Pentagon officials announce plan to lift transgender ban in military [Archive] - Debate Policy

Jeff

07-14-2015, 07:40 AM

Another step in flushing this Country right down the toilet. No way do I think people should be changing what sex they are, heck I watched one special where a guy/girl serving said being over there was like vacation, I guess it caught to much flack from people that knew it before she became a he. So yes it is a vacation because it is living a lie. Then they showed it's wife ( if ya want to call it that ) It's wife was a man until it had the sex change, so both had sex changes and both become something they weren't, seems like maybe if they are so in love they could of been when they were real as well.

The Pentagon announced Monday a plan to lift the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military within the coming months.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in a statement that the plan involves a working group of senior military and civilian leaders who will take an objective look at the issue over the next six months. The working group, which will be led by Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Brad Carson, will study “the policy and readiness” of allowing transgender individuals to serve openly within the military.

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4352282240001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/13/officials-pentagon-readying-plan-to-lift-transgender-ban/?intcmp=latestnews&intcmp=latestnews

Noir

07-14-2015, 09:24 AM

But how will Americans be able to talk about how proud they are of their military personnel, when some of those people are transgender?

jimnyc

07-14-2015, 09:52 AM

But how will Americans be able to talk about how proud they are of their military personnel, when some of those people are transgender?

Because even with eyesores, we'll still be 300000000000000% better than any military in the world. Places like where you are would be a quick fight before breakfast! So we can laugh at others around the world AND laugh at the freaks at the same time!

Drummond

07-14-2015, 11:36 AM

Because even with eyesores, we'll still be 300000000000000% better than any military in the world. Places like where you are would be a quick fight before breakfast! So we can laugh at others around the world AND laugh at the freaks at the same time!

.. eh ... ???

Jim, you have the most powerful military might the world has seen. That's surely beyond dispute. Training, likewise, excellent, again beyond dispute.

I'd still balk at underestimating the British Army, though !! We excel in professionalism. I'd call our military 'fighting machines', because our approach is more stoic. Nonetheless, we do NOT quit, EVER, until our assigned objectives are achieved.

Consider the plight of a terrorist facing a military foe. What would he rather face ... a military man highly driven and highly motivated, but driven, nonetheless, by feelings, his ego ... or, a fighting machine that possesses an impassive, disciplined ruthlessness that he can have no hope of making the tiniest impact on ?

I know what I'd rather not face -- the machine. Such a military foe would be unstoppable, short of outright destruction. You can't distract a machine. You can't demoralise it to the smallest extent.

By contrast, Obama's mob appears to have taken its Leftie inspiration, again, from foreign locales; looking for, and implementing, the worst inspiration that they have to offer.

Naturally, I don't expect Americans to do anything less than be 100% supportive of their own military, compared with anyone else's, so I don't expect to see people here give me expressions of agreement. But ... that can't be helped. I feel pride in my own military forces !

-- NOT representative of what I've just been talking about !!!:rolleyes: .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0dWo31hwpI

Noir

07-14-2015, 11:36 AM

AND laugh at the freaks at the same time!

to quote the late great Hitchens "you should be ashamed to snear at people who guard you as you sleep" and yet who could help but snear at a "freak"?

Drummond

07-14-2015, 11:48 AM

to quote the late great Hitchens "you should be ashamed to snear at people who guard you as you sleep" and yet who could help but snear at a "freak"?

Well, Noir, not to detract from what I've just posted .. but everyone knows that the American military is extremely powerful. I see no cause for taking it 'with a pinch of salt', even IF there's a transgender element in it (.. newly permitted by Lefties, typically .. !).

Noir, I'm curious. As someone more sympathetic to Left-wing thinking, on what basis would you think that Obama's latest 'innovation' deserves any form of censure ? Shouldn't you, for the sake of sheer consistency, be offering unmitigated 'praise' ..?

jimnyc

07-14-2015, 11:54 AM

.. eh ... ???

Jim, you have the most powerful military might the world has seen. That's surely beyond dispute. Training, likewise, excellent, again beyond dispute.

I'd still balk at underestimating the British Army, though !! We excel in professionalism. I'd call our military 'fighting machines', because our approach is more stoic. Nonetheless, we do NOT quit, EVER, until our assigned objectives are achieved.

