The Dirty Little Truth About the Minimum Wage

[Conservative65]

schlaes' degree was in english. everything she "knows" about economics is based on her political affiliations.

Yeah, there is always some little niggling detail you can nit pick... Saul Alinsky taught you well.

while i appreciate the righgtwingnut obsession with alinsky, i have never read alinsky.

again, she has an english degree. she is not an economist and no actual responsible economists buy the nonsense she tells you.

i can't help it if you're deluded.

I fully understand what you're saying and think JoeB is an idiot. However, JoeB is one of those that thinks it's wrong to use race to not hire/fire someone yet perfectly OK to use race as a factor to hire someone.

He actually admitted in another thread that he wants employers to be forced to hire based on community makeup and to be monitored by government to ensure compliance. So in order to do this, they would necessarily have to hire AND fire solely on the basis of skin color.

Under his system... if I look out there and find my community is 20% more white, I have to fire 20% of my black workers and replace them with whites. Next month, if my community is 20% more Hispanic, I have to fire the whites and hire Hispanics. Otherwise, I can't be in compliance when the government man comes around.

After this was pointed out, he tried to tapdance around with some bullshit about letting "natural attrition" take care of it... but that poses a problem with any way of enforcing compliance.

And the underlying racism of his plan is the systemic segregation it would create. As companies attempted to hire based on community makeup, the minority in the community would increasingly find it harder to get jobs and they would be forced into communities where they were in the majority. Over time, you'd have predominately white communities... which is what JoeB is probably wanting.

I don't know that Joe thought that far into the firing part and got past the hiring part.

I had one like him several years ago use that argument that businesses should be forced to hire based on societal makeup in the area so I posed a scenario to him which he contradicted himself significantly. It was related to sports.

It was when the Rooney Rule was put into place that NFL teams had to interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior operations position. I posed the scenario that if he believed a business should be required to hire based on society makeup that NFL teams should have to do the same. It included players, too. That means there would be 22 white, 4 black, 4 hispanic, 1 asian and 1 native American.

The current NFL roster limit is 53. That means 37 whites, 7 blacks, 7 hispanics, 1 asian, and 1 native American.

Can you guess his answer?

 

[dblack]

Well, it's an ideal. A goal. Are you saying it isn't worth pursuing?

I'm saying you fellas need to come on down to planet earth and start talking about issues in a realistic way that doesn't make you look like martians.

Hmm. I'm not really sure what that means. I think freedom is a fairly natural desire, and something most people consider a good thing. I'm wary of attempts to write it off as a fantasy.

 

[Conservative65]

Whatever, guy... you keep changing your story every five minutes, I kind of stopped paying attention and just went straight to mocking you.

So is that an admission that you can't back up your allegations?

Thanks... I knew you were lying and now everyone else knows too.

When I see someone rushing to your defense, I'll worry. BUt you've pretty much alienated left and right at this point.

I'm also waiting on you to support your allegations.

 

[JoeB131]

He actually admitted in another thread that he wants employers to be forced to hire based on community makeup and to be monitored by government to ensure compliance. So in order to do this, they would necessarily have to hire AND fire solely on the basis of skin color.

Under his system... if I look out there and find my community is 20% more white, I have to fire 20% of my black workers and replace them with whites. Next month, if my community is 20% more Hispanic, I have to fire the whites and hire Hispanics. Otherwise, I can't be in compliance when the government man comes around.

again, guy, your company is going to turn over a lot faster than your community ever will. I suspect that if you even owned a company, the employers are sending out resumes like madmen trying to get away from you.

The reality is WE ALREADY HIRE AND FIRE ON THE BASIS OF SKIN COLOR. It just works out well for whites. ANd you know what, the main beneficiary of affrimative action have been- wait for it - WHITE WOMEN.

Companies were told they had to hire a certain percentage of women and they did. Problem fucking solved.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know that Joe thought that far into the firing part and got past the hiring part.

