The One Question Liberals REFUSE to answer

[TheOldSchool]

Ohhhh tha crackaaass are in a tizzy this fine eve!!!!!

lololol, aint it a shame?

You libtards have managed to totally reverse public sympathy for civil rights by using that system of laws to now deny equal standing for whites.

That's pretty stupid in a country where whites are still the majority and will be for a long time.

You know wassa I say boss? This country be CRACKALACKIN!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ohhhh tha crackaaass are in a tizzy this fine eve!!!!!

lololol, aint it a shame?

You libtards have managed to totally reverse public sympathy for civil rights by using that system of laws to now deny equal standing for whites.

That's pretty stupid in a country where whites are still the majority and will be for a long time.

You know wassa I say boss? This country be CRACKALACKIN!

Lol, especially after ISIS does its thing, and I don't think they particularly care if you're a cracka or a notacracka.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?

You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.

Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?

A liberal would have to give you a few thousand word essay to really tackle your very valid questions. A Buddhist might say "Karma, grasshopper"

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Who stained your shorts?

For some reason, they don't like to answer when I ask them that question, either.

Chipotle did.

Chipotle stained my shorts. A little advice: don't do the corn salsa...

 

[Blackrook]

I'm conservative, but I'm going to have to disagree with the OP. I am an attorney, and I've done some criminal work. Most of the people working in the criminal justice system are white: judges, DA's, public defenders, cops, probation officers, prison guards, etc. Whites do get better treatment than blacks and Hispanics. Also, whites have more money so they can hire better lawyers, and a good lawyer makes all the difference in the world.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?

You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.

Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?

A liberal would have to give you a few thousand word essay to really tackle your very valid questions. A Buddhist might say "Karma, grasshopper"

So you are implying that, no, white people do NOT have the right to equal standing before the law?

Why is it karma? My ancestors never owned slaves and one fought in the Civil War to end slavery, commanding the 7th Indiana infantry.

So does that mean that blacks descended from slaves owe me GOOD karma?

Why is group guilt or group kudos part of our legal system?

Arent we supposed to be a nation of laws? How does that work with group guilt?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm conservative, but I'm going to have to disagree with the OP. I am an attorney, and I've done some criminal work. Most of the people working in the criminal justice system are white: judges, DA's, public defenders, cops, probation officers, prison guards, etc. Whites do get better treatment than blacks and Hispanics. Also, whites have more money so they can hire better lawyers, and a good lawyer makes all the difference in the world.

But that is not what I said.

I am not saying that whites have unequal standing across the board in every system of law. I will say that there is no system of law where it is part of the legal code to give whites advantage, while there is for minorities.

But in tort law, civil rights law and contract law, whites do not have equal standing. We can be discriminated against and have no rights to take action as minorities could. Whether we ever need to take said action is immaterial, the question is do whites have equal standing or not?

So, what do you think; should whites have equal standing before the law in tort law, civil rights law, and contract law according to the Constitution?

 

[Picaro]

There is no question Affirmative Action and similar legislation has far outlived its usefulness, and is now merely divisive and abused by politicians and Federal contracting statutes and their set asides for 'minorities' who often are merely fronts for white businessmen.

Hugh Davis Graham's book is an excellent study of how such laws were deliberately distorted and abused almost before the ink was dry on the legislation enacting them. Worth adding to your library for those really interested in the history and how the bureaucracy implemented it.

The Civil Rights Era Origins and Development of National Policy 1960-1972 - Hugh Davis Graham - Google Books

