What is White Supremacy?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.

Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum. That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect. All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications. You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.

You shouldn't refer to your family members that way, even if they are a bunch of racists & bigots, no need to compare them to dogs and insults dogs needlessly.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA

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.

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.

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.

Same can be said of black women or black men.

How so? According to you all, all we have to do is be black and quality jobs which none of us are qualified for fall into our laps like manna from heaven.

Also if the same can be said of black women & women, that allegedly (or presumably) all or some were never going to get the job anyway, then what the hell are you all complaining about when stating that white men are getting screwed out of jobs? Either black people are not getting jobs that they never were going to get anyway (that you all should be okay with) or we're taking all of the jobs and thereby screwing white people out of 'their' jobs.

There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well good for you, that's certainly something to be proud of. And when women of color do the same thing, either earlier in life or later in life such as yourself, they are not entitled to use that degree that they worked so hard for to obtain a coveted job that helps them with upward mobility without being accused of screwing white people out of jobs?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

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.

Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.

You're mistaken

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

​

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.

This is common.

The article contradicts what you said and is current case law.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

If I asked you if you are a white supremacist would you say that you are? Because your comments indicate that you are whether you're able to see that or not. What other reason is there for you continuing to go back to the statement that only whites could be citizens and your feverent objection to and declaration that the 14th Amendment was never lawfully ratified if not due to the fact that you object to non-whites having been granted citizenship and having the same U.S. Constitutional rights and protections as citizens that whites enjoy? I can't fathom another reason for this although I will acknowledge that you seemed to point to a comment made by another poster that the term "white supremacist" is considered a deragatory term and that white supremacists are considered pretty much a fringe element.

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.

What economic opportunites were willingly offered to people African descent? And do you think the lawful denial of liberty does to people?

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.

So how are white men getting screwed out of jobs if they were never entitled to them in the first place under the free market system?

And affirmative action doesn't force companies to do anything other than to "disregard" race, national origin, religion, etc. in hiring and other areas of employment (promotions, etc.). In other words it provides a statutory cause of action for discrimination based on any protected class violations. This isn't a volation of the U.S. Constitution although a company could possibly be in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause

The Equal Protection Clause is a clause from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the guaranteed right to equal protection by law. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.

The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against, and bigotry towards people belonging to various groups.​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely no proof. I never said blacks benefitted most. EVERYONE should get what they want through hard work, not based on race or gender.

What do you consider proof? Because you have made this statement numerous times before and I have personally provided you with U.S. Department of Labor reports & statistics that show how they gathered and tracked the number of women and minorities in mangerial positions after the passage of affirmative action. They also gathered data from discrimination lawsuits instituted after affirmative action provided a statutory cause of action (right to sue)

So if you don't consider goverment reports and documentation, stats culled from lawsuits, etc. as proof, what exactly constitutes acceptable proof to you? And what's your degree in?

 

[katsteve2012]

There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA

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.

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.

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.

If white females benefitted more from AA, they would be more prolific in govt buildings, where AA is commonly enacted.

Perfect test case is VA hospital, with very large hospital staff. Very few white females. 95% blacks, Hispanics, and Indians.

95% black at which VA hospital? I have a family member who is a doctor in the VA system and could likely verify what you claim.

 

[katsteve2012]

Did you read the first two posts in the OP?

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.

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.

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"

versus
​

"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of 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

"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.

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.

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.

Even in the whitest states in the country we'll see 95% minorities and 5% white women?

That's clearly an exaggeration for dramatic effect...lol.

 

[katsteve2012]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.

Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum. That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect. All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications. You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.

AA never would have been necessary if workplace discrimination had not existed. 50+ years of it does not anywhere near equalize centuries of "white males only need apply" policies.

What kind of "dogs" would maintain such policies for so long?

Even YOU should know that.

 

[IM2]

There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely no proof. I never said blacks benefitted most. EVERYONE should get what they want through hard work, not based on race or gender.

