Reply With Quote
WC says it can't be knwn, so I'm asking him.
I've been treated by minority doctors before, so I have no such hangups.
are you suggesting Carson is a product of affirmative action and not merit?
WC says it can't be kn
I've been treated by minority doctors before, so I have no such hangups.
if a Dr. passed his/her boards, it doesn't matter what demographic group he belongs do or how he got there (whether by affirmative action or white privilege [anybody who denies that this exists and is fairly common practice is a moron--and I'm conservative]), then that doctor is legit. There's no quota when it comes to passing the boards, and contrary to what WC believes most doctors have their boards certificate posted on their office walls, or verification of it on their website. So it is readily available
Obama did the right thing to send his representatives to Brown's funeral when all the facts are not known? Does that quiet the riotous crowd or does it give the impression that Wilson was the one in the wrong and further incites the crowd? "Hands up, don't shoot" - what a travesty.
How nice of you to tell me to keep my mouth shut just because I don't happen to agree with you - this is a discussion board - if you don't like what I post, please feel free to put me on ignore.
Last edited by rmt; 11-08-2015 at 09:02 PM.
Yes, all doctors meet a certain level of qualifications (some were at the bottom of their class) when they pass their boards, but not all doctors are appointed Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at a top-notch hospital like Johns Hopkins Hospital. Was Carson aided in that appointment because he is black is probably what they're discussing above (I only scanned). I remember an ER episode where something similar came up - the black doctor said something like, "Do you check the "Black" box and get help getting into med school or don't you (to get in on your own merit - no race involved)?
I would be very happy/feel privileged to have Dr. Carson operate on my child - top notch, experienced doctor at one of the best hospitals in the world and he's Christian (that's a plus for me as he probably prays over the child before operating).
So God cares less about a child in surgery if he is not prayed over?
That's a crappy God.
I remember when episodes of 24 were quotable...
thing is the question of merit applies imo equally across the board. I think in all fairness it's more of a wealth thing. Wealthy people "know people" to a greater extent than poor people. Knowing people = networking, and that's prolly just as big a factor/predictor of your success than grades/merit. So the question of did he/she earn it IMO applies to BOTH whites & blacks.
Laugh all you want, but if a child of mine was undergoing brain surgery, I'd be doing a whole LOT of praying. And I suspect, that even those who were not particularly religious, would be searching for something/someone during those long hours.
a ridiculously high % of graduating med students pass the boards though, nothing like the bar
I didn't say that God cares less about a child in surgery if he is not prayed over. I was thinking more of MY comfort level - MY not losing the complete basket case that I'd be if my child were undergoing brain surgery. One of my children didn't even babble at 3 years old. He had severe allergies leading to fluid in the ears (couldn't hear). I was blessed by a wonderful speech therapist (who, yes, prayed over him). I had given up hope that he was going to talk but (with a lot of hard work) and by 4, he was chattering and had caught up - now, he's the most social of my 3 kids.
And yes, God loves everybody even those of you who don't believe.
Any god that would allow your child to need brain surgery is a got, tbh. And don't give me that "God's just testing you" . You know who else is a fictional character who "tests" people? Jigsaw from Saw.
Yes...and yes...yes he was right to send "reps" without all facts...why? Because there's no such an epidemic in the white community against a backdrop of epic rioting....and yes keep your ing mouth shut when it's clear you don't have a ing clue...
Feel free to continue cherry picking small points but from my feedback as to his legacy based on ALL he's accomplished there's no legit rebuttal you can come up with...so like a typical tea party re you focus on smaller less important points as opposition...
Obama is the greatest President in history or close to it next to Abe Lincoln....so shut your dumb pie hole and deal with it....
and there is always a bell curve for the medical competence of doctors (hospitals).
Want you or your kid operated on by a surgeon at the very low end of curve in a hospital at the low end of the curve?
Texas xenophobia news (Texas is lying, duh)
What you need to know about Monday's hearing in the Supreme Court immigration case
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether President Obama's 2014 executive actions on immigration, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program and the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, are cons utional.
It's a huge case. Politicians, legal experts, and the 4.5 million immigrants who'd be protected from deportation by the programs are all following it closely. And the oral arguments will be the only clue between now and the Supreme Court's ultimate decision (likely to come out in late June) about how the court will rule.
The court doesn't usually release opinions on the same day they're holding oral arguments. But on Friday, the court announced that they'd start Monday's session at 9:30 am, release at least one opinion, then move to the immigration case.
Because this is so unusual, court-watchers assume that the Supreme Court justices must have found something in a current case that urgently needs to be addressed. There are a lot of pending cases, so it's hard to know in advance which one this is. But if you hear news coming out of the Court on Monday morning that isn't about the immigration case, this is why.
