# What role does Affirmative Action play in the events playing out in Ferguson?



## Oldstyle (Aug 19, 2014)

Many years ago I took an economics class at Amherst College with Thomas Sowell.  I remember quite vividly Sowell's objections at that time to Affirmative Action and the reasons WHY he said that it would ultimately fail for low income people.  I went back to see if I could find anything online from Sowell on that topic and found the following:


That was from almost forty years ago.  Affirmative Action worked amazingly well for Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett...but hasn't done a THING for young black males like Michael Brown.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 19, 2014)

Sowell's point back then was that Affirmative Action makes it much more likely for blacks with degrees or established job skills to be hired...thus making it a great thing for upper class blacks...but would make it less likely that a young black male with no job skills would be hired.  This was a view that was vigorously attacked at that time and yet four decades later the unemployment rate for young blacks is through the roof and cities like Ferguson are filled with young men who have no job opportunities.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 19, 2014)

Affirmative Action was an issue that allowed Democrats to get minority votes, then ignore them. Affirmative Action does not work, it's socialized favoritism that doesn't ensure that the hardest working, best and brightest, rise to the top. Problem in Black community is Blacks. Raise your children, value education, stop looking for an excuse for failure, and STOP excusing bad behavior like that of M. Thug Brown.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 19, 2014)

It does favor those that have a college degree over those who do not because white collar jobs have an exposure to more aggressive affirmative action policies. Universities have aggressive policies that get minorities on to the campus, but often they come from sub-standard school districts and cannot finish a BA.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 19, 2014)

For decades now well intentioned liberals have patted themselves on the back for the "success" of Affirmative Action but when you really examine what the program has done...what you find is that it really helped blacks that had already ascended the economic ladder because as Joe Biden put it:


"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

What Biden was saying in his typically idiotic fashion is the underlying truth that most liberals don't want to admit...that Affirmative Action is a boon for "bright and clean" blacks because they are viewed by whites like Biden as *safe* but doesn't work for street kids that REALLY need help getting a first job.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 19, 2014)

So for blacks like Obama, Holder, Rice and Jarrett...Affirmative Action is a GREAT program!  For black kids like Michael Brown, Affirmative Action is something that exists for people from a whole different social strata.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 19, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> So for blacks like Obama, Holder, Rice and Jarrett...Affirmative Action is a GREAT program!  For black kids like Michael Brown, Affirmative Action is something that exists for people from a whole different social strata.


Again, however, in the case of youth like Brown affirmative action is not the answer. Cleaning up the whole culture of government dependency is. We also need more manufacturing jobs for unskilled labor. Jobs that many low income background youths of all races can perform and lift themselves out of the cycle of government dependency .


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 20, 2014)

^ I agree.  However, technology has automated a lot of those jobs with good reason - they do a consistent better job than humans and they are cheaper to operate.

That said, the only unskilled labor jobs that require 'human' workers I can think of off the top of my head are construction, maybe packing/moving companies.  Neither of which, I'd imagine, are as needed in big cities. There's local stores that are going to need clerks and stuff like that, but there you get into job skills; handling cash, running a register, customer service, etc.  Janitor maybe?  There's just really not a lot of 'unskilled' jobs, period.

I think we would be better off weaning folks off government dependence and putting that money toward something... like starting up a government run business in the neighborhood; something like a warehouse store; and they 'only' hire people who are on welfare. That way instead of just handing out welfare checks, they have to be earned; it'll give the workers job skills that can get them into a better job, plus incentive folks out of the free money culture/mentality.  It wouldn't be a quick fix by any means, but in the long run I think it would help a lot more than the system we have in place right now.

Another facet of the issue is that crime pays, and I have no idea how we could fix that.  Even if we legalized ALL drugs (which I don't see happening) there would still be stealing property and so forth that can ultimately be more profitable than working a bottom tier job would be.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 20, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Many years ago I took an economics class at Amherst College with Thomas Sowell.  I remember quite vividly Sowell's objections at that time to Affirmative Action and the reasons WHY he said that it would ultimately fail for low income people.  I went back to see if I could find anything online from Sowell on that topic and found the following:
> 
> 
> That was from almost forty years ago.  Affirmative Action worked amazingly well for Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett...but hasn't done a THING for young black males like Michael Brown.



Michael Brown only just graduated 'highschool' everyone else is in their 50s or so. Ya, that's roughly equal to draw a conclusion.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 20, 2014)

EverCurious said:


> ^ I agree.  However, technology has automated a lot of those jobs with good reason - they do a consistent better job than humans and they are cheaper to operate.
> 
> That said, the only unskilled labor jobs that require 'human' workers I can think of off the top of my head are construction, maybe packing/moving companies.  Neither of which, I'd imagine, are as needed in big cities. There's local stores that are going to need clerks and stuff like that, but there you get into job skills; handling cash, running a register, customer service, etc.  Janitor maybe?  There's just really not a lot of 'unskilled' jobs, period.
> 
> ...



Governments shouldn't be in the business of business, EverCurious!  They invariably do it badly.  You want to wean people off of government dependence by giving them a government job?  I know that sounds like a fix but in reality you're simply taking away private sector jobs by replacing them with government subsidized jobs.  The private sector can't survive against subsidized competition because the public sector doesn't need to make a profit to survive...they can go for years losing money hand over fist.  The Post Office is a prime example of that.

The reason that young black males like Michael Brown have little future is BECAUSE of well intentioned government programs like Affirmative Action.  Thomas Sowell pointed out forty years ago that AA would benefit upper class minorities but actually hurt lower class minorities and he was 100% correct in his assessment.

Why was Barack Obama such a sought after "prize" coming out of Harvard Law School?  Quite simply...he was a safe hire.  Large corporations (or in his case a law firm) wanted to hire a minority to be compliant with Affirmative Action.  They wouldn't hire a Michael Brown to work at an entry level job in their firm because he would be viewed as an "iffy" employee who might or might not work out and if he didn't work out then they would be faced with having to fire a minority and face a wrongful termination lawsuit.  As Sowell pointed out, businesses would be more apt to hire whites in those entry level positions because they could be let go with fewer complications if they didn't work out.  Why?  Because the Federal Government now has so many laws designed to "help" minorities from being discriminated against that they have made unskilled entry level minorities dangerous for employers to hire.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 20, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Michael Brown only just graduated 'highschool' everyone else is in their 50s or so. Ya, that's roughly equal to draw a conclusion.



I'm sorry, Delta...I'm not following what your point is here.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 20, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Governments shouldn't be in the business of business, EverCurious!  They invariably do it badly.  You want to wean people off of government dependence by giving them a government job?  I know that sounds like a fix but in reality you're simply taking away private sector jobs by replacing them with government subsidized jobs.  The private sector can't survive against subsidized competition because the public sector doesn't need to make a profit to survive...they can go for years losing money hand over fist.  The Post Office is a prime example of that.
> 
> The reason that young black males like Michael Brown have little future is BECAUSE of well intentioned government programs like Affirmative Action.  Thomas Sowell pointed out forty years ago that AA would benefit upper class minorities but actually hurt lower class minorities and he was 100% correct in his assessment.
> 
> Why was Barack Obama such a sought after "prize" coming out of Harvard Law School?  Quite simply...he was a safe hire.  Large corporations (or in his case a law firm) wanted to hire a minority to be compliant with Affirmative Action.  They wouldn't hire a Michael Brown to work at an entry level job in their firm because he would be viewed as an "iffy" employee who might or might not work out and if he didn't work out then they would be faced with having to fire a minority and face a wrongful termination lawsuit.  As Sowell pointed out, businesses would be more apt to hire whites in those entry level positions because they could be let go with fewer complications if they didn't work out.  Why?  Because the Federal Government now has so many laws designed to "help" minorities from being discriminated against that they have made unskilled entry level minorities dangerous for employers to hire.



I hear you, and I even agree to a point, but I also don't agree that we are just handing out free money through welfare. When there is no compromise on the existing welfare program, instead of arguing and complaining about it I try to find a solution that might actually solve the situation instead.

That said, I'm not saying the gov. takes over private sector businesses at all, trust me I'm not that kind of idiot. lol

I'm gonna hide the rest cause it's a bit off topic heh


Spoiler: spoiler



Thing is I don't think any business owner in their right might would actually operate the "business" I propose because it's too risky so it almost has to be gov. run. It's got to be a) close to the 'ghetto' so they have easy ready access to it and b) it's 'hiring' people who have little to no job skills and questionable histories.  No private sector business owner would touch it with a ten foot pole.  So lets call it... the "Warehouse Welfare" program right?

It's not giving them a "government job" so much as making them WORK for government assistance, while simultaneously providing the poor with job skills they can use to get out of the situation they are in once and for all. Think of it more like an offshoot of education, and not just 'raw' education, but a more subtle education in some ways; because if you have to work 40 hours a week to get a welfare check, why not work 40 hours a week and get paid more, if that makes sense.  It based on the "You can give a man a fish and feed him for a day, or you can teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime" theory.

The reason I picked a 'business' is because they need JOB SKILLS, you can't learn those unless you are working in a "business."  The reason I settled on "warehouse" is because they'll be a good mix of skilled and unskilled jobs; hauling things around, sorting and organizing bulk shipments, running computers, customer service, even operating fork lifts; all skills that are desirable in the private job market. Ultimately, it would 'hopefully' make some profits that could be used to supplement, and hopefully eventually pay for, the costs of the 'new welfare program', it could increase the local economy of the 'ghetto', as well as bringing a glimmer of hope to the community, which the people clearly want since we've had 8 years of voting on "hope and change."  Hell run it as a non-profit for all that matters, the point is like I said, instead of handing them money, lets teach them to 'earn' money.


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 21, 2014)

This is another example of the decline of Marriage as a desirable social institution.  Children of unwed or divorced parents are much more likely to have emotional problems for which our society pays the price.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 21, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> This is another example of the decline of Marriage as a desirable social institution.  Children of unwed or divorced parents are much more likely to have emotional problems for which our society pays the price.



When I was a kid...the expression "Wait until your father gets home!" was uttered by my mother quite often.  I shudder to think about what little bastards we would have been if the threat of a spanking from dad wasn't in the mix.  Probably wouldn't be the person I am now...


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 21, 2014)

EverCurious said:


> ^ I agree.  However, technology has automated a lot of those jobs with good reason - they do a consistent better job than humans and they are cheaper to operate.
> 
> That said, the only unskilled labor jobs that require 'human' workers I can think of off the top of my head are construction, maybe packing/moving companies.  Neither of which, I'd imagine, are as needed in big cities. There's local stores that are going to need clerks and stuff like that, but there you get into job skills; handling cash, running a register, customer service, etc.  Janitor maybe?  There's just really not a lot of 'unskilled' jobs, period.
> 
> ...



Part of the problem is that it is just getting harder and harder to create a low-skilled job. People are pushing for higher and higher minimum wages. If you are required to pay a minimum wage, every worker is going to have to be _worth_ paying a minimum wage to. Every worker is going to have to do a minimum wage worth of work. And as T. Sowell pointed out in the video, if you aren't sure someone is going to be worth that minimum wage and you have to take a risk by hiring them to find out, you aren't going to take that risk on a minority. If you take that risk on a minority and find out they aren't willing or able to do that "minimum wage" worth of work, firing them opens you up to liability based on Affirmative Action. If you have to take a risk, you're going to minimize that risk by hiring the risky white guy over the risky black guy. Every time you push the minimum wage higher you make the risk of hiring a low skilled worker higher as well. With Affirmative Action that risk is stacked higher against minorities.


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 21, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > ^ I agree.  However, technology has automated a lot of those jobs with good reason - they do a consistent better job than humans and they are cheaper to operate.
> ...



Affirmative Action was a godsend for upscale minorities.  If you're someone like Barack Obama, who was raised by his white mother's parents and attended an elite prep school...you are the PERFECT candidate for an Affirmative Action appointment to either an elite college or a prestigious law firm.  Why?  Because as Joe Biden pointed out when he blurted out his reaction to Barack Obama...he's an upscale minority that isn't going to create problems.  He's well spoken, he's "clean", he isn't scary.  When Harvard named Obama as it's first President of the Harvard Law Review...they did so because they saw him as a safe way to address allegations that they discriminated against minority workers at the college.  "How can you say we don't treat minorities well when we just made a guy named Barack Obama the President of the Law Review!!!"

That was the point that Doctor Sowell was making 40 years ago when he said that Affirmative Action would NOT create jobs for low income minority kids from urban areas.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



Right, because at the skilled level the risk of having to fire someone for poor performance is lessened. At the skilled level, prospective employees have credentials to back them up: experience, degrees, certifications, etc. At that level minorities can get an advantage from Affirmative Action. The low-to-no-skilled level is more risky. That risk is what makes AA work against minorities for lower wage areas.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 21, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> Part of the problem is that it is just getting harder and harder to create a low-skilled job. People are pushing for higher and higher minimum wages. If you are required to pay a minimum wage, every worker is going to have to be _worth_ paying a minimum wage to. Every worker is going to have to do a minimum wage worth of work. And as T. Sowell pointed out in the video, if you aren't sure someone is going to be worth that minimum wage and you have to take a risk by hiring them to find out, you aren't going to take that risk on a minority. If you take that risk on a minority and find out they aren't willing or able to do that "minimum wage" worth of work, firing them opens you up to liability based on Affirmative Action. If you have to take a risk, you're going to minimize that risk by hiring the risky white guy over the risky black guy. Every time you push the minimum wage higher you make the risk of hiring a low skilled worker higher as well. With Affirmative Action that risk is stacked higher against minorities.



Edit: In rereading I missed your point on "racially inspired firing liability" and I concur with that as well.  Especially in a time when one can get sued for spilling hot coffee on themselves.

I concur and can even example it.  Back in the day, when I started working, you had a well defined set of 'jobs' even in small businesses - you had your secretary, you had your receptionist, you had your accountant, you had your manager, you had your assistant manager.  Today you often don't even have an assistant manager at all in a smaller business, often times your secretary is a receptionist and even bookkeeper.  And the manager usually has to be able to perform ALL those jobs so they can fill in for hours that the secretary is off (where as in the past they'd try to hire a second person, even if part time.)

I disagree that the 'hiring risk' is limited to minorities.  If anyone has a flaw on their record, it is often not worth a businesses time to train them; a short employment term with another place, getting fired from a job, something on their background check, a poor credit report in some jobs, or even the innocent misuse of wording on a resume/poorly formatted resume.  They say that the average time a resume is viewed is 30 seconds; you have to be affluent enough to make them want to pick you in that time or your resume is getting passed over. That is generally not a skill that low skilled workers have picked up yet, regardless of race.

Combine all of the above with a tight job economy and you end up with skilled people competing for low skill entry-level jobs, and obviously the businesses are going to hire the skilled prospective over the 'unknown' prospective.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 22, 2014)

EverCurious said:


> Edit: In rereading I missed your point on "racially inspired firing liability" and I concur with that as well.  Especially in a time when one can get sued for spilling hot coffee on themselves.
> 
> I concur and can even example it.  Back in the day, when I started working, you had a well defined set of 'jobs' even in small businesses - you had your secretary, you had your receptionist, you had your accountant, you had your manager, you had your assistant manager.  Today you often don't even have an assistant manager at all in a smaller business, often times your secretary is a receptionist and even bookkeeper.  And the manager usually has to be able to perform ALL those jobs so they can fill in for hours that the secretary is off (where as in the past they'd try to hire a second person, even if part time.)
> 
> ...



I'm pretty much a first-hand example of that last part. I just started a part-time second job yesterday. After my interview with the store manager they couldn't hire me fast enough. I'm not saying I'm any kind of star, but a little bit of intelligence was obviously more than they had expected to get from any applicants. A clean-shaven face, tucked-in shirt, and modicum of intelligence had them practically falling all over themselves to get me hired.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Aug 31, 2014)

Affirmative Action has done what it was designed to do: promote the hiring of QUALIFIED Blacks and White women. With cries of "reverse discrimination" and "unqualified minorities" ringing in their  ears, it was no wonder that employers sought the cream of the crop among Blacks....Blacks who had experience or training for the type of skill needed. Now, in this forum I am hearing an entirely different objection to AA.  In harmony with Sowell, some of you are now agonizing over the success of AA in creating a vibrant Black middle class. Well, those Blacks who were not qualified and could not be trained to compete were left behind...that's life. The best went on to better things as planned!


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 31, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Affirmative Action has done what it was designed to do: promote the hiring of QUALIFIED Blacks and White women. With cries of "reverse discrimination" and "unqualified minorities" ringing in their  ears, it was no wonder that employers sought the cream of the crop among Blacks....Blacks who had experience or training for the type of skill needed. Now, in this forum I am hearing an entirely different objection to AA.  In harmony with Sowell, some of you are now agonizing over the success of AA in creating a vibrant Black middle class. Well, those Blacks who were not qualified and could not be trained to compete were left behind...that's life. The best went on to better things as planned!



I'm not interested in fighting past battles so your choice to phrase the battle in the past tense indicates to me that you believe that the mission of AA is complete, after all "The best went on to better things as planned." So let's kill the creature from hell by driving a spike through it's heart and move forward to a fair and glorious future. Right? A fifty year run is long enough to cull the good from the bad.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Aug 31, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Affirmative Action has done what it was designed to do: promote the hiring of QUALIFIED Blacks and White women. With cries of "reverse discrimination" and "unqualified minorities" ringing in their  ears, it was no wonder that employers sought the cream of the crop among Blacks....Blacks who had experience or training for the type of skill needed. Now, in this forum I am hearing an entirely different objection to AA.  In harmony with Sowell, some of you are now agonizing over the success of AA in creating a vibrant Black middle class. Well, those Blacks who were not qualified and could not be trained to compete were left behind...that's life. The best went on to better things as planned!
> ...



Whether you are interested in fighting past battles or not is immaterial. There is always a new crop of qualified Blacks who gain experience from military service. or learn from relatives who took advantage of AA and started their own businesses. And don't think because the statistical gap in IQ between White groups and Blacks groups tells you anything about an individual. There are thousands of Blacks with high IQs who have exceeded the expectations of their employers and fellow workers time after time.. Now, you may think that revelation is an admission that AA is no longer needed. frankly, I think we need to look at the states that have banned AA in state government , private sector employment  and education...that is, as long as no federal funding is involved...i.e. contracts. etc. etc.!

