Affirmative action, helpful or harmful?

[WEATHER53]

It's apparent that many people less than40 years of age have no experience nor knowledge that for about the first 5 years of its inception AA had no problems in touting race as a factor in hiring. After that inception period they became far more careful and PC about who got hired and why

 

[Uncensored2008]

We are still debating institutional racism?

Affirmative Action is a racist program that violates the 14th Amendment.

End of story.

 

[WEATHER53]

Jessie Jacksons famous quote
"AA needs to be unfair to remedy past unfairness"

 

[John Shaw]

Condoned any torture lately?

Have you ignored 80-90 years of whites torturing black people lately?

Unlike you, I'm not 90 years old.

And I'm not 90 either. So using that dumb ass comeback to try deflecting from the fact that you condone what whites did to blacks in South Africa is useless.

Did I, though? Nope. I just don't think sons should pay for the sins of their fathers, unlike you. And the American justice system. Which is why I suggested you move to Africa. Why not? Surely you wouldn't be discriminated against by your fellow black folks. Hehehe ...

Let me explain something to you Shaw. These tired excuses you made have come to an end. It's time for you to be a man and face the facts. I'm here reading pages of racist crap from you punks and yet you sit on your ass talking about not being held accountable for the fucking sins of your fathers. Who in he hell do you think you are talking too? Your attitude is just like "your fathers", and until that's gone you will be required to pay for YOUR sins. Stick your suggestion up your ass. I was born here and my family has been in America longer than yours. So you move back to Europe.

? I'm not the one complaining about whitey every 2 seconds.

 

[boedicca]

Harmful. It's discrimination based on race and/or sex.

That's the irony of so much anti-discrimination law. In order to ensure that we're all treating each other equally, government is required to treat people unequally.

Yeah brother...tell that to the Asians who were rejected by colleges favoring lower scoring whites.

You're in the wrong thread. Here's a better one for you, bub.

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[dblack]

Harmful. It's discrimination based on race and/or sex.

That's the irony of so much anti-discrimination law. In order to ensure that we're all treating each other equally, government is required to treat people unequally.

Yeah brother...tell that to the Asians who were rejected by colleges favoring lower scoring whites.

If be glad to. But it sounds like I need to explain it to you as well.

See, government is required, by the Constitution, to treat everyone equally. Non governmental entities are not. Any questions?

 

[boedicca]

Harmful. It's discrimination based on race and/or sex.

That's the irony of so much anti-discrimination law. In order to ensure that we're all treating each other equally, government is required to treat people unequally.

Yeah brother...tell that to the Asians who were rejected by colleges favoring lower scoring whites.

If be glad to. But it sounds like I need to explain it to you as well.

See, government is required, by the Constitution, to treat everyone equally. Non governmental entities are not. Any questions?

Oh really? Tell that to the Christian Cake Bakers and Pizza Parlor owners.

Here's how this works in reality: Progs are allowed to discriminate agains the rest of us.

 

[dblack]

Harmful. It's discrimination based on race and/or sex.

That's the irony of so much anti-discrimination law. In order to ensure that we're all treating each other equally, government is required to treat people unequally.

Yeah brother...tell that to the Asians who were rejected by colleges favoring lower scoring whites.

If be glad to. But it sounds like I need to explain it to you as well.

See, government is required, by the Constitution, to treat everyone equally. Non governmental entities are not. Any questions?

Oh really? Tell that to the Christian Cake Bakers and Pizza Parlor owners.

Here's how this works in reality: Progs are allowed to discriminate agains the rest of us.

My point is that the Constitution applies to acts of government, not private concerns.

 

[protectionist]

You've already told them that years ago. The White over Asian preference is relatively new. So what do you call this new phenomenon, Affirmative Re-action?

I call any deliberate choosing of applicants based on race, to be racism. Period.

 

[protectionist]

It's apparent that many people less than40 years of age have no experience nor knowledge that for about the first 5 years of its inception AA had no problems in touting race as a factor in hiring. After that inception period they became far more careful and PC about who got hired and why

They weren't careful about race in the graduate school where I got discriminated against by race AA. They was in 1977 - more than 5 years after inception. They gave 8 assistantships to the only 8 blacks who applied, and no one else, and they didn't care who knew it.

They were too busy trying to avoid being called a racist - while engaging in 100% racism (against non-blacks).

 

[protectionist]

We are still debating institutional racism?

Affirmative Action is a racist program that violates the 14th Amendment.

End of story.

And the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[protectionist]

Jessie Jacksons famous quote
"AA needs to be unfair to remedy past unfairness"

Such is the ruthlessness, recklessness, and maliciousness of ultra-liberal, looney, race hustlers.

 

[WEATHER53]

It's apparent that many people less than40 years of age have no experience nor knowledge that for about the first 5 years of its inception AA had no problems in touting race as a factor in hiring. After that inception period they became far more careful and PC about who got hired and why

They weren't careful about race in the graduate school where I got discriminated against by race AA. They was in 1977 - more than 5 years after inception. They gave 8 assistantships to the only 8 blacks who applied, and no one else, and they didn't care who knew it.

They were too busy trying to avoid being called a racist - while engaging in 100% racism (against non-blacks).

You are correct. They were very bold and direct early on about this being a race based makeup for past "misdeeds" I guess that concept and implementation is unimaginable to the younger folks but that's how they ran AA early on

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

But, as the justification for suppressing racism is expanded to include other types of 'discrimination', the intrusive nature of the policy becomes more clear. Is government really there to tell us what opinions we're allowed to express? Isn't that a blatant violation of freedom of speech?

You make a very good point. As I understand your comment you're saying that government should not be mandating changes that benefit one group of people at the expense of another group of people. I agree with this concept and is why the language of the laws refer to "equal opportunity", "equal protection", etc.

The problem though is that the white race had a monopoly on everything needed not just to survive but to prosper in life by accumulating wealth that could be passed down from generation to generation thereby aiding family members by making them less vulnerable and dependent on the whims of those members of society who were openly hostile to them due to their race.

So while it's understandable that some whites may perceive the directive to stop discriminatory ***practices*** in hiring, education, places of public accommodation (hotels, restaurants, railway car, etc.) as "taking things away from white people to give to black people" this perception would also imply that they were entitled to everything they had a hold on in the first place and that's just not the case.

How many unqualified white people were hired over a more qualified black person that the company simply refused to hire because the person was black? Maybe that's really where this conversation should have started.

And our government doesn't care if some of it's citizens are bigoted racist, they're not trying to regulate their opinions or feelings, it's only when their bigoted and racists thoughts & opinions turn into actions that harm other citizens that they usually intervene and generally it's only after a whole lot of damage, most of which cannot be undone, including death has occurred.

 

[JQPublic1]

Harmful. It's discrimination based on race and/or sex.

That's the irony of so much anti-discrimination law. In order to ensure that we're all treating each other equally, government is required to treat people unequally.

Yeah brother...tell that to the Asians who were rejected by colleges favoring lower scoring whites.

You're in the wrong thread. Here's a better one for you, bub.

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No, I'm in the right thread. You're just fishing with bad bait. TROLL!

 

[JQPublic1]

Harmful. It's discrimination based on race and/or sex.

That's the irony of so much anti-discrimination law. In order to ensure that we're all treating each other equally, government is required to treat people unequally.

Yeah brother...tell that to the Asians who were rejected by colleges favoring lower scoring whites.

If be glad to. But it sounds like I need to explain it to you as well.

See, government is required, by the Constitution, to treat everyone equally. Non governmental entities are not. Any questions?

Ohhhhhh! Is that what the US Supreme court has ruled???? SOME Universities are non governmental entities but are considered government contractors because they accept grant money including Pell grants. Hey, teacher, I just jumped to the head of the class and now I'm after your job...you're too dumb to be a teacher. Now where is that lawyer of mine....gotta get that AA going.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Living it Trumps theorizing about it.

Because our laws don't change people's behavior or have the ability to prevent anyone violating them otherwise we'd have no crime just as an example. What they do is

1. Explain the prohibited behavior
2. Outline the category of the crime (felony, misdemeanor, traffic infraction, etc. and
3. State the punishment for violation of said law

For a long time African Americans had no recourse at all for having their rights violated. When the slaves were freed via the Thirteenth Amendment people of African descent though no longer slaves, were not considered citizens of the United States under the existing law, therefore they still had no rights to many of the things we all have the right to today, including the right to bring a lawsuit to address the legal wrongs done to them. That's what it means to have no rights and it is racial discrimination when one race benefits at the expense of another.

So to answer your question, even though all of these laws were passed the majority of the country still openly practiced racial discrimination thus necessitating that it was "put in writing" to

"not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin"​

2. The term "African American" (to describe black people) is faulty. The correct better term is blacks.

The actual term is "people of African descent" shorthanded to African American.

 

[JQPublic1]

You've already told them that years ago. The White over Asian preference is relatively new. So what do you call this new phenomenon, Affirmative Re-action?

I call any deliberate choosing of applicants based on race, to be racism. Period.

Well dayum, son...I'm proud of you. At least you're consistent. So, I have your word on that? You support an Asian educational blitz where every college and university is full to capacity with them...except for the legacy, veteran, and athletic preferences?

 

[JQPublic1]

Jessie Jacksons famous quote
"AA needs to be unfair to remedy past unfairness"

So, who cares what Jesse says?

 

[JQPublic1]

Harmful. It's discrimination based on race and/or sex.

That's the irony of so much anti-discrimination law. In order to ensure that we're all treating each other equally, government is required to treat people unequally.

Yeah brother...tell that to the Asians who were rejected by colleges favoring lower scoring whites.

If be glad to. But it sounds like I need to explain it to you as well.

See, government is required, by the Constitution, to treat everyone equally. Non governmental entities are not. Any questions?

Oh really? Tell that to the Christian Cake Bakers and Pizza Parlor owners.

Here's how this works in reality: Progs are allowed to discriminate agains the rest of us.

And just who is allowing "PROGS" to discriminate against you? Trump? Jeff Sessions? cum on hon..spit it out don't swallow.