban renewal, are on the same side of the debate.

[Phmcw]

I feel a slight twinge of annoyance just from hearing or reading the word "sheeple".

It's annoying even when used sarcastically and inserted with a monty python quote. Nice.

But yeah, even the implication that both(all) sides are the same or 'why bother you can't change anything anyway' is such a defeatist attitude and doesn't help anyone.

Except they are factually right.
That or you could get organized, and crystallize an harder left wing movement, maybe even among the democrats. They will be no shortage of supporter, if half the things that I hear are true.
Trow harder fight against ACTUAL waste and corruption, and you'd be sure to appeal to both side.
If the situation is half as bad in America as it is in Belgium, your government could do the thing he is doing now with spending half the money.

[KaelGotDwarves]

I feel a slight twinge of annoyance just from hearing or reading the word "sheeple".

It's annoying even when used sarcastically and inserted with a monty python quote. Nice.

But yeah, even the implication that both(all) sides are the same or 'why bother you can't change anything anyway' is such a defeatist attitude and doesn't help anyone.

Except they are factually right.
That or you could get organized, and crystallize an harder left wing movement, maybe even among the democrats. They will be no shortage of supporter, if half the things that I hear are true.
Trow harder fight against ACTUAL waste and corruption, and you'd be sure to appeal to both side.
If the situation is half as bad in America as it is in Belgium, your government could do the thing he is doing now with spending half the money.

Well, that whole organised thing is pretty much the only reason we have Obama in the first place. Otherwise we'd have McCain or Hillary in office right now.

[PTTG??]

To put it simply, I refuse to vote for people who do not represent my interests.

[Realmfighter]

So you disagree with both the Democrats and the Republicans equally?

[Levi]

So you disagree with both the Democrats and the Republicans equally?

It sounds like he simply doesn't think he should have to choose between two candidates that he doesn't like.  It sounds like a fair enough reason to me.

[Max White]

The only problem is that if you don't vote for the guy you don't like, then the guy who you despise might win, so you have no choice but to support the lesser evil, thus making bad electorates think people like them because they get so many votes.

The only solution is if nobody votes!

[PTTG??]

The only problem is that if you don't vote for the guy you don't like, then the guy who you despise might win, so you have no choice but to support the lesser evil, thus making bad electorates think people like them because they get so many votes.

The only solution is if nobody votes!

There is no chance Palin will win. This should be obvious. There is nearly no chance of any republican winning, unless Obama somehow manages to get his picture taken in bed with a sheep that is not his wife.

Yes, local elections will lean to republicans this year. However, my vote for the Democrats would signal nothing at all. It wouldn't change anything.

However. If I vote for the Green party, that represents a much larger message. Far fewer people need to vote green to make a difference than need vote blue. Greens don't even need to win- they just need to be statistically more of the vote than was expected.

[Aqizzar]

However. If I vote for the Green party, that represents a much larger message. Far fewer people need to vote green to make a difference than need vote blue. Greens don't even need to win- they just need to be statistically more of the vote than was expected.

A message reporters will note for about one day, before everybody forgets it happened.  If anyone even thinks to mention a stronger than usual turn-out for a "left of Democrats" party, it'll be just long enough to accuse you of being the next Ralph Nader, and handing the other side a victory they shouldn't have won.

More than anything, take nothing for granted except the two major parties winning all federal seats (except Bernie Sanders of course).

[Andir]

I'd rather they require that no racial information be displayed at all and people could compete on merit alone but that's too hard when their picture is part of the required material for promotion.

That information is there because there is no other way to track if a company is actively discriminating against some slice of people.  What counts as "discrimination" is real meat of the question, and I can assure you, there are no "quotas" or any metric of the kind.  "Equal Opportunity" promotion is essentially non-existent; it's a legally reactionary system, and it's called up and enforced no where near as much or as successfully as it's critics always seem to think.

I'm going to tell you right now because I work directly with this data on a daily basis.  It is exactly how I said it.  The sort by requirements include the EEOC (Employee Equal Opportunity Candidate) field.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think we might see some serious third-party emergance soon, given the high level of dissatisfaction with both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

[Aqizzar]

I'd rather they require that no racial information be displayed at all and people could compete on merit alone but that's too hard when their picture is part of the required material for promotion.

That information is there because there is no other way to track if a company is actively discriminating against some slice of people.  What counts as "discrimination" is real meat of the question, and I can assure you, there are no "quotas" or any metric of the kind.  "Equal Opportunity" promotion is essentially non-existent; it's a legally reactionary system, and it's called up and enforced no where near as much or as successfully as it's critics always seem to think.

I'm going to tell you right now because I work directly with this data on a daily basis.  It is exactly how I said it.  The sort by requirements include the EEOC (Employee Equal Opportunity Candidate) field.

My apologies then, I was misinformed, although I would love to ask about where this is taking place.  This isn't the venue for that though.  But the question remains, if you want to eliminate all the Equal Opportunity stuff and make race a non-issue in hiring and promotion and such, how exactly do you propose people raise issue against a company for discrimination, if there's no way to document it internally?