if it walks and talks like a duck its a ................ i have no problems with a bonus based make etc but on gender yeah i do. on one hand you scream for equality,i will agree on the other you trying to tell me a gender based bonus is equal and fair and when i disagree you see it is ok because it only discriminates against white males. flawed logic and attempts at guilt because of my gender will not sway me. so lets attack his intelligence. nice discussion. when you wish to bring it out of the gutter mobil1 i will engage once again. peace out.
if it walks and talks like a duck its a ................ i have no problems with a bonus based make etc but on gender yeah i do. on one hand you scream for equality,i will agree on the other you trying to tell me a gender based bonus is equal and fair and when i disagree you see it is ok because it only discriminates against white males. flawed logic and attempts at guilt because of my gender will not sway me. so lets attack his intelligence. nice discussion. when you wish to bring it out of the gutter mobil1 i will engage once again. peace out.
If you can't tell the difference between "discriminating against white males" and an attempt to match prior history and demographic trends, and if you want to keep grasping at straws in this argument ("It's illegal and unconstitutional! Oh wait, it's unfair! Oh wait, I've got it now, it's just wrong!") bouncing around from thing to thing, then I really don't know what to say to you. The only reason it's gone into the gutter is because YOU brought it there with your cries of discrimination and portraying anyone along that as anti-white male, not me.
you rallied the anti white male call not me. it is not my history.gender inequality is wrong , is illegal. go actually read the whole charter just not the parts you wish to twist. you are the one who made it personal. revisionist.
you rallied the anti white male call not me. it is not my history.gender inequality is wrong , is illegal. go actually read the whole charter just not the parts you wish to twist. you are the one who made it personal. revisionist.
Where was I specifically rallying the "anti white male call"? Hell, where was I calling for that AT ALL? I'll save you the trouble of looking, I WASN'T. I've read the entire Charter, and I've found how this is justified and how it's not illegal. According to you, gender inequality is wrong, yet trying to correct it appears to be even worse. I'm not out to be a revisionist, and I think virtually everyone here doesn't have an active part of this in their individual histories. What I am trying to say is it's part of our collective history and it's something which should be addressed through something like this.
If you want to be anal about it, the dearly departed Pinecrest was the first one to make this personal in this thread, not you or I. Maybe I made it personal between you and I, but I'm not sorry at all if I did.
i will leave it with this. first you have the right to your view, i have the right to mine. last point then i am done will this thread. it is not my job as a white male to right years of inequality by agreeing to take less than some one not a white male. i am not nor ever will be politically correct. i see a spade i am going to call it a spade(shovel). to ask me to agree that society must favour an ethnic or gender group because of the past is wrong,to use that argument is just scary. i will not take less than my due based on gender, race or creed no matter what left wing liberals tell me.i will agree that all should be treated equal no more no less. if you find that offensive mobil1 then i feel empathy for you. out.ps lets go racin it is snowing here and my parts did not come in for my slm. :'( :'( :'(