Freaknik

[Joz]

Originally posted by OCA
I would dispute the fact that "officials" came and told him to hire somebody else but thats just my opinion. A.A. really only is attatched to government, education and large corporationd with a certain amount of employees and over.

Dispute all you want. I have no reason to lie. And, it was University of Cincinnati, a government-funded school.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
1. Yes
2. Petty and hateful behavior for not caring what you think?

Easy:


3. In regard to your information, if you WERE a Christian, or if you would look up the science involved with my point, you would see science and the Bible both prove my point correct.

Since this would be #2 above, have fun because I will not go there again.

Blah blah. You look it up and post it, like I did for my argument.

What is your point? Being gay is a choice? Who would choose that? When did you decide you like girls? First of all, DO you like girls?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Joz
Dispute all you want. I have no reason to lie. And, it was University of Cincinnati, a government-funded school.

I was a subject of a similar thing at a post office job I applied for a little while back. They only hired certain races on a rotational schedule regardless of the testing.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Can you prove that multitudes will be fucked over?

Shall I quote American history for you and i'll be fair and not even go back 40 years. BTW overly violent behavior towards blacks such as Rodney King, whom I believe was partly responsible, and the Jasper, TX incident are admissable.

Lets see, what is the racial makeup of Congress? What is the racial makeup of CEO'S of fortune 500 companies? What is the percentage of minority coaches in the 3 major American sports? What is the percentage of minorities who are approved for mortgages not using HUD or any other government loan? etc. etc. etc.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Joz
Dispute all you want. I have no reason to lie. And, it was University of Cincinnati, a government-funded school.

Since the print shop was attatched to the school, which I wasn't clear on, that makes sense. The government was wrong in this incidence but I still believe this is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Nope. We sue the crap out of everyone that screws 'em over.

Remember, it is performance based job hiring. If someone shows on a universal test at a particular company to score HIGHER and they are not hired on, they get hammered.

Useless litigation is a whole other thread in itself.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by OCA
Useless litigation is a whole other thread in itself.

I will admit, that is something I hadn't thought about.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Useless litigation is a whole other thread in itself.

Yeah like litigation against fast food restaurants. I think litigation for accusation of racism is NOT useless. How can you call litigation against allegedly racist employers useless when you claim to care so much about the cause. You're such a little fraud. You make no sense. I guess preemptive discrimination against whites is really the only answer for you. You need help.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I will admit, that is something I hadn't thought about.

Absolutely correct

Besides how many people beat the government in court?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Absolutely correct

Besides how many people beat the government in court?

Yeah like litigation against fast food restaurants. I think litigation for accusation of racism is NOT useless. How can you call litigation against allegedly racist employers useless when you claim to care so much about the cause. You're such a little fraud. You make no sense. I guess preemptive discrimination against whites is really the only answer for you. You need help.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yeah like litigation against fast food restaurants. I think litigation for accusation of racism is NOT useless. How can you call litigation against allegedly racist employers useless when you claim to care so much about the cause. You're such a little fraud. You make no sense. I guess preemptive discrimination against whites is really the only answer for you. You need help.

Rwa is only for litigation when it suits his purposes, if he ate at mcd's every day and ballooned up to 450 you could bet your sweet ass that he'd be down at the lawyers office. I think he's trying to set himself up as a victim, a victim of anything because he's pissed that others are making the big bucks and he's still living in a 1 bedroom flat.

Tell us your story RWA, tell us how you are where you are because the man had his foot on the neck of the white man!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Rwa is only for litigation when it suits his purposes, if he ate at mcd's every day and ballooned up to 450 you could bet your sweet ass that he'd be down at the lawyers office. I think he's trying to set himself up as a victim, a victim of anything because he's pissed that others are making the big bucks and he's still living in a 1 bedroom flat.

Tell us your story RWA, tell us how you are where you are because the man had his foot on the neck of the white man!

Once again. I don't feel I'm a victim. I've had jobs where I've made over $100,000.