Consider the plight of a terrorist facing a military foe. What would he rather face ... a military man highly driven and highly motivated, but driven, nonetheless, by feelings, his ego ... or, a fighting machine that possesses an impassive, disciplined ruthlessness that he can have no hope of making the tiniest impact on ?

I know what I'd rather not face -- the machine. Such a military foe would be unstoppable, short of outright destruction. You can't distract a machine. You can't demoralise it to the smallest extent.

By contrast, Obama's mob appears to have taken its Leftie inspiration, again, from foreign locales; looking for, and implementing, the worst inspiration that they have to offer.

Naturally, I don't expect Americans to do anything less than be 100% supportive of their own military, compared with anyone else's, so I don't expect to see people here give me expressions of agreement. But ... that can't be helped. I feel pride in my own military forces !

-- NOT representative of what I've just been talking about !!!:rolleyes: .....

Ahhh, no doubt to all. But I was mainly speaking about Northern Ireland. But yeah, I was speaking about our massive military might, alongside the expertise of using the tools of the day. Sure, if we downgraded our hardware and personnel to the size of UK, things would be on par. But be that as it may, in reality, we just might be able to beat you guys with our 6,500 attack helicopters, as you guys can only come back with about 70 or so. And we'll have 10 aircraft carriers in the water to your one. Or on land we can drop our 8000+ battle tanks to go against your 227. Granted, our budget of nearly 700 billion is a tad larger of the less than 70 you guys spend. Not to mention it stems from pure sizes of countries and population too.

My point was that even with the Christmas fruitcake being allowed in the military won't change our military might, nor will it make Americans less proud. I think the idea brought forth is that we couldn't be as proud, because transgender would be out there too. I can VERY well be proud of the military as I always was, even if transgender folks are out there. Just as I am extremely proud of the police around the nation, and that doesn't mean I am thrilled with those that are bad apples, or those that sit back on their fat asses and don't do jack shit.

And I am in agreement with your pride in your military, and I think others will surprise you and agree too. It's awesome to see others as proud of their military and what they do for their respective countries. I would hope and expect no less. :)

But we could still probably send about 8 Black Hawk's over the NI and give us a few hours. :laugh: :beer: I kid, I kid.

jimnyc

07-14-2015, 11:57 AM

to quote the late great Hitchens "you should be ashamed to snear at people who guard you as you sleep" and yet who could help but snear at a "freak"?

Holy Hypocrisy Batman!! So you are now in 100% support of all the troops around the world since 2001 protecting us from terrorism? And all of the police around the world too, correct?

Noir

07-14-2015, 12:11 PM

Noir, I'm curious. As someone more sympathetic to Left-wing thinking, on what basis would you think that Obama's latest 'innovation' deserves any form of censure ? Shouldn't you, for the sake of sheer consistency, be offering unmitigated 'praise' ..?

Maybe I'm not following your question, but I don't think that this "innovation" deserves any form of censure...

Noir

07-14-2015, 12:15 PM

Holy Hypocrisy Batman!! So you are now in 100% support of all the troops around the world since 2001 protecting us from terrorism? And all of the police around the world too, correct?

Inncorrect.

Now ow try and reconcil how someone can be
a) 'not in 100% support of all troops around the world since 2001 protecting us from terrorism'
*and*
b) 'Not label troops "freaks" and other slurs'.

If it's too much to consider that one person can think a & b, more the pity.

jimnyc

07-14-2015, 12:22 PM

Inncorrect.

Now ow try and reconcil how someone can be
a) 'not in 100% support of all troops around the world since 2001 protecting us from terrorism'
*and*
b) 'Not lable troops "freaks" and other slurs'.

If it's too much to consider that one person can think a & b, more the pity.

Call 'em what you will. You asked from the get go how we would be proud still, I explained how. You shouldn't of asked if you aren't gonna like my answers. :poke:

Noir

07-14-2015, 12:27 PM

Call 'em what you will. You asked from the get go how we would be proud still, I explained how. You shouldn't of asked if you aren't gonna like my answers. :poke:

"Hey! I'm proud of you, freak"

Such pride.

jimnyc

07-14-2015, 01:20 PM

"Hey! I'm proud of you, freak"

Such pride.

That's because there is no pride there. Apparently your comprehension skills are off once again. I made it clear where my pride would be, and it won't be with the transgendered. I thought I was fairly clear about that, but I guess not. You're trying desperately here to find a way where one has to be supportive of them in some way, simply because a change was made allowing them in the military. A) You're failing. B) Not gonna happen.

