They can watch me as long as they know people are watching them.There is nothing quite like putting one's self on a watch list.
They can watch me as long as they know people are watching them.There is nothing quite like putting one's self on a watch list.
So let's review, threatening repercussions, and consequences, and now stalking.They can watch me as long as they know people are watching them.
Lol, yeah man anything else you can get creative with, you are awesome and it amuses me. Dance clown dance!!!So let's review, threatening repercussions, and consequences, and now stalking.
Quite the resume you're building.
Observation:Lol, yeah man anything else you can get creative with, you are awesome and it amuses me. Dance clown dance!!!
I have no problem arguing any of the points in this thread. The original thread was how the school was excluding whites from their precious little program, which is caused by the uber liberal "higher education" institutions embracing the ideas of CRT, which is connected to the idiocy of the leadership of this country and specifically, the democrap party and the far left, crazy LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ groups. All of that is part of what has led me to believe that the good times for this country are behind us now and that it is only a matter of time before the country is over. Perhaps you are unable to follow the flow of the ideas represented here?
That definitely misses the mark - at least on a optics level. But aren't there scholarships based on all sorts of things, including race? Because that's what this really is, a scholarship. You have to complete the course, but then you get a scholarship. Seems that they branded this all wrong.
I think we've become too diverse for a two party political system - which is what really divides us. With more parties, the sane people in the middle can get together and agree on things that appeal to the majority of citizens and actually move the country forward. As it is, if a dem wants to support a republican candidate that is moderate, it really doesn't matter because that candidate will be voting lock-step with the Qanon/Trump folks or be labeled a RINO. So that dem won't vote that way. The reverse is true too, and a historically-republican voter won't support a moderate dem that will ultimately vote with AOC/Pelosi on every single issue no matter how much they don't agree with it. We have grid lock because good ideas are handcuffed to bad ones - because to stay in power today (as an elected representative) you have to appease your party. More parties, less ties between specific parties and specific ideas, more opportunities to agree.
Now that’s rich, but you are losing your touch. I’m gonna have to find another clown to dance.Observation:
The subject in question becomes easily agitated and frustrated, and will resort to personal insults when they are unable to properly formulate a logical response.
There will be lots of percussions, like this.What consequences and repercussions do you have in mind?
Let me clarify - there are both moderate & extreme liberals, and moderate & extreme conservatives.So where does that leave you? If everyone on the right and the left and everyone who either identifies as liberal or conservative is extreme, where does that leave you? Do you just not take a stand on any issue?
What consequences and repercussions do you have in mind?
That’s debatable
Sometimes history can be a great tool of evaluation. Not necessarily a predictive outcome but a contextual lens through which to observe modern moments in time.Unfortunately I agree.
Some people will laugh at "the country is doomed" rhetoric, but I think we've passed a tipping point, and I don't see it getting better in the long run.
I always thought this was attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville.Sometimes history can be a great tool of evaluation. Not necessarily a predictive outcome but a contextual lens through which to observe modern moments in time.
These words are attributed to Alexander Tytler in regards to the fall of the Athenian Empire. He said it about the same time that the original 13 US states were forming the Constitution…
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
Well there is the rub. It has been attributed to both. More often to Tytler in The Cycle of Nations but there is definitely debate as prior to the late 1940s when it began appearing in universities and news articles it is sketchy. Regardless of which it’s powerful in it’s simplicity.I always thought this was attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville.
Except that we're a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. As a Republic, taking responsibility for one's actions cannot be understated. Responsible behaviour means we should not vote to give ourselves gifts from the Treasury.Sometimes history can be a great tool of evaluation. Not necessarily a predictive outcome but a contextual lens through which to observe modern moments in time.
These words are attributed to Alexander Tytler in regards to the fall of the Athenian Empire. He said it about the same time that the original 13 US states were forming the Constitution…
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
Which is why education is the key to continuing our Constitutional Republic. An educated electorate is an absolute necessity. People who vote without any research into the issues or candidates' stances do themselves and the nation a huge disservice.Except that we're a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. As a Republic, taking responsibility for one's actions cannot be understated. Responsible behaviour means we should not vote to give ourselves gifts from the Treasury.
