Palestinians Take a Brave Move. They actually take to the streets against Hamas.
Dungeons & Dragons by oldedude     March 25, 2025 5:06 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (27 comments) [376 views]

Is Hooters flat busted?
Business by Curt_Anderson     March 31, 2025 6:15 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [21 views]

Every American is potentially a Frengel Reyes Mota now
Dungeons & Dragons by Donna     March 30, 2025 4:50 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: Indy! (3 comments) [132 views]

Elon Musk reveals DOGE’s new target — members of Congress who got ‘strangely wealthy’
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 31, 2025 8:22 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [65 views]

Trump underwater in approval/disapproval polls already.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 30, 2025 11:26 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [79 views]

Bill Maher favors cutting public broadcasting funding, rejects NPR CEO’s testimony that outlet is unbiased
Media by HatetheSwamp     March 29, 2025 4:41 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (16 comments) [163 views]

Trump said tariffs will cause prices to drop. So why is he warning manufacturers not to raise prices?
Business by Curt_Anderson     March 29, 2025 11:32 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: meagain (8 comments) [179 views]

A request to SSers who post videos.
Opinion by Curt_Anderson     March 30, 2025 12:29 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (8 comments) [96 views]

Bernie Sanders In Trouble As Paid Rally Attendees Vote To Unionize
Government by HatetheSwamp     March 30, 2025 2:18 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [54 views]

A request to SSers who post articles behind pay walls
Media by HatetheSwamp     March 30, 2025 6:03 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [50 views]

Why do MAGA Hats hate the very concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion? By Ponderer February 18, 2025 6:31 am Category: Theatre (5.0 from 1 vote) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here

Diversity. Equity. Inclusion.

These are literally obscene words to the conservative right.

To hear them tell it, they believe that being "diverse" somehow gives ethnic and cultural minorities an advantage over straight white males. A group that the right purports has been horribly abused by all this diversity.

To hear them tell it, they believe that "equity" in the form of everyone having equal protection under the law is somehow unfair to straight white men. That the only fairness they will accept is straight white men being on a higher level than everyone else. Equity to them means that they aren't superior.

To hear them tell it, "Inclusion" of all people in our American society, regardless of race, creed, or color, disenfranchises and removes opportunities from straight white men. Inclusion of anyone other than straight white men fills vacancies that should rightfully be held by straight white men.


They say that all this woke, DEI stuff is giving opportunities to unqualified minorities overqualified straight white male applicants. Which is absolutely and totally flaming propagandist bullshit.

The reality is that racial and minority equity programs were put in place to ensure that unqualified, inexperienced, incompetent straight white men wouldn't be given opportunities over extremely qualified minority applicants.

And they can't have that.

