If there already exist specific written policies
Posted By: A.Nonymous on 2009-05-28
In Reply to: my post above applies also to your comment.. - .-
pertaining to personal workspace adornment (size, number and/or appropriateness of photographs, posters, banners, political content, sports memorabilia, etc.) then I would agree with you. If you don't like the policy, don't work there. Your office is not your personal gallery.
If the company doesn't want somebody hanging up a Soviet flag, then they're probably going to have to prohibit Old Glory as well.
However, if this is a policy formulated on the spur of the moment to appease a complainer, then I disagree. What's next? An Ohio State fan complaining about a Michigan pennant in the next cubicle?) Nor do I agree that new policies should be formulated after the fact to deal with an existing situation just because nobody foresaw it. If it's an important issue, then a rule should already cover it.
If this is a public area (waiting room/reception area) then I am sure the company must have had the foresight to write a standard regarding decor, since all visitors will see this. In my opinion, if it ain't covered in that policy, it should be okay.
Interesting that people voluntarily come to this country, going to considerable effort to get here, then so easily become offended and need special accommodations. What is it they don't understand about "liberty"? If an American coworker complained about the Ugandan flag in a neighboring workspace, there would be h*ll to pay! Disciplinary action against the complainer. Law suits! ACLU involvement! Paid leave and free counseling for the Ugandan employee to get over the trauma of the event!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I did not say oppression did not exist...
what I did say was that it would be worse had it not been for a lot of fed-up white Republicans, and history bears that out, if you would take the time to look at it.
And friend, whites are being oppressed as well. Any time you take race strictly (no matter what race) as the qualifier for ANYthing whether it be a job, a scholarship, being pulled over by a cop, etc...is WRONG. It is wrong for a black or Hispanic or Asian or whatEVER to be given a scholarship based strictly on race over a caucasian who is academically superior. Yep, WRONG. And it is WRONG for a cop to pull over someone strictly because they are black. Yep, WRONG. However, federal LAW mandates the educational and job discrimination, and in an effort to "make up" to blacks for oppression, now we oppress Caucasians? That is no more right. Federally imposed quotas? How is that RIGHT?
I don't know where "around here" is, but if you can prove people are not hiring qualified races other than Caucasian there is a federal remedy. And there certainly is not a federal remedy for not hiring someone who is caucasian because they are caucasian? You think that does not happen? Are YOU living in a bubble?
What I said was racism is wrong and I said that clearly. And that means it is wrong no matter WHAT race it is aimed at...black, white, yellow, red, or polka-dotted!! PERIOD.
So right you are. O will only allow MSNBC to exist...
to ask those tough presidential questions like boxers or briefs and what talking points would you like us to use today sir?
opportunities do exist for everyone...
some people just choose not to avail themselves of them. they prefer to have other people take care of them while they sit and do nothing but complain.
That doesn't even exist!!!
Stop watiching MSLSD and get a LIFE!!! You people are so stupid you are going to let this country be taking over by faciist socialists. Are you blind!!!
Christianity did not exist............. sm
in the name of Christianity until Jesus left this earth. (Acts 11:26). Homosexuality was defined as wrong long before that.
How much you want to bet these same problems will exist in 2008? nm
The word "abortion" did not even exist....
when the Bible was written. The Bible is very clear on murder. The strict Hebrew translation of the word that has been translated as "kill" in "Thou shalt not kill" should actually be "Thou shalt not murder." The word means premeditated killing of another human being. Which is exactly what abortion is. Abortion kills the baby...equals murder. I don't know how you can be sure "plenty of it was going on during biblical times." But, if it was, the Bible was very clear on it. It was...and is...murder. Yes, it has been legalized but it does not change what it is. Just call it what it is. Yes, it kills the baby, and we don't care, the mother's need trumps the baby's right to life. That is the unvarnished truth of it.
does this word exist, or is it made up?...nm
nm
And do you have any basis that these allegations DO NOT exist?
And where do these "fresh" soldiers exist? Appalachia?
You seem to forget some of our troops have served 5 tours.......Army personnel are committing suicide at an alarming rate.....there is no draft....the whole premise for the war on Iraq was based on deceit.....can't you dig up some other reason to hate Obama? Your arguments are becoming less and less convincing...even though they have been transparent BS from the get go, IMHO.
Common sense does not exist with the dems
nm
his policies are most
definitely in the race as McCain agrees with his polices over 90% and has announced to plan to change any of those policies.
With all due respect, I didn't bring up white racists (which I know exist), I was talking about s
the people who are zealous about white power and who will feel compelled to do something bad about a black president. I know it could go either way, but my post was stated because of the high probability that our next President will be black. I understand you completely when you say that there are white racists.
