12-01-2013 04:09 PM
70 123
tools
  1. JRDroid's Avatar
    No offence taken, for starters.

    But expanding on what I said about a right to healthcare infringing on the rights of others, let's look at the other side of the equation. If that were in place, what does the recipients of the healthcare owe in return? For normal rights, nothing, as it takes nothing from anyone else. Since others would be forced at the end of the government's gun to pay for, and/or provide it, would the recipient

    -be required to maintain a certain physical fitness level
    -follow a government approved diet
    -give up any habit deemed "bad", like smoking and drinking
    -be required to self pay for treatments of conditions caused by lifestyle choices

    ? After all, if I'm paying for someone's healthcare, I'm going to expect them to do what it takes to minimize my costs. And that leads me to this... If said person can't afford proper insurance and healthcare on their wages, we should expect them to

    -give up in home cable, satellite, internet, et al
    -don't go to movies, restaurants, theme parks, vacations, etc.
    -sell the nice cars and get a cheap one (maybe two depending on family structure) that's easily paid for
    -get a second or third job
    -give up any other paid for entertainment

    Should we not? Again, with me paying for something so vastly important as someone else's healthcare, it's an insult to me when they spend on less/unimportant material things instead of doing all they can to provide their own. Now, if you agree with the terms I laid out, then perhaps we can have a more honest debate. The big problem is the U.S. government won't ask for any greater responsibility from the recipient. They just hand the money out.

    On to point two, if I were in the mom's place... well dad lol, I'd pretty much do something like that. If I could afford it,I may even pay for the counseling myself. Or in any case, I'd help fund the treatment and be a part of the help if I could, but I wouldn't simply hand him the money and expect him to go through on his own. I'm by no means opposed to financially helping if I can, but I'm going to make sure my money goes to causes and treatments that follow my ideals. If it's not something I have the ability to pay for, I'd cook them dinner if they're hungry and offer any advice I can, but make it known that I can't help them if they won't help themselves first.
    Your first set of conditions, I'll leave alone because valid arguments can be made in their favor. For your second set though, I do have some issues:
    1. I generally agree with giving up SOME of the things you mentioned. However, some of your ideas are not compatible with each other. I have no problem saying they should get rid of cable/sattelite. It is a luxury. I get my TV from an antenna to save money, its a realistic solution. Kids need the internet for homework. Sure there is free internet at the library, but when is a parent who you are expecting to work three jobs supposed to take their child to the library or anywhere else that has free internet? They don't need 20 mbps internet, sure, but maintaining a broadband connection would likely be needed. I agree that paid entertainment and vacations should be kept to a minimum, but expecting them to not have them at all is unrealistic. These people have families and children, a trip to the zoo or museum with the kids is a perfectly acceptable expenditure in my opinion. Taking your family to a restaurant or a movie for a child's birthday is fine. I personally don't think any family should be required 3 incomes. If there are two adults in the house, two full time jobs should be being worked. If there is one adult, there should be one full time income, the other parent should be paying child support and expected to work themselves. We don't expect prisoners to work over 40 hours a week and they get free health care, are we really going to expect that from free, law abiding citizens? I don't. If they have a full time job, that is good enough for me.

    2. As far as how the second mom represented conservatives, I meant more at the large scale, not the individual level. How do conservatives think is reasonable to help people in these situations en mass?
    11-28-2013 10:39 AM
  2. Mooncatt's Avatar
    The stipulations I listed weren't meant to be all or nothing. I would agree with doing some things for kids because of educational values (we're home schooling, so I understand the value of those sorts of trips) and the occasional fun trips because they have no choice in the situation. But who's to say someone else doesn't also share those views? The lists were meant as examples of expecting something in return on the part of the recipients.