I am where I am because of the net effect of all my own choices in life. I take full responsibilty for the good and the bad in my life.

So all you have now is making shit up? sad.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by OCA
Absolutely correct

Besides how many people beat the government in court?

True. As long as there is a liquor store and drug pusher on every other corner thanks to republican forces, and AA and govt. funded rehab centers from the liberal forces, there will ALWAYS be a problem getting the minorities and whites on equal ground.

If people like RWA, Willie, and Small-D could see this, they would understand it is all about power, not parties.

 

[musicman]

Starting the policy of preferential treatment was a serious mistake. Continuing it would be a disaster. There is no respectable rationale for continuation. The most frequently heard argument is the claim that active discrimination against minorities and women continues in this country. For reasons to be discussed, it is extremely doubtful that such discrimination is at all common. Let us assume, however, that it is. The attempted justification fails, nonetheless. There are laws upon laws forbidding discrimination in employment and promotion, in housing, in voting, in access to places of public accommodation, in lending, and much more. We have the Civil Rights Acts of 1866,1871, 1964, 1969, and 1991; we have the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, 1975, and 1982. There is agency upon agency devoted to findind and ending discrimination: the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the Department od Education's Civil Right's Office,civil rights sections in various government agencies, as well as state and municipal laws enforcement agencies. There are thousands of such agencies,and more than 100,000 government lawyers, investigators, and agents who spend hundredsd ofmillions of dollars enforcing the laws and regulations. If that were not enough, there are laws providing for private lawsuits and an army of private attorneys bringing discrimination claims. If discrimination is provable, we have far more than adequate means of dealing with it.

This means that affirmative action is generally applied to a pool of minorities who have suffered no discernible discrimination. Imagine a group of one hundred Hispanic men, ten of whom are to be admitted to Stanford under a policy of preference. In order to imagine that discrimination is being cured, it is necessary to suppose that, by a rare coincidence, preference is given to an individual who has actually suffered discrimination but cannot prove it, and may not even suspect it. If there are any victims of undetected discrimination in the pool of one hundred--suppose that there are ten--the likelihood is that none of them will receive preferential admission to Stanford or, at best, one or two will. Statistically, therefore, any person who has been the victim of unprovable discrimination will usually go without a remedy, while a person who has not been discriminated against will be given an undeserved benefit. It is difficult to see how a windfall for one cures an unsuspected injustice to the other. Affirmative action is simply irrelevant to discrimination.

The point is not met by shifting the accusation to one of institutional or structural racism and sexism. Not only does it raise the problem of the pool, just discussed, but structural charges are merely silly, a way of insisting that there must be discrimination although no on can see it. Structural racism or sexism would have to manifest itself in a series of individual acts of discrimination. That equally or better qualified black, Hispanics, or women were denied jobs or promotions in favor of white males would be provable and anti-discrimination laws and agencies would come into operation. Structural theories are simply an admission that actual discrimination cannot be shown, coupled with an unsupported assertion that it must nevertheless be pervasive. Only modern liberals and people with a vested interest in discovering racism would advance such an empty theory.

From "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" by Robert Bork
Published by, ReganBooks
ISBN # 0-06-039163-4

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
True. As long as there is a liquor store and drug pusher on every other corner thanks to republican forces, and AA and govt. funded rehab centers from the liberal forces, there will ALWAYS be a problem getting the minorities and whites on equal ground.

If people like RWA, Willie, and Small-D could see this, they would understand it is all about power, not parties.

