Debate Now Diversity versus Adversity

[jillian]

Oh, please..please...please show me where you've put up an argument as part of the debate.

Ironic!

Oh, please..please...please show me where you've put up an argument as part of the debate.

Troll ?....look in the mirror.

Rant...where ?

Bernie Sanders is as much a clown as Ben Carson is.

No.

And again, you've unsurprisingly missed the metaphor.

Again, stop off-tracking the topic.

No....you won't show me where you've put up an argument ?

Got it.

I get that you're a troll who is trying to derail this thread. I owe nothing to you.

And I see that you lack comprehension.

Have a good day.

Cyberia is nice at this time of the year for those who choose the derail route.

Please send us a post card after you've settled in.

you have comprehension issues.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I can't understand the shift in the house and senate. As much as I've tried to understand it...it does not seem consistent.

The House is the result of gerrymandering.

The Senate is the result of low voter turnout in 2014.

The house was then the result of the GOP taking enough state houses to redistrict as they saw fit.

Either way....the democrats let it go two years after Obama's historic election.

That simply is not rational.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Oh, please..please...please show me where you've put up an argument as part of the debate.

Ironic!

Oh, please..please...please show me where you've put up an argument as part of the debate.

Troll ?....look in the mirror.

Rant...where ?

Bernie Sanders is as much a clown as Ben Carson is.

No.

And again, you've unsurprisingly missed the metaphor.

Again, stop off-tracking the topic.

No....you won't show me where you've put up an argument ?

Got it.

I get that you're a troll who is trying to derail this thread. I owe nothing to you.

And I see that you lack comprehension.

Have a good day.

Cyberia is nice at this time of the year for those who choose the derail route.

that's what i hear.

It's difficult to understand how you can hear anything given what you do.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

Diversity in and of itself is fine, but not when you doing things such as lowering standards for positions or for admission into wherever or such silly things that many on the left are currently championing.

There is a difference between encouraging minorities to meet the challenge of meeting requirements and encouraging those places to hire said minorities and lowering standards so that minorities can compete.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

Diversity in and of itself is fine, but not when you doing things such as lowering standards for positions or for admission into wherever or such silly things that many on the left are currently championing.

There is a difference between encouraging minorities to meet the challenge of meeting requirements and encouraging those places to hire said minorities and lowering standards so that minorities can compete.

Please provide current links that clearly demonstrate that there is a concerted attempt by the "left" at "lowering standards for positions or for admission" so that "minorities can compete".

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

Diversity in and of itself is fine, but not when you doing things such as lowering standards for positions or for admission into wherever or such silly things that many on the left are currently championing.

There is a difference between encouraging minorities to meet the challenge of meeting requirements and encouraging those places to hire said minorities and lowering standards so that minorities can compete.

Please provide current links that clearly demonstrate that there is a concerted attempt by the "left" at "lowering standards for positions or for admission" so that "minorities can compete".

Sure, how about this one.

City of Phoenix hiring minority lifeguards who CANT SWIM....for diversity. Page 14 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

A spokesman for the Phoenix Parks & Recreations , SPECIFICALLY said that Phoenix is recruiting applicants who are black and Hispanic and that failing the prerequisites would not necessarily mean a person wouldn't be hired. That obviously means they have removed the prereq in order to hire more blacks and Hispanics.

And further, the way I read this it is only blacks and Hispanics who will be hired even if they fail the prereq. Whites must still pass. Now, I may just misunderstand on that point, but on the other point I am not mistaken, Phoenix is absolutely lowering an existing standard for the purpose of diversity in hiring.

and read that thread and see how many liberal posters are defending the plan.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

Diversity in and of itself is fine, but not when you doing things such as lowering standards for positions or for admission into wherever or such silly things that many on the left are currently championing.

There is a difference between encouraging minorities to meet the challenge of meeting requirements and encouraging those places to hire said minorities and lowering standards so that minorities can compete.

Please provide current links that clearly demonstrate that there is a concerted attempt by the "left" at "lowering standards for positions or for admission" so that "minorities can compete".

Sure, how about this one.

