RandyMc Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:

RandyMc Wrote:Oh, BTW, it is not just an inner city black family problem.......................

Explain for me please

Given your "white sheet" crack on Kevin...................I doubt you would even understand if I explained................

That was just stupid.............

Oh please I love how swoosh can make a racist comment that "everyone (i.e. us good white conservatives)" on this board know about black people and then when I snipe back all of a sudden I am the one with a problem. If his comment was acceptable than so was mine.

As for your comment, unlike Kev you actually gave a little more info and I wanted to get more of your opinion. I still want to hear it so explain what you meant by the comment.

It wasn't directed at you Blah.

uhmump, I grew up in West Jackson. I lived there until I was in the 10th grade. I saw what can become of an area when instead of trying to address the issue and lay blame where it should be laid, politicians pander to them, tell them it's not their fault but those evil rich people, and offer concessions to them in exchange for votes. I have someone in my family that is the same damn way and I have nothing for him, not a damn thing.

By the way, without offending anyone, as I'm sure I will, I see this as a liberal problem. No, not socially liberal, but fiscally liberal. You can throw all the money you want at a situation; the outcome will be the same. This same "relative" of mine dropped out of 9th grade. He did various jobs to include welding. He inherited 70 thousand dollars when he turned 21. Did he use it to get himself into trade school(academia waved bye bye long ago)? Nope. He blew it all partying, buying beer and steaks for his friends, and a trailer. He's now living off of my grandmother. How much more do you think it would have taken for him to get his life together? 30 extra thousand? 100 extra thousand? He'd have partied more. It's a choice in life. I see people in the inner city driving 2K cars with 6K rims and a 3K stereo system....and live either at home, or an apartment. Does this make sense? Oh, that relative of mind spent about a year in the Jackson city jail. When he was released, Sheriff Malcom McMillan, who he'd come to know, offered to put a word in for him on a job with the city. It paid about 24K. He turned it down. Why? He said it wasn't enough. dumb***.

Conversely, my fiancee's uncle saved up enough money in high school to buy himself a car. What did he buy? A sewage pump truck. Laugh away. He drove it to school and worked after school pumping septic tanks. He now still has that business(he's about 44) as well as develops land for housing communites. He's a multi-millionaire that can now do anything he wants to do. Has two classic cars, has a son going for his MBA at Augusta State, has his own personal drag car that he races in Jackson, SC for fun. All for using his damn head and making the right choices.

Not everyone is born into wealth, but your place in life will ALWAYS be a summation of your choices, good and bad.

RebelKev Wrote:. . . your place in life will ALWAYS be a summation of your choices, good and bad.

True

RebelKev Wrote:By the way, without offending anyone, as I'm sure I will, I see this as a liberal problem. No, not socially liberal, but fiscally liberal. You can throw all the money you want at a situation; the outcome will be the same. This same "relative" of mine dropped out of 9th grade. He did various jobs to include welding. He inherited 70 thousand dollars when he turned 21. Did he use it to get himself into trade school(academia waved bye bye long ago)? Nope. He blew it all partying, buying beer and steaks for his friends, and a trailer. He's now living off of my grandmother. How much more do you think it would have taken for him to get his life together? 30 extra thousand? 100 extra thousand? He'd have partied more. It's a choice in life. I see people in the inner city driving 2K cars with 6K rims and a 3K stereo system....and live either at home, or an apartment. Does this make sense? Oh, that relative of mind spent about a year in the Jackson city jail. When he was released, Sheriff Malcom McMillan, who he'd come to know, offered to put a word in for him on a job with the city. It paid about 24K. He turned it down. Why? He said it wasn't enough. dumb***.

Conversely, my fiancee's uncle saved up enough money in high school to buy himself a car. What did he buy? A sewage pump truck. Laugh away. He drove it to school and worked after school pumping septic tanks. He now still has that business(he's about 44) as well as develops land for housing communites. He's a multi-millionaire that can now do anything he wants to do. Has two classic cars, has a son going for his MBA at Augusta State, has his own personal drag car that he races in Jackson, SC for fun. All for using his damn head and making the right choices.

