Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes

[IM2]

.So t me play your game with you.

Congress voted in 2006 to extend the black right to vote for 25 more yeas. So can one of you good republican conservative non racist whites facing the same racism as blacks explain to me when does provisions of white peoples right to vote come before congress for renewal?

They voted in 2006 to extend the protective provisions, not the black right to vote. The right to vote for minorities was never up for renewal.

So they did vote to renew the right for blacks to vote. What the fuck do you think those protective provisions were for you stupid fucker? Without those we do not fucking vote! Damn, why in fuck do you bastards chose to play these fucked up games. Either be mother fucking men or women about this or shut the fuck up. The question for every white person here is this:

So can one of you good republican conservative non racist whites facing the same racism as blacks explain to me when does white peoples right to vote come before congress for renewal?

Yes, "the right to vote was never up for renewal" EXACTLY means "the right to vote was up for renewal". You are so fucking clever to have figured out how SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE was somehow saying what you wanted to hear.

So can one of you LYING LEFTIST BIGOTS explain why we're supposed to give a tin shit about "racism" that doesn't actually exist except in your imagination?

Our right to vote was up for renewal. Period. The fact you don't want to face, is the right of whites to vote or any provisions around that right never goes to congress for a vote to renew.

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through. And remember, after you’ve addressed the end of anti-Black racism you’ll still have to explain when anti-Latinx, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, and anti-Native racism came to an end as well.

Since this is all imaginary you should be able to produce the proper documentation hat shows when racism ended. But you see Cecile, the problem here is that you and others claim blacks are more racist than whites. So how could that be if it's imaginary?

You're an amateur Cecile.

Your right to vote was NEVER "up for renewal". THAT is a fact. That is a fact that was stated by multiple black political leaders at the time. But THAT doesn't allow you to feel put-down and abused and oppressed, does it? And your desire to blame others for your shit life is the only "fact" you're interested in.

Every time you belligerently state that "our right to vote was up for renewal" is a BALD-FACED, RACIST LIE. That is another fact.

The fact you don't want to face is that you're not being targeted by some big, shadowy conspiracy of eeeeevil white people trying to keep you down, because you're too much of a meaningless failure for white people, or anyone else, to give that much of a shit about.

FACT: voting rights never came up for renewal.

FACT: any conversation based on any assumption otherwise will not be taking place.

FACT: You can shove your demands up your ass, right along with your pathetic butthurt over things that were done to people who died before you were born, RACIST.

Our right vote was up for renewal and that's the only fact there is.

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through. And remember, after you’ve addressed the end of anti-Black racism you’ll still have to explain when anti-Latinx, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, and anti-Native racism came to an end as well.

Since this is all imaginary you should be able to produce the proper documentation that shows when racism ended. But you see Cecile, the problem here is that you and others claim blacks are more racist than whites. So how could that be if it's imaginary?

You can either prove racism ended or shut the fuck up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you know that, then why did you refer to the "black right to vote"?

Because it was the blacks right to vote. Do not try to pretend the 15th was followed junior. .

Wow. I see what you are trying say. But you are too dumb to actually say it.


Thank you for once again insulting every white in this country, by pretending that they are the same today as they were in 1955.

I'm not insulting every white in this country by saying there are whites who still have the same attitude whites had in1818. Because there are whites who say the same thing. You are a prime example of it.

Yeah, except you AREN'T saying, "There are whites". You are saying, "White people". In the English language, that means "all of them".

Let's stop the gaslighting and you understand that whites are responsible for the racism here in America. That is documented historical and legal fact. To say that is not racist, it does not meet the definition of racsm. Just because you don't like hearing this does not make it racist. There are whites who have the same attitude whites had in 1818. I have said that more than once. I have never said anything even close to meaning that all whites have the same attitude they did in 1818. Stop making things up.

"Gaslighting" would require you to have any sanity to start with. It's obvious that you drove yourself insane with your obsessive pretense that it's still 1955. Or worse, 1855.

What is documented historical and legal fact is that IT IS 2018, and to say that the events of 150 years ago, or even 50 years ago, are somehow relevant to today is dishonest, well over the border into fucking delusional.

"There are whites who have the same attitude". Yeah, all 100 or so of them. You know how I know you're a racist? Because your entire existence revolves around hating, fearing, and obsessing over a handful of marginalized, isolated nutjobs to the point that you ignore and repulse the vast majority of people around you.

Dude, if I ever in my life spoke about black people the way you do white people, you'd be dancing up and down, waving it like a banner "proving" that I was racist and hated black people. That's how I know you're a racist piece of shit: I just look at your posts, change the word "white" to "black", and ask myself how you would react if I said it.

 

[IM2]

Because it was the blacks right to vote. Do not try to pretend the 15th was followed junior. .

Wow. I see what you are trying say. But you are too dumb to actually say it.


Thank you for once again insulting every white in this country, by pretending that they are the same today as they were in 1955.

I'm not insulting every white in this country by saying there are whites who still have the same attitude whites had in1818. Because there are whites who say the same thing. You are a prime example of it.

Yeah, except you AREN'T saying, "There are whites". You are saying, "White people". In the English language, that means "all of them".

Let's stop the gaslighting and you understand that whites are responsible for the racism here in America. That is documented historical and legal fact. To say that is not racist, it does not meet the definition of racsm. Just because you don't like hearing this does not make it racist. There are whites who have the same attitude whites had in 1818. I have said that more than once. I have never said anything even close to meaning that all whites have the same attitude they did in 1818. Stop making things up.

"Gaslighting" would require you to have any sanity to start with. It's obvious that you drove yourself insane with your obsessive pretense that it's still 1955. Or worse, 1855.

What is documented historical and legal fact is that IT IS 2018, and to say that the events of 150 years ago, or even 50 years ago, are somehow relevant to today is dishonest, well over the border into fucking delusional.

"There are whites who have the same attitude". Yeah, all 100 or so of them. You know how I know you're a racist? Because your entire existence revolves around hating, fearing, and obsessing over a handful of marginalized, isolated nutjobs to the point that you ignore and repulse the vast majority of people around you.

Dude, if I ever in my life spoke about black people the way you do white people, you'd be dancing up and down, waving it like a banner "proving" that I was racist and hated black people. That's how I know you're a racist piece of shit: I just look at your posts, change the word "white" to "black", and ask myself how you would react if I said it.

There are millions of whites who have the attitude I talk about. Trump got 60 mullion votes, not 100.

The US constitution is over 200 years old. It impacts all of us now. So for you to say events of even 50 years ago have no impact or are relevant to today is what borders on delusional. My existence d around s not revolve around anything you claim. You assume a lot of things but I will tell you I am more accomplished than you will ever be and have achieved more than you ever will.

The Teflon Theory of American History says that anything that took place over 30 years ago is Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on the present. Or not much. Unless it was something good like the light bulb or the Declaration of Independence. Therefore those who make a big deal of the bad stuff in the past, like slavery, are Living in the Past and need to Get Over It.

For example:

Jim Crow laws were overturned by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore according to Teflon Theory the Jim Crow period is now Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on how White Americans alive today think and act. None whatsoever. Or not much. So racism is pretty much dead.

Instead of Jim Crow’s effect slowly weakening over time like you would expect, Teflon Theory would have you suppose that it just disappeared like magic one afternoon sometime in the late 1960s. Even though many White Americans alive now were alive back in Jim Crow times. Even though many others were brought up and shaped by those who were alive back then: parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, writers, film directors, television producers, news editors and so on.

Few sit on a mountain top to come up with their beliefs all on their own. Instead most people pretty much go along with what everyone else already believes with maybe a few twists here and there. Such beliefs come from the past.

So then why is Teflon Theory believed?