Comments Start Below

by oldedude on February 18, 2025 7:36 am The reality is that racial and minority equity programs were put in place to ensure that unqualified, inexperienced, incompetent straight white men wouldn't be given opportunities over extremely qualified minority applicants. Po- There are several points in this, for once it's not a rambling. I'm also trying to present a discussion. You just proved your own argument. This is an equity that was put in place to ensure that unqualified, inexperienced, incompetent straight persons of a group based on race, creed, color, national origin, or gender preference would be given opportunities over otherwise extremely qualified applicants. This is a huge problem with Air Traffic Controllers (as seen at Washington Reagan accident). It wasn't that DEI applicants weren't wanted (by pedojoe's mandates), it was that there weren't enough applicants that were available for the jobs. NO ONE is saying those that fall into the DEI groups shouldn't be hired. There are already laws about that. PLEASE if those folks are the most qualified, PLEASE HIRE THEM! Especially to be my surgeon, firefighter, cop, nurse, Air Traffic Controller, or any other person I routinely trust my life with! Or someone else that is looking for a job. It's pretty funny. Out of the plethora of doctors I have (almost a dozen since the holidays), TWO of them are white males. One is from the VA, so I don't see him but twice a year. The other is my ENT. Everyone else are a variety of human beings of different races and backgrounds, and I'm not stupid enough to even care if they're part of the LGBTQ+ community, THAT doesn't matter to me at all. I really don't want someone that was at the bottom of their medical school, given a degree they didn't earn to be cutting on me. It's just a personal choice for me. The same goes if the preferred group were white males. What's really wrong about DEI, is that if a black woman that is self identified as LGBTQ+ in a position of leadership, the question comes up if they were a DEI hire. This insults the person to be sure. If you took away DEI though, there would be no thought of that. They must have been the best person for the job. So to me, supporters of DEI ambush their own people by the program. by HatetheSwamp on February 18, 2025 8:06 am Well said, OD. po, No one I know on the "conservative right," ain't that redundant?, is against DEI as much as they are for equality... Martin Luther King Jr's "by the content of their character, not the color of their skin." Equity is exactly by the color of their skin. It is racist and sexist, et.al. But, more than that, on t'other side, the goal is meritocracy. Diversity as a goal is counterproductive... as the immense failure of "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap's" administration proves... at least as election results prove. by meagain on February 18, 2025 8:22 am DEI does not mean hiring unqualified over qualified in any sense. It means not giving preference to one qualified candidate over another because they are members of the majority group. by HatetheSwamp on February 18, 2025 8:32 am Maybe in theory, meagain. But, in practice? Bahahahahahahahahahaha! by Ponderer on February 18, 2025 8:57 am Thanks for the comment, od. Lemme ask you something. In all of Trump's appointments taken as a whole, do you believe that "qualification" and "experience" and "competence" were the primary driving factors of their hiring? Or do you think that there may have been any other factors that were far more important to Trump in picking them for the jobs? by HatetheSwamp on February 18, 2025 9:08 am po, I'll await OD's reply but, for me, it's clear that Trump's top priority has been commitment to the draining of the Swamp. That's the top qualification. You never said a discouraging word about that "dithering and diminished" "feckless dementia-ridden" Doddering Old Fool. No one here is that brain-dead about Trump. by Ponderer on February 18, 2025 11:01 am And you are of course a fuckingliar. I said many times that I hated his immigration policies and his policies on Gaza and Palestinians. I was quite clear about that. But the rest of your answer is just pure MAGA Hat idiocy. Explain to me why they want the debt ceiling raised if they aren't planning to swampishly raise the deficit? Explain why they destroy an agency that protects consumers from unscrupulous companies if they don't want unscrupulous, swampish companies to go nuts on consumers? by oldedude on February 18, 2025 11:09 am Lemme ask you something. In all of Trump's appointments taken as a whole, do you believe that "qualification" and "experience" and "competence" were the primary driving factors of their hiring? Or do you think that there may have been any other factors that were far more important to Trump in picking them for the jobs? First, I wasn't aware that we were talking about trumpster because there was nothing said about him in your title to the thread. Second, I don't think there's a person that you would EVER say that you would consider "qualified" or "experienced" by any stretch of your imagination. You're going to hate them all. I just take that into consideration in answering your second question, which is nothing but a setup "do you still beat your wife" question. I'm not going to argue that point. by Indy! on February 18, 2025 11:09 am The hatred of DEI is simply another form of racism perpetuated (mainly) by the Aussie Fiction Factory. by oldedude on February 18, 2025 11:14 am Which, as