The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....

[Correll]

Do you think that whites have an interest in NOT being discriminated against, for affirmative action,

Full stop. The point of affirmative action being to do what now?

To make up for past discrimination.

Good boy. Now STFU and read:

Human Resources - Affirmative Action

dps.mn.gov

(for example)

A fine example of stated policy. Not sure why you felt you had to swear there. Drama?


DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?

Do minorities?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby

DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?

Do minorities?

Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.

 

[Correll]

Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby

DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?

Do minorities?

Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.

YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.

Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. 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]"


"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "

 

[Grumblenuts]

Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby

DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?

Do minorities?

Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.

YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.

Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. 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]"


"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "

Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me

 

[katsteve2012]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.

So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?

How so?

None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?

You are being redirected...

 

[katsteve2012]

Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby

DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?

Do minorities?

Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.

YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.

Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. 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]"


"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "

Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me

That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby

DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?

Do minorities?

Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.

YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.

Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. 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]"


"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "

Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me

That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.

Figures and of course not. A union contract doesn't magically disappear just because the employer suddenly notices they may be violating civil rights law. Far too late for that after the contract has been signed by both parties, the tests have given, the results tabulated, and publicly reported. Hell, I knew the moment I mentioned "case" sparky would think "Ah, a lawsuit.. that's the ticket!"

YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.

So, gratuitous abuse of "gaslighting" aside, sparky's clearly conflating the overall purpose of AA (which I still don't believe he understands) -with- an employer getting scared and screwing themself due to poor reading of civil rights law minutia.. He really is a dope. No other conclusion remains possible at this point.

 

[Correll]

Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby

DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?

Do minorities?

Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.

YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.

Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. 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]"


"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "

Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me

Because the city was right to be afraid of being sued. That is the way that people like you, whom infest the government agencies that oversee AA, think.


Because every employer in the country knows that.


So, even though this one mostly white group, manged to win, this one time, every employer is still looking to cover their ass to avoid having to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if they get accused of "evul wacism".

So, anti-white discrimination is the law of the land.

AND once demographic shift gives you that lib court you've been wanting, it will be openly and blatantly endorsed all the way to the top.

That is a white interest.


You know it. I know it. YOu know that I know that you know it.

So, your lies are beyond pathetic.

 

[Correll]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.

So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?

How so?

None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?

You are being redirected...

Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.

Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.

 

[Correll]

Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby

DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?

Do minorities?

Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.

YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.

Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. 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]"


"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "

Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me

That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.

THe city's logic was sound. The Court was full of shit in the stated reasons for their ruling.


And every employer in the country knows that, and is still motivated to cover their ass, to protect from being sued.

 

[Grumblenuts]

anti-white discrimination is the law of the land.

There ya go, dopey. Scream "I'm a proud racist!" now why don'tcha?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby

DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?

Do minorities?

Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.

YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.

Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. 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]"


"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "

Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me

That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.

THe city's logic was sound. The Court was full of shit in the stated reasons for their ruling.


And every employer in the country knows that, and is still motivated to cover their ass, to protect from being sued.

Fear, fear, fear!
Hey, here's an idea.. Collective bargaining works! Protects the employees.. Protects the employer.. Win Win!

 

[Correll]

anti-white discrimination is the law of the land.

There ya go, dopey. Scream "I'm a proud racist!" now why don'tcha?

Why don't you stop cutting my posts down to nothing, to avoid my arguments, like the coward you are, pussy?

 

[Grumblenuts]

What arguments?

 

[Correll]

Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby

DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?

Do minorities?

Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.

YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.

Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. 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]"


"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "

Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me

That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.

THe city's logic was sound. The Court was full of shit in the stated reasons for their ruling.


And every employer in the country knows that, and is still motivated to cover their ass, to protect from being sued.

Fear, fear, fear!
Hey, here's an idea.. Collective bargaining works! Protects the employees.. Protects the employer.. Win Win!

Unions side with the big government dems, and do not protect their workers interests.


You know that.


The city's logic was sound. And every employer in the country is covering their ass the same way.


Your pretense that this is about preventing discrimination, instead of just reversing it,


is silly.

NO ONE IS BUYING THAT SHIT.

 

[Correll]

What arguments?

The city's stated reasons made complete sense. The Court's ruling was obvious bullshit. Like I said, and you cut instead of addressing, you pussy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

O'Reilly?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sorry, your pointing and gesticulating wildly while screaming your irrational fears in public constitutes "arguments" not.

 

[Correll]

O'Reilly?

The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.

And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.

 

[Correll]

Sorry, your pointing and gesticulating wildly while screaming your irrational fears in public constitutes "arguments" not.

I linked to a Supreme Court case and made a point about the stated reasoning of the ruling.


You are a lying asshole.