Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

White Privilege

Dot462 Wrote: May 31, 2014 11:13 AM
It's a good thing that only 2500 of these fools get together to discuss this assertion of white privilege. Asserting that anybody who believes in Taxed Enough Already is a racist clearly doesn't understand what TEA stands for. Lots of people of other races think they're over taxed, too. It's understandable that these white privilege discussants don't say anything about Asian privilege. Asians outperform whites and everybody else and don't need any affirmative action. How come? Could it be a strong work ethic, family unity, emphasis on education? Pretty soon white people are going to need affirmative action since they'll become a minority. What will these Marxists yell about then? They holler that white people hate Obama because he's black. But, he's half white, so why isn't he called a white person? Is there some quota that people have to have that makes them black? In the racist South in the 1800s there were designations for mulatto, quadroon, octoroon. and such persons were considered black for purposes of being a slave. Looks like the idiots around us now have that same sort of racism since they define people by how much "color" they have in their genetics. Why can't we look at a man's character and not at the color of his skin? The stupid woman cited here who says she has to control her racism every day and control her white privilege is a very racist person who can't ignore someone's genetics and treat everyone like a human being. 2500 racists at this conference.
Maybe those investors should also look at northern Nevada. Reno is a pretty nice town, although I enjoy it at the size it is, not the size of Vegas. No traffic to speak of. Housing hasn't yet recovered, but now may be the time to get in. Reno isn't as hot in the summer; it does have some snow in the winter, but its proximity to Lake Tahoe and the ski areas makes it attractive. When you come here, though, remember that Nevada is low tax because voters didn't vote the way they do in California. Don't bring your bad voting habits to Nevada. Now, all we have to do is get rid of Harry Reid. Hope we can in 2016.
In response to:

Tax Reform Useless Without Spending Reform

Dot462 Wrote: May 20, 2014 1:30 PM
I agree. I voted for Ron Paul every time he ran, although when he was running as a Libertarian he had no chance, but at that time he could get his views out in public. At least, he was able to run as a Republican and get elected. There's no way he could be elected president because his speeches were so far over the heads of the general voter and his embrace of Austrian economics was foreign to many. He maintained his positions and was definitely not a milquetoast
HIV positive people have a duty to inform potential partner(s) before they initiate intimacy. Condoms are not 100% protection. If Planned Parenthood thinks it's OK for somebody to decide it's not the "right time" to tell somebody if they have an STD, then they are acting against the best interest of the person who is not told. It is irresponsible for a person not to inform people in intimate contact with them if they have a communicable disease, whether it is an STD or tuberculosis.
At least, Jews in Ukraine should clearly understand the implication of registration. In Nazi Germany, it began a naked grab for property. Jews could buy a ticket out (if they could find a country that would let them in) and go, taking nothing with them. Now, at least they can go to Israel, which they should immediately consider doing. Even if they have to abandon their property, at least they will be alive when they get to Israel. There's only 17,000 Jews left in Ukraine (so I've read). Thousands were shot and buried during WWII by Nazi kill squads and the citizens of Ukraine at that time were enthusiastic about the confiscated property of the murdered Jews. My message to the Ukrainian Jews: GET OUT NOW.
In response to:

Statistical Frauds

Dot462 Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 10:15 PM
Ever think you see more women in jobs that don't require physical strength than men? Clerical positions do have a higher percentage of women perhaps because it doesn't require physical power. In fact, when I was a manager I had to fill out EEO reports to show that I hired the right percentage of men, women, black, white, Asian, American Indian but at the same time I wasn't allowed to exceed the percentage allotted to women for clerical work. I preferred men because in the medical records file room the employees had to lift heavy boxes of records and the men could do it more easily with fewer worker's comp claims for back pain -- yet I was supposed to keep my workforce at 98% women because EEO said that was the workforce distribution that they desired. Why? I don't know. You say there are very few men in the banks? What bank do you go to? I was in one a couple days ago in which a man with an earring and tattoos was working alongside another man who was Asian. There was 50% workforce participation of men and women (four employes in the bank). Not even any discrimination against tattooed people, so how about that!
In response to:

A Halo for Selfishness

Dot462 Wrote: Apr 08, 2014 3:25 PM
I like that idea. Everything is electronic now, anyhow and there's no need for Congress critters to fly back and forth like they do or meet in the same room. They can vote by electronic means, all speeches can be done electronically. Look at all the money saved by not having offices in D.C. Staff appointments would be local and the Congressional staffer pay would stay in the state rather than D.C. The only thing is, it's hard to get a response from Congress critters electronically, or by snail mail either. Maybe they're overloaded.
In response to:

A Halo for Selfishness

Dot462 Wrote: Apr 08, 2014 3:21 PM
It's interesting that the voting that goes on with satellite and cable TV shows Fox News outperforming the others by far. Maybe certain demographics watch Fox and other demographics watch MSNBC, etc., and maybe those who watch Fox actually vote. It would be interesting to research. I haven't watched much of the screaming about this SCOTUS decision, but I see it on the news outlets on the internet. Interesting how the left hollers when rich people like the Koch brothers contribute to political causes, but they don't scream when George Soros and rich movie actors do the same. It's all about money. Just like it's OK to drive the CEO of Mozilla out for something he did years ago that wasn't OK with certain people, but if a CEO or other business figure supports something they like, nothing is said.
Mr. Eich should never have allowed himself to be driven out and Mozilla's chairman should not have been so quick to cave in under pressure from loud activists. Thousands of people might refuse to use Mozilla, but other thousands will support Mozilla if it stood up to PC people who to not tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. I call the PC people "bash your face in" people because their general attitude is "if you don't agree with me I'll bash your face in." Such people can be found in the ranks of homosexuals, heterosexuals, religious people, atheists -- you name the group there are probably some in it who would institute an inquisition against those who disagree with them. If Mozilla is really interested in tolerance, they wouldn't can their CEO because he donated money to Prop. 8. Unfortunately, the "bash your face in" people scare companies and individuals. I'm sure Mr. Eich will find employment forthwith in a workplace with more tolerance. Perhaps he might be glad to leave California to the intolerance of the activist, intolerant groups which have invaded and polluted the state. Save yourself, Mr. Eich, and move where there's no state income tax.
In response to:

Minimum Wage: All Jacked Up

Dot462 Wrote: Apr 01, 2014 6:56 PM
Exactly right. I observed when Nevada last raised its minimum I think three years ago the unemployment rate went up 1% the next month. Coincidence? Nevada already led the nation in unemployment, so raising the minimum just made it worse.
In response to:

How Foreign is Our Policy?

Dot462 Wrote: Apr 01, 2014 6:41 PM
A majority can be anti-American, just as they can vote for expropriation of money from rich people, or elect a president who promises to cure cancer and lower the ocean levels. A majority can advocate or vote for anything they want to, which is the downside of democracy. Cultural relativism says that everybody's culture is OK because they believe it and other cultures can't question it. But, in fact, many actions and principles are (or should be) universal. Just because a majority of those who believe in Islam also believe in punishment based on sharia law sanctioning honor killings doesn't mean they should have the power to implement such law regardless of what Christians or Jews or Buddhists might believe. The principle that murder is wrong should be universal. If we are going to accept that liberals have changed the definition of anti-American, then maybe we don't have universal principles. I dispute that a majority of the electorate accepts a "new" definition of anti-American. More likely, many don't even have a definition of it that they can articulate.
Previous 11 - 20 Next