    In the moms example, I think conservatives would rather do things at the community level with outreach programs that are independently ran rather than turn to government. And in those cases where government is the only option, they want to insure the patient is being helped to better themselves and not just floating at the bottom and sucking money from the system.
    11-28-2013 11:08 AM
  3. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    If you don't think there is a threat, then you don't read what I read. It's going on across the country in red states. Every week there is another bill being introduced in state legislatures attempting to gut Roe v Wade, despite verbiage in the original decision that the right to an abortion cannot impeded nor undue hardship be forced upon the woman in pursuit of that right.
    Maybe you don't believe in reproductive rights, but I certainly do and they are indeed, under attack from the right. Men would NEVER let women deny them the right to do with they want with their bodies, NEVER. And that is the difference.

    I don't know that you firmly believe your argument that there is no 'threat' to woman's rights because you qualify it with the 'I seriously doubt it anyway'.

    What about birth control?

    I object to companies paying for Viagra, for men but not birth control for woman. After all, if God didn't want men to 'perform', they maybe he's trying to tell them something.


    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    It's not my argument really. I don't know if rights are being denied. States regulate stuff too.

    The one thing I think is going on is there are fewer places to get an abortion. But I remember before it was legal everywhere and I'm sure you do too, women would fly elsewhere for one. And because it wasn't legal people were more careful on the whole and that's how they should think IMO. Better to not "need" an abortion in the first place.

    As for contraception that's a personal matter. Society should not have to pay for anything related to sexuality since a lot of people regard abortion and contraception as murder and you're right that no one needs to subsidize male potency... :rolleyes:

    Sent from my LG870 via Tapatalk 2
    11-28-2013 11:22 AM
  4. llamabreath's Avatar
    This is the basic difference between us. As a male, presumably white (I could be wrong) naturally you feel the GOP protects your rights (guns etc) while women feel the Dems protect their rights. Believe me, as a woman, the GOP can't wait to tell me what to do with my body. I don't think men have that problem with the Dems.

    That's the difference. It doesn't get more basic and personal than that. The rest is superficial noise.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    What if Republicans took the abortion issue off the table?



    (⊙_⊙) I think people that take the time out of their day (or night) to think of some clever, memorable or just plain dumb signature probably have way too much time on their collective hands and they should get back to work and earn their paycheck, instead of just expecting their paycheck. People like this make me sick to my stomach.
    11-28-2013 01:06 PM
  5. NoYankees44's Avatar
    If you don't think there is a threat, then you don't read what I read. It's going on across the country in red states. Every week there is another bill being introduced in state legislatures attempting to gut Roe v Wade, despite verbiage in the original decision that the right to an abortion cannot impeded nor undue hardship be forced upon the woman in pursuit of that right.
    Maybe you don't believe in reproductive rights, but I certainly do and they are indeed, under attack from the right. Men would NEVER let women deny them the right to do with they want with their bodies, NEVER. And that is the difference.

    I don't know that you firmly believe your argument that there is no 'threat' to woman's rights because you qualify it with the 'I seriously doubt it anyway'.

    What about birth control?

    I object to companies paying for Viagra, for men but not birth control for woman. After all, if God didn't want men to 'perform', they maybe he's trying to tell them something.


    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    I am not going to touch abortion because as far as I am concerned it is a completely separate issue from women's rights sense there is another party involved.

    I for the life of me can't understand the reasoning behind wanting companies, tax payer, whoever to pay for birth control. Maybe they should be expected to provide food too? Don't want to get pregnant and can't afford birth control? Don't have sex. It's not a hard concept.

    Now there are a few medical reasons to need birth control. I have no problem with insurance covering the most basic and cheapest brands, but there is absolutely not reason for anything better than that to be covered.

    And other general rights:
    Until there are truly equal rights instead of privileged affirmative action rights, nothing will change. This conversation will be had forever. Nothing will change. There will be gaps and hard feelings.