After a careful review of the impact Affirmative Action bans have on Blacks in those states, especially those in the south,  the ensuing data may support a need to repeal it. Then again, I doubt if such  data WILL support a federal ban. Some , if not the majority of White posters right here on USMB are focused on Black negativity! That opinion seems to mirror the views of a majority of Whites. Pondering that unavoidable reality I  remain convinced that bright young blacks  with promising futures would become invisible without AA.

That might not be all bad! Should  American Blacks be forced to do business among themselves and forge alliances with sympathetic foreign entities for survival? Suppose Blacks took that 1.2 trillion dollars they pump into the US economy and ceased to pay billions in taxes based on taxation without representation. do I have to illustrate  the magnitude of that? Looking at AA from that perspective, it benefits White businesses far more than it does Black Americans...AS IS.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Aug 31, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > This is another example of the decline of Marriage as a desirable social institution.  Children of unwed or divorced parents are much more likely to have emotional problems for which our society pays the price.
> ...




You're mom waited until your dad got home? Mine beat the shit out of you then dad beat the shit out of you again when he got home, and if you resisted mom's whipping, well you didn't do that more than once.


----------



## Jackson (Aug 31, 2014)

EverCurious said:


> ^ I agree.  However, technology has automated a lot of those jobs with good reason - they do a consistent better job than humans and they are cheaper to operate.
> 
> That said, the only unskilled labor jobs that require 'human' workers I can think of off the top of my head are construction, maybe packing/moving companies.  Neither of which, I'd imagine, are as needed in big cities. There's local stores that are going to need clerks and stuff like that, but there you get into job skills; handling cash, running a register, customer service, etc.  Janitor maybe?  There's just really not a lot of 'unskilled' jobs, period.
> 
> ...



Can they do that?  Hiring only people on welfare sounds like a winner to me!


----------



## ninja007 (Sep 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Sowell's point back then was that Affirmative Action makes it much more likely for blacks with degrees or established job skills to be hired...thus making it a great thing for upper class blacks...but would make it less likely that a young black male with no job skills would be hired.  This was a view that was vigorously attacked at that time and yet four decades later the unemployment rate for young blacks is through the roof and cities like Ferguson are filled with young men who have no job opportunities.



I agree, but that is the symptom; not the cause. The cause is no fathers and high dropout rates; both lead to gang activity and crime and ultimately prison.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 1, 2014)

Jackson said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > ^ I agree.  However, technology has automated a lot of those jobs with good reason - they do a consistent better job than humans and they are cheaper to operate.
> ...




That's what I've been saying for years. What community doesn't need cleaning up? Trash picked up? Streets Swept? Etc etc. Why are we paying people for sitting at home? Workfare, not welfare.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 1, 2014)

Workfare ~ what an apt name indeed!  Still for me it's not specifically that they are 'all' lazy, though I do think an idea like mine would weed those folks out, it's more that a lot of folks are stuck in a trap of stereotypes and non-employability; be it due to culture or otherwise.  My father was always hiring ex-convicts to do little projects for our family and friends; when I was younger it concerned me greatly to be completely honest.  I eventually spoke to him about letting _those people_ into our home, mother and I's safety, fear of them stealing things, etc.  He told me that our justice system was broken in a way, for those who made mistakes as young adults and did their time, they could never live it down nor live a normal life.  He felt that ones record should be sealed a second time at around age 30 because folks in their 20s were just as stupid in their actions as children heh  Anyway, after that I started to get to know "those people" and I realized that they were a lot like me, except for that one mistake in their past.

Now of course there are some who are simply criminals and don't ever 'grow up' and join the rest of civilized America, but there are a lot who just fucked up and are ostracized despite serving their time; they are often left with no real choice but to live poor or return to crime.  That's not right either, but I digress.

I don't think such a 'workfare' idea would help pull everyone out of the ghettos, because unfortunately crime pays rather well, but for those who actually 'do' want out I think it would help get them on their way 'up'.  For the criminal types, I say we cut their power base and legalize drugs and regulate it like alcohol.  Make it a less lucrative field to get into in the first place and perhaps we can turn these folks around before they make stupid mistakes. Perhaps a bit of wishful thinking, but I think if we can just get them settled down on the right path they will 'grow up' as well. *shrug*


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 1, 2014)

EverCurious said:


> Workfare ~ what an apt name indeed!  Still for me it's not specifically that they are 'all' lazy, though I do think an idea like mine would weed those folks out, it's more that a lot of folks are stuck in a trap of stereotypes and non-employability; be it due to culture or otherwise.  My father was always hiring ex-convicts to do little projects for our family and friends; when I was younger it concerned me greatly to be completely honest.  I eventually spoke to him about letting _those people_ into our home, mother and I's safety, fear of them stealing things, etc.  He told me that our justice system was broken in a way, for those who made mistakes as young adults and did their time, they could never live it down nor live a normal life.  He felt that ones record should be sealed a second time at around age 30 because folks in their 20s were just as stupid in their actions as children heh  Anyway, after that I started to get to know "those people" and I realized that they were a lot like me, except for that one mistake in their past.
> 
> Now of course there are some who are simply criminals and don't ever 'grow up' and join the rest of civilized America, but there are a lot who just fucked up and are ostracized despite serving their time; they are often left with no real choice but to live poor or return to crime.  That's not right either, but I digress.
> 
> I don't think such a 'workfare' idea would help pull everyone out of the ghettos, because unfortunately crime pays rather well, but for those who actually 'do' want out I think it would help get them on their way 'up'.  For the criminal types, I say we cut their power base and legalize drugs and regulate it like alcohol.  Make it a less lucrative field to get into in the first place and perhaps we can turn these folks around before they make stupid mistakes. Perhaps a bit of wishful thinking, but I think if we can just get them settled down on the right path they will 'grow up' as well. *shrug*




Legalizing and regulating drugs would of course take away most of their incentive to be criminals, but criminals would find another illegal way to make a buck, proven by the fact that the mob didn't go out of business when prohibition was lifted. 

Frankly , I don't care if they show up and sit in a room for eight hours, NO ONE who is capable of working, should be allowed to just collect a check from uncle sam for nothing in return.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 1, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Legalizing and regulating drugs would of course take away most of their incentive to be criminals, but criminals would find another illegal way to make a buck, proven by the fact that the mob didn't go out of business when prohibition was lifted.
> 
> Frankly , I don't care if they show up and sit in a room for eight hours, NO ONE who is capable of working, should be allowed to just collect a check from uncle sam for nothing in return.



Agreed, there have always been criminals and there will always be some out there.  Still, the more rugs we can pull out from under 'organized' criminals the better; they foster a lot of it in those who might not otherwise commit crimes - gangs you can't get out of for fear of death and the whole showing off thing criminals do to entice young people into a life of crime.  The odd ball lunatic we can get past easily enough, but the organized folks are working against us.

My husband is the same way about the 'lazy' thing so I understand.  Throwing money at them for sitting around doing nothing... I guess it could keep them off the streets for 8 hours a day, but to me it isn't a "good enough" solution for the long run; for me it's not just about making them 'earn' their welfare, it is about trying to get them OUT of that mouse trap.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 1, 2014)

EverCurious said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Legalizing and regulating drugs would of course take away most of their incentive to be criminals, but criminals would find another illegal way to make a buck, proven by the fact that the mob didn't go out of business when prohibition was lifted.
> ...




Don't you think at least some of them would CHOOSE to find a away out of it if they had to go and sit in a room for 8 hours no TV, no XBox, no thing, you can bring a book if you like.

I mean I'd rather have them out sweeping the streets or whatever. My IDEAL would be each community hires them at minimum wage tax free and they work 40 hours a week around the community, even if that's just baby sitting so other parents can do other work around the community. If you don't want to work, then don't , but you aint getting any money.

Another idea is mandatory military service age 18-20 if you don't attend college. If we're paying the welfare, we may as well be paying them to be in the military.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 1, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Don't you think at least some of them would CHOOSE to find a away out of it if they had to go and sit in a room for 8 hours no TV, no XBox, no thing, you can bring a book if you like.
> 
> I mean I'd rather have them out sweeping the streets or whatever. My IDEAL would be each community hires them at minimum wage tax free and they work 40 hours a week around the community, even if that's just baby sitting so other parents can do other work around the community. If you don't want to work, then don't , but you aint getting any money.
> 
> Another idea is mandatory military service age 18-20 if you don't attend college. If we're paying the welfare, we may as well be paying them to be in the military.



The biggest problem I see with your sit in a room idea is that it just won't fly, it doesn't serve enough of a purpose and I think simply 'getting them off the street' won't sell it to the general public. We are going to have to 'give' something to change the current welfare system and I with a bit of marketing that we're giving folks job skills to help keep them off the system has a slightly better chance of being received by the general public.

I could see tying in community work stuff and paying folks for that though, it'd work in there - not too sure about the babysitting part just because of the safety issues though.  The government cannot endorse anyone as acceptable babysitters because that's just asking for lawsuits...  That said, you're right that a daycare system could help, perhaps extending some welfare funds to cover that would be a good idea; though I think that needs to be done through private sector.

mmm I can't agree with mandatory military service; I really think that would be asking for more trouble, especially in the current climate of authority rejection.  You're just asking for more difficulties like those that have come up with the riots and militarization of the police and stuff.  Plus, frankly, I don't want a bunch of people in the military who don't 'want' to be there; I'd rather our troops and their families be (at least mostly) committed to their duty and service to the country.  Our military needs to be voluntary, and frankly I'd like to see the draft removed because there are some folks that are just not cut out for military service.  I imagine there'd be a huge safety argument from folks as well; handing out easy access to military weapons and equipment would most likely halt that idea before it even made it to any kind of vote.

That said, there already *are* voluntary options like the Military Youth Academy programs that parents can send their kids too; problem is that the social/cultural environment that often exists in places like Ferguson tends to consider that a non-option.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 1, 2014)

hmmm ya know what, some kind of police ride along, investigation training, or forensic training type program would probably help a lot with the distrust issues in 'troubled' communities.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 1, 2014)

EverCurious said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you think at least some of them would CHOOSE to find a away out of it if they had to go and sit in a room for 8 hours no TV, no XBox, no thing, you can bring a book if you like.
> ...


 
Let's just be frank. Inner city blacks are the biggest problem, and the reality is they don't want to be helped.  Oh they'll take the handouts , but ask ANYTHING of them in return, and nope. 

It's going to take a brutal "nope, no more" to get their attention, and it will eventually come to that because the liberals just won't budge on the issue. They are NOT going to budge on this.

In reality the best course of action to take would be to pass a law stating that if you are one welfare for more than half of any election cycle you don't get to vote. PERIOD. If you keep letting the people who are sucking up all the benefits without giving anything in return vote, they are obviously just going to keep voting to keep giving them benefits without asking anything in return.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 2, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Let's just be frank. Inner city blacks are the biggest problem, and the reality is they don't want to be helped.  Oh they'll take the handouts , but ask ANYTHING of them in return, and nope.
> 
> It's going to take a brutal "nope, no more" to get their attention, and it will eventually come to that because the liberals just won't budge on the issue. They are NOT going to budge on this.
> 
> In reality the best course of action to take would be to pass a law stating that if you are one welfare for more than half of any election cycle you don't get to vote. PERIOD. If you keep letting the people who are sucking up all the benefits without giving anything in return vote, they are obviously just going to keep voting to keep giving them benefits without asking anything in return.



Most of them don't vote anyway, so that's not going to help I'm afraid.

I actually have no problem agreeing there are some who have no interest in being helped out of the situation; though I argue the reason is because they are not asked to do jack shit for the welfare and are in a bit of a mouse trap.  However, that is why I say they would have to actually 'work' for their 'welfare' and that the current welfare system would have to be scrapped entirely - this would effectively put those particular types at the mercy and whim of local charities who would either support them, or turn them out to die. 

Or yes turn to crime... Those who chose to turn to crime should be weeded out and, in my brutally honest opinion, thrown into cages like the uncivilized animals they wish to be. Frankly, I am of the opinion that if one cannot follow the laws, specifically more violent criminals, they should be treated as nothing more than fighting dogs and euthanized for the good of mankind if they cannot be 'rehabilitated.'  Since we are being brutally honest, I am actually ruthless enough to think that we should capitalize on such incurable criminals with televised Hunger Game like 'prisons.'  I have zero sympathy nor compassion for those who cannot keep their hands/knives/bullets/bats/ropes/etc. off innocent people. 

I actually don't have a heck of a lot of sympathy for non-violent criminals either; thieves, like CEO's who steal to buy nicer cars and shit like that.  Though I do admit I see entertainment value of throwing those incurable 'pansy' types in with the violent hardened criminals; we could make bets on how long they survived, maybe have a lottery and the winners could split any of the criminals 'left over' assets (retirement, life insurance, etc.) 

Anyway back to welfare, and my less uhm... vicious side  

Thing is, we have to offer *real* help before I am willing to condemn the _poor_ to such a life of bad choice death or bad choice crime.  Not just these bullshit programs that 'satisfy' the mislead sympathetic morals of bleeding hearts without actually addressing getting the poor out of the mess they've gotten/found themselves in, but a true effort to give the poor _obtainable_ opportunities to better their financial situation. Basically there needs to be another choice for survival than crime before I lose compassion and my 'dark side' comes out.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 2, 2014)

EverCurious said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Let's just be frank. Inner city blacks are the biggest problem, and the reality is they don't want to be helped.  Oh they'll take the handouts , but ask ANYTHING of them in return, and nope.
> ...




Maybe our darker side needs to come out. Maybe we need to just cut bait and tell these people , sink or swim.

One thing is for sure, we can't just keep dumping money into the black hole of welfare.


----------



## EverCurious (Sep 2, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Maybe our darker side needs to come out. Maybe we need to just cut bait and tell these people , sink or swim.
> 
> One thing is for sure, we can't just keep dumping money into the black hole of welfare.



heh I'm not quite sure the US would ever be ready for my darker side, but I do agree that we've got a welfare black hole that needs fixing.  We just have to figure out how and make it happen


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 2, 2014)

EverCurious said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe our darker side needs to come out. Maybe we need to just cut bait and tell these people , sink or swim.
> ...



Myself, I believe we need to start educating young black women NOT to get with black men. They are a danger to our society.

I mean look at them as a group. They are terrible fathers, they are criminals, they aren't very smart, they are more violent than any other group out there.

A black woman should be scared to death of a black man.

She's TEN times more likely to be raped by a black man than by a white man
She's EIGHT times more likely to be killed by a black man than a white man
She's TWELVE times more likely to be a single parent if a black man gets her pregnant than if a white man does.

Ladies, you're dooming your children by having kids with a black man. Is that cruel to say? Yes, but it's true. STOP having children with black men.


----------



## Ibentoken (Sep 3, 2014)

How come the Asian people never riot or act ignorant and rude?  They also have nice restaurants.  What's up with that?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 3, 2014)

Ibentoken said:


> How come the Asian people never riot or act ignorant and rude?  They also have nice restaurants.  What's up with that?



No one riots like the black Americans. NO ONE, not ever , in the history of the world. Why is that?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 15, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Sowell's point back then was that Affirmative Action makes it much more likely for blacks with degrees or established job skills to be hired...thus making it a great thing for upper class blacks...but would make it less likely that a young black male with no job skills would be hired.  This was a view that was vigorously attacked at that time and yet four decades later the unemployment rate for young blacks is through the roof and cities like Ferguson are filled with young men who have no job opportunities.



So yeah, I guess it's so much better to be an Uncle Tom saying "Sho enough boss, we sho be shiftless!"


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Sowell's point back then was that Affirmative Action makes it much more likely for blacks with degrees or established job skills to be hired...thus making it a great thing for upper class blacks...but would make it less likely that a young black male with no job skills would be hired.  This was a view that was vigorously attacked at that time and yet four decades later the unemployment rate for young blacks is through the roof and cities like Ferguson are filled with young men who have no job opportunities.
> ...



It obviously pains you that Thomas Sowell was correct in his point about Affirmative Action, Joe!  You doing your best Amos and Andy won't change that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 16, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The obvious pain is that Sowell is only taken seriously because someone hired him as an affirmative action hire.  talk about biting the hand that feeds you.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Sowell got to where he is because of hard work and his own intelligence not because of the color of his skin.  Too bad the same can't be said of our current President.  People like you hate people like Sowell because he didn't need Affirmative Action.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 17, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Sowell got to where he is because of hard work and his own intelligence not because of the color of his skin.  Too bad the same can't be said of our current President.  People like you hate people like Sowell because he didn't need Affirmative Action.



Thomas Sowell got to where he is because he tells dumb racist crackers like you what you want to hear.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 17, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I'm a "racist cracker"?  You're the person who thinks blacks need preferential treatment to succeed, Joe...Thomas Sowell is the proof that you're wrong which is why you hate him so much!


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 18, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> I'm a "racist cracker"?  You're the person who thinks blacks need preferential treatment to succeed, Joe...Thomas Sowell is the proof that you're wrong which is why you hate him so much!



No, I think they need fair treatment to overcome the racism of the people who make the hiring decisions. 

Here's the thing. The recently did a test.  Hundreds of identical resumes were sent to companies.  Some of them had "White" names. some of them had black names.   Guess which ones got call backs?  

Here's another example.  In 2012, we had three people leave my department.  We gave all three of them going away lunches.  

One was a middle aged Chinese woman who had been with the company for 9 years. 
One was a black woman who had worked with us for two years. 
one was a white, blonde intern who worked with us over the summer.

Guess which one the (White Male) General Manager made the time to attend the going away lunch for?

And that's just a subtle thing.  

But no problem, the Conservatives get a few Uncle Toms like Sowell and Ben Carson and Clarance Thomas to sing, "We sho be Shiftless, boss!" at your conservative minstrel show, and you feel much better about yourself.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 18, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



So you use Affirmative Action to "overcome" racist hiring practices and all THAT does is reinforce the attitude held by racists that minorities are inferior!  

