quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata



You know, that one always cracks me up... not the Feds but the states. Gambling is illegal in many if not most states, it "destroys families" we're told, all while those same states are booking ads for their lotteries on billboards and TV. Is it any wonder so many kids can't seem to think straight? And why try? What's the advantage when the world you live in is nuts?

And that's without even mentioning the fact that the odds you're getting make a casino look like a charity operation.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkinLaredo
Is it beneficial to minorities to bind them to a system that takes their confidence in themselves and replaces it with a crutch of alleged inability to make it on their own?

QFT, and for the benefit of those who are too obsessed with framing their snarky reply to even consider reaching the end of the post.

I am unaware of the details of how affirmative action policies work in the USA. Here in Australia they work as follows in relation to employment:
1. The best candidate for the job gets the job - always;
2. In the event that there are 2 applicants of equal merit, then the position is awarded to an applicant from the given minority group;
3. For certain positions where ethnic background is a critical factor (eg. community development officer for a service that targets Aboriginal people) the employer may, by prior application to the Anti-Discrimination Board, seek to have the position reserved for people from the target group.

It is impossible to reconcile this actual policy with a rhetorical claim about "binding" people to a "a system that takes their confidence in themselves and replaces it with a crutch of alleged inability to make it on their own".

If, and only if the USA system is similar to the Australian system, then people who make this claim clearly have no familiarity with the system they are criticising so broadly and trenchantly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

You don't fight racial discrimination by discriminating based on race. Anyone who can't get something as obvious as that through their head isn't using it.

The question remains...how would you have solved this problem?

Well let's first ask, what is the problem? According to Ken, it's racial discrimination in hiring. But is that a fair statement of the problem? The studies cited found that identical resumes received more call-backs when the applicant appeared to be white rather than black. The impression of whiteness versus blackness was engineered by the use of different names, like Emily and Brendan versus Lakisha and Jamal. Since the employers had nothing else to go on, race was clearly the operative factor in their decisions.

But why would this be so? Well for one reason, blacks are over-represented in almost every crime category that the FBI tracks except alcohol related offenses, by factors of 2 to more than 3 times their representation in the population (see here).


Is it possible that blacks occupy that position for reasons other than "blacks are inherently criminal"?


Given two identical resumes, one that appears to be from a white person and one that appears to be from a black person, with nothing else to go on, which is going to be the better bet?

So to address the problem, the first thing that would help make an applicant's race fade into irrelevance would be if companies had more information.

Or if they changed their name.


Because with background-check information establishing that the candidate has a clean record and a history of financial responsibility, qualified blacks would be less likely to be excluded on what amounts to purely a risk-reduction basis.


Suppose a programer's background check showed that they had been convicted of smoking pot...how does that affect their ability to program?A truck driver convcted of spousal abuse...how does that affect their ability to drive a truck?
So we are still left with how do we solve this problem. The market place had @100 years to solve this problem and were unsuccessful. That the solution used is not satisfactory to all does not change the fact that no one has come up with a better idea.

(in reply to Kirata)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Affirmative Action is also used in college admissions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkinLaredo

I guess I should clarify my business experience for the sake of argument.

I have owned and managed transportation and logistics companies, been a hiring manager for many years and currently own my own small business. I managed the maritime division of a company that had a gross income of over $500,000,000.00 annually, with over 200 employees in the offices alone. I am a member of several associations and have received several awards in business. I retired,

At age 48...congratulations


got bored, went back into working in an office and remembered I hated it,

Short term memory loss is a symptom of something but I forget just what


and recently went back to where I started as an owner operator of my own small trucking company.

I don't know what you paid for your rig but I have seen k 50's in good shape for less than 50k. Here is one for 39k that needs a little tlc.
http://www.yachtauthority.com/sailboat_sale-50_Kettenburg-1401.php

I could work in any field I chose to work in, have offers from fortune 500 companies several times a year, and turn them down because I do not choose to work in that environment. I make the statements about business not as a paperboy, but as an executive level manager. I do not know what business thompsonx is in, and the statement about newspaperboy or drug dealer shows his lack of ability to have a discussion without name calling.

I did not call you any names...learn to read.
I am 69 and retired.




I would not want to work in any office he was running.

Why?


Examples of racist liberals.

Don't you mean bigoted demopubs?

Roger Clinton, the President’s brother on audiotape
Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve’s ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve’s fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him.”

Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White House”
“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Seems that even johnson knows the difference between liberals and demopubs. He probably also knew the difference between conervatives and republicrats.


I guess that is enough for one post, trust me the libs are not all out there helping minorities.


This would be another one of your ignorant unsubstantiated opinions

Most of them would have a black person arrested for driving into their neighborhood if they could get away with it.


More ignorant unsubstantiated childish opinion.

I could post hundreds of examples of liberal politicians and activists making outright racist statements, and probably several hundred more of them making anti-Semitic remarks. Care to bet on it?

