This is like watching the original The Wicker Man.

If you haven't seen it, you missed an interesting 1970s acid trip.

This is a very simplistic and individualistic way of looking at the social world. Like you're an example of who introductory-level textbooks are made for.

It's as if you think that you have complete control over everything. As if people will always announce "hey, we're about to discriminate against you right now" or "hey, we're about to level the playing field right now" and you'll be able to check "accept" or "decline." You don't really know whether your hard work is being rewarded solely based on your qualifications and your hard work. You can only assume based on your limited ability to gauge your input: outcome ratio.

Women and racial and ethnic minorities have always wanted to earn our way and we've always known that meant we would have to work harder to get on the same level or above. You're not introducing a new concept there.

However, the fact of the matter is that these leveling policies are necessary because there are millions of people who will work their butts off and still be told (or know without having been told) "women can't do this" or "blacks can't do that" or "you're poor, have worked hard all of your life, and tried to save money but there is no hope for getting out of poverty."

Oh no. You were spot on . . . and polite at the same time.

I'll have what he's drinking.

Do you really think this little of the average voter?

Totally agree, great post, KSigkid.

And this:
is FTW.

(the KSigs are on FIRE!)

Haha - that's because we're pledge brothers. We just happen to think on the save wavelength on a lot of things...

It was primarily a joke in this thread, but . . .

I think sometimes people are willing to assume that the people who support the other person are idiots.

And, yeah, I'm sometimes afraid that it runs backwards too and that a perception that idiots support a candidate affects the perception of the candidate.

I'm not sure how much the average voter really considers issues as opposed to voting on self-perception and perception of candidates. If this weren't the case, why do we get crappy news stories about the music candidates listen to? There's an attempt to show superficially what kind of person the candidate is, and apparently we're supposed to care.

Not that the average voter is incapable of weighing issues, but just that sometimes people don't bother.

ETA: I realize there's a distinction between elements that a candidate chooses for himself or herself and the idiots who latch on, but I'm not sure that candidates aren't kind of held responsible for their supporters, even when the supporters aren't serving in an officially endorsed view.

EATA: If you were "branding" a candidate, would you want Earp in the picture? Just saying.

Ummm...yes.

I also would have accepted Dogfish Head IPA, Old Burnside Brewing Company, Rogue Ale, and Chimay...

Well we know your opinion on it...

I like to think of Tom Earp is the Ann Coulter for bitter older men. Just a lot of babble in the background from someone who doesn't even know what they are saying.

Well played.

Yes, but now I picture Earp in an inappropriately slinky dress and bad makeup. Thanks for the visual.

LOL, while you are making fun of me, then maybe you will leave other people alone!:D

Old, yes, having my own thoughts, yes.

So, does that make any others better or worse?

Funny, I see others attacking and not getting banned, why is this?:rolleyes:

I just guess I don't kiss enough swell people.:D