Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/25/2010 7:33:27 PM PST by Gum Shoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Gum Shoe

Never.

According to the race pimps like Rev. Al, JJ et. al.


2 posted on 12/25/2010 7:35:04 PM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe
Never.

It's a downward spiral.

3 posted on 12/25/2010 7:43:19 PM PST by SIDENET ("If that's your best, your best won't do." -Dee Snider)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe

80 years ago they had programs to sterilize deformed people and lock up the mentally challenged. Hell, Indiana had a law demanding it. Eugenics. In 80 more years maybe we’ll get another Hitler if we’re still here. Just thinking out loud.


4 posted on 12/25/2010 7:44:34 PM PST by Cisco Nix (Real Conservatives stay sober and focused)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe
About the time people are starving.

Won't be that much longer.

5 posted on 12/25/2010 7:51:46 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (DEFCON I ALERT: The federal cancer has metastasized. All personnel report to their battle stations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe
Liberals and Conservatives differ on the notion of "fairness".

Conservatives would say that some people will end up winners and some people will end up losers. That's just how it is, because people have differing abilities. Different abilities lead to different outcomes, and that is "fair".

For a Liberal, if everyone is a millionaire, that is "fair". If only some people are millionaires, that is "unfair". Either everyone is a winner, or everyone is a loser. That would appear to be "fair" to a Liberal.

The problem for Liberals is that not everyone can be a winner, and if someone does come out a winner, that seems "unfair" -- so Liberals put a lot of effort into hurting winners and expanding the number of losers -- that's seems to make more "fair" outcomes.

The problem for Conservatives is that although we like it when someone comes out a winner, we still feel bad when someone loses. And so we still fight the notion of anyone ending up a loser, ever. That's called "compassionate conservatism".

By playing that game, by trying to make sure no one really loses the game of life, some Conservatives end up playing the Liberals' game, and set the stage for punishing the winners.

The reality of Conservatism is that some folks are going to get a rotten deal in life. They lack the ability and can never come out on top. It's sad. So -- how many people really want to create that world? The answer is "not many", which is why voters keep electing socialists and their RINO enablers.

6 posted on 12/25/2010 7:52:02 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe

“the majority loses their right to excellence to the minority definition of fairness. How unfair life truely is.”

The cost to our society is staggering. We sacrifice a lot of potential for the principle of “equality”, which makes the loss hard to gauge. “Equality” was one of the French Revolution’s principles, not the American Revolution. Ours succeeded, and theirs failed. And yet now we seek to follow the path of theirs.


7 posted on 12/25/2010 7:52:05 PM PST by GenXteacher (He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe

“At what point between the high school choir and the Los Angeles Lakers does merit and performance supersede affirmative action?”

At a point beyond the office of the most powerful job on the planet, the President of the United States...


8 posted on 12/25/2010 7:53:47 PM PST by piytar (0's idea of power: the capacity to inflict unlimited pain and suffering on another human being. 1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe

I’m afraid our children and grandchildren, both the impaired and the unimpaired will have to suffer this stupidity. It arises from a skewed sense of what is valuable by some teachers and parents that fancy themselves as socially progressive.

It seems to me to be horribly cruel and sadistic to plant the idea in these special needs kids that they can persue everything the others can do. Each one of the special needs kids could strive and excel in a group of their peers, but are doomed to always be looked upon with pity when put in situations with those that don’t have their handicaps.

How much better for both groups if they were allowed to interact with those who have similar problems and abilities.


11 posted on 12/25/2010 7:59:23 PM PST by Aleya2Fairlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe

...depends on how serious your surgery is?.....the experienced surgeon or the one who got his experience because he or she was the top government number allowed.....


12 posted on 12/25/2010 8:09:58 PM PST by Doogle ((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe

Q. “At what point does merit supersede affirmative action?”

A. Merit should ALWAYS supersede affirmative action.

Anything else is discrimination.


13 posted on 12/25/2010 8:22:05 PM PST by Grumplestiltskin (I may look new, but it's only deja vu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe

This is what is called “mainstreaming”. My wife was responsible for a child with Rett Syndrome, an affliction affecting mainly girls, where they regress to an infantile state of development at an early age. She was placed in a regular classroom with my wife working with her full time.


14 posted on 12/25/2010 8:25:07 PM PST by quietly desperate (The state is the fiction by which everybody tries to steal from everybody else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe
At what point between the high school choir and the Los Angeles Lakers does merit and performance supersede affirmative action?

IMO, the real question is whether affirmative action should exist at all.

I say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

16 posted on 12/25/2010 8:42:16 PM PST by freespirited (This tagline dedicated to the memory of John Armor, a/k/a Congressman Billybob.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe

“Harrison Bergeron” ~ story written a long time ago by Kurt Vonnegut. See: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html


20 posted on 12/25/2010 9:22:53 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe

At what point? Off the books, thats at what point. In the “black” market.


21 posted on 12/25/2010 11:23:56 PM PST by the invisib1e hand ("Three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than 200 swords" - Napoleon Bonapart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe

Forcing others to agree that a manifestly stupid thing is a wonderful and good thing is a demonstration of power.

Ft. Hood is the present culmination of this manifest stupidity. There are coming others and worse.


24 posted on 12/26/2010 4:54:34 AM PST by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gum Shoe

“Affirmative action” has replaced “qualified” Gender, color, race essential in job experience.


33 posted on 12/26/2010 12:47:58 PM PST by ronnie raygun (V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson