What does the GOP owe blacks?

[mudwhistle]

And people wonder why conservatives get the racist tag?

Which election did Patrick win???

I don't remember voting for him.

However Obama can't seem to stay away from racist churches and he puts a bigot in as AG, and you don't have any problem supporting his racist policies.

 

[Patrick2]

And people wonder why conservatives get the racist tag?

Which election did Patrick win???

I don't remember voting for him.

However Obama can't seem to stay away from racist churches and he puts a bigot in as AG, and you don't have any problem supporting his racist policies.

Since you seem to be implicitly supporting the race card tossed at me, maybe you want to be the first to put some argument behind it?

1. How is opposition to anti-white racial discrimination "racist"?

2. Again, why should a party serve the legislative interests of a group which overwhelmingly votes against it?

 

[Si modo]

And, to the OP: What "anti-white" discrimination?

"Affirmative action", "diversity"

Why don't you give the definition of affirmative action so that I can know what you are referring to.

 

[Patrick2]

And, to the OP: What "anti-white" discrimination?

"Affirmative action", "diversity"

Why don't you give the definition of affirmative action so that I can know what you are referring to.

Sure. "affirmative action" is a euphemism for anti-white, and especially anti-white male discrimination. Positions in commercial firms, especially large ones; univerity admissions, and so forth which used be awarded on the basis of merit as determined by competition as evaluated from relevent objective qualifications, test scores etc, are suspended in the case of politically-favored minorities, to artificially increase the number of minorities in such institutions. As in the cases of Grutter or Ricci, this necessarly means rejecting a more qualified white candidate in favor of a minority, since the number of positions open in a corporation (university, law school, fire department, etc) at any given time is fixed.

 

[Si modo]

"Affirmative action", "diversity"

Why don't you give the definition of affirmative action so that I can know what you are referring to.

Sure. "affirmative action" is a euphemism for anti-white, and especially anti-white male discrimination. Positions in commercial firms, especially large ones; univerity admissions, and so forth which used be awarded on the basis of merit as determined by competition as evaluated from relevent objective qualifications, test scores etc, are suspended in the case of politically-favored minorities, to artificially increase the number of minorities in such institutions. As in the cases of Grutter or Ricci, this necessarly means rejecting a more qualified white candidate in favor of a minority, since the number of positions open in a corporation (university, law school, fire department, etc) at any given time is fixed.

You know that the SCOTUS ruled against quotas.

Actually, affirmative action originated in an Executive Order which required government contractors to "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" as well as to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".

That's unfair to you?

 

[Patrick2]

Why don't you give the definition of affirmative action so that I can know what you are referring to.

Sure. "affirmative action" is a euphemism for anti-white, and especially anti-white male discrimination. Positions in commercial firms, especially large ones; univerity admissions, and so forth which used be awarded on the basis of merit as determined by competition as evaluated from relevent objective qualifications, test scores etc, are suspended in the case of politically-favored minorities, to artificially increase the number of minorities in such institutions. As in the cases of Grutter or Ricci, this necessarly means rejecting a more qualified white candidate in favor of a minority, since the number of positions open in a corporation (university, law school, fire department, etc) at any given time is fixed.

You know that the SCOTUS ruled against quotas.

Actually, the USSC has been very ambiguous on this issue, going back and forth over the years with Bakke, Webber, Grutter, Gratz, and Ricci. That CURRENTLY strict numerical quotas appear to be disallowed in no way stops the "affirmative action" machine. In Grutter v. Bollinger, eg, anti-white racial discrimination was approved insofar as it increased the "diversity" of the student body - all liberal admission committees have to do is not write down numerical targets, then they can discriminate all they want and say it was needed for "diversity". After Grutter, many corporations "saw the light" (or actually, the likely lawsuit threat") an came out in support of "diversity".

Actually, affirmative action originated in an Executive Order which required government contractors to "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" as well as to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".