What do you consider proof? Because you have made this statement numerous times before and I have personally provided you with U.S. Department of Labor reports & statistics that show how they gathered and tracked the number of women and minorities in mangerial positions after the passage of affirmative action. They also gathered data from discrimination lawsuits instituted after affirmative action provided a statutory cause of action (right to sue)

So if you don't consider goverment reports and documentation, stats culled from lawsuits, etc. as proof, what exactly constitutes acceptable proof to you? And what's your degree in?

He must think that all he has to do is say what he says over and over again.

 

[katsteve2012]

Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.

As for you quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.

Wow, you really are lacking. Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white. There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA. Get a brain.

"Thousands of Black Republicans"? There are some but thousands is a stretch.

You certainly have a way of embellishing numbers to the point of being ludicrous.

See what happens when people get caught up in liberal distortion media ?

Idiot. There are millions of Black Republicans. Wow. Are you ever detached.

37 million non-Hispanic blacks in America. 34% support Trump. Got it ?

New polls show black support for Trump surging

Democrats are Doomed: Two Polls Show Support for Trump Among African Americans at 34% | Election 2020

This is a classic example of a right wing lie.

November 20, 2019
Analyzing Black Support for President Trump

"Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019. In short, Trump's approval rating among blacks has essentially not changed over time, despite blacks presumably having had plenty of time to observe the economic gains that Trump touts as the reason why they should be moving into his camp."

Analyzing Black Support for President Trump

Gallup is the best in the business and you used an opinion from a conservative writer and a fake news website known for failed fact checks. On top of that we happen to be black and communicate with other blacks daily. You don't. Black support is not increasing for trump.

The discussion of the number of Black Republicans came from when katsteve said (lol) that it was a "stretch" to say hundreds of Black Republicans. He also called that "ludicrous"

By Rasmussen figures of 34% (of 37 million US blacks), that would be 12 MILLION US black Republicans.

Wanna use Gallup's numbers ? Their 10% calculates to almost 4 MILLION black Republicans.

Only thing "ludicrous" in all this, is katsteve even showing up around here.

You are a pathological liar. You stated "thousands of black Republicans oppose AA as discrimination against white people".

There are not "thousands" of black Republicans in Washington or in government offices in America, you delusional creep.

And Rasmussen is equally as biased as any other poll out there.


Pollster: Rasmussen Research has a pro-GOP bias

 

[katsteve2012]

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.

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.

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.

What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?

Interestingly, the current population of the city of Memphis is over 60% black, yet Memphis States current faculty is about 15% black.

 

[IM2]

The arrogance is amazing. These guys are expressing pure racism and claim it's not so. I have asked to see where AA has caused an adverse impact on whites. Each time this has happened you hear the wind blow. That's because AA doesn't hurt whites. All the bloviation on planet earth doesn't change this:

AA has taken nothing from whites.

 

[IM2]

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.

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.

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.

What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?

Way back never. And do you ever remember being offered AA and a job? It's illegal for an employer to say you were hired because of race. That fool really needs to quit lying.

 

[katsteve2012]

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.

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.

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.

What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?

Way back never. And do you ever remember being offered AA and a job? It's illegal for an employer to say you were hired because of race. That fool really needs to quit lying.

True. I guess if a person repeats a lie enough to themselves it becomes their reality.

I never got any job because of being black, I was at the company that I retired from long enough to go from being 1 of 2 blacks in my entire division covering 6 states, to seeing more minority hires over time but the majority of them in later years were middle easterners and Pakistanis, which was fine, and I interviewed and made decisions to hire some of them myself.

But I can assure you that I have living older relatives and friends who were denied quite a few jobs, because they were.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

If I asked you if you are a white supremacist would you say that you are? Because your comments indicate that you are whether you're able to see that or not. What other reason is there for you continuing to go back to the statement that only whites could be citizens and your feverent objection to and declaration that the 14th Amendment was never lawfully ratified if not due to the fact that you object to non-whites having been granted citizenship and having the same U.S. Constitutional rights and protections as citizens that whites enjoy? I can't fathom another reason for this although I will acknowledge that you seemed to point to a comment made by another poster that the term "white supremacist" is considered a deragatory term and that white supremacists are considered pretty much a fringe element.