I had one like him several years ago use that argument that businesses should be forced to hire based on societal makeup in the area so I posed a scenario to him which he contradicted himself significantly. It was related to sports.

It was when the Rooney Rule was put into place that NFL teams had to interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior operations position. I posed the scenario that if he believed a business should be required to hire based on society makeup that NFL teams should have to do the same. It included players, too. That means there would be 22 white, 4 black, 4 hispanic, 1 asian and 1 native American.

The current NFL roster limit is 53. That means 37 whites, 7 blacks, 7 hispanics, 1 asian, and 1 native American.

Can you guess his answer?

That real businesses can't be compared to something like the NFL? Because that's the obvious answer.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't know that Joe thought that far into the firing part and got past the hiring part.

I had one like him several years ago use that argument that businesses should be forced to hire based on societal makeup in the area so I posed a scenario to him which he contradicted himself significantly. It was related to sports.

It was when the Rooney Rule was put into place that NFL teams had to interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior operations position. I posed the scenario that if he believed a business should be required to hire based on society makeup that NFL teams should have to do the same. It included players, too. That means there would be 22 white, 4 black, 4 hispanic, 1 asian and 1 native American.

The current NFL roster limit is 53. That means 37 whites, 7 blacks, 7 hispanics, 1 asian, and 1 native American.

Can you guess his answer?

That real businesses can't be compared to something like the NFL? Because that's the obvious answer.

It's a real business. He had no answer.

Based on your answer, you're admitting that blacks can't make it in real business.

 

[JoeB131]

It's a real business. He had no answer.

Based on your answer, you're admitting that blacks can't make it in real business.

Uh, no, you see, the thing is, the NFL doesn't ONLY hire coaches. It hires players, trainers, adminitrators, clerical, promotional people, and so on. So your example was kind of a poor one, as usual.

Obviously, a lot of blacks are coaches, players, etc....

so your argument doesn't hold water, really.

 

[Conservative65]

It's a real business. He had no answer.

Based on your answer, you're admitting that blacks can't make it in real business.

Uh, no, you see, the thing is, the NFL doesn't ONLY hire coaches. It hires players, trainers, adminitrators, clerical, promotional people, and so on. So your example was kind of a poor one, as usual.

Obviously, a lot of blacks are coaches, players, etc....

so your argument doesn't hold water, really.

We can carry that same concept in the NFL to those other positions. Agree?

 

[Boss]

He actually admitted in another thread that he wants employers to be forced to hire based on community makeup and to be monitored by government to ensure compliance. So in order to do this, they would necessarily have to hire AND fire solely on the basis of skin color.

Under his system... if I look out there and find my community is 20% more white, I have to fire 20% of my black workers and replace them with whites. Next month, if my community is 20% more Hispanic, I have to fire the whites and hire Hispanics. Otherwise, I can't be in compliance when the government man comes around.

again, guy, your company is going to turn over a lot faster than your community ever will. I suspect that if you even owned a company, the employers are sending out resumes like madmen trying to get away from you.

The reality is WE ALREADY HIRE AND FIRE ON THE BASIS OF SKIN COLOR. It just works out well for whites. ANd you know what, the main beneficiary of affrimative action have been- wait for it - WHITE WOMEN.

Companies were told they had to hire a certain percentage of women and they did. Problem fucking solved.

Sorry, but for MY business, I want to hire the best and most qualified individual regardless of their skin color, religious belief or gender. The last thing on my list of requirements is what you want. In fact, it's not even on my list.

I also think that any policy that gives any group an advantage over others is wrong. I don't care if it's blacks, women, Martians or white males. I want every person who applies for MY jobs to have an equal opportunity to obtain them. If that happens to conform to the community makeup... Great! But again, that isn't on my list of requirements or standards which must be met.

Now... you can sit here and tell us how my turnover is going to happen faster than the makeup of my community changes but you have no way of proving that claim. I may have very little turnover and my community may be changing very rapidly. We have no control over these things, they change depending on variables that are not in our control. Are you planning to put up a sign... No more whites in this community until some black folks quit their jobs? Maybe we need a government agency to approve our moves in and out of communities?