The point that Sowell made 40 years ago...a point that has been shown to be spot on...is that Affirmative Action ISN'T something that's going to help the majority of poor blacks from the "ghetto" but something that will result in the hiring of "upper class" blacks...like Barack Obama.  Or have you forgotten Joe Biden gushing over what a "prize" Barry was because he was so clean?  So upper class blacks like Barack get helped by Affirmative Action and young blacks from lousy neighborhoods like Michael Brown get shot robbing stores and running from the cops because nobody wants to hire THEM.  Welcome to the year 2014 and Affirmative Action after 40 years!


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 18, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> So you use Affirmative Action to "overcome" racist hiring practices and all THAT does is reinforce the attitude held by racists that minorities are inferior!



Uh, no.  It prevents racists from imposing their stupidity in the workplace.  Obviously, nothing is going ot cure these guys of their stupidity. 




Oldstyle said:


> [
> The point that Sowell made 40 years ago...a point that has been shown to be spot on...is that Affirmative Action ISN'T something that's going to help the majority of poor blacks from the "ghetto" but something that will result in the hiring of "upper class" blacks...like Barack Obama.  Or have you forgotten Joe Biden gushing over what a "prize" Barry was because he was so clean?  So upper class blacks like Barack get helped by Affirmative Action and young blacks from lousy neighborhoods like Michael Brown get shot robbing stores and running from the cops because nobody wants to hire THEM.  Welcome to the year 2014 and Affirmative Action after 40 years!





Of course, the problem isn't that blacks like Mike Brown get shot.  That's because we have racist cops who shouldn't be cops.

No, the real problem is, there just aren't that many oppurtunities for anyone anymore. It's why I'm doing resumes for college kids with more debt than they can ever pay  off. 

But Thomas Sowell can say, "We sure is shiftless", and guys like you go along with the fact that your middle class lifestyle is being taken away. And instead of blaming the rich guy who sent your job to China, you blame the minority who maybe got considered before you because of race.  

Of course, the real beneficiaries of Affirmative Action haven't been blacks, they've been White Women.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 18, 2014)

affirmative action is racist several ways.  It presumes blacks are inferior. and it punishes more intellectually gifted applicants due to their race


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 18, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



If they have that much debt , why are they hiring someone to write their resume? I mean come on....


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 18, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



If you'd take your head out of your posterior and actually READ what Sowell said you might grasp that his point 40 years ago was Affirmative Action wouldn't help poor blacks because the blacks that would get hired would be upper-class...you know...the ones that closet racists like Joe 'Hoof in Mouth' Biden think are WONDERFUL because they are clean and well spoken?

The reason that the Mike Brown's of the world are getting left behind in shit holes like East St. Louis is that Affirmative Action did just what Sowell said it would do WAY BACK THEN...it left poor blacks with sub par educations behind while it allowed limousine liberals to pat themselves on the back for being "inclusive" as they gave a hand up to upper-class blacks that they felt comfortable with at the country club!


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 18, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



A better question would be why a college educated person would NEED help to put together a resume?  It's not exactly rocket science...


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 19, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> If they have that much debt , why are they hiring someone to write their resume? I mean come on....



Mostly, because resume writing isn't a skill they teach you in college.  Seriously, I see college students with three page resumes that the university prepares for them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 19, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> If you'd take your head out of your posterior and actually READ what Sowell said you might grasp that his point 40 years ago was Affirmative Action wouldn't help poor blacks because the blacks that would get hired would be upper-class...you know...the ones that closet racists like Joe 'Hoof in Mouth' Biden think are WONDERFUL because they are clean and well spoken?
> 
> The reason that the Mike Brown's of the world are getting left behind in shit holes like East St. Louis is that Affirmative Action did just what Sowell said it would do WAY BACK THEN...it left poor blacks with sub par educations behind while it allowed limousine liberals to pat themselves on the back for being "inclusive" as they gave a hand up to upper-class blacks that they felt comfortable with at the country club!



No, the reason Mike Brown is getting left behind is because the big corporations you love so much have spent the last 30 years gutting the middle class. The problem isn't that blacks are having a hard time getting into the middle class, it's that whites are having a hard time staying in it. 

Uncle Tom probably knows this, but he also knows his bread and butter is telling folks like you how shiftless black folks are and the reason why you got kicked out of hte middle class is because they gave your job to "those people'.  Remember Jesse Helms and his "White Hands" ad?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 19, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> > If they have that much debt , why are they hiring someone to write their resume? I mean come on....
> 
> 
> 
> A better question would be why a college educated person would NEED help to put together a resume?  It's not exactly rocket science...



Um, yeah.  and frankly, I've seen simply awful resumes written by college educated people.  

Here's the thing.  It's not a skill most people develop.   If you are doing it right, you probably only need a resume once every five years.   How good are you going to be at something you only do once every five years?  

The other part of the problem is objectivity.  People have a hard time being objective about themselves, which is where you get the aforementioned three page resume they never get a call back from.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> One was a middle aged Chinese woman who had been with the company for 9 years.
> One was a black woman who had worked with us for two years.
> one was a white, blonde intern who worked with us over the summer.
> Guess which one the (White Male) General Manager made the time to attend the going away lunch for?


That's because the General Manager was banging the summer intern.   ......


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 19, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> It does favor those that have a college degree over those who do not because white collar jobs have an exposure to more aggressive affirmative action policies. Universities have aggressive policies that get minorities on to the campus, but often they come from sub-standard school districts and cannot finish a BA.


I don't like the fact that math skills has as much weight as language skills. Because I was in a none college prep program in H.S. I had to take all of the courses in college that I avoided in H.S. But how often do we use Polynomials and Derivatives in real life?


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 19, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Affirmative Action has done what it was designed to do: promote the hiring of QUALIFIED Blacks and White women. With cries of "reverse discrimination" and "unqualified minorities" ringing in their  ears, it was no wonder that employers sought the cream of the crop among Blacks....Blacks who had experience or training for the type of skill needed. Now, in this forum I am hearing an entirely different objection to AA.  In harmony with Sowell, some of you are now agonizing over the success of AA in creating a vibrant Black middle class. Well, those Blacks who were not qualified and could not be trained to compete were left behind...that's life. The best went on to better things as planned!


Yup, it worked out really well for us.......


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 19, 2014)

again, guy, Obama didn't win because of Affirmative Action. 

Obama won because Bush messed up as badly as he did and perhaps destroyed the GOP Brand for life.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 19, 2014)

Affirmative Action programs for black teens are focused on the wrong areas; such as science, mathematics, or engineering.

Black youth today only want careers in either the NBA or the Rap music business.

So the Affirmative Actions programs need modernize and change their focus from academics to sports and pop culture.    .....


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 19, 2014)

Sunni Man said:


> Affirmative Action programs for black teens are focused on the wrong areas; such as science, mathematics, or engineering.
> 
> Black youth today only want careers in either the NBA or the Rap music business.
> 
> ...



Gosh, I hope you're not a teacher or an academic.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Since the amount of money blacks with college educations make has grown at a much faster pace than any other group over the past 40 years while at the same time the amount of money blacks without a college education make has gone down...it's obvious that Thomas Sowell was correct in his assertions made way back then that Affirmative Action would NOT in fact help poor blacks but hurt them.

Your attempt to blame "big corporations" for the Mike Browns of the world not being able to find good jobs is laughable.  You've got an education system predominantly run by liberals who pushed absurd concepts such as "Ebonics" so that kids like Mike Brown graduate without the basic skills needed to get a good job and then you want to blame "corporations" because he ends up being a thug on the streets?

Thomas Sowell started out his post college life as a Marxist but BECAME a proponent of Free Market Capitalism when he did a Federal Government internship studying the effects of minimum wage laws on the sugar cane industry of Puerto Rico.  Sowell was intelligent enough to grasp that Marxism didn't work well in the real world just as he was intelligent enough to grasp that Affirmative Action wouldn't work for poor blacks in the real world either.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> again, guy, Obama didn't win because of Affirmative Action.
> 
> Obama won because Bush messed up as badly as he did and perhaps destroyed the GOP Brand for life.



If not for Affirmative Action...nobody would have ever HEARD of Barack Obama let alone be having a debate about his competence.

It's how he got into Columbia...it's how he got into Harvard Law...it's how he became President of the Law Review.  None of those things happened because of what Barack Obama himself had accomplished and I suspect that the reason an "academic" like Barry won't release his college transcripts is that his graduation with honors happened because of it as well.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2014)

Every American today benefits from Affirmative Action

It has been a major success


----------



## sameech (Sep 19, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Affirmative Action has done what it was designed to do: promote the hiring of QUALIFIED Blacks and White women. With cries of "reverse discrimination" and "unqualified minorities" ringing in their  ears, it was no wonder that employers sought the cream of the crop among Blacks....Blacks who had experience or training for the type of skill needed. Now, in this forum I am hearing an entirely different objection to AA.  In harmony with Sowell, some of you are now agonizing over the success of AA in creating a vibrant Black middle class. Well, those Blacks who were not qualified and could not be trained to compete were left behind...that's life. The best went on to better things as planned!



I am indifferent with AA.  What I do think is that it is a double-edged sword.  For those who get the job they otherwise might not have gotten, it is a personal plus.  For everyone applicant who did not get the job because it was an AA hire, then it reinforces racist/sexist impulses they may have.

I was turned down for a job because I did not know that "Minorities and women are encouraged to apply" meant "We will only consider minorities and women, and preferable a two-fer black woman".  They said I was the best qualified applicant they had seen in years, _but_....

I didn't get all pissy about it though.  People I told about the experience got far more indignant about it than I did.  In my area, it is who you know that matters the most with most jobs, and that disfavors blacks, so I figured what comes around, goes around.  No big deal.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2014)

Affirmative Action answers a basic question....

How do you know that someone can't do something if you don't let them try?


----------



## jasonnfree (Sep 19, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > again, guy, Obama didn't win because of Affirmative Action.
> ...



Obama still passed the state bar and got his law license.  This we do know, besides our country doing pretty well under six years of Obama.


----------



## sameech (Sep 19, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Affirmative Action answers a basic question....
> 
> How do you know that someone can't do something if you don't let them try?



Well if it came to surgery, I would rather not be their learning curve LOL.

I do think it probably makes it harder for those who are not seeking jobs with the government & contractors because of the stigma associated with AA.  It might also depend on where you live.  In my state a discrimination claim is not as easy to maintain and even if you do, the courts/juries are not inclined to huge damage awards, so I think the existence of AA and equal opportunity laws are less of a factor in helping blacks, but rationalized racism does hurt them.  Probably is different in other places.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2014)

sameech said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Affirmative Action answers a basic question....
> ...


 
And that was used as a justification to keep women and minorities out of surgical schools. Prejudging that they will be unable to do the job, so why waste a med school slot?


----------



## sameech (Sep 19, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I just would want my surgeon to be well-qualified, regardless of their race, gender, nationality, or any other thing you want to toss in there LOL.  If it came to a person digging ditches or punching on a keyboard, don't care so much if they are still learning.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 19, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Pretty well?  Really?

Here's a little challenge for you, Jason...name something exceptional that Barack Obama accomplished as a lawyer.  He graduated with honors from Harvard Law.  He was given a position with a prestigious Chicago law firm right out of Harvard.  So tell me what Barry *accomplished *as a lawyer during that time?


----------



## sameech (Sep 19, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Doesn't matter.  If you are the head of moot court or law review and graduate near the top of your class, a law firm somewhere will hire you regardless.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 19, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Every American today benefits from Affirmative Action
> 
> It has been a major success



Kindly explain how Michael Brown benefited from Affirmative Action?


----------



## jasonnfree (Sep 19, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


 
My post had to do with Obama's being competent.  Not everyone can pass the bar exam after graduating law school.  He did.  Most Presidents we've had at least in the past 70 or so years were not particularly accomplished individuals before becoming president anyway.  I can only name Ike and Carter in my lifetime.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Every American today benefits from Affirmative Action
> ...


 
Tell me about his family history


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 19, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



With all due respect, Jason...compared to Barack Obama's "accomplishments" most of the Presidents over the last 70 or so years were VERY accomplished! 

I noted that you didn't even TRY to name something exceptional that Barack Obama did as a lawyer but rather fell back on his "accomplishment" of passing the bar.  The average number of people who pass the bar each year is more than fifty thousand.  It's not exactly a small fraternity!  Not everyone can pass a driver's license test either but that doesn't make doing so exceptional.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 19, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You stated that every American today benefits from Affirmative Action.  I simply asked you how Michael Brown benefited from AA but instead of answering that question you asked for a run down on his "family history".  Typical Winger post...


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 19, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Technically the key to undermining your game plan lies in the word "today" as posted in right wingers narrative . Michael Brown has been dead for over a month now. He is no longer living today.

Now, since you want to play games, I'll be your huckleberry. If Michael Brown was alive today it is obvious that he would still be benefiting from affirmative action in some way because, according to you and your ilk, any black that has a job got it through affirmative action. Adopting that paradigm for a moment, it can be applied this way: obviously, he was not living in squalor. From the size of him, he seemed to be well fed and nourished. And since there has been no reports that he or his care takers were on welfare; using your logic, AA must have been the reason for his apparent sustenance and shelter. That is check mate, silly rabbit. Go get a life!


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


How can I tell if I don't know his family history? 
What am I a mind reader?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 19, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Since the amount of money blacks with college educations make has grown at a much faster pace than any other group over the past 40 years while at the same time the amount of money blacks without a college education make has gone down...it's obvious that Thomas Sowell was correct in his assertions made way back then that Affirmative Action would NOT in fact help poor blacks but hurt them.
> 
> ...



Guy, nobody is out there teaching "ebonics".  

You do get that not everyone is cut out for college, and for those who aren't, there should be good paying jobs, right?   And there would be, if the Rich hadn't talked the politicians into signing idiot free trade treaties with third world countries. 

And frankly, I don't care what kind of studies led Uncle Tom to join the Minstrel show. 

Here's the thing that is telling.  He makes his money talking this smack to white audiences.  He'd be jeered off the stage if he ever talked to the brothers that way.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 19, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> Pretty well?  Really?
> 
> Here's a little challenge for you, Jason...name something exceptional that Barack Obama accomplished as a lawyer.  He graduated with honors from Harvard Law.  He was given a position with a prestigious Chicago law firm right out of Harvard.  So tell me what Barry *accomplished *as a lawyer during that time?



Two years after graduating, Obama was hired in Chicago as director of the Developing Communities Project, a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale on Chicago's South Side. He worked there as a community organizer from June 1985 to May 1988.[31][33] He helped set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[34] Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.[35] In mid-1988, he traveled for the first time in Europe for three weeks and then for five weeks in Kenya, where he met many of his paternal relatives for the first time.[36][37] He returned to Kenya in 1992 with his fiancée Michelle and his half-sister Auma.[36][38] He returned to Kenya in August 2006 for a visit to his father's birthplace, a village near Kisumu in rural western Kenya.[39]

Obama entered Harvard Law School in the fall of 1988. He was selected as an editor of the _Harvard Law Review_ at the end of his first year,[40] president of the journal in his second year,[34][41] and research assistant to the constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe while at Harvard for two years.[42] During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as an associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990.[43] After graduating with a J.D. _magna cum laude_[44] from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.[40] Obama's election as the first black president of the _Harvard Law Review_ gained national media attention[34][41] and led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations,[45] which evolved into a personal memoir. The manuscript was published in mid-1995 as _Dreams from My Father_.[45]

In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book.[45][46] He then taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, first as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.[47]

From April to October 1992, Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote, a voter registration campaign with ten staffers and seven hundred volunteer registrars; it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, leading _Crain's Chicago Business_ to name Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.[48]

He joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004. His law license became inactive in 2007.[49][50]

From 1994 to 2002, Obama served on the boards of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project; and of the Joyce Foundation.[31] He served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999.[31]

Man, what a SLACKER!! And we didn't even get to the part were he got elected State Senator, US Senator, and oh, yeah, PRESIDENT!!!!


----------



## jasonnfree (Sep 19, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I never said Obama was exceptionally accomplished as a lawyer.   I simply stated he passed the bar exam first time he took it, which a lot of people don't do. And you can't use  equal opportunity to pass the bar exam either.  I also stated that in my opinion, the  only exceptional people who became president in my lifetime were Carter and Ike.  My opinion of course.  And yes, Carter didn't have a very successful presidency most  will say.  On the other hand,  Carter also didn't make war on  other countries like presidents seem to do now, so maybe he wasn't so unsuccessful as president after all, considering how much these wars have cost us.   Accomplished, great, exceptional.  Who's to judge if a person is or isn't, usually it's a matter of opinion.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 20, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



Granted..."exceptional" is a matter of opinion!  Here's the thing though, Jason...I can point to most people of accomplishment and tick off the exceptional things that they did on the way to becoming accomplished and you can see the progression that led them to where they ended up.

Take George H. W. Bush for instance.  He became the youngest Naval aviator ever at only age 18 and won the Distinguished Flying Cross in WWII.  Became a millionaire after starting his own oil business.  Was the US Ambassador to the UN.  Was Chairman of the Republican National Committee.  Was the Director of the CIA.  All that was BEFORE he became a Vice President and President!

Now compare THAT to Barack Obama's adult life after leaving Harvard Law School after being named the first black President of the Harvard Law Review!

Barack Obama did not excel as a lawyer.  He did not excel as a professor at the University of Chicago.  He was absolutely awful as a State legislator in the Illinois State House!  Yet what's remarkable is that someone with that record of absolute mediocrity...somehow managed to not only become a US Senator but was elected President of the United States not once but TWICE!  I'm actually in awe of what Barack Obama was able to pull off, Jason!  He managed to con his way into the Oval Office with a vague campaign about "Hope & Change" and little more!  What he did was an astounding political feat and I really mean that!

The problem that he's faced ever since is that he's sitting in the Oval Office...arguably the most powerful job on the planet...and he doesn't have the faintest idea how to be a leader and do that job.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Yes, he DID hold positions with both a very prestigious law firm and a very prestigious university, Joe but is you REALLY look at his tenor at both what stands out is how Barack Obama DIDN'T stand out!  He got some great jobs because of that plum he was given by Harvard Law School when they named him the first black President of the Law Review but when you examine what he DID at those jobs what you see is someone that showed up.  The brutally honest truth is that Obama was not a gifted lawyer or professor!

