RE: Liberal delusions on racism

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Liberal delusions on racism

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Liberal delusions on racism

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/4/2014 9:18:49 PM

Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Will of course we all must decide what a liberal is for themselves... to me your description does not match mine. So be it...now it is up for others to decide their description.

Butch

Sure thing, Butch. "Liberal" only means what you like it to mean. Got it.

Liberal

lib·er·al [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] adjective

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/4/2014 9:23:01 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Will of course we all must decide what a liberal is for themselves... to me your description does not match mine. So be it...now it is up for others to decide their description.

Butch

Sure thing, Butch. "Liberal" only means what you like it to mean. Got it.

Liberal

lib·er·al [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] adjective

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

And yet it was a man who said he agreed with all those things who said " freedom comes from regulation"

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to joether)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/4/2014 9:32:29 PM

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Liberal

That's very nice that you have a pretty definition, but we could as well define a "Christian" as someone who believes we should love our neighbor. It still wouldn't mean that everybody who claims the name actually spends any time doing such a thing, or even has the slightest interest in doing so.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 5/4/2014 9:33:20 PM >

(in reply to joether)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/4/2014 9:32:31 PM

Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline

Regulation of those who would abuse the freedoms of the individual, such as large businesses. We believe in personal freedom and a general moderation of businesses to prevent abuse of their workers. That's what he government should exist to do; to protect the rights of it's people.

(in reply to BamaD)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/4/2014 9:55:13 PM

Posts: 8
Joined: 1/4/2014
Status: offline

I guess I should clarify my business experience for the sake of argument.

I have owned and managed transportation and logistics companies, been a hiring manager for many years and currently own my own small business. I managed the maritime division of a company that had a gross income of over $500,000,000.00 annually, with over 200 employees in the offices alone. I am a member of several associations and have received several awards in business. I retired, got bored, went back into working in an office and remembered I hated it, and recently went back to where I started as an owner operator of my own small trucking company.

I could work in any field I chose to work in, have offers from fortune 500 companies several times a year, and turn them down because I do not choose to work in that environment. I make the statements about business not as a paperboy, but as an executive level manager. I do not know what business thompsonx is in, and the statement about newspaperboy or drug dealer shows his lack of ability to have a discussion without name calling. I would not want to work in any office he was running.

Now as to the statement on authors wanting to sell books...

Well, I would guess that any author who does not want to sell books might need a day job.

Examples of racist liberals.
Roger Clinton, the President’s brother on audiotape
Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve’s ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve’s fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him.”

Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White House”
“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Left-wing radio host Neil Rogers
“Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey’s cars?”

Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)
Blacks and Hispanics are “too busy eating watermelons and tacos” to learn how to read and write.” — Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax
“You’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”

I guess that is enough for one post, trust me the libs are not all out there helping minorities. Most of them would have a black person arrested for driving into their neighborhood if they could get away with it. I could post hundreds of examples of liberal politicians and activists making outright racist statements, and probably several hundred more of them making anti-Semitic remarks. Care to bet on it?

Now I will let you all think on this: Is it beneficial to minorities to bind them to a system that takes their confidence in themselves and replaces it with a crutch of alleged inability to make it on their own?

(in reply to BamaD)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/4/2014 10:10:01 PM

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkinLaredo
Is it beneficial to minorities to bind them to a system that takes their confidence in themselves and replaces it with a crutch of alleged inability to make it on their own?

QFT, and for the benefit of those who are too obsessed with framing their snarky reply to even consider reaching the end of the post.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to MarkinLaredo)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/4/2014 10:10:51 PM

Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
You don't fight racial discrimination by discriminating based on race. Anyone who can't get something as obvious as that through their head isn't using it.

The question remains...how would you have solved this problem?

Well let's first ask, what is the problem? According to Ken, it's racial discrimination in hiring. But is that a fair statement of the problem? The studies cited found that identical resumes received more call-backs when the applicant appeared to be white rather than black. The impression of whiteness versus blackness was engineered by the use of different names, like Emily and Brendan versus Lakisha and Jamal. Since the employers had nothing else to go on, race was clearly the operative factor in their decisions.