That's not quite correct. It started with Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, which required

contractors with 50 or more employees and contracts of $50,000 or more to implement affirmative action plans to increase the participation of minorities and women in the workplace if a workforce analysis demonstrates their underrepresentation

Further's Richard Nixon's Philadelphia Plan required quotas in the construction industry, this was later upheld by the USSC.

Once again, read up on Grutter - it opens the door wide for any anti-white discrimination.

 

[Si modo]

Sure. "affirmative action" is a euphemism for anti-white, and especially anti-white male discrimination. Positions in commercial firms, especially large ones; univerity admissions, and so forth which used be awarded on the basis of merit as determined by competition as evaluated from relevent objective qualifications, test scores etc, are suspended in the case of politically-favored minorities, to artificially increase the number of minorities in such institutions. As in the cases of Grutter or Ricci, this necessarly means rejecting a more qualified white candidate in favor of a minority, since the number of positions open in a corporation (university, law school, fire department, etc) at any given time is fixed.

You know that the SCOTUS ruled against quotas.

Actually, the USSC has been very ambiguous on this issue, going back and forth over the years with Bakke, Webber, Grutter, Gratz, and Ricci. That CURRENTLY strict numerical quotas appear to be disallowed in no way stops the "affirmative action" machine. In Grutter v. Bollinger, eg, anti-white racial discrimination was approved insofar as it increased the "diversity" of the student body - all liberal admission committees have to do is not write down numerical targets, then they can discriminate all they want and say it was needed for "diversity". After Grutter, many corporations "saw the light" (or actually, the likely lawsuit threat") an came out in support of "diversity".

Actually, affirmative action originated in an Executive Order which required government contractors to "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" as well as to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".

That's not quite correct. It started with Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, which required

contractors with 50 or more employees and contracts of $50,000 or more to implement affirmative action plans to increase the participation of minorities and women in the workplace if a workforce analysis demonstrates their underrepresentation

Further's Richard Nixon's Philadelphia Plan required quotas in the construction industry, this was later upheld by the USSC.

It really started with Kennedy's EO, but irrespective of that, what part of those orders ("affirmative action") is unfair to you?

If your gripe is quotas, I agree.

 

[Ali777]

Gotta love the GOP's black voter narrative. It's basically like saying, "hey, you dumb, delirious, darkies, why aren't you voting for us"?

 

[Patrick2]

You know that the SCOTUS ruled against quotas.

Actually, the USSC has been very ambiguous on this issue, going back and forth over the years with Bakke, Webber, Grutter, Gratz, and Ricci. That CURRENTLY strict numerical quotas appear to be disallowed in no way stops the "affirmative action" machine. In Grutter v. Bollinger, eg, anti-white racial discrimination was approved insofar as it increased the "diversity" of the student body - all liberal admission committees have to do is not write down numerical targets, then they can discriminate all they want and say it was needed for "diversity". After Grutter, many corporations "saw the light" (or actually, the likely lawsuit threat") an came out in support of "diversity".



That's not quite correct. It started with Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, which required

contractors with 50 or more employees and contracts of $50,000 or more to implement affirmative action plans to increase the participation of minorities and women in the workplace if a workforce analysis demonstrates their underrepresentation

Further's Richard Nixon's Philadelphia Plan required quotas in the construction industry, this was later upheld by the USSC.

It really started with Kennedy's EO, but irrespective of that, what part of those orders ("affirmative action") is unfair to you?

If your gripe is quotas, I agree.

See, a lot of this was originally done in the same way discrimination against blacks was done in the old south - winks and nods, "gentlemen's agreements", ambiguous language, but everyone got the message - hire minorities or else. Kennedy's order only spoke technically about equal opportunity, but again, contractors "got the message".

And the absolute first one was actually Roosevelt's Executive Order 8802.

No, my gripe isn't just quotas, it's any anti-white racial discrimination. As I pointed out to you, with the current technique, "diversity", quotas aren't necessary to effect anti-white racial discrimination.

