U.S. infant mortality rate among worse

[vyo476]

That, along with barely a year of judicial experience, made him one of the most under qualified Supreme Court nominees in history.

The fact that he does, is an argument for affirmative action not against it.

Just so you know, you just said that affirmative action gave us a sub par, under qualified Supreme Court justice, and yet this is an argument for affirmative action. That's a little mixed up.

 

[Popeye]

Just so you know, you just said that affirmative action gave us a sub par, under qualified Supreme Court justice, and yet this is an argument for affirmative action. That's a little mixed up.

I see where the final sentence in my post gives that impression. I should say, that Clarence Thomas's completion of law school, not his seat on the Supreme Court, is an argument for affirmative action.

 

[palerider]

As I have previously documented, Thomas finished in the middle of his class at Yale, not the top. He did finish near the top at Holy Cross, where his enrollment was a product of a, previously mentioned, minority recruitment program.

Just so you know, everywhere between the top of one's class and the bottom is "somewhere in the middle". I know that you don't like to put much actual thought into your positions, but a bit of earnest research should bring Thomas's position in his class into clearer focus for you.

He was one of ten blacks in a class of 160 at Yale, a product of the quotas the right and Thomas now argue against. Thomas says in his book, that he stores his Yale Law degree in his basement with a 15-cent sticker from a cigar package as he feels his law degree is another product of affirmative action. Here's a quote from his book,
"I got into Yale because I'm black, but Yale should never have let me through the door in the first place based on my skin color, and the fact that they did makes me feel diminished". Yet he accepted that law degree, as well as a seat on the Supreme Court. A path that he would now deny to others of his race.

So you favor continuing a program that allows people like you to simply disregard any and all accomplishments that a black person may achieve by saying two simple words...affirmative action?

You like a program that will leave those who take advantage of it feeling "diminished" ever after because they will never escape people like you who think nothing of questioning their accomplishments by referencing a program that you encourage them to use.

As I said, there was once a time when affirmative action may have had a valid purpose. That time, however, has passed.

 

[Popeye]

Just so you know, everywhere between the top of one's class and the bottom is "somewhere in the middle". I know that you don't like to put much actual thought into your positions, but a bit of earnest research should bring Thomas's position in his class into clearer focus for you

My point was, that he didn't finish near the top of his class as you insinuated. You continue, to attempt to make Thomas out to be some sort of law school genius, when actually he was pedestrian, at best.

So you favor continuing a program that allows people like you to simply disregard any and all accomplishments that a black person may achieve by saying two simple words...affirmative action?

You like a program that will leave those who take advantage of it feeling "diminished" ever after because they will never escape people like you who think nothing of questioning their accomplishments by referencing a program that you encourage them to use.

I have to admit, if a token Supreme Court justice is an example of affirmative action, perhaps I should rethink my position. You should be proud of Clarence Thomas, he's the best argument, against affirmative action, the right has put forth in years.

 

[palerider]

You should be proud of Clarence Thomas, he's the best argument, against affirmative action, the right has put forth in years.

Because he is conservative or because he is black? It must be one of the two because you certainly don't dislike him because he has supported unconstitutional decisions.

 

[Coyote]

No? Did you ever get a tax "notification" from the IRS? I did once, and it got my attention and if you have ever got a "notification" from a government agency, you would have to agree that there is nothing "weak" about it.

Again, very weak. That is not a valid comparison.

I get notifications from the government on SS too - not a mandate, not an order.

I get notifications from my Dr. reminding me of appointments. The local government will put out information on flue shots. Again - not a mandate.

Unless you have information showing that these notifications from those countries with socialized medicine (and I'm not talking authoritarian regimes) represent a mandate rather than a presenting of information such as I gave in my examples - then admit it - this is weak weak weak! Come on...

 

[palerider]

Again, very weak. That is not a valid comparison.

I get notifications from the government on SS too - not a mandate, not an order.

I get notifications from my Dr. reminding me of appointments. The local government will put out information on flue shots. Again - not a mandate.

Unless you have information showing that these notifications from those countries with socialized medicine (and I'm not talking authoritarian regimes) represent a mandate rather than a presenting of information such as I gave in my examples - then admit it - this is weak weak weak! Come on...

Sorry, when the government holds the strings for your medical care, a notice from the government to show up for care is more than "just a notice". Piss of some bureaucrat and you could find yourself at the end of a very long waiting list when you need care most.

 

[Coyote]

Sorry, when the government holds the strings for your medical care, a notice from the government to show up for care is more than "just a notice". Piss of some bureaucrat and you could find yourself at the end of a very long waiting list when you need care most.

Uh uh - you're dodging. Show me some facts to support your statement that they have no choice!

 

[palerider]

Uh uh - you're dodging. Show me some facts to support your statement that they have no choice!

Everyone has a choice. You could choose to disregard that IRS notice.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When you have a systen in which insurance pays for everything, increasing prices are inevetable. You have to pay the bureaucracy that runs the system and the bureaucracy in insurance is no different that any other. It eats the bulk of money coming in simply supporting itself.

Whatta GREAT argument for.....​

"....an array of new regulations on private insurers, in part by stripping the industry of its long-standing exemption from federal antitrust laws."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What they don't tell you is that in the US, extrordinary measures are taken to save high risk children. Even if the parents don't have insurance and a large number of these children die. This treatment is usually very expensive and nations with socialized medicine simply can't afford to spend the money. In nations with socialized medicine, the infant death rate is lower because no effort is made to save these children. They are set aside to die and are listed as stillborn.

If it weren't for fantasies, "conservatives" would have no thoughts, at all.....​

"Premature births, often due to poor care of low-income pregnant women, are the main reason the U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than in most European countries, a government report said Tuesday.

About 1 in 8 U.S. births are premature. Early births are much less common most of Europe; for example, only 1 in 18 babies are premature in Ireland and Finland."

 

[bododie]

And if it weren't for "fantasies", women would have the decency NOT to get pregnant with the fourth kid they can't support.