usual, has no basis in fact. by HatetheSwamp on February 18, 2025 11:29 am "And you are of course a fuckingliar. I said many times that I hated his immigration policies and his policies on Gaza and Palestinians. I was quite clear about that." Okay. Granted. Now, apart from your antisemitism, show me a discouraging word about the Former Truck Driver. Relating to your budget rants, po, I don't agree with what the GOPs seem to have in mind with the deficit. But, your "dithering and diminished" "feckless dementia-ridden" Lord and Savior left the country in dire straights as far as the budget goes. Even if Mr Tangerine Man's plans are entirely honorable, we're up schitz crick for years to come. by oldedude on February 18, 2025 1:22 pm Also, Why do MAGA Hats hate the very concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion?. Po. I do understand what your question(s) are, and this is where I got my information. So just some clarification if you will. I also wanted to say I appreciate your answer in #5👍. This is mostly relative to the other statements regarding DEI. Fair? indy- The hatred of DEI is simply another form of racism perpetuated (mainly) by the Aussie Fiction Factory. meagain- DEI does not mean hiring unqualified over qualified in any sense. It means not giving preference to one qualified candidate over another because they are members of the majority group. DEI is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA), and Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009[1]. So the courts are extremely secure in the legality of this particular set of laws. In short, Title VII states; "Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment. The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. The laws enforced by EEOC also prohibit an employer from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older, if the policies or practices at issue are not based on a reasonable factor other than age.[2] So that's the basics of Tital VII, USC. These laws prohibit an employer et.al. from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. My question is; why do we have a "law" that already covers a law that has been shown to be every bit as valid in US Federal courts and SCOTUS. The acceptance of Tital VII has been show to be extremely solid as a part of Labor Law in the US for the past 60+ years. It has a lifespan that has borne the courts and been smoothed out in it's righteousness as an accepted law of the land. eeoc.gov eeoc.gov by Ponderer on February 18, 2025 1:35 pm "First, I wasn't aware that we were talking about trumpster because there was nothing said about him in your title to the thread." -olde dude Well first of all od, any mention of MAGA Hats automatically implies Trump. They are simply elements of the same fascist machine, incapable of being separated. As our friend Hate here is a part of. Do you think that Trump doesn't hate the very concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion? If you are talking about MAGA Hats, you're talking about trumpster. And he is the one currently getting rid of all diversity, equity, and inclusion in our country. You can't hazard a guess as to whether he hates it or not? "Second, I don't think there's a person that you would EVER say that you would consider "qualified" or "experienced" by any stretch of your imagination. You're going to hate them all." -olde dude And second of all, you are wrong about what I would consider "qualified". It is quite possible for a Trump appointee to be experienced and qualified for the positions they are being put in. The Republican party is still pretty large in this country and a vast array of Republicans with plenty of the qualifications and experience for all these government and cabinet positions certainly do indeed exist. od, you can't fault me for the fact that so very few his picks for anything to date meet even the most basic, first order of business criteria for qualifications or experience absolutely required for these jobs, regardless of any political party. Even you can't declare any of his picks are actually qualified or experienced for the jobs they are being planted in. Because you know that they aren't. And od, I can at least respect that you don't want to lie about it. olde dude, we both know what his #1... in fact his only priority in a candidate for a position on his team is. Experience and qualifications be damned. People with little to no experience in the fields he is putting them in makes it all the more likely that they won't understand or comprehend the gravity of the heinously illegal and corrupt things he orders them to do for him. And therefore are far more likely to sacrifice themselves in his service. As so countless many already have. They will simply do what Trump commands them to do. Without question. Illegal or not. Unconstitutional or not. Flagrantly undemocratic and fascist or not. That is the #1 and only qualification that he demands. by Ponderer on February 18, 2025 1:44 pm How about this... Hate, tell us what your personal feelings are on the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion. If they aren't a deep, bigoted, herd-mentality hatred, what are they? (And I tried my best not to pose that as a wife-beating question. There's no way that asking what his feelings are about something is a wife-beating question.) by HatetheSwamp on February 18, 2025 2:00 pm Hate, tell us what your personal feelings are on the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion. If they aren't a