I don't advocate any kind of racial separtism segregation, or any form of subjugation. Quit misrepresenting my opinions. AKA, quit talking out of your ass.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by musicman
Starting the polocy of preferential treatment was a serious mistake. Continuing it would be a disaster. There is no respectable rationale for continuation. The most frequently heard argument is the claim that active discrimination against minorities and women continues in this country. For reasons to be discussed, it is extremely doubtful that such discrimination is at all common. Let us assume, however, that it is. The attempted justification fails, nonetheless. There are laws upon laws forbidding discrimination in employment and promotion, in housing, in voting, in access to places of public accommodation, in lending, and much more. We have the Civil Rights Acts of 1866,1871, 1964, 1969, and 1991; we have the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, 1975, and 1982. There is agency upon agency devoted to findind and ending discrimination: the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the Department od Education's Civil Right's Office,civil rights sections in various government agencies, as well as state and municipal laws enforcement agencies. There are thousands of such agencies,and more than 100,000 government lawyers, investigators, and agents who spend hundredsd ofmillions of dollars enforcing the laws and regulations. If that were not enough, there are laws providing for private lawsuits and an army of private attorneys bringing discrimination claims. If discrimination is provable, we have far more than adequate means of dealing with it.

I look at this and think the same as I do about all of the NRA types who want more money and claim they are doing the "good fight".

My thought is: "Why is nobody bringing just 1 case to court showing the act as UNCONSTITUTIONAL"?

-The answer is always the same: Nobody wants to give up their power or money.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by musicman
Starting the polocy of preferential treatment was a serious mistake. Continuing it would be a disaster. There is no respectable rationale for continuation. The most frequently heard argument is the claim that active discrimination against minorities and women continues in this country. For reasons to be discussed, it is extremely doubtful that such discrimination is at all common. Let us assume, however, that it is. The attempted justification fails, nonetheless. There are laws upon laws forbidding discrimination in employment and promotion, in housing, in voting, in access to places of public accommodation, in lending, and much more. We have the Civil Rights Acts of 1866,1871, 1964, 1969, and 1991; we have the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, 1975, and 1982. There is agency upon agency devoted to findind and ending discrimination: the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the Department od Education's Civil Right's Office,civil rights sections in various government agencies, as well as state and municipal laws enforcement agencies. There are thousands of such agencies,and more than 100,000 government lawyers, investigators, and agents who spend hundredsd ofmillions of dollars enforcing the laws and regulations. If that were not enough, there are laws providing for private lawsuits and an army of private attorneys bringing discrimination claims. If discrimination is provable, we have far more than adequate means of dealing with it.

Ok i'll grant you that on an official level there are sufficient laws and manpower handling the problem. On the individual level though is where I think the real problem exists. I mean if we have two confirmed hardcore racists in here out of lets say 40 actual active members how many more are there in a country the size of the U.S.A.? These guys wouldn't or won't give minorities the sweat from their balls if they were thirsty. Now lets say these guys are involved in private business, well you see the kind of damage that could be done.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I don't advocate any kind of racial separtism segregation, or any form of subjugation. Quit misrepresenting my opinions. AKA, quit talking out of your ass.

I have a little something about that:

Numbers 22:
21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.
22 And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.
23 And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.
24 But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side.
25 And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he smote her again.
26 And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left.
27 And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.
28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.
30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.
31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.
32 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me:
33 And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.
34 And Balaam said unto the angel of the LORD, I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again.
35 And the angel of the LORD said unto Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.
36 And when Balak heard that Balaam was come, he went out to meet him unto a city of Moab, which is in the border of Arnon, which is in the utmost coast.
37 And Balak said unto Balaam, Did I not earnestly send unto thee to call thee? wherefore camest thou not unto me? am I not able indeed to promote thee to honour?
38 And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.
39 And Balaam went with Balak, and they came unto Kirjathhuzoth.
40 And Balak offered oxen and sheep, and sent to Balaam, and to the princes that were with him.
41 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Balak took Balaam, and brought him up into the high places of Baal, that thence he might see the utmost part of the people.

Seems talking out of an ass is sometimes the only way to get a person's attention.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I have a little something about that:



Seems talking out of an ass is sometimes the only way to get a person's attention.

Do you have a biblical defense for all your character faults?!

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Do you have a biblical defense for all your character faults?!

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

I have Biblical PROOF for ALL of OUR faults.

-And as you have seen, proof against most of the points you claim to be able to prove and I oppose.