We're a bit too big for that... Besides, it's been run by engineers in the family for over 60 years. Our current President is the son of the company's founder, and I don't think his wife (if he's married, not even sure about that) is an engineer.

It's not like we're hurting for work, it's just the principle of the thing that bothers me.

- NCSU

 

My son went to UT(Texas) for undergraduate degree. Decided to go to law school and applied to Texas, SMU, Baylor and Texas Tech, although he really wanted to go only to Texas. Of course, he was accepted to all BUT Texas and the reason given was because there were a limited number of vacant seats. After accepting the foreign and minority applicants, there were like two vacancies for middle class whites. He went to Baylor, met his wife there and they are both extremely successful attorneys, but he has never gotten over that. There was a lawsuit over the addmissions a few years ago and the kid won. I think they have a different method now.

 

I know that it might not seem like it, but I think you did a good thing starting this thread. If we kept all of our beliefs to our selves or in our inner circle, things would take a long, long time to advance. I know it can be frustrating to hear what some people have to say but it's a discussion.

There is no question that racism exsists in this country. You have to admit that even in the thread you can see progress. I think that people have a much bigger problem with Obamas character than the color of his skin.

I personally would rather skin color be a descriptor, like brown hair, or blue eyes, than something that conjures up feelings of animosity.


What you did is bring up something political. Four years ago there were many heated political discussions here. This is just more of the same. We can all be proud of the accoplishment that Obama has made, it is historic. This is political though, and you can see how people feel about politics.

 

i wanted to comment.here in louisiana we had a election for governor.a white woman(kathleen blanco) and a man of indian decent(bobby jindal).from the very beginning i knew the woman would win.why?this country is shallow minded.so in the end she won.well she wasnt worth a crap and really screwed everything up and the next election jindal won.everyone was so sorry for not voting for him in the first place and he has done so much.he initially lost because he wasnt white.
i will say this regardless of what obama says or does he more than likely will not win.why because he is not white.its simple.this country isnt ready for a black president.if he did win im sure he will be killed within a year by some kkk guy or white power activist.i dont know who i will vote for.in the end i will vote for the lesser of the 2 evils.none of them are worth a crap.
this country has never gotten over racism.alot of white people always watch themselves around blacks because they are scared.ever had a friend tell you a black joke?what is the first thing he does?it is really stupid.i am white and dont give a damn what color our next president is.i dont dislike someone because of their color.i dislike someone because they are stupid.i just want to get someone in office that will get this country back to what we used to be.we are getting weaker as a nation.it time.we have bigger issues to deal with other than the fact that the next president could be black.so f'n what.ok i think im done and im sorry for the rant.

 

^ If you put spaces after each sentence, it makes your posts much easier to read

- NCSU

 

Can someone here answer a question for me? When Obama is elected, exactly what time in history does he, and the people who vote for him, want this country to go back to?

When people say that we need the country "back to the way it used to be", what exactly do they mean?

 

A lot of people refer to the "Clinton years" or the "Kennedy era". The economy was stable, employment was plentiful and no wars happening. At least, that's what they told us. It's the "good 'ol days" feeling. But things change as years go by. There are a lot of things to be pissed about now. People are hurting financially, emotionally and physically. Just my take. - Og

 

I admit when I see a post that is a huge block of text that fills up the screen my eyes glaze over, which is a shame because that author could have enlighting points that would help make me a better person.

What I try to do is skip a line when a thought changes. It makes the post easier to swallow by cutting it up into chewable bites.

I also go back and edit. Looking for places where I strayed and deleting extraneous words or sections. I try to get the most bang for the buck for each word.

Another thing I

 

Clinton allowed Osama Bin Ladin to go unchecked when he was advised of the potential dangers. In addition, in 1998 Clinton stated “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.” (In reference to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa, otherwise known as terrorist attacks.) So you could say he was the one who started the US on the path to war.

Kennedy was in office during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest we've ever been to full out nuclear war.

Besides, Kennedy was only President for a few years, not enough time for his policies to actually have an impact nation wide. What people were experiencing while JFK was in office was a result of the things Eisenhower did.

I'd rather have a safe secure country that lets me keep my yearly earnings for myself than a era of "feel-good" politics.

- NCSU

 

I hear you, respectfully. But isn't there a difference in "path to war" - "closest we've ever been..." and actually waging war? - Og

 

thought that could be a problem if you were fielding many professional engineers and what not. Many businesses are doing it though, the wife has no real business saavy nor does she ever truly show up in the office. It's simply a name on the "deed" so to speak. I worked for a couple of them and yes they definitely reap the benefit of a female owner.

 

Understood. Would you rather have had the president do nothing after the 9/11 attacks? Maybe hold a summit to ask the terrorists to stop?

We are at war, and it wasn't our choice. We are being attacked by a group that fundamentally hates us. There is no option of a treaty or compromise with them.

Now, I don't think it's our responsibility to police the world, and fight every single evil, but how can you think that removing Saddam Hussein and his 'government' is a bad thing, regardless of the original reason for invasion? Under his rule thousands were murdered by the 'government'. He gassed whole populations of his own countrymen (so we know for sure he had chemical weapons, who really knows what else he may have had his hands on. He had plenty of time to move anything he had left before we went in, but thats another discussion entirely). There is no doubt he was an evil man.

You could compare what's going on today with WWII. We stayed out of it as long as we could, until we were openly attacked on our own soil. However, WWII was a 'traditional' war. It's far easier to fight that type of war, with traditional enemies, boarders and tactics. We don't have that luxury anymore. The enemy hides amongst the innocent. That alone makes this war incredibly different more more difficult than any other war we've fought.

- NCSU

 

British rule




I dunno I thought voting for obama was to vote for changes and to "move us into the future" "back to the way it used to be" seems more like moving backward

when I say back to the way it used to be I'll take the Reagen years not perfect but Ill take 'em

 

Exactly... That's how the white man (business owner) has been getting around those programs, and still making headway (and squeezing minorities out) since those programs were instituted.

I really don't have the time right now, but Affirmative Action & Equal Opportunity are forte's of mine, as I have fought many battles on this, to date.

I'll just say this- of all the demographics and "minorities" to benefit most from AA & EO (When AA itself was designed with blacks (and other minorities) in mind, to give (primarily) blacks a chance in a white dominated society).

Are you ready for the answer? (Drumroll please)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
White women!

Affirmative Action goes deeper than just blacks, but some who don't know any better, would have you believe white men are losing because of programs like that... Maybe you have lost some (kinda like the F-150 is losing to the Titan), but it's not blacks who are taking your jobs, it's the white women.

Guess who holds 51% of management jobs in corporate America today, up from 20% just 20 - 30 years ago?

Women.

Not that there's a problem with that- I'm just saying, before anyone starts saying AA, EO, etc.. is a crutch for black people- you need to really understand who has cashed in, benefited from, and danced around those policies for 40 years, all the while crying about how "unfair" it is.

 

I'd take the country going back to the way things were from March 1996 - Feb 2001, if I could.

Plentiful jobs, little to no outsourcing (to foreign countries), no real wars, gas was $0.89 a gallon, and even in the middle of a sex scandal, the President had the highest approval rating in history.

I don't really see how the country has grown, from 2001 - Present.