deep, bigoted, herd-mentality hatred, what are they? Feelings? Equity? My feelings are, I dunno, sadness, frustration. Maybe some anger. On Facebook, I noted that however I fit in in 025, I am what a progressive was 50 or more years ago. I believe in freedom and equality. Of the sexes. Of the races. I was learning to think when Martin Luther King Jr was dreaming his dream. He foresaw the day when his children would not be judged by the color of their skin. That's what I believe in. King fought for equality of opportunity. Equity defies that goal hoping to secure equality of outcome... which can't happen without a Big Brother foisting his values on the world. Diversity? My feelings are... is disdain a feeling? Ole pb is all about merit. Meritocracy, man! That's the way. Inclusion? I'm not sure what that is, apart from diversity and equity. by Ponderer on February 18, 2025 2:30 pm "Diversity? My feelings are... is disdain a feeling?" -Hate disdain [ dis-deyn, dih-steyn ] verb (used with object) 1. to look upon or treat with contempt; despise; scorn. I'd certainly say that it stems from a very definite feeling, yes. "Equity? My feelings are, I dunno, sadness, frustration. Maybe some anger." -Hate Hmmm. Quite a lot to unpack there. What about equity makes you sad and angry? 'Inclusion? I'm not sure what that is, apart from diversity and equity." -hate inclusion [ in-kloo-zhuhn ] noun 4. the practice or policy of including and integrating all people and groups in activities, organizations, political processes, etc., especially those who are disadvantaged, have suffered discrimination, or are living with disabilities. Okay. So is it fair to say then that inclusion probably fills you with just as much disdain, sadness, and anger as diversity and equity do...? I really think we're getting somewhere here! by HatetheSwamp on February 18, 2025 2:36 pm The thing is the I in DEI is your category. Equity p!$$€$ ole pb off because he believes in equality radically. by Indy! on February 18, 2025 2:53 pm Which DEI LAWS are you two bigots MAGAts referring to? by HatetheSwamp on February 18, 2025 2:56 pm I don't know about laws. Those could only be changed with new laws. But policies? They're all over the departments and agencies of the federal government. by Curt_Anderson on February 18, 2025 2:59 pm "Equity p!$$€$ ole pb off because he believes in equality radically." --HtS No, you don't. Or if you do, it's only in selected applications. Equality is treating everyone the same, while equity recognizes differences and provides people with appropriate consideration. For example, equality would be unisex restrooms (like you probably have at home). Equity provides restrooms appropriate to their anatomy. Equality would be every student in public high schools taking the same classes. Equity recognizes that students have different intellectual capacity, aptitudes and interests so they are provided with classes that give them the best opportunity to succeed. Equality would be school sports open to all regardless of gender. Equity would be sports divided by gender. Equality would be a single weight class in wrestling and boxing. Equity would be multiple weight classes recognizing that people come in different sizes. by Indy! on February 18, 2025 3:00 pm They're "all over" but you couldn't think of a single one. by meagain on February 18, 2025 3:02 pm ' Equity defies that goal hoping to secure equality of outcome... which can't happen without a Big Brother foisting his values on the world." I think you may have that a little wrong, PB. Equity does not necessarily mean equality of outcome. It means recognising differences in circumstances and opportunities. Then, providing the means to the disadvantaged to enable an equal outcome. by oldedude on February 18, 2025 3:03 pm po "Do you think that Trump doesn't hate the very concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion? If you are talking about MAGA Hats, you're talking about trumpster. And he is the one currently getting rid of all diversity, equity, and inclusion in our country. You can't hazard a guess as to whether he hates it or not?" I stick to my basic belief. There is nothing in the world that trumpster or one of his minions could do to appease you. The tenant of the right, which has CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING is that DEI is a useless law since there is a whole Title of the US Code dedicated to this. I think, like he's made remarks before, that Title VII covers DEI, just like the courts do. So anything more is stoopid. Question; What is your goal in a DEI LAW that you can't get through Title VII? That's a key question. You need to articulate the "thing" that differs your law from the one that's already in the books and has been successful for 60+ years. Again, listen carefully to the words of Jimmy Carvelle as he Slamed Dems Use Of Identity Politics: 'So Freaking Arrogant,' and blames the left for doing exactly what you and everyone else on this site is doing. You hate trumpster so much that you can't make any logical sense. You have no credibility in the world. It's just accepted that you want someone to murder the sitting president. It's accepted by many they are willing to sit by and watch our country burn to the ground because like indy, you believe that anarchy is the better "government" and the rest should be burned to the ground, believing that everyone in the US believes in your "cause" when in fact, it's maybe 20% that are willing to do what you want. by HatetheSwamp on February 18, 2025 