Condemn me for not being supportive of them and not "tolerating" transgendered, or that I'm a bigot or any of that other crap, as you might at least be in the right direction. But the military succumbing to this crap is just that, crap. Maybe they too will have 58 classifications for recruits someday too. I'm sure as shit not going to change my stances simply because someone can join the military. My stance remains the same.

aboutime

07-14-2015, 03:00 PM

Drummond

07-14-2015, 03:34 PM

Ahhh, no doubt to all. But I was mainly speaking about Northern Ireland. But yeah, I was speaking about our massive military might, alongside the expertise of using the tools of the day. Sure, if we downgraded our hardware and personnel to the size of UK, things would be on par. But be that as it may, in reality, we just might be able to beat you guys with our 6,500 attack helicopters, as you guys can only come back with about 70 or so. And we'll have 10 aircraft carriers in the water to your one. Or on land we can drop our 8000+ battle tanks to go against your 227. Granted, our budget of nearly 700 billion is a tad larger of the less than 70 you guys spend. Not to mention it stems from pure sizes of countries and population too.

My point was that even with the Christmas fruitcake being allowed in the military won't change our military might, nor will it make Americans less proud. I think the idea brought forth is that we couldn't be as proud, because transgender would be out there too. I can VERY well be proud of the military as I always was, even if transgender folks are out there. Just as I am extremely proud of the police around the nation, and that doesn't mean I am thrilled with those that are bad apples, or those that sit back on their fat asses and don't do jack shit.

And I am in agreement with your pride in your military, and I think others will surprise you and agree too. It's awesome to see others as proud of their military and what they do for their respective countries. I would hope and expect no less. :)

But we could still probably send about 8 Black Hawk's over the NI and give us a few hours. :laugh: :beer: I kid, I kid.:clap::clap::clap:

Nothing to add - well said !:)

Drummond

07-14-2015, 03:42 PM

Does anyone see the actual IRONY being exercised by the Obama administration in relation to the Pentagon/DOD/Military, and the lack of Honest Treatment for DISABLED VETERANS??? Obama is, and has been slowly, but deliberately downsizing the Military Standards to create a more HATED force in uniform our ENEMIES....Like ISIS, can proudly brag about destroying.First Obama and company told Military Chaplains...they are forbidden from mentioning GOD.Then, Obama declared Don't Ask, Don't Tell principles should be abolished.Followed by Making LGBT service members qualified to get all the benefits he granted to ILLEGALS.And now...Allowing TRANSGENDER members to be in uniform...Which actually means. Those members may be issued BOTH female, and male uniforms...depending on how they wake up, or feel on any given day????Think about it.Would YOU want your children to serve in a weaken'd military that isn't sure WHO or WHAT is in charge TODAY??

What worries me is whether these transgender folks will resist the urge to twirl their handbags when it really counts ...:laugh:

But there's a sort of logic involved. If your troops are going to lose the sense of what they're fighting to defend, then it also makes sense to rob them of the sense of what THEY are meant to be.

From Obama's point of view - better to skew any previous moral centre as universally as you possibly can, for maximum destructive effect.

Drummond

07-14-2015, 03:46 PM

Maybe I'm not following your question, but I don't think that this "innovation" deserves any form of censure...

Why am I not surprised ?

Noir. Someday you'll have to answer two questions for me. Namely -

1. Do you believe in defending ANY standards AT ALL, or is everything fair game for subversion ?

2. If 'yes', you DO, maybe you'll be so kind as to give us a list of them ?

Take your time ...

Noir

07-14-2015, 06:29 PM

Why am I not surprised ?

Noir. Someday you'll have to answer two questions for me. Namely -

1. Do you believe in defending ANY standards AT ALL, or is everything fair game for subversion ?

2. If 'yes', you DO, maybe you'll be so kind as to give us a list of them ?

Take your time ...

I'm happy to disappoint.

red state

07-14-2015, 06:51 PM

.. eh ... ???

Jim, you have the most powerful military might the world has seen. That's surely beyond dispute. Training, likewise, excellent, again beyond dispute.

I'd still balk at underestimating the British Army, though !! We excel in professionalism. I'd call our military 'fighting machines', because our approach is more stoic. Nonetheless, we do NOT quit, EVER, until our assigned objectives are achieved.