You see, Joey... what you want is a completely racist society who sees everything based on skin color. I don't want that and I don't think most Americans want that. Only people who are obsessed with race want that. What I think we need to get to the bottom of here, is why are you so obsessed with race?

Speaking on a purely technical basis and with the full support of biological science behind me, we can say there is really no such thing as race. We're all homo sapiens. We all belong to the same species which came from the same origin, regardless of your beliefs on that origin. Our DNA proves this.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, but for MY business, I want to hire the best and most qualified individual regardless of their skin color, religious belief or gender. The last thing on my list of requirements is what you want. In fact, it's not even on my list.

I also think that any policy that gives any group an advantage over others is wrong. I don't care if it's blacks, women, Martians or white males. I want every person who applies for MY jobs to have an equal opportunity to obtain them. If that happens to conform to the community makeup... Great! But again, that isn't on my list of requirements or standards which must be met.

Right, guy. The problem is they've studied this. If you have a Black or Hispanic Name, you are less likely to get a call back for an interview, even if you have hte same qualifications as the white person. So in real companies that exist, not your pretend company run by a pretend Native American, this is a real problem.

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer' in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.

 

[JoeB131]

Now... you can sit here and tell us how my turnover is going to happen faster than the makeup of my community changes but you have no way of proving that claim. I may have very little turnover and my community may be changing very rapidly

YOu may have a bunch of farting unicorns show up with job applications, but that's not likely, either, Chief Running Gag....

 

[Boss]

Sorry, but for MY business, I want to hire the best and most qualified individual regardless of their skin color, religious belief or gender. The last thing on my list of requirements is what you want. In fact, it's not even on my list.

I also think that any policy that gives any group an advantage over others is wrong. I don't care if it's blacks, women, Martians or white males. I want every person who applies for MY jobs to have an equal opportunity to obtain them. If that happens to conform to the community makeup... Great! But again, that isn't on my list of requirements or standards which must be met.

Right, guy. The problem is they've studied this. If you have a Black or Hispanic Name, you are less likely to get a call back for an interview, even if you have hte same qualifications as the white person. So in real companies that exist, not your pretend company run by a pretend Native American, this is a real problem.

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer' in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.

The very nature of the experiment tells us there is a predetermined result that is being sought. If I want to create a test to show the results I want, that's not hard to do. Maybe they tried this test in 50 cities and these were the only two where this was the result? Maybe they had to run the test a dozen times before they got this result? We don't know... we're putting our faith in biased poll-takers who are seeking a certain result and then accepting their summations.

And hey, look... let's be completely honest... certain jobs may require certain types of people. I'm probably not going to hire Shaniqua from the hood to sell makeup in my upscale boutique in a white upscale neighborhood... no offense to Shaniqua, it's just not the kind of job she's going to realistically get. People discriminate when they hire, that's what the hiring process is... a discrimination of applicants to find a suitable one. Everyone who didn't get the job was discriminated against for various reasons. That's called life.

This is precisely why the minimum wage and increasing the minimum wage prices certain people out of the job market and makes things more difficult for them.

 

[JoeB131]

The very nature of the experiment tells us there is a predetermined result that is being sought. If I want to create a test to show the results I want, that's not hard to do. Maybe they tried this test in 50 cities and these were the only two where this was the result? Maybe they had to run the test a dozen times before they got this result? We don't know... we're putting our faith in biased poll-takers who are seeking a certain result and then accepting their summations.

Or maybe it's exactly what it appears. A white guy is more likely to hire another white guy than a guy named "Jamal". Someone clearly didn't explain Occam's razor to you at an early age.