    I am in a white male dominated job. A girl I knew personally was given a job over myself and others. Myself and the other men all had considerable experience and other qualifications. She had 0 experience or other credentials other than the required degree that we all had as well. Now tell me with straight face that that is the system working properly. Someone gets a job over more qualified candidates for no other reason than gender. She must be a GREAT interviewer lol

    If it were a man over women, all hell would break loose. Law suits. Women's right groups slandering the company. Celebrities making fools of themselves. The double standards and hypocrisy is amazing.
    11-28-2013 02:39 PM
  6. Fairclough's Avatar
    But you can't boost the economy going to war. When Bush got us into the latest wars it tanked the economy again and it's only gotten worse.

    The USA is different from other countries. We have a huge population and it's extremely diverse. But I think our numbers are one of the main reasons it's not really doable. If you want to say it can be if everyone's taxed that's what they're doing and insurance costs are being tripled. Can you pay $1800/month? That's why this is derailing. Plus government simply can't do it and reduce costs. Government reduced costs is an oxymoron.

    Every time I read one of your posts I hear your Australian accent in my head.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    Traditionally it was boosted as the manufacturing of weapons increases. Soldiers would often have their pay and spend it when they came back - so it acted as a stimulus package which we used during the GFC.

    Look at Japan 127 million probably one of the most dense living conditions. Yet they have the cheapest and most effective health care with age of expectancy etc.

    The thing is when you have a government system the insurance agencies have to compete with that system.

    At 18 I pay for my own insurance. Its an alarming.... $1 a day. As for tax's their not incredibly high. Universal health care works put cheaper for both the government and the average citizen.


    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    11-28-2013 03:14 PM
  7. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    Well, so far it isn't working here... :rolleyes:

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    11-28-2013 03:21 PM
  8. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I am not going to touch abortion because as far as I am concerned it is a completely separate issue from women's rights sense there is another party involved.

    I for the life of me can't understand the reasoning behind wanting companies, tax payer, whoever to pay for birth control. Maybe they should be expected to provide food too? Don't want to get pregnant and can't afford birth control? Don't have sex. It's not a hard concept.

    Now there are a few medical reasons to need birth control. I have no problem with insurance covering the most basic and cheapest brands, but there is absolutely not reason for anything better than that to be covered.

    And other general rights:
    Until there are truly equal rights instead of privileged affirmative action rights, nothing will change. This conversation will be had forever. Nothing will change. There will be gaps and hard feelings.

    I am in a white male dominated job. A girl I knew personally was given a job over myself and others. Myself and the other men all had considerable experience and other qualifications. She had 0 experience or other credentials other than the required degree that we all had as well. Now tell me with straight face that that is the system working properly. Someone gets a job over more qualified candidates for no other reason than gender. She must be a GREAT interviewer lol

    If it were a man over women, all hell would break loose. Law suits. Women's right groups slandering the company. Celebrities making fools of themselves. The double standards and hypocrisy is amazing.
    Was it an entry level position? If so she more than likely was the cheapest choice, also the least likely of a flight risk. Rest of you could easily of been over qualified so about the time they made the money back on the higher there is a high chance that you jumping ship.

    You are the one who assumed it was the sex. I work in a male dominated industry and we have higher multiple males over females because guess what they were better candidates and knew their stuff. Females have gotten the openings as well just they have to be a good fit and know their stuff.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    11-28-2013 03:30 PM
  9. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Was it an entry level position? If so she more than likely was the cheapest choice, also the least likely of a flight risk. Rest of you could easily of been over qualified so about the time they made the money back on the higher there is a high chance that you jumping ship.

    You are the one who assumed it was the sex. I work in a male dominated industry and we have higher multiple males over females because guess what they were better candidates and knew their stuff. Females have gotten the openings as well just they have to be a good fit and know their stuff.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    That could have been the case, however we were all new grads. All the experience was with coops. Not post grad experience, so arguing more money is usually not possible.