Consider the plight of a terrorist facing a military foe. What would he rather face ... a military man highly driven and highly motivated, but driven, nonetheless, by feelings, his ego ... or, a fighting machine that possesses an impassive, disciplined ruthlessness that he can have no hope of making the tiniest impact on ?

I know what I'd rather not face -- the machine. Such a military foe would be unstoppable, short of outright destruction. You can't distract a machine. You can't demoralise it to the smallest extent.

By contrast, Obama's mob appears to have taken its Leftie inspiration, again, from foreign locales; looking for, and implementing, the worst inspiration that they have to offer.

Naturally, I don't expect Americans to do anything less than be 100% supportive of their own military, compared with anyone else's, so I don't expect to see people here give me expressions of agreement. But ... that can't be helped. I feel pride in my own military forces !

-- NOT representative of what I've just been talking about !!!:rolleyes: .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0dWo31hwpI

You make a good point but I see that our discussion long ago did little to persuade you to the other side of thinking regarding this particular topic of which is worse (a machine) or a rowdy, passion filled MIGHT for RIGHT). I see your point but given history's account of those fighting for a cause (right down to the sheppard boy who became King David) I'd rather fight the machine. When a REAL man (like David) or those who sacrificed EVERYTHING to fight a "machine" in the late 1700's, ask the question; "is there not a cause?" YOU best look out.

When WE ask one another "is there not a cause" B.O. and all the other homosexual/liberal PUKES or Isis or ANYBODY better watch out. We asked ourselves "is there not a cause" back in WWII........and Hitler, the Japs and Moose-a-leany didn't take note. I believe the German Military could also be considered a "machine" but passion, patriotism and HEART prevailed.

Drummond

07-14-2015, 08:06 PM

I'm happy to disappoint.

That's a pity, Noir (though hardly a surprise).

I would have much preferred you to attempt the list I asked for. You'd rather, then (forgive the sheer stupidity of the question), that Lefties not be accountable for their lack of standards ?

I'm having difficulty in interpreting your reply any other way.

Whether any one Left winger has a total lack of standards comes down to personal choice. But, when they'd foist that on EVERYBODY ELSE, then I suggest that non-accountability becomes an unacceptable status quo.

People have a right to live in a society which aspires to decent foundational standards !!

Drummond

07-15-2015, 06:25 AM

You make a good point but I see that our discussion long ago did little to persuade you to the other side of thinking regarding this particular topic of which is worse (a machine) or a rowdy, passion filled MIGHT for RIGHT). I see your point but given history's account of those fighting for a cause (right down to the sheppard boy who became King David) I'd rather fight the machine. When a REAL man (like David) or those who sacrificed EVERYTHING to fight a "machine" in the late 1700's, ask the question; "is there not a cause?" YOU best look out.

When WE ask one another "is there not a cause" B.O. and all the other homosexual/liberal PUKES or Isis or ANYBODY better watch out. We asked ourselves "is there not a cause" back in WWII........and Hitler, the Japs and Moose-a-leany didn't take note. I believe the German Military could also be considered a "machine" but passion, patriotism and HEART prevailed.

I don't think the German military quite qualified as a machine. They suffered from the handicap of the effects of a tyranny .. so there was a pervading sense of fear in them. It began as sheer arrogance, that of conquerers .. then military discipline prevailed .. but when things began to go wrong, so fear and the instincts of an animal took over. Discipline crumbled.

The British, by contrast, maintained proper discipline even though they were fighting for the very existence of their way of life. Strong patriotism, coupled with an utter determination to vanquish a perceived evil, led - NOT to gung-ho triumphalism, but to steely professional sense of purpose.

The American psychology is radically different .. you always have it in your minds that you are part of an immensely powerful force, so the belief that you can be comprehensively defeated, as a fighting force, or as a country, is probably absent. You, in fighting alongside the Allies in WWII, never were in the position of lacking the comfort of a belief in your own power and ability to prevail.

Consider 9/11, and the enormous shock value it had. Consider the aftermath-reaction, which was defined in part by the determination to strike back WITH GREATLY SUPERIOR POWER at the enemy.

