Dbqgolfer

 

 

Can someone tell me what viewpoint I'm supposed to have on the pipeline, and why? I genuinely have no idea.

Someone answer plz

 

I haven't been following this issue at all

 

Are you a party line Republican voter? If so, you support the pipeline wholeheartedly because we need the 35 permanent jobs and you might think that Canadian oil is not from a foreign country.

 

Are you concerned about private property rights and the ability of the government to take private land against the landowners wishes? If so, you're against the pipeline because a foreign corporation is using the US government to take privately held land even if the landowner doesn't want to sell.

 

Are you concerned about the inevitable spills of oil and the secret cocktail of chemicals that Transcanada injects into the oil? If so, you're probably against the pipeline or at least want to ensure that it is as safe as possible.

 

 

 

Personally, I see virtually no benefit for the US and plenty of risk and trampling of property rights. That said, I do expect the pipeline to be built eventually and I wish that we would make that completion conditional on Transcanada paying a set amount into an account for each and every barrel of oil pumped through the line. That account, up to a certain dollar amount, should be held to pay for cleaning up spills. Every dollar collected in excess of that amount should be dumped into the general fund, or the highway trust, or SS, or wherever. Otherwise I don't see any reason why we should accept these risks to benefit a foreign corporation and China.

 

I haven't followed this issue closely, and would be considered a party line Republican voter (although consider myself conservative before republican), and the property rights issue really cause me concern. So just trying to say that you can be a conservative republican and be against this.

Looking at the redefinition of one of the foundations of our society by judges with no basis in the original intent of the constitution, when there is disagreement in the federal appellate courts, seems like a pretty good use of the Supreme courts time to me. But, I have no desire to argue to point, just felt like someone should say it.

 

Dbq, all those points are good, but really, the idea of white privilege rarely has anything to do with individual specific people, because it will always be true that some people have greater benefits than others. It's about a collective macro-level scale view of the state of things.

 

 

 

 

 

For some whites, the share of benefits is greater or lesser than it is for others, depending on, among other things, the dynamics of social class. But one thing is certain: collectively, the white population of the United States now holds an enormous unearned advantage of wealth and power. And regardless of what kind of people we are as individuals or what we have or have not done ourselves, that advantage cannot be uncoupled from the history of race and racism in this country. The past is more than history. It is also present in structural distributions of wealth and power and cultural ideologies, laws, practices, beliefs, and attitudes whose effect is to justify, defend, and perpetuate the system of white privilege. And the past is present in the huge moral dilemmas that arise from such a history and the question of what to do about the unnecessary suffering and injustice that result from it.

 

So, honest question. Those who agree with the message of the protesters, what's the answer.

 

What it actually did was made the rich richer and now they have to cut benefits for the poor to pay for it.

 

So basically, it's the GOP in a nutshell.

 

And their base is largely Christian, and GOP policies & the effects of those policies are the antithesis of what Christ calls Christians to do. It's baffling.

 

OK guys, I am probably what you all would call the typical GOP base, well, because I am to a large extent the typical GOP Base, but this Brownback tax ideas is asinine.

 

 

 

But I do know that for my boss to give me a raise that allows me to take home another $80 a month, it costs him roughly $200 a month, but somehow according to those who espouse the "white privilege" crap, I'm supposed to be angry at "the man" for not paying me more, and thankful for the government that's taking the other $120.

Eh?

 

It's probably not quite $200.

 

Marginal federal tax rate roughly 30%

Both sides of social security %15

Marginal state tax rate roughly 10 %

 

equals $90 (not $80) for me, $110 for gov't

 

Just got home and wanted to be accurate,

25% marginal federal tax rate

So for my boss to give me a raise it costs him $2 for every $1 I take home

 

 

But I do know that for my boss to give me a raise that allows me to take home another $80 a month, it costs him roughly $200 a month, but somehow according to those who espouse the "white privilege" crap, I'm supposed to be angry at "the man" for not paying me more, and thankful for the government that's taking the other $120.

Eh?

 

It's probably not quite $200.