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.

What economic opportunites were willingly offered to people African descent? And do you think the lawful denial of liberty does to people?

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.

So how are white men getting screwed out of jobs if they were never entitled to them in the first place under the free market system?

And affirmative action doesn't force companies to do anything other than to "disregard" race, national origin, religion, etc. in hiring and other areas of employment (promotions, etc.). In other words it provides a statutory cause of action for discrimination based on any protected class violations. This isn't a volation of the U.S. Constitution although a company could possibly be in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause

The Equal Protection Clause is a clause from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the guaranteed right to equal protection by law. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.

The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against, and bigotry towards people belonging to various groups.​

I will answer you this one time, but I have a policy against responding to multi quote posts. They are done by people who are desperate because they do not have a point. Then the size of posts become cumbersome and nobody reads the responses. You're lucky if they even access a couple of links. For chits and giggles:

1) I do not consider myself a white supremacist and only an idiot would. As I've pointed out China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Zimbabwe - and maybe a dozen or so other countries are homogeneous countries. NONE of you pretending to be concerned about white supremacists give a rat's ass about that. You will buy products from those countries and never give them a second thought

2) IF you had faithfully studied my objections to the 14th Amendment, you would understand by now that the 14th Amendment promised a false kind of forced "equality" between the races.

What the 14th Amendment actually accomplished was to nullify the Bill of Rights (especially unalienable Rights) and replaced them with a system where all Americans are little more than government property with only privileges and immunities to be doled out as the government sees fit

3) Anyone that is honest would never invoke the slavery argument into this discussion. Remember, I am a descendant of those who separated from King George. From the time the Mayflower hit our shores up until we won the War of Independence, America was under British control. Instead of people like you acknowledging that, your kind has been happier than a pig in slop to see a racially mixed black girl become "royalty."

There is no talk about reparations from the British on the slavery issue...only the Americans. Your kind has been so dishonest that you have a hard time acknowledging that my ancestors, who were a part of the Constitution began phasing out slavery as soon as we ratified the Constitution - it's in that very document! But, that's not good enough, is it? You don't want to address the profiteers of slavery and I've never read a single line of outrage by blacks against their black brethren who rounded their fellow blacks up and sold them to slavers. No way. All that hate, intolerance and bigotry is saved for the white man and denying to the framers of the Constitution their work in abolishing slavery.

As if all that weren't enough, the blacks turned their backs on the political party that went to bat for them and illegally ratified the 14th Amendment and joined the party that perpetuated slavery and still advocates a form of slavery under various pretexts: democracy, socialism, liberalism, etc.

4) Most people who think they know about affirmative action are either black OR they grew up after that program was employed. Tap dance all around it but, when I grew up there were racial quotas, preferential hiring schemes, job set asides, and reverse discrimination to go along with affirmative action. Many whites were forced to suffer while those programs supposedly made blacks "equal" and now that the blacks have the power, they wage a war of genocide against the whites and you want to ask me if I'm a white supremacist??? How stupid!

 

[protectionist]

There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA

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.

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.

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.

Same can be said of black women or black men.

How so? According to you all, all we have to do is be black and quality jobs which none of us are qualified for fall into our laps like manna from heaven.

Also if the same can be said of black women & women, that allegedly (or presumably) all or some were never going to get the job anyway, then what the hell are you all complaining about when stating that white men are getting screwed out of jobs? Either black people are not getting jobs that they never were going to get anyway (that you all should be okay with) or we're taking all of the jobs and thereby screwing white people out of 'their' jobs.

There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well good for you, that's certainly something to be proud of. And when women of color do the same thing, either earlier in life or later in life such as yourself, they are not entitled to use that degree that they worked so hard for to obtain a coveted job that helps them with upward mobility without being accused of screwing white people out of jobs?

According to us ? No, according to reality of what has been happening for 50 years now. If you're black, the jobs fall into your lap, qualified or not. We've been watching this lunacy all our lives.