Now, don't misunderstand me .. I'm not saying that any of this is wrong, nor any less than justifiable. My point is that your own fighting psychology is inextricably linked to a sense of superior power. Which begs the question: if the US could have ever faced a 'we have our backs to the wall, we may not survive as a country' scenario, as the British did, in the summer of 1940, when German invasion was considered imminent ... if you were in anything like that desperate a position, would your fighting psychology have remained effectively resilient ?

The British version was ... because we HAD to be. Stoic determination to crush an enemy comes from a relatively dispassionate ruthlessness, making for a machine-like quality.

This suits all eventualities, even at times of great and dire national hardship. It is tried and tested, and it's the stuff from which victories are a proven likelihood, no matter how initially disadvantaged.

And I still say .. I'd hate to face a machine in battle. There's no possibility of disrupting one through any attempt at demoralisation.

Noir

07-15-2015, 06:42 AM

That's a pity, Noir (though hardly a surprise). I would have much preferred you to attempt the list I asked for. You'd rather, then (forgive the sheer stupidity of the question), that Lefties not be accountable for their lack of standards ? I'm having difficulty in interpreting your reply any other way. Whether any one Left winger has a total lack of standards comes down to personal choice. But, when they'd foist that on EVERYBODY ELSE, then I suggest that non-accountability becomes an unacceptable status quo. People have a right to live in a society which aspires to decent foundational standards !!

Hows about 'your gender identity should not preclude you from getting a job that you otherwise would get' as a (on topic) standard?

jimnyc

07-15-2015, 08:11 AM

Hows about 'your gender identity should not preclude you from getting a job that you otherwise would get' as a (on topic) standard?

Identity and reality are 2 different things.

I wonder when those born with mental issues but yet still smart will and "should" be allowed jobs and everything else that standard folks get, like guns, jobs with security access and so many other things they get denied.

stephanie

07-15-2015, 08:52 AM

Drummond

07-15-2015, 11:36 AM

Hows about 'your gender identity should not preclude you from getting a job that you otherwise would get' as a (on topic) standard?

Well, Noir, it's not exactly a list, is it ?

But why not go a stage further, then ? Lefties, certainly in my part of the world (as Noir will know well) have long since been fans of a 'principle' called 'positive discrimination'. I don't know if you have this in America, folks, but it's a method whereby, if an inequality of relevant numbers is seen, then the imbalance is COMPULSORILY redressed.

Just as Lefties have railed against situations where, say, the number of women in a job are far fewer than men, so the numbers of women become artificially increased. (To hell with the worth of any one candidate - if you're the right gender, you're in !). So, why not include transgender types in that process ? In an office scenario, for example, a recruitment board sees that there are no transgenders working there, so they make sure they ONLY include them in their recruitment drive ??

And where do you stop ? Do you insist on an equal number of men, women, and drag queens ?!!?? Would it be compulsory to go for transvestism in order to maximise your chance of getting a job ???

Perhaps, Noir, all this is your idea of heaven. Others of us steer clear of looney bins, however ...:rolleyes:

tailfins

07-15-2015, 11:39 AM

Hows about 'your gender identity should not preclude you from getting a job that you otherwise would get' as a (on topic) standard?

How well do you understand the military? The military is NOT a social service agency.

Noir

07-15-2015, 11:50 AM

Well, Noir, it's not exactly a list, is it ?

But why not go a stage further, then ? Lefties, certainly in my part of the world (as Noir will know well) have long since been fans of a 'principle' called 'positive discrimination'. I don't know if you have this in America, folks, but it's a method whereby, if an inequality of relevant numbers is seen, then the imbalance is COMPULSORILY redressed.

Just as Lefties have railed against situations where, say, the number of women in a job are far fewer than men, so the numbers of women become artificially increased. (To hell with the worth of any one candidate - if you're the right gender, you're in !). So, why not include transgender types in that process ? In an office scenario, for example, a recruitment board sees that there are no transgenders working there, so they make sure they ONLY include them in their recruitment drive ??

And where do you stop ? Do you insist on an equal number of men, women, and drag queens ?!!?? Would it be compulsory to go for transvestism in order to maximise your chance of getting a job ???

Perhaps, Noir, all this is your idea of heaven. Others of us steer clear of looney bins, however ...:rolleyes:

I would think that one (on topic) statement is enough to discuss.

As for the mess above, you clearly have no understanding of how positive action relates to employment law. If you ran an employment drive with the mantra 'To hell with the worth of any one candidate - if you're the right gender, you're in' you would be quickly held to account for your wrongful and illegal application of the law.