 

Marginal federal tax rate roughly 30%

Both sides of social security %15

Marginal state tax rate roughly 10 %

equals $90 (not $80) for me, $110 for gov't

 

To the extent that I am successful (moderately, I might add), it is due to the fact that many weeks I put in 60 hours of work, not due to the fact that I happen to be white.

 

 

That's all it's due to huh? You're a 100% self made man?

 

What do you do for a living? You don't think it could have anything to do with the statistically proven fact that job applicants with black sounding names get 50% less call backs on identical resumes to people with common anglo-saxon names?

 

What do your parents do? Did they help pay for any of your college, a car, any phone bills? Did you follow their line of work at all? Receive any monetary inheritance from deceased grandparents? Have any property that has been passed down through your family that could have at one point belonged to Natives and was promised to be protected by the government but was sold off to whites anyways?

 

You don't think that African-American families could possibly be at a disadvantage because they don't have generations of wealthy ancestors passing down money and opportunity to their offspring?

 

Where did you attend school growing up? Do you think your success couldn't have at least a tiny bit to do with the significantly higher chance that you were placed with more effective teachers than your fellow Americans in poor or high-minority school districts?

 

 

 

You have no clue what the term actually represents. It doesn't diminish anything you have done; it only puts it in context that your skin color gives you certain advantages that others don't have. What white privilege means is that even if you have just pulled yourself up by the bootstraps to be successful, other people of other skin colors often don't even have the bootstraps to be able to pull themselves up by.

 

OK, lets go through this line by line.

1) I don't have a common anglo sounding name, in fact, have been called "Tyrone" in the workplace by an idiot who couldn't remember my name, knew it sounded black, and Tyrone is the only name he could think of.

2) Am not in any line of work related to my parents. My dad was a laborer who was laid off many times and my mother worked on and off as an LPN. The reason she worked on and off is due to health issues. I remember my parents filing for bankruptcy two times. I Can honestly say that my parents contributed less than $1,000 towards my total education.

3) Sorry, no grandparents inheritance nor native lands passed down, nor wealthy ancestors, nor any wealth or land of any kind passed down. In fact, I helped pay for rent, medicine etc for may parents before they died.

4)One public high school in the town I grew up, we all went to the same one.

Just so we know what we're taking about, when I say Moderately successful, I make more than $50K but less than $100K a year and my wife makes roughly the same. I do know that for my boss to give me a raise that allows me to take home another $80 a month, it costs him roughly $200

Like I said earlier, I'm not opposed to a safety net (helping to provide bootstraps), nor do I think that, in general, the upper earners in our society are currently over taxed. But I do know that for my boss to give me a raise that allows me to take home another $80 a month, it costs him roughly $200 a month, but somehow according to those who espouse the "white privilege" crap, I'm supposed to be angry at "the man" for not paying me more, and thankful for the government that's taking the other $120.

I kind of feel bad for Jeb. 15 years ago I wanted him to run, and think he would have made a good president. But he's kind of in a no win situation now. One side will tie him to his brother and if/when he distinguishes himself from said brother, the other side will brand him as not being loyal. Gotta be tough, because you know he's thinking, "but I'm smarter, more well spoken and have better ideas than him."

The reason

 

Actually as long as terms like white privilege exist, this country will continue to fail

 

Explain.

 

And, just to be fair, I'll explain my rationale. Anytime we have to label add the qualifier liberal or conservative, left or right, dem or pub, and so on, we drive a stake between groups of people who should be working together to better the country. A country that thrives is good for everyone. The impoverished have more opportunity and yes even the wealthy benefit.

 

Qualifying statements creates an "us vs them" mentality that we know, due to the previous head man for the Huskers, produces a toxic, unsuccessful atmosphere.

 

First, the term "white privilege" creates an "us vs them" mentality. To the extent that I am successful (moderately, I might add), it is due to the fact that many weeks I put in 60 hours of work, not due to the fact that I happen to be white.