And hey, look... let's be completely honest... certain jobs may require certain types of people. I'm probably not going to hire Shaniqua from the hood to sell makeup in my upscale boutique in a white upscale neighborhood... no offense to Shaniqua, it's just not the kind of job she's going to realistically get. People discriminate when they hire, that's what the hiring process is... a discrimination of applicants to find a suitable one. Everyone who didn't get the job was discriminated against for various reasons. That's called life.

I'm a little confused. Whey wouldn't Shaniqua be qualified for that job, assuming on her resume she had a background in cosmetics?

I'm mean, I'd understand why YOU wouldn't hire her... it's just not a rational reason.

Of course, the thing is, we were just talking about Resumes... Why would Shaquina be disqualified on the basis of her resume if she had the same skill set as Sally?

This is precisely why the minimum wage and increasing the minimum wage prices certain people out of the job market and makes things more difficult for them.

you are arguing that Shaquina would be more likely to get hired if she couldn't put food on the table? Is this your argument?

 

[Boss]

Okay... so at my bistro, I don't have any female servers. When I interviewed for servers, I was looking for a particular type person because I wanted to present a certain image to the customer. I hired young white college age males. I turned down 50-year-old women who had waitress experience because that's not the image I was looking for. I hired a young attractive female hostess, again, because I was looking for a certain type person to fill that role. I had several sloppy fat ugly people I could've hired but that's not who I wanted as my hostess.

My day manager is a black lady and I've known her for years. I hired her because I know that she can run the bistro. I trust her to make my bank deposits and not steal from me. I know she can handle the personnel and run the show when I'm not around. My primary chef is an Italian guy who studied at a prestigious culinary school in Europe, his credentials were superior. I would really hate to think of what kind of crew I'd have if things were left up to YOU.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sorry, but for MY business, I want to hire the best and most qualified individual regardless of their skin color, religious belief or gender. The last thing on my list of requirements is what you want. In fact, it's not even on my list.

I also think that any policy that gives any group an advantage over others is wrong. I don't care if it's blacks, women, Martians or white males. I want every person who applies for MY jobs to have an equal opportunity to obtain them. If that happens to conform to the community makeup... Great! But again, that isn't on my list of requirements or standards which must be met.

Right, guy. The problem is they've studied this. If you have a Black or Hispanic Name, you are less likely to get a call back for an interview, even if you have hte same qualifications as the white person. So in real companies that exist, not your pretend company run by a pretend Native American, this is a real problem.

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer' in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.

I like how you failed to mention they did this study before and after...the check the felon box was removed..

Your ilk made IT worse for minoritys

 

[Boss]

Or maybe it's exactly what it appears. A white guy is more likely to hire another white guy than a guy named "Jamal". Someone clearly didn't explain Occam's razor to you at an early age.

Maybe it is.. so what? You're not going to cure racism by forcing people to focus on skin color... dummy! And not everything is racist just because it appears to be that way to you. I see you having this unhealthy obsession with race that is difficult to explain if you're not racist yourself.

Jobs are all different. Certain jobs may involve customer interaction and certain jobs may not. In jobs that require customer interaction, it's natural to desire employees who appeal to the majority of your customer base. That's not racism, that's just common sense. If you hire some burly balding fat guy who's 40 years old to sell women's underwear... don't be surprised if you don't sell much. Subsequently, if you're hiring people to work on an assembly line and make widgets, none of that is important.

If I need men to unload the fish boats at the docks, I'm probably not going to hire Heather the blonde cheerleader. She might be one helluva fish-flinger... I don't know... but she's probably not going to get the job. Maybe she needs to go apply for the women's underwear selling job?

 

[JoeB131]

Okay... so at my bistro, I don't have any female servers. When I interviewed for servers, I was looking for a particular type person because I wanted to present a certain image to the customer. I hired young white college age males. I turned down 50-year-old women who had waitress experience because that's not the image I was looking for. I hired a young attractive female hostess, again, because I was looking for a certain type person to fill that role. I had several sloppy fat ugly people I could've hired but that's not who I wanted as my hostess.

Oh, youre running a bistro now? It's so hard to keep up with your ever changing story.

