Is Liberalism a Mental Disorder ?

[protectionist]

6.

1. What makes me ONE OF the arbitrators of what rights my fellow country men and women possess, is my citizenship, and right to participate in our great Republic (getting greater every day with President Trump)

Well here's your problem pal, your rights are not more important than my rights. And unless you're an officer of the court, your opinion doesn't mean anything when it comes to the civil / statutory rights of others. On the other hand, if you are an officer of the court, you won't be for long once these bigoted and racist comments of yours make the light of day.

2. I'm not "trying" anything. If I think you're angry, I'll say so. You sound like you are, so I'm saying so. And I don't give a rats ass what color you are. And YOU brought up the subject of anger, to which I responded.

Yeah I'll include your sentiments in my report. Are you a white male or Hispanic male today?

3. I said blacks are not as employment oriented as whites. I say it again, now. So what ? That's not animus. First, it doesn't include all blacks, but just a higher % than whites. And it isn't disliking the folks, it's just observing and reporting what appears to be going on out there.

"White or Hispanic male with supremacist attitudes as demonstrated by the prolific anti-black, anti-Affirmative Action, derogatory and racists writings posted to the online political message board forum U.S. Message Board (US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum)...."

4. Regarding these posts of mine you copied and pasted 1) they are too small to read, and 2) they are snippets, taken out of context. I would suggest you post less quantity, and improve your quality, by posting in such as way that you can be understood properly.

The only purpose for posting them here as screenshots is to mind you of the things you've stated and you are now stating you've never said.

5. I agree with what you said abut "mistakes" made regarding Cruz, however my mention of the PROMISE program goes beyond Cruz. It applies to a contradiction that those who enacted and still support this crazy, gun-wild thing have, between doing that and purporting to be in favor of gun control.

I have no idea what you're referring to. Florida raised the age to purchase a gun in the immediate aftermath of the Parkland shooting. Juveniles have always had the right to have their records sealed. The school resource officer along with a couple of others tried to get Cruz committed which I think would have prohibited Cruz from lawfully purchasing a weapon but he had access to multiple weapons in the house where he was living according to several news sources, so it's not like no one tried to do something about him before anyone got hurt. No one was taking the kid seriously.

6. Nothing I said about Affirmative Action denigrates "black people". I could give you a list of famous black people who all OPPOSE Affirmative Action. Also, there ae many pushers and supporters of AA who are white (and any color). There are many minorities (me included) who have refused to take favors from AA. This is an issue of support for AA vs opposition to it, not being for or against any race.

What do you think the word denigrates means?

7. LOL. I'm not lacking responding, In fact, I've already spent a 1/2 hour just on responding to this post of yours alone.

Whoosh....

8. Citing immoral and illegal suras/verses from the Koran isn't cherry picking. It is defining what Islam is. And what it is, is a vile collection of hate against everyone who is not a Muslim, plus commands to kill non-Muslims, and advocates rape, pedophilia, animal abuse, and severe misogyny. This is what Islam is, and has been for 1400 years, with or without anyone's "agenda"

So you can go back 1400 years to pull some text to use to make an argument against Islam but 1963 and earlier in the United States is ancient history although that was within both of our lifetimes and nothing that happened prior to that time has any lingering repercussions that still adversely impact people of color today? Got it.

Your view of Islam is very distorted but since it's you, I'm not the least bit surprised.

1. I'm not your "pal".

2. I don't have a "problem"

3. I never said my rights were more important than your rights. Are you imagining things ? (have a mental disorder ?)

4. My opinion means as much as anyone else's opinion, when it comes to the civil / statutory rights of others, or any other subject.

5. I don't have any "bigoted and racist comments" That is just more of your imagination running wild.

6. I am White and Hispanic, and you know it. Are you calling me a liar ?

7. I have no supremacist attitudes, or anti-black, or racists writings. As for

anti-Affirmative Action, of course I am that, and if you were not the racist that YOU ARE, you would be anti-Affirmative Action too. That you support AA, is the pure proof of your racism.

8. I stand behind EVERYTHING I've said, there is no discrepancy, except in your confused mind. Again, your imagination is running wild. Your snipes showed nothing other than your wild imagination.

9. Apparently, you are clueless on the PROMISE Program. It kept criminal kids from being arrested and punished. This kept criminal records they should have had, from ever existing, and becoming revealed to gun sellers (or anyone). Do some reading on the PROMISE Program. I have written a few OPs on it here in USMB, and there are amny postings by myself and other posters.

10. "Denigrates" means to disparage the character or reputation of someone or something. So ?

11. Prior to 1963 there was slavery and later, Jim Crow. But they have disappeared, and been replaced with Affirmative Action racism against whites, and other non-blacks.
Islam, on the other hand, (which I have studied quite a bit) has not abolished anything. Islam, essentially, is the Koran and Hadiths. The Koran is the foundation. Not one word of it has changed in 1400 years.​

12. The only way that people of color are being impacted today, is they are getting special favors from Affirmative Action, at the expense of whites, and minorities like myself, who have too much dignity to lower themselves to the level of being an AA recipient.

13. My "view' of Islam" is simply what is written in the Koran + what I see 21st century jihadists doing in accordance with that vile, vicious book of genocidal hate.

14. I'm spending waaay too much time responding to your, in essence, silly and worthless postings.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

1. I'm not your "pal" - Correct

2. I don't have a "problem" - Incorrect

3. I never said my rights were more important than your rights. Are you imagining things ? (have a mental disorder ?) - You're the one with the self-confessed mental disorder, not me therefore please refrain from projecting your own afflictions onto me.

4. My opinion means as much as anyone elses opinion, when it comes to the civil / statutory rights of others, or any other subject.

No, you seem to think that you can do things that I nor anyone else outside a select group of people can do - influence, affect or deny the rights of others in this country who do have the same rights as you do - in your own words

What makes me ONE OF the arbitrators of ***what rights my fellow country men and women possess***, is my citizenship, and right to participate in our great Republic
​

If I said something like that to you about your 2nd Amendment rights you'd be having a hissey fit right about now (and rightfully so irrespective of how hypocritical that would be). Our Constitutional and other civil rights are not up for debate or discussion on who gets to lose and how gets to keep theirs.

5. I don't have any "bigoted and racist comments" That is just more of your imagination running wild.

You didn't see the first screen shot I posted in which I highlighted your derogatory comments about black people preferring to work in prostitution, drugs, not having a work ethic, etc. etc. - racist. The anti-Islamic comments - bigoted.

6. I am White and Hispanic, and you know it. Are you calling me a liar ?

No I'm not calling you a liar. It's just that for the first month I thought you were Caucasian because you self-identified as white (through your arguments). Other times you self-identify as Hispanic which is one of the protected classes so some days I have no idea what your actual complaint is.

7. I have no supremacist attitudes, or anti-black, or racists writings. As for

anti-Affirmative Action, of course I am that, and if you were not the racist that YOU ARE, you would be anti-Affirmative Action too. That you support AA, is the pure proof of your racism.​

8. I stand behind EVERYTHING I've said, there is no discrepancy, except in your confused mind. Again, your imagination is running wild. Your snipes showed nothing other than your wild imagination.​

Every time you refer to black Affirmative Action recipients as "lowlifes" or racists, or even presume that I or any of the other black posters here just have to be an AA recipient because the only possible way that we've managed to accomplished any of the things in life that we have was due to affirmation action, you're exhibiting an anti-black supremacist attitude. And then you most times go on to deny that you've done so even if the offending comment is in the very same posting in which you deny the existence of any racist, supremacist, etc. comments made by you.​

9. Apparently, you are clueless on the PROMISE Program. It kept criminal kids from being arrested and punished. This kept criminal records they should have had, from ever existing, and becoming revealed to gun sellers (or anyone). Do some reading on the PROMISE Program. I have written a few OPs on it here in USMB, and there are amny postings by myself and other posters.

10. "Denigrates" means to disparage the character or reputation of someone or something. So ?​

What do you mean "So"? That's defamation, among other things. More importantly, you keep denying that you've done so yet this thread is scattered with examples of you doing exactly that.

11. Prior to 1963 there was slavery and later, Jim Crow. But they have disappeared, and been replaced with Affirmative Action racism against whites, and other non-blacks. Islam, on the other hand, (which I have studied quite a bit) has not abolished anything. Islam, essentially, is the Koran and Hadiths. The Koran is the foundation. Not one word of it has changed in 1400 years.

There were close to 1000 Tuskegee Airmen who were trained as pilots​

1. Do you believe that maybe they displaced more than a few white pilots?
2. Do you think that the Tuskegee Airmen were unqualified?
3. Do you think that it was discriminatory against the white pilots if some of them were displaced by the Tuskegee Airmen?
4. Do you think that maybe the white pilots felt discriminated against? (remember this was before AA was enacted)
5. What do you think a better way to handle the logistics would have been?

The Qur'an is a holy book. It's not supposed to change, however the world has in the last 1400 years. You're attempting to apply the literal works from 1400 years ago to the current century.

12. The only way that people of color are being impacted today, is they are getting special favors from Affirmative Action, at the expense of whites, and minorities like myself, who have too much dignity to lower themselves to the level of being an AA recipient.

13. My "view' of Islam" is simply what is written in the Koran + what I see 21st century jihadists doing in accordance with that vile, vicious book of genocidal hate - See my response to #11 above

14. I'm spending waaay too much time responding to your, in essence, silly and worthless posting - Would you prefer a different forum?.

Response to your item #12 above - disputes your assertion (there are some Hispanics listed as well) (Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases) -
E-RACE AND OTHER EEOC INITIATIVES
Systemic

• In December 2017, Laquila Group Inc., a Brooklyn-based construction company, paid $625,000 into a class settlement fund and took measures to eliminate race bias and retaliation against black construction laborers. In its lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Laquila engaged in systemic discrimination against black employees as a class by subjecting them to racial harassment, including referring to them using the N-word, "gorilla," and similar epithets. The Commission also alleged that the company fired an employee who complained about the harassment. The consent decree also requires Laquila to set up a hotline for employees to report illegal discrimination, provide anti-discrimination training to its managers, adopt revised anti-discrimination policies and employee complaint procedures and report all worker harassment and retaliation complaints to the EEOC for the 42-month duration of the agreement. EEOC v. The Laquila Grp., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-05194 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree approved Dec. 1, 2017).
  
  
• In November 2017, after an extensive five-year, complicated systemic investigation and settlement efforts, the EEOC reached an agreement with Lone Star Community College covering recruitment, hiring and mentoring of African-American and Hispanic applicants and employees. The terms of the agreement were designed to enhance the College's commitment to the recruitment of African-American and Hispanics and to engage in meaningful monitoring of the College's efforts to reach its recruitment and hiring goals. The agreement included some novel relief, such as: implementation of a new applicant tracking system; establishing an advisory committee focused on the recruitment, development and retention of minority groups; hiring of recruitment firms; developing new interview protocol training; establishing a mentoring program for recently hired minority employees; and updating job descriptions for all college manager positions to require as a job component the diversity of its workforce.
  
  
• In August 2017, Ford Motor Company agreed to pay nearly $10.125 million to settle sex and race harassment investigation by the EEOC at two Ford plants in Chicago area. In its investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that personnel at two Ford facilities in the Chicago area, the Chicago Assembly Plant and the Chicago Stamping Plant, had subjected female and African-American employees to sexual and racial harassment. The EEOC also found that the company retaliated against employees who complained about the harassment or discrimination. In addition to the monetary relief, the conciliation agreement provides ensures that during the next five years, Ford will conduct regular training at the two Chicago-area facilities; continue to disseminate its anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and procedures to employees and new hires; report to EEOC regarding complaints of harassment and/or related discrimination; and monitor its workforce regarding issues of alleged sexual or racial harassment and related discrimination.
  
  
• In July 2017, Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC agreed, without admitting wrongdoing, to pay $10.5 million to a class of African-American and Hispanic workers the EEOC alleged it discriminated against by failing to hire because of their race and/or national origin in violation of Title VII. According to the consent decree, Bass Pro will engage in good faith efforts to increase diversity by reaching out to minority colleges and technical schools, participating in job fairs in communities with large minority populations and post job openings in publications popular among Black and Hispanic communities. Additionally, every six months for the next 42 months, Bass Pro is to report to the EEOC its hiring rates on a store-by-store basis. EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC, Case No. 4:11-cv-03425 (S.D. Tex. consent decree filed July 24, 2017).
  
  
• In June 2017, the EEOC investigated a restaurant operating over 100 facilities in the Eastern U.S. involving issues of hiring discrimination against African Americans. The restaurant agreed to pay $9.6 million to class members as part of a conciliation agreement. Additionally, the restaurant will overhaul its hiring procedures and has agreed to institute practices aimed at meeting hiring targets consistent with the labor market in each of the locations in which it has facilities. The new hiring procedures include implementation of an extensive applicant tracking system that will better enable the EEOC and the company to assess whether the company is meeting the targeted hiring levels. The restaurant will also provide an annual report to EEOC detailing the company's efforts in complying with the agreement and its objectives over the term of the five-year agreement, including detailed hiring assessments for each facility covered by the agreement.
  
  
• In May 2017, Rosebud Restaurants agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC against 13 restaurants in the Chicago area. The chain was charged with refusing to hire African-American applicants and having managers who used racial slurs to refer to African-Americans. The monetary award will be paid to African-American applicants who were denied jobs. Pursuant to a consent decree, the chain also agreed to hiring goals with the aim of having 11 percent of its future workforce be African American. Rosebud is also required to recruit African-American applicants as well as train employees and managers about race discrimination. EEOC v. Rosebud Rest., No. 1:13-cv-06656 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2017).
  
  
• In April 2017, Sealy of Minnesota paid $175,000 to resolve a charge of racial harassment filed with the EEOC. An investigation by the EEOC's Minneapolis Area Office revealed that the mattress and box spring manufacturing company in St. Paul, Minn. subjected its Black and Hispanic employees to severe racial harassment in the form of KKK hoods, nooses, and racial slurs and jokes. The agency also found that the company discriminated against black and Hispanic employees in the selection of lead positions at the St. Paul facility. EEOC v. Sealy of Minn., (D. Minn. Apr. 20, 2017).
  
  
• In December 2016, Crothall Services Group, Inc., a nationwide provider of janitorial and facilities management services, settled an EEOC lawsuit by adopting significant changes to its record-keeping practices related to the use of criminal background checks. According to the EEOC's complaint, Crothall used criminal background checks to make hiring decisions without making and keeping required records that disclose the impact criminal history assessments have on persons identifiable by race, sex, or ethnic group, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. EEOC v. Crothall Servs. Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-03812-AB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2016).
  
  
• In August 2016, a magistrate judge reaffirmed that "African" has long been recognized as an acceptable class entitled to protection under Title VII. The EEOC alleged that the Defendants, a health care management system and nursing home discriminated against African employees, specifically employees from Ethiopia and Sudan, when it terminated four personal care providers all on the same day, allegedly for failing to pass a newly instituted written exam. The EEOC brought disparate impact and treatment claims based on race and national origin, and a retaliation claim for a white supervisor who stood up for the African workers and was fired several months before the test was instituted. Defendants moved for dismissal arguing (1) Africa is not a nation and so cannot serve as the basis of a national origin claim, (2) EEOC failed to allege any shared cultural or linguistic characteristics between the aggrieved individuals so they could not constitute a protected class; and (3) the EEOC's retaliation claim must be dismissed because EEOC failed to allege protected activity or the Defendants had knowledge of the white supervisor's motivations. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied in total. EEOC v. Columbine Health Sys. & New Mercer Commons, Civ. Action No. 15-cv-01597-MSK-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2016).
  
  
• In June 2016, the EEOC obtained a $350,000 settlement in its race discrimination lawsuit against defendant FAPS, Inc., a company located at Port Newark, N.J., involved in the processing for final sale of shipped automobiles. In this case, the Commission alleged that the company engaged in a pattern-or-practice of race discrimination by relying on word-of-mouth hiring which resulted in a predominantly white workforce despite the substantial African-American available workforce in the Newark area. The agency further alleged that FAPS refused to hire qualified African-American candidates, including by telling them that no positions were available when in fact FAPS was hiring. Finally, the EEOC alleged that FAPS' employment application contained improper pre-employment medical inquiries in violation of the ADA. Besides the monetary compensation, the five year consent decree requires FAPS to meet substantial hiring goals for African-Americans; give hiring priority to rejected class members who are interested in working at the company; use recruiting methods designed to increase the African-American applicant pool; and hire an EEO coordinator to ensure compliance with Title VII. EEOC v. FAPS, Inc., C.A. No. No. 2:10-cv-03095 (D.N.J. June 15, 2016).
  
  
• In April 2015, Local 25 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and its associated apprenticeship school agreed to create a back pay fund for a group of minority sheet metal workers in partial settlement of race discrimination claims against the local union. Pursuant to the settlement, it is estimated that the union will pay approximately $12.7 million over the next five years and provide substantial remedial relief to partially resolve claims made against the union in 1991-2002. The trade union, which is responsible for sheet metal journeypersons in northern New Jersey, allegedly discriminated against black and Hispanic journeypersons over a multi-year period in hiring and job assignments. An analysis of hours and wages showed African-American and Hispanic workers received fewer hours of work than their white co-workers during most of this same timeframe. This particular agreement covers from April 1991 through December 2002. EEOC v. Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Case No. 71 Civ. 2887 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2015).
  
  
• In December 2015, Hillshire Brands (formerly known as Sara Lee Corporation) agreed to pay $4 million to 74 workers at the now-shuttered Paris, Texas, plant, including the dozens of people who sought EEOC charges against Hillshire and other aggrieved workers identified by the EEOC and the plaintiffs. This resolution settles claims that the company subjected a class of Black employees to a hostile work environment that included racist graffiti and comments, that included the N-word and "boy." The company also agreed to implement training at all of its plants in a bid to end consolidated suits from the EEOC and former worker Stanley Beaty. The consent decree also requires Hillshire to implement anti-racism training and create a mechanism for employees at its existing plants to confidentially report instances of harassment, discrimination and retaliation. The settlement also requires Hillshire to designate one employee to serve as a point-of-contact for those who feel they've been treated improperly and to punish workers with suspensions and even termination who are found "by reasonable evidence" to have engaged in racial bias or behavior related to it. EEOC v. Hillshire Brands Co. f/k/a Sara Lee Corp., No. 2:15-cv-01347 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15) and Beaty et al v. The Hillshire Brands Co. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00058 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15).
  
  
• In October 2015, a federal judge held that the operators of an Indianapolis Hampton Inn in contempt for failing to comply with five different conditions settling the EEOC's class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the companies. The judge faulted Noble Management LLC and New Indianapolis Hotels for failing to: (1) properly post notices; (2) properly train management employees; (3) keep employment records; (4) institute a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees; and (5) reinstate three former housekeeping employees. The judge also faulted Noble and New Indianapolis Hotels for comingling of medical records in employee personnel files. As background, the EEOC filed suit against operators New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC in September 2010, alleging that their Hampton Inn fired African-American housekeepers because of their race and in retaliation for complaints about race discrimination. The agency also charged that the hotel paid lower wages to Black housekeepers, excluded Black housekeeping applicants on a systemic basis, and failed to maintain records required by law in violation of Title VII. In September 2012, the judge entered a five-year consent decree resolving the EEOC's litigation against the hotel operators. The decree provided $355,000 in monetary relief to approximately 75 African-American former housekeeping employees and applicants and required training, notice posting, reinstatement of three former housekeeping employees, a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees and ordered that the defendants maintain employment-related records. The court also enjoined the operators from race discrimination and retaliation in the future. In March 2014, following the filing of the EEOC's contempt motion, Judge Lawrence ruled that the defendants violated the terms of the 2012 decree and ordered Defendants to pay more than $50,000 in back wages to the three former housekeepers whose reinstatement was delayed. Defendants were also ordered to: (1) provide monthly reporting to the EEOC on compliance with the new hiring procedure, recordkeeping and posting; (2) pay fines for late reporting; (3) allow random inspections by the EEOC subject to a fine, for failure to grant access; (4) pay fines for failure to post, destroying records or failing to distribute employment applications; (5) provide EEOC with any requested employment records within 15 days of a request; (6) cease comingling medical records; and (7) train management employees. The posting and training provisions of the Decree were also extended by two years. In November 2015, the judge awarded $50,515 in fees and $6,733.76 in costs to the EEOC because the "Defendants willfully violated the explicit terms of the Consent Decree and repeatedly failed to comply with it [.]" EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC, C.A. No. 1:10-CV-01234-WTL-DKL (N.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2015) (fee ruling).
  
  
• In September 2015, BMW Manufacturing Co. settled for $1.6 million and other relief an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company's criminal background check policy disproportionately affects black logistics workers at a South Carolina plant. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that after learning the results of the criminal background checks around July 2008, BMW denied plant access to 88 logistics employees, resulting in their termination from the previous logistics provider and denial of hire by the new logistics services provider for work at BMW. Of those 88 employees, 70 were Black. Some of the logistics employees had been employed at BMW for several years, working for the various logistics services providers utilized by BMW since the opening of the plant in 1994. Under the terms of a consent decree signed by Judge Henry M. Herlong of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the $1.6 million will be shared by 56 known claimants and other black applicants the EEOC said were shut out of BMW's Spartanburg, S.C., plant when the company switched to a new logistics contractor. In addition to the monetary relief, the company will provide each claimant who wishes to return to the facility an opportunity to apply for a logistics position. BMW will also notify other applicants who have previously expressed interest in a logistics position at the facility of their right to apply for work, the decree states. BMW has implemented a new criminal background check policy and will continue to operate under that policy throughout the three-year term of the decree. The company is expressly enjoined from "utilizing the criminal background check guidelines" challenged by the EEOC in its lawsuit, the decree states. The agreement also imposes on BMW notice-posting, training, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. EEOC v. BMW Mfg. Co., No. 7:13-cv-01583 (D.S.C. consent decree filed Sep. 8, 2015).
  
  
• In August 2015, Target Corp. settled for $2.8 million an EEOC charge that the retailer's former tests for hiring for professional jobs discriminated against applicants based on race, sex and disability. Three assessments used by Target disproportionately screened out female and racial minority applicants, and a separate psychological assessment was a pre-employment medical examination that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC had charged. Target also violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to maintain the records sufficient to gauge the impact of its hiring procedures. Under the three-year conciliation agreement, reached before any lawsuit was filed, Target has discontinued the use of the tests and made changes to its applicant tracking system, the EEOC said. About 4,500 unsuccessful applicants affected by the alleged discriminatory tests now are eligible to file claims for monetary relief.
  
  
• In March 2015, a Texas-based oil and gas drilling company agreed to settle for $12.26 million the EEOC's lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation against racial minorities nationwide. According to a complaint filed by the EEOC the same day as the proposed decree, Patterson-UTI had engaged in patterns or practices of hostile work environment harassment, disparate treatment discrimination and retaliation against Hispanic, Latino, Black, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander and other minority workers at its facilities in Colorado and other states. Under the proposed four-year consent decree, the drilling company also will create a new vice president position to be filled by a "qualified EEO professional" who will facilitate, monitor and report on the company's compliance with certain training, management evaluation, minority outreach, and other remedial measures. EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Co., No. 1:15-cv-00600 (D. Colo. consent decree filed Mar. 24, 2015).
  
  
• In January 2015, Skanska USA Building, Inc., a building contractor headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., paid $95,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Skanska violated federal law by allowing workers to subject a class of Black employees who were working as buck hoist operators to racial harassment, and by firing them for complaining to Skanska about the misconduct. Skanska served as the general contractor on the Methodist Le Bonheur Children's Hospital in Memphis, where the incidents in this lawsuit took place. The class of Black employees worked for C-1, Inc. Construction Company, a minority-owned subcontractor for Skanska. Skanska awarded a subcontract to C-1 to provide buck hoist operations for the construction site and thereafter supervised all C-1 employees while at the work site. The EEOC charged that Skanska failed to properly investigate complaints from the buck hoist operators that white employees subjected them to racially offensive comments and physical assault. EEOC v. Shanska USA Building, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-02717 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2015).
  
  
• In December 2014, two Memphis-based affiliates of Select Staffing, employment companies doing business in Tennessee, agreed to pay $580,000 to settle allegations they engaged in race and national origin discrimination. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the staffing firms had discriminated against four Black temporary employees and a class of Black and non-Hispanic job applicants by failing to place or refer them for employment. The four temporary employees said while seeking employment through the company's Memphis area facilities, they witnessed Hispanic applicants getting preferential treatment in hiring and placement. EEOC v. New Koosharem Corp., No. 2:13-cv-2761 (W.D. Tenn. consent decree filed Dec. 5, 2014).
  
  
• In December 2014, three related well-servicing companies agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle allegations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of verbal abuse of minority employees. The EEOC complaint alleged that J&R employees regularly used racial slurs to refer to Black, Hispanic and Native American employees. Employees of these racial groups on company rigs regularly heard racist terms and demeaning remarks about green cards and deportation, the EEOC complaint said. Several individuals complained to management, but their complaints were minimized or ignored, the complaint alleged. For example, an area supervisor responded to employee complaints by telling the complainants they could quit or by saying that he was sick of everyone coming to him and that everyone simply needed to do their jobs. In addition, the complaint stated that several men were demoted or fired after taking their complaints of discrimination to the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services' Labor Standards Division. EEOC v. Dart Energy Corp., No. 13-cv-00198 (D. Wyo. consent decree filed Dec. 1, 2014).
  
  
• In November 2014, a Rockville, Md.-based environmental remediation services contractor paid $415,000 and provide various other relief to settle a class lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race and sex discrimination in its recruitment and hiring of field laborers. Under a three-year consent decree signed Nov. 10 by Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, ACM Services Inc. will pay a combined $110,000 to the two Hispanic female workers who first brought the allegations to the EEOC's attention and will establish a class fund of $305,000 for other potential claimants to be identified by the agency. According to the EEOC, the company has relied exclusively on "word-of-mouth recruitment practices" for field laborer positions, with the intent and effect of restricting the recruitment of Black and female applicants. ACM also subjected the two charging parties to harassment based on sex, national origin and race, and it retaliated against them for opposing the mistreatment-and against one of them based on her association with Black people-by firing them, the commission alleged. The agreement applies to all ACM facilities and locations nationwide and has extra-territorial application to the extent permitted by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition to the monetary relief, the decree requires the company to set numerical hiring goals for its field laborer positions, recruit Black and female applicants via print and Internet advertisements and report to the EEOC regarding its attainment of the numerical hiring goals and other settlement terms. EEOC v. ACM Servs., Inc., No. 8:14-cv-02997 (D. Md. consent decree filed Nov. 10, 2014).
  
  
• In November 2014, Battaglia Distributing Corporation paid $735,000 to a group of current and former African-American employees. In this case, the EEOC alleged that the Battaglia tolerated an egregious race-based hostile work environment, requiring African-American dock workers to endure harassment that included racial slurs (including the "N" word). Among other relief provided under the decree, Battaglia also will provide its managers with training on Title VII and report regularly to the EEOC on any complaints it has received, as well as provide other data to demonstrate that it has not retaliated against any of the participants in the litigation. EEOC v. Battaglia Distrib. Corp., No. 13-cv-5789 (N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Nov. 10, 2014).
  
  
• In October 2014, Prestige Transportation Service L.L.C., a Miami company that provides transportation services to airline personnel to and from Miami International Airport, paid $200,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, in connection with actions allegedly committed under different ownership. The EEOC charged in its suit that Prestige's predecessor company, Airbus Alliance Inc., repeatedly instructed its human resource manager to not hire African-American applicants because they were "trouble" and "would sue the company." EEOC v. Prestige Transp. Service L.L.C., No. 1:13-cv-20684(JEM) (S.D. Fla. consent decree filed Sept. 26, 2014).
  
  
• In September 2014, McCormick & Schmick's settled a 2008 EEOC lawsuit, alleging a pattern or practice of race discrimination against African-American job applicants by refusing to hire them for front-of-the-house positions and by denying equal work assignments because of their race. The consent decree established a claims fund of $1.3 million and provides substantial injunctive relief, including goals for hiring of Black job applicants for front-of-the-house positions, targeted recruitment efforts, and extensive self-assessment of hiring and work assignment practices to ensure non-discrimination and compliance with the terms of the consent decree. McCormick & Schmick's also must designate an outside monitor to oversee compliance with the consent decree and submit reports to the EEOC. EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc. and McCormick and Schmick Restaurant Corporation, No. WMN-09-cv-984 (D. Md. Sep. 12, 2014).
  
  
• In September 2013, U-Haul agreed to pay $750,000 to eight African-American current and former employees and to provide other relief to settle a race and retaliation discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Black employees were subjected to racial slurs and other racially offensive comments by their White supervisor, at U-Haul's Memphis facility. The EEOC's complaint charged that the supervisor regularly referred to Black employees with the "N" word and other derogatory slurs. The suit further alleged that the company engaged in retaliation by firing one employee when he complained of racial harassment to the company president. Under the two-year consent decree, U-Haul Company of Tennessee must maintain an anti-discrimination policy prohibiting race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation, and provide mandatory training to all employees regarding the policy. Additionally, the marketing company president will receive training on race discrimination and on obligations to report race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation. Finally, the company will provide written reports to the EEOC regarding any race discrimination or racial harassment complaints by employees. EEOC v. U-Haul Co. Int'l & U-Haul Co. of Tenn., No. 2:11-cv-02844 (W.D. Tenn. Sep. 25, 2013).
  
  
• In September 2013, a Kentucky coal mining company paid $245,000 to 19 total applicants and amend its hiring practices to settle a racial discrimination suit brought by the EEOC. River View Coal LLC, a unit of Alliance Resource Partners LP, also will have to regularly report to the EEOC on its hiring practices for two years to escape the suit, which alleged that the company refused to hire a class of African-American applicants for coal mining jobs at its Waverly, Ky., location since 2008. The consent decree also requires River View to refrain from any future racial discrimination in its hiring procedures. EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC, No. 4:11-cv-00117(JHM)(HBB) (W.D. Ky. Sep. 26, 2013).
  
  
• In December 2012, a South Dallas, TX mill agreed to pay $500,000 to a class of 14 Black employees to settle an EEOC race discrimination suit alleging that the mill exposed Black employees to violent, racist graffiti and racial slurs by co-workers, such as "KKK," swastikas, Confederate flags, "white power" and other racist terms, including "die, n----r, die," as well as the display of nooses at an employee workstation. Black employees alleged that the supervisors allowed the behavior to continue unchecked. The consent decree permanently enjoins the company from discriminating against employees on the basis of race and requires the company to enact a graffiti abatement policy and undergo annual reviews of its compliance for two years EEOC v. Rock-Tenn Services Co., No. 3:10-cv-01960 (N.D. Tex. filed Sep. 29, 2012).
  
  
• In November 2012, a federal court ordered Caldwell Freight Lines, a now defunct company, to pay $120,000 to settle a race discrimination complaint stemming from its alleged refusal to hire Black applicants to work on its loading dock even though it is no longer in business. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, 51 African American applicants sought work with Caldwell Freight and none was hired even though many had previous dock experience and were qualified for the positions. An EEOC investigation revealed that the company hired no Black dock workers during the period studied and that one high-level manager allegedly said he "didn't want any lacks on the dock." Under the terms of the consent decree, if the company resumes operations, it will have to implement an anti-discrimination policy and report to the EEOC all discrimination complaints and information regarding its hiring practices during the term of the decree. EEOC v. Caldwell Freight Lines, Case No. 5:11CV00134 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2012).

 

[JoeB131]

Hardcore partisan ideology causes blindness in one eye. So they go through life seeing only their side, and lash out at anything that invades their field of vision.

Stormy Mac complaining about people being blinded and myopic...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Michael Savage? No way.

It's dangerous when you start labeling people who believe differently than you as having a 'mental disorder'.

I have an actual mental disorder and I don't see a counselor because I'm a conservative.

I'm not labeling people as having a mental disorder because they believe differently than me. I'm labeling them as having a mental disorder because they believe differently than themselves. Disagree with themselves. Contradict themselves. Get it ?

You quoted the OP. Did you read it ?

Hmm, I learned long ago that Savage was little more than a political shock trooper.

I already know your history on this board. You've moderated your extremism just a tad. I do remember you a couple of years back calling for the entire religion of Islam to be banished from America. Not even once considering their constitutional rights.

But here you are, claiming that "people have a mental disorder, because they believe differently than themselves".

Uh... what does that even mean? Your summation was insufficient.

This is dangerous territory you're treading upon.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hardcore partisan ideology causes blindness in one eye. So they go through life seeing only their side, and lash out at anything that invades their field of vision.

Stormy Mac complaining about people being blinded and myopic...

View attachment 199046

Lol, look who's talking.

 

[JoeB131]

Lol, look who's talking.

You see, Couch boy, you were doing so well with that last post... and then you do this one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lol, look who's talking.

You see, Couch boy, you were doing so well with that last post... and then you do this one.

Well, I knew one post wasn't going to change how you see me. Another thing is, you can't honestly sit there and claim to have clear sight and a wide ranging field of view when you make such biased and myopic posts of your own. Calling me "couch boy"? Yeah that really goes a long way towards making your case. Not.

I'm just calling Protectionist out on his bullshit just like I'm calling you out on yours. Don't like that? Tough.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lol, look who's talking.

You see, Couch boy, you were doing so well with that last post... and then you do this one.

Furthermore, you only expressed a favorable opinion of me when I said something that aligned with your political views. Showing only that you judge people's character by their political views and not by their actions.

That's just more bullshit on your part. It proves you are just as myopic and short sighted as you claim others to be.

 

[protectionist]

Michael Savage? No way.

It's dangerous when you start labeling people who believe differently than you as having a 'mental disorder'.

I have an actual mental disorder and I don't see a counselor because I'm a conservative.

I'm not labeling people as having a mental disorder because they believe differently than me. I'm labeling them as having a mental disorder because they believe differently than themselves. Disagree with themselves. Contradict themselves. Get it ?

You quoted the OP. Did you read it ?

Hmm, I learned long ago that Savage was little more than a political shock trooper.

I already know your history on this board. You've moderated your extremism just a tad. I do remember you a couple of years back calling for the entire religion of Islam to be banished from America. Not even once considering their constitutional rights.

But here you are, claiming that "people have a mental disorder, because they believe differently than themselves".

Uh... what does that even mean? Your summation was insufficient.

This is dangerous territory you're treading upon.

Looks like you're having troube understanding rather simle things. Allow me to help.

1. I have "moderated" nothing at all regarding Islam to be banished from America. Islam is already banished (on paper) from America by the Constitution (Article 6, Section 2, Part 1 (the Supremacy clause). Unfortunately, this wise ban set up by our founding fathers, has not been enforced by succeeding generations, and Islam has been unconstitutionally been allowed to flourish.
Islam is not a religion, as most people around the world maintain, including some entire nations. All of Islam should be eradicated in America, and when that is done, our founding fathers will rest in peace and tranquility,

2. I think I well explained what ""people have a mental disorder, because they believe differently than themselves" means. Once again, it means they state a belief (ex. support for Islam) and then they state a directly opposite, contradictory belief (ex. womens' rights) My summation is sufficient, Before and now.

 

[Nosmo King]

Michael Savage? No way.

It's dangerous when you start labeling people who believe differently than you as having a 'mental disorder'.

I have an actual mental disorder and I don't see a counselor because I'm a conservative.

I'm not labeling people as having a mental disorder because they believe differently than me. I'm labeling them as having a mental disorder because they believe differently than themselves. Disagree with themselves. Contradict themselves. Get it ?

You quoted the OP. Did you read it ?

Hmm, I learned long ago that Savage was little more than a political shock trooper.

I already know your history on this board. You've moderated your extremism just a tad. I do remember you a couple of years back calling for the entire religion of Islam to be banished from America. Not even once considering their constitutional rights.

But here you are, claiming that "people have a mental disorder, because they believe differently than themselves".

Uh... what does that even mean? Your summation was insufficient.

This is dangerous territory you're treading upon.

Looks like you're having troube understanding rather simle things. Allow me to help.

1. I have "moderated" nothing at all regarding Islam to be banished from America. Islam is already banished (on paper) from America by the Constitution (Article 6, Section 2, Part 1 (the Supremacy clause). Unfortunately, this wise ban set up by our founding fathers, has not been enforced by succeeding generations, and Islam has been unconstitutionally been allowed to flourish.
Islam is not a religion, as most people around the world maintain, including some entire nations. All of Islam should be eradicated in America, and when that is done, our founding fathers will rest in peace and tranquility,

2. I think I well explained what ""people have a mental disorder, because they believe differently than themselves" means. Once again, it means they state a belief (ex. support for Islam) and then they state a directly opposite, contradictory belief (ex. womens' rights) My summation is sufficient, Before and now.

You see those who do not, in fact, reject your premise that Islam is not a religion as mentally ill. That does not make for a legitimate argument.

I reject your premise on the grounds it is cobbled together out of ignorance of Islam, fear of Islam and an unAmerican outlook that says some faiths merit protection while others do not. Scapegoating a religious minority is the stuff of fascism. Therefore I feel entirely mentally competent to,reject that vile idea.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Michael Savage? No way.

It's dangerous when you start labeling people who believe differently than you as having a 'mental disorder'.

I have an actual mental disorder and I don't see a counselor because I'm a conservative.

I'm not labeling people as having a mental disorder because they believe differently than me. I'm labeling them as having a mental disorder because they believe differently than themselves. Disagree with themselves. Contradict themselves. Get it ?

You quoted the OP. Did you read it ?

Hmm, I learned long ago that Savage was little more than a political shock trooper.

I already know your history on this board. You've moderated your extremism just a tad. I do remember you a couple of years back calling for the entire religion of Islam to be banished from America. Not even once considering their constitutional rights.

But here you are, claiming that "people have a mental disorder, because they believe differently than themselves".

Uh... what does that even mean? Your summation was insufficient.

This is dangerous territory you're treading upon.

Looks like you're having troube understanding rather simle things. Allow me to help.

1. I have "moderated" nothing at all regarding Islam to be banished from America. Islam is already banished (on paper) from America by the Constitution (Article 6, Section 2, Part 1 (the Supremacy clause). Unfortunately, this wise ban set up by our founding fathers, has not been enforced by succeeding generations, and Islam has been unconstitutionally been allowed to flourish.
Islam is not a religion, as most people around the world maintain, including some entire nations. All of Islam should be eradicated in America, and when that is done, our founding fathers will rest in peace and tranquility,

2. I think I well explained what ""people have a mental disorder, because they believe differently than themselves" means. Once again, it means they state a belief (ex. support for Islam) and then they state a directly opposite, contradictory belief (ex. womens' rights) My summation is sufficient, Before and now.

Well, that didn't take much, did it? The Supremacy Clause has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Oh, did you really think that free exercise of religion only applied to Christianity?

What a joke. Now that I have you rambling on about pseudo-constitutional nonsense. I'll be off.

 

[protectionist]

You see those who do not, in fact, reject your premise that Islam is not a religion as mentally ill. That does not make for a legitimate argument.

I reject your premise on the grounds it is cobbled together out of ignorance of Islam, fear of Islam and an unAmerican outlook that says some faiths merit protection while others do not. Scapegoating a religious minority is the stuff of fascism. Therefore I feel entirely mentally competent to,reject that vile idea.

FALSE! Looks like you could use a reading comprehension course. No, I don't see those defining Islam to be a religion as mentally ill, and that is not what I said. I said the mentally ill part comes about when people CONTRADICT themselves. (some people have to be told 3 times)

" ignorance of Islam," you say ? I will put my knowledge of Islam up against yours anytime at all. And if you're interested, you can take my Islamization Quiz, but don't feel too bad if you don't do too well with it. No liberal taking it, has ever gotten a higher grade than 10% (most got zero). Some even asked me >> "Islamization. What's that ?"

Lastly, to call Islam a "faith" is preposterous. Think about calling mass genocidal murder a "faith". Think about calling rape, pedophilia, animal cruelty,or severe misogyny, individually, a "faith". Now just pile them all together into one single cult (masquerading as a religion), and you've got Islam. The farthest thing from a religion the world has ever known.

Does THIS look like a "faith" ? How stupid can people be ?

 

[protectionist]

Well, that didn't take much, did it? The Supremacy Clause has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Oh, did you really think that free exercise of religion only applied to Christianity?

What a joke. Now that I have you rambling on about pseudo-constitutional nonsense. I'll be off.

Islam has nothing to do with religion (other then to fools who are snookered into believing that it is one - the oldest con job in history)

Yes, now you'll be off - pretending that you haven't been schooled on Islam's phony projection of itself as a religion, and its unconstitutionality, as the illegal supremacism that it is, clearly banned by the Constitution (Article 6, section 2, Part 1). Bye bye.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, that didn't take much, did it? The Supremacy Clause has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Oh, did you really think that free exercise of religion only applied to Christianity?

What a joke. Now that I have you rambling on about pseudo-constitutional nonsense. I'll be off.

Islam has nothing to do with religion (other then to fools who are snookered into believing that it is one - the oldest con job in history)

Yes, now you'll be off - pretending that you haven't been schooled on Islam's phony projection of itself as a religion, and its unconstitutionality, as the illegal supremacism that it is, clearly banned by the Constitution (Article 6, section 2, Part 1). Bye bye.

Give it a rest. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[protectionist]

Give it a rest. You're not fooling anyone.

I don't HAVE TO fool anyone. The Constitution is clear, supremacisms are banned. and it didn't say anything about Islam being an exception. And you and your denials don't create an exception.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States...shall be the Supreme Law of the Land"
(Article 6, Section 2, Part 1)

 

[JoeB131]

Well, I knew one post wasn't going to change how you see me. Another thing is, you can't honestly sit there and claim to have clear sight and a wide ranging field of view when you make such biased and myopic posts of your own. Calling me "couch boy"? Yeah that really goes a long way towards making your case. Not.

Well, no, you are still Couch Boy because I've talked to you for I think five years now, and you've really made no effort to improve your personal situation... even after a bunch of us gave you really good offers to help you out.

I'm just calling Protectionist out on his bullshit just like I'm calling you out on yours. Don't like that? Tough.

Well, if you actually accomplished something in life, you'd have some credibility.

I should point out that by the time I was your age, I had graduated from college, was promoted to the rank of Staff Sergeant in the US Army, owned my own home and rental property, and I accomplished all of this despite both of my parents passing away before I was old enough to buy a drink legally.

And at that age, I was probably more right wing than you are now. Now I know better.

You sit home on the couch all day whining about how you can't get a job, but man, you will run down non-white people who face real hurdles in life.

Furthermore, you only expressed a favorable opinion of me when I said something that aligned with your political views. Showing only that you judge people's character by their political views and not by their actions.

Naw, guy, I had kind of hopes that you actually could see the racism of an ass-clown like Protectionist, and say, "No, this is not what my movement stands for!"

Admittedly, this is something I struggled with for years when I was a Republican, but back in those days, they went out of their way to not be obvious in their racism. I even give George W. Bush some credit for doing outreach to minorities.

Today Trump lets the bigotry flag fly high, guys like Protectionist are in hog heaven, and decent guys (if there are any) don't object enough to it when he calls immigrants "animals" and their home countries "Shitholes".

 

[protectionist]

Naw, guy, I had kind of hopes that you actually could see the racism of an ass-clown like Protectionist, and say, "No, this is not what my movement stands for!"

Admittedly, this is something I struggled with for years when I was a Republican, but back in those days, they went out of their way to not be obvious in their racism. I even give George W. Bush some credit for doing outreach to minorities.

Today Trump lets the bigotry flag fly high, guys like Protectionist are in hog heaven, and decent guys (if there are any) don't object enough to it when he calls immigrants "animals" and their home countries "Shitholes".

1. Show one instance of Trump being bigoted.

2. Trump's "animals" comment was referring to MS-13, and their BEHAVIOR. I would agree with him that they act like non-human animals. Perfectly legitimate comment. As for "shitholes", that is what some countries are. And calling things what they ARE, is what got Trump elected by the AMERICAN people, who appreciate that type of direct honesty.

3. You went from being conservative to being leftist. LOL. That's pretty bad. I was a leftist for 40 years, before becoming conservative in 2009, after jihadist Obama allowed jihadist Nidal Hasan to slaughter 13 US Army soldiers.

4. Show one instance where I have ever presented a single indication of having "racism".

PS - do you support Affirmative Action ? (like many "ass-clowns" in this forum do)

 

[JoeB131]

1. Show one instance of Trump being bigoted.

I've shown you dozens.

Go away.

2. Trump's "animals" comment was referring to MS-13, and their BEHAVIOR. I would agree with him that they act like non-human animals. Perfectly legitimate comment. As for "shitholes", that is what some countries are. And calling things what they ARE, is what got Trump elected by the AMERICAN people, who appreciate that type of direct honesty.

Um, guy, we have 16,000 homicides in this country every year. MS-13 has been responsible for 213 in the last 10.

Oh, yeah, and most of the American people voted against the Orange Shitgibbon, who lost by 3 million votes.

3. You went from being conservative to being leftist. LOL. That's pretty bad. I was a leftist for 40 years, before becoming conservative in 2009, after jihadist Obama allowed jihadist Nidal Hasan to slaughter 13 US Army soldiers.

How did he allow that exactly? Because it seems to me, if anyone should be blamed for Hasan's rampage, it's the Army for not throwing him out when it was clear he was a little nuts. That was long before Obama came to office.

4. Show one instance where I have ever presented a single indication of having "racism".

YOu mean other than your constant ranting about Muslims and Mexicans? When you see someone as a member of a group before an individual, that's racism, bud.

Sorry i have to explain that to you.

PS - do you support Affirmative Action ? (like many "ass-clowns" in this forum do)

I think that as long as the hiring and promotion decisions are made by white men, you need something to make sure minorities and women get a fair shake.

 

[sparky]

It's humorous to witness those claiming islam is a political movement cloaked in the guise of religion, while giving the zionists a total pass


~S~

 

[Doc1]

Actually it is the continued acceptance of the American belief that there are actually two parties and that our Government is still of the people that is the disorder.