Not everyone is born into wealth, but your place in life will ALWAYS be a summation of your choices, good and bad.

What a great commentary on the difference between being in a bad situation and complaining that you have no opportunities and making your own opportunities.

RebelKev Wrote:uhmump, I grew up in West Jackson. I lived there until I was in the 10th grade. I saw what can become of an area when instead of trying to address the issue and lay blame where it should be laid, politicians pander to them, tell them it's not their fault but those evil rich people, and offer concessions to them in exchange for votes. I have someone in my family that is the same damn way and I have nothing for him, not a damn thing.

Thanks for the reply. Now that is the type of answer I can accept.

Unfortunately that is still one of two issues that assist Dems with their strangle hold on the black vote. I think that we are starting to wise up to how damaging the welfare program has been.

Now if Republicans would end their opposition to Affirmative Action, I might be able to find a few to vote for.

uhmump95 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:uhmump, I grew up in West Jackson. I lived there until I was in the 10th grade. I saw what can become of an area when instead of trying to address the issue and lay blame where it should be laid, politicians pander to them, tell them it's not their fault but those evil rich people, and offer concessions to them in exchange for votes. I have someone in my family that is the same damn way and I have nothing for him, not a damn thing.

Thanks for the reply. Now that is the type of answer I can accept.

Unfortunately that is still one of two issues that assist Dems with their strangle hold on the black vote. I think that we are starting to wise up to how damaging the welfare program has been.

Now if Republicans would end their opposition to Affirmative Action, I might be able to find a few to vote for.

How can someone who just spent a lot of time ridiculing the welfare system as destructive and counteractive to its stated goal, then support affirmative action? It essentially does the same thing, provides a hand out, not a hand up. Does giving a job to a less qualified minority help do anything besides hinder race relations, undermine the confidence of the job receiving party (i.e. did I get the job because I am qualified or because I am a minority), and lower the overall quality of the work force? You also stated earlier that "some" black people still believe that they are owed something for being slaves, but you insinuated that you were not one of those people. If that is the case, what other reason do you have to give a less qualified person a job over a more deserving party?

On a different note, I would definitely support training programs for minorities and non-minorities to help get their skills to the level of other job applicants, if so lacking, but to give a job to someone based on race is totally ridiculous. We will never have equality if we continue to choose candidates based on race. Speaking as a hiring manager who has hired over 15 people the last two years, you only will hurt yourself, the hiring manager, and the company whom you represent, if you don't pick the most qualified candidate. As a result of doing just this, my department just happens to be comprised of black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, Jew, Protestant, Catholic, gay, female, a nail polish wearing punk rocker and yes white males. During this time I have also helped two of my employees get promotions outside of my department and both were not white males. As the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words." If you exceed expectations and work for me, I am going to do all I can to ensure you are rewarded for the hard work. Don't handcuff me with a stupid rule telling me I have to pick an unqualified candidate.

blah Wrote:How can someone who just spent a lot of time ridiculing the welfare system as destructive and counteractive to its stated goal, then support affirmative action? It essentially does the same thing, provides a hand out, not a hand up. Does giving a job to a less qualified minority help do anything besides hinder race relations, undermine the confidence of the job receiving party (i.e. did I get the job because I am qualified or because I am a minority), and lower the overall quality of the work force? You also stated earlier that "some" black people still believe that they are owed something for being slaves, but you insinuated that you were not one of those people. If that is the case, what other reason do you have to give a less qualified person a job over a more deserving party?

First of all affirmative action is not about hiring less qualified minorities to take jobs away from qualified white males. That is the assumption that is always made and it is incorrect. When it was used in that manner, you can look at your own white brethren who f-ed that one up because probably like swoosh they know so much about us po' black fold.

It is about giving minorities an opportunity to get a decent job without having their race be held as a factor against them. It is not about quotas or any of things that are being used as an argument against it. So to me when Republicans say that they are against affirmitive action, that means that they are pro white people not hiring minorities.

