Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If white females benefitted more from AA, they would be more prolific in govt buildings, where AA is commonly enacted.I always wonder how anyone knows whether or not white women benefit most. I have never been given a job just because I am female.While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women. Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA
And I was never "given a job for being black".
IMO what is really being discussed here is not to imply that ALL white females have benefitted from AA.
Just the fact that "generally" they have benefitted more than others.
And I will add, that "FEMALES" generally have benefitted more, and they SHOULD.
They represent a larger portion of the population size, and have been marginalized in the past by a white male dominated workforce.
Shut up, fool.You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application. You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.FALSE! SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University ONLY blacks received assistantships. 2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its 'anti-WHITE' discriminatory nature. As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will. I could not degrade myself that way. It is something for people with no self-respect.
When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right? You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position. Hell the only qualified candidate if speak Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.
So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly. If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy.
But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably? Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?
He's lying.
There are men and women who are in power who attempt to deny others to purchase food and drink to survive. To experience that is surreal. Egos are a powerful element in life. And when empowered not a thought of trampling over the rights of another occurs as genuflecting to them is a must. And there are always people ho will convey any discourse they can. I can only say get an attorney as soon as it happens. It is a Constitutional infraction and a Biblical one. Some may even promote the Bible. Also I typed here before that women benefitted in droves in the 1970's from AA. Many retired in comfort around the millennial in good jobs whether they were deserved or not. We have not stopped this practice and our competitiveness to others in the world is in decline.70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were never going to get anyway because they're NOT QUALIFIED for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women. Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA
Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
PREACH!
There is proof white women benefitted from AA. Funny how white people will declare how it's certain that every black person has benefited from AA, but when it's shown how whites have there is no proof or "Hispanics" continually post fact less bullshit about how it's a very small number. Numerous studies and years of labor statistics show that 100's of millions of white women have benefitted from AA. Opinions from dementia addled fake Hispanics and white women who have benefitted from AA doesn't change this reality.
What is White Supremacy?
Just like the Bible says
The dog also loves you and he is faithful.
Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application. You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.FALSE! SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University ONLY blacks received assistantships. 2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its 'anti-WHITE' discriminatory nature. As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will. I could not degrade myself that way. It is something for people with no self-respect.
When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right? You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position. Hell the only qualified candidate if speaking Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.
So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly. If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy.
But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably? Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?
Well, what a great article. Trouble is it's irrelevant to what I said. What the creeps at Memphis State did had nothing to do with law. It was just a result of how they chose to dispense assistantships. All to blacks, and no one else.You're mistakenFALSE! SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University ONLY blacks received assistantships. 2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its 'anti-WHITE' discriminatory nature. As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says
By DAVID G. SAVAGE
May 19, 1987
12 AM
Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON —
Expanding the scope of the nation’s civil rights laws, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that Jews, Arabs and others who suffer discrimination based on their “ancestry” are protected under statutes barring racial discrimination.
In two unanimous decisions, the justices concluded that Congress in the original 1866 Civil Rights Act intended not only to protect blacks but also immigrants and others who suffer because of their nationality or appearance.
Lawyers for Jewish and Arab groups, who filed common appeals to the high court, praised the rulings as an enlightened attack on social discrimination.
But, in practical terms, the rulings’ main beneficiary may be Latinos, the nation’s second-largest minority group. Courts have been divided over whether Latinos are covered by all federal civil rights statutes.
The 1866 law said that its coverage applied to those who were not “white citizens,” and a federal appeals court covering the Western states had ruled that light-skinned persons of Mexican ancestry were not protected because they are “white.”
“This Supreme Court ruling puts that issue to rest,” said Antonia Hernandez, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles. She predicted that the law will be especially valuable in challenging discrimination related to the new immigration law.
“We see this as a major victory that greatly expands civil rights protections for Hispanics,” Hernandez said.
The two cases before the high court stemmed from the spray-painting of anti-Semitic and Nazi slogans and symbols on a synagogue in Silver Spring, Md., and the loss of tenure by a professor at St. Francis College of Loretto, Pa., who was a U.S. citizen born in Iraq.
In the first case, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., had dismissed the congregation’s civil rights suit against the men who desecrated the synagogue on the grounds that Jews are not a separate race. In the second case, an appeals court in Philadelphia allowed the suit by the Arab professor, Majid Ghaidan Al-Khazraji, after concluding that he may have suffered from discrimination based on his ancestry.
Justice Byron R. White, writing for the court, pointed out that the term “race” in the 19th Century was more akin to what today might be considered “nationality.” During the 1866 debate, lawmakers referred to the “German race,” the “Scandinavian race” and the “Anglo-Saxon race,” he noted.
“Based on the history of Section 1981 (of the Civil Rights Act), we have little trouble in concluding that Congress intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” White wrote.
Dilemma for Jews
Lawyers for Jewish groups said that the case posed a dilemma because they do not want to foster the myth that Jews are a separate race.