As for Louis Farrkhan, my college roommate was a member of the Nation of Islam and was so racist. She once told me that the reason white folks have those red dots in their eyes
when pictures are taken is because they are all evil and are satan's children. She truly believed that. It was very difficult living with her and I tried to get a transfer out of there, but couldn't and had to put up with A LOT of racism from this black woman. So, I know all about reverse racism.
Yes, the chips exist honey. I was speaking directly to the hysteria evoked
It shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the world and the peoples who inhabit it.
As to those that perpetuate this mythos...well, if you allow anyone to prey on your fears, you give them power over you. People need to investigate all sides of an issue, not just the perspective they agree with or the one spoonfed to them.
I should have been more specific
Maybe "reformed' would have been a better choice. I would not consider the Southern Baptists mainstream anymore. There have been many changes in that denomination pushing it much further right, and it has changed a lot over the years.
Can you be more specific?
What is your impression of his "drug policies?" What poor black man ever went to jail for getting some doctor to forge prescriptions for him? It sounds like you are talking about someone caught dealing for personal gain (money), not because they were addicted. Most dealers don't use. I would say 95% of them don't use and less than that are addicted. So could you be more specific on what you think John McCain had to do with putting poor black men in jail for forging prescriptions or using political clout to get someone to forge them for them. Because that is what Cindy McCain did. I am just trying to understand here.
Could you be a tad more specific?
nm
Could you please be a little more specific?
nm
Could you please be a little more specific?
I am interested in how Obama smoked the Constitution (what's left of it) and just when he stood by while the flag burned? While you are at it, please provide your sources. Otherwise, I can't reply to the rest of your post since I gave my Magic 8 ball to my neighbor's little sister when I was 11 and never replaced my Tarot cards after my college roommate stole them back in ྈ.
How about being a bit more specific?
Medicare and Medicaid, but what I want to know is why bother to post if you can't back yourself up with a logical argument, examples, sources for your info or something....ANYTHING? Otherwise, these sweeping generalized predictions of failure are just more sour grapes cat calls.
Can you be more specific, please?
1. Exactly which "19th century" principles should the Republicans abandon or "modernize"?
2. What evidence is there that "evangelicals" are "running the party", please?
Thank you - and I hope you'll provide something cogent for discussion instead of supporting your talking-points with more talking-points, so that we can have a good discussion about this.
Could you be more specific? Or maybe . . .
you're talking about the part where he talked about his father being Muslim and you misunderstood that he said it was his religion. It would be most helpful if you could post the exact portion of that speech, please. I pretty much listened to the whole thing, and I don't believe there was any part in there where he professed to be Muslum.
I don't support all the policies
coming from this administration. Do I think Bush is a good president, yes! Do I think he's great? No, because, personally, he's not been conservative enough for me. To me, Ronald Reagan was great. He was tough, but he still made people like him. Bush not been tough enough on some issues.....however, that's never here or there. I have always freely said that I don't agree with everything coming from the Republican party. I'm a conservative first, Republican second, but as the days go on I am becoming more and more a Libertarian. I will still vote Republican, because I think that's where my vote has the most value, but if the Libertarian movement becomes more of a contender, believe me, I'm going to catch that wave.
I said all that to say this.....I never generalized when it came to Democrats when it came to Clinton in office, because, being from the South where there are still a lot of old Southern Democrats (and, gasp, I was one for several years believe it or not...) I knew all Democrats did not stand behind some of the Clinton policies. There were some Clinton policies I did like, although as a presidential role model he drug the office of president through the mud.....
To me it seems that liberals are all or nothing in hating Bush, but if there are some liberals out that who like Bush speak up and prove that generalization wrong 
It is not failed policies.
You can promote those programs, but in this culture, sex-saturated media, desensitization to the point of sex is just an expression and you don't even have to like each other, multiple partners, the whole 9 yards. No program is going to work at this point. Birth control information is out there. How, in this culture, could you even say abstinence with a straight face? Doesn't mean I don't think it should be mentioned, because if it causes 1 or 2 kids not to engage in premarital sex, much better. Most social programs are failed policies...and a huge waste and drain on the government. That is one thing I like about both candidates...they say they will get rid of the social programs that don't work. Trouble is...they never identify which programs. lol.
O needs no defense on this or his policies.
for me to know and for you to find out after the landslide in T-minus 24 and O's inauguration in January.
I know my candidate, my party and their platform. I am very comfortable with my choice. Since there is no party radical enough to suit you, and since you know so much, why don't you establish your own? How about the Nazican party? Has kind of a catchy ring to it, don't you think?
No,actually, they are more specific in their bias...
they are definitely more biased toward the clintons than democrats in general. But it is obviously that the mainstream media are all Obama adorers. That's why I take what is reported there with a grain of salt. And if I want to know ANYthing about conservatives Fox is my only choice.