You are welcome (and advised) to read on the UK employment equality law, and EU equality act 2010 for the details relevant to this discussion.

aboutime

07-15-2015, 01:58 PM

Obama should have been Impeached a long time ago

what he has done to the Moral and a hand in disarming our Military is criminal

He's brought down the Moral of the whole country and he's not DONE yet

dangerous to us in my book

stephanie. Do you remember when Bill Clinton was in office, and he lied to WE THE PEOPLE on television?

If you remember that, all of the destruction of America was beginning during his lying days, when he told our Teenagers that "Oral sex is not SEX!"
Of course. He had to lie about not having sex with Ms. Lewinski (he thought) since he didn't consider a BJ sex.
Much like too many people DENY they believe in a GOD....which protects them, and creates an excuse to do BAD THINGS...since they don't believe in any TEN COMMANDMENTS either.

Our morals in this nation....NO LONGER EXIST. Just look around, wherever you live.
We should just get rid of laws, and go back to the OLD WEST..and use the 2nd amendment..FOR REAL!

red state

07-15-2015, 10:21 PM

I don't think the German military quite qualified as a machine. They suffered from the handicap of the effects of a tyranny .. so there was a pervading sense of fear in them. It began as sheer arrogance, that of conquerers .. then military discipline prevailed .. but when things began to go wrong, so fear and the instincts of an animal took over. Discipline crumbled.

The British, by contrast, maintained proper discipline even though they were fighting for the very existence of their way of life. Strong patriotism, coupled with an utter determination to vanquish a perceived evil, led - NOT to gung-ho triumphalism, but to steely professional sense of purpose.

The American psychology is radically different .. you always have it in your minds that you are part of an immensely powerful force, so the belief that you can be comprehensively defeated, as a fighting force, or as a country, is probably absent. You, in fighting alongside the Allies in WWII, never were in the position of lacking the comfort of a belief in your own power and ability to prevail.

Consider 9/11, and the enormous shock value it had. Consider the aftermath-reaction, which was defined in part by the determination to strike back WITH GREATLY SUPERIOR POWER at the enemy.

Now, don't misunderstand me .. I'm not saying that any of this is wrong, nor any less than justifiable. My point is that your own fighting psychology is inextricably linked to a sense of superior power. Which begs the question: if the US could have ever faced a 'we have our backs to the wall, we may not survive as a country' scenario, as the British did, in the summer of 1940, when German invasion was considered imminent ... if you were in anything like that desperate a position, would your fighting psychology have remained effectively resilient ?

The British version was ... because we HAD to be. Stoic determination to crush an enemy comes from a relatively dispassionate ruthlessness, making for a machine-like quality.

This suits all eventualities, even at times of great and dire national hardship. It is tried and tested, and it's the stuff from which victories are a proven likelihood, no matter how initially disadvantaged.

And I still say .. I'd hate to face a machine in battle. There's no possibility of disrupting one through any attempt at demoralisation.

My dear Drummond, we will simply have to go our different ways on this one but I'll leave you with this thought because I don't believe you fully grasp the AMERICAN way that make up REAL AMERICANS. If ever we are backed into a corner as the Brits were in WWII, I doubt very seriously that we'll ever have a "SUPERIOR FORCE" to help or bail us out BUT we will not need one because if you think we're tough in the past, you ain't seen NUTHIN' till we are backed in a corner. Things were apples and oranges with Ye Ole King George III but I'll guarantee you one thing, Some of us (especially good ole boys in the SOUTH) still have what it takes to defy SUPER POWERS while we are backed in a corner with very little to eat, improperly clothed and armed (as was the case during the War Between The States). I believe some of the anti-American jive has made it into a corner of your mind.....despite your being extremely wise, well versed and respectful of America; much the same way that anti-guns have been instilled around the world and especially in places like the UK. I don't believe your Island would have stood if not for the loud, prideful, boastful and obnoxious neighbors on the other side of that big pond to your West.

Drummond

07-15-2015, 10:56 PM

I would think that one (on topic) statement is enough to discuss.

As for the mess above, you clearly have no understanding of how positive action relates to employment law. If you ran an employment drive with the mantra 'To hell with the worth of any one candidate - if you're the right gender, you're in' you would be quickly held to account for your wrongful and illegal application of the law.