• Because of how American history is taught:
  • American history is taught as dates and people and facts that have little to do with each other. Sometimes the Effects of the the Civil War or Industrialization are studied, for example, but not so for the evil stuff – like how slavery and genocide led to present-day White American wealth, power and racism.
  • American history as taught rarely comes up to the present day. History becomes something in the past, in a book, not something we live in right now.
• Because of the needs of White American self-image:
  • White Americans want to think they are Basically Good and their society is Basically Just. Without Teflon Theory that becomes laughable since it flies in the face of history, common sense and human nature.
  • White Americans avoid honestly facing up to their past because deep down they know it is ugly. Teflon Theory acts as a guard against having to take it seriously.
• Because middle-class whites are protected from the ugly present:
  • Those who live in Apple-pie America rarely see first-hand the injustice that their comfortable lives are built on. And what injustice they do see on occasion, like black ghettos or wars on television fought overseas in their name, they have already learned to not see as injustice. But being protected from the ugly present makes the ugly past seem like another world, like it truly is ancient history with no bearing on the present.

 

[MizMolly]

Wow. I see what you are trying say. But you are too dumb to actually say it.


Thank you for once again insulting every white in this country, by pretending that they are the same today as they were in 1955.

I'm not insulting every white in this country by saying there are whites who still have the same attitude whites had in1818. Because there are whites who say the same thing. You are a prime example of it.

Yeah, except you AREN'T saying, "There are whites". You are saying, "White people". In the English language, that means "all of them".

Let's stop the gaslighting and you understand that whites are responsible for the racism here in America. That is documented historical and legal fact. To say that is not racist, it does not meet the definition of racsm. Just because you don't like hearing this does not make it racist. There are whites who have the same attitude whites had in 1818. I have said that more than once. I have never said anything even close to meaning that all whites have the same attitude they did in 1818. Stop making things up.

"Gaslighting" would require you to have any sanity to start with. It's obvious that you drove yourself insane with your obsessive pretense that it's still 1955. Or worse, 1855.

What is documented historical and legal fact is that IT IS 2018, and to say that the events of 150 years ago, or even 50 years ago, are somehow relevant to today is dishonest, well over the border into fucking delusional.

"There are whites who have the same attitude". Yeah, all 100 or so of them. You know how I know you're a racist? Because your entire existence revolves around hating, fearing, and obsessing over a handful of marginalized, isolated nutjobs to the point that you ignore and repulse the vast majority of people around you.

Dude, if I ever in my life spoke about black people the way you do white people, you'd be dancing up and down, waving it like a banner "proving" that I was racist and hated black people. That's how I know you're a racist piece of shit: I just look at your posts, change the word "white" to "black", and ask myself how you would react if I said it.

There are millions of whites who have the attitude I talk about. Trump got 60 mullion votes, not 100.

The US constitution is over 200 years old. It impacts all of us now. So for you to say events of even 50 years ago have no impact or are relevant to today is what borders on delusional. My existence d around s not revolve around anything you claim. You assume a lot of things but I will tell you I am more accomplished than you will ever be and have achieved more than you ever will.

The Teflon Theory of American History says that anything that took place over 30 years ago is Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on the present. Or not much. Unless it was something good like the light bulb or the Declaration of Independence. Therefore those who make a big deal of the bad stuff in the past, like slavery, are Living in the Past and need to Get Over It.

For example:

Jim Crow laws were overturned by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore according to Teflon Theory the Jim Crow period is now Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on how White Americans alive today think and act. None whatsoever. Or not much. So racism is pretty much dead.

Instead of Jim Crow’s effect slowly weakening over time like you would expect, Teflon Theory would have you suppose that it just disappeared like magic one afternoon sometime in the late 1960s. Even though many White Americans alive now were alive back in Jim Crow times. Even though many others were brought up and shaped by those who were alive back then: parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, writers, film directors, television producers, news editors and so on.

Few sit on a mountain top to come up with their beliefs all on their own. Instead most people pretty much go along with what everyone else already believes with maybe a few twists here and there. Such beliefs come from the past.

So then why is Teflon Theory believed?