I am sure no one here can deny with a straight face that the mainstream media has a left bias. lol.
not specific enough to draw
an inference from your post. Vague.
I was trying not to be gender specific
Care to be more specific?..(sm)
You might want to look up his voting record before you go there.
yes, you demonstrate liberal policies.
Making up stories, defending terrorists, hating America. You must be proud.
And you demonstrate neocon policies.
Lying and attacking and personal insults. You can't defend the issues because your theory is indefensible.
Again, this is the liberal board. We're not here to please you.
SP's energy policies demonstrate
1. Sarah's socialism is fine and dandy for Alaska: "...and Alaska - we're set up, UNLIKE other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we SHARE THE WEALTH when the development of these resources occurs"... boasting to a reporter of having been able to send a check for $1,200 to every man, woman and child in the state since, "Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources.”
2. She agrees with Obama's windfall profits concept...a windfall profit, by any other name, is...well, a windfall profit.
3. Sarah is a hypocrite.
4. Sarah can articulate the shrub's oil policies even more precisely that her running mate.
Yes, but he is comparing policies and emphasizing
words straight from McC's mouth and infinitely verifiable upon inspection of his record. Obama is NOT indulging himself in a character assassinating, fear-mongering, cultural warring free-for-all. People DO notice the difference, you know...at least, some of them anyway.
after 8 years of failed policies...
I don't see how Obama could possibly do any harm. Bush has just officially been rated the 36th out of 42 presidents by a nonpartisan board of scholars.
Obama has his work cut out for him to clean up the mess that the republican president, senate and house created over the last 8-12 years.
Since there are no jobs.......policies will at least temporarily.
have to change. Quite frankly, I'd rather feed a family than endure/survive a home invasion. We haven't even SEEN the outcome of this economic crisis. When people are hungry, they steal. When people have nowhere to live, they steal. They steal in order to survive. In order to avoid massive civil unrest - these people need a safety net. My husband is laid off and he is a professional. I pray we don't have to resort to eating out of dumpsters in order to survive. And don't think for a minute you are immune.
I too want Obama's policies to fail. If anyone...
listened to the whole interview with Rush they would understand what he was talking about. Don't want the country to fail, which is happening right now before our very eyes.
you should update yourself on foreign policies
He most certainly does NOT know what he is doing.
That is not what I said. I will have to search for the specific case...
in this case, the school had a rule banning any kind of religious symbol. A girl wore a cross to school and she was told to take it off and not wear it again. The same school tried to ban a Muslim student from wearing a head covering on the same basis. The ACLU took the school to court (actually I think it was settled out of court) on behalf of the Muslim student to be able to wear her head covering. They did this without being hired by the Muslim student. They did not argue on behalf of the Christian girl at the same time. The Muslim got to wear the head covering but the other girl still could not wear the cross. That is what I am talking about. I did not say that the ACLU sought to ban it. I am saying that they took on the cause of the Muslim girl, but not the Christian girl. And to me, that is discrimination.
I don't know it to be a fact, but I think if that Christian girl specifically asked the ACLU to support her case they would have refused. The last thing the ACLU wants to do is argue on behalf of a Christian to practice Christianity, even in something so small as wearing a cross to school.
And yes, there are many schools who ban religious symbols because of that gross misinterpretation of the first ammendment...the free exercise thereof totally left out, and the words separation of church and state supplied, which do not even exist in the constitution.
Where does it give a specific age in the Bible? nm
I would really like to see this scripture if you can refer me to it.
The question was specific to marijuana
but frankly, I do not care what anybody else consumes. That includes maryjane, and so my vote is yes.
Not necessarily any specific speech
that changed the trend in Europe, but what those countries see happening in the US the last 6 months.
For decades, whenever there was trouble anywhere in the world, a natural disaster, an epidemic, an out-of-control dictator, a genocide, they could always count on the US to send money (more than any other nation), materiel and personnel to bail them out and fix the problem. Now the rest of the world sees our government bankrupting itself (Obama's mouth writing checks his wallet can't cover) and they must realize that they're going to be pretty much on their own from here on out. They have to get ready to take care of themselves, and rein in their own out-of-control governments.
Nope, not any specific speech he gave, but I think everyone in the EU must see the handwriting on the wall. They are starting to take measures to protect themselves. About time. It's just ironic that we are not moving into the place they are abandoning.
and Obama was talking about McCain's policies
What's the difference? Because she used the word Lipstick in her speech, it was about her. That's quite a leap. Give me a break.