Two resumes with the name 'John Black'. Which one is from a black guy and which from the white?

That employers had nothing to go on in deciding whether to hire someone....EXCEPT....the person's first or last names? What about the REST OF THE RESUME? You know, what most REAL employers actually look at in determining if someone might be a suitable candidate?

I recall an exercise back in college. The professor removed the candidate's name and address. Gave each of us 10 resumes (a class of 40). We had to find 1-3 resumes (each) that matched the criteria the professor gave to us. The criteria was for his teaching assistant. And we would have to defend our selections based on all the evidence. These resumes were not just one page long either! After that all the resumes were put together. The following week those candidates responded with a typed additional letter to better explain their qualifications for the job. To which we had to select one resume while in a group of four or five students. The one that won through this whole process and the professor's final interview was some Asian guy. Very intelligent, pretty studied and had a good personality for teaching.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
But why would this be so? Well for one reason, blacks are over-represented in almost every crime category that the FBI tracks except alcohol related offenses, by factors of 2 to more than 3 times their representation in the population (see here). Given two identical resumes, one that appears to be from a white person and one that appears to be from a black person, with nothing else to go on, which is going to be the better bet?

What does 'hiring someone for a job' have to do with 'the percentage of one races' criminal likelihood'?

Answer: NOTHING.

If the two resumes are identical, how do you know which one came from a black guy?

Here's a Mensa question: A man has 12 black socks and 12 blue socks in his drawer. He has to pick out a black pair of socks but the room is to dark to tell color. What is the chance he'll draw a pair of black socks?

Answer: How would he know he was holding a pair of black socks in a dark room? Most people got this question wrong. They assumed the man would walk to a source of light to check the answer. But the limitation of the question provides the rules of the question. Namely that the room is dark (i.e. a power outage while he was dressing to go to a formal dinner).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
So to address the problem, the first thing that would help make an applicant's race fade into irrelevance would be if companies had more information. Because with background information establishing that the candidate has a clean record and a history of financial responsibility, qualified blacks would be less likely to be excluded on what amounts to purely a risk-reduction basis. Unfortunately, however, that would be "racist."

Yes, 'more information' does not help your argument, if the person deciding is a racist. A clean criminal record and a stable financial background check are tools some people have used to keep people from working at the business; even though the person might have done much to make the business succeed. There are plenty of people right now in America that have clean criminal records and bad financial backgrounds....the recession hasn't been kind to tens of millions of Americans (if not a hundred million...). One could make the argument that you assume only clean criminal records and stable financial backgrounds are no more clear indications of how someone will perform in a job than the person's name and their address. That is why employers conduct....INTERVIEWS....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
On June 11, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed federal lawsuits against BMW and Dollar General store alleging that their use of criminal background checks violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race... The EEOC claims this process “results in a disparate impact against blacks,” even though the standard is the same for whites and blacks. ~Source

A person that has paid society of the penalty of a crime, in theory, should not be further penalized. It sounds great on paper, but harder to execute into practice. Do you hire someone that just got out of jail because he murdered his last boss for being....bossy? To say that person has a very steep road towards employment is an understatement! Discriminating based on one's criminal background is legal, but might be unethical, depending on the job and business environment.

Being convicted of stealing is equally tough. Yet, you are often one that hates people sitting on the welfare system and not working, Kirata. So it presents a catch-22. The person cant get a job because they were convicted of stealing. But how do they prove the will not steal again, if they cant get a job that tests their will not to steal?

Does the employer have the right to be concern that the thief could steal again? Yes. So how does society help the employer and employee out, to make the businesses successful and keep the employee from going down that illegal path once more?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Sending a sharp warning to employers nationwide, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Kaplan Higher Education Corporation on Tuesday, accusing it of discriminating against black job applicants through the way it uses credit histories in its hiring process... In the E.E.O.C.’s suit, which was filed in federal district court in Cleveland, the agency said that since at least January 2008, Kaplan had rejected job applicants based on their credit history, with a “significant disparate impact” on blacks. ~Source

From your quoted article...