 

[GHook93]

Black voters are their own worse enemy. When 90%+ give their support to one party, neither party starts to work for it and neither party does anything for them.

Democrats don't work for it, because they are guaranteed it. Republicans don't work for it, because it a waste of time. Then when the black man questions why they are never listened to by either party, this is why?

Latinos, depending on the what part of the country you are talking about (FL & TX latinos are more conservatives, while CA, NY and IL Latinos are more liberal), still split the vote 60-40! 60 going D and 40 going R. That 40% is a still something to fight for. That is why they get listened to more than Blacks!

The short answer: nothing. Blacks usually vote 90% democrat in national elections, and they voted 95% for obama, the most leftwing and now clearly the worst president in US history.

Yet when the GOP is in power, it dutifully goes about serving what blacks perceive as their interests. Example: voting lockstep for the long anachronistic voting rights act. Doing nothing to end anti-white discrimination. Doing nothing about the illegal alien invasion, one of the principal purposes of which is to transform whites into a minority.

Who can think of any other example of either party supporting a large group which votes steadfastly against the party?

 

[GHook93]

It was questioned OUT LOUD about McCain being born at the Panama Canal!

People are questioning Romney's mormon background!

And people wonder why conservatives get the racist tag?

And people wonder why Democrats get the racist tag with Byrd, Gephardt, "Hymietown", and Sharpton's inciting violence.

You can't help it, though.

Okay. Name the last Democratic politician that asked about a President's national origin or religion. How about a Democrat that questioned any political opponents national origin or religion.

Betcha can't find one this century.

Help you out here too.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1_4w3ko4KQ&feature=fvst]‪ISP: The Devil & Mike Huckabee (CBS News)‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

What does the GOP owe blacks?

The GOP only owes the wealthy and corporations and no one else. I think it must be in their party platform or something.

Contrary to dean's trademark imbecilic injection, corporations mainly support the leftwing agenda nowadays, with

- anti-white discrimination

- gay "partner" benefits

- over the top anti-sexual harassment regimes

- anti-white male TV ads

- purging religious references from the workplace

- contributions to extreme leftwing foundations

- contributions to democrat party candidates (aka "protection money")

- "corporate responsibility"

etc etc etc

Over the top, mostly untrue and what is remains minor to the USARs, you, the Tanks, and the others do.

You are a sick racist, kiddo.

 

[Patrick2]

What does the GOP owe blacks?

The GOP only owes the wealthy and corporations and no one else. I think it must be in their party platform or something.

Contrary to dean's trademark imbecilic injection, corporations mainly support the leftwing agenda nowadays, with

- anti-white discrimination

- gay "partner" benefits

- over the top anti-sexual harassment regimes

- anti-white male TV ads

- purging religious references from the workplace

- contributions to extreme leftwing foundations

- contributions to democrat party candidates (aka "protection money")

- "corporate responsibility"

etc etc etc

Over the top, mostly untrue and what is remains minor to the USARs, you, the Tanks, and the others do.

You are a sick racist, kiddo.

Ah, here's Jake with his famous one post he repeats over and over.

YOU ARE A WHITE UNCLE TOM GUTLESS PUSSY - I'VE NEVER SEEN YOU DEBATE ONCE. SHUT UP AND GET OUT OF THIS AND OTHER THREADS UNTIL YOU CAN SHOW UP WITH FACTS AND ARGUMENTS.

 

[yidnar]

and here is what Obama has done for his own brother!!!what has he done for blacks???

 

[JakeStarkey]

Contrary to dean's trademark imbecilic injection, corporations mainly support the leftwing agenda nowadays, with

- anti-white discrimination

- gay "partner" benefits

- over the top anti-sexual harassment regimes

- anti-white male TV ads

- purging religious references from the workplace

- contributions to extreme leftwing foundations

- contributions to democrat party candidates (aka "protection money")

- "corporate responsibility"

etc etc etc

Over the top, mostly untrue and what is remains minor to the USARs, you, the Tanks, and the others do.

You are a sick racist, kiddo.

