Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (242333)	7/20/2005 11:45:10 AM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573924

elroy, I don't get the man after man part - isn't this Bush's first pick? Or is she saying Clinton's a sexist because his last pick was a man - which makes a streak of two men in a row. re:She could never provide any statistics on the sexuality of candidates despite repeated requests. Typically liberals are all about how things feel - statistics have no useful place.

To: Elroy who wrote (242333)	7/20/2005 11:56:58 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573924

It is well known, in particular among women, that they must be clearly better qualified vs. male candidates for same jobs to secure a professional position. Having understood and accepted that as a current reality, quite a few women have still made it up to the highest echelons in business and politics and done that by putting in extra hours of hard work. One good current example obviously is Rice, who could well become a running candidate against Ms. Clinton in 2008. So it is absolute BS to require that the ante should be lowered to subsidize lower quality candidates of other genders, ethnicity or what have you just for the purpose of filling crucial positions in business or politics with other than the supremely qualified candidates. Subsiding mediocrity is the beginning of the end of any society. That is not necessary at all, whoever has the skills and the ambitions will eventually have fair chances to get there anyway under the US democratic system. Taro

To: Elroy who wrote (242333)	7/20/2005 2:29:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573924

When man after man is selected, and statistically it is out of whack with the number of candidates, that is why I bring it up. She could never provide any statistics on the sexuality of candidates despite repeated requests. She's pulling a "Ted" and just making up claims like the above to support her sexist view that the candidate should be a woman. There are 9 Justices on the Court and just one woman out of nine. There is no law that there has to be an even split or even a split dependent on the ratio/formula you suggested. However, given that half the population is women in this country, Amy thinks it would have been reasonable to replace the second woman Justice with another woman. And give the vast pool of judges, both male and female, the odds very much favor that there are several men and women with the same impeccable credentials and equally qualified to be a Justice. Bush could have chosen a woman...instead he picked a man. The message it sends to women in this country is a negative one. When all things are equal, a man will be picked over a woman. That's the message Amy is criticising...........and its not an unreasonable one. So stop pretending that every thing is based on a logical formula devised by Elroy; that the world is a rational place where decisions are based purely on expertise and not bias. In fact, why don't you simply voice your criticism and move on instead of trying to make everyone who disagrees with you look to be the fool. Its not working, and more and more, you look like an asshole.