"...The lawsuit, an unusual intervention by the federal government on the issue, comes amid rising concerns that employers are denying jobs to applicants with damaged credit histories, even in cases where creditworthiness does not appear to be directly relevant to the job...."

That's why they were getting sued....

Look at the DATE of that article, Kirata. What was going on in the United States in so far as employment, unemployment rate, and business hiring practices?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Given the FBI data, it's not terribly surprising that background checks would have a disparate effect on blacks. The problem is the notion that "disparate impact" constitutes de facto racism. I think it would be better if companies, or at least large companies, were required to run background checks on qualifying resumes before excluding an applicant. If things still didn't look Kosher even then, you'd probably have a pretty clear case of pure and simple prejudice.

In a large company, it would be a sensible idea to have one person figure out from among the resumes which to send to the next level of decision making...BEFORE...a background check is made. Of course, that assumes the person doing this process is not being discriminating as to 'who goes to the top' and 'who goes to the trash bin'. If the practice becomes common place, generally legal regulations are put into practice. In small companies, the Owner or someone very close to the person, has to conduct all the hiring practices. How does the business know the person hiring isn't being illegally discriminating; its not an entity that can smack the person around for doing things wrong. A small business owner that hires several people of one group, even though it exists in a location were another group of people are more common....could be discriminating. Again, it comes down to the burden of proof being from the accuser, NOT, the accused. If the business person did everything in good faith, followed the rules as they are known, and doesn't project behaviors that serve a negative fashion in court, they could be found innocent.

(in reply to Kirata)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/4/2014 10:38:46 PM

Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Liberal

That's very nice that you have a pretty definition, but we could as well define a "Christian" as someone who believes we should love our neighbor. It still wouldn't mean that everybody who claims the name actually spends any time doing such a thing, or even has the slightest interest in doing so.

Except that the average liberal tends to be quite a bit more informed and studied on things then the Christian. Since the Theory of Evolution doesn't talk about HOW the planet formed, or how life may have stated. That would the Theory of Abiogenesis. Creationism doesn't explain how living things can and do change given time and environmental conditions both outside and inside the life form.

This topic is not talking about a religion as it relates to a the word, liberal. So your 'Devil's Advocate' doesn't work here. Good try though....

Why is 'liberal' a bad word?

Here is the 'enlighten view' of one Christian's take on Science.

(in reply to Kirata)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/4/2014 11:29:15 PM

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

You'll notice that I'm ignoring most of your post. To help you see why, I'll give you a couple of clues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

you are often one that hates people sitting on the welfare system and not working, Kirata.

You're making shit up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

In a large company, it would be a sensible idea to have one person figure out from among the resumes which to send to the next level of decision making...BEFORE...a background check is made. Of course, that assumes the person doing this process is not being discriminating...

Well no, it wouldn't be "sensible," and what it "assumes" is that the person doing the hiring has shit for brains.

You run the background check first. Because the next step is selecting which candidates to interview. Interviews are time consuming for both the company and the applicant, travel for the applicant can mean expense, and wasted time for the company is wasted money. It makes no sense, and would be grossly unfair, to invite people in for interviews who won't be hired because they can't pass the required background check.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 5/4/2014 11:50:58 PM >

(in reply to joether)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/4/2014 11:43:49 PM

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Except that the average liberal tends to be quite a bit more informed and studied on things...

Source

K.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kirata -- 5/4/2014 11:46:24 PM >

(in reply to joether)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/5/2014 12:02:19 AM

Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

sorry dude the constitution doesn't REQUIRE anyone to hire anyone for ANY REASON

Might want to look at the equal protection clause of th 4th and 14th ammendments and the courts interpretation of them.

feel free to show me, cause I have read them both and see didn't hiring by the private sector mentioned ONCE

< Message edited by BitYakin -- 5/5/2014 12:55:01 AM >

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/5/2014 12:07:37 AM

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

Nothing like facts to blow stupid opinions out of the water, eh ether?