Okay, so essentially, you are trying to come up with a convoluted nothing to do with the point thing to justify why some businesses can be racist.. Got it.

My day manager is a black lady and I've known her for years. I hired her because I know that she can run the bistro. I trust her to make my bank deposits and not steal from me. I know she can handle the personnel and run the show when I'm not around. My primary chef is an Italian guy who studied at a prestigious culinary school in Europe, his credentials were superior. I would really hate to think of what kind of crew I'd have if things were left up to YOU.

How is it you associate "Black" and "stealing" in the same discussion.. Of course we weren't talking about actual credentials... we were talking about how resumes with IDENTICAL qualifications were considered when the bias of RACE was factored in.

Maybe it is.. so what? You're not going to cure racism by forcing people to focus on skin color... dummy! And not everything is racist just because it appears to be that way to you. I see you having this unhealthy obsession with race that is difficult to explain if you're not racist yourself.

Well, no, I just see too many examples of it in real life. Again- going back to Mr. Golfing buddy. Nothing against the guy. He's been to parties at my house, including my 50th BDay.. But the fact was- the manager fired a completely qualified black lady to hire this fellow who had NO qualifications.

If I belived in a God, I would be thanking him every day that I was born a white man in this society. But it doesn't mean you don't try to do something about the injustices...

Jobs are all different. Certain jobs may involve customer interaction and certain jobs may not. In jobs that require customer interaction, it's natural to desire employees who appeal to the majority of your customer base. That's not racism, that's just common sense. If you hire some burly balding fat guy who's 40 years old to sell women's underwear... don't be surprised if you don't sell much. Subsequently, if you're hiring people to work on an assembly line and make widgets, none of that is important.

What does ANY of that have to do with the fact that black names only get called 50% of the rate at white names? Guy, you are dodging the issue.... None of these things have anything to do with what happens after the interview. We were talking specifically- Same Resume- Same qualifications- Black names vs. White Names. White names get called morewith EVERY OTHER FACTOR being equal.

I like how you failed to mention they did this study before and after...the check the felon box was removed..

Your ilk made IT worse for minoritys

Uh, now you are making stuff up... man,watching you two squirm on this issue is hilarious.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Okay... so at my bistro, I don't have any female servers. When I interviewed for servers, I was looking for a particular type person because I wanted to present a certain image to the customer. I hired young white college age males. I turned down 50-year-old women who had waitress experience because that's not the image I was looking for. I hired a young attractive female hostess, again, because I was looking for a certain type person to fill that role. I had several sloppy fat ugly people I could've hired but that's not who I wanted as my hostess.

Oh, youre running a bistro now? It's so hard to keep up with your ever changing story.

Okay, so essentially, you are trying to come up with a convoluted nothing to do with the point thing to justify why some businesses can be racist.. Got it.

My day manager is a black lady and I've known her for years. I hired her because I know that she can run the bistro. I trust her to make my bank deposits and not steal from me. I know she can handle the personnel and run the show when I'm not around. My primary chef is an Italian guy who studied at a prestigious culinary school in Europe, his credentials were superior. I would really hate to think of what kind of crew I'd have if things were left up to YOU.

How is it you associate "Black" and "stealing" in the same discussion.. Of course we weren't talking about actual credentials... we were talking about how resumes with IDENTICAL qualifications were considered when the bias of RACE was factored in.

Maybe it is.. so what? You're not going to cure racism by forcing people to focus on skin color... dummy! And not everything is racist just because it appears to be that way to you. I see you having this unhealthy obsession with race that is difficult to explain if you're not racist yourself.

Well, no, I just see too many examples of it in real life. Again- going back to Mr. Golfing buddy. Nothing against the guy. He's been to parties at my house, including my 50th BDay.. But the fact was- the manager fired a completely qualified black lady to hire this fellow who had NO qualifications.

If I belived in a God, I would be thanking him every day that I was born a white man in this society. But it doesn't mean you don't try to do something about the injustices...