3:49 pm For example, equality would be unisex restrooms (like you probably have at home). Equity provides restrooms appropriate to their anatomy. Equality would be every student in public high schools taking the same classes. Equity recognizes that students have different intellectual capacity, aptitudes and interests so they are provided with classes that give them the best opportunity to succeed. Equality would be school sports open to all regardless of gender. Equity would be sports divided by gender. Equality would be a single weight class in wrestling and boxing. Equity would be multiple weight classes recognizing that people come in different sizes. Bullfernerner by Curt_Anderson on February 18, 2025 5:23 pm "Bullfernerner" --HtS, comment #24 Equality would be to mock any other writer for such a lame, inane response. Equity is realizing that it is the best response you can muster therefore not criticizing it. by oldedude on February 18, 2025 8:07 pm Yo- Read the LAW. The one that's been around since 1961. If you have issues with that? Change the fucking law. Otherwise STFU. Now censure me little nazi. by HatetheSwamp on February 19, 2025 3:26 am You're a hoot, Curt. by HatetheSwamp on February 19, 2025 4:20 am BTW, I sorta agree with: Equality would be school sports open to all regardless of gender. Equity would be sports divided by gender. Athletics separated by SEX, not gender, is based on the value that protecting biological females is common sense. Your other examples aren't issues of equality IMO, which makes the point that people, on the, as po says, "conservative... right" use sense in applying the principle of equity. If you ever strayed beyond your Holy Trinity, you'd already know that the watchword of Team Tangerine is, "Common Sense." Common Sense. by oldedude on February 19, 2025 4:39 am Curt, et.al, is just talking like a rich white boy that feels bad about being a white/male. So the male libs are the next best things to them. Beta males. I remember the issue about that last year. What's funny is that beta males are laughed at by both alpha males and straight women. by Indy! on February 19, 2025 9:01 am Curt, et.al, is just talking like a rich white boy that feels bad about being a white/male. Classic racist rationalization - right out of the textbook. And the obsession with trying his best (and continually failing) to be an "alpha male" when nobody cares (not even Brown Shorts) is one of the reasons I keep returning to this board. 😂 by oldedude on February 19, 2025 10:50 am and so do you. Although, I didn't want to mention you in this as the ultimate Beta "male", princess. You know, delicate (cough) "male?" by Indy! on February 19, 2025 3:57 pm Thanks for the support, OD. 😂 by Curt_Anderson on February 19, 2025 4:18 pm I believe I can speak for HtS who "believes in equality radically". For example, equality is treating everybody the same regardless of gender. Using he, she, him, her, hers and his is an example of equity which recognizes the differences in people. No doubt, HtS would prefer that we use egalitarian and gender neutral terms when referring to "them". So in deference to HtS's strong conviction and adherence to radical equality, when using the third person please refer to HtS with terms like "they", "them" and "their". They will appreciate it! by HatetheSwamp on February 19, 2025 4:27 pm I don't think pronoun usage is an issue of equity. I do think that biology is akin to astronomy but gender science is the equivalent of astrology. Nevertheless, I still don't call po or Donna, he/him. by Curt_Anderson on February 19, 2025 4:44 pm "I don't think pronoun usage is an issue of equity." ---HtS Allow me to "good German" you, because you are wrong. Using the correct pronouns for people is a way to be equitable and inclusive. It's the E in the DEI, which I know you want to avoid at all costs. Further reading: Why Pronouns Matter When Building an Equitable Culture Pronouns & Inclusive Language - LGBTQIA Resource Center Pronouns | Center for Equity and Inclusion Pronoun Use - Equity & Inclusion trinet.com lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu tacoma.uw.edu hofstra.edu by oldedude on February 19, 2025 6:39 pm I think all the pronouns is nothing more than a pain in my ass. If I guess wrong, I'm on the shit stand. I consider them a human being first. The pronouns only create an "US Versus THEM" mentality (which it's already doing), thusly the "beta" "males" or "Delicate" "men." (what is it that you prefer?) The good thing is that I can tell my grandkids they need to work, earn their own way in life, expect nothing from the government. Go to school, be a good person, respect the sheep, fight the wolves. And if you don't, you'll end up just like that cucked "beta" "male" over there. Yeah, the "guy" with "his" nuts in it's wife's lock box. by HatetheSwamp on February 20, 2025 4:09 am Further reading: Why Pronouns Matter When Building an Equitable Culture Pronouns & Inclusive Language - LGBTQIA Resource Center Pronouns | Center for Equity and Inclusion Pronoun Use - Equity & Inclusion trinet.com lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu tacoma.uw.edu hofstra.edu Woke gibberish. And, increasingly not practiced. MAGA is now cool. Woke is receding. by Ponderer on February 20, 2025 5:43 am "I don't know about laws." -Hate Possibly the truest words he has ever spoken. He doesn't know anything about laws, so it's no surprise that he can't recognize when his Golden Glorious God flagrantly breaks any. by Ponderer on February 