(in reply to Kirata)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/5/2014 12:08:29 AM

Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

he nor anyone else said they had a solution, they just said cutting off your hand because you finger hurts is NOT THE SOLUTION

Until someone comes up with a better idea we will do this since for about a hundred years no solution was forthcomming.

and APPARENTLY according to YOU this SOLUTION hasn't worked EITHER...

I also noticed not once have you defended it as NOT RACIST, you just DEMAND someone come up with a BETTER IDEA
To require someone not to be a bigot and to follow the law of the land is not racists...Is that plane enough for you?

when a LAW promotes RACISM then YESSSSS it is.... and you STILL have not shown how the LAW IS NOT RACIST!
ohh I get it, it's NOT because YOU SAY SO HAHAHAHAH

< Message edited by BitYakin -- 5/5/2014 12:55:36 AM >

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/5/2014 12:14:10 AM

Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

"How so???because it prevents employers from discriminating"

no because it REQUIRES employers to hire based on RACE, AKA REVERSE DISCRIMINATION

Actually it forces bigots to follow the law of the land...and for some reason that offends you. Since you do not like afirmative action how would you solve the problem?
Lead,follow or get the fuck out of the way. If you have not got a better solution then why are you posting?

yes that's what I SAID it forces employeers to follow a RACIST LAW...

and BTW in case you haven't noticed YOU have claimed its a FAILED POLICY, but I don't hear you making any SUGESSTIONS yet you are STILL POSTING

also I don't need to have a BETTER SOLUTION to want a BAD POLICY ended...

I DO NOT NEED to KNOW HOW TO SET A BROKEN FINGER to want SURGEONS to stop CUTTING HANDS OFF BECAUSE OF BROKEN FINGERS

< Message edited by BitYakin -- 5/5/2014 12:56:12 AM >

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/5/2014 12:15:10 AM

Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkinLaredo
I guess I should clarify my business experience for the sake of argument.

I have owned and managed transportation and logistics companies, been a hiring manager for many years and currently own my own small business. I managed the maritime division of a company that had a gross income of over $500,000,000.00 annually, with over 200 employees in the offices alone. I am a member of several associations and have received several awards in business. I retired, got bored, went back into working in an office and remembered I hated it, and recently went back to where I started as an owner operator of my own small trucking company.

I could work in any field I chose to work in, have offers from fortune 500 companies several times a year, and turn them down because I do not choose to work in that environment. I make the statements about business not as a paperboy, but as an executive level manager. I do not know what business thompsonx is in, and the statement about newspaperboy or drug dealer shows his lack of ability to have a discussion without name calling. I would not want to work in any office he was running.

This is the internet....

I'll let that sink in for a moment....

A place were anyone can be anything. From a well muscled, strong guy, to someone with ten advanced degrees. Does she have a c-cup or a d? Is that Dom/me single or cheating behind their spouse's back? To say that people can embellish their resumes online is a well known concept to most internet goers.

Your information sounds....alittle hard....to accept as true. Why would someone that can command high profile positions, salaries, and other perks.....enter into a forum like this one? On a topic like this one? While being gay or lesbian may not get you fired, being someone that practices 'safe, sane, and consensual BDSM' can. An employers do not like employees that could run the risk of costing them money on 'unacceptable behavior' in society. How many companies in Iran are run by a women? Not many....

You entered into a discussion where most of us know each other. You blasted forward with an attitude that shows a huge lack of ignorance. And you got replies you did not like. There is a time why you could blast a whole philosophical group, and other times you'll get quite a few replies to counter your viewpoint.

For example...Why do liberals not bash President Obama for all the crap around Snowden and the NSA spying on Americans? To which one or more liberals on here might give you their view. A few others might give you similar or different views. Some of the conservatives on here, are actually intelligent and educated (I don't need to inflate their ego's anymore). And there are plenty of liberals that are the same. An when some of these liberals get out of line, I'll take 'em to task for it (i.e. discussions on the 2nd amendment). Many of us have past jabs and discussions with each other (the many threads on Climate Change come to mind...).

My intention on my post was...NOT...to push you into a corner. While it could be considered harsh, you did start off being pretty harsh yourself. So, in the interest of being fair, I'll apologize if I 'ruffled your feathers'. A good discussion between different viewpoints on a topic in my opinion is good for a society. Forces us to consider different viewpoints and possibly learn something we didn't know before. It usually follows after we say something....dumb....and get owned for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkinLaredo
Well, I would guess that any author who does not want to sell books might need a day job.

My experience is, unless your a good author; holding a decent job is wise. Unfortunately, I've had to accept and learn the hard way in life, that too is not a simple calculation in life...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkinLaredo
Examples of racist liberals.
Roger Clinton, the President’s brother on audiotape
Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve’s ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve’s fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him.”

Just because former President Bill Clinton could be liberal, does not mean those related to him are also liberal. Former President George W. Bush, and former Governor Jeb Bush have very different views on many things. While they are both holding conservative views, one is much deeper conservative than the other. Which might help in explaining why Jeb is not likely to win future GOP nominations unless those doing the voting choose someone closer to the moderate philosophy. Also, I dislike belittling elected officials (or those that have left office). I may dislike Sen. Ted Cruz and former Governor Sarah Palin, but I will not refer to them in many of the disrespectful nicknames I've seen on this and other boards.

I have no evidence that suggest Roger Clinton is a liberal or not. The quote, if that is true is offensive. The man should apologize for it if possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkinLaredo
Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White House”
“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

A different era in America. Democrats in his time were Republicans. Republicans in that day would have been Democrats of today. The change in this political philosophy seem to change at the beginning of the Clinton first time administration. A subtly lost on most conservatives, for reasons I don't understand. Mr. G. W. Bush would have been ROASTED for saying such a thing. Mr. Obama is intelligent enough to not say something that stupid on race. Would the next President of the USA say something like this? We'll have to find out...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkinLaredo
Left-wing radio host Neil Rogers
“Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey’s cars?”

The guy was out of line and the station apologized for it. Be better if this Mr. Rogers apologized, but he apparently retired in 2009. Mr. Nugent has states some pretty offensive things, and there have been plenty of people that could have apologized for his behavior and none have.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkinLaredo
Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)
Blacks and Hispanics are “too busy eating watermelons and tacos” to learn how to read and write.” — Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax
“You’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”

I can find this on many conservative oriented media sites. Not only that, its often used to slam others in a discussion. Yes, Mr. Wallace stated something that looks and sounds offensive. And there are plenty of others Americans on the conservative side of politics that have stated equally and worst things. Don't see many conservatives holding them responsible do we?

Now can you take conservatives to task for all the offensive and racists quotes that have been said? Its easy to bash others, but harder to defend or apologize for stuff people that share your political outlook.

Ann Coulter

Rush Lingbaugh

Allen West

Clive Bundy

Rick Santorum

Ted Nugent

I can find many more. But here is the point. For everyone one offensive and/or racist thing stated by (as you see it) a liberal; I can find....MANY...examples of stuff conservatives have stated that is offensive and/or racists. If your going to hold that liberals are held to tough accountability and responsibility standards for their words; would that not mean you hold each of these people to several times that?

If you can't, your a hypocrite!

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkinLaredo
I guess that is enough for one post, trust me the libs are not all out there helping minorities. Most of them would have a black person arrested for driving into their neighborhood if they could get away with it. I could post hundreds of examples of liberal politicians and activists making outright racist statements, and probably several hundred more of them making anti-Semitic remarks. Care to bet on it?

Plenty of minorities live in my neighborhood. Asian, middle east, Europe, African, South America, Latin America, Native America. Maybe even one from Mars....

If that person is driving in a manner not consistent with good driving skills; yes, I will call the police on them. Doesn't matter their skin color! And yes, I could easily match you and more for conservatives will offensive and/or racist remarks. You forget, I've been on this forum....LONGER. And I know which of the posters on here are more likely to have made offensive and/or racists comments. And the usual suspects on this forum know of one name I could bring up quite readily. In fact, they just groan upon reading the previous sentence....

