What the Hell is Wrong with these Soldiers?

[Lostlover]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with these LOSER Soldiers?

This is an article posted today on the Daily Mail: AWOL soldier charged with bank fraud 'after stealing identity of billionaire Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen' . I didn't go Google searching for stories. I read the Daily Mail daily and have linked to this site twice already in this thread.

What would make you think you could get away with stealing a billionaire's identity? Especially, a billionaire like Allen who known for being very attentive to details (and I guess to bank statements too).

This is the kicker:

Brandon Lee Price, 28, of East Liberty, Pennsylvania is accused of impersonating Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, one of the world's top billionaires, to successfully obtain access to his bank account.
Price allegedly used the account belonging to the man with an estimated net worth of $14.2 billion for personal payments on a delinquent Armed Forces Bank account as well as personal expenses which included a trip to a dollar store.

He stole Paul Allen's identity to go to a dollar store? Seriously?

I'll get to you Jackoroe and Opinterph, when I get back.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with these LOSER Soldiers?

We've established that veteran's status is not one of the criteria considered under affirmative action. Yes, I know, how dare I actually read the act and base an argument on it. Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?

We haven't established any such thing -- you just keep claiming it. Resorting to the law is a dodge that allows you to avoid thinking. Nobody cares about the act but you -- we're talking about reality, not words on a page.

The assertion was that the law grants veterans points based on nothing but their status as veterans, putting them ahead of other applicants not on the basis of merit, but of status. That's affirmative action. If it was as you describe, there wouldn't be any need for a law; employers would be considering them on the basis of merit.

 

[jackoroe]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with these LOSER Soldiers?

We haven't established any such thing -- you just keep claiming it. Resorting to the law is a dodge that allows you to avoid thinking. Nobody cares about the act but you -- we're talking about reality, not words on a page.

The assertion was that the law grants veterans points based on nothing but their status as veterans, putting them ahead of other applicants not on the basis of merit, but of status. That's affirmative action. If it was as you describe, there wouldn't be any need for a law; employers would be considering them on the basis of merit.

Words mean things, my friend. If you want to know what constitutes the parameters of Affirmative Action, look to the authority. The act creating the program. Or we could simply allow people to make up things to fit whatever argument they want, as some here have tried and failed to do.

You are well within your rights to argue that veteran's preference may be unfair. But you and anybody else who call it affirmative action are incorrect. If we completely eliminate all existing affirmative action programs contained in the statute, veteran's preference programs would be untouched.

 

[Lostlover]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with these LOSER Soldiers?

We've established that veteran's status is not one of the criteria considered under affirmative action. Yes, I know, how dare I actually read the act and base an argument on it. Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?

Now you are ignorantly claiming that being "legacied" similarly constitutes affirmative action. Being granted admission to an institution of higher learning because your relatives went there well may very well constitute nepotism, it isn't affirmative action.

Being a veteran has the same kind of merit as having a college degree. Nobody who walks into a new job setting fresh out of school, knows the job from day one. They are assumed to posess skill sets from college that will allow them to succeed in the workplace. There are skill sets that being part of the military provides individuals that are useful in everyday life and in the workplace. Dependability, ability to take instruction, team work, leadership. These are all qualities that employers look for.

Being legacied into schools is Affirmative Action for the rich and well connected. This is why many people don't like it as it stinks to high heavens. I wonder what Bush's opinion of getting into a school because he did went there compares to his views on Affirmative Action.

Did you see the link I posted about a white woman suing The University of Texas at Austin because she feels they gave preference to Latinos and Blacks? How is that any different if the University of Texas at Austin gave preferences to ex-soldiers in admissions?

Is she filing the lawsuit against the people or the practice of giving people an advantage not based on merits?

 

[Ninja108]

I will never call those who chose to serve our country losers. EVER.

 

[Lostlover]

I will never call those who chose to serve our country losers. EVER.

I was calling the criminals I mentioned losers. Please see the word "these" in the title of the thread.

 

[Lostlover]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with these LOSER Soldiers?

The Bona fide Occupational Qualification exception is intended to allow employers to screen applicants based upon unique characteristics that are required for a specific job. For example, a nightclub that exists for the sole purpose of providing entertainment by male strippers can legally discriminate against women in hiring its performers. I suppose some schools can use a similar form of legitimate discrimination, such as an all-girl boarding school disallowing males, or perhaps a religious school that requires its students to adhere to specific religious principles in order to attend. I don’t see the connection between these concepts and the fact that some people report having benefited from Affirmative Action.

I mentioned Rice and Powell to illustrate that AA is practiced despite its legality. I don't believe the University of Denver was looking specifically for a female PhD student when it admitted Rice. She has admitted that she's benefited from AA and being a provost at Stanford and in a liberal state, I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford looked at ethnicity in the application process.

I just have difficulty believing that the Bona fide Occupation Qualification exemption is actually followed as I've seen in a conservative state, open, blatant favoring of applicants with Native American ancestry. Furthermore, the Supreme Court allowed the University of Michigan to consider race. This is clearly outside this exception that you posted, especially considering that from the university's perspective, a student is a student, regardless of gender or race. You might need a male stripper to have a male strip club, but the University of Michigan doesn't need any specific type of student -- whether it is a Latino, black, gay, straight, ex-soldier -- to function as a university.