    I have no problems with choosing diversity if all other things are equal. A different perspective can be a great thing. However, it is never Ok to choose diversity over qualification. The best person should get the job no matter that color, gender, whatever they are. If an entire company is white male and the best candidate is a white male, he should still get the job. Same for any other gender or ethnicity.

    Equal rights. Not privileged rights.
    11-28-2013 04:36 PM
  10. Timelessblur's Avatar
    That could have been the case, however we were all new grads. All the experience was with coops. Not post grad experience, so arguing more money is usually not possible.

    I have no problems with choosing diversity if all other things are equal. A different perspective can be a great thing. However, it is never Ok to choose diversity over qualification. The best person should get the job no matter that color, gender, whatever they are. If an entire company is white male and the best candidate is a white male, he should still get the job. Same for any other gender or ethnicity.

    Equal rights. Not privileged rights.
    Well in that case then it more than likely came down to interview skills. They might of ask about what she did in school. Fact is she was among the choices called in and as such she got past those issues so I will error she was the best choice. It more sounds like people were bitter and looking for why they did not get the job.
    I am going to assume they did not ask about money if so then you run the risk of the cheapest person. Or they though rest of you were playing the field. Who knows.
    I really do not believe it was because she was a girl. Chances are she was the best fit.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    11-28-2013 05:06 PM
  11. Fairclough's Avatar
    Studies show often recruiters have a bias towards someone with similar interests or personality traits as their own if both candidates are exactly the same. this is because recruiters feel it connects to their own experience and helped them succeed / fit in the culture.

    E.g. if the recruiter is a passionate football player and the two candidates hobbies are 1 chess or 2 soccer. He or she might choose the soccer player.

    As a uni student I noticed on a careers course. The students which got selected, about 9 out of the 17 were sports captains of their sport at high school level. The recruiter is an avid marathon runner. The other people were pretty smart. Having a chat with the recruiter and partners at the firm they said if you have a grade anything over 65%they will look at you equal to someone with a 90 as of your passing its just most effort for the extra bit. The bit which they choose from someone on a 65 or 90 is other activities they do outside of their course e.g sport.

    Its interesting that tangible numbers isnt what will always get you the job.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    11-28-2013 06:26 PM
  12. msndrstood's Avatar
    What if Republicans took the abortion issue off the table?



    (⊙_⊙) I think people that take the time out of their day (or night) to think of some clever, memorable or just plain dumb signature probably have way too much time on their collective hands and they should get back to work and earn their paycheck, instead of just expecting their paycheck. People like this make me sick to my stomach.
    It'll never happen.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    11-28-2013 08:02 PM
  13. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    As a uni student I noticed on a careers course. The students which got selected, about 9 out of the 17 were sports captains of their sport at high school level. The recruiter is an avid marathon runner. The other people were pretty smart. Having a chat with the recruiter and partners at the firm they said if you have a grade anything over 65%they will look at you equal to someone with a 90 as of your passing its just most effort for the extra bit. The bit which they choose from someone on a 65 or 90 is other activities they do outside of their course e.g sport.

    Its interesting that tangible numbers isnt what will always get you the job.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    Well, I guess I'm screwed. I won't be applying for a job in Australia, then. ;-)

    An ex-gf of mine is from Australia. One thing I've learned is there is a world of difference between employment laws/norms there than in the U.S.
    Fairclough likes this.
    11-28-2013 10:56 PM
  14. Fairclough's Avatar
    Mine was based on recruiters stating what they like to say grads have and the personal bias towards similar hobbies was a report on LinkedIn. Where they gave recruiters identical resumes except for hobbies and they mainly always choose one which had similar hobbies to their own.

    If your a manufacturer it's not looking good for employment here.

    Our employment laws keep changing every 10 years or so depending whether liberal or labour are in power. We're pretty big on minimum wage and holidays e.g. I hear in the us your lucky to get 2 weeks off (I hear its 1 over there) a year. That's a requirement here, most offices do about 4.