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkinLaredo
Now I will let you all think on this: Is it beneficial to minorities to bind them to a system that takes their confidence in themselves and replaces it with a crutch of alleged inability to make it on their own?

You view things as a crutch. Could you say the same being one of those minority groups? If the reports are true, in a few decades, whites will be the minority. Would it not be wise to make sure programs, laws, and systems are in place if that were to happen? Since that is what business people in high level management positions do.....plan on future events (good or bad).. If what you said above in this post is true, I would expect you to understand this from a business perspective. The question is could you also understand this from a social and financial perspective?

I know plenty of Eagle Scouts that had a very tough time acquiring the award (and from minority groups in America). They didn't get it by just hard work and study. It took many people along the way to get them to that point.

(in reply to MarkinLaredo)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/5/2014 12:17:29 AM

Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

well YES you are, matter of a fact its the WHOLE POINT of your argument, LIFE IS TUFF FOR THEM so we need to treat them SPECIAL

if it wasn't for the WHOLE TUFF LIFE thing affirmative action would never have be needed

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/5/2014 12:20:47 AM

Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

hmm that's not what the DICTIONARY SAYS

reverse discrimination

Houghton Mifflin

n.noun
1.
Discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, especially when resulting from policies established to correct discrimination against members of a minority or disadvantaged group.

but hey, make up anything you like!

(in reply to joether)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/5/2014 12:23:16 AM

Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

WOW, so your WHOLE argument is to just be an ASS and call EVERYONE a LIAR unless they PROVE EVERY SINGLE THING THEY SAY

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/5/2014 12:27:53 AM

Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

didn't you ask me earlier WHO you insulted?

You see that is nothing more than your moronic,ignorant,uneducated opinion unbutressed by anything but your own ignorance.

you JUST CALLED HIM a MORON IGNORANT and UNEDUCATED....

where I come from that's called an INSULT

so we are right back TO, I can't argue the point intelligently so I'll JUST CALL PEOPLE NAMES!

who is looking IGNORANT NOW??

< Message edited by BitYakin -- 5/5/2014 12:29:58 AM >

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: Liberal delusions on racism - 5/5/2014 12:33:15 AM

Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
you are often one that hates people sitting on the welfare system and not working, Kirata.

You're making shit up.

Am I? Hmmm......

Where do you stand on the Affordable Care Act?

Go ahead and bullshit to us that you are on the liberal side of this discussion. Previous threads and posts will state otherwise...

An now you have to figure out what I'm referring to exactly (evil laugh).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
In a large company, it would be a sensible idea to have one person figure out from among the resumes which to send to the next level of decision making...BEFORE...a background check is made. Of course, that assumes the person doing this process is not being discriminating...

Well no, it wouldn't be "sensible," and what it "assumes" is that the person doing the hiring has shit for brains.

You run the background check first. Because the next step is selecting which candidates to interview. Interviews are time consuming for both the company and the applicant, travel for the applicant can mean expense, and wasted time for the company is wasted money. It makes no sense, and would be grossly unfair, to invite people in for interviews who won't be hired because they can't pass the required background check.

Yeah, because that's intelligent. You have 3,000 resumes to look through. Your idea is to spend money on those 3,000 resumes....BEFORE...weeding them down to the criteria for the job. How much does it cost the company? How long does it take to process? Since that's just one position. For large companies with 20-100 open positions that cover a range of different individuals to fulfill? That can cost a pretty penny and time a good chunk of time in research. I find it amusing that 'small governments' are allowed to search your private life, but the US Government is not allowed.

The person hiring, delegates to someone under them to handle the processing, and give the boss the best of the litter. Sometimes, that person inserts a few people with connections (i.e. networking).

So after the first sorting, the candidates are drawn up. I know in some states, the company has to obtain permission of the candidate for the background check in writing. An that 'in writing' does not mean an internet scribble, but in person. So interviews are conducted at different levels as per local, state and federal laws dictate. Yes, people creating laws because they didn't like a business behavior. An as always, you cant answer any of my questions....

(in reply to Kirata)

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Liberal delusions on racism

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.141