Jobs are all different. Certain jobs may involve customer interaction and certain jobs may not. In jobs that require customer interaction, it's natural to desire employees who appeal to the majority of your customer base. That's not racism, that's just common sense. If you hire some burly balding fat guy who's 40 years old to sell women's underwear... don't be surprised if you don't sell much. Subsequently, if you're hiring people to work on an assembly line and make widgets, none of that is important.

What does ANY of that have to do with the fact that black names only get called 50% of the rate at white names? Guy, you are dodging the issue.... None of these things have anything to do with what happens after the interview. We were talking specifically- Same Resume- Same qualifications- Black names vs. White Names. White names get called morewith EVERY OTHER FACTOR being equal.

I like how you failed to mention they did this study before and after...the check the felon box was removed..

Your ilk made IT worse for minoritys

Uh, now you are making stuff up... man,watching you two squirm on this issue is hilarious.

You fucktard I am the one who educated you on the story. A week ago


The Unintended Consequences of 'Ban the Box'





What else is new liberals "Trying to do something" and fuck it up even worse...



Life in prison is meant to be difficult. But it doesn't always get better once you're out. Re-entering offenders often have a tough time finding employment, even when they are motivated and able to work. But "ban the box" - a popular policy aimed at helping ex-offenders find jobs - doesn't help many ex-offenders, andactually decreases employment for black and Hispanic men who don't have criminal records. This is a classic case of unintended consequences. We should repeal "ban the box" and focus on better alternatives.





What effects has "ban the box" had so far? Two new working papers suggest that, as economic theory predicts, "ban the box" policies increase racial disparities in employment outcomes.

Amanda Agan and Sonja Starr submitted thousands of fictitious job applications before and after "ban the box" went into effect in New Jersey and New York City, randomly assigning race and criminal history to each "applicant." They then tracked the number of callbacks received. When employers asked about criminal records on the job application, they called white applicants slightly more often than identical black applicants - but that small gap became more than four times larger, and statistically significant, after "ban the box" went into effect. (White applicants with criminal records benefited the most from the policy change - they're the ones who got a chance to prove themselves in an interview, though it's unclear if they would have gotten a job offer. Employers are still allowed to check criminal records before making a final offer, so applicants could be turned away at that point.) Because of the randomization, they can attribute this effect to the removal of criminal history information from job applications.

In a separate paper, Benjamin Hansen and I exploit the variation in adoption and timing of "ban the box" policies across the country to measure the policy's net effects on the employment outcomes of young, low-skilled men. We find that black and Hispanic men without college degrees are significantly less likely to be employed after "ban the box" than before. This result is not explained by pre-existing trends in employment, and persists for several years.

Overall, the unintended consequences of "ban the box" are large, and run counter to one of its goals: reducing racial disparities in employment

 

[JoeB131]

You fucktard I am the one who educated you on the story. A week ago

you mean a post that I completely ignored because it wasn't germaine to anything?

you know, I write resumes for a side business... and I think I've had ONE resume for a ex-convict... (The guy didn't do what he was convicted of... the CPD beat a confession out of one of his friends and he implicated everyone he knew.) So the idea that this is a widespread thing is sort of silly.

If you aren't calling Jamal or Lakesha, it's because you're racist. Period.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You fucktard I am the one who educated you on the story. A week ago

you mean a post that I completely ignored because it wasn't germaine to anything?

you know, I write resumes for a side business... and I think I've had ONE resume for a ex-convict... (The guy didn't do what he was convicted of... the CPD beat a confession out of one of his friends and he implicated everyone he knew.) So the idea that this is a widespread thing is sort of silly.

If you aren't calling Jamal or Lakesha, it's because you're racist. Period.

You write resumes as a side business? Bet you have a video dating site also were you record people on VHS...and have run a milk man business in the morning.


Yes you ghost read my thread a week ago and now claim it is your post.

I have the proof you have zip nadda to claim you are better informed then me.