And if you'd like to talk about his legislative record as an elected representative I'd be happy to oblige.  The truth there is even worse!  Barack Obama was such a bad legislator that not a single bill that he sponsored was passed in the first two years that he was in the Illinois State Senate.  He didn't get anything done until Emile Jones decided to make Barry into his "project" and started forcing other Democrats to let Obama sign onto THEIR work as a sponsor so he wouldn't look so inept...a practice that continued even after Obama got to the US Senate.  So if you REALLY want to have that conversation then bring it on!


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 20, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Affirmative Action answers a basic question....
> 
> How do you know that someone can't do something if you don't let them try?



I tried using that logic on women and they just didn't buy it - "Hey honey, how do you know that I'm not the love of your life unless you come to my place and have hot torrid sex with me?" 

It could have been my delivery, but I suspect that it was the screwed up logic you're pushing.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 20, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Every American today benefits from Affirmative Action
> 
> It has been a major success



Put down the peyote.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 20, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Yes, he DID hold positions with both a very prestigious law firm and a very prestigious university, Joe but is you REALLY look at his tenor at both what stands out is how Barack Obama DIDN'T stand out!  He got some great jobs because of that plum he was given by Harvard Law School when they named him the first black President of the Law Review but when you examine what he DID at those jobs what you see is someone that showed up.  The brutally honest truth is that Obama was not a gifted lawyer or professor!
> 
> And if you'd like to talk about his legislative record as an elected representative I'd be happy to oblige.  The truth there is even worse!  Barack Obama was such a bad legislator that not a single bill that he sponsored was passed in the first two years that he was in the Illinois State Senate.  He didn't get anything done until Emile Jones decided to make Barry into his "project" and started forcing other Democrats to let Obama sign onto THEIR work as a sponsor so he wouldn't look so inept...a practice that continued even after Obama got to the US Senate.  So if you REALLY want to have that conversation then bring it on!



Don't overlook the fact that a publisher CAME TO HIM and offered him a contract to write an autobiography because he was elected token black President of the law review. Have you ever heard of a publisher offering any other law student a publishing contract for an autobiography because they were elected as President/Editor of Law Review?

This guy's entire life has been about trading on his blackness.  Being raised apart from African-American culture was his winning lottery ticket. It changed his accent, changed his perspective and allowed him to be a white man in a black body.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Yes, he DID hold positions with both a very prestigious law firm and a very prestigious university, Joe but is you REALLY look at his *tenor* at both what stands out is how Barack Obama DIDN'T stand out!  He got some great jobs because of that plum he was given by Harvard Law School when they named him the first black President of the Law Review but when you examine what he DID at those jobs what you see is someone that showed up.  The brutally honest truth is that Obama was not a gifted lawyer or professor!
> 
> And if you'd like to talk about his legislative record as an elected representative I'd be happy to oblige.  The truth there is even worse!  Barack Obama was such a bad legislator that not a single bill that he sponsored was passed in the first two years that he was in the Illinois State Senate.  He didn't get anything done until Emile Jones decided to make Barry into his "project" and started forcing other Democrats to let Obama sign onto THEIR work as a sponsor so he wouldn't look so inept...a practice that continued even after Obama got to the US Senate.  So if you REALLY want to have that conversation then bring it on!



Tenor?  He was a great singer at his law firm?  

I live in IL, guy.  You obviously don't know a lot about IL politics.  I'm surprised you didn't throw in the canard about him voting "Present",  which is usually a sign of people who don't know what they are talking about. 

Now, true, working to better his community and representing his state isn't as noble as Uncle Tom Sowell telling audiences of white people how shiftless black folks are, but it is kind of important.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, he DID hold positions with both a very prestigious law firm and a very prestigious university, Joe but is you REALLY look at his *tenor* at both what stands out is how Barack Obama DIDN'T stand out!  He got some great jobs because of that plum he was given by Harvard Law School when they named him the first black President of the Law Review but when you examine what he DID at those jobs what you see is someone that showed up.  The brutally honest truth is that Obama was not a gifted lawyer or professor!
> ...



If you live in Illinois then I don't have to tell you who Emile Jones is...you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.  Obama voting "Present" on tough issues back then was simply a precursor to what we'd be getting from him later on as President.  It's "leading from behind" put into a one word form.

Thomas Sowell has never described black people as "shiftless".  He believes from personal experience that blacks can succeed despite closet racists like yourself declaring them to be in need of constant help to do so.  He believes that because he DID that!


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> If you live in Illinois then I don't have to tell you who Emile Jones is...you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.  Obama voting "Present" on tough issues back then was simply a precursor to what we'd be getting from him later on as President.  It's "leading from behind" put into a one word form.



You see, you couldn't help yourself.   He voted Present in about 3% of the roll-calls he was involved in.  Voting Present- usually on preliminary votes -  is a way to tell a bill's sponsors that you might be brought over if changes are made and it's a very common tactic. 

But if you knew anything about IL politics other than what you've heard on Hate Radio, you'd know this.    




Oldstyle said:


> [
> Thomas Sowell has never described black people as "shiftless".  He believes from personal experience that blacks can succeed despite closet racists like yourself declaring them to be in need of constant help to do so.  He believes that because he DID that!



And yet, he never brings this message to black folks, or even speaks in front of black audiences.  

Okay, we don't need affirmative action because minorities are "helpless".  We need them because those who make hiring decisions are usually white men, and they are more inclined to hire people who remind them of themselves, even if they aren't bigots.  

I don't think my boss was a bigot when he made more time for the White Intern than for the two minority buyers who had been with his company for years.  But it does show a mindset.  If you don't have set asides, those who have will take care of their own first.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



What Sowell predicted 40 years ago, when Affirmative Action was first made law, was that it would be a wonderful thing for well educated blacks and do nothing for poor blacks like Michael Brown.  So fast forward to 40 years later and it's obvious that Sowell was 100% correct in his predictions!  The average income of well educated blacks has grown more than any other segment of our society while at the same time the average income of blacks from poor urban areas has gone down more than any other segment of society.  Why is that?  Because people like Joe Biden LOVE well spoken, "clean" people of color like Barack Obama!  What's unsaid but quite obvious if you examine Biden's mind set, is that people like Joe Biden don't want anything to do with the Michael Browns of the world because they aren't well spoken and they don't look like they'd fit in at the country club!  Oh, they'll go through the motions to keep the black VOTES coming in but they aren't going to REALLY do anything to make a change.  Why would they?  They've trapped urban blacks like Michael Brown in a form of "entitlement slavery"!


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> What Sowell predicted 40 years ago, when Affirmative Action was first made law, was that it would be a wonderful thing for well educated blacks and do nothing for poor blacks like Michael Brown.  So fast forward to 40 years later and it's obvious that Sowell was 100% correct in his predictions!  The average income of well educated blacks has grown more than any other segment of our society while at the same time the average income of blacks from poor urban areas has gone down more than any other segment of society.  Why is that?  Because people like Joe Biden LOVE well spoken, "clean" people of color like Barack Obama!  What's unsaid but quite obvious if you examine Biden's mind set, is that people like Joe Biden don't want anything to do with the Michael Browns of the world because they aren't well spoken and they don't look like they'd fit in at the country club!  Oh, they'll go through the motions to keep the black VOTES coming in but they aren't going to REALLY do anything to make a change.  Why would they?  They've trapped urban blacks like Michael Brown in a form of "entitlement slavery"!



Guy, someone should have explained to you at an early age that repetition isn't an argument. 

Yes, Affirmative Action has helped well educated blacks.  It also helps working class blacks.  Of course, the main beneficiaries of Affirmative Action have been White Women... but that's a point you keep avoiding. 

As for Joe Biden, he has a 30 year record in the Senate of proposing legislation that has helped black folks.  And once in a while, he says something stupid because he doesn't engage his brain before he opens his mouth.   But I look at the totality of the man, not just the occasionally dumb thing he says. 

But you can tell yourself that Blacks are just voting Democrat because they are just so shiftless, if that's what makes you sleep better at night.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



And someone should have explained to you long ago that calling a black person who's views you don't agree with an "Uncle Tom" rather than presenting a valid counterpoint to their view is it's own form of racism!

You're right, Joe...Joe Biden has made "politician" his career since the early 70's.  He's been in the US Senate for DECADES and during that time the economic status of poor blacks has gone down more than any other group.  You want to look at the "totality" of the man?  Look at what the progressive agenda that he's championed has DONE for poor blacks in this country over the past 40 years!  

As for Biden's "brain"?  I don't think Joe Biden is very intelligent, Joe!  When he says "dumb things" it's because he's a "dumb person".


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> And someone should have explained to you long ago that calling a black person who's views you don't agree with an "Uncle Tom" rather than presenting a valid counterpoint to their view is it's own form of racism!



you're right.  I should have called him a "Self-Loathing Uncle Tom" in the interest of completeness. 



Oldstyle said:


> [
> You're right, Joe...Joe Biden has made "politician" his career since the early 70's.  He's been in the US Senate for DECADES and during that time the economic status of poor blacks has gone down more than any other group.  You want to look at the "totality" of the man?  Look at what the progressive agenda that he's championed has DONE for poor blacks in this country over the past 40 years!



Well, you see, guy, if you'd turn off the Hate Radio for more than five minutes, and maybe actually looked at the real world, no most working class blacks are better off than they were in the 1970's.   Working class whites are worse off, of course, because your wealthy Republican friends are doing a very good job of dismantling the middle class.  But they can scream "It's because of Affirmative Action", and you won't even notice they moved your job to China. 



Oldstyle said:


> [
> As for Biden's "brain"?  I don't think Joe Biden is very intelligent, Joe!  When he says "dumb things" it's because he's a "dumb person".



And yet he's accomplished far more than you ever will.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



So?

I mean that seriously. So?

You don't have a right to a job. I mean you understand that, right?

So what if I wanted to hire all twenty something big breasted blondes and no one else.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 20, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Also, don't overlook the fact that about 3/4 of the blacks admitted to Harvard and other prestigious universities are either bi-racial or are immigrants or the children of immigrants.

The native African-American population that AA was set up to serve is being cast aside as immigrant blacks or biracial blacks take advantage.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> So?
> 
> ...



Well, yeah, I guess so.  

But under the sensible, fair and decent laws we have, if you passed up a more qualified black man for that job, then that's discrimination and he has cause to sue.  

Now, it would be nice is we all DID have a right to a job.  That would solve a lot of problems.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> [
> 
> Also, don't overlook the fact that about 3/4 of the blacks admitted to Harvard and other prestigious universities are either bi-racial or are immigrants or the children of immigrants.
> 
> The native African-American population that AA was set up to serve is being cast aside as immigrant blacks or biracial blacks take advantage.



Then you should change the laws to make sure that original group are the ones being helped.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



How are the laws fair to me? If I want to hire a roomful of incompetent, but beautiful, employees. Who's business is that but mine?

You certainly don't have a right to force me to hire competent help. Shit we can't even force each other to vote for competent politicians.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I'm past the point of caring. I want all Affirmative Action torn down.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> How are the laws fair to me? If I want to hire a roomful of incompetent, but beautiful, employees. Who's business is that but mine?
> 
> You certainly don't have a right to force me to hire competent help. Shit we can't even force each other to vote for competent politicians.



You see, I think you don't understand the concept of "fair".  

Fair means exactly that.  All sides deal with each other honestly.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



So, I could honestly tell a black man " sorry I prefer hot young blonde employees" and he could honestly go find a job somewhere else.

what's the problem?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rikurzhen said:
> ...



Of course, you do.  

YOu suffer under some delusion the rich care more about you because of the pigment of your skin, and would reward you for it if those do-gooders weren't giving the darkies a step up.  

Here's a hint. They don't.  

This is when I became a liberal.  When I figured out that I had more in common with the Hispanic Lesbian on the production line than I had with my fellow white male in the corner office who was just looking for an excuse to screw me over.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



Sure, if you want to get hit with a big old lawsuit for not following the law. 

YOu work under the assumption I care about business owners.  I don't.  I assume they are up to no good which is why we need OSHA, EEOC, the EPA and every other agency to keep them from screwing the rest of us.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




well, that about sums up liberals

"hey if you can't succeed on your own join us we'll blame someone else"


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I've already stated on this board that I believe that there is a white civil war taking place. Idiot leftist whites are engaged in fratricide and are using minorities as allies to wage war against normal whites. Oh, you'd be one of them, so i guess you don't need me to spell out your idiocy.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 20, 2014)

You have to understand where Joe B is coming from...he got fired from a job and ever since he has a knee jerk hate towards anyone that owns a business.

Now he wants Government to protect him from the mean 'ole owners!


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> well, that about sums up liberals
> 
> "hey if you can't succeed on your own join us we'll blame someone else"



Naw, I just don't count success the way you do.  

I don't count success as h ow many Dressage HOrses and Mansions the rich have. 

I count success on how many decent working people are living middle class lifestyle.  

And it's progressives - Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, Clinton, who got us there.  

It's Conservatives -  Coolidge, Reagan, the Bushes-  who have been trying to reverse that.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 20, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> You have to understand where Joe B is coming from...he got fired from a job and ever since he has a knee jerk hate towards anyone that owns a business.
> 
> Now he wants Government to protect him from the mean 'ole owners!



Exactly as I said. He even admitted it.

I became a liberal when I realized I couldn't succeed on my own merit.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> [
> 
> This is when I became a liberal.  When I figured out that I had more in common with the Hispanic Lesbian on the production line than I had with my fellow white male in the corner office who was just looking for an excuse to screw me over.



I've already stated on this board that I believe that there is a white civil war taking place. Idiot leftist whites are engaged in fratricide and are using minorities as allies to wage war against normal whites. Oh, you'd be one of them, so i guess you don't need me to spell out your idiocy.[/QUOTE]

You see, the problem is, what do you consider "normal".  

NOrmal to me is trying to get by, do my job, pay my bills, and enjoy a few creature comforts and cheap pleasures.  It means not having to worry that slipping on some ice would totally fuck up my life because I ran up some medical bills that was cutting into rich people's profits.  

And it wasn't the Lesbian, Hispanic babe who was screwing me over.  It was what I guess you would consider a "normal" white guy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You have to understand where Joe B is coming from...he got fired from a job and ever since he has a knee jerk hate towards anyone that owns a business.
> ...



actually, I do just fine on my own merit. 

I just don't mistake the corner office for my friend.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The "corner office" is your BOSS, Joe...if you can't understand that concept then it's no wonder you struggle to understand so many others.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> You have to understand where Joe B is coming from...he got fired from a job and ever since he has a knee jerk hate towards anyone that owns a business.
> 
> Now he wants Government to protect him from the mean 'ole owners!



No, i was illegally let go for a medical issue.  And they spent a year trying to get around the legal protections that were there to keep them from doing exactly what they did.  

And, yes, I want the government to protect me from people who would screw me over. 

I want government to protect me from people who would put carcinogens in my workplace, so I'm not coughing up chunks of my lungs like my dad was at 56.  

I want the government to make sure businesses aren't importing lead poisoned toys from China that my nieces and nephews might play with.  

I'm just not sure why you don't.  Although I am sure your answer will involve "Freedom" or some other such garbage you heard on Hate Radio.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> The "corner office" is your BOSS, Joe...if you can't understand that concept then it's no wonder you struggle to understand so many others.



Right. He has the right to demand certain work from me.  

Nothing more. NOthing less. 

He doesn't have the right to deny me medical attention. (He once made me delay an operation for six weeks because of a data transfer, because I might be out for one day.  No, seriously, this happened.) 

And, yes, I want the government to bring a big hammer down on them when they get out of line.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> You see, the problem is, what do you consider "normal".
> 
> NOrmal to me is trying to get by, do my job, pay my bills, and enjoy a few creature comforts and cheap pleasures.  It means not having to worry that slipping on some ice would totally fuck up my life because I ran up some medical bills that was cutting into rich people's profits.
> 
> And it wasn't the Lesbian, Hispanic babe who was screwing me over.  It was what I guess you would consider a "normal" white guy.



I once explained to you why increased diversity in society destroyed job prospects and social trust within society and you didn't want to hear that jazz. Remember? So yes, it was that Lesbian Hispanic chick and others who eroded the social ties that held us all together.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




so, one white guy screwed you over (so you say) and so now you want to screw all whites over?


seems reasonable.

oh and I don't want to hear your whining about having to put a surgery off for 6 weeks either. I've had to put off seeing my wife and children for a year. Several times.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> I once explained to you why increased diversity in society destroyed job prospects and social trust within society and you didn't want to hear that jazz. Remember? So yes, it was that Lesbian Hispanic chick and others who eroded the social ties that held us all together.



I'm sure that shit flies on Stormfront.  

No, diversity doesn't damage society.  Lots of nations have diverse societies, and they are just fine.  

What causes problems is income inequality. It's what happens when 1% controls half the wealth and still doesn't think they have enough. It's what happens when the richest country in the world lets children go to bed hungry or poor people die of treatable diseases.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> so, one white guy screwed you over (so you say) and so now you want to screw all whites over?
> 
> seems reasonable.



No, just the ones who own businesses and aren't treating their employees right. 

Most white folks are in the same boat I'm in.  You're just too dense to realize it.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Irrelevant to the topic of affirmative action. I am very pro raising the minimum wage. Has nothing to do with telling me who i can and can't hire.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I'm too busy working my ass off to pay $106K in federal income tax a year to hatching plans to "get" some guy in a "corner office" Joe


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> Irrelevant to the topic of affirmative action. I am very pro raising the minimum wage. Has nothing to do with telling me who i can and can't hire.



You know, I used to think like that.  

Then I watched how most bosses actually hire, and how people with experience get passed over for someone's cousin or someone's drinking buddy.  

You see, here's the problem.  YOu didn't build that, as a wise man once said.  If you have a business, it's because the rest of us enabled you to have one.  Your customers, your employees, and even folks who just pay for the infrastructure that allows your business to thrive even though they never did any business with you. 