Ah, here's Jake with his famous one post he repeats over and over.

YOU ARE A WHITE UNCLE TOM GUTLESS PUSSY - I'VE NEVER SEEN YOU DEBATE ONCE. SHUT UP AND GET OUT OF THIS AND OTHER THREADS UNTIL YOU CAN SHOW UP WITH FACTS AND ARGUMENTS.

You don't post facts or arguments, patrick, that's the point.

You are all blow and no show.

And Yidnar is right there pitching his racism with you.

This is why 3 of 4 Americans despise the Tea Party movement, which is poisoned by the few like you

 

[Si modo]

Actually, the USSC has been very ambiguous on this issue, going back and forth over the years with Bakke, Webber, Grutter, Gratz, and Ricci. That CURRENTLY strict numerical quotas appear to be disallowed in no way stops the "affirmative action" machine. In Grutter v. Bollinger, eg, anti-white racial discrimination was approved insofar as it increased the "diversity" of the student body - all liberal admission committees have to do is not write down numerical targets, then they can discriminate all they want and say it was needed for "diversity". After Grutter, many corporations "saw the light" (or actually, the likely lawsuit threat") an came out in support of "diversity".



That's not quite correct. It started with Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, which required

Further's Richard Nixon's Philadelphia Plan required quotas in the construction industry, this was later upheld by the USSC.

It really started with Kennedy's EO, but irrespective of that, what part of those orders ("affirmative action") is unfair to you?

If your gripe is quotas, I agree.

See, a lot of this was originally done in the same way discrimination against blacks was done in the old south - winks and nods, "gentlemen's agreements", ambiguous language, but everyone got the message - hire minorities or else. Kennedy's order only spoke technically about equal opportunity, but again, contractors "got the message".

And the absolute first one was actually Roosevelt's Executive Order 8802.

No, my gripe isn't just quotas, it's any anti-white racial discrimination. As I pointed out to you, with the current technique, "diversity", quotas aren't necessary to effect anti-white racial discrimination.

So, we're still back at square one: I asked you what anti-white discrimination, you said 'affirmative action', it clearly isn't, soooooooooo........

What anti-white discrimination?

 

[Ravi]

 

[Patrick2]

It really started with Kennedy's EO, but irrespective of that, what part of those orders ("affirmative action") is unfair to you?

If your gripe is quotas, I agree.

See, a lot of this was originally done in the same way discrimination against blacks was done in the old south - winks and nods, "gentlemen's agreements", ambiguous language, but everyone got the message - hire minorities or else. Kennedy's order only spoke technically about equal opportunity, but again, contractors "got the message".

And the absolute first one was actually Roosevelt's Executive Order 8802.

No, my gripe isn't just quotas, it's any anti-white racial discrimination. As I pointed out to you, with the current technique, "diversity", quotas aren't necessary to effect anti-white racial discrimination.

So, we're still back at square one: I asked you what anti-white discrimination, you said 'affirmative action', it clearly isn't, soooooooooo........

What anti-white discrimination?

Do you have a short term memory problem? I just carefully layed the whole thing out for you!

 

[Ravi]

See, a lot of this was originally done in the same way discrimination against blacks was done in the old south - winks and nods, "gentlemen's agreements", ambiguous language, but everyone got the message - hire minorities or else. Kennedy's order only spoke technically about equal opportunity, but again, contractors "got the message".

And the absolute first one was actually Roosevelt's Executive Order 8802.

No, my gripe isn't just quotas, it's any anti-white racial discrimination. As I pointed out to you, with the current technique, "diversity", quotas aren't necessary to effect anti-white racial discrimination.

So, we're still back at square one: I asked you what anti-white discrimination, you said 'affirmative action', it clearly isn't, soooooooooo........

What anti-white discrimination?

Do you have a short term memory problem? I just carefully layed the whole thing out for you!

Paranoia isn't reality.

 

[Patrick2]

get out of the thread until you have something rational to say, dumbass.