Those would be demopubs right?

Now I will let you all think on this: Is it beneficial to minorities to bind them to a system that takes their confidence in themselves and replaces it with a crutch of alleged inability to make it on their own?

Another ignorant unsubstantiated opinion. When the govt. bailed out gm did that take away their confidence in themselves and replace it with a crutch of alleged inability to make on their own?

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 5/5/2014 10:06:27 AM >

(in reply to MarkinLaredo)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: BitYakin

he nor anyone else said they had a solution, they just said cutting off your hand because you finger hurts is NOT THE SOLUTION

Until someone comes up with a better idea we will do this since for about a hundred years no solution was forthcomming.

and APPARENTLY according to YOU this SOLUTION hasn't worked EITHER...

That would be an ignorant unsubstantiated opinion because I have not said that.

I also noticed not once have you defended it as NOT RACIST, you just DEMAND someone come up with a BETTER IDEA

To require someone not to be a bigot and to follow the law of the land is not racists...Is that plane enough for you?

when a LAW promotes RACISM then YESSSSS it is.... and you STILL have not shown how the LAW IS NOT RACIST!
ohh I get it, it's NOT because YOU SAY SO HAHAHAHAH

You have yet to prove that it is bigoted.

(in reply to BitYakin)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

"How so???because it prevents employers from discriminating"

no because it REQUIRES employers to hire based on RACE, AKA REVERSE DISCRIMINATION

Actually it forces bigots to follow the law of the land...and for some reason that offends you. Since you do not like afirmative action how would you solve the problem?
Lead,follow or get the fuck out of the way. If you have not got a better solution then why are you posting?

yes that's what I SAID it forces employeers to follow a RACIST LAW...


That would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion..To require someone to stop acting in a racist fashion is not racists no matter how much you stamp your foot. That you would like to continue with the practice of discrimination against people of color is quite clear.

and BTW in case you haven't noticed YOU have claimed its a FAILED POLICY, but I don't hear you making any SUGESSTIONS yet you are STILL POSTING


Where have I claimed it was a failed policy? Or are you just making shit up?

also I don't need to have a BETTER SOLUTION to want a BAD POLICY ended...

So you want to do away with aa and go back to the bigotry of the past?

I DO NOT NEED to KNOW HOW TO SET A BROKEN FINGER to want SURGEONS to stop CUTTING HANDS OFF BECAUSE OF BROKEN FINGERS

Faulty analogy...no one is cutting hands off to solve the broken finger except in your mind. How many jobs have you been denied because of aa?

(in reply to BitYakin)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
DUDE you don't DISCUSS ANYTHING EVER

you just call EVERYONE an IDIOT or MORON or IGNORANT like as if that PROVES YOUR RIGHT

POT MEET KETTLE

you DEMAND people PROVE what they say but show NOTHING that DISPROVES IT other than I SAY SO

it must be nice to live in a fantasy world where all you have to do is call people names and it AUTOMATICLY MAKES YOU RIGHT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkinLaredo
Is it beneficial to minorities to bind them to a system that takes their confidence in themselves and replaces it with a crutch of alleged inability to make it on their own?

QFT, and for the benefit of those who are too obsessed with framing their snarky reply to even consider reaching the end of the post.

I am unaware of the details of how affirmative action policies work in the USA. Here in Australia they work as follows in relation to employment:
1. The best candidate for the job gets the job - always;
2. In the event that there are 2 applicants of equal merit, then the position is awarded to an applicant from the given minority group;
3. For certain positions where ethnic background is a critical factor (eg. community development officer for a service that targets Aboriginal people) the employer may, by prior application to the Anti-Discrimination Board, seek to have the position reserved for people from the target group.

It is impossible to reconcile this actual policy with a rhetorical claim about "binding" people to a "a system that takes their confidence in themselves and replaces it with a crutch of alleged inability to make it on their own".

If, and only if the USA system is similar to the Australian system, then people who make this claim clearly have no familiarity with the system they are criticising so broadly and trenchantly.

I think it works roughly the same here in the U.S. The debate over Affirmative Action has gone on for decades, and the main reason it was brought into being was because it was determined that simply making laws against discrimination was not sufficient in dealing with the problem at hand. Affirmative Action is also used in college admissions. I think it's gotten mixed reviews over the years, and while there may be some criticisms of Affirmative Action, I don't think it's as been as truly horrible as some of the critics might suggest. It's nowhere near a "reversal" of what we used to have in this country.