Rev. by Hugh Murray
In his special message on civil rights of 28 February 1963, President John Kennedy declared, “Our Constitution is color blind, . . .” (69) Rev. Martin Luther King, in his speech at the March on Washington in August 1963 dreamt of a day when his daughters would be judged by “the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.” (91) To enshrine these ideals Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. During the debate before passage Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn.) declared:
there is nothing in it [the bill] that will give any power to the Commission [EEOC] or to any court to require hiring, firing, or promotion of employees in order to meet a racial “quota” or to achieve a racial balance . . . .
In fact, the very opposite is true . . . . Title VII is designed to encourage hiring on the basis of ability and qualifications, not race and religion. (151)
Senators favouring the bill, like Joshua Clark (D-Penn.) and Clifford Case (R-NJ.), defended it in similar language.(151)
To insure against distortion two major amend-ments were incorporated into the bill. Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.) amended it so that only “intentional” discrimination would be prohibited (147), while Sen. John Tower (R-Tex.) guaranteed that employers could continue to use, or to institute, professional tests, like the General Aptitude Tests, which were commonly conducted so businesses could ascertain, hire, and promote more able workers. (149-50)
By 1972—in the name of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—most tests were under challenge or aban-doned, while quotas (under the euphemisms “goals and timetables”) were being instituted throughout American industry, education, and government employment. Blacks and women were being hired, promoted, and given other special privileges such as scholarships, even then they were less qualified than white males. How did this perversion of the Civil Rights Act come about? That is the story of Graham’s The Civil Rights Era.
Graham, a supporter of affirmative action, de-fends the reversal of meanings that occurred in the name of the Civil Rights Act; yet, Graham has written an excellent book because he includes facts and quo-tations that may embarrass his case. He seeks to be objective in portraying what occurred, and he achieves this better than previous authors.
Unfortunately, some were determined to subvert the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and not just segregationists who quickly lost their battle to maintain apartheid in the South. More important in the assault upon the new law were a small number of strategically placed ideologues of the Left. These zealots, some of whom worked for the Equal Opportunity Commission, did not want the agency to function as created. Graham initially sees no “conspiracy” in what occurred, “not a grand design but rather an honest groping.”(191) Nevertheless, Graham himself finally relates: “The early EEOC thus functioned as quiet co-conspirators with the agency’s critics on the left. . . .” (236)
Graham also describes this “groping” toward “group” theories:
To move radically beyond the complaint model, the definition . . . [of discrimination] would have to be extended beyond the INTENT standard of the common law tradition, which was stipulated by Congress in Title VII, towards an EFFECT standard. This would require a shift in criteria from invidious intent on the part of discriminators to harmful impact upon members of the affected class. Such a radical shift was implicit in newly current metaphor of “institutional racism.” (191)
Alfred Blumrosen, who became the EEOC’s liaison chief for federal, state agencies, admitted that his “creative” reading of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was “contrary to the plain meaning,” (195) but why worry? Graham adds that by 1965 when the Bank of America instituted quota hiring under a euphemism, “the standard refrain of the EEO bureaucracies: affirmative action had nothing to do with racial quotas.

Another review here:

Hugh Murray review of Graham The Civil Rights Era

By 1972—in the name of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—most tests were under challenge or aban-doned, while quotas (under the euphemisms “goals and timetables”) were being instituted throughout American industry, education, and government employment. Blacks and women were being hired, promoted, and given other special privileges such as scholarships, even then they were less qualified than white males. How did this perversion of the Civil Rights Act come about? That is the story of Graham’s The Civil Rights Era.

Graham, a supporter of affirmative action, de-fends the reversal of meanings that occurred in the name of the Civil Rights Act; yet, Graham has written an excellent book because he includes facts and quo-tations that may embarrass his case. He seeks to be objective in portraying what occurred, and he achieves this better than previous authors.

Unfortunately, some were determined to subvert the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and not just segregationists who quickly lost their battle to maintain apartheid in the South. More important in the assault upon the new law were a small number of strategically placed ideologues of the Left. These zealots, some of whom worked for the Equal Opportunity Commission, did not want the agency to function as created. Graham initially sees no “conspiracy” in what occurred, “not a grand design but rather an honest groping.”(191) Nevertheless, Graham himself finally relates: “The early EEOC thus functioned as quiet co-conspirators with the agency’s critics on the left. . . .” (236)

Graham also describes this “groping” toward “group” theories:

To move radically beyond the complaint model, the definition . . . [of discrimination] would have to be extended beyond the INTENT standard of the common law tradition, which was stipulated by Congress in Title VII, towards an EFFECT standard. This would require a shift in criteria from invidious intent on the part of discriminators to harmful impact upon members of the affected class. Such a radical shift was implicit in newly current metaphor of “institutional racism.” (191)

Alfred Blumrosen, who became the EEOC’s liaison chief for federal, state agencies, admitted that his “creative” reading of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was “contrary to the plain meaning,” (195) but why worry? Graham adds that by 1965 when the Bank of America instituted quota hiring under a euphemism, “the standard refrain of the EEO bureaucracies: affirmative action had nothing to do with racial quotas. That was illegal.” (198) Unfortunately, the deceptive refrain is still heard today.

... and more at the link.

Other reviews can be found by Google Scholaring, of course.

 

[Toronado3800]

Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?

You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.

Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?

Oh white folks do. But kinda as a trade off for not being prosecuted for all the racism that still exists in white world they must put up with affirmative action.