You are welcome (and advised) to read on the UK employment equality law, and EU equality act 2010 for the details relevant to this discussion.

Noir, I never said that positive discrimination made sense ! My point was that it was a looney Lefty idea. Worse, in applying it, you say that the merits of the individual should be overridden by bigoted diktat.

See this ..

http://www.errc.org/article/positive-action-as-a-tool-in-promoting-access-to-employment/2539

Partial quote -

Positive action refers to a broad spectrum of policies and programmes which are aimed at targeted groups in order to redress inequalities which result from discriminatory practices, or the position of certain groups in a given society. The concept is sometimes called affirmative action. It should be distinguished from positive discrimination where certain individuals or groups are given preferential rights, for example, a fixed quota of posts is reserved for them, and also from reverse discrimination, where members of a dominant group or class are actively discriminated against in order to secure a more diverse workforce, education cohort or political composition of a public body or agency.

So you see, Noir, it does go on.

Drummond

07-15-2015, 11:04 PM

My dear Drummond, we will simply have to go our different ways on this one but I'll leave you with this thought because I don't believe you fully grasp the AMERICAN way that make up REAL AMERICANS. If ever we are backed into a corner as the Brits were in WWII, I doubt very seriously that we'll ever have a "SUPERIOR FORCE" to help or bail us out BUT we will not need one because if you think we're tough in the past, you ain't seen NUTHIN' till we are backed in a corner. Things were apples and oranges with Ye Ole King George III but I'll guarantee you one thing, Some of us (especially good ole boys in the SOUTH) still have what it takes to defy SUPER POWERS while we are backed in a corner with very little to eat, improperly clothed and armed (as was the case during the War Between The States). I believe some of the anti-American jive has made it into a corner of your mind.....despite your being extremely wise, well versed and respectful of America; much the same way that anti-guns have been instilled around the world and especially in places like the UK. I don't believe your Island would have stood if not for the loud, prideful, boastful and obnoxious neighbors on the other side of that big pond to your West.

It's nearly 5AM as I'm reading this, and I need some sleep !! I'll maybe come back to it when I'm rested. But you undoubtedly make some good points.

The part I've bolded I completely agree with. Fact was, we were playing for time. I agree with you that we wouldn't have prevailed indefinitely had we not had help. As it was, we DID lose territory to the Third Reich. We were way too weak to defend the Channel Islands, and so, they were invaded. For much of the war we had the spectacle of pocket-sized British communities living under Hitler's tyranny.

red state

07-15-2015, 11:24 PM

It's nearly 5AM as I'm reading this, and I need some sleep !! I'll maybe come back to it when I'm rested. But you undoubtedly make some good points.

The part I've bolded I completely agree with. Fact was, we were playing for time. I agree with you that we wouldn't have prevailed indefinitely had we not had help. As it was, we DID lose territory to the Third Reich. We were way too weak to defend the Channel Islands, and so, they were invaded. For much of the war we had the spectacle of pocket-sized British communities living under Hitler's tyranny.

In your defense (or should I say your Countrymen's defense), ya'll, like WE THE PEOPLE in 2015 were/are weak only through failed leadership....not intestinal fortitude. I'm so glad that there were those who stepped up to "undo" the things that weak leadership actually leads to (failure). Chrurchill was NOT weak.....actually a tough ole, obnoxious SOB and I hope WE THE PEOPLE get an entire HOUSE full of such bulldogs to correct the crap that B.O. has brought upon us (not single highhandedly, mind you OR withing his 8 years).

In short, I'm not going to argue with such a worthy opponent but rather maintain enough respect to see the in's and outs of both our points cuz we've had this conversation before. In light of what we both see, I doubt we have this conversation again because there truly is FAR too many variable to say that a MACHINE or PASSIONATE LOT is the greater fear in war.

It is 11:22pm here.....and I'm off to TEXAS (a figure of speech here equivalent to "hitting the hay" as it were). I plan to literally do neither but I do plan on a good night's rest and I'll close with bidding you a fantastic break from Debate Policy.

Noir

07-16-2015, 07:46 AM

Noir, I never said that positive discrimination made sense ! My point was that it was a looney Lefty idea. Worse, in applying it, you say that the merits of the individual should be overridden by bigoted diktat.