• Because of how American history is taught:
  • American history is taught as dates and people and facts that have little to do with each other. Sometimes the Effects of the the Civil War or Industrialization are studied, for example, but not so for the evil stuff – like how slavery and genocide led to present-day White American wealth, power and racism.
  • American history as taught rarely comes up to the present day. History becomes something in the past, in a book, not something we live in right now.
• Because of the needs of White American self-image:
  • White Americans want to think they are Basically Good and their society is Basically Just. Without Teflon Theory that becomes laughable since it flies in the face of history, common sense and human nature.
  • White Americans avoid honestly facing up to their past because deep down they know it is ugly. Teflon Theory acts as a guard against having to take it seriously.
• Because middle-class whites are protected from the ugly present:
  • Those who live in Apple-pie America rarely see first-hand the injustice that their comfortable lives are built on. And what injustice they do see on occasion, like black ghettos or wars on television fought overseas in their name, they have already learned to not see as injustice. But being protected from the ugly present makes the ugly past seem like another world, like it truly is ancient history with no bearing on the present.

There you go again telling someone you are more accomplished and successful than they are. Lol

 

[JoeMoma]

.So t me play your game with you.

Congress voted in 2006 to extend the black right to vote for 25 more yeas. So can one of you good republican conservative non racist whites facing the same racism as blacks explain to me when does provisions of white peoples right to vote come before congress for renewal?

They voted in 2006 to extend the protective provisions, not the black right to vote. The right to vote for minorities was never up for renewal.

So they did vote to renew the right for blacks to vote. What the fuck do you think those protective provisions were for you stupid fucker? Without those we do not fucking vote! Damn, why in fuck do you bastards chose to play these fucked up games. Either be mother fucking men or women about this or shut the fuck up. The question for every white person here is this:

So can one of you good republican conservative non racist whites facing the same racism as blacks explain to me when does white peoples right to vote come before congress for renewal?

Yes, "the right to vote was never up for renewal" EXACTLY means "the right to vote was up for renewal". You are so fucking clever to have figured out how SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE was somehow saying what you wanted to hear.

So can one of you LYING LEFTIST BIGOTS explain why we're supposed to give a tin shit about "racism" that doesn't actually exist except in your imagination?

Our right to vote was up for renewal. Period. The fact you don't want to face, is the right of whites to vote or any provisions around that right never goes to congress for a vote to renew.

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through. And remember, after you’ve addressed the end of anti-Black racism you’ll still have to explain when anti-Latinx, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, and anti-Native racism came to an end as well.

Since this is all imaginary you should be able to produce the proper documentation hat shows when racism ended. But you see Cecile, the problem here is that you and others claim blacks are more racist than whites. So how could that be if it's imaginary?

You're an amateur Cecile.

So if that law is not "extended", blacks will loose their right to vote?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

They voted in 2006 to extend the protective provisions, not the black right to vote. The right to vote for minorities was never up for renewal.

So they did vote to renew the right for blacks to vote. What the fuck do you think those protective provisions were for you stupid fucker? Without those we do not fucking vote! Damn, why in fuck do you bastards chose to play these fucked up games. Either be mother fucking men or women about this or shut the fuck up. The question for every white person here is this:

So can one of you good republican conservative non racist whites facing the same racism as blacks explain to me when does white peoples right to vote come before congress for renewal?

Yes, "the right to vote was never up for renewal" EXACTLY means "the right to vote was up for renewal". You are so fucking clever to have figured out how SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE was somehow saying what you wanted to hear.

So can one of you LYING LEFTIST BIGOTS explain why we're supposed to give a tin shit about "racism" that doesn't actually exist except in your imagination?

Our right to vote was up for renewal. Period.

No, it was not. Why do you keep saying this? It's already been explained to you that the provisions were up for renewal, not the right to vote. And the provisions do not provide the black right to vote nor is the black right to vote contingent upon the provisions being in effect. As already mentioned, the provisions only provided protections against unfair literacy tests and whatnot.

If they did away with the provisions today, blacks would still have the right to vote. And even if certain state and local governments imposed literacy tests and the like, it would be pointless since, as far as I know, blacks are just as literate as whites anyway.

And like I said, it was. When the voting rights act was signed the president at that time said blacks we denied the right to vote based on race. The bill wasn't called the voting rights act because blacks had the right to vote. So please stop playing games with semantics ad recognize that just because the 15th amendment existed it meant we had the right to vote. How dumb are you guys? Maybe for whites a law gets made and you get the rights in that law, but that isn't how it works for us. Besides the point was that whites never had face anything like this in regards to your right to vote.