City of Phoenix hiring minority lifeguards who CANT SWIM....for diversity. Page 14 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

A spokesman for the Phoenix Parks & Recreations , SPECIFICALLY said that Phoenix is recruiting applicants who are black and Hispanic and that failing the prerequisites would not necessarily mean a person wouldn't be hired. That obviously means they have removed the prereq in order to hire more blacks and Hispanics.

And further, the way I read this it is only blacks and Hispanics who will be hired even if they fail the prereq. Whites must still pass. Now, I may just misunderstand on that point, but on the other point I am not mistaken, Phoenix is absolutely lowering an existing standard for the purpose of diversity in hiring.

and read that thread and see how many liberal posters are defending the plan.

So your source is the disinformation from FauxNoise?

How about dealing with the FACTS instead?

In Phoenix A New Quest For Diverse Public Pool Lifeguards NPR

To help diversify its lifeguard ranks, the city raised about $15,000 over the past two years in scholarships to offset the cost of lifeguard-certification courses. Recruits who pass a swim test at the end can apply to be city lifeguards.

As the teens swim laps at Alhambra, it's clear many haven't had much formal training. But the coaches of the course aren't fazed and are prepared to put in the time to teach.

"Honestly, I have a little bit a fear of the water, and I wanted to overcome that fear," says high school junior Jesus Jimenez. He didn't grow up going to pools with his family but likes the idea of lifeguarding.

"It is nice to have the satisfaction of knowing that if somebody is in trouble you can save them at any time," he says.

If he is selected to be a lifeguard, other pool staff will work with him on his swimming skills all summer.​

So the FACTS prove that the lifeguards do have to pass a swimming test.

Strike one!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

Diversity in and of itself is fine, but not when you doing things such as lowering standards for positions or for admission into wherever or such silly things that many on the left are currently championing.

There is a difference between encouraging minorities to meet the challenge of meeting requirements and encouraging those places to hire said minorities and lowering standards so that minorities can compete.

Please provide current links that clearly demonstrate that there is a concerted attempt by the "left" at "lowering standards for positions or for admission" so that "minorities can compete".

Sure, how about this one.

City of Phoenix hiring minority lifeguards who CANT SWIM....for diversity. Page 14 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

A spokesman for the Phoenix Parks & Recreations , SPECIFICALLY said that Phoenix is recruiting applicants who are black and Hispanic and that failing the prerequisites would not necessarily mean a person wouldn't be hired. That obviously means they have removed the prereq in order to hire more blacks and Hispanics.

And further, the way I read this it is only blacks and Hispanics who will be hired even if they fail the prereq. Whites must still pass. Now, I may just misunderstand on that point, but on the other point I am not mistaken, Phoenix is absolutely lowering an existing standard for the purpose of diversity in hiring.

and read that thread and see how many liberal posters are defending the plan.

So your source is the disinformation from FauxNoise?

How about dealing with the FACTS instead?

In Phoenix A New Quest For Diverse Public Pool Lifeguards NPR

To help diversify its lifeguard ranks, the city raised about $15,000 over the past two years in scholarships to offset the cost of lifeguard-certification courses. Recruits who pass a swim test at the end can apply to be city lifeguards.

As the teens swim laps at Alhambra, it's clear many haven't had much formal training. But the coaches of the course aren't fazed and are prepared to put in the time to teach.

"Honestly, I have a little bit a fear of the water, and I wanted to overcome that fear," says high school junior Jesus Jimenez. He didn't grow up going to pools with his family but likes the idea of lifeguarding.

"It is nice to have the satisfaction of knowing that if somebody is in trouble you can save them at any time," he says.

If he is selected to be a lifeguard, other pool staff will work with him on his swimming skills all summer.​

So the FACTS prove that the lifeguards do have to pass a swimming test.

Strike one!

The city "raised" the money? From where.

Now , let it be known that I am actually in favor of the government paying for college in exchange for services, so this wouldn't be that much different; but this program is CLEARLY aimed at minorities ONLY, and that is illegal. So , you are okay with discrimination as long as it results in diversity?

But, how about this one?