“The court has clearly vindicated the right of Arabs and Jewish plaintiffs to seek relief under federal civil rights laws, without crossing the lines to declare they are members of a separate race,” said Gregg Levy, an attorney representing the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.
Abdeen Jabara, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the decision “recognizes that Arab-Americans have been subject to a certain degree of racism in the U.S. This case is so important because it says that racism directed at any individual because of his ancestry, religion or origin is as odious as racism based on his skin color.”
The cases are Shaare Tefila Congregation vs. Cobb, 85-2156, and St. Francis College vs. Al-Khazraji, 85-2169.
Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says
Lie.You perceive wrong. When all the non-blacks in my graduate school were denied assistantships, there was no sharing. The blacks got it all. The non-blacks got nothing.Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.I did and I just went back and read them again. What did I miss?Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind? Or a racist?
Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
My bad. I was focused on another thread... the one I started. I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO. When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
My position is that I don't see anything different from either side. BOTH sides are being duped. At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
"America was founded by white people for white people"The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity. And both statements are different than even this statement
versus"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"
"The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"This last statement reads like something in a history book. It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries. What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
This is commonly the way AA has worked for decades. Walk the long hallways of your local VA hospital, and observe who's working there. You'll see clearly. 95% minorities. 5% white women.
Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.I did and I just went back and read them again. What did I miss?Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind? Or a racist?I'm only calling his hate what it is. Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist. Now fuck off.
Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
My bad. I was focused on another thread... the one I started. I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO. When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
My position is that I don't see anything different from either side. BOTH sides are being duped. At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
"America was founded by white people for white people"The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity. And both statements are different than even this statement
versus"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"
"The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"This last statement reads like something in a history book. It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries. What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
Are you a US military veteran ?Lie.You perceive wrong. When all the non-blacks in my graduate school were denied assistantships, there was no sharing. The blacks got it all. The non-blacks got nothing.Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.I did and I just went back and read them again. What did I miss?Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
My bad. I was focused on another thread... the one I started. I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO. When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
My position is that I don't see anything different from either side. BOTH sides are being duped. At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
"America was founded by white people for white people"The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity. And both statements are different than even this statement
versus"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"
"The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"This last statement reads like something in a history book. It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries. What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
This is commonly the way AA has worked for decades. Walk the long hallways of your local VA hospital, and observe who's working there. You'll see clearly. 95% minorities. 5% white women.
If anybody is owed anything from race, it is white people, who should get $$$$$$$ in reparations, to compensate them for 6 decades of discrimination mistreatment in affirmative action.Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.I did and I just went back and read them again. What did I miss?Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind? Or a racist?
Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
My bad. I was focused on another thread... the one I started. I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO. When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
My position is that I don't see anything different from either side. BOTH sides are being duped. At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
"America was founded by white people for white people"The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity. And both statements are different than even this statement
versus"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"
"The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"This last statement reads like something in a history book. It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries. What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them. The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.
OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities willingly offered. You cannot criminalize Liberty. You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee. We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else. We are a free market economy.
If anybody is owed anything from race, it is white people, who should get $$$$$$$ in reparations, to compensate them for 6 decades of discrimination mistreatment in affirmative action.Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.I did and I just went back and read them again. What did I miss?Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
My bad. I was focused on another thread... the one I started. I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO. When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
My position is that I don't see anything different from either side. BOTH sides are being duped. At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
"America was founded by white people for white people"The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity. And both statements are different than even this statement
versus"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"
"The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"This last statement reads like something in a history book. It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries. What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them. The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.
OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities willingly offered. You cannot criminalize Liberty. You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee. We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else. We are a free market economy.
This should not be paid from the govt though. It should be paid from the private pockets of those guilty of pushing and supporting AA. Example: katsteve, IM2, NVM.
This can not endure. It can not last. For those who replace have to be at leas the same and or better. We are falling behind at this point.If anybody is owed anything from race, it is white people, who should get $$$$$$$ in reparations, to compensate them for 6 decades of discrimination mistreatment in affirmative action.Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.I did and I just went back and read them again. What did I miss?
My bad. I was focused on another thread... the one I started. I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO. When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
My position is that I don't see anything different from either side. BOTH sides are being duped. At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
"America was founded by white people for white people"The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity. And both statements are different than even this statement
versus"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"
"The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"This last statement reads like something in a history book. It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries. What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them. The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.
OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities willingly offered. You cannot criminalize Liberty. You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee. We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else. We are a free market economy.
This should not be paid from the govt though. It should be paid from the private pockets of those guilty of pushing and supporting AA. Example: katsteve, IM2, NVM.
Copy that. I was programmed to believe that we owed the black people for alleged past wrongs. And so, I watched black people get promoted over me and my anger was directed at the government since my parents kept telling me that two wrongs don't make a right.
Employers had rather stuff hot butter up a wild cat's ass than to reprimand their token black workers. All the black guy had to do was throw that big D word out there (discrimination) and it was all over. Instead, employers would reprimand an entire work force just because one guy took advantage of the rules.