Just because I can vote for gifts doesn't necessarily mean I ought to.
Not sure where that quote originated from, but I have it on good authority that it didn't come from anything published by or on behalf of Sir Tytler.Well there is the rub. It has been attributed to both. More often to Tytler in The Cycle of Nations but there is definitely debate as prior to the late 1940s when it began appearing in universities and news articles it is sketchy. Regardless of which it’s powerful in it’s simplicity.
Yes, created for George Rogers.Well, actually years ago they did create a “special academic program”…..that has allowed the dumbing down of certain students……it’s called General Studies.
General Studies was around over a decade before George Rogers enrolled at USC in 1977. But, I know you're just using George as euphemism because you're too much of a wuss to say "black people" in general. Like the way your type hid behind "states rights" to defend Jim Crow and shouted "law and order" to defend cops attacking American citizens with billy clubs and dogs for trying to use a bathroom or water fountain paid for with their own tax dollars.Yes, created for George Rogers.
What do you think think reaction would be if there was a program that excluded minorities?USC isn't barring "whites" from anything - 76.7% of the undergrads at USC are white. The school is just trying to create more diversity on campus (and would love more Asian students and Jewish students as well) - and minority and foreign student scholarships are an easy and effective way of doing this. They branded this as more of a symposium of sorts, instead of a scholarship. They messed up there as it sounded more like a class that only one group could attend as opposed to a scholarship for a certain type of student the school is looking to attract.
A point without a purpose but Hamilton, Madison and Jay all used the phrases ''constitutional democracy" and "representative democracy" along with "constitutional republic" to delineate from what they called "Athenian democracy" or "pure democracy" or "direct democracy" when crafting and promoting the Constitution. Also a guy named Jefferson founded a political party named the "Democratic-Republican Party"Except that we're a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. As a Republic, taking responsibility for one's actions cannot be understated. Responsible behaviour means we should not vote to give ourselves gifts from the Treasury.
Just because I can vote for gifts doesn't necessarily mean I ought to.
The right would scream that South Carolina is a sovereign state and federal courts have no right to meddle in a state decision and the federal government has no place in higher education and people in South Carolina should vote for legislators who would not approve of a program that excluded minorities if they are bothered by itWhat do you think think reaction would be if there was a program that excluded minorities?
General Studies was around over a decade before George Rogers enrolled at USC in 1977. But, I know you're just using George as euphemism because you're too much of a wuss to say "black people" in general. Like the way your type hid behind "states rights" to defend Jim Crow and shouted "law and order" to defend cops attacking American citizens with billy clubs and dogs for trying to use a bathroom or water fountain paid for with their own tax dollars.
Although on second thought, "black people" isn't the way you would phrase it either if you were hiding behind your hood and robe
Tee, get yer facts straight, it existed long before #38.Yes, created for George Rogers.
Project much?Your political party leaders should be proud of the hate you've been taught to parrot.
Na bidens administration is the biggest freak show ever seen gathered in one place since the sideshow Carneys left the Beaumount County fare. An utter abomination and the saddest thing ever to happen in America.Diversity should have nothing to do with it - qualifications should.
For example, Biden's administration is the "most diverse in history" but also the most unqualified since qualifications was the secondary hiring criteria.
So the secondary goal is accomplished but the primary goal is not, which equals failure.
Leftist vermin decry racism, but they, in fact, have zero problem with racism. As long as it's flowing in their preferred direction.Your political party leaders should be proud of the hate you've been taught to parrot.
Basically we are watching the fall of Rome again.I have no problem arguing any of the points in this thread. The original thread was how the school was excluding whites from their precious little program, which is caused by the uber liberal "higher education" institutions embracing the ideas of CRT, which is connected to the idiocy of the leadership of this country and specifically, the democrap party and the far left, crazy LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ groups. All of that is part of what has led me to believe that the good times for this country are behind us now and that it is only a matter of time before the country is over. Perhaps you are unable to follow the flow of the ideas represented here?