20, 2025 5:50 am "There is nothing in the world that trumpster or one of his minions could do to appease you." -olde dude There is no law that Trump could ever flagrantly break that would ever get you two cult zombies to criticize him for it. by oldedude on February 20, 2025 6:23 am meagain- I think you may have that a little wrong, PB. Equity does not necessarily mean equality of outcome. It means recognising differences in circumstances and opportunities. Then, providing the means to the disadvantaged to enable an equal outcome. So what you're saying is that members of the LGBTQ+ community, (gays, trans, etcetcetc) are just too stupid to make it on their own, require governement intervention. So TITLE VII (being illegal to violate their rights of hiring, schools, etcetcetc is not enough). Got it. Because I'm on the other side of that. What's funny is that I find donna one of the most articulate on this site. And between TITLE VII, the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 and it's following laws, you're a myogenous pig and a homophobe. For the second time. WHY does the country need a DEI "Law?" What does TITLE VII, USC, NOT DO? Until this gets answered, all the BS of how we need it is just that. SHOW CONGRESS WHY THEY SHOULD ENACT A DEI LAW INSTEAD OF USING TITLE VII. by Ponderer on February 20, 2025 7:42 am "So what you're saying is " -olde dude Imma stop you right there. There is never ANY reason for me or anyone else to read any further when you start a post with that statement. It's a foregone conclusion that what you are about to say is exceptionally stupid, bigoted and wrong. You're only trying to obfuscate what anyone says for your own purposes when you start a post with that. Every time. But you know what? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt this time, od, and read what came after that..... "that members of the LGBTQ+ community, (gays, trans, etcetcetc) are just too stupid to make it on their own, require governement intervention. So TITLE VII (being illegal to violate their rights of hiring, schools, etcetcetc is not enough). Got it. Because I'm on the other side of that." -olde dude Yep! You're batting a thousand, od! by oldedude on February 20, 2025 9:00 am This is something I think is funny. po is sooooo fucking deluded in it's own stupidity. I'm going to pull a po, because she/he/they/them/it/ absolutely does not have the neurological capacity to do anything but hate. These ASShats allow trumpster to live in their head and it's like they have him living in their heads. Rent free. po doen't have the capability to actually have a conversation. That's very clear. Ergo, she/he/they/them/it/ doesn't have a fucking clue what she/he/they/them/it/ is talking about. That's VERY clear. Much clearer than any response she/he/they/them/it/ can give anyone. This is one of the most common of the libtards afflictions is caused by Treponema Pallidum bacterium. This infection is normally contracted from the sores of an infected person or an infection from low information media that has been ultra-processed to the extreme so normal persons understand the lack of information they're getting. This is an extremely dangerous process for the carrier. The secondary stage involves non-itchy body rash on palms, feet or other parts of the body, usually found in liberal "arts" colleges where it is passed through professors with no real-world experience. The third stage, also known as latent, can develop during many years. Most symptoms go away but the infection may start developing complications, damaging different body functions. Mental and neurological problems the host of the bacterium, starts believing trumpster is living in their head, heart diseases, blindness to all other media sources, and eventually death are the most common possible consequences. There is also high risk of transmitting the bacterium to children and others that don't have the ability to tell truth from fiction, from an infected parent or media source. Like most other transmitted diseases, TDS is best prevented by abstaining from unknown media sources and contacts. Even if you follow these simple guidelines, do not hesitate to have your brain tested every now and then to make sure you are free from this bacterium. by oldedude on February 20, 2025 9:03 am So what's the answer since I've asked FOUR times, and you still can't answer it. Ask donna. she can put two fucking sentences together for you ASShats. Because you're just wasting everyone else's time with being stoopid🤣. by Indy! on February 20, 2025 9:03 am Good freakin' lord it doesn't get more hypoctrical than this... by oldedude on February 19, 2025 6:39 pm I think all the pronouns is nothing more than a pain in my ass. If I guess wrong, I'm on the shit stand. I consider them a human being first. The pronouns only create an "US Versus THEM" mentality (which it's already doing), thusly the "beta" "males" or "Delicate" "men." (what is it that you prefer?) The good thing is that I can tell my grandkids they need to work, earn their own way in life, expect nothing from the government. Go to school, be a good person, respect the sheep, fight the wolves. And if you don't, you'll end up just like that cucked "beta" "male" over there. Yeah, the "guy" with "his" nuts in it's wife's lock box "Respect the sheep, fight the wolves" from the guy who's so insecure and sensitive about his (alleged) "manhood" that he has to separate everyone into imaginary "alphas" and "betas" (even when he knows absolutely nothing about them)? 