After being exposed to hatemongers like IM2, who has an insult for anyone that disagrees with him, some of my anger and frustration is now aimed at those black people who think the world owes them a living.
Here, in the Atlanta area, a week or so back, a conservative talk show was out and a sister station of WSB radio had black hosts taking his spot for the day (or whatever time period he was out.) They were open in speaking about black privilege - how they can publicly say the N word, but whites can't. Blacks can dabble in racial humor, insult white people, and it is acceptable. So it is what it is because the whites got goaded into a false sense of guilt (discrimination and slavery seem to work most of the time.) Now, trying to get people to stand up and say that this race game works both ways is near impossible.
This can not endure. It can not last. For those who replace have to be at leas the same and or better. We are falling behind at this point.If anybody is owed anything from race, it is white people, who should get $$$$$$$ in reparations, to compensate them for 6 decades of discrimination mistreatment in affirmative action.Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.My bad. I was focused on another thread... the one I started. I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO. When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
My position is that I don't see anything different from either side. BOTH sides are being duped. At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
"America was founded by white people for white people"The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity. And both statements are different than even this statement
versus"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"
"The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"This last statement reads like something in a history book. It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries. What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them. The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.
OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities willingly offered. You cannot criminalize Liberty. You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee. We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else. We are a free market economy.
This should not be paid from the govt though. It should be paid from the private pockets of those guilty of pushing and supporting AA. Example: katsteve, IM2, NVM.
Copy that. I was programmed to believe that we owed the black people for alleged past wrongs. And so, I watched black people get promoted over me and my anger was directed at the government since my parents kept telling me that two wrongs don't make a right.
Employers had rather stuff hot butter up a wild cat's ass than to reprimand their token black workers. All the black guy had to do was throw that big D word out there (discrimination) and it was all over. Instead, employers would reprimand an entire work force just because one guy took advantage of the rules.
After being exposed to hatemongers like IM2, who has an insult for anyone that disagrees with him, some of my anger and frustration is now aimed at those black people who think the world owes them a living.
Here, in the Atlanta area, a week or so back, a conservative talk show was out and a sister station of WSB radio had black hosts taking his spot for the day (or whatever time period he was out.) They were open in speaking about black privilege - how they can publicly say the N word, but whites can't. Blacks can dabble in racial humor, insult white people, and it is acceptable. So it is what it is because the whites got goaded into a false sense of guilt (discrimination and slavery seem to work most of the time.) Now, trying to get people to stand up and say that this race game works both ways is near impossible.
I agree Jitts; and Western Civilization even encourages public displays of pride among the new Melting Pot of un-assimilated heritages.It’s how every race feels .. blacks say they are Supreme, Latins, etc.. it’s natural to national
Same can be said of black women or black men. I went back and got a degree when I was 50. Nobody handed me anything and I never complained about it. I worked hard, studied hard and earned every damn thing I ever got.70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were never going to get anyway because they're NOT QUALIFIED for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women. Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA
Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.What is White Supremacy?
I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
Absolutely no proof. I never said blacks benefitted most. EVERYONE should get what they want through hard work, not based on race or gender.70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were never going to get anyway because they're NOT QUALIFIED for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women. Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA
Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
PREACH!
There is proof white women benefitted from AA. Funny how white people will declare how it's certain that every black person has benefited from AA, but when it's shown how whites have there is no proof or "Hispanics" continually post fact less bullshit about how it's a very small number. Numerous studies and years of labor statistics show that 100's of millions of white women have benefitted from AA. Opinions from dementia addled fake Hispanics and white women who have benefitted from AA doesn't change this reality.
I agree Jitts; and Western Civilization even encourages public displays of pride among the new Melting Pot of un-assimilated heritages.It’s how every race feels .. blacks say they are Supreme, Latins, etc.. it’s natural to national
Unless of course your pride is in anyway linked to the white race, which is strictly forbidden according to the rules of political correctness.
But if you don't mind being labeled a racist you can openly display enough white pride to drive the liberal masses to the edge of plum-crazy.
LOL, I knew exactly who she's referring to, friggin hilarious“The poll must have only been conducted in the homes of Ben Carson, Kanye, that sheriff guy with the hat and those two Cubic Zirconia & Polyester-Spandex ladies.” (She’s referring to former Milwaukee Sheriff David A. Clarke and African-American Fox News personalities Diamond & Silk.)
Even in the whitest states in the country we'll see 95% minorities and 5% white women?You perceive wrong. When all the non-blacks in my graduate school were denied assistantships, there was no sharing. The blacks got it all. The non-blacks got nothing.Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.I did and I just went back and read them again. What did I miss?Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind? Or a racist?
Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
My bad. I was focused on another thread... the one I started. I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO. When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
My position is that I don't see anything different from either side. BOTH sides are being duped. At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
"America was founded by white people for white people"The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity. And both statements are different than even this statement
versus"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"
"The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"This last statement reads like something in a history book. It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries. What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
This is commonly the way AA has worked for decades. Walk the long hallways of your local VA hospital, and observe who's working there. You'll see clearly. 95% minorities. 5% white women.