A-M-E-NI’ll agree with you here. Somehow we have as a society (hell maybe even as a species) lost the ability to do three things.
1) Respectfully debate and disagree about opinions.
2) understand opinions and facts are not the same thing.
3) understand old commonsensical things like despite our disagreement or the facts we collectively must find compromise to advance in any meaningful way.
Those 3 basic things make me fear we are in for a long ride ahead. Eventually when things get bad enough that they touch everyone, a common goal might be found. Different ideas may combine to form a solution where the sum is greater than its parts. But it seems to me we have a lot more “you’re a fascist” or “you’re a communist” stupidity to get through in the meantime.
The problem with that view is that those radicals who you think we should tolerate - they dont want to be tolerated - they want control. They want to absolutely indoctrinate my children and the lefties and the media and the celebrities and the public school system are all doing their best to continue that indoctrination. Its not a matter of tolerating them - if you dont celebrate and honor them, they are going to do their best to make your life a living hell. Sorry. I am not for even tolerating them. I think they are mentally disturbed and need mental help. And by "they", I dont mean Great Uncle Freddy, whom everyone thinks is a little weird and who is probably gay but who is pretty harmless and a nice old strange guy. I am talking about the radical he-she's and the militant gays who are always in everyone else' face, pushing their agenda...the ones who go around threatening small businesses because they dont want to sponsor their little trans/stripper fest. Those are the ones who I dont even think should be tolerated.Let me clarify - there are both moderate & extreme liberals, and moderate & extreme conservatives.
Here's my stand: with freedom comes responsibility. No responsibility, no freedom. I tend towards moderate conservatism. That means that we should look to our families and communities for assistance, and only turn to the government when that fails.
I do not care for homosexuality. No do I care for trans-anything. I have a right to those opinions. I do not embrace those lifestyles at all. That is my truth.
However, living in a Constitutional Republic (which is US is - many mistakenly think we live in a Democracy), I have the responsibility to not harass those whose lifestyles differ from mine. I don't have to like it, but I have to minimally civilly tolerate it. If for no other selfish reason, what's to stop someone from coming after me because they don't like something about me? Better to live and let live. Live and let live is my definition of moderation. It's our best bet at keeping the country going. Extremists, IMO, are intolerant of those whose opinions and/or lifestyles differ significantly from themselves and work hard to shut them down.
Government should not be involved in social engineering, e.g., that USC program which started this thread. People do not need to be made to feel guilty for the sins of their fathers/mothers.
But if someone "harasses" another, e.g., shooting customers at a grocery store in Buffalo frequented in large part by black people, or shooting up a nightclub in Orlando frequented by homosexuals, or a school in south Texas, they must be prosecuted, and vigorously so.
All radicals - both liberal and conservative - want control.The problem with that view is that those radicals who you think we should tolerate - they dont want to be tolerated - they want control. They want to absolutely indoctrinate my children and the lefties and the media and the celebrities and the public school system are all doing their best to continue that indoctrination. Its not a matter of tolerating them - if you dont celebrate and honor them, they are going to do their best to make your life a living hell. Sorry. I am not for even tolerating them. I think they are mentally disturbed and need mental help. And by "they", I dont mean Great Uncle Freddy, whom everyone thinks is a little weird and who is probably gay but who is pretty harmless and a nice old strange guy. I am talking about the radical he-she's and the militant gays who are always in everyone else' face, pushing their agenda...the ones who go around threatening small businesses because they dont want to sponsor their little trans/stripper fest. Those are the ones who I dont even think should be tolerated.
View attachment 313767
You have summed up DEI brilliantly. I have never understood why there are those of us who think DEI is so mandatory and that it is a good thing. As you said, it ultimately leads to failure!Diversity should have nothing to do with it - qualifications should.
For example, Biden's administration is the "most diverse in history" but also the most unqualified since qualifications was the secondary hiring criteria.
So the secondary goal is accomplished but the primary goal is not, which equals failure.