😂 by oldedude on February 20, 2025 9:17 am This is something you do all the time. So it applies to you also. There is never ANY reason for me or anyone else to read any further when you start a post with that statement. It's a foregone conclusion that what you are about to say is exceptionally stupid, bigoted and wrong. You're only trying to obfuscate what anyone says for your own purposes when you start a post with that. Every time. by oldedude on February 20, 2025 9:25 am You can't answer the question either? Do I have to explain it to you AGAIN🤣 because you're too stupid???? A failure out of a comic book "art" school, loves the cartels (when it's convenient🤣), and whines like a little two bit whore bitch when they don't invite she/it/they/them to be the "centerpiece" of the "party.😢" When it can't answer, it just deflects because it has nothing of any value to add to the conversation. by meagain on February 20, 2025 9:25 am "What's funny is that I find donna one of the most articulate on this site. And between TITLE VII, the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 and it's following laws, you're a myogenous pig and a homophobe." Thank you for your sympathetic comment on my "myogeny." (sic). But it is misplaced. My jaw is quite supple. You are so good at finding hidden meanings in what everyone says, aren't you? It makes it easy for false accusations about their moral and political positions. If you even one functioning brain cell, you would know why laws enforcing DEI are needed. They are needed for those like you who appear to not like the idea of a just and uqual society. by Indy! on February 20, 2025 9:33 am You're crying about PRONOUNS, OD - little tiny words that require the teensiest, tiniest little bit of effort - no more than saying "sir" or "thank you" to show respect to your fellow man... and yet you still expect us to believe you're some kind of magnanimous gentleman who teaches his kids to respect everyone? And on top of that - that you're some kind of alpha male when you are obviously a thin-skinned bigot who can't deal with anything that doesn't fit into your red, lily-white and blue imaginary "America"? And the cartels thing that you keep harping on is all you, my odorous friend. I never once claimed to know any cartel members. That is another of your fantasies you invented because you can't hang anything REAL on my like supporting cop killers or being a welfare queen who's never worked a real job in his life. by oldedude on February 20, 2025 9:34 am FIFTH TIME- No one can answer WHY it "needed." If you can't articulate it. You don't know shit about the problem. You're no better than indy at this point, just calling names and never answering the fucking question that was asked. by meagain on February 20, 2025 9:39 am But I did answer, OD. To repeat: If you even one functioning brain cell, you would know why laws enforcing DEI are needed. They are needed for those like you who appear to not like the idea of a just and equal society. by Indy! on February 20, 2025 9:42 am OD does not understand he is a racist. He thinks because one of his cousins (or some other relative on the outer reaches of his family) married a Latina woman - and he allows her to sit at his Thanksgiving table once a year - that absolves him of his bigotry. by HatetheSwamp on February 20, 2025 10:13 am "Possibly the truest words he has ever spoken. He doesn't know anything about laws, so it's no surprise that he can't recognize when his Golden Glorious God flagrantly breaks any." How many times have I lamented to you that I wish I was a former Supreme Court clerk and Ivy League law school professor? by oldedude on February 20, 2025 10:26 am First and foremost, No one can tell me what "wrong" cannot be settled by the present laws in the US? We have equality in the workplace. In criminal acts (this is a big one). There are charges for hate laws (as there should be). There are laws for employment equality. It says that IF I get hired over (say) Donna, the company can be held liable (which they should be). You haven't heard a peep out of the "conservative right🙄" regarding the laws and precedence that has been around and changing since 1865. DEI says as an employer, I MUST hire "X" slots for DEI, and that "X" percentage must be DEI hiring. As I pointed out earlier, this is one of the issues with DCA accident. It wasn't that they "wouldn't" hire DEI, but that they "couldn't" so they didn't hire anyone to stay within the law. So they were running on skeleton crews in the ATC Tower. People died (but a little collateral damage isn't bad, right po?). So someone tell me how that isn't "special" rights. I don't give any shit at all what the person in that tower is; I don't give a shit about gender preference, identification, or any of that other "stuff." Put people in that tower to make my aircraft safe! Lead- No one I know on the "conservative right," ain't that redundant?, is against DEI as much as they are for equality... Martin Luther King Jr's "by the content of their character, not the color of their skin." Equity is exactly by the color of their skin. It is racist and sexist, et.al. But, more than that, on t'other side, the goal is meritocracy. Diversity as a goal is counterproductive... as the immense failure of "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap's" administration proves... at least as election results prove. meagain- DEI does not mean hiring unqualified over qualified in any sense. It means not giving preference to one qualified candidate