Maybe the Trump administration will take some action to finally get rid of this disgrace to America. They should have already. If Trump is re-elected, and Republicans win back the House, + a Republican majority on the SCOTUS, affirmative action will be doomed. Thank God.

It will be too late for those of my generation, but at least the younger folks will not have to live through it.

It would be nice too if us older people who have been victimized, would get some reparations compen$ation before we die. It would be an awful lot of money. Even a small % of what we lost, would be nice.

 

[protectionist]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.

Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum. That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect. All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications. You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.

You shouldn't refer to your family members that way, even if they are a bunch of racists & bigots, no need to compare them to dogs and insults dogs needlessly.

.
YOU, and all the other supporters of AA, aware of your inadequacies, and willing to grab unfair advantages, are the wild dogs. Nobody else.

 

[protectionist]

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.

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.

Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.

You're mistaken

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

​

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.

This is common.

The article contradicts what you said and is current case law.

Well, it looks like you wouldn't qualify for a job that requires intelligence. As I just told you, all that article does is say who can be eligible for AA, not who has to be. If the administrators wish to define their program to include certain groups within those the article cites, they may do that.

The article really just says certain groups CAN be included. That's all. Doesn't contradict anything I've said. You get a lot of things wrong. Hope you're not working in any kind of civil defense occupation, or fundamental utilities.

 

[protectionist]

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.

If I asked you if you are a white supremacist would you say that you are? Because your comments indicate that you are whether you're able to see that or not. What other reason is there for you continuing to go back to the statement that only whites could be citizens and your feverent objection to and declaration that the 14th Amendment was never lawfully ratified if not due to the fact that you object to non-whites having been granted citizenship and having the same U.S. Constitutional rights and protections as citizens that whites enjoy? I can't fathom another reason for this although I will acknowledge that you seemed to point to a comment made by another poster that the term "white supremacist" is considered a deragatory term and that white supremacists are considered pretty much a fringe element.

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.

What economic opportunites were willingly offered to people African descent? And do you think the lawful denial of liberty does to people?

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.

So how are white men getting screwed out of jobs if they were never entitled to them in the first place under the free market system?

And affirmative action doesn't force companies to do anything other than to "disregard" race, national origin, religion, etc. in hiring and other areas of employment (promotions, etc.). In other words it provides a statutory cause of action for discrimination based on any protected class violations. This isn't a volation of the U.S. Constitution although a company could possibly be in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause

The Equal Protection Clause is a clause from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the guaranteed right to equal protection by law. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.

The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against, and bigotry towards people belonging to various groups.​

WOW! Is this what your liberal fake news media has been feeding you ? This is incredible. You display a total lack of knowledge of what AA is.

AA is exactly the Opposite of what you said it is. NO, AA most certainly does not "disregard" race. It regards it, makes choices based on who is of what race. I can't believe you don't know that, or that your head is so twisted, that you could actually believe what you just said.

As for Equal Protection of the Law, that is exactly what AA does NOT do. It is what AA violates, by placing one race ahead of another.

Man, people in this forum are messed up, whether they are lying or actually believe anything they hear. Liberals are crazy.

 

[protectionist]

There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA

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.

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.

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.

If white females benefitted more from AA, they would be more prolific in govt buildings, where AA is commonly enacted.

Perfect test case is VA hospital, with very large hospital staff. Very few white females. 95% blacks, Hispanics, and Indians.

95% black at which VA hospital? I have a family member who is a doctor in the VA system and could likely verify what you claim.

I don't need anybody to verify what is 100% obvious. This is another thing that liberals typically do. They take what is totally obvious, and then try to distort it into being questionable.

There is no question about AA making the VA hospitals' staffs about 95% dark-skinned minorities. Some things are hard to ascertain, and are questionable. Not this.

All one need do is walk through the long hallways, and look around, and gaze into the open office doors. Take an hour . See hundreds of employees. Nothing but minorities. Can't conceal this one.

Which VA hospital ? James A Haley in Tampa. Bay Pines in St Petersburg. Others in California and New York too.
Everywhere I've lived. No secret.
Go walk the halls.