    Except our work hours a week are one of the longest in developed world.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    12-01-2013 12:22 AM
  15. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    For normal, non-contract jobs, you earn 1 week's vacation your first year, which you may take during your second year. Your second year earns you two weeks that you can take during your third year. After 4-5 years, you get three weeks a year.

    There is much more of a focus here on promotions into higher level positions which have better benefits and pay scales.
    Fairclough likes this.
    12-01-2013 10:43 AM
  16. JW4VZW's Avatar
    While I realize that 99% of the politicians out there are cut from the same cloth; the Republicans (imo) seem to try to offer more in less government (laissez faire) than Democrats (more control over YOU, by way of deceitful means).

    Why wouldn't you prefer freedom over government control? For instance; why PENALIZE people that would rather be self-reliant than depend on government?
    I would take my freedom over "free stuff" any day. I can always buy "stuff," but I can't buy freedom.
    12-01-2013 11:19 AM
  17. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Let us consider the case of a hypothetical person. This person grows up, becomes an adult, and says "I don't wish to be taxed. I didn't vote for taxation, and I refuse to be bound by laws for which I did not vote nor to which I gave my consent."

    How would you folks respond to such a person? Assume that beyond being willing to discuss the matter, they were also willing to acceed to whatever means was required to protect and defend their position.
    That is actually an excellent question. I would like to know the answer to this.
    GOP for less government only applies if you are Male, straight and ultra Christian. Otherwise they are all for suppressing your rights.
    You have got that backwards. It is the democrats who suppresses the rights of people who are white Christian straight males.
    Example?

    I guess the liberals are pretty indiscriminate when taking everyone's rights away...
    Actually it is the liberals who suppress peoples’ rights. If you are a male who is a straight white Christian, the liberals will suppress your rights.
    It has been my experience and observation that in their never ending drive for equality and tolerance, liberals have become the most intolerant group out there. Any opinion opposite of theirs are vilified in the most brutal and vicious manner possible. Martin Bashir, Bill Maher, and Keith Oberman are the clearest examples I can think of. Talk about a bully pulpit, those three are the biggest abusers.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
    Excellent observation, nelschroeder. It is very wrong to give someone an advantage based off of what race they are. That is just as wrong as putting someone at a disadvantage because of their race. I wish that a person would be viewed as a person, and only their qualifications taken into consideration. As I have said before, I do not care what race you are, your religion, political views, sexual orientation, those are irrelevant to if you can or cannot do your job.
    (Would anyone like to take a bet on how many times I get reported for saying this?)
    they are against afrimative action.
    You do know that, by definition, affirmative action is racist right? Why is it right to give a minority preference based solely on their skin color? You do know that in the United Kingdom affirmative action is referred to as “positive discrimination?” That is exactly what it is, discrimination. Since when is discrimination “positive,” or acceptable?
    Under Obama income has dropped and now inflation is beginning.
    Why aren’t more people talking about this fact?
    Affirmative action is nothing other than reverse discrimination. Companies should be able to hire the BEST employees without having to worry about ethnicity or "numbers". Isn't that what the civil rights movement was about? EQUAL rights. Not privileged rights.
    I fully agree with you. As I have said numerous times, this is “putting someone at a disadvantage because of their race. I wish that a person would be viewed as a person, and only their qualifications taken into consideration. As I have said before, I do not care what race you are, your religion, political views, sexual orientation, those are irrelevant to if you can or cannot do your job.” In this case, they are putting the males who is a straight white Christian at a disadvantage. Reverse discrimination is just as wrong as not hiring a person based on their skin color.
    3) Regarding affirmative action; why should any minority even get up and out of bed to go to school to get some education if they're already guaranteed a career? They could just stay home and do nothing... become a vegetable until the time comes to support a family. That's fantastic!
    I somewhat agree. I hated busting my *** to work to pay for my college degree because I couldn’t get any government assistance.
    3) There is a HUGE difference between your statement and what affirmative action does. I'm not even going to respond beyond that your statement is so ridiculous.
    Not quite. What llamabreath did was give an answer that was to the point.
    I understand conservatism very, very well. I was a conservative for 15 years. My opinions changed as I got older, more educated, and less selfish. There is a reason that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to be a conservative. Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ - CNN.com High IQ = Liberal, Atheist, Monogamous Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? €” The American Magazine
    I think you have the facts backwards there.
    That's an arrogant statement. I was a leftie much of my life until I learned how the world really works.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    I agree it was extremely arrogant. I don’t vote for a person based on their party. I look at that person’s track record and what their plans are. I have voted for both parties because of their stance on issues important to me.
    Arrogant or not, its backed up by study after study.
    I doubt that.
    I have seen the boot that is the welfare system holding people down. I have also seen those that could choose to not take assistance and do anyway.
    The welfare system is a joke.
    The people that sit in classrooms their whole lives and never do any real work are also more likely to feel that they don't deserve their salary. Thus liberal views...