You see. Some people look white and hear what is said in supposedly all white groups. Then the white lookers go and tell whites who sympathize with darkies and even the darkies themselves.

Sucks and is probably unconstitutional but it is pragmatic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?

You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.

Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?

Oh white folks do. But kinda as a trade off for not being prosecuted for all the racism that still exists in white world they must put up with affirmative action.

Whites have equal standing in the courts of law as a TRADE OFF for 'all the racism that still exists in the white world.' Lol, that is barely literate. I am guessing you mean that whites DONT have equal standing as a response to white racism, but that is pretty stupid and ridiculous as well when all the gang attacks, mob thuggery and stupid shit sucker punching is done by blacks against whites when inter-racial.

And no, even if what you say is true, the rule of law is more important than salving stupid egos who have bought a bunch of lies.

You see. Some people look white and hear what is said in supposedly all white groups. Then the white lookers go and tell whites who sympathize with darkies and even the darkies themselves.

That is an old bullshit story. There are plenty of self-hating whites to narc on everyone, so no whites except the abysmally stupid ever talk about race in front of people they do not know very well, ESPECIALLY white people they hardly know, let alone passers.

Sorry, but your story is total bullshit. Either you are just lying or someone is deceiving you.

Sucks and is probably unconstitutional but it is pragmatic.

No, it is not pragmatic, and it will not end well if not addressed, especially not well for the black community if whites get awoken rudely. The laws will become quite racial again, but the other way.

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is no question Affirmative Action and similar legislation has far outlived its usefulness, and is now merely divisive and abused by politicians and Federal contracting statutes and their set asides for 'minorities' who often are merely fronts for white businessmen.

Hugh Davis Graham's book is an excellent study of how such laws were deliberately distorted and abused almost before the ink was dry on the legislation enacting them. Worth adding to your library for those really interested in the history and how the bureaucracy implemented it.

The Civil Rights Era Origins and Development of National Policy 1960-1972 - Hugh Davis Graham - Google Books

Rev. by Hugh Murray
In his special message on civil rights of 28 February 1963, President John Kennedy declared, “Our Constitution is color blind, . . .” (69) Rev. Martin Luther King, in his speech at the March on Washington in August 1963 dreamt of a day when his daughters would be judged by “the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.” (91) To enshrine these ideals Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. During the debate before passage Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn.) declared:
there is nothing in it [the bill] that will give any power to the Commission [EEOC] or to any court to require hiring, firing, or promotion of employees in order to meet a racial “quota” or to achieve a racial balance . . . .
In fact, the very opposite is true . . . . Title VII is designed to encourage hiring on the basis of ability and qualifications, not race and religion. (151)
Senators favouring the bill, like Joshua Clark (D-Penn.) and Clifford Case (R-NJ.), defended it in similar language.(151)
To insure against distortion two major amend-ments were incorporated into the bill. Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.) amended it so that only “intentional” discrimination would be prohibited (147), while Sen. John Tower (R-Tex.) guaranteed that employers could continue to use, or to institute, professional tests, like the General Aptitude Tests, which were commonly conducted so businesses could ascertain, hire, and promote more able workers. (149-50)
By 1972—in the name of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—most tests were under challenge or aban-doned, while quotas (under the euphemisms “goals and timetables”) were being instituted throughout American industry, education, and government employment. Blacks and women were being hired, promoted, and given other special privileges such as scholarships, even then they were less qualified than white males. How did this perversion of the Civil Rights Act come about? That is the story of Graham’s The Civil Rights Era.
Graham, a supporter of affirmative action, de-fends the reversal of meanings that occurred in the name of the Civil Rights Act; yet, Graham has written an excellent book because he includes facts and quo-tations that may embarrass his case. He seeks to be objective in portraying what occurred, and he achieves this better than previous authors.
Unfortunately, some were determined to subvert the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and not just segregationists who quickly lost their battle to maintain apartheid in the South. More important in the assault upon the new law were a small number of strategically placed ideologues of the Left. These zealots, some of whom worked for the Equal Opportunity Commission, did not want the agency to function as created. Graham initially sees no “conspiracy” in what occurred, “not a grand design but rather an honest groping.”(191) Nevertheless, Graham himself finally relates: “The early EEOC thus functioned as quiet co-conspirators with the agency’s critics on the left. . . .” (236)
Graham also describes this “groping” toward “group” theories:
To move radically beyond the complaint model, the definition . . . [of discrimination] would have to be extended beyond the INTENT standard of the common law tradition, which was stipulated by Congress in Title VII, towards an EFFECT standard. This would require a shift in criteria from invidious intent on the part of discriminators to harmful impact upon members of the affected class. Such a radical shift was implicit in newly current metaphor of “institutional racism.” (191)
Alfred Blumrosen, who became the EEOC’s liaison chief for federal, state agencies, admitted that his “creative” reading of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was “contrary to the plain meaning,” (195) but why worry? Graham adds that by 1965 when the Bank of America instituted quota hiring under a euphemism, “the standard refrain of the EEO bureaucracies: affirmative action had nothing to do with racial quotas.