The early start is especially weird because the Supreme Court has blocked out much more time than usual to hear arguments on United States v. Texas. Instead of the usual 60 minutes, they're going to spend 90 minutes on it.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/1144879...-supreme-court
Texas drivers license law could hit the brakes on U.S. immigration case
To bring the case and have legal standing, the state of Texas, the lead plaintiff in the case, must show that it has been hurt in some way. In its filing, Texas argues that it would take a hefty financial hit for processing driver’s licenses for immigrants in the country illegally whose deportation would be deferred under Obama’s executive action.
The Texas attorney general’s office said Obama’s action “would cause a e in driver’s license applications, thus making those licenses much more costly to issue.”
But the numbers cited by Texas in its claim far exceed what the state currently pays annually for all its driver’s license services.
“It is kind of dry, legal stuff, but it is of great consequence,” said Bill Beardall, executive director of the Equal Justice Center in Texas, which provides legal help for low-income families and immigrants.
Beardall, also a University of Texas Law School professor, said the claims Texas makes of harm are tenuous.
“It has been regarded by almost all legal scholars as a very thin basis for claiming the kind of irreparable harm that would support a temporary injunction, or the kind of serious harm that would support standing,” Beardall said.
If the Supreme Court finds that Texas lacked a sufficient “injury” to sue, the case ends there and Obama wins.
In a filing with the Supreme Court, Texas contends that processing driver’s licenses for immigrants shielded from deportation under Obama’s action would cost the state more than $103 million in additional funds to process as many as 520,000 people seeking licenses.
The $103 million figure is nearly triple what the state of 27 million people currently budgets annually for all driver’s license services including tasks such as administering about 4.9 million driver’s examinations and mailing approximately 6.3 million driver’s licenses and identification cards.
The state said that for each additional 1,750 people seeking driver’s licenses, it would have to hire roughly two full-time employees to process them.
That number does not match the figure in this fiscal year’s state budget, which said the average number of driver’s licenses and records produced by a single full-time employee is 2,638 annually, a figure triple the efficiency of the state’s claim to the Supreme Court.
Texas said in its Supreme Court filing that to process applications from the immigrants who fall under the terms of the executive action, it has to make additional checks. It also said the average costs of those checks is about 75 cents an applicant.
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/tex...igration-case/
Typical Repugs bull and lies, based as always on the assumption that the other side is stupid, ignorant, has no facts, and will not call Repugs on their lies.
No, Wall Street Journal: That's Not What Prosecutorial Discretion Means
WSJ: Prosecutorial Discretion "Cannot Justify A Refusal To Enforce The Law For Entire Classes Of People."
On April 17, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal slammed President Obama's executive action on immigration by misrepresenting Obama's application of prosecutorial discretion to defer deportation for a limited number of undo ented immigrants who fulfill various requirements.
The Journal characterizes prosecutorial discretion as Obama's "refusal to enforce" immigration laws for "entire classes of people":
Law Professors: The Number Of People Who Might Benefit From Executive Order Doesn't Alter Its Legality.
In 2014, leading legal experts on immigration wrote to President Obama explaining the decades-old legal precedent for the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion on the matter of deportations:
Some have suggested that the size of the group who may "benefit" from an act of prosecutorial discretion is relevant to its legality. We are unaware of any legal authority for such an assumption.
Notably, the Reagan-Bush programs of the late 1980s and early 1990s were based on an initial estimated percentage of the unauthorized population (about 40 percent) that is comparable to the initial estimated percentage for the November 20 executive actions.
The President could conceivably decide to cap the number of people who can receive prosecutorial discretion or make the conditions restrictive enough to keep the numbers small, but this would be a policy choice, not a legal issue.
For all of these reasons, the President is not "re-writing" the immigration laws, as some of his critics have suggested.
He is doing precisely the opposite -- exercising a discretion conferred by the immigration laws and settled general principles of enforcement discretion [Letter to the President of the United States, Executive authority to protect individuals or groups from deportation, 11/25/14]
Former Chief Counsel for USCIS : The Department Of Homeland Security Considers Deportation Deferral On A Case-By-Case Basis. At the January 29, 2015, confirmation hearing of U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Stephen Legomsky, former chief counsel for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), explained that the Department of Homeland Security immigration memo "says not once, not twice, but over and over again that
officers on the ground are instructed to look at the facts of each individual case,
to evaluate them on an individualized basis, and
specifically, to exercise their discretion."
Legomsky went on to point out that the form that USCIS uses for deferred action applications even "lists the possible reasons for denial and explicitly lists 'exercise of discretion.'" [Media Matters, 1/29/15]
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...+-+Research%29
But it looks like that C-U asshole Kennedy is going with the SCOTUS rightwingnuts, 4-4, so deferred program will be killed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