Ashville NC Police lower hiring standards...for better quality applicants Oh....and diversity. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, it is true that this city had standards that were higher than many other cities, and they lowered them to meet the standard level , but their stated reason for doing so is to attract minority candidates. So CLEARLY they have lowered their standards to attract minorities.

 

[Derideo_Te]

but this program is CLEARLY aimed at minorities ONLY, and that is illegal.

Really?

Prove that it is illegal.

Now, it is true that this city had standards that were higher than many other cities, and they lowered them to meet the standard level , but their stated reason for doing so is to attract minority candidates. So CLEARLY they have lowered their standards to attract minorities.

Did you actually read your own link?

For decades, Asheville too required just a high school degree. One reason was that most new officers came out of the military in the 1960s and 1970s, said former Police Captain Aardema.

Asheville first began a push to increase academic standards in the mid-1990s, under Chief Will Annarino.

The standards varied over the years and at times generated controversy.

Twenty-three officers in 2001 filed a grievance against Annarino, claiming his policy of paying new hires with college degrees 5 to 10 percent more was unfair to current officers with degrees. The former chief could not be reached for comment.

Exceptions were given in three cases: Applicants who had 30 curriculum hours, three years of military experience, or three years of law enforcement experience could be hired if they entered into a contract with the city to finish their associate's degree.

That made Asheville's requirements some of the toughest in the state, and even the nation, according to Maria Haberfeld, chairwoman of the law, police science and criminal justice administration department at John Jay College in New York.

"An average police department in the U.S. requires only a high school diploma or a GED," Haberfeld said.​

Sounds to me as though Asheville was the EXCEPTION and has now once again reverted to the NORM.

Strike two!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

Diversity in and of itself is fine, but not when you doing things such as lowering standards for positions or for admission into wherever or such silly things that many on the left are currently championing.

There is a difference between encouraging minorities to meet the challenge of meeting requirements and encouraging those places to hire said minorities and lowering standards so that minorities can compete.

Please provide current links that clearly demonstrate that there is a concerted attempt by the "left" at "lowering standards for positions or for admission" so that "minorities can compete".

Sure, how about this one.

City of Phoenix hiring minority lifeguards who CANT SWIM....for diversity. Page 14 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

A spokesman for the Phoenix Parks & Recreations , SPECIFICALLY said that Phoenix is recruiting applicants who are black and Hispanic and that failing the prerequisites would not necessarily mean a person wouldn't be hired. That obviously means they have removed the prereq in order to hire more blacks and Hispanics.

And further, the way I read this it is only blacks and Hispanics who will be hired even if they fail the prereq. Whites must still pass. Now, I may just misunderstand on that point, but on the other point I am not mistaken, Phoenix is absolutely lowering an existing standard for the purpose of diversity in hiring.

and read that thread and see how many liberal posters are defending the plan.

So your source is the disinformation from FauxNoise?

How about dealing with the FACTS instead?

In Phoenix A New Quest For Diverse Public Pool Lifeguards NPR

To help diversify its lifeguard ranks, the city raised about $15,000 over the past two years in scholarships to offset the cost of lifeguard-certification courses. Recruits who pass a swim test at the end can apply to be city lifeguards.

As the teens swim laps at Alhambra, it's clear many haven't had much formal training. But the coaches of the course aren't fazed and are prepared to put in the time to teach.

"Honestly, I have a little bit a fear of the water, and I wanted to overcome that fear," says high school junior Jesus Jimenez. He didn't grow up going to pools with his family but likes the idea of lifeguarding.

"It is nice to have the satisfaction of knowing that if somebody is in trouble you can save them at any time," he says.

If he is selected to be a lifeguard, other pool staff will work with him on his swimming skills all summer.​

So the FACTS prove that the lifeguards do have to pass a swimming test.

Strike one!

The facts ?

Fact: There was a prerequisite.

Fact: The prerequisite was bypassed in the case of minority swimmers.

Fact: He never said they didn't have to pass the test.

Fact: He did show they were hiring minorities who could not meet the prerequisites.

Your argument is simply a misdirection move that demonstrates you are more interested in being "right" than you are in being truthful.