If the rest of us have to subsidize the contract law and patents and infrastructure and police and fire protection and utilities that make your business thrive, then it's not unreasonable that we ask you to be fair in your employment and hiring practices.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> I'm sure that shit flies on Stormfront.
> 
> No, diversity doesn't damage society.  Lots of nations have diverse societies, and they are just fine.
> 
> What causes problems is income inequality. It's what happens when 1% controls half the wealth and still doesn't think they have enough. It's what happens when the richest country in the world lets children go to bed hungry or poor people die of treatable diseases.



No, it flies at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc. It's now a well established finding in social science that diversity destroys society.

That income inequality that you don't like today was caused by flooding the labor market with immigrants. The golden age you refer to, the 50s to late 60s, when income inequality was at its lowest was also the period of time when foreign born people comprised the lowest percentage of total population.

Here is the problem, it's been clearly identified for you on a number of occasions, so has the solution, but you want to cling to open immigration and multiculturalism more than you want to lower income inequality. Only a child wants two mutually contradictory things at the same time. Here in the real world you have to pick ONE outcome and one outcome only.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> I'm too busy working my ass off to pay $106K in federal income tax a year to hatching plans to "get" some guy in a "corner office" Joe



Why is it that all you guys claim to be soooo rich always show up on the internets... 

No, seriously, I've met more "millionaires" on the internet than I've ever met in real life.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




again, that has NOTHING to do with affirmative action Joe


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I can't explain other people. Myself, I married a wealthy woman . 

Deal with it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> [
> No, it flies at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc. It's now a well established finding in social science that diversity destroys society.
> 
> That income inequality that you don't like today was caused by flooding the labor market with immigrants. The golden age you refer to, the 50s to late 60s, when income inequality was at its lowest was also the period of time when foreign born people comprised the lowest percentage of total population.
> ...



I'm not sure what you are talking about.  The neighborhood I grew up in the 1960's, was full of white immigrants from Poland, Ireland, Italy.  My own father was born in Germany before WWII.  So I'm not sure where you think this morotorium on immigrants was, exactly.  

There was a golden age, but it was because. 
1) 33% of the workforce was unionized. 
2) The super rich were paying confiscatory tax rates.
3) The government heavily invested in infrastructure.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> again, that has NOTHING to do with affirmative action Joe



It kind of has everything to do with it. 

Here's the thing I keep repeating and you all keep ignoring. 

The main beneficiaries of "Affirmative Action" have been-  wait for it - white women.  Affirmative action gave them access to the workplace they never had before. And they've done very well with it.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...




And here's what you don't understand. Affirmative action has KILLED wages. 

It's put more people in the work force AND forced companies to hire people who are not qualified to meet quotas and so wages are down.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> And here's what you don't understand. Affirmative action has KILLED wages.
> 
> It's put more people in the work force AND forced companies to hire people who are not qualified to meet quotas and so wages are down.



Guy, I've never met the mythical "unqualified minority" you all keep talking about.  

I've met the Daughter of the friend of the lady who was blowing the Regional Manager. 

I've met the guy from the loading dock who was drinking buddies with the GM who got promoted to production scheduler. 

Also, I don't see putting "more people in the work force" as a bad thing.  Quite the contrary, when Clinton had unemployment under 4%, it was kind of an awesome time to be working.  You could pretty much send out a resume written in Crayon and get a better job offer.


----------



## MaryL (Sep 20, 2014)

Well, I would like to chime in here and say that the media fanned the flames of racial  hate in Ferguson. The media focused on  the singular issue of race. Even thought blacks themselves are their  own worst enemies, but when  two white  reporters get their  heads chopped off by Muslim extremists, the media dropped Ferguson and the riots STOPPED dead in it's tracks the next day. Shame on the press. We notice stuff like this, don't let the  media lead you around by the nose.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

MaryL said:


> Well, I would like to chime in here and say that the media fanned the flames of racial  hate in Ferguson. The media focused on  the singular issue of race. Even thought blacks themselves are their  own worst enemies, but when  two white  reporters get their  heads chopped off by Muslim extremists, the media dropped Ferguson and the riots STOPPED dead in it's tracks the next day. Shame on the press. We notice stuff like this, don't let the  media lead you around by the nose.



Um, actually, the demonstrations were mostly over before the beheadings became a big thing. 

And, yes, when a white cop shoots a black kid in the middle of the street when he was trying to give up, and then the police force is caught repeatedly lying about it, that's kind of an issue.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The Immigration Act of 1924 was operational until superseded by the Immigration Act of 1965 and that opened the floodgates wide:

The *Immigration Act of 1924*, or *Johnson–Reed Act*, including the *National Origins Act*, and *Asian Exclusion Act* (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that* limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% *of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, and Jews, in addition to prohibiting the immigration of Arabs, East Asians, and Indians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity".[1] Congressional opposition was minimal.​Look at these two graphs. Think about them. Apply your knowledge of economics to the situation.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 20, 2014)

Again, guy, you'd be a riot on Stormfront, but the real world, not so much.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, guy, you'd be a riot on Stormfront, but the real world, not so much.



You've made your choice - you want to keep flooding the labor markets with immigrant workers. This lowers the bargaining power of labor and results in increased income inequality.

Now quit your bitching about the income inequality that YOU'RE CAUSING.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Well, that clears up why you can't get ahead...


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You have to understand where Joe B is coming from...he got fired from a job and ever since he has a knee jerk hate towards anyone that owns a business.
> ...



Gee, Joe...here's a RADICAL concept...why don't you leave the job where people screw you over and go work for people who don't?  Or better yet...why don't you start your own business and then you can run it the way you think it should be!


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Affirmative Action answers a basic question....
> ...


You miss the effectiveness of affirmative action

It opened up thousands of opportunities to minorities and women. In the beginning, many failed because they were ill prepared. But enough succeeded that you hardly notice any more

Affirmative action was a major success


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, guy, you'd be a riot on Stormfront, but the real world, not so much.
> ...



I'd be all for enforcing the labor rules.   But we dont' do that. Instead what we do is tell rednecks and yokels that we done gunna build us a fence and keep the wetbacks out.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Gee, Joe...here's a RADICAL concept...why don't you leave the job where people screw you over and go work for people who don't?  Or better yet...why don't you start your own business and then you can run it the way you think it should be!



Or here's a more radical idea.  Instead of trying to figure out how many douchebags work at a company based on one or two 30 minute interviews, we just change society where working folks have protections from douchebags. 

Naw.  That's too simple.  Rich people should totally have the right to fuck over people who work for them.  I mean, "Freedom".  Er. "Founding Fathers".   Ummm... "Liberty".   That's the "Conservative Way", flipping through your copy of Ayn Rand.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Um, no, I just point out the obvious. Stuff was pretty good under Clinton. 

IN 2000, I got fed up with Civilian Job #2, because they fired a friend of mine for the horrible crime of showing up at the Company Holiday Party with her life-partner. who happened to be another chick.  And even though I wasn't really terribly qualified for the next job I applied for, I still got the foot in the door. That was the joke I was trying to emphasize. I'm sorry it went over your head.  It was a 20% pay increase on day one. Sweet.  

Not to worry, Bush managed to screw that one up pretty quickly.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

You must be an absolute "joy" to work with, Joe!  You're the whiniest thing I've run across in years!  Everybody else BUT you is to blame for the fact that you don't do well at work.  Oh boo hoo!!!


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> You must be an absolute "joy" to work with, Joe!  You're the whiniest thing I've run across in years!  Everybody else BUT you is to blame for the fact that you don't do well at work.  Oh boo hoo!!!



I do fine at work, guy. 

I just don't kiss management's ass or pretend they are as brilliant as they think they are.

Fact of the matter is I have co-workers from three jobs back willing to do testimonials for me. Even some managers.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You must be an absolute "joy" to work with, Joe!  You're the whiniest thing I've run across in years!  Everybody else BUT you is to blame for the fact that you don't do well at work.  Oh boo hoo!!!
> ...



Oh, I'm sure you were the popular guy around, Joe!  You're such an up beat ray of sunshine!  Why do I have the feeling your co-workers would probably be willing to give you a testimonial because they were all worried you'd show up at work with an assault rifle one day and they didn't want to be on "Crazy Joe's" hit list?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Oh, I'm sure you were the popular guy around, Joe!  You're such an up beat ray of sunshine!  Why do I have the feeling your co-workers would probably be willing to give you a testimonial because they were all worried you'd show up at work with an assault rifle one day and they didn't want to be on "Crazy Joe's" hit list?



Right. Because clearly you know me better than people who work with me in person every day. 

YOu see, guy, I don't speculate on you much beyond what you say here.  Which is usually incriminating enough. 

Hey, guy, here's the thing.  Capitalism is a shit sandwich for most working people.  I know you have a hard time grasping that why you wonder why Obama got elected twice, but most of us don't see a political system that only benefits the few at the expense of the rest of us as a good thing. 

Main reason why I'm liked by my co-workers.  I'm funny and no matter how busy I am, I'm always willing to stop what I'm doing to help someone with a problem.  These things probably don't even rate in your "I've got mine, Screw you" world of Ayn Rand worship.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You must be an absolute "joy" to work with, Joe!  You're the whiniest thing I've run across in years!  Everybody else BUT you is to blame for the fact that you don't do well at work.  Oh boo hoo!!!
> ...



Oh, that IS impressive.

Not


You don't seem to understand that you are at work to do a job. PERIOD. Not make political statements, nor whine about the unfair treatment. You don't like it, leave. 

Now , back to affirmative action. You still have not given me a legitimate reason why the government should be able to force me to hire competent help if I don't want to.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I hate to pour ice water on your little rant, Joey...but capitalism has taken more of the world's people out of poverty than any other thing that's ever happened in the history of this planet.

You're funny all right...


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> Oh, that IS impressive.
> 
> ...



Already working on that, but that's not the point I was making. If I do show up and do the job, then I expect people to do what they promise to do.  For instance, if they say, "Hey, Joe, your compensation includes medical insurance", I don't expect them to spend a year trying to get me off the payroll because I actually filed a claim against that insurance. 




SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> Now , back to affirmative action. You still have not given me a legitimate reason why the government should be able to force me to hire competent help if I don't want to.



Sure. For the same reason the government is obligated to stop the brothers from looting your place of business.  Because your business can't exist without the government allowing it to.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> I hate to pour ice water on your little rant, Joey...but capitalism has taken more of the world's people out of poverty than any other thing that's ever happened in the history of this planet.
> 
> You're funny all right...



Capitalism has done nothing of the sort.   

What took people out of poverty is democracy and the willingness of working people to fight for a fair deal. 

That's why we have a holiday called "Labor Day". 

We don't have one called "Capitalist's Day".


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I expect people to take keep their word to, and if they don't I move on. I don't cry to the government.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Once again, Joe...you can't see the forest for the trees!  The government is "obligated" to stop looters from destroying businesses because government understands that it can't exist without the revenues that businesses provide.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Capitalism replaced feudal economics, Joe and brought more people out of abject poverty than anything that's ever happened on this planet.  Don't let your "foaming at the mouth" hatred of everyone you've ever worked for blind you to how much better off workers are NOW than they were back in olden times!  If it wasn't for Capitalism we wouldn't have Labor Day...we'd have "Serf Day".


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 21, 2014)

Back to the actual topic, has anyone as of yet provided a logical reason why the government should be allowed to prevent me from hiring incompetent workers if I wish?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> I expect people to take keep their word to, and if they don't I move on. I don't cry to the government.



well, I do take it to the government if I think they can manage things better.  

For instance, we should take the whole health care thing completely out of the hands of employers.  Single Payer, government sets costs, which is exactly what every other industrialized nation does.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Capitalism replaced feudal economics, Joe and brought more people out of abject poverty than anything that's ever happened on this planet.  Don't let your "foaming at the mouth" hatred of everyone you've ever worked for blind you to how much better off workers are NOW than they were back in olden times!  If it wasn't for Capitalism we wouldn't have Labor Day...we'd have "Serf Day".



Yeah, but it wasn't because of Capitalism.  Correlation does not equal causality.  

Or to put it another way, Captialism was developed in the 16th Century.  Working folks didn't really get out of poverty until the 20th.   (And there are still far more people who go to bed hungry every night than who can call themselves "Free".)  

If workers are better off, it's because Government and Unions did something about it, not the greedy Capitalists.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 21, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> You miss the effectiveness of affirmative action



Who gives a damn? For every unqualified person to be admitted a qualified person who earned a shot is denied opportunity simply due to his being white.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Once again, Joe...you can't see the forest for the trees!  The government is "obligated" to stop looters from destroying businesses because government understands that it can't exist without the revenues that businesses provide.



I agree.  Government is obligated to stop looters. 

They are also obligated to stop greedy business owners from cheating their employees and customers.  

That's why I always find you anti-Government types so hilarious.  YOu aren't against government.  You are against government working for the hired help.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 21, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > You miss the effectiveness of affirmative action
> ...



He's avoided that entire argument by claiming that affirmative action has made sure that under qualified whites haven't been hired of qualified minorities,

So, I've also changed my question. Where does the government get off telling me I must hire qualified help?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 21, 2014)

Joe, I'm sorry that Long John Silvers, McDonalds, Taco Bell and Burger King have all fired you, but for the love of God, there are lots of other fast food joints. Some even owned by minorities.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The same way it gets off telling you that you can't dump carcinogens into the local water supply or you can't have a machine on your shop floor that regularly takes the arms off the hired help.  

The common good outweighs your desires.   You don't like it, too bad.  

Because, frankly, integrating minorities into the work force is a greater common good than whether you get to run your business your way.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > You miss the effectiveness of affirmative action
> ...



Not every job opening comes down to one qualified guy and everyone else is unqualified

Affirmative action has helped every American. The major beneficiaries have been women. 

Affirmative action only hurt white males who were used to having jobs reserved for them


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Joe, I'm sorry that Long John Silvers, McDonalds, Taco Bell and Burger King have all fired you, but for the love of God, there are lots of other fast food joints. Some even owned by minorities.



I do love how you guys want to make it a personal issue. 

Of course, if I had to defend racism and economic inequality, I'd be trying to change the subject, too. 

Like  I said, I used to be as Right wing as most of you clowns.  Now I know better. 

For the record, I have 30 years experience in Logistic and Purchasing Management, I'm Six Sigma and APICS certified.  

And every civilian employer I've worked for has been some kind of douchebag.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > You miss the effectiveness of affirmative action
> ...



Ohhhh.... poor white people, they have so little.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Rikurzhen said:
> ...



Please explain how my company being competent has any affect on the greater good.

If my company isn't competent it probably won't last long. Has nothing to do with the government., self preservation says I should probably hire competent help.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Joe, I'm sorry that Long John Silvers, McDonalds, Taco Bell and Burger King have all fired you, but for the love of God, there are lots of other fast food joints. Some even owned by minorities.
> ...




LOL you remind me of my ex wife. we got married when we were 19 divorced by the time we were 21. She just divorced her FOURTH husband.

We were all douchebags.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> LOL you remind me of my ex wife. we got married when we were 19 divorced by the time we were 21. She just divorced her FOURTH husband.
> 
> We were all douchebags.......



Since I don't know your wife, I can't comment on who was in the wrong there.  Given the typical callousness and selfishness you've shown here, though... 

But my roll call of infamy includes the company that lied to us about closing down our facility for a year, before they actually did.  THis was my first job out of the Army.  We had to call OSHA on these clowns to get them to provide us with the proper equipment to do our jobs.  In the four years I was there, they had nearly 90% turnover of employees. 

Second job was the one where they fired the gal for being gay.  

Third job was the Japanese Company.  They weren't that bad, except the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing half the time.  I probably have the least complaints with this company, because they actually let people go based on seniority.  They probably shouldn't have expanded the team they were planning to eliminate, though. 

The capper were the last bunch before this one. These were the guys who fired employees if they had medical issues.  Pretty much after that, I stopped making excuses for employers.  I do caveat that if I had left at Year 5, I'd probably not be quite so bitter.  It was the last year they pretty much screwed me over after I destroyed my knee. 

The current bunch.  NOt bad people, but they pay really crappy and they've been moving the jobs overseas, which is why I'm on the hunt again after six years.  

Now, here's the thing. When you get rid of unions, when you have Republicans not standing up for working folks, you get behavior like this.  

And, no, I'm not swayed that this is okay because, "It's my property" or "Freedom" or any of the other excuses for selfishness you guys come up with.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

I should point of the companies I worked for, the two involved in the least amount of douchebaggery were the Japanese and British owned companies.   Not a good commentary on American attitudes towards working folks.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


They used to have all the top jobs set aside for them

That is why they hate affirmative action


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Highly illegal, and I doubt it happened.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> Please explain how my company being competent has any affect on the greater good.
> 
> If my company isn't competent it probably won't last long. Has nothing to do with the government., self preservation says I should probably hire competent help.



It's not a matter of competence, it's a matter of common good. If your company goes out of business but poisons the water supply, then it didn't matter if you were a good businessman or not.  the damage you did to everyone else is far greater. 

Anyone who tells me he can't find competetent people of color is just plain old lying.  Sorry, I've been in the civilian workplace for 22 years.  I have yet to meet the "Got Hired for Affirmative Action" incompetent.  I have met the Idiot cousin and the friend of the friend and the drinking buddy.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Poising the water supply is illegal regardless of who I hire.

Next


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Technically, prostitution and drugs are "highly illegal".  Yet it still happens. 

Here's the problem with that.  We do have common sense laws that keep people from doing what you say.  But in IL and most states, they have "At Will" employment.  

Now, in my case, they first tried to reclassify my job to something that wasn't my field.  When I did really well at that, they gave me no responsibilities at all.  The idea was to get me to quit on my own. Finally, they just paid me a severance package if I promised not to sue them.  

And I was lucky in that I had been there six years and had a firm work record with six years of solid reviews.  They also made a show of firing the idiot cousin at the same time and then rehiring her a few weeks later. (They then fired a dozen more senior employees a few months after that.) 

Other people weren't so lucky. Two girls with less than a year in got fired right after they announced to the office they were pregnant.  Another fellow with 20 years with the company snapped a tendon in his arm and was let go almost as soon as the therapist cleared him to go back to work. 