We're not talking about the Voting Rights Act itself, we're talking about the provisions that were added to it. The Act itself and the black right to vote were not up for renewal and they never will be. The protective provisions are what was renewed in 2006.

When Johnson said what he said, he did not mean that blacks were denied the right to vote, per se. What he meant was that blacks were not being allowed to exercise the right they legally already had. That was the purpose of the Voting Rights Act. The VRA was meant to make it loud and clear to everyone that blacks had the right to vote and no underhanded measures such as literacy tests would be tolerated.

This is not playing with semantics, it's merely an objective view of the issue. And again, if they did away with the provisions tomorrow, blacks would still have the right to vote. Do you deny this?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

I see from the link that the questions that were asked were simply 1* Are most white Americans racist? 2* Are most black Americans racist? First of all, nowhere is "racist or racism" defined opening the distinct possibility that, among other things, people of different races have different definitions of " racist" In addition, there is no information regarding the percentage of whites vs. blacks among the respondents and given the fact that there are more whites than blacks in the general population, and the fact that people of either race are unlikely to label "most people" of their own race as racist, the results are most certainly skew to favor the results that are reported.

That is just one of many problems that I see with how this conclusion was arrived at. In addition, the answer to the question has to be highly subjective based on ones over all impression of, and feelings about each racial group, possibly influenced by a few personal experiences. But NO ONE, in a phone survey , including myself, can objectively say with conviction that that know that whites, or blacks as a group are more or less racist that the other. Therefor, I'm calling bullshit on this.

 

[IM2]

Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

I see from the link that the questions that were asked were simply 1* Are most white Americans racist? 2* Are most black Americans racist? First of all, nowhere is "racist or racism" defined opening the distinct possibility that, among other things, people of different races have different definitions of " racist" In addition, there is no information regarding the percentage of whites vs. blacks among the respondents and given the fact that there are more whites than blacks in the general population, and the fact that people of either race are unlikely to label "most people" of their own race as racist, the results are most certainly skew to favor the results that are reported.

That is just one of many problems that I see with how this conclusion was arrived at. In addition, the answer to the question has to be highly subjective based on ones over all impression of, and feelings about each racial group, possibly influenced by a few personal experiences. But NO ONE, in a phone survey , including myself, can objectively say with conviction that that know that whites, or blacks as a group are more or less racist that the other. Therefor, I'm calling bullshit on this.

What I think we can do is stop lying about the impact of laws and policies made. Things did not just stop because a law was changed or a process was determined to be illegal, nor was the damage created erased. his is the ONLY issue where people are told how the past doesn't matter and it is no coincidence the offending group is the one pushing this claim.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

I see from the link that the questions that were asked were simply 1* Are most white Americans racist? 2* Are most black Americans racist? First of all, nowhere is "racist or racism" defined opening the distinct possibility that, among other things, people of different races have different definitions of " racist" In addition, there is no information regarding the percentage of whites vs. blacks among the respondents and given the fact that there are more whites than blacks in the general population, and the fact that people of either race are unlikely to label "most people" of their own race as racist, the results are most certainly skew to favor the results that are reported.

That is just one of many problems that I see with how this conclusion was arrived at. In addition, the answer to the question has to be highly subjective based on ones over all impression of, and feelings about each racial group, possibly influenced by a few personal experiences. But NO ONE, in a phone survey , including myself, can objectively say with conviction that that know that whites, or blacks as a group are more or less racist that the other. Therefor, I'm calling bullshit on this.

What I think we can do is stop lying about the impact of laws and policies made. Things did not just stop because a law was changed or a process was determined to be illegal, nor was the damage created erased. his is the ONLY issue where people are told how the past doesn't matter and it is no coincidence the offending group is the one pushing this claim.

What I think we can do is YOU can stop trying to pretend you have ANY standing to suggest that people "stop lying" unless and until YOU stop lying about "our voting rights had to be renewed", WHICH IS A BIG FAT LIE, you piece of shit.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

im2 claimed that the 2006, Congress voted to renew blacks' right to vote.

Which was a lie.