Another review here:

Hugh Murray review of Graham The Civil Rights Era

By 1972—in the name of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—most tests were under challenge or aban-doned, while quotas (under the euphemisms “goals and timetables”) were being instituted throughout American industry, education, and government employment. Blacks and women were being hired, promoted, and given other special privileges such as scholarships, even then they were less qualified than white males. How did this perversion of the Civil Rights Act come about? That is the story of Graham’s The Civil Rights Era.

Graham, a supporter of affirmative action, de-fends the reversal of meanings that occurred in the name of the Civil Rights Act; yet, Graham has written an excellent book because he includes facts and quo-tations that may embarrass his case. He seeks to be objective in portraying what occurred, and he achieves this better than previous authors.

Unfortunately, some were determined to subvert the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and not just segregationists who quickly lost their battle to maintain apartheid in the South. More important in the assault upon the new law were a small number of strategically placed ideologues of the Left. These zealots, some of whom worked for the Equal Opportunity Commission, did not want the agency to function as created. Graham initially sees no “conspiracy” in what occurred, “not a grand design but rather an honest groping.”(191) Nevertheless, Graham himself finally relates: “The early EEOC thus functioned as quiet co-conspirators with the agency’s critics on the left. . . .” (236)

Graham also describes this “groping” toward “group” theories:

To move radically beyond the complaint model, the definition . . . [of discrimination] would have to be extended beyond the INTENT standard of the common law tradition, which was stipulated by Congress in Title VII, towards an EFFECT standard. This would require a shift in criteria from invidious intent on the part of discriminators to harmful impact upon members of the affected class. Such a radical shift was implicit in newly current metaphor of “institutional racism.” (191)

Alfred Blumrosen, who became the EEOC’s liaison chief for federal, state agencies, admitted that his “creative” reading of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was “contrary to the plain meaning,” (195) but why worry? Graham adds that by 1965 when the Bank of America instituted quota hiring under a euphemism, “the standard refrain of the EEO bureaucracies: affirmative action had nothing to do with racial quotas. That was illegal.” (198) Unfortunately, the deceptive refrain is still heard today.

... and more at the link.

Other reviews can be found by Google Scholaring, of course.

Great post!

 

[Toronado3800]

Whites have equal standing in the courts of law as a TRADE OFF for 'all the racism that still exists in the white world.' Lol, that is barely literate. I am guessing you mean that whites DONT have equal standing as a response to white racism, but that is pretty stupid and ridiculous as well when all the gang attacks, mob thuggery and stupid shit sucker punching is done by blacks against whites when inter-racial.

And no, even if what you say is true, the rule of law is more important than salving stupid egos who have bought a bunch of lies.



That is an old bullshit story. There are plenty of self-hating whites to narc on everyone, so no whites except the abysmally stupid ever talk about race in front of people they do not know very well, ESPECIALLY white people they hardly know, let alone passers.

Sorry, but your story is total bullshit. Either you are just lying or someone is deceiving you.



No, it is not pragmatic, and it will not end well if not addressed, especially not well for the black community if whites get awoken rudely. The laws will become quite racial again, but the other way.

roflmao

Ok...lets break this down.

You say my post about hearing white white racist talk is false? Are you claiming you have never heard it? Nothing from the fellas when they see a white gal dating a black man? Ever hear once a girl goes black she never comes back? If you have not just say so. Your god knows if you are lying.

How about fairness in the almost unregulated small business hiring? Have you ever been to that old school repair shop in the ghetto which has all white men working? Maybe the Ferguson Police Department's HR department has a bit of a problem(although not as bad as some would claim). If you have never been to one of these places let me know.

Oh, and the last. Do you think a mixed fella has never overhear anything and shared it with his friends?

Perhaps my neighborhood has more problems than yours. My hot rod's wheels came from that tire shop in Ferguson which was looted on tv a few weeks back. So yeah, I tell you these problems are still out there.