The problem is, you could file a lawsuit.  One guy did and eventually got a settlement for $300,000, but it took him three years.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> Poising the water supply is illegal regardless of who I hire.
> 
> Next



discriminating against people due to skin color, sex or disability is illegal regardless of who you hire. 

Next.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Joe...you are SO clueless about economic history it's amusing to watch you spout off with this nonsense!  

The truth is that with the advent of capitalism, working people's lot in life improved so drastically it's not even funny and that was LONG before the advent of unions and had little to do with governments.  I don't think you have any concept of how miserable an existence it was for laborers back in feudal times.  Capitalism changed EVERYTHING...but you can't see that because of your rabid hatred of your ex-bosses who you think screwed you over!


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I'm not anti-good government, Joe.  I am however anti big, bloated and totally inefficient government!

As for "greedy business owners"?  The majority of business owners in the US these days go to work every day and struggle just to keep the doors open.  They are burdened with mountains of governmental red tape and regulations that further handicap them as they try to keep ungrateful idiots like yourself employed and if they DO make a profit they have to defend themselves from the Left that they don't care about "people"!


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

Why don't you start your own business, Joe?  You can show us all how to do it "right".

Oh wait...that would actually require ambition and taking chances...never mind...


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Joe...you are SO clueless about economic history it's amusing to watch you spout off with this nonsense!
> 
> The truth is that with the advent of capitalism, working people's lot in life improved so drastically it's not even funny and that was LONG before the advent of unions and had little to do with governments.  I don't think you have any concept of how miserable an existence it was for laborers back in feudal times.  Capitalism changed EVERYTHING...but you can't see that because of your rabid hatred of your ex-bosses who you think screwed you over!



Again, guy, I got a degree in history.  Yes, it was probably pretty miserable to work on a medieval farm.  It was equally miserable to work in early factories.  Children in Coal mines, people who lost fingers in industrial accidents.  And the Capitalists were too busy counting their money to make things any better. 

Yes, Capitalism changed everything. Just not for the better.  We will be very lucky if it doesn't cause the extinction of the whole planet.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Why don't you start your own business, Joe?  You can show us all how to do it "right".
> 
> Oh wait...that would actually require ambition and taking chances...never mind...



Isn't that kind of like telling a rape victim to buy a strap on and show us how it's "done right"? 

(Incidentally, I do own a business. Thanks.)


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> I'm not anti-good government, Joe.  I am however anti big, bloated and totally inefficient government!
> 
> As for "greedy business owners"?  The majority of business owners in the US these days go to work every day and struggle just to keep the doors open.  They are burdened with mountains of governmental red tape and regulations that further handicap them as they try to keep ungrateful idiots like yourself employed and if they DO make a profit they have to defend themselves from the Left that they don't care about "people"!



Guy, I deal with small businesses every day. a lot of them spend a lot of time trying to keep on my good side so I throw more orders their way.  I'm not impressed with them, really.  Most of them probably never should have gone into business to start with. 

I could only imagine what some of them would be like if the governmetn wasn't keeping them from pouring garbage into the water supply.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Sounds like an evil company. Who ran it, Ebenezer Scrooge?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> Sounds like an evil company. Who ran it, Ebenezer Scrooge?



Please.  Even Scrooge wasn't this intentionally douchy.  

I used to think the problem was just this one manager. That said, once he left (only about six months after I did) they brought in some other guy who was just as bad.  He just got fired because they caught him with his hand in the till.  

The one silver lining.  When I got my start writing resumes for people, my first customers were employees of this company.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



If the level of person this company was employing were people who needed assistance writing a resume, then I can see why they had such a high turnover ratio. They hired morons.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> If the level of person this company was employing were people who needed assistance writing a resume, then I can see why they had such a high turnover ratio. They hired morons.



Guy, I'm sure if you sent me your resume, I could point out a bunch of mistakes on it.  

I've written resumes for everyone from Bank Vice Presidents to Waitresses at Hooters, and the one thing I've found out is that 99% of people don't know how to write a resume.  I've written two for human resource managers. 

I give a guarantee, if I read your resume and I think it's just fine as it is, I'll tell you as much at no charge. 

You know what.  Never had that scenario happen.  Maybe once, but this woman taught professional writing.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Honestly, I've never had a resume. The Army just told me where to go .


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Come on Joe...if you're going to pretend to have a degree in history at least TRY and know something about the subject!  Working in early factories was infinitely better than working on medieval farms...which is why a mass migration of workers took place from the country into cities to work in factories.  That didn't take place because early factory jobs were as bad as farm jobs...it took place because people got paid more for those factory jobs and had a better quality of life.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you start your own business, Joe?  You can show us all how to do it "right".
> ...



That may be the stupidest analogy made on this board EVER, Joe...


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Maybe once?  You're not sure?


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not anti-good government, Joe.  I am however anti big, bloated and totally inefficient government!
> ...



It seems like the only folks you ARE impressed by, Joe...are unions and the government.  I hate to tell you but you come across as someone who's desperately unhappy with his lot in life and is looking for someone to blame because YOU didn't become one of the 1%.  God knows it COULDN'T be your fault...


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Come on Joe...if you're going to pretend to have a degree in history at least TRY and know something about the subject!  Working in early factories was infinitely better than working on medieval farms...which is why a mass migration of workers took place from the country into cities to work in factories.  That didn't take place because early factory jobs were as bad as farm jobs...it took place because people got paid more for those factory jobs and had a better quality of life.



Not really, guy. But you keep telling yourself that Capitalism was so wonderful and those riots working folks did in the 19th century were just a hissy-fit. 

How bad was Capitalism in the 19th century.  People actually though Communism sounded reasonable.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> 
> It seems like the only folks you ARE impressed by, Joe...are unions and the government.  I hate to tell you but you come across as someone who's desperately unhappy with his lot in life and is looking for someone to blame because YOU didn't become one of the 1%.  God knows it COULDN'T be your fault...



Like I said guy, until about six years ago, I was as right wing as you. 

Then I realized, I couldn't be the knid of guy like my boss who would fire a girl because she was pregnant. 

If that's what it takes to be a 1%er, you can have it.  Because the pitchforks are a comin' for those fuckers, and it will be fun to watch.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



That was marginal.  I rewrote it for her anyway. Gave her a few stylistic points I thought she could improve on. But this woman was a published author, probably not much I could do for her. 

Do try to get bogged down in details. It spares you from having to discuss what an evil system you defend.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yeah, I realize that you guys hate that analogy.  

But it's apt.  "Hey, if you don't like the way your boss treats you, start your own business."

"Hey, if you don't like the way you got raped, here's a dildo, go rape someone a "nice" way." 

I think it works perfectly.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> Honestly, I've never had a resume. The Army just told me where to go .



So essentially, you have no real experience with a private sector employee.  

Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Sep 21, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Many years ago I took an economics class at Amherst College with Thomas Sowell.  I remember quite vividly Sowell's objections at that time to Affirmative Action and the reasons WHY he said that it would ultimately fail for low income people.  I went back to see if I could find anything online from Sowell on that topic and found the following:
> 
> 
> That was from almost forty years ago.  Affirmative Action worked amazingly well for Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett...but hasn't done a THING for young black males like Michael Brown.


interesting connection, bit of a reach concluding that AA helped cause this since you must conclude that w/o AA there wouldn't be any criminal assholes out there.

however, if AA had forced the hiring of more black cops, it might have been a black cop that shot him and if that had happened, we would never have heard of this shooting.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 21, 2014)

Also, to Oldstyle, Capitalism in the United States was fueled by "King Cotton", an industry that relied on Slavery for its expansion.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Answer me this, Joe...

Was the working man better off BEFORE Capitalism or after?

People thought Communism sounded great before they saw it in practice!  (It's kind of like a Barack Obama Presidency.)


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Also, to Oldstyle, Capitalism in the United States was fueled by "King Cotton", an industry that relied on Slavery for its expansion.



You're bound and determined I'm some southern redneck racist, aren't you, Joe?   Sorry to disappoint but my great grandfather was an officer with the 54th Massachusetts Infantry.  He lost an arm in the battle for Fort Wagner in South Carolina.  

As for Capitalism in the US being fueled by cotton?  Without question cotton played a major role in the US economy and did indeed fuel Capitalism but then again Capitalism in the US was also fueled by the textile and whaling industries in New England as well as an abundance of some of the best farming land in the world.  More than anything else, Capitalism was fueled by the dawn of the Industrial age.  Cotton was a holdover from Agrarian times.  It was the creation of things like power looms and cotton gins that fueled Capitalism as much if not more than the use of slavery to pick cotton.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It was a perfect combination of stupid and offensive, Joe!  You keep trotting it out there, even if each time you do, you come across as "crazy Uncle Joe"...you know the guy that has too much to drink at holiday dinners and says things he shouldn't until Aunt Sally has had enough and hauls his drunk ass home?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 22, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Answer me this, Joe...
> 
> ...



Depends which working man you were talking about. 

Capitalism certainly made life for the slaves in the South a hell of a lot worse.  It went from something that was slowly being phased out to something that was quite brutal.  People who worked in coal mines, children who were working around industrial machines, their lives were made a lot worse so the Carnegies and other Robber Barons could live large.  

Sorry, man, Capitalism is a shit sandwich for most people. The reason why it's less of one is because of Democracy and unionization and technical advancement.  Left to their own devices, Capitalists will pretty much kill off hte planet for another Dressage  Horsie. 

Or as Herbert Hoover once opined "The Problem with Capitalism is Capitalists.  They're too damned Greedy." 

We got a big old reminder of that in 2008.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 22, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> It was a perfect combination of stupid and offensive, Joe!  You keep trotting it out there, even if each time you do, you come across as "crazy Uncle Joe"...you know the guy that has too much to drink at holiday dinners and says things he shouldn't until Aunt Sally has had enough and hauls his drunk ass home?



No, it's offensive to you because you are an apologist for Greed.  It's not offensive to the guy who got let go because after six years of loyal service and hard work, he was cut because he had the bad luck to bust up his knee.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 22, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, to Oldstyle, Capitalism in the United States was fueled by "King Cotton", an industry that relied on Slavery for its expansion.
> ...



Guy, you don't get credit for what ancestors did. 

Cotton was not a holdover from agrarian times.  Cotton was the fuel of the capitalist industrial machine, which is why the North was happy to tolerate slavery for as long as it did and they pitched such a bitch when the South decided to secede and maybe sell that Cotton to the British.  And when the Rednecks put Jim Crow into place, everyone was just peachy with it.  

Sorry, man, Capitalism has been a force for evil.  The only reason why it is less evil is because we have laws keeping them from behaving badly.  Unless we are stupid enough to put Republicans in office, and those laws don't get enforced. 

Once again, see "Crash of 2008".  Oh, no, wait. That was poor people buying houses.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Capitalism brought more people out of abject, grinding, degrading poverty then anything else that's ever happened on this planet!  You wouldn't have HAD unionization and technical advancements without it.  The United States certainly wouldn't have become the great nation it used to be without it.  Your "take" on history is laughable, Joe!


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I don't get "credit" for what my ancestors did...but you're only to happy to blame Southerners for what THEIR ancestors did?  Your history professors must have gotten such a chuckle out of you, Joe...I know I do!


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



It's offensive because it's a disgusting analogy that I can only guess you thought would be "shocking".  Rape and strap-ons, Joe?  Really?


----------



## sameech (Sep 22, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Kind of ignored the role of droughts and dustbowls, title restrictions against black ownership of land, and such in that Spark Notes version of history didn't you?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 22, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Capitalism brought more people out of abject, grinding, degrading poverty then anything else that's ever happened on this planet!  You wouldn't have HAD unionization and technical advancements without it.  The United States certainly wouldn't have become the great nation it used to be without it.  Your "take" on history is laughable, Joe!



Again, repetition is not an argument, but your faith-like belief in markets is touching. 

America is a great nation because of democracy and equality, not because a few rich jerks got to live in mansions.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 22, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> It's offensive because it's a disgusting analogy that I can only guess you thought would be "shocking".  Rape and strap-ons, Joe?  Really?



Naw, man, I think it shows the kind of "blame the victim" mentality that permeates "conservative" thought. 

She got raped?  Well,t hat's what she gets for wearing a short dress.  

Your job got moved to China?  That's what you get for demanding decent wages.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 22, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> I don't get "credit" for what my ancestors did...but you're only to happy to blame Southerners for what THEIR ancestors did?  Your history professors must have gotten such a chuckle out of you, Joe...I know I do!



No, I blame Southerners for not looking back at that bit of history with profound shame.  All the bubbas out there with their Confederate flags like that's something to be proud of.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Kindly show me one conservative , who isn't a Muslim, who has claimed that a woman in a short dress deserved to be raped.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You should try reading a book once in awhile Joe, many Northerners who fought for the Union OWNED slaves until AFTER the Civil War.

Slavery


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 22, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yeah, so?  

Southerners were the ones who were willing to break up the country to keep their slaves, and then spent the next 150 years pretending that was something they should be proud of.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Northerners were all too willing to allow slavery to keep the country together. And now pretends that that part of history never happened.

Face it, neither side cares about the negro, the south is just more honest about it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 22, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> Northerners were all too willing to allow slavery to keep the country together. And now pretends that that part of history never happened.
> 
> Face it, neither side cares about the negro, the south is just more honest about it.



If you went back to my previous posts, I was quite clear that CAPITALISTS in the North were just peachy fine with slavery in the south, despite OldStyle's belief about the sanctifying power of unbridled greed. 

But you know, there really was a point where you look back at slavery and call it a horrible wrong and if you had someone in your family tree who fought to maintain it, you cross their name out of the family bible. 

You know, not like.. uh, this...


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Well, I actually would argue that blacks were better off as slaves , and certainly there is no argument that society was better off when they were slaves...

Before you get your panties in a wad, that doesn't mean I suggest we go back to slavery. Just making a point that sometimes good intentions lead to bad results.

But anyway, the Confederate flag, for many, represents MUCH more than slavery. Myself, I think unless you own a 69 Dodge Charger you shouldn't have one, but eh Freedom man, what you gonna do.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 22, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> Well, I actually would argue that blacks were better off as slaves , and certainly there is no argument that society was better off when they were slaves...
> .



I think we should have a rule that when someone says that, we should actually have them forced to live like a 1850 slave did for a month, including rapes and whippings.  

I'm sorry, man, I was really, really trying to take you seriously, but I can't after this.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Dude, VERY few slaves were actually whipped. I mean you know that. Does a farmer go around abusing his horse?

And I'm white, so I wouldn't be a slave by 1850 standards

And once again, you understand that I'm not advocating returning to slavery don't you? I'm simply saying blacks are worse off now than they were then. Do you argue that point?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 22, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> Dude, VERY few slaves were actually whipped. I mean you know that. Does a farmer go around abusing his horse?
> 
> ...



Uh, no, whippings were common.  And often done for no other reason to satisfy bloodlust.  

And, yes, I would argue the hell out of the stupid, mindless racist assertation that blacks are worse off today.  

Seriously, guy, why don't you check in at Stormfront.  

Hey, Oldstyle, I'm waiting for you to refute this guy.  Prove me wrong.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



No they weren't "common" numerous historical texts tell us that. Doesn't make the ones that did happen any less bad though.

Blacks actually fared worse under Reconstruction than the did under slavery.

I'm not a racist sir, I simply argue from a historical stand point here.

How many blacks are in prison, dead, or on welfare right now? Far more than were ever enslaved.

See, they've enslaved themselves. Far worse than any institution of slavery ever did.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 22, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> No they weren't "common" numerous historical texts tell us that. Doesn't make the ones that did happen any less bad though.
> 
> ...



Your argument was not that Reconstruction was worse than slavery. (which it probably wasn't.)  

Your argument (back in Post #213- ahhh, memories) was that they are worse off NOW (you know, in 2014 when a black man is president) and society would be better off if they WERE still slaves.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I maintain that BOTH are true.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 22, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Yes, I know you do.  

And frankly, I'm just not sure how to respond to that. I'm really not.  

Again, when you volunteer to live like that for a few years, then MAYBE you could argue it's virtues.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Sonny, at WHAT point did I say slavery was virtuous?


----------



## sameech (Sep 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Well if you look what is happening to blacks and poor people in today's US with a profound sense of shame and take no pride in the American flag, then perhaps you have standing to make that statement, otherwise, not so much.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 23, 2014)

sameech said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > No, I blame Southerners for not looking back at that bit of history with profound shame.  All the bubbas out there with their Confederate flags like that's something to be proud of.
> ...



Bullshit.  Decent Americans fought to end slavery.  Thousands died under the Stars and Stripes to put an end to Slavery.  As opposed to the Stars and Bars, where thousands of dumb Bubbas put themselves out of the gene pool so a few rich jerks could own slaves.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 23, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



Again, you really can't backpedal away from what you said in Post #213.


----------



## sameech (Sep 23, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yet you did not address a single point I was making (and Lincoln only emancipated the southern slaves)


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 23, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The Civil War was not *all* about slavery, Joe.  In the South it is sometimes referred to as The War for State's Rights because many southerners believed the conflict was over their rights to self govern and a Federal Government intruding on those rights.  Many poor southerners who didn't own slaves ( I believe only about 10% of people below the Mason Dixon Line actually owned slaves) still fought for the Confederacy because they felt outsiders were imposing on their rights.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 23, 2014)

sameech said:


> [
> 
> Yet you did not address a single point I was making (and Lincoln only emancipated the southern slaves)



I'm sorry, what was your point, exactly?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 23, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> The Civil War was not *all* about slavery, Joe.  In the South it is sometimes referred to as The War for State's Rights because many southerners believed the conflict was over their rights to self govern and a Federal Government intruding on those rights.  Many poor southerners who didn't own slaves ( I believe only about 10% of people below the Mason Dixon Line actually owned slaves) still fought for the Confederacy because they felt outsiders were imposing on their rights.



Guy, it was entirely about slavery. 

And, yes, I'm sure that a lot of dumb-ass rednecks fought for the Confederacy for the same reason they vote Republican.   'I might be dumb-ass white trash, but I'm better than them coloreds!!!!"  

In fact, the whole Modern GOP strategy is based on that.  

My plan is to open Lincoln's Tomb, Wrap a copper coil around him, and collected all the electricity as he spins in his grave. we could probably light up Springfield.