But you understood the point he was making correct? And if so then why would you characterize what he wrote as a lie instead of a misstatement, even if it was (I'm sure if it was or not because I wasn't closely following that particular discussion).

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

What I think we can do is stop lying about the impact of laws and policies made. Things did not just stop because a law was changed or a process was determined to be illegal, nor was the damage created erased. his is the ONLY issue where people are told how the past doesn't matter and it is no coincidence the offending group is the one pushing this claim.

This needs to be highlighted and stated again, thank you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

im2 claimed that the 2006, Congress voted to renew blacks' right to vote.

Which was a lie.

But you understood the point he was making correct? And if so then why would you characterize what he wrote as a lie instead of a misstatement, even if it was (I'm sure if it was or not because I wasn't closely following that particular discussion).

The point he was making? That black voting rights had to be renewed, when they in fact did not?

Yes, we understood that point, and we "characterize it as a lie" because that's what one calls it when someone states something as fact that they know to be untrue.

It stopped being a "misstatement" by about the third time he had it explained to him how and why he was wrong, and how multiple leaders in the black community SAID that he was wrong.

Do you always have this much trouble telling when someone's lying to your face, or is it only when they're lying in service to your agenda?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If they did away with the provisions today, blacks would still have the right to vote. And even if certain state and local governments imposed literacy tests and the like, it would be pointless since, as far as I know, blacks are just as literate as whites anyway.

Would it be fair to give the same test that lawyers are required to pass in order to get into law school to the average person, white or black? It wasn't that black people were less literate than whites, although coming from a background where learning to read was prohibited and punishable with violence was certainly a disadvantage, it was that the blacks were being required to read and comprehend things that the average person of any race would not be able to accomplish while whites were given easy passages to read and comprehend if they were required to take the test at all.

This was an example of blatant discriminatory treatment in order to obtain a discriminatory result - preventing African Americans from being able to vote.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What I think we can do is stop lying about the impact of laws and policies made. Things did not just stop because a law was changed or a process was determined to be illegal, nor was the damage created erased. his is the ONLY issue where people are told how the past doesn't matter and it is no coincidence the offending group is the one pushing this claim.

This needs to be highlighted and stated again, thank you.

Really? You feel that untrue slurs on an entire group of people "need to be stated again"? Why, precisely? I'm still trying to figure out what possible purpose you think dishonesty can serve.

Absolutely no one has suggested "the past doesn't matter". What we HAVE suggested is that no one gets to claim perpetual victimhood for themselves based on wrongs done to people who died before he or she was even born.

There are many lessons to be learned from the human race's history of slavery, but "blacks are special victims forever" and "all white people for the rest of eternity are guilty" are not among them.

 

[katsteve2012]

You're not a moderator, so why I am hereis for me to decide, and as for you, you will get in return what you put out there.

You are picking what I stated to suit your narrative, which makes you look stupid and childish.

In the same sentence, that I stated that this is entertainment, I also stated that "there are some here that I agree with, and some that I have utter disdain for".....and YOU are one of them.

As far as "credibility" I stated that in a forum of complete strangers that is not most important to me, and specifically told YOU, that I could not care less about having ANY with the likes of you as an individual.

Lastly, your hero "Cecile", came into this forum acting rude from the beginning and was spoken to in the same manner that I speak to you.

Feel free to use the ignore feature.

Ignorant, whiny, little person.

1. It is correct that YOU are the one that decides why you are here. But if you tell me why you are here, I am certainly allowed to repeat it, and draw obvious conclusions, like you being a troll.

If there is a flaw in my reasoning, you are welcome to point it out. THough as you have repeatedly admitted that you don't care about your credibility or the credibility of your statements, your words will carry no weight other than the strength of their arguments.

Which does not seem to be something you do much of.




2. Cecilie was quite civil, as most conservatives are, until you were rude to her. Your common lib expectation of being allowed be rude, while expecting politeness in return is not the way we cons play today.

FUCK THAT SHIT.


3. And that bit where you insult me. You've admitted that you don't care about the credibility of your statements, and are just here to fuck with people.

So you words have zero credibility.

ON the other hand, I have lots of credibility. And I say, and I have explained why I reached this conclusion, that you are just a Troll.