My position is the equal unfairness of affirmative action balances the playing field.

If ya disagree, disagree and say you don't believe racism still exists. We can work from there and heck, I might even move to your zip code! Just don't cuss soo much and think by being loud and abrasive others who disagree will quiet down.

So?

 

[bodecea]

Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?

You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.

Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?

Of course they do. Now your question has been answered.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?


Dick Heller isn't white?

 

[candycorn]

Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?

You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.

Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?

Then why are there so many blacks incarcerated? Way beyond their percentage of the US population.

That is a good question. Most of the legal disadvantages for whites are not in criminal law but in tort law, civil rights law and the quota / set aside system of laws that cross the country.

Blacks are being encouraged by the corporate media to act thuggish, ruin their careers with drug convictions and take on behaviors that most people associate with criminality.

Many of the investors that own large chunks of the Hip Hop industry also own private prisons.

Connect the dots, dude.

Who are these investors. Their names please.

 

[Peach]

Yes.

 

[NoNukes]

Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?

You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.

Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?

As usual, you offer no proof.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?

You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.

Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?

Then why are there so many blacks incarcerated? Way beyond their percentage of the US population.

That is a good question. Most of the legal disadvantages for whites are not in criminal law but in tort law, civil rights law and the quota / set aside system of laws that cross the country.

Blacks are being encouraged by the corporate media to act thuggish, ruin their careers with drug convictions and take on behaviors that most people associate with criminality.

Many of the investors that own large chunks of the Hip Hop industry also own private prisons.

Connect the dots, dude.

Who are these investors. Their names please.

Private Prison Industry Profits from Rap Music ColorBlind Me

In the early 1980’s before all of these rappers emerged in the scene, a lot of prison institutions converted from being publicly-funded businesses to private organizations supported by powerful investors of large corporations. Investors derived from industries such as media, music, finance and many more. During this conversion, a rather glamorous business opportunity surfaced, one that would attract major profit for each investor.
Scholars have identified this conversion as the prison industrial complex, which accounts for the increase in prison inmates in order to increase the amount of contracted work for a greater profit. In fact, this billion-dollar industry has been successful in creating thousands of new prison establishments over the last two decades. With more prison establishments warrants more inmates and bigger spending budgets for these private investors.
Coincidentally, during the conversion of public to private prisons, the hip-hop music industry endured a large transformation as well. Prior to the Wayne era, rap and hip-hop music used to be trademarked for its playful and innovative contribution to music. With notorious figures such as Sugarhill Gang, Grandmaster Flash, Afrika Bambaataa and more, hip-hop was a reflection of stylized music that embodied elements of “DJing,” “MCing,” break dancing and “beat-boxing.” Now, hip-hop or rap music rather, mirrors the sounds and lyrics of the “gangsta” lifestyle. With lyrics centered on guns, drug usage and violence, these new hardcore rappers have transformed hip-hop from innocent fun to potential danger.
During a time when the need for more inmates increased, it seems more than a coincidence that rap music would transform into a lifestyle or music medium that evoked violence. As one of the most influential genres of music, “Why would the rap image, as this new and ‘cool’ product reflect a gangster or criminal lifestyle?”
According to the Atlantic Monthly, “Since 1991, the rate of violent crime in the US has fallen by 20% while the number of people in prison or jail has risen by 50%.”
While criminal activity has not been as threatening, still new prisons are continuing to arise, which further requires more inmates in order for the prison industry to sustain as a profitable business. Marketing officials and investors seemed to find an answer to this dilemma with no problem. I mean with the rap industry already thriving well beyond anticipated success, it would only be a matter of time before fans and consumers would personify the associated images of such a cool type of music and lifestyle.
So, those of you, who enjoy the music of Lil Wayne, 2 Chainz, Rick Ross and more, please be careful to distinguish between their imagery and their actual music. With respect to marketing and brand management officials, it is no surprise that targeting ages 9 to 25 will increase the profitability of a product considering our generation is the most influential in the consumer market. By continuing to project and emulate these images of rap artists, listeners and fans are putting money into the pockets of these investors who thrive within this billion-dollar industry.

Who are the biggest investors getting rich off the private prison industry:
Who s Getting Rich off the Prison-Industrial Complex VICE United States

Matt Sirovich and Jeremy Mindich both donate to Democratic politicians and are involved with progressive-leaning organizations like Root Capital, a nonprofit lending company that offers loans to farmers in developing countries to alleviate poverty.
Their day job, however, is running Scopia Capital, a hedge fund that is the one of the largest shareholders of GEO Group. The fund owns about $300 million in shares in that company, which represents 12 percent of its entire portfolio. Like Zoley, they are good at what they do—their fund outperformed the market by 20 percentage points, and the State of New Jersey hired Scopia to manage $150 million worth of pensions....