----------



## sameech (Sep 23, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



America still sucks donkey balls for a lot of people, especially blacks.  There is a growing sentiment that has lead many blacks to refuse to celebrate the 4th of July.  How is displaying the stars and bars any different than displaying the American flag if sentiments over slavery is your justification?  Do you think they love being reminded that the country was founded by people who only considered them 3/5ths a person, and then only for white political advantage, but otherwise treated them as property?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 23, 2014)

sameech said:


> [
> 
> America still sucks donkey balls for a lot of people, especially blacks.  There is a growing sentiment that has lead many blacks to refuse to celebrate the 4th of July.  How is displaying the stars and bars any different than displaying the American flag if sentiments over slavery is your justification?  Do you think they love being reminded that the country was founded by people who only considered them 3/5ths a person, and then only for white political advantage, but otherwise treated them as property?



I don't know, I served with a lot of blacks who loved their country when I was in the Army.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 23, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



So did I , that doesn't mean they all do. Just like everyone who lives in the south doesn't want to return to slavery.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Use some common sense, Joe...since only about 10% of Southerners were wealthy enough to hold slaves there obviously had to be something else that made the others willing to fight against the North.  You REALLY got a degree in history and still spout nonsense like poor Southerners fought for the Confederacy only because it made them better than coloreds?  I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed...you or whoever your college professors were!


----------



## Bush92 (Sep 24, 2014)

Affirmative action plays no role there. This was a liberal media event to try to stir liberals in an election year. Humongous thug attacks a police officer and got shot. End of story.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 24, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Use some common sense, Joe...since only about 10% of Southerners were wealthy enough to hold slaves there obviously had to be something else that made the others willing to fight against the North.  You REALLY got a degree in history and still spout nonsense like poor Southerners fought for the Confederacy only because it made them better than coloreds?  I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed...you or whoever your college professors were!



GUy, the whole history of America is rich people getting poor people to fight wars for them.  This is why people are still butthurt about Vietnam.  Poor people finally said "no".  

Now I'm sure before they put Cleetus into a gray uniform and sent him out their to die for their right to continue to own slaves, they told him some shit about how he was fighting for his state and Jesus and whatever else... 

But, no, guy. The Civil War was about slavery.  Deal with it.


----------



## Bush92 (Sep 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Poor people? Oh, yeah, victim status thing again. I disagree with Joe. History of America has been one of struggle and success. Overcoming hardships and growing into the greatest nation on earth.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 24, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> [
> Poor people? Oh, yeah, victim status thing again. I disagree with Joe. History of America has been one of struggle and success. Overcoming hardships and growing into the greatest nation on earth.



Okay, if you want to believe the Puppies and Sunshine version of history we teach gradeschoolers, have at it. 

Reality- this country was built by slavery, genocide of the Native Americans and exploitation of immigrant labor. The only bright spot being that at certain points, working folks said "enough" and did something about the worst of it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



So the average Southerner was simply too "stupid" to know that he was being tricked into fighting for something else?  Is THAT your contention, Joe?

I'm constantly amazed at the smug people on this board who think everyone below the Mason Dixon line are right out of Deliverance!  Once and for all...the fact that someone has a "southern accent" does not mean they have a lower IQ than someone who does not!  Indeed the fact that you DO think that, Joe leads me to the conclusion that YOU are not the brightest bulb on the tree!


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



What's laughable about that little rant, Joe is that what you're spouting is the current "Puppies and Sunshine" version of history that is being taught by liberal educators throughout the nation.  They would have you believe that this country WAS built by slavery, genocide and exploitation...while ignoring the ambition, innovation and sacrifice that millions of Americans put into making this country great.  They focus on the negative while ignoring what it was that made America the nation that the rest of the world wanted to live in.


----------



## sameech (Sep 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



This country was built by access to free/cheap land and abundant coastal resources.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 24, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




No doubt, pretty sure Bill Clinton has/had a southern accent, and agree or disagree with his politics the man was obviously brilliant, they don't make just anyone a Rhodes scholar.

Just as an example.

Hell, I have a southern accent, Goes good with my PhD from Princeton LOL


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 24, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> So the average Southerner was simply too "stupid" to know that he was being tricked into fighting for something else?  Is THAT your contention, Joe?
> 
> I'm constantly amazed at the smug people on this board who think everyone below the Mason Dixon line are right out of Deliverance!  Once and for all...the fact that someone has a "southern accent" does not mean they have a lower IQ than someone who does not!  Indeed the fact that you DO think that, Joe leads me to the conclusion that YOU are not the brightest bulb on the tree!



Uh, yeah, guy, I really do think that Southerners are that piss-ignorant. and I'm sure the ones from 150 years ago before we instituted Public Education were even dumber, if that was possible.  

Yes, I hear a Southern Accent, I treat them like I'm dealing with Corky the Retard.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I'd rather deal with a person with a southern accent than some piece of shit from Jersey.

Seriously, you judge people by an accent? How is that ANY different than judging someone by their skin color?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 24, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> What's laughable about that little rant, Joe is that what you're spouting is the current "Puppies and Sunshine" version of history that is being taught by liberal educators throughout the nation.  They would have you believe that this country WAS built by slavery, genocide and exploitation...while ignoring the ambition, innovation and sacrifice that millions of Americans put into making this country great.  They focus on the negative while ignoring what it was that made America the nation that the rest of the world wanted to live in.



Um, no, despite what you've heard on talk radio, they don't.  

What they do in Public Schools, is teach to what's going to be on the test.  I had a discussion with my then 14 year old niece about Columbus, and used a globe to explain to her what Columbus was trying to accomplish and why.  But she hadn't heard any of this because 'it wasn't on the test". 

And, yes, the kids really do need to hear about slavery and genocide.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 24, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> I'd rather deal with a person with a southern accent than some piece of shit from Jersey.
> 
> Seriously, you judge people by an accent? How is that ANY different than judging someone by their skin color?



Skin tones don't denote culture or intelligence.  Accents do.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Accents denote where a person was raised, nothing more. Certainly not intelligence.  Bostonians have some of the worst accents in the world, yet I'm quite sure there are intelligent people in Boston

You sir are no better than the racists you rail on about.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 24, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> 
> Accents denote where a person was raised, nothing more. Certainly not intelligence.  Bostonians have some of the worst accents in the world, yet I'm quite sure there are intelligent people in Boston
> ...



Yup, where you were raised. 

So if you were raised in a place where they fly the Confederate Flag like that is something to be proud of and they all talk about how Jay-a-zus hates the Gays and the Liburels, it's not a big guess that you are going to be piss ignorant.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Gee, Joey...since Washington, Madison and Jefferson were Southerners...I take it that you find THEM too "piss-ignorant" to have held office as well?

Bill Clinton?  Hillary? Newt Gingrich? Martin Luther King? Lyndon Johnson? Jimmy Carter?  Too "piss-ignorant" to have held their positions in society?

Just how stupid *ARE* you?  Seriously...


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




You do realize that not everyone with a southern accent believes "Jay a zus" hate they gays don't you?

Most people in the south don't care about gays, because most people in the south aren't gay.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 24, 2014)

I have a sneaking suspicion that Joe still thinks Bull Connor is the Police Chief in Birmingham, Alabama and George Wallace is sitting in the Governor's mansion.  

What's more "racist" these days...Atlanta, Georgia or Ferguson, Missouri?  Doh!!!


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 24, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Gee, Joey...since Washington, Madison and Jefferson were Southerners...I take it that you find THEM too "piss-ignorant" to have held office as well?
> 
> ...



Well, I'm not stupid enough to try to rationalize a war so a few rich white people could keep raping their slaves. 

You've obviously missed my posts where I refer to the Founders as the "Founding Slave Rapists".  But they did save us from the horror of being Canadians, I guess.  

Besides the fact Hillary is not a Southerner, let me look at your list. 

Bill Clinton- Actually, proves you can take the boy out of the trailer park, but you can't take the trailer park out of the boy. 

Dr. King was a voice of reason and sense in a society that treated him like a second class citizen. 

Johnson had his flaws.  Carter had more of them. 

But you do get when you tell a guy to go out and fight so someone can do something you can never afford to do, and benefits you and no possible way, that's kind of stupid, right?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 24, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> I have a sneaking suspicion that Joe still thinks Bull Connor is the Police Chief in Birmingham, Alabama and George Wallace is sitting in the Governor's mansion.
> 
> What's more "racist" these days...Atlanta, Georgia or Ferguson, Missouri?  Doh!!!



Well, they are both kind of Southern.  

Do I think the South has progressed? Yes. I do. 

do I think it's progressed far enough?  Not really.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 24, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> 
> You do realize that not everyone with a southern accent believes "Jay a zus" hate they gays don't you?
> ...



okay, you think that there's something in the South that makes people less inclined to be gay?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I have a sneaking suspicion that Joe still thinks Bull Connor is the Police Chief in Birmingham, Alabama and George Wallace is sitting in the Governor's mansion.
> ...




We don't need to "progress" thank you very much

Being "progressive" =/= being intelligent.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 24, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rikurzhen said:
> ...


Translation: you  want to return to the  kind of clandestine affirmative  action that only  benefitted white males.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 24, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I assume that you're a college educated black man. You clearly show how Affirmative Action has been a failure for you argue with the sophistication of an 8th-grade teenage white boy.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 24, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rikurzhen said:
> ...


My narrative is often attacked by people like you who have been stopped in their tracks by it.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 24, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rikurzhen said:
> ...


I'd be happy if you'd just stop using your skin color as a crutch and or a bludgeon depending on circumstances.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 25, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



well, no, when you are butt ignorant compared to the European and Japanese, you really do need to progress.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Sir, not agreeing with your OPINIONS does not mean one is ignorant.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Sep 25, 2014)

Laughably, Joe equates owning a business to being a rapist then admits to owning a business.

Raped anyone lately, Joe?

He then proceeds to argue that judging a person entirely based on their accent is better than judging a person entirely based on their skin color.

What about the blacks who speak with a southern accent, Joe? Are they ignorant and stupid too?


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



What's "stupid" is for someone to believe that's why most Southerners fought.  You should note that Southerner's refer to the Civil War as The War for States Rights...not the War to Keep Slavery!  If you REALLY knew your history you'd know that many in the South were angry over


Mathbud1 said:


> Laughably, Joe equates owning a business to being a rapist then admits to owning a business.
> 
> Raped anyone lately, Joe?
> 
> ...



You're going to make poor Joe's head explode asking him questions like that one, Mathbud!  Bigots don't handle nuance well...or reality.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 26, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> 
> What's "stupid" is for someone to believe that's why most Southerners fought.  You should note that Southerner's refer to the Civil War as The War for States Rights...not the War to Keep Slavery!  If you REALLY knew your history you'd know that many in the South were angry over
> .



They refer to it as such horseshit as, "The Lost Cause" and "The War between the States" and other horseshit to avoid that they got played by some rich assholes into fighting to continue slavery. 

In fact, the SHEER Stupidity of the South in the Civil War never ceases to amaze.  They never stood a chance.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 26, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> Laughably, Joe equates owning a business to being a rapist then admits to owning a business.
> 
> Raped anyone lately, Joe?
> 
> ...



Uh, I equate running a business that mistreats employees to rape. Right now my business only employs me. And it's more a part time, hobby I make a little money off of. 

And yes, since said accent you refer to usually means supporting racism, rejecting science and letting the GOP screw us like Ned Beatty in Deliverance, I just hear a Southern Accent and wonder what level of idiocy I'm going to be dealing with.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> > Laughably, Joe equates owning a business to being a rapist then admits to owning a business.
> ...



So every time you hear a Southern accent you DO think of Deliverance?  Heck, Joe...I was being sarcastic!  You've got some serious issues there, dude...


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 26, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> So every time you hear a Southern accent you DO think of Deliverance?  Heck, Joe...I was being sarcastic!  You've got some serious issues there, dude...



Pretty much.  That level of stupid.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Bill Clinton says hi.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Sep 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> > Laughably, Joe equates owning a business to being a rapist then admits to owning a business.
> ...



Oldstyle suggested starting your own business. He did not suggest starting a business and mistreating your employees. He in fact suggested that you start your own business and show us all how NOT to mistreat your employees. If you, in fact, only equate businesses that mistreat their employees with rapists, how is suggesting that you start a business that does NOT mistreat employees related to your rape comment at all?

Are there any people with a southern accent who are not stupid, Joe?



> [quote uid=31215 name="Oldstyle" post=9839024]Why don't you start your own business, Joe?  You can show us all how to do it "right". Oh wait...that would actually require ambition and taking chances...never mind...



Isn't that kind of like telling a rape victim to buy a strap on and show us how it's "done right"? 

(Incidentally, I do own a business. Thanks.)
[/QUOTE]


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> [
> 
> Oldstyle suggested starting your own business. He did not suggest starting a business and mistreating your employees. He in fact suggested that you start your own business and show us all how NOT to mistreat your employees. If you, in fact, only equate businesses that mistreat their employees with rapists, how is suggesting that you start a business that does NOT mistreat employees related to your rape comment at all?
> 
> ...



OldStyle is doing what most of the Plutocrat Apologists do- blame working folks for their own problems. That's why I have no use for him.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I have no use for people like you who constantly whine about how they've been "mistreated" by management or ownership yet never get off their asses and start up their own businesses!  Oh...gosh no!!!  That would require too much work!  I might have to take a risk!!!


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> I have no use for people like you who constantly whine about how they've been "mistreated" by management or ownership yet never get off their asses and start up their own businesses!  Oh...gosh no!!!  That would require too much work!  I might have to take a risk!!



I've got no use for people like you who spend their lives making apologies for the bad behavior of the wealthy on the hope some day, little billy, they'll give you scraps off their table.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Dude, I'm semi-retired, living in Florida and playing golf five days a week!  I don't need any "scraps" from the wealthy, nor do I need to "apologize" for them!  Most of the wealthy people I know worked hard for what they have.  They didn't sit around complaining about how their boss didn't appreciate them because in most cases THEY WERE THE BOSS AND THEY WERE PUTTING IN MORE HOURS THAN THE HIRED HELP!!!

You're the one depending on "scraps", Joe...because you've never had enough guts to risk your own time and money to be your own boss!


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Most wealthy people are born on third base and think they hit a triple. 

If you don't realize this truth, you are deluded.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Most wealthy people are born on third base and think they hit a triple.
> 
> If you don't realize this truth, you are deluded.



I don't think you KNOW many wealthy people, Joe!  You seem to think they're all Paris Hilton clones.  The wealthy people I've known over the years almost without exception work much longer hours than any blue collar union worker.  It's a bitch building your own company.  It's 20 hour work days and 7 day work weeks.  Then when you DO become successful and want to enjoy the fruits of all that hard work...all you hear are the whines from people like YOU who never paid that price but want your "fair share" of those that did.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Most wealthy people are born on third base and think they hit a triple.
> ...



the wealthy people I've known, have been uniformly.

1) Really dull. 

2) Never known what it's like to really work in their lives.

3) Don't put in as many hours as you claim. 

And frankly, I don't put "working so many hours" as a virtue.  I worked 60 hours a week for the jerks who let me go because I busted up my knee.  You think they appreciated it?  Nope. I wish I had spent more time doing things I enjoy. 

No one ever said on their deathbed, "I wish I had put in more hours at the office."  

No one. Not once.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 1, 2014)

Joe, one thing I can guarantee you is that if you eventually end up hiring employees, some of them at minimum will always think you being unfair to them regardless of what you pay them.

It's all about perspective. Yes, some businesses and business owners are greedy as fuck, that doesn't mean everyone is though.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Joe, one thing I can guarantee you is that if you eventually end up hiring employees, some of them at minimum will always think you being unfair to them regardless of what you pay them.
> 
> It's all about perspective. Yes, some businesses and business owners are greedy as fuck, that doesn't mean everyone is though.



Yes, and if I ever work for that guy, I might re-evaluate that opinion.  

What I have found is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  

I've been a supervisor and a Sergeant in the US Army.  And I'm sure people didn't like what I've told them to do.  I've even fired people.  

But for the most part, no, I've seen more unfair firings than fair ones.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Joe, one thing I can guarantee you is that if you eventually end up hiring employees, some of them at minimum will always think you being unfair to them regardless of what you pay them.
> ...



What is unfair firing Joe? You don't have a right to a fair boss, hell you don't even have a right to a job..... I mean seriously man.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



On the contrary, Joe...the successful people I've known through the years are anything BUT "dull".  You have to have a spark to get up and work a 20 hour day with one challenge after another getting thrown your way day after day.  You have to have character when you don't get to punch a clock and go home for the weekend because you're the boss and people are counting on you to fix what's wrong so THEY can continue to get a pay check!

So what you're basically complaining about is that you held a job where some kind of menial labor was required and you were no longer able to perform the tasks that you needed to do?  Intelligent people recognize that they are only going to be able to do certain types of work for so long, Joe!  It's why one goes to college and learns skills that require the use of your brain and not your knees or back or get's into a management position where the same is true.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Joe, one thing I can guarantee you is that if you eventually end up hiring employees, some of them at minimum will always think you being unfair to them regardless of what you pay them.
> ...



Over the years, Joe...I've probably fired well over a thousand people.  It's one of the parts of my job that I've never liked but accepted for what it was.  The one thing that I've learned from all those firings...over all those years...is that most of those people fire themselves.  Let me repeat that for you...most of the people I had to let go in essence fired themselves!  They showed up late for work.  They took sick days when they felt like doing something other than working.  They spent more time talking about their love lives or lack there of than they did doing their jobs.  They didn't take pride in the job they did and didn't care about the customers who paid their wages.  They did everything but attach a post-it to their foreheads that read "PLEASE FIRE ME!!!" in big letters for all the world to see.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> What is unfair firing Joe? You don't have a right to a fair boss, hell you don't even have a right to a job..... I mean seriously man.



Well, why doesn't everyone have a right to a job?  Because the rich would rather work 1 person to death than give 3 people jobs?  That seems kind of stupid.   I'm currently working in a department that used to employ  9 people and currently only has 3, doing the same amount of work.  

FDR called for everyone to have a remunerative job in his Inaugural Address of 1944. 