    And, while i generally don't put much stock in sociological studies, studies done by liberal universities and organizations that gain to benefit from the outcome of such studies, even if only to feed their own smug arrogance, have even less credit.

    And you yourself cited "cultural differences" as a reason for minorities not scoring well on standardized tests. The you use a study that cites standardized test scores to prove that liberals are smarter. You are all over the road sweetheart.
    I don’t put much faith in the “studies” either. Like you said, they are done by liberal universities.
    There's a lot of bias at universities.
    And it is always liberal biased.
    (If you have to think about it, there's no point even trying to debate anything here.)

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    You know, it is almost pointless trying to post anything pro-Republican or pro-conservative here. There are certain posters who will call us liars, racist, and so on.
    It's been a few years, but some time ago,a study came out saying conservatives are more generous than liberals when looking at charitable giving. What made it notable was the study's author was a liberal himself and was hoping to prove the liberal stance that they are the more compassionate political class, but the numbers bared out otherwise. Can't remember the guy's name, though.
    Please find out. That sounds like a good read.
    Liberals would rather feed the problem and create dependence than face the hard facts and facilitate the solution.
    You are not lying sir.
    Found the study, but this report claimed the author was registered independent and guess I was mistaken on that part.

    RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers
    Let me share this on facebook.
    rednecks (we call bogans)
    And yet this word is allowed in society? How is this word not racist?
    Believe me, as a woman, the GOP can't wait to tell me what to do with my body. I don't think men have that problem with the Dems.
    Believe me, as a man (a veteran, a soon to be commissioned Second Lieutenant), the democrats can’t wait to tell me what to do with my guns. Keep your body, I will keep my guns and add some more to my collection.
    I object to companies paying for Viagra, for men but not birth control for woman
    I object to the government handing out birth control to females while not handing out “necessary” medication for free, such as heart medication, psychotic medication and so on.
    After all, if God didn't want men to 'perform', they maybe he's trying to tell them something.
    So we have a racist comment and a sexist comment on the same page. This has got to be a new record.
    What if Republicans took the abortion issue off the table?



    (⊙_⊙) I think people that take the time out of their day (or night) to think of some clever, memorable or just plain dumb signature probably have way too much time on their collective hands and they should get back to work and earn their paycheck, instead of just expecting their paycheck. People like this make me sick to my stomach.
    What if democrats took the gun control issue off the table?
    I am not going to touch abortion because as far as I am concerned it is a completely separate issue from women's rights sense there is another party involved.

    I for the life of me can't understand the reasoning behind wanting companies, tax payer, whoever to pay for birth control. Maybe they should be expected to provide food too? Don't want to get pregnant and can't afford birth control? Don't have sex. It's not a hard concept.