Democratic party is totally fine with the incarceration rate. Although Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan are largely responsible for the drug-war policies that caused the prison population to skyrocket, Bill Clinton was a “tough on crime” president who continued their ideas. And Vice President Joe Biden was a principal player in the Clinton era’s crime policies—he wrote the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which, among other things, called for $9.7 billion in increased funding for prisons and stiffer penalties for drug offenders.
Though the US prison population is shrinking slightly, the number of inmates in federal lockup is increasing, and while Obama keeps saying he’s ending the war on drugs, he’s also proposed budgets that call for increasing the amount of money spent on the Bureau of Prisons. So it’s not such a stretch that a Democratic donor would also be in the men-in-cages industry....

Oh, yes and likely you as well if you have a 401k plan.

Secret Meeting Created Gangsta Rap Helped Private Prisons

The subject quickly changed as the speaker went on to tell us that the respective companies we represented had invested in a very profitable industry which could become even more rewarding with our active involvement. He explained that the companies we work for had invested millions into the building of privately owned prisons and that our positions of influence in the music industry would actually impact the profitability of these investments. I remember many of us in the group immediately looking at each other in confusion. At the time, I didn’t know what a private prison was but I wasn’t the only one. Sure enough, someone asked what these prisons were and what any of this had to do with us. We were told that these prisons were built by privately owned companies who received funding from the government based on the number of inmates. The more inmates, the more money the government would pay these prisons. It was also made clear to us that since these prisons are privately owned, as they become publicly traded, we’d be able to buy shares. Most of us were taken back by this. Again, a couple of people asked what this had to do with us. At this point, my industry colleague who had first opened the meeting took the floor again and answered our questions. He told us that since our employers had become silent investors in this prison business, it was now in their interest to make sure that these prisons remained filled. Our job would be to help make this happen by marketing music which promotes criminal behavior, rap being the music of choice. He assured us that this would be a great situation for us because rap music was becoming an increasingly profitable market for our companies, and as employee, we’d also be able to buy personal stocks in these prisons. Immediately, silence came over the room. You could have heard a pin drop. I remember looking around to make sure I wasn’t dreaming and saw half of the people with dropped jaws. My daze was interrupted when someone shouted, “Is this a f****** joke?” At this point things became chaotic. Two of the men who were part of the “unfamiliar” group grabbed the man who shouted out and attempted to remove him from the house. A few of us, myself included, tried to intervene. One of them pulled out a gun and we all backed off. They separated us from the crowd and all four of us were escorted outside. My industry colleague who had opened the meeting earlier hurried out to meet us and reminded us that we had signed agreement and would suffer the consequences of speaking about this publicly or even with those who attended the meeting. I asked him why he was involved with something this corrupt and he replied that it was bigger than the music business and nothing we’d want to challenge without risking consequences. We all protested and as he walked back into the house I remember word for word the last thing he said, “It’s out of my hands now. Remember you signed an agreement.” He then closed the door behind him.

The Secret Meeting that Changed Rap Music and Destroyed a Generation Hip Hop Is Read

If you want specific name, then you have to look that up yourself. These investors are into many different forms of business and many of them are invested in both private prisons and rap music (as well as country music, etc.) BUT the decision to turn rap into a gangster format was made early on as a business decision by some who owned investments in both private prisons and rap music specifically.

And it has ripped the hell out of the black community, the result of a slow burn thinly veiled genocide against and enslavement of blacks. It is also ironic how this style of wearing pants low came about. It originated in prions where it was a signal from a sexual partner that plays 'catcher' that he is ready for another sexual encounter. It is amazing to see all these big 'tough' guys walking around signaling to the world that they are ready to take it up their asses and too stupid to know it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?

You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.

Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?

As usual, you offer no proof.

lol, you need proof that we have Affirmative Action based laws that give racial set asides in contracts with most governments, especially the federal government? You need proof that there are racial quotas, college slots available for specific races or goals for races that EXCLUDE whites?

Lol then you are too ignorant and stupid to bother with, having not watched the news in 5 decades.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?


Dick Heller isn't white?

roflmao, only to a libtard does an anecdotal case refute entire systems of legal code.