Why you shouldnt vote for liberals

<A HREF="http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2003/10/23/2003073052" target="_new">Click here</A>

If you're American, please read that link. Or if you care about wherever you live and want to learn from our mistakes.
This is one of my strong convictions I've had all my life, we can't let the liberals run our economy out of each state and eventually, out of the country.
Foreign companies dont take over because they make superior products, the old excuse for running out American business or failing American business.

While spending tax money on welfare and any other program, we might have to spend less to keep our businesses.. which is our lifeblood and without we can't help ANYONE! Not even ourselves (when you go looking for a job). One of the reasons I try to buy American whenever possible, someday I might need a job.
Note 20 years ago is roundabout when Reagan was governor of California , hopefully Swartzenegger is conservative enough to put things back on the right track.

If you are going to post a nasty reply, then please refer yourself to my signature below.

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
<b>I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY</b>

Sorry kinney, I missed your post - of course I agree 100%


<b><font color=red> “Liberals have many tails and chase them all.” – H.L. Mencken </font color=red><b>

OMG that is so bloody racist.


Alltaken

<A HREF="http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on

I think if he was truely fair he'd have phrased that differently, because welfare cycles affect families of all races. But it is a fact that the inner city groups are heavily affected by poverty and therefore welfare, and that racial minorities are known to be the majority in such places (only 3 white kids go to one of my stepkid's schools in the city slums, a school of just under 1000 students).

Remember that a certain famous person was recently accused of racism when he said a certain athlete was getting more attention than he deserved because of reverse discrimination. So even speaking of reverse discrimination, which does happen in some places, gets you labled a racist.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

damn i hate the word reverse discrimination SOOOOOOO much, it annoys the hell out of me.

i was speaking out against sexism in schools here in NZ, schooling here is in a crisis for male students who are getting totally discriminated against in many ways, from punishment, to teacher attention, to encouragment and options to excell etc...

basicly i was labeled as speaking out against "reverse discrimination"

well WTF is it reverse fromm, it implys that women are the only people able to be discriminated (or in your case ethnic minoritys) when discrimination (the word) has no implications of ever being set to a single group.

discrimination is discrimination, there is no reverse about it at all.

just a pet peeve of mine sorry LOL






oh and BTW i am not defending ethinic minoritys who are scamming the government, but if you look at history its actually physically harder for them to get out of their situations than you think. its harder to get a job, its harder to get an education, its harder to get a new location. bascily its racism that keeps these people stuck in their situations and its also racism that blames them for it.

it will never end unless ethnicity is ignored


Alltaken

<A HREF="http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on

the way he said it does sound racist, but i don't think he means it that way. its only a fact that certain races contribute more to this issue than others. if thats what he means, which is what i think, then its all good, but if its pointing the finger, then you are right.

</font color=red><font color=orange><b>visit my site. then send me your freakin picture.
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com" target="_new"><font color=red>www.lochel.com</A>

i can't say there are no racists here in the US, but they are only a few. the other thing is; lets say some dood comes here and gets on welfare, lives in the ghetto and has his beer every day. ok fine, but it doesn't stop there. his family is encouraged by him to come to this country and live the same life they are where they're at right now and not have to work. then those guys do the same and it goes on and on.

i'm speaking from experience dood. i see this happen. there are many other things which are related to certain race groups, but i won't mention them because i might get labeled a racist for speaking the truth.

</font color=red><font color=orange><b>visit my site. then send me your freakin picture.
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com" target="_new"><font color=red>www.lochel.com</A>

that made me laugh! its true though.

</font color=red><font color=orange><b>visit my site. then send me your freakin picture.
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com" target="_new"><font color=red>www.lochel.com</A>

LMAO! Of course your right in the technical definition for discrimination. Unfortunately a word had to be used to identify the "type" of discrimination.

You see, it's all about the mindset of people, not the language itself. The majority of people only see discrimination in the historical sense: Men against women, racial majorities against racial minorities. The fact that minorities discriminate against other groups is NOT accepted to be true. That Louis Fahrakan speaks racial slander against Jewish people for example is not accepted as racism by the public majority! That some people who have only done good things are being praised for doing great things because they had to "overcome diversity" is NOT accepted as descriminating in their favor against other groups!

Face it, EVERYBODY gets discriminated against, and race is only a smaller part. If a dumb looking short white guy who can't stand up straight, has acne scars, a fat crooked nose, an underbite, and talks slowely walks into a high class firm looking for a job, and a tall, handsome, articulate, smart sounding black man walks in looking for the same job, who will get that job? Do qualifications for that job even matter when the white guy seems so crude and the black man so suave? The white guy is hoping you're a racist just so you'll overlook his appearence!

Discrimination works both ways. If you're young and beatifull, you're going places. Forget personality, beatifull people normally get their good personality by being treated well their whole lives. So we discriminate in FAVOR of beautifull people.

And if you're beatifull, smart, AND articulate, you have the world by a string! It doesn't matter if you're a genius or simply above average, if you're black, white, yellow, or red. You have something everyone wants.

Now, to say "he was accused of discrimination because he accused another group of discrimination" doesn't sound very descriptive. But if I say "he was charged with discrimination because he accused another group of "reverse" discrimination", it's understood the "he" was of the majority race, the other guy was of a minority race, and the original group was favoring that minority.

So come up with a better way to simplify speach, promote it, and fix the world!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

BTW, where I live it's EASIER for minorities to get an education. Admittance to university provides them with lower testing standards, additional financial aid resources, etc. I was discriminated against even though I was just as poor as anyone, because there were special grants for people from urban schools (ASSUMED POOR) and I came from a smaller city (ASSUMED FINANCIALLY ABLE)!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

some of these laws are just... no word for it.

a 34 year old friend of mine applies for a job the he meets and exceeds the requirement of. he goes in for an interview and instantly he is dismissed. he asks why and the reason is the company has to hire a minority so "white men need not apply". i mean WTF is that!!!

isn't that discrimination in trying to stop discrimination?!!!! i don't know... maybe its just me

</font color=red><font color=orange><b>visit my site. then send me your freakin picture.
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com" target="_new"><font color=red>www.lochel.com</A>

it appears most people think the same way, so who the hell comes up with these laws? more importantly, how are they passed to become laws?!!

</font color=red><font color=orange><b>visit my site. then send me your freakin picture.
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com" target="_new"><font color=red>www.lochel.com</A>

These laws are enacted based uppon ideals set by extremist and the general public who tend to be sympathetic to whatever extremist view seems popular. It all has to do with the oppinion of the uninformed public. Strong liberal fronts back efforts like "Rock the Vote" which should be labled "Kick Out the Traditionalist". What these efforts really aim at is "Innovators", where inovation is seen as anything more liberal than what currently exists.

And people in mass fall for these things because they seem so popular. People follow political fads for the same reason they buy Celerons, the bandwagon approach.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

What makes me angry is the bunch of you complaining! WE have it far better than the rest of the world. WE were lucky to be born with all the things we have. While I dont't like welfare (because it does'nt fix the root of the problem, it's just a way for governments to keep the angry mob of their backs.) Bum's deserve to have a stanard of living just as high as our own. It takes great strength, something I doubt any of us have, to overcome your situation. People are'nt bums because they're lazy, their life sucks and usually sucked from the moment of their birth. It' only natural some of them want to drown in beer. Welfare is the governments way of making sure they do just that. The moment they get rid of welfare is the moment when that bum is gonna slit your throat cause you're a rich bastard!

Welfare is our shield from the poor.

<font color=blue>
The farce is ended; draw the curtain </font color=blue>

This thread is just so funny!

After saying all of that, why does your rightwing gov't preach globalisation to poor countries and then punish them when they want to export to you!

Businesses are businesses. If they can get something done cheaper elsewhere, elswhere is where they'll go. No point bitching about it, and bitching is what you are doing.

Universities have their invisible selection criteria where people from elite schools are preferred. Its just that the gov't are forcing them to level the playing field. Thats all!

It would appear though you guys don't want a level playing field.

<b><font color=red>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</font color=red></b>

I am not completely familiar with worker's compensation laws, and why business see's them as so bad.

But, to me, you have to look at the intent of the law and determine whether or not it is good. I am sure that the intent of California's workers compensation law is to protect workers, a very "noble" venture. Because, I'm sure you know, if companies had their way every single one of them would treat their employees like utter crap. Do you think companies would form their own minimum wage if the government didn't force it? If companies had their way, what do you think they'd do if one of their employees was hurt on the job? They'd fire him and hire someone else.

It very well may be that the problems with the worker's compensation laws are probably improper enforcement and fraud. Plus, businesses don't like it because it does make them earn less money. Most businesses are so greedy that they'd do anything to maximize profit. All businesses are guilty of it, and so many are moving thier operations not only out of California but out of the US. If they have to pay a US worker $30 an hour to do the same job as someone in India for $1 an hour, they choose India. They're scumbags.

I agree that we have to make the US a good place for business to be done. But, how do you do that? Business can always do things cheaper overseas. I think the main thing is that our society needs a huge shift in attitude towards money. Greed rules everything in this country, and it's what's fvcking everything up. It's a shame, really.

And the title of your thread is pretty silly. For every reason you think of not to vote for liberals, I can match it with a reason why you shouldn't vote for conservatives.

Oh, and don't just think I'm a liberal defending liberals. I share some liberal and some conservative views, but consider myself a moderate independent.

This brings up another problem with our country; political affiliation. Too many people blindly follow their parties for no other reason than it's their party. Think back to the Gore/Bush election where all the democrats were saying "recount, recount, recount!!!" and all the republicans were saying "no recount, no recount, no recount!!!" The only reason they were saying that was to back their political party, not because they thought their stance was treuly the RIGHT one. If the situation was reversed and Gore had one Florida by 1000 votes with massive voting irregularity, do you think the Republican's would be supporting Gore and the democrats supporting Bush? Hell no. That's why I stay unaffiliated and consider myself an independent. Plus I hate George Bush.

-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>

One view I can totaly agree with.

<font color=blue>
The farce is ended; draw the curtain </font color=blue>

I like your signature. I find it funny that Jake_Barnes, who seems to be very pro-Bush, unless I'm mistaken, is so adamently telling you to give credit to who made that statement, being how it is so relevent in these times. Here are some more quotes that are pretty enlightening about George Bush.

-----

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our homeland. "
- Adolph Hitler, 1922, Creating the Gestapo

"Our first priority must always be the security of our nation… We will win this war; we'll protect our homeland"
- George Bush, 1/29/2002

-----

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."
-Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946)
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler's designated successor
The second in command of the Third Reich

"These [terrorist] attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible, and this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail…The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
-George W Bush (1946- )
Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces
President of the United States of America

-----

Taken from the site: <A HREF="http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/" target="_new">http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/</A>

-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>

They are not scumbags, they leave becuase in the USA they have to pay their workers $30 an hour, while in India the government doesnt impose such high minimum wages.
And before someone says, "well we can't let the companies pay ppl $1 an hour here in america"...
the problem is that the wages have to be so high because taxes are high.
While neither way is going to work all the time, you have to have a balance.. which is something california was getting away from. They were attacking their businesses to hard.

These same companies that leave employ engineers, management and low level workers all leave.. businesses fund schools and do other things to that are needed.
We should encourage business.

Ive heard ppl say that if the recount position was reversed the republicans wouldve done the same thing the democrats did before, it sounds to me as a easy way to bring the republicans down to the democrats level when they didnt so such a thing.
but how could we say? All we know is the democrats did!
To say republicans wouldve done the same thing isnt fair.
I think the republicans would have taken the FIRST recount, not the 4th, which by that time they had basically all democrats 'counting' chads.
They blatantly refused the results until they were the results they wanted... we all know this.

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
<b>I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY</b>

The obvious unbiasedness(?) of FOX news astounds me. FOX rowks!

<font color=blue>
The farce is ended; draw the curtain </font color=blue>

I dont know if we want to 'punish' them. We just want to ensure they dont run out our business. Tariffs on American products is much higher in japan than vice versa. I guess I dont know what you mean by punish.

I have a multiracial family, we all agree on this- Why should a minority get a job or education over a white if less qualified?

My whole political philosophy centers around "Why does the federal government need to tell me what to do?".. seriously, the democrats seem to think they know how better to spend MY money, they know who I should hire.. they know so much more than we do I dont know why we bother.
Well, its back to the communes I guess..

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
<b>I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY</b>

Yeah that's right, all the liberals are damn commies. We wear red shirts and and I have a Stalin poster in my room.

<font color=red> No, you cannot flame me unless you can beat 18,300pts </font color=red>

The whole notion that any ethnic group needs more assistance to get into school than any other group is ludicrous. Such efforts assume that no matter how impoverished you are, you're even MORE impoverished if you're from that ethnic group. If you had a 0 income and were caucasion, it assumes that everybody of the other ethnic group had LESS THAN 0.

These efforts are actually a lie/scam more than an effort to help any particular person. The TRUE problem they try to correct is poverty within a certain ethnic group. What they say is "We don't care how poor any caucasions are, we're trying to increase the income of this minority".

The idea behind this is: If 15% of Caucasions are impoverished, and 30% of a minority are impoverished, they need to admit twice as many of the minority per capita of that minority as they would caucasions in order to bring the two groups in balance. In other words, it doesn't try to decrease poverty evenly. If it decreased poverty evenly, those number would drop 15%->7.5%, 30%->15%, and the minority would still be behind. Instead they seek to drop ONLY the poverty of the ethnic group with the greater problem, so that it would ideally be 15%->15% for caucasions, 30%->15% for the minority.

But what they do instead is RAISE poverty for caucasions by eliminating them from consideration. People with low educational levels tend to have lots of children. So rather than make them both 15%, it's more likely to cause a reversal of trends, 15%-30% and 30%-15%. Of course that's not going to happen quickly, so the result would be more like 20%/20%. Even though more people are impoverished that way (because caucasions are a much larger group), everything is balanced and that makes people happy.

So getting back to what you were saying, it's not based purely on income BECAUSE that would be fair. It's based on ethnicity BECAUSE it has to be UNBALANCED in order to bring about the changes they desire.

Anything involving large groups is unfair. Look at politics, you see people convicted of crimes that got publicity, and BECAUSE of that publicity you see a prosecutor or politician saying "We're punishing him as harshly as possible to send a clear message to other that this behavior will no longer be tolerated". And they call that the JUSTICE system. Is it fair to throw someone in prison for 20 years on a crime most people would think only deserves 2 or 3 years? NO! But that's the way the system works, "Good people" killing, maiming, depriving of prosperity, basically commiting any kind of injustice/unfairness/predjudice they can in order to change the way society functions for what they consider "the betterment of society".

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

Fox has a slight lean to the right, they seem "far right" only because so many other news sources are so far left.

O'Reilly pointed out that the LA Times had the dirt on Schwarzenegger for 2 weeks before they released it on "dirty Thursday", a day that gets it's name from the fact that you can shoot out any accusation on that day and the runner won't have an adequate oportunity to respond before people go to the polls.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

A lot of third world countries get orders to open up their markets to external businesses or they don't get money from world bank, don't get accepted into certain business groups etc. etc. When they (e.g. Vietnam) have products (e.g. catfish) to export, countries like america put extraordinary duties on the imports to effectively cut them out. Then you have the nerve to accuse them of dumping.

Then there is subsidising farmers to allow them to stock up on their products and even dump the stock on third world markets, killing off their farmers. But then these third world countries are not allowed to put huge taxes on their imports.

If you're gonna do all sorts to protect your businesses and even subsidise them, why aren't they allowed to do the same.

Thats what I call punishment.


About the level playing field. You have to ask the question why is unemployment so much higher in minority groups. Most right winged people just say if they are unemployed it is because they are lazy. That is just absurd. Nobody is asking employers to take on a lower qualified, lower skilled person from a minority over a white male with higher qualification.

Most companies have had the habit of hiring white people over minorities with equal or even higher levels of skill and qualification. That is why the goernment needed to intervene. I mean there was a TV show a few years back when a black guy applied for a job over the phone and was told the position had been filled, as his race was obvious from his caribean accent. A few hours later he got his friend to make a call to the same company, who was given an interview. Granted that was in the UK, but I refuse to believe anyone who says the situation is all rosy in america.

That is why government intervention is required. Dhlucke think everyone has the opportunity to leave the slums get into good univerisities and into great jobs. But I don't think so. There are so many hurdles in that path that have little to do with anything but chance. The ones that aren't chance are hurdles that seem to vary in sizes depending on your skin colour.

<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>