It wasn't a perfect solution, but there are no perfect solutions to what we were dealing with. I don't think anyone was expecting any "quick fix," although some might criticize what could be perceived as only attacking a symptom and not really dealing with the root of the problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

well YES you are, matter of a fact its the WHOLE POINT of your argument, LIFE IS TUFF FOR THEM so we need to treat them SPECIAL


Once again you have posted your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion for my beliefs...trust me the money you spent on those mind reading classes was wasted.

if it wasn't for the WHOLE TUFF LIFE thing affirmative action would never have be needed

That would be another one of your ignorant unsubstantiated opinions. The whole reason for aa was bigotry...I am surprised that you did not notice.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 5/5/2014 10:30:13 AM >

(in reply to BitYakin)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

WOW, so your WHOLE argument is to just be an ASS and call EVERYONE a LIAR unless they PROVE EVERY SINGLE THING THEY SAY

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

didn't you ask me earlier WHO you insulted?

You see that is nothing more than your moronic,ignorant,uneducated opinion unbutressed by anything but your own ignorance.

you JUST CALLED HIM a MORON IGNORANT and UNEDUCATED....


That would be your moronic,ignorant,uneducated opinion. Just as it was his moronic,ignorant,uneducated opinion. Pay close attention here. I am discussing his opinion and your opinion not your person or his person. Get a fucking english grammar and disabuse yourself of your ignorance.

where I come from that's called an INSULT

That is because you are ignorant...look the fucking word up, disabuse yourself of your ignorance.

so we are right back TO, I can't argue the point intelligently so I'll JUST CALL PEOPLE NAMES!

who is looking IGNORANT NOW??

You

(in reply to BitYakin)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

DUDE you don't DISCUSS ANYTHING EVER

you just call EVERYONE an IDIOT or MORON or IGNORANT like as if that PROVES YOUR RIGHT

Learn to read. I have called no one a morron nor an idiot. Pointing out ignorance does make me right.

POT MEET KETTLE

Ignorant meet a dictionary.

you DEMAND people PROVE what they say but show NOTHING that DISPROVES IT other than I SAY SO

If one posts something then it is incumbant upon them to prove it not me to disprove it.

it must be nice to live in a fantasy world where all you have to do is call people names and it AUTOMATICLY MAKES YOU RIGHT

It must be nice to live in a fantasy world where one does not speak english and then whines when their ignorance is pointed out.

(in reply to BitYakin)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Who says the federal government doesn't operate a "lottery"?

You know, that one always cracks me up... not the Feds but the states. Gambling is illegal in many if not most states, it "destroys families" we're told, all while those same states are booking ads for their lotteries on billboards and TV. Is it any wonder so many kids can't seem to think straight? And why try? What's the advantage when the world you live in is nuts?

And that's without even mentioning the fact that the odds you're getting make a casino look like a charity operation.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Regulation of those who would abuse the freedoms of the individual, such as large businesses. We believe in personal freedom and a general moderation of businesses to prevent abuse of their workers. That's what he government should exist to do; to protect the rights of it's people.

umm yet you are in favor of regulating my ability to be free to hire WHOMEVER I WANT for whatever dam reason I WANT

how LIBERAL OF YOU, to protect one person's freedom you RESTRICT MINE

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

people have been giving you examples of it all night but you DISMISS it and call them NAMES

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Regulation of those who would abuse the freedoms of the individual, such as large businesses. We believe in personal freedom and a general moderation of businesses to prevent abuse of their workers. That's what he government should exist to do; to protect the rights of it's people.

umm yet you are in favor of regulating my ability to be free to hire WHOMEVER I WANT for whatever dam reason I WANT

how LIBERAL OF YOU, to protect one person's freedom you RESTRICT MINE

quote:

Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[38]

Herbert wrote in the same column, "The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.'s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks."[1]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Regulation of those who would abuse the freedoms of the individual, such as large businesses. We believe in personal freedom and a general moderation of businesses to prevent abuse of their workers. That's what he government should exist to do; to protect the rights of it's people.

umm yet you are in favor of regulating my ability to be free to hire WHOMEVER I WANT for whatever dam reason I WANT

how LIBERAL OF YOU, to protect one person's freedom you RESTRICT MINE

Yes, completely. You are a person, you have every right to have any opinion whether it be positive or negative towards a given people. You are free to make those opinions. But what you are not free to do is to put those opinions into action which affect the lives of others. You cannot project your opinions onto the company and a company cannot discriminate against people for "any reason the employer wants." If you hire a white man with less knowledge on a subject than a black man with more knowledge, there is no excuse for that kind of discrimination and you are completely in the wrong.

Also there is nothing written in your constitution which gives you a right to discriminate. You have a right to free speech, but that doesn't translate into freedom to discriminate. Liberals are not restricting any of your rights, as these "rights" you speak of actually don't exist beyond your own mind. Liberals are trying to protect everyone's freedoms and to give everyone a fair and equal opportunity in the marketplace. Yours, mine, the Hobo down the street and even the top 1%ers. Are the methods to promote this equality flawless? Of course not, but it's the best thing we got at this point in time, and people like you are going to have a hell of a lot of time taking that away unless you have an even better alternative to maintain equality floating around somewhere.