over another because they are members of the majority group. Actually, it specifically violates our constitution (which no one has bothered to counter). AND it violates precedence in our legal system (not one libtard has figured out that word yet, so there's that) (see above) Equity and equality have distinct meanings: merriam-webster.com Equity refers to fairness and justice, considering individual circumstances.Bold Equality means providing the same resources or opportunities to everyone, regardless of individual differences. I'm going to lead with ""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." just for meagain so we don't get wound around the spokes when he says he "invented" it. It's an idea from John Locke. A big read from Jefferson and used throughout our history. At the time, this was very narrow (because it had to get passed through all the states. We had a war. Cornwallis got his butt kicked. We had another war, we ended up better and closer to the meaning now. 1929, We got closer. 1964 we got closer, Title VII appears on the scene, and the courts take on a bunch of arguments regarding "how" Title VII is implemented. FROM THE COURTS AND IS NOW LEGAL PRECIDENCE. "Special Rights violate the Constitution. EQUAL RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITY IS CONSTITUTIONAL. It lined out groups of people and made it ILLEGAL to violate their rights. That's a far cry from "special rights." Ergo, contrary to po, meagain, and indy, DEI outlines giving special opportunity to a certain group that already has protections from EEO, Title VII, and many other laws in the US. NO ONE is objecting to those. In line with the US CONSTITUTION, it DOES NOT GIVE MORE RIGHTS TO THESE GROUPS, IT ENSURES THE EQUAL RIGHTS OF PERSONS. To give special rights to a group was struck down by the courts as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It's NOTHING BUT REVERSE DESCRIMINATION (and is therefore, legally and constitutionally FORBIDDEN). by meagain on February 20, 2025 11:43 am It does not violate the Constitution and precedence is irrelevant as I have just shown you on the other thread. And I do know what they mean. I won what is a lead case in Canada and is followed but not considered a lead in the USA. And your tortured argument is wrong. It is not Unconstitutional Life, Libert and the Pursuit of happiness require that the disadvantaged be lifted to an even footing. If the various things you mention don't cut it, then more is required and a law does that. by meagain on February 20, 2025 11:48 am I lost this in the welter of words. I think there was discussion of the Traffic control situation. They could have hired a regular person if there was no competent disadvantaged one available. Necessity is an excuse against most legal situations. by oldedude on February 20, 2025 4:22 pm It does not violate the Constitution and precedence is irrelevant as I have just shown you on the other thread. And I do know what they mean. I won what is a lead case in Canada and is followed but not considered a lead in the USA. Again, you're talking about poutine law, NOT US Law. You need to keep your bullshit out of our courts. I could care less if you won a case in Nigeria or Chad. It doesn't make a fucking bit of difference. I've really tried to be nice. And you're just shitting on yourself trying to make up a point that doesn't matter. About the hiring. But they chose NOT to hire outside of the position number, and NOT TO LIE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DEI HIRES WORKING THERE. That's the point. The lawyers (or some other moron) felt it was safer and more "acceptable" not to hire those specific slots (which are coded as DEI slots)* specifically for DEI positions. They could get into huge trouble lying about the hiring quotas and coding. So you're "wrongagain." You might as well just shut up about this. In this case, your shit is just liquid running down your leg. Go take a shower. Do they have those in canada? * If you haven't worked for a government agency, I'll explain job coding to you. It's not a slam, it's just that most people don't know it exists. by meagain on February 20, 2025 5:11 pm None too bright are you. Law is law. Even American law and it is the same everwhere in countries that embrace the Rule of Law. by oldedude on February 20, 2025 6:18 pm None too bright are you. Law is law. Even American law and it is the same everwhere in countries that embrace the Rule of Law. And I'm willing to say that Philippian divorce law is the same as Canadian law. Or Iranian divorce is the same as Canadian divorce law. Are they laws? Absolutely. Does Sharia law hold standing in GB? Does Islamic "honor" laws hold standing? Or is murdering your daughter because she spoke to a non-Muslim okay in canada or the UK? You're saying that Iran doesn't embrace the "rule of law?" or Afghanistan? I would argue that every example has shown countries that embrace their "rule of law" as they see it should be done. We're not the "stupid" ones. You're locked in a prison of two thoughts. Either it is 100% correct, or it is 0% correct. You don't have an answer for the job coding issue. That is MANDATORY in ALL US GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. Each code is a single line item in the personnel roster. That's how people get paid, all your stats come from, employee accountability. Again, I would have been happy if they could have filled the job codes. People would be alive. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page