    Now there are a few medical reasons to need birth control. I have no problem with insurance covering the most basic and cheapest brands, but there is absolutely not reason for anything better than that to be covered.
    My thoughts exactly.
    And other general rights:
    Until there are truly equal rights instead of privileged affirmative action rights, nothing will change. This conversation will be had forever. Nothing will change. There will be gaps and hard feelings.

    I am in a white male dominated job. A girl I knew personally was given a job over myself and others. Myself and the other men all had considerable experience and other qualifications. She had 0 experience or other credentials other than the required degree that we all had as well. Now tell me with straight face that that is the system working properly. Someone gets a job over more qualified candidates for no other reason than gender. She must be a GREAT interviewer lol

    If it were a man over women, all hell would break loose. Law suits. Women's right groups slandering the company. Celebrities making fools of themselves. The double standards and hypocrisy is amazing.
    It is the 21st Century for petes sake. Take affirmative action away as it, more often than not, leads to unqualified minorities getting jobs that a qualified “majority” should have. I see it with my company all of the time. We did not hire a black guy because of a lack of sales experience. Usually no big deal, but we had a guy apply who had over five years of sales experience. The District Manager hired the guy with sales experience. Now my company is being sued for that decision, or was. I am not sure of the outcome. I will say again what I have said at least twice already today, “I wish that a person would be viewed as a person, and only their qualifications taken into consideration. As I have said before, I do not care what race you are, your religion, political views, sexual orientation, those are irrelevant to if you can or cannot do your job.”
    I have no problems with choosing diversity if all other things are equal. A different perspective can be a great thing. However, it is never Ok to choose diversity over qualification. The best person should get the job no matter that color, gender, whatever they are. If an entire company is white male and the best candidate is a white male, he should still get the job. Same for any other gender or ethnicity.

    Equal rights. Not privileged rights.
    I agree, qualification should win out over diversity any day.
    Well in that case then it more than likely came down to interview skills. They might of ask about what she did in school. Fact is she was among the choices called in and as such she got past those issues so I will error she was the best choice. It more sounds like people were bitter and looking for why they did not get the job.
    I am going to assume they did not ask about money if so then you run the risk of the cheapest person. Or they though rest of you were playing the field. Who knows.
    I really do not believe it was because she was a girl. Chances are she was the best fit.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Perhaps she was the best looking? I have seen store managers in my company hire attractive females in sales jobs solely because of their looks. I wish I was joking but I am not.
    12-01-2013 02:26 PM
  18. llamabreath's Avatar
    To JW4VZW -

    Sentcha a PM



    (⊙_⊙) I think people that take the time out of their day (or night) to think of some clever, memorable or just plain dumb signature probably have way too much time on their collective hands and they should get back to work and earn their paycheck, instead of just expecting their paycheck. People like this make me sick to my stomach.
    12-01-2013 03:55 PM
  19. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    This thread has been cleaned up, lets keep it that way. If you see a post that needs attention, please, report it. But don't use that as an excuse to antagonize the argument, either. Baiting a confrontation does no good to the discussion and is just as bad as the offending comments. Thanks.
    12-01-2013 03:59 PM
  20. JW4VZW's Avatar
    To JW4VZW -

    Sentcha a PM



    (⊙_⊙) I think people that take the time out of their day (or night) to think of some clever, memorable or just plain dumb signature probably have way too much time on their collective hands and they should get back to work and earn their paycheck, instead of just expecting their paycheck. People like this make me sick to my stomach.
    Let me check my box and I'll reply back to you.

    posted on my mobile device please excuse any errors
    12-01-2013 04:09 PM
70 123

Similar Threads

  1. Slot Machine [FREE][GAME]
    By Nicola Mantek in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-02-2013, 07:40 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-22-2013, 02:38 PM
  3. S4 on Black Friday @ BB or wait for S5?
    By zerrisk in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-20-2013, 01:43 PM
  4. Best Buy $50 Gift card / Phone Freedom program
    By gabbott in forum Moto X (2013)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-19-2013, 05:43 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD