An Apology to African Americans

[sealybobo]

Myth 1 is not a Myth; however, it takes time. Over time, years or perhaps over 2 or 3 generations a color-blind society can be reached by adopting color-blind policies. Policies such as AA may help in the short term, but in the long term if continued will prevent having a color-blind society.
It's time to end AA and adopt color-blind policies now.

My biggest problem with AA is that it uses something to benefit, when it comes to race, what would be chastised by the very ones that support the concept if race was used to deny.

I can understand the need for AA to kind of "prime the pump" to equal access to educational opportunities. But 50 years has been plenty of time to do that. Having already had a black president is proof of that.

If you're "priming the pump", how is using the very same thing to do the priming suddenly OK when it was wrong and the very reason why AA was claimed to have been put in place? It seems the argument in favor of AA is that "race is wrong to use when making a determination until it's used to benefit the groups that say using race was wrong".

If you don't understand my "priming the pump" analogy... then trying to explain to you would be an exercise in futility.

If you don't have the ability to explain it, tells me it isn't a very good analogy. I understand. You're blaming me for your faults.

I got it. So what's wrong with you

 

[sealybobo]

Here's my ruling. After black people's abysmal showing in the last election I feel affirmative action needs to go away. Voting is essential to being a good citizen. And elections have consequences.

The bush tax breaks were supposed to expire but Republicans wanted to make them permenant. Then Democrats won and they went away. Elections have consequences.

Anyways elections have consequences

 

[Conservative65]

My biggest problem with AA is that it uses something to benefit, when it comes to race, what would be chastised by the very ones that support the concept if race was used to deny.

I can understand the need for AA to kind of "prime the pump" to equal access to educational opportunities. But 50 years has been plenty of time to do that. Having already had a black president is proof of that.

If you're "priming the pump", how is using the very same thing to do the priming suddenly OK when it was wrong and the very reason why AA was claimed to have been put in place? It seems the argument in favor of AA is that "race is wrong to use when making a determination until it's used to benefit the groups that say using race was wrong".

If you don't understand my "priming the pump" analogy... then trying to explain to you would be an exercise in futility.

If you don't have the ability to explain it, tells me it isn't a very good analogy. I understand. You're blaming me for your faults.

I got it. So what's wrong with you

Yet you offer no explanation just a claim. I don't believe you, liar.

 

[sealybobo]

I can understand the need for AA to kind of "prime the pump" to equal access to educational opportunities. But 50 years has been plenty of time to do that. Having already had a black president is proof of that.

If you're "priming the pump", how is using the very same thing to do the priming suddenly OK when it was wrong and the very reason why AA was claimed to have been put in place? It seems the argument in favor of AA is that "race is wrong to use when making a determination until it's used to benefit the groups that say using race was wrong".

If you don't understand my "priming the pump" analogy... then trying to explain to you would be an exercise in futility.

If you don't have the ability to explain it, tells me it isn't a very good analogy. I understand. You're blaming me for your faults.

I got it. So what's wrong with you

Yet you offer no explanation just a claim. I don't believe you, liar.

Prime the pump. In other words the good old boys weren't hiring blacks or women. So, the ultimate referee (we the people) decided to insist companies hire a proper share of blacks and women.

What was the penalty for not abiding by AA?

 

[Conservative65]

If you're "priming the pump", how is using the very same thing to do the priming suddenly OK when it was wrong and the very reason why AA was claimed to have been put in place? It seems the argument in favor of AA is that "race is wrong to use when making a determination until it's used to benefit the groups that say using race was wrong".

If you don't understand my "priming the pump" analogy... then trying to explain to you would be an exercise in futility.

If you don't have the ability to explain it, tells me it isn't a very good analogy. I understand. You're blaming me for your faults.

I got it. So what's wrong with you

Yet you offer no explanation just a claim. I don't believe you, liar.

Prime the pump. In other words the good old boys weren't hiring blacks or women. So, the ultimate referee (we the people) decided to insist companies hire a proper share of blacks and women.

What was the penalty for not abiding by AA?

The problem with insisting that more blacks and women get hired is that the insistence was based on skin color and gender rather than qualifications. Strange how those referees insisted that something they said was being used to deny someone was suddenly OK to use when it benefited them.

The penalty was that businesses were forced to hire less qualified people just because they were darker or had a vagina between their legs.

 

[Correll]

1. I've seen more qualified whites passed over for promotion to be given to a black that got herself shortly fired, as I warned. TO be replaced by another black who failed. To be replaced by another black, ironically one I mentored, who finally succeeded.

2. Your lack of respect or concern for "factory workers" is wrong. A. in the interest of fairness to the white want to be factory workers and B. for their co-workers who have to put up with less qualified co-workers.


3. I don't know if it was the right answer in the past, but it is certainly the wrong answer now. End it immediately, across the board. Anti-white discrimination is a cancer tearing this nation apart.

1. I've seen more qualified blacks get passed over for whites who didn't work out. This happens more than the opposite.

2. You prove in every post that you have a negative attitude towards black workers. The only ones who make it are ones you mentor because without you they are nothing. LOL.

So you do admit there was a need and reason for AA in the past. Thank you for at least admitting that. Or at least not denying it. That was awfully white of you. LOL.

1. My observations say otherwise.

2. Nothing I have said, justifies your claim. You preconceptions are misleading you.

3. It is certainly the wrong answer now.

You don't have a negative attitude towards blacks? Lets see what you wrote:

"whites have to put up with less qualified co-workers."

Sorry white factory workers have to put up with less qualified blacks. What about the blacks who have to put up with less qualified whites?

Are you saying whites should have a good attitude if required to put up with less qualified co-workers?

Less qualified whites? You mean there is AA that takes white into account?

Yes. It's called all the prejudice hiring managers in America who forced the government, who by the way is the ultimate referee here, into regulating industry to force companies who were acting badly to hire a proportionate share of black people.

Now you white bigots and racists act like white companies were forced to hire inferior blacks. So basically you're saying there were legitimate reasons whites weren't hiring blacks.

You guys are prejudice and the country you run is/was prejudice. Now end AA like you want to and we will see what the results are. Hopefully you are right and the need for it is over.

But interesting I can't find one person to say AA was never needed but I would be a million dollars that back then had USMB been a thing you cock suckers would be arguing against AA. No question in my mind.

Unk, go **** yourself.

If you require a workforce to be proportionally black, then when the black applicants are less qualified than the white applicants, which will often happen, then you are forcing them to hire "inferior", your words, blacks.



In the example I was personally involved in and gave you, that was what happened.


For whatever reason, the black candidates for the job were unqualified or less qualified than the top white candidates.


They promoted an unqualified black employee and she got her ass fired.


This is you pushing racial discrimination.


The top candidate was a white guy with a family. Because of the various policies you support, his family did not get a major increase in socio-economic status and all that goes with it.

 

[Conservative65]

1. I've seen more qualified blacks get passed over for whites who didn't work out. This happens more than the opposite.

2. You prove in every post that you have a negative attitude towards black workers. The only ones who make it are ones you mentor because without you they are nothing. LOL.

So you do admit there was a need and reason for AA in the past. Thank you for at least admitting that. Or at least not denying it. That was awfully white of you. LOL.

1. My observations say otherwise.

2. Nothing I have said, justifies your claim. You preconceptions are misleading you.

3. It is certainly the wrong answer now.

You don't have a negative attitude towards blacks? Lets see what you wrote:

"whites have to put up with less qualified co-workers."

Sorry white factory workers have to put up with less qualified blacks. What about the blacks who have to put up with less qualified whites?

Are you saying whites should have a good attitude if required to put up with less qualified co-workers?

Less qualified whites? You mean there is AA that takes white into account?

Yes. It's called all the prejudice hiring managers in America who forced the government, who by the way is the ultimate referee here, into regulating industry to force companies who were acting badly to hire a proportionate share of black people.

Now you white bigots and racists act like white companies were forced to hire inferior blacks. So basically you're saying there were legitimate reasons whites weren't hiring blacks.

You guys are prejudice and the country you run is/was prejudice. Now end AA like you want to and we will see what the results are. Hopefully you are right and the need for it is over.

But interesting I can't find one person to say AA was never needed but I would be a million dollars that back then had USMB been a thing you cock suckers would be arguing against AA. No question in my mind.

Unk, go **** yourself.

If you require a workforce to be proportionally black, then when the black applicants are less qualified than the white applicants, which will often happen, then you are forcing them to hire "inferior", your words, blacks.



In the example I was personally involved in and gave you, that was what happened.


For whatever reason, the black candidates for the job were unqualified or less qualified than the top white candidates.


They promoted an unqualified black employee and she got her ass fired.


This is you pushing racial discrimination.


The top candidate was a white guy with a family. Because of the various policies you support, his family did not get a major increase in socio-economic status and all that goes with it.

A problem I have with AA being put in place is that it assumed when those AA is designed to benefit weren't hired because of a certain characteristic whether it was race, gender, etc. A bigger problem I have with AA is that what is used to benefit someone with it involves considering the same characteristics those supporting it say are wrong to use. How can using race, gender, etc. be wrong if it denies yet right when it benefits? If its OK to use to benefit, it should be OK to use to deny.

 

[sealybobo]

If you don't understand my "priming the pump" analogy... then trying to explain to you would be an exercise in futility.

If you don't have the ability to explain it, tells me it isn't a very good analogy. I understand. You're blaming me for your faults.

I got it. So what's wrong with you

Yet you offer no explanation just a claim. I don't believe you, liar.

Prime the pump. In other words the good old boys weren't hiring blacks or women. So, the ultimate referee (we the people) decided to insist companies hire a proper share of blacks and women.

What was the penalty for not abiding by AA?

The problem with insisting that more blacks and women get hired is that the insistence was based on skin color and gender rather than qualifications. Strange how those referees insisted that something they said was being used to deny someone was suddenly OK to use when it benefited them.

The penalty was that businesses were forced to hire less qualified people just because they were darker or had a vagina between their legs.

What if they didn't hire their quota or fair share of minorities and women? What was the penalty?

And I'm sorry but AA kept racist companies honest. They had to look just a little bit harder at the black candidate to see, "am I not picking this candidate because of bias?" and it turns out they were being prejudice in their hiring practices.

Let me give you an extreme example of what could have happened if we never did AA for black people. Do you know those arabs who strap bombs onto their bodies because they have nothing to lose? Well if we woudl have continued to treat them like second class citizens, which in some ways we still do, then maybe we would have a problem on our hands. Us liberals solved the problem before it got out of hand. You guys would have never hired your fair share of blacks had we not forced you to. Sorry you suck.

 

[Conservative65]

If you don't have the ability to explain it, tells me it isn't a very good analogy. I understand. You're blaming me for your faults.

I got it. So what's wrong with you

Yet you offer no explanation just a claim. I don't believe you, liar.

Prime the pump. In other words the good old boys weren't hiring blacks or women. So, the ultimate referee (we the people) decided to insist companies hire a proper share of blacks and women.

What was the penalty for not abiding by AA?

The problem with insisting that more blacks and women get hired is that the insistence was based on skin color and gender rather than qualifications. Strange how those referees insisted that something they said was being used to deny someone was suddenly OK to use when it benefited them.

The penalty was that businesses were forced to hire less qualified people just because they were darker or had a vagina between their legs.

What if they didn't hire their quota or fair share of minorities and women? What was the penalty?

And I'm sorry but AA kept racist companies honest. They had to look just a little bit harder at the black candidate to see, "am I not picking this candidate because of bias?" and it turns out they were being prejudice in their hiring practices.

Let me give you an extreme example of what could have happened if we never did AA for black people. Do you know those arabs who strap bombs onto their bodies because they have nothing to lose? Well if we woudl have continued to treat them like second class citizens, which in some ways we still do, then maybe we would have a problem on our hands. Us liberals solved the problem before it got out of hand. You guys would have never hired your fair share of blacks had we not forced you to. Sorry you suck.

Fair share? No such thing if you're only counting race and gender as a qualification.

If they had to look harder at the black candidate, it meant the black candidate wasn't qualified.

What you supported was a program that used the very thing you said it was wrong to use. That's racist. Thanks for admitting that's what you are.

Troll somewhere else you racist piece of shit.

 

[Vastator]

If you don't have the ability to explain it, tells me it isn't a very good analogy. I understand. You're blaming me for your faults.

I got it. So what's wrong with you

Yet you offer no explanation just a claim. I don't believe you, liar.

Prime the pump. In other words the good old boys weren't hiring blacks or women. So, the ultimate referee (we the people) decided to insist companies hire a proper share of blacks and women.

What was the penalty for not abiding by AA?

The problem with insisting that more blacks and women get hired is that the insistence was based on skin color and gender rather than qualifications. Strange how those referees insisted that something they said was being used to deny someone was suddenly OK to use when it benefited them.

The penalty was that businesses were forced to hire less qualified people just because they were darker or had a vagina between their legs.

What if they didn't hire their quota or fair share of minorities and women? What was the penalty?

And I'm sorry but AA kept racist companies honest. They had to look just a little bit harder at the black candidate to see, "am I not picking this candidate because of bias?" and it turns out they were being prejudice in their hiring practices.

Let me give you an extreme example of what could have happened if we never did AA for black people. Do you know those arabs who strap bombs onto their bodies because they have nothing to lose? Well if we woudl have continued to treat them like second class citizens, which in some ways we still do, then maybe we would have a problem on our hands. Us liberals solved the problem before it got out of hand. You guys would have never hired your fair share of blacks had we not forced you to. Sorry you suck.

Fair share... **** off. If fair was anything you were concerned with; you'd be lobbying for companies to hire whoever they wanted. And not hire whoever they didnt want. What youre trying to pass of as fair, is nothing more than social engineering.

 

[sealybobo]

I got it. So what's wrong with you

Yet you offer no explanation just a claim. I don't believe you, liar.

Prime the pump. In other words the good old boys weren't hiring blacks or women. So, the ultimate referee (we the people) decided to insist companies hire a proper share of blacks and women.

What was the penalty for not abiding by AA?

The problem with insisting that more blacks and women get hired is that the insistence was based on skin color and gender rather than qualifications. Strange how those referees insisted that something they said was being used to deny someone was suddenly OK to use when it benefited them.

The penalty was that businesses were forced to hire less qualified people just because they were darker or had a vagina between their legs.

What if they didn't hire their quota or fair share of minorities and women? What was the penalty?

And I'm sorry but AA kept racist companies honest. They had to look just a little bit harder at the black candidate to see, "am I not picking this candidate because of bias?" and it turns out they were being prejudice in their hiring practices.

Let me give you an extreme example of what could have happened if we never did AA for black people. Do you know those arabs who strap bombs onto their bodies because they have nothing to lose? Well if we woudl have continued to treat them like second class citizens, which in some ways we still do, then maybe we would have a problem on our hands. Us liberals solved the problem before it got out of hand. You guys would have never hired your fair share of blacks had we not forced you to. Sorry you suck.

Fair share? No such thing if you're only counting race and gender as a qualification.

If they had to look harder at the black candidate, it meant the black candidate wasn't qualified.

What you supported was a program that used the very thing you said it was wrong to use. That's racist. Thanks for admitting that's what you are.

Troll somewhere else you racist piece of shit.

So funny that the racist who doesn't think any blacks are qualified to push your broom aren't qualified calls me racist. I will go. Bye loser.

 

[Conservative65]

I got it. So what's wrong with you

Yet you offer no explanation just a claim. I don't believe you, liar.

Prime the pump. In other words the good old boys weren't hiring blacks or women. So, the ultimate referee (we the people) decided to insist companies hire a proper share of blacks and women.

What was the penalty for not abiding by AA?

The problem with insisting that more blacks and women get hired is that the insistence was based on skin color and gender rather than qualifications. Strange how those referees insisted that something they said was being used to deny someone was suddenly OK to use when it benefited them.

The penalty was that businesses were forced to hire less qualified people just because they were darker or had a vagina between their legs.

What if they didn't hire their quota or fair share of minorities and women? What was the penalty?

And I'm sorry but AA kept racist companies honest. They had to look just a little bit harder at the black candidate to see, "am I not picking this candidate because of bias?" and it turns out they were being prejudice in their hiring practices.

Let me give you an extreme example of what could have happened if we never did AA for black people. Do you know those arabs who strap bombs onto their bodies because they have nothing to lose? Well if we woudl have continued to treat them like second class citizens, which in some ways we still do, then maybe we would have a problem on our hands. Us liberals solved the problem before it got out of hand. You guys would have never hired your fair share of blacks had we not forced you to. Sorry you suck.

Fair share... **** off. If fair was anything you were concerned with; you'd be lobbying for companies to hire whoever they wanted. And not hire whoever they didnt want. What youre trying to pass of as fair, is nothing more than social engineering.

When someone like that idiot says fair share, he's not concerned with quality but quantity. Somehow he thinks that if you hire a certain percentage of a group it means they're qualified.

 

[sealybobo]

I never worried about a black guy taking my job. Never once.

I got it. So what's wrong with you

Yet you offer no explanation just a claim. I don't believe you, liar.

Prime the pump. In other words the good old boys weren't hiring blacks or women. So, the ultimate referee (we the people) decided to insist companies hire a proper share of blacks and women.

What was the penalty for not abiding by AA?

The problem with insisting that more blacks and women get hired is that the insistence was based on skin color and gender rather than qualifications. Strange how those referees insisted that something they said was being used to deny someone was suddenly OK to use when it benefited them.

The penalty was that businesses were forced to hire less qualified people just because they were darker or had a vagina between their legs.

What if they didn't hire their quota or fair share of minorities and women? What was the penalty?

And I'm sorry but AA kept racist companies honest. They had to look just a little bit harder at the black candidate to see, "am I not picking this candidate because of bias?" and it turns out they were being prejudice in their hiring practices.

Let me give you an extreme example of what could have happened if we never did AA for black people. Do you know those arabs who strap bombs onto their bodies because they have nothing to lose? Well if we woudl have continued to treat them like second class citizens, which in some ways we still do, then maybe we would have a problem on our hands. Us liberals solved the problem before it got out of hand. You guys would have never hired your fair share of blacks had we not forced you to. Sorry you suck.

Fair share... **** off. If fair was anything you were concerned with; you'd be lobbying for companies to hire whoever they wanted. And not hire whoever they didnt want. What youre trying to pass of as fair, is nothing more than social engineering.

Sorry but those blacks do your job better than you. But before AA you said they weren't qualified. You lied. Losers.

 

[Divine Wind]

AN APOLOGY TO AFRICAN AMERICANS – LONG OVERDUE

I couldn’t focus at work today. My mind kept taking me back to Charlottesville.

I kept seeing the hate in the eyes of the KKK, White Supremacists and Neo-Nazi protesters.

I kept hearing the voices of those who vowed to “take their country back” and rid it of all diversity and unity.

In my heart, I can find no other response but to apologize – for their hatred, for their violence, for their total ignorance of who you really are.

I am a white woman who has been married to a black man for 37 years.

I KNOW you are wonderful. I KNOW you are spiritual. I KNOW you are warm, loving and forgiving. I KNOW you deserve better. I KNOW you deserve an apology.

An apology from our nation, from our leaders and from every white person who has never spoken up against racism and the way you have been treated in this United States of America.

As one individual, I do apologize. Right here. Right now.

It may not help a lot. It may not change the course of history. It may not even make a crack in the wall that divides us. But still – I APOLOGIZE.

Delores Paulk

Now apologize for what the Englanders did to my Irish ancestors both before and after they came to the Americas.

After that, then apologize for what the Italians did to all of us.

 

[Correll]

I never worried about a black guy taking my job. Never once.

Yet you offer no explanation just a claim. I don't believe you, liar.

Prime the pump. In other words the good old boys weren't hiring blacks or women. So, the ultimate referee (we the people) decided to insist companies hire a proper share of blacks and women.

What was the penalty for not abiding by AA?

The problem with insisting that more blacks and women get hired is that the insistence was based on skin color and gender rather than qualifications. Strange how those referees insisted that something they said was being used to deny someone was suddenly OK to use when it benefited them.

The penalty was that businesses were forced to hire less qualified people just because they were darker or had a vagina between their legs.

What if they didn't hire their quota or fair share of minorities and women? What was the penalty?

And I'm sorry but AA kept racist companies honest. They had to look just a little bit harder at the black candidate to see, "am I not picking this candidate because of bias?" and it turns out they were being prejudice in their hiring practices.

Let me give you an extreme example of what could have happened if we never did AA for black people. Do you know those arabs who strap bombs onto their bodies because they have nothing to lose? Well if we woudl have continued to treat them like second class citizens, which in some ways we still do, then maybe we would have a problem on our hands. Us liberals solved the problem before it got out of hand. You guys would have never hired your fair share of blacks had we not forced you to. Sorry you suck.

Fair share... **** off. If fair was anything you were concerned with; you'd be lobbying for companies to hire whoever they wanted. And not hire whoever they didnt want. What youre trying to pass of as fair, is nothing more than social engineering.

Sorry but those blacks do your job better than you. But before AA you said they weren't qualified. You lied. Losers.

Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia


"
Facts[edit]
In late 2005, the New Haven Fire Department had seven openings for Captain and eight openings for Lieutenant. To fill the open positions, it needed to administer civil service examinations. The examinations consisted of two parts: a written examination and an oral examination.

The examinations were governed in part by the City of New Haven's contract with the firefighters' union (which stated that the written exam result counted for 60% of an applicant's score and the oral exam for 40%, and that a total score above 70% on the exam would constitute a passing score). The final selection would be governed by a provision in the City Charter referred to as the "Rule of Three", which mandated that a civil service position be filled from among the three individuals with the highest scores on the exam.

Examinations[edit]
The New Haven Department of Human Resources issued an RFP for these examinations, as a result of which I/O Solutions ("IOS") designed the examinations.[4] The examinations were administered in November and December 2003;[5] 118 firefighters took the examinations (77 took the Lieutenant exam and 41 took the Captain exam).

When the results came back, the pass rate for black candidates was approximately half that of the corresponding rate for white candidates:[6]

• The passage rate for the Captain exam was: 16 (64%) of the 25 whites; 3 (38%) of the 8 blacks; and 3 (38%) of the 8 Hispanics.[7] Under the City Charter's "Rule of Three", the top 9 scorers would be eligible for promotion to the 7 open Captain positions; the top 9 scorers consisted of 7 whites, 2 Hispanics, and no blacks.
• The passage rate for the Lieutenant exam was: 25 (58%) of the 43 whites; 6 (32%) of the 19 blacks; 3 (20%) of the 15 Hispanics. Under the City Charter's "Rule of Three", the top 10 scorers would be eligible for promotion to the 8 open Lieutenant positions; the top 10 scorers were all white."

So what did the city do, when the tests showed that all those would were qualified for promotion were not black?





"New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.

City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"

 

[Conservative65]

Yet you offer no explanation just a claim. I don't believe you, liar.

Prime the pump. In other words the good old boys weren't hiring blacks or women. So, the ultimate referee (we the people) decided to insist companies hire a proper share of blacks and women.

What was the penalty for not abiding by AA?

The problem with insisting that more blacks and women get hired is that the insistence was based on skin color and gender rather than qualifications. Strange how those referees insisted that something they said was being used to deny someone was suddenly OK to use when it benefited them.

The penalty was that businesses were forced to hire less qualified people just because they were darker or had a vagina between their legs.

What if they didn't hire their quota or fair share of minorities and women? What was the penalty?

And I'm sorry but AA kept racist companies honest. They had to look just a little bit harder at the black candidate to see, "am I not picking this candidate because of bias?" and it turns out they were being prejudice in their hiring practices.

Let me give you an extreme example of what could have happened if we never did AA for black people. Do you know those arabs who strap bombs onto their bodies because they have nothing to lose? Well if we woudl have continued to treat them like second class citizens, which in some ways we still do, then maybe we would have a problem on our hands. Us liberals solved the problem before it got out of hand. You guys would have never hired your fair share of blacks had we not forced you to. Sorry you suck.

Fair share? No such thing if you're only counting race and gender as a qualification.

If they had to look harder at the black candidate, it meant the black candidate wasn't qualified.

What you supported was a program that used the very thing you said it was wrong to use. That's racist. Thanks for admitting that's what you are.

Troll somewhere else you racist piece of shit.

So funny that the racist who doesn't think any blacks are qualified to push your broom aren't qualified calls me racist. I will go. Bye loser.

I'm not the one saying hire people based on getting a certain percentage of a race. That's you and that makes you racist. That you support quotas proves you don't care about qualifications.

 

[Conservative65]

I never worried about a black guy taking my job. Never once.

Yet you offer no explanation just a claim. I don't believe you, liar.

Prime the pump. In other words the good old boys weren't hiring blacks or women. So, the ultimate referee (we the people) decided to insist companies hire a proper share of blacks and women.

What was the penalty for not abiding by AA?

The problem with insisting that more blacks and women get hired is that the insistence was based on skin color and gender rather than qualifications. Strange how those referees insisted that something they said was being used to deny someone was suddenly OK to use when it benefited them.

The penalty was that businesses were forced to hire less qualified people just because they were darker or had a vagina between their legs.

What if they didn't hire their quota or fair share of minorities and women? What was the penalty?

And I'm sorry but AA kept racist companies honest. They had to look just a little bit harder at the black candidate to see, "am I not picking this candidate because of bias?" and it turns out they were being prejudice in their hiring practices.

Let me give you an extreme example of what could have happened if we never did AA for black people. Do you know those arabs who strap bombs onto their bodies because they have nothing to lose? Well if we woudl have continued to treat them like second class citizens, which in some ways we still do, then maybe we would have a problem on our hands. Us liberals solved the problem before it got out of hand. You guys would have never hired your fair share of blacks had we not forced you to. Sorry you suck.

Fair share... **** off. If fair was anything you were concerned with; you'd be lobbying for companies to hire whoever they wanted. And not hire whoever they didnt want. What youre trying to pass of as fair, is nothing more than social engineering.

Sorry but those blacks do your job better than you. But before AA you said they weren't qualified. You lied. Losers.

Even the blacks won't do the low level job you do.

 

[sealybobo]

I never worried about a black guy taking my job. Never once.

Prime the pump. In other words the good old boys weren't hiring blacks or women. So, the ultimate referee (we the people) decided to insist companies hire a proper share of blacks and women.

What was the penalty for not abiding by AA?

The problem with insisting that more blacks and women get hired is that the insistence was based on skin color and gender rather than qualifications. Strange how those referees insisted that something they said was being used to deny someone was suddenly OK to use when it benefited them.

The penalty was that businesses were forced to hire less qualified people just because they were darker or had a vagina between their legs.

What if they didn't hire their quota or fair share of minorities and women? What was the penalty?

And I'm sorry but AA kept racist companies honest. They had to look just a little bit harder at the black candidate to see, "am I not picking this candidate because of bias?" and it turns out they were being prejudice in their hiring practices.

Let me give you an extreme example of what could have happened if we never did AA for black people. Do you know those arabs who strap bombs onto their bodies because they have nothing to lose? Well if we woudl have continued to treat them like second class citizens, which in some ways we still do, then maybe we would have a problem on our hands. Us liberals solved the problem before it got out of hand. You guys would have never hired your fair share of blacks had we not forced you to. Sorry you suck.

Fair share... **** off. If fair was anything you were concerned with; you'd be lobbying for companies to hire whoever they wanted. And not hire whoever they didnt want. What youre trying to pass of as fair, is nothing more than social engineering.

Sorry but those blacks do your job better than you. But before AA you said they weren't qualified. You lied. Losers.

Even the blacks won't do the low level job you do.

They can give anyone they want my job. Will they triple sales like I did? Nope.

 

[Conservative65]

I never worried about a black guy taking my job. Never once.

The problem with insisting that more blacks and women get hired is that the insistence was based on skin color and gender rather than qualifications. Strange how those referees insisted that something they said was being used to deny someone was suddenly OK to use when it benefited them.

The penalty was that businesses were forced to hire less qualified people just because they were darker or had a vagina between their legs.

What if they didn't hire their quota or fair share of minorities and women? What was the penalty?

And I'm sorry but AA kept racist companies honest. They had to look just a little bit harder at the black candidate to see, "am I not picking this candidate because of bias?" and it turns out they were being prejudice in their hiring practices.

Let me give you an extreme example of what could have happened if we never did AA for black people. Do you know those arabs who strap bombs onto their bodies because they have nothing to lose? Well if we woudl have continued to treat them like second class citizens, which in some ways we still do, then maybe we would have a problem on our hands. Us liberals solved the problem before it got out of hand. You guys would have never hired your fair share of blacks had we not forced you to. Sorry you suck.

Fair share... **** off. If fair was anything you were concerned with; you'd be lobbying for companies to hire whoever they wanted. And not hire whoever they didnt want. What youre trying to pass of as fair, is nothing more than social engineering.

Sorry but those blacks do your job better than you. But before AA you said they weren't qualified. You lied. Losers.

Even the blacks won't do the low level job you do.

They can give anyone they want my job. Will they triple sales like I did? Nope.

Tripling the sales of Big Macs? Good job.

 

[Vastator]

I never worried about a black guy taking my job. Never once.

Yet you offer no explanation just a claim. I don't believe you, liar.

Prime the pump. In other words the good old boys weren't hiring blacks or women. So, the ultimate referee (we the people) decided to insist companies hire a proper share of blacks and women.

What was the penalty for not abiding by AA?

The problem with insisting that more blacks and women get hired is that the insistence was based on skin color and gender rather than qualifications. Strange how those referees insisted that something they said was being used to deny someone was suddenly OK to use when it benefited them.

The penalty was that businesses were forced to hire less qualified people just because they were darker or had a vagina between their legs.

What if they didn't hire their quota or fair share of minorities and women? What was the penalty?

And I'm sorry but AA kept racist companies honest. They had to look just a little bit harder at the black candidate to see, "am I not picking this candidate because of bias?" and it turns out they were being prejudice in their hiring practices.

Let me give you an extreme example of what could have happened if we never did AA for black people. Do you know those arabs who strap bombs onto their bodies because they have nothing to lose? Well if we woudl have continued to treat them like second class citizens, which in some ways we still do, then maybe we would have a problem on our hands. Us liberals solved the problem before it got out of hand. You guys would have never hired your fair share of blacks had we not forced you to. Sorry you suck.

Fair share... **** off. If fair was anything you were concerned with; you'd be lobbying for companies to hire whoever they wanted. And not hire whoever they didnt want. What youre trying to pass of as fair, is nothing more than social engineering.

Sorry but those blacks do your job better than you. But before AA you said they weren't qualified. You lied. Losers.

What joke! I see you get defensive... Now youre justflat out making shit up. So... Tell us... What is my job? Tell us how many blacks are better at than me... Don't worry. We'll wait...