You're a liar. Your friend Cecile was not civil and quite a few conservatives here are not either. Refresh your feeble memory and read the very short dialogue between your sock (Cecile) and I.

I never said that "I don't care about the credibility of my statements, what I implied is that among strangers I do not care WHO THINKS that I have credibility......especially YOU.

The truth is that unlike you, if I comment seriously on a subject, I will usually include a source that I got information from. You on the other hand, simply label what you don't agree with as "an insult", "vile" or "a smear"....just because that's what YOU think, and what YOU think is usually so far from sane reasoning, that it deserves the ridicule that you typically receive.

You have far less credibility than most here, except in your imagination.


Fuck you, and your illusions about truth and credibility

So, how about a link demonstrating how Black Voting rights were renewed in 2006?

Read the thread. I clearly stated that I understood the difference between the provisions and the,actual voting right.

The provisions protect the right to vote from Trumptards like you.

SO, you know he's been lying and you've been defending him and attacking me for calling him a liar?


And you still have the nerve to deny being a Troll?


lol!!!!


YOU LOSE, TROLL.

No one in an anonymous forum loses anything, you fool. Except the time that it takes to post.

And as far as me "atracking" you, it certaibly was not to defend IM2. He can defend himself.

What is annoying about you is that you have the nerve to judge others, and frequently throw around terms like "race baiter and liar" and you are no different than those that you attempt to be critical of.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If they did away with the provisions today, blacks would still have the right to vote. And even if certain state and local governments imposed literacy tests and the like, it would be pointless since, as far as I know, blacks are just as literate as whites anyway.

Would it be fair to give the same test that lawyers are required to pass in order to get into law school to the average person, white or black? It wasn't that black people were less literate than whites, although coming from a background where learning to read was prohibited and punishable with violence was certainly a disadvantage, it was that the blacks were being required to read and comprehend things that the average person of any race would not be able to accomplish while whites were given easy passages to read and comprehend if they were required to take the test at all.

This was an example of blatant discriminatory treatment in order to obtain a discriminatory result - preventing African Americans from being able to vote.

Are you still yammering on about the evils of decades ago as though they have current relevance?

Are black people being required to read and comprehend something NOW which they have no ability to accomplish? Is some state requiring a literacy test to vote of which I am unaware? No? Hmm, then I guess you're wasting time, arentcha?

And more to the point, does blithering about literacy tests way back when have ANY effect on whether or not IM2's claims that "black voting rights had to be renewed"?

 

[katsteve2012]

im2 claimed that the 2006, Congress voted to renew blacks' right to vote.

Which was a lie.

But you understood the point he was making correct? And if so then why would you characterize what he wrote as a lie instead of a misstatement, even if it was (I'm sure if it was or not because I wasn't closely following that particular discussion).

Simple. Because he takes everything that is posted here literally, and then repeats it like a poorly trained parrot.

In addition, anywhere that he can find what his little one track mind interprets as a "vile smear" or "insult" he will seize that and obsess over it, blowing it way out of sensible proportions like a 5 year throwing a tantrum. It amazing that an adult even thinks or processes that way, or can even function in the real world without falling apart.

SMGDH

 

[katsteve2012]

ROFL! Now you're so upset that you've completely lost what little ability that you had left to reason.

Anyone can look in this thread and see exactly what I stated, and see that you're making things up now.


I was quite clear that I fuck with YOU specifically.

Too funny.

im2 claimed that the 2006, Congress voted to renew blacks' right to vote.

Which was a lie.


You have been defending that lie and attacking me for calling IM2 on his bullshit.


Now, i am pointing that you have admitted that you don't care about your credibility, the credibility of your statements, and that you are just here for entertainment.


You admit that you are here to "Fuck" with me. BUt for what?

The prime cause in this thread, recently, has been me calling out IM2 on a race baiting lie.


So, unless this is something person on your end, it seems you are here to fuck with people who dare to tell the Truth.



YOu are a troll and nothing you say should have ANY credibility.

Whine less, try reading more. I specifically stated that I fuck with YOU.
And credibility in a forum of strangers is not that important to me , and that especially applies to YOU.