See this ..

http://www.errc.org/article/positive-action-as-a-tool-in-promoting-access-to-employment/2539

Partial quote -

So you see, Noir, it does go on.

Good gravy beans, did you not read what you just posted?

Positive action and positive discrimination are *different*

Applying positive action to a recruitment drive is legal. Applying positive discrimination is illegal.

The quote you posted outlines the difference between positive discrimination and positive action because the difference is important.

It literally says

Positive action refers to...it should be distinguished from positive discrimination

Drummond

07-16-2015, 03:56 PM

In your defense (or should I say your Countrymen's defense), ya'll, like WE THE PEOPLE in 2015 were/are weak only through failed leadership....not intestinal fortitude. I'm so glad that there were those who stepped up to "undo" the things that weak leadership actually leads to (failure). Chrurchill was NOT weak.....actually a tough ole, obnoxious SOB and I hope WE THE PEOPLE get an entire HOUSE full of such bulldogs to correct the crap that B.O. has brought upon us (not single highhandedly, mind you OR withing his 8 years).

In short, I'm not going to argue with such a worthy opponent but rather maintain enough respect to see the in's and outs of both our points cuz we've had this conversation before. In light of what we both see, I doubt we have this conversation again because there truly is FAR too many variable to say that a MACHINE or PASSIONATE LOT is the greater fear in war.

It is 11:22pm here.....and I'm off to TEXAS (a figure of speech here equivalent to "hitting the hay" as it were). I plan to literally do neither but I do plan on a good night's rest and I'll close with bidding you a fantastic break from Debate Policy.:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Drummond

07-16-2015, 04:31 PM

Good gravy beans, did you not read what you just posted?

Positive action and positive discrimination are *different*

Applying positive action to a recruitment drive is legal. Applying positive discrimination is illegal.

The quote you posted outlines the difference between positive discrimination and positive action because the difference is important.

It literally says
[/I][/COLOR]

You're arguing legal definitions, in order to find a way of advancing a positive discrimination agenda. In conceptual terms, positive action is a form of positive discrimination. To say that some forms are legal, where others are not, simply means that a measured ACCEPTANCE of such a practice exists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8177447/Equality-Act-explained-positive-discrimination-versus-positive-action.html

Positive action during recruitment will become lawful for the first time in the UK from April 2011. It will mean that employers can choose to hire candidates from under-represented groups provided that they are as qualified for the role as other applicants.

A manager will be able lawfully to hire a black man over a white man, a woman over a man, or homosexual man over a heterosexual man, if they have the same skill set.

It is not the same as filling quotas or giving someone a job just because they are a woman, disabled or from an ethnic minority – that would be unlawful.

And there it is. Some discriminatory practices are accepted as lawful, others are not. Legally, a game of semantics is played in order to define what form of it IS, and what form is NOT, accepted in law.

aboutime

07-16-2015, 05:08 PM

You're arguing legal definitions, in order to find a way of advancing a positive discrimination agenda. In conceptual terms, positive action is a form of positive discrimination. To say that some forms are legal, where others are not, simply means that a measured ACCEPTANCE of such a practice exists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8177447/Equality-Act-explained-positive-discrimination-versus-positive-action.html

And there it is. Some discriminatory practices are accepted as lawful, others are not. Legally, a game of semantics is played in order to define what form of it IS, and what form is NOT, accepted in law.

Sir Drummond. Bottom line on this IMO....Noir is not an American citizen. So anything Noir might try to introduce into this story is Useless. Obviously, Noir has never worn a military uniform, nor attempted to defend any nation. As our racist members like to INSIST, whenever we discuss race, or racism. Unless someone has stood in a Military pair of boots, or shoes. They have no idea what they are talking about. Other than to intentionally throw Sand into the Gears.

Noir

07-16-2015, 05:34 PM

You're arguing legal definitions, in order to find a way of advancing a positive discrimination agenda. In conceptual terms, positive action is a form of positive discrimination. To say that some forms are legal, where others are not, simply means that a measured ACCEPTANCE of such a practice exists. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8177447/Equality-Act-explained-positive-discrimination-versus-positive-action.html And there it is. Some discriminatory practices are accepted as lawful, others are not. Legally, a game of semantics is played in order to define what form of it IS, and what form is NOT, accepted in law.

Legal definitions tend to be pretty darn important. As said, if a company tried to employ the way you suggested they could, they would be doing so illegally.