So untrue and so unfair. Disagree with his policies,
nm
What "Natl Security Policies"? THIS administration
nm
The specific issue is irrelavant to my point
I was in no way arguing the whole abortion issue. Passionate feelings on both sides. I'm staying out of that. What I was trying to say is this bill is typical future-ammo stuff done by both sides. Here is an example: I am a legislator and draw up a bill (the idea of which was probably pushed on me by a lobbyist). I call it the Justice for Pedophile Victims Act. The bulk of the bill talks about harsh punishments for pedophiles, one strike and you're out, life in jail, that kind of thing. But there is a little clause in there that says that at trial the pedophile victims have to come face-to-face with the pedophile and describe in detail what happened to them and be subject to the pedophile's lawyer's cross examination. I know my opponents are all for harsh punishments but don't want to subject the victims to that kind of trauma in court, so I know they will vote no. Then when election time comes I can say my opponent voted against the Justice for Pedophile Victims Act and thus must want to let peophiles walk the street. I know this is not true, but I knew they would vote no due to wording that left out would have changed their vote.
It's all politics and it happens all the time.
Terrible debate! Jim was not direct or specific enough in his ...sm
questions and allowed too much of the same old retoric from both candidates.
George's Interview with her on this specific subject
I think she's on drugs...or else she's ready to run for president...or else she trying to undermine O before he even gets going. Watch and see. Good heavens, she's going off the deep end. She's a big mouth, as is Barney Fife, Harry Reid, and the others. They've been trying to run this country since before the bailout. If O is smart, he'll soon shut them all up.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/pelosi-defends.html
Aacks Cyndiee - I guess I should have been more specific
in my message because I've read a lot of your posts and I agree with you most of the time.
There are however other people who don't watch a variety and only listen to the words of Olberman and Matthews and don't even listen to O'Reilly or Limbaugh but put them down. Those are whom I was talking about.
You have always presented yourself very well versed in a lot of different topics and sometimes I wish I could articulate myself as well.
Say what?? I am talking about a specific person whom I personally think...sm
is over-the-top, an embarrasmment to the President in many ways because of her ultra-liberal stance, but I am not "bashing" any Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else in particular here except Ms. Pelosi herself, and I was trying put a teensy tiny bit of humor on the board, sorry I did not pass it by you first, and you make no sense here because I am generally Democratic, not that that has anything to do with this?????? Wow, I honestly gave you more credit for intelligence and fairness than that.
U.S. Spies on Americans who disagree with Bush policies
I guess this explains who Bush's real enemies are, and it has nothing to do with terrorism (unless you're the innocent American being targeted).
Posted on Fri, Jan. 20, 2006 |
 |
|
U.S. accused of spying on those who disagree with Bush policies
BY WILLIAM E. GIBSON
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
WASHINGTON - While the White House defended domestic surveillance as a safeguard against terrorism, a Florida peace activist and several Democrats in Congress accused the Bush administration on Friday of spying on Americans who disagree with President Bush's policies.
Richard Hersh, of Boca Raton, Fla., director of Truth Project Inc. of Palm Beach County, told an ad hoc panel of House Democrats that his group and others in South Florida have been infiltrated and spied upon despite having no connections to terrorists.
Agents rummaged through the trash, snooped into e-mails, packed Web sites and listened in on phone conversations, Hersh charged. We know that address books and activist meeting lists have disappeared.
The Truth Project gained national attention when NBC News reported last month that it was described as a credible threat in a database of suspicious activity compiled by the Pentagon's Talon program. The listing cited the group's gathering a year ago at a Quaker meeting house in Lake Worth, Fla., to talk about ways to counter military recruitment at high schools.
Talon is separate from the controversial domestic-surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency. Bush has acknowledged signing orders that allow the NSA to eavesdrop without the usual court warrants, prompting an outcry from many in Congress.
Bush plans to tour the NSA on Wednesday as part of a campaign to defend his handling of the program.
This is a critical tool that helps us save lives and prevent attacks, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Friday. It is limited and targeted to al-Qaida communications, with the focus being on detection and prevention.
The Defense Department's Talon program collects data from a wide variety of sources, including military personnel and private citizens, Pentagon spokesman Greg Hicks said.
They are unfiltered dots of information about perceived threats, Hicks said. An analyst will look at that information. And what we are trying to do is connect the dots before the next major attack.
To Hersh and some members of Congress, the warrant-less surveillance and Talon are all a part of domestic-spying operations that threaten civil liberties of average Americans and put dissenters under a cloud of suspicion.
Neither you nor anybody in that (Quaker) church had anything to do with terrorism, said Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. The fact is, the Truth Project may have a philosophy that is adverse to the political philosophy and goals of the president of the United States. And as a result of that different philosophy, the president and the secretary of defense ordered that your group be spied upon.
There should not be a single American who today remains confident that it couldn't happen to them. |
© 2006 KRT Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.bradenton.com
Fpolicy, HLSecurity, WarPeace SP=8 Obama 136 policies
nm
|