And I addressed that, and examined what led to that, ie me calling out IM2 on a painfully obvious lie.

So, you are here to fuck with anyone who tells the truth about race. AT least.

Your version of truth, is an ongoing obsession with portraying yourself as a persecuted "victim", and a moral authority, but, you are quick to label others as "race baiters and liars", when it's obvious that you are exactly what you accuse others of being.

You are easy to see through.

I have consistently been honest and forthright on this site for many years.


I think that anyone that is not a self deluding fool, can see that.


IMO, that DOES give me some moral authority to call out people who race bait and lie, PARTICULARLY as I am


ALWAYS prepared to explain and defend my arguments as to why they are race baiters and liars. and generally do before even being asked.


I have certainly done so with YOU for example.




FOr example IM2 told a race baiting lie, and you have been spending page after page, defending his stupid, vile, race baiting lie.


That makes you a race baiter and a liar.

It makes me someone who doesn't agree with the nonsense that you post, your obvious ignorance, and how you embellish what others say, and then actually are delusional enough to believe that you tell the truth.

No, it makes you a race baiter and a liar.

You are one of the premier race baiters and alt right loons here, scooter.

 

[IM2]

Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

I see from the link that the questions that were asked were simply 1* Are most white Americans racist? 2* Are most black Americans racist? First of all, nowhere is "racist or racism" defined opening the distinct possibility that, among other things, people of different races have different definitions of " racist" In addition, there is no information regarding the percentage of whites vs. blacks among the respondents and given the fact that there are more whites than blacks in the general population, and the fact that people of either race are unlikely to label "most people" of their own race as racist, the results are most certainly skew to favor the results that are reported.

That is just one of many problems that I see with how this conclusion was arrived at. In addition, the answer to the question has to be highly subjective based on ones over all impression of, and feelings about each racial group, possibly influenced by a few personal experiences. But NO ONE, in a phone survey , including myself, can objectively say with conviction that that know that whites, or blacks as a group are more or less racist that the other. Therefor, I'm calling bullshit on this.

What I think we can do is stop lying about the impact of laws and policies made. Things did not just stop because a law was changed or a process was determined to be illegal, nor was the damage created erased. his is the ONLY issue where people are told how the past doesn't matter and it is no coincidence the offending group is the one pushing this claim.

What I think we can do is YOU can stop trying to pretend you have ANY standing to suggest that people "stop lying" unless and until YOU stop lying about "our voting rights had to be renewed", WHICH IS A BIG FAT LIE, you piece of shit.

What I suggest you understand is that you shut your mouth because without those provisions we could not vote.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Do you always have this much trouble telling when someone's lying to your face, or is it only when they're lying in service to your agenda?

A right that can not be exercised or is being infringed upon is not a right that one truly has.

This is classic racism 101, free the slaves from physical bondage via the 13th amendment but then civilly enslave them and anyone else who is of African descent whether they had been a slave or not with a myriad of Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that only negatively impact the rights of blacks, not whites. Those laws also instituted a legal system of racial segregation.

But just like the 14th Amendment was needed to clarify and ensure the rights of Americans of African descent as citizens, the the provisions under discussion were needed to cement and ensure the 15th Amendment rights of African Americans. While in fact the 15th Amendment protects the rights of all Americans, African Americans included, in practice the rights of African Americans were violated with impunity and violence in many instances.

This is no different than someone stating that just because the civil rights act was passed in 1964 all of a sudden all racial discrimination in the country disappeared overnight which we all know was not the case. The Voting Rights Act provision as it relates to the 15th Amendment is no different.

And because you along with "he who shall not be named because he's hypersensitive to being contradicted" seem amazingly and ridiculously oblivious to racism that occurs today in the year 2017+ I will post for the third time, examples of modern day race based lawsuit settlements won by the EEOC:

#667

A good question, but not when one is discussing the actions of current white people.

You are constantly speaking as though white people TODAY, are completely hostile to any participation in their events by black people.

That is absurd.

The EEOC investigates Title VII claims among other things. Is 2017 current enough for you? (these are only some of the cases in which they prevailed)

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 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).

• Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases (rest of cases)