It's not like we have a lack of things that need to be done. They just aren't being done because a rich person can't make money doing them. 

As for unfair firings.  Let's look at my quick list. 

Getting fired because you slipped on some ice and ran up too many medical bills.  Happened to me personally, permanently cured me of being a Republican. 

Getting fired because you showed up at the Holiday Party with your life partner, who happened to be another chick. 

Getting fired because you got pregnant. 

getting fired because you had an allergic reaction to something they weren't keeping MSDS sheets on. 

Fired because your ex-girlfriend was now sleeping with a manager. 

Getting fired because management lied to you about closing down your branch.  

Getting fired because someone saw your resume on Craig's List and didn't like that you were looking.

These are all things I've seen happen in the last 22 years since I've left the Army.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

I'll let you in on a little secret, Joe...a GOOD employee is so hard to find that when you do get one you treat them like gold because they're such an asset to your company!  I wouldn't EVER mistreat a good employee and I would fire any manager that worked for me who did.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> On the contrary, Joe...the successful people I've known through the years are anything BUT "dull".  You have to have a spark to get up and work a 20 hour day with one challenge after another getting thrown your way day after day.  You have to have character when you don't get to punch a clock and go home for the weekend because you're the boss and people are counting on you to fix what's wrong so THEY can continue to get a pay check!



Guy, any manager or rich person who is working a 20 hour day is just incapable of delegating or trusting. these people usually make horrible bosses.  

"Wow, I'm glad my boss was there being brilliant".  Said in a working class bar, never.  




Oldstyle said:


> [
> So what you're basically complaining about is that you held a job where some kind of menial labor was required and you were no longer able to perform the tasks that you needed to do?  Intelligent people recognize that they are only going to be able to do certain types of work for so long, Joe!  It's why one goes to college and learns skills that require the use of your brain and not your knees or back or get's into a management position where the same is true.



Uh, guy, I have a college degree.  I am APICS and Six Sigma Certified, and I've been in my field for 28 years. As much as you want to use the "Short Skirt" logic for rape, it isn't because of me.  Sorry. 

I could have done my job from a wheelchair and been just as effective. But slipping on ice meant that they had to pay $50,000 in medical bills, and they just werent' good with that.  I mean, did you think we really meant it when we said you had "insurance"?   What do you think this is, Canada?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> I'll let you in on a little secret, Joe...a GOOD employee is so hard to find that when you do get one you treat them like gold because they're such an asset to your company!  I wouldn't EVER mistreat a good employee and I would fire any manager that worked for me who did.



I've seen good employees abused and pathetic ass-kissers promoted. 

Quite the contrary, most bosses fear good employees because, hey, they are potential threats.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Over the years, Joe...I've probably fired well over a thousand people.  It's one of the parts of my job that I've never liked but accepted for what it was.  The one thing that I've learned from all those firings...over all those years...is that most of those people fire themselves.  Let me repeat that for you...most of the people I had to let go in essence fired themselves!  They showed up late for work.  They took sick days when they felt like doing something other than working.  They spent more time talking about their love lives or lack there of than they did doing their jobs.  They didn't take pride in the job they did and didn't care about the customers who paid their wages.  They did everything but attach a post-it to their foreheads that read "PLEASE FIRE ME!!!" in big letters for all the world to see.



Anyone who claims they've fired a thousand people and every last fucking one of them deserved it strikes me as kind of a Nazi.  Come on, they ALL deserved it?  Every last one of them?  

What I've found is that there are very few bad employees... usually just bad hiring and bad management. 

Here's the thing.  I never showed up late for work at my last job in six years. Not once.  I took a total of maybe 12 sick days, 10 of those related to surgery to correct the issue that has left me as angry as I am.  I worked sometimes 60 hour weeks because other employees were happy to put in their 40 and call it a day. 

And, yes, wow. employees have lives.  Like the lady who rushed home because her son attempted suicide, and the manager was keen to get rid of her after that so he could hire his drinking buddy.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Joe, I'm a mostly silent partner in a restaurant with my siblings. Went there for lunch today, my sister in law actually runs the place, but she was gone for the day for doctors appointments. Anyway, service is kind of slow so I walk back to the kitchen to see what's going on, the shift manager and the chef are in an argument because two of the cooks were found sleeping in the backroom and the chef woke them up and fired them.

Turns out the shift manager is friends with the two sleepy employees and has covered for them on several occasions and told the Chef that he couldn't fire them this time either and that is what caused the argument.

Now, I haven't been around for very long, been stationed overseas and what not, but they definitely know who I am. I confirmed that the two cooks were fired , AND fired the shift manager.

At last count my sister in law had 48 texts from the shift manager crying that it wasn't fair that i fired her, and threatening a lawsuit.

Rare is the person who says "yeah I deserved to be fired" and EVERYONE has a sob story.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I'll let you in on a little secret, Joe...a GOOD employee is so hard to find that when you do get one you treat them like gold because they're such an asset to your company!  I wouldn't EVER mistreat a good employee and I would fire any manager that worked for me who did.
> ...



Most bosses *revere* good employees because they can delegate and start to have a semblance of a life other than work!  Good employees are not only not a threat...they are a great insurance policy in case you're ever in the job market yourself.  I've gotten hired to two different positions because former employees of mine heard that I was job hunting and recommended me.  One of them I had actually fired years earlier.  He didn't hold it against me because he KNEW that he deserved to be fired.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> Joe, I'm a mostly silent partner in a restaurant with my siblings. Went there for lunch today, my sister in law actually runs the place, but she was gone for the day for doctors appointments. Anyway, service is kind of slow so I walk back to the kitchen to see what's going on, the shift manager and the chef are in an argument because two of the cooks were found sleeping in the backroom and the chef woke them up and fired them.
> 
> ...



Well, it's a good thing for the people who work there that you are a mostly "silent" partner. Becuase, honestly, it sounds like that place is pretty badly managed. 

without getting into family here, the person who "runs the place" didn't know this was going on? That sounds, well, kind of clueless.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

As for the volume of people I've had to fire?  I was in the nightclub business for almost four decades.  It's a job where people are tempted to do bad things.  The first person I ever worked for as a manager explained my job as a club manager like this.  He told me that 25% of people would steal no matter what...25% of people would never steal no matter what...and 50% of people would be on the fence.  My job was to fire the 25% that would always steal...scare the 50% who were on the fence into being good boys and girls...and to REWARD the 25% who would never steal.  He was a very wise man and I've spent a lot of years doing just what he advised.  That doesn't make me a "Nazi"...it makes me a Food & Beverage professional.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Most bosses *revere* good employees because they can delegate and start to have a semblance of a life other than work!  Good employees are not only not a threat...they are a great insurance policy in case you're ever in the job market yourself.  I've gotten hired to two different positions because former employees of mine heard that I was job hunting and recommended me.  One of them I had actually fired years earlier.  He didn't hold it against me because he KNEW that he deserved to be fired.



Yeah, right.  And I'm sure he sung your hossanas.  

Come on, guy, you are stretching credulity here.  

Frankly, the first place I worked after leaving the Army.  Owned by two brothers who inherited the business from Mom and Dad.  One was a coke-head party guy, the other was a bible thumping Moron.  Lied to us about moving the business out of Chicago to Milwaukee (because that's what Jesus would do.) Fired us all, went out of business a year later. (Although to be fair to them, the market they were in was so radically changed inthe 1990's that even if they were competent, they'd have had a hard time.) 

The manager they hired sexually harrassed female employees on a regular basis. 

And that wasn't the company that totally cured me of capitalism. I just chalked it up as "the really bad one". 

No, the problem is, when workers don't have protections and rights, employers can engage in dumbass. And they usually do.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Badly managed because she wasn't aware of what is going on 24/7? Those two weren't stupid, they didn't go sleep somewhere my my SIL was around. And for whatever reason, up until today there was never a big issue made of it. I guess the chef knew the shift manager and they were friends and so just dealt with it, until he just couldn't tolerate it any more.

However, that's not the point, the point is that no matter what people have done wrong, they always feel like they got a raw deal when they are fired.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> As for the volume of people I've had to fire?  I was in the nightclub business for almost four decades.  It's a job where people are tempted to do bad things.  The first person I ever worked for as a manager explained my job as a club manager like this.  He told me that 25% of people would steal no matter what...25% of people would never steal no matter what...and 50% of people would be on the fence.  My job was to fire the 25% that would always steal...scare the 50% who were on the fence into being good boys and girls...and to REWARD the 25% who would never steal.  He was a very wise man and I've spent a lot of years doing just what he advised.  That doesn't make me a "Nazi"...it makes me a Food & Beverage professional.



So let me get this straight. You work in an industry that is notorious for high turnover and underpaying employees, and you wonder why you don't get good employees?  Seriously?


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

That holds true from the smallest corner bar to the highest volume F&B operations in the country.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> Badly managed because she wasn't aware of what is going on 24/7? Those two weren't stupid, they didn't go sleep somewhere my my SIL was around. And for whatever reason, up until today there was never a big issue made of it. I guess the chef knew the shift manager and they were friends and so just dealt with it, until he just couldn't tolerate it any more.
> 
> However, that's not the point, the point is that no matter what people have done wrong, they always feel like they got a raw deal when they are fired.



So what you are saying is the Chef was in on it, too, and you didn't fire him?  

Here's the first question I would ask.  WHY were these two "sleeping on the job"?  Could it possibly be because they were working one or two other jobs, and decided to catch a few winks when it wasn't that important?  Well, that's a pretty fucked up commentary on the American Working life where we all have to work three jobs to make ends meet so the Super-Rich can continue to enjoy their dressage horsies.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > As for the volume of people I've had to fire?  I was in the nightclub business for almost four decades.  It's a job where people are tempted to do bad things.  The first person I ever worked for as a manager explained my job as a club manager like this.  He told me that 25% of people would steal no matter what...25% of people would never steal no matter what...and 50% of people would be on the fence.  My job was to fire the 25% that would always steal...scare the 50% who were on the fence into being good boys and girls...and to REWARD the 25% who would never steal.  He was a very wise man and I've spent a lot of years doing just what he advised.  That doesn't make me a "Nazi"...it makes me a Food & Beverage professional.
> ...



On the contrary, Joe...my industry is "notorious" for paying quite well.  If you're a bartender at a top club you're walking out at the end of the night with a lot of cash in your pocket.  I was a history major in college but I put myself through school working as a bartender.  It was the highest paying job around for the hours worked by far!


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> That holds true from the smallest corner bar to the highest volume F&B operations in the country.



You see, I don't buy that. I think most people want to do a good job. I think we've developed this insane society where people work themselves to death because income is unequally distributed.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> On the contrary, Joe...my industry is "notorious" for paying quite well.  If you're a bartender at a top club you're walking out at the end of the night with a lot of cash in your pocket.  I was a history major in college but I put myself through school working as a bartender.  It was the highest paying job around for the hours worked by far!



Hmmm... do you want to make anything else up to prove your point?


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

I've been a manager at some of the highest volume clubs in the country.  People that work at places like that are some of the best at what they DO in the country and the money they command reflects that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> I've been a manager at some of the highest volume clubs in the country.  People that work at places like that are some of the best at what they DO in the country and the money they command reflects that.



Okay, whatever, dude.  I really don't care.  

Honestly, some of these "high-profile" clubs kind of befuddle me. "Hey, let's wait in line to get into a club that is noisy and crowded."  

Never understood the appeal. 

Also don't think that 25% of the employees would steal from the place unless the management were such douchebags they had it coming.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I worked at Lily's in Faneuil Hall as a bartender back in the 70's.  Ask anyone from Boston if that would have been a good gig, Joe!  I made HUGE money at that job.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I've been a manager at some of the highest volume clubs in the country.  People that work at places like that are some of the best at what they DO in the country and the money they command reflects that.
> ...



Ah, yes...and that was usually the rationale that the thieves *always* gave when they got caught, Joe!  They were stealing because they "deserved" that money.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

And Joe?  You only wait in line if you don't know anyone.  You obviously weren't connected...were you?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Okay, that was back in the 1970's when "Minimum Wage" was actually a living wage. 

Not impressed. 

Do you have any experience from THIS CENTURY?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Ah, yes...and that was usually the rationale that the thieves *always* gave when they got caught, Joe!  They were stealing because they "deserved" that money.



I've found that employees only steal or misbehave (or tolerate those who do) when the management has done nothing to instill loyalty.  

Loyalty is a two-way street.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> And Joe?  You only wait in line if you don't know anyone.  You obviously weren't connected...were you?



Or disinterested.  My tastes go more towards the neighborhood pub where you know everyone and everyone knows you.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I ran clubs in Vegas, Aspen, Boston, Myrtle Beach and Wilmington.  All this century...all of which you'd probably have had to wait in line to get into.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And Joe?  You only wait in line if you don't know anyone.  You obviously weren't connected...were you?
> ...



Hmmm...can't make up my mind if you're more of a Cliff Clavin type or a Norm Peterson type...


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



And with THAT reply it's now obvious that you've never had employees of your own!


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> And with THAT reply it's now obvious that you've never had employees of your own!



Of my own, no. 

People I've supervised.  Yes.  

For instance, I had the one employee I supervised I had to protect from management because she had the goods on him for sexual harrassment.  

But fuck it, she should totally put up with that kind of behavior, because... rich people.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> I ran clubs in Vegas, Aspen, Boston, Myrtle Beach and Wilmington.  All this century...all of which you'd probably have had to wait in line to get into.



No, guy, i've never been so needy that I've waited in line for a drink.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I've been a manager at some of the highest volume clubs in the country.  People that work at places like that are some of the best at what they DO in the country and the money they command reflects that.
> ...




It's now officially a waste of time to discuss this with you. No one deserves to be stolen from Joe.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



If someone "had the goods" on someone for sexual harassment then they should bring charges against them in court.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 2, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> If someone "had the goods" on someone for sexual harassment then they should bring charges against them in court.



Here's the problem, guy.  Most people don't go to court. Going to court is actually a very expensive process and usually kills future job prospects.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 2, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Didn't say they did.  I said that theft is usually a symptom of a larger problem. If you have 1/4 of your employees stealing from you, it means the other 75% know what's going on and don't say anything.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You missed the gist of what I was getting at, Joe!  The 25% that my former employer was talking about that would always steal are the ones that you need to get rid of.  They are the ones that you don't want to hire in the first place but if they DO get hired you need to find out who they are and fire them because they will destroy your business.   

These are the people that will steal no matter how well they are treated by management because it's who they are.  They will always come up with a justification as to why they were "owed" that money.  They're the people that think the owner makes more money than he or she "deserves"!  They're the people that think the owner "deserves" to be stolen from if they aren't smart enough to catch them!  They're the people who think they "deserve" the money they steal because they have to deal with demanding customers!  They are the people who think they are "owed" that money because other people have things that they don't!

The 50% he spoke of are the "sheep" that go along with what they see others doing.  If what they observe is people stealing without repercussions then they will also start to steal.  If they observe people acting properly then they will also act properly.

Then there are the 25% of the people out there that would never steal no matter what!  They are the rare people that find a wallet full of cash and return it.  They are the rare people that you can trust to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing and not because they are worried they might get caught.  Those were the people that my old boss wanted me to identify and reward!  Those were the people that got bonuses in their paycheck.  Those were the people who didn't get laid off during off season when someone had to go.  Those are also the people that generally go above and beyond when it comes to performing their jobs.  They are the people that build your business.

I was told this theory almost forty years ago, Joe and it's as valid today as it was back then if not more!


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




actually you don't take someone to court when they sexually harass you, you file a complaint with the government and they take care of it.

Anyone who "has the goods on someone" and doesn't do anything about it, is a damned fool..


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 2, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> actually you don't take someone to court when they sexually harass you, you file a complaint with the government and they take care of it.
> 
> Anyone who "has the goods on someone" and doesn't do anything about it, is a damned fool..



Right.  You know, sounds great on paper, in the real world with real people, not so much.  

Real world, management confronted this clown, and he got all apologetic and she felt sorry for him.  Then the petty little shit started after that.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Do not believe


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 2, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Then there are the 25% of the people out there that would never steal no matter what!  They are the rare people that find a wallet full of cash and return it.  They are the rare people that you can trust to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing and not because they are worried they might get caught.  Those were the people that my old boss wanted me to identify and reward!  Those were the people that got bonuses in their paycheck.  Those were the people who didn't get laid off during off season when someone had to go.  Those are also the people that generally go above and beyond when it comes to performing their jobs.  They are the people that build your business.
> 
> I was told this theory almost forty years ago, Joe and it's as valid today as it was back then if not more!



90% of people I know would return a wallet if they found it.  the two times I misplaced things from my wallet, they were returned.   (on time it was my Cell phone.  The cleaner called to tell me I left it in my pocket... and got the phone I left in my pocket.  they held onto it until I came back for it the next day. I wasn't even aware it was missing.) 

But yeah, fuck them working people, 75% of them are evil.  Vote Republican!!!


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 2, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> 
> Do not believe



Yeah, anything that challenges your worldview.  

Hey, what's this "Governmetn department" that takes care of these things, anyway?  Is it Sarah Palin's "Department of Law"?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Harassment


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 2, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



We had a supervisor at this same company who tried to file a sexual discrimination case with EEOC because she got demoted and fired.   After 3 years of litigation, they found she had been illegally fired... and fined the company all of $300.00.   

Sorry, man, nobody shits their pants if EEOC shows up in the Lobby.  Now, the IRS and OSHA, that's another story.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Didn't happen.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 3, 2014)

Oooookay, you keep telling yourself that. 

I was there and it did.  

The only bad thing was, I didn't take THAT oppurtunity to realize the Capitalist system was all bullshit and cure myself of Republican stupidity.  I just chalked it up as "that really bad one".   The problem is, they are all that "Really bad one".


----------



## sameech (Oct 12, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Sounds like you had trouble holding down a job.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 12, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> This is another example of the decline of Marriage as a desirable social institution.  Children of unwed or divorced parents are much more likely to have emotional problems for which our society pays the price.


 In a few years we'll be trying to deal with the dysfunctional children raised in gay households.  Added to the other dysfunctions we will have a huge price to pay.


----------