When people use the term "white privilege", it does two things. 1) It diminishes my efforts and 2) it gives people an excuse for their lack of success. It's much easier to blame someone or something else for their lack of success as opposed to not working harder, smarter, or doing something different.

And when a large segment of any nation's population has this mentality, and is promoted by one of the governing parties, that nation is destined to continue to fail.

As a side note, don't read into this that I don't think there shouldn't be a social safety net, that high income earners are currently over taxed etc.

Actually as long as terms like white privilege exist, this country will continue to fail

I probably disagree with everyone here regarding the definition of marriage, "Civil Rights" for gays/lesbians, strict construction interpretation of the Constitution, judicial activism, the role of religion in the public square etc... That being said, an independent judiciary is crucial to a republic, and legislatures passing laws punishing judges based on rulings is blatantly unconstitutional.

Not sure what expectations should be for overall record, but I would say 6-2 or better conference record is a success and 5-3 or worse is a disappointment.

Wow. If this is accurate, I would say that Bo's description of SE is right on. P@#%&y lawyer who does nothing but make policies to cover his butt.

Not really BS rumor but a BS prediction. With Chryst going to Wisc. Pelini then goes to Pitt. Look ahead 3 years, Oregon State and Pitt go undefeated, Neb goes undefeated after narrowly defeating Wisc. All other teams in FBS have at least two losses so Wisc. gets final spot in playoff with only one loss. Everyone's head at ESPN explodes.

Bo to Pitt, right?

It wouldn't be a suprise. Pitt is only about 65 miles from youngstown

If I remember correctly, the statement about resources had two parts. The first being that he was fortunate that resources were not an issue at NEB, the second part being that it was his job to be a good steward of those resources. In hindsight, we probably should have paid a little more attention to the second part of the statement.

 

SE- "I've seen people spend a lot of money and not do much winning." *cough*Iowa*cough*

I guess he could be talking about Pelini as well

 

At .713 winning percentage Bo is/was the 23rd winningest active Division I Coach.

At $3.1 Million per year Bo is/was the 29th highest paid active Division I Coach.

Using that metric, we were getting about what we were paying for.

people make it sound like this guy was doing this job fro free. He got paid MILLIONS and will get another 7 MILLION dollars. DOnt feel sorry for the guy. He will get roughly 30 MILLION dollars since he has been here.

 

If you want to feel sorry for someone, feel bad for the players.

One can still feel bad for the guy. No one likes to put their heart and soul into a job for 7 years only to be fired. It's not all about money. From what I've read, he and his family love it here.......Don't take this as reasons why he shouldn't have been fired, just showing a little empathy for a guy whose family is probably not having a great Thanksgiving Day Weekend.

Sweet, looks like our recruiting class is fixing to implode.

 

Great plan.

I was on the fence about firing Bo, but this is silly. Anytime you fire a coach it's going to look like the recruiting class is going to implode. Let's see how this all looks in a few weeks.

For me, it's the blowout losses.

Turner Gill, Why Not?

Here's why not.

FBS Head coaching record 25-49

FCS Head coaching record 22-13

Does it seem possible, or even probable that the way Eichorst is going about this is that Bo is on his list of potential coaches next year. By this I mean, he has a list of 3 or 4 coaches he would fire Bo to hire. But if he pursues those options to no avail, then he retains Bo. This could be a reason why there hasn't been a statement or support or a firing yet.

 

Bo should be fired tomorrow and have it leaked to the press like Florida. The team can play one for the gipper if they have any fight left. Winning vs Iowa means nothing.

i like this. because than we can win the iowa game and be happy, without worrying that it saved his job.

 

which it should not. but we still should win. and i would like to see us win and then win the bowl with an interim coach.

 

Not sure I'd count Iowa as a win. They just pulled withing two of the Badgers with 11 minutes left in the game

Yes, it's going to suck. I always go to a function the Saturday after thanksgiving and pretty much everyone there is a Hawkeye fan. Oh well.

Does Ole Miss fall behind all of the one loss teams now that they basically have zero chance to win SEC and one loss conference champs would get in before a 2 loss team.