I have searched for jobs in Michigan, Alabama and Texas and I can guarantee you that my race has never EVER assisted me in getting a job, but it has hindered me from a few.

uhmump95 Wrote:

blah Wrote:How can someone who just spent a lot of time ridiculing the welfare system as destructive and counteractive to its stated goal, then support affirmative action?  It essentially does the same thing, provides a hand out, not a hand up.  Does giving a job to a less qualified minority help do anything besides hinder race relations, undermine the confidence of the job receiving party (i.e. did I get the job because I am qualified or because I am a minority), and lower the overall quality of the work force?  You also stated earlier that "some" black people still believe that they are owed something for being slaves, but you insinuated that you were not one of those people.  If that is the case, what other reason do you have to give a less qualified person a job over a more deserving party? 

First of all affirmative action is not about hiring less qualified minorities to take jobs away from qualified white males. That is the assumption that is always made and it is incorrect. When it was used in that manner, you can look at your own white brethren who f-ed that one up because probably like swoosh they know so much about us po' black fold.

It is about giving minorities an opportunity to get a decent job without having their race be held as a factor against them. It is not about quotas or any of things that are being used as an argument against it. So to me when Republicans say that they are against affirmitive action, that means that they are pro white people not hiring minorities.

I have searched for jobs in Michigan, Alabama and Texas and I can guarantee you that my race has never EVER assisted me in getting a job, but it has hindered me from a few.

It is funny that you should mention both Texas and Michigan, both states that I have lived and worked in. I have never seen race used in rejection of a candidate and as stated, I have hired people from all walks.

However, a great example of how affirmative action does exactly what you say it doesn't (i.e. penalize non-minorities) is the University of Michigan admissions program. Minorities are accepted there that have lower grades and lower test scores based solely on the color of their skin. It is a proven documented fact that can't be argued. This is wrong as it takes away the opportunity of someone else who has worked just as hard and is more qualified, all in the name of false diversity (a.k.a. true racism.)

Please provide your example of how you were rejected from a job based on race. Also please provide the name of the company which rejected you. It couldn't have possibly been because you weren't the most qualified candidate, could it?

Quote: 
AAAA Resources

Available Scholarships - Need More Minorities To Apply

Even if you do not have a college-aged child at home, please share this with someone who does. Pass this scholarship information on to anyone and everyone that comes to mind. Though there are a number of companies and organizations that have donated money for scholarship use to minorities, a great deal of the money is being returned because of a lack of interest.

<a href='http://www.affirmativeaction.org/resources/index.html' target='_blank'>Affirmative Action</a>

You don't think that is racism. Let's not give that money to any other deserving kids. If its not a minority, let's give it back. I'd love to see what would happen if there were a scholarship where only white folks could apply. The whole f'ing world would come apart.

Here's a speech by Pres. Bush on the U of M admissions....

Quote:President Bush Discusses Michigan Affirmative Action Case

Remarks by the President on the Michigan Affirmative Action Case
The Roosevelt Room


4:30 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in a case about admission policies and student diversity in public universities. I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education. But the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed.

At their core, the Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes perspective students, based solely on their race. So, tomorrow my administration will file a brief with the court arguing that the University of Michigan's admissions policies, which award students a significant number of extra points based solely on their race, and establishes numerical targets for incoming minority students, are unconstitutional.

Our Constitution makes it clear that people of all races must be treated equally under the law. Yet we know that our society has not fully achieved that ideal. Racial prejudice is a reality in America. It hurts many of our citizens. As a nation, as a government, as individuals, we must be vigilant in responding to prejudice wherever we find it. Yet, as we work to address the wrong of racial prejudice, we must not use means that create another wrong, and thus perpetuate our divisions.

America is a diverse country, racially, economically, and ethnically. And our institutions of higher education should reflect our diversity. A college education should teach respect and understanding and goodwill. And these values are strengthened when students live and learn with people from many backgrounds. Yet quota systems that use race to include or exclude people from higher education and the opportunities it offers are divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution.

In the programs under review by the Supreme Court, the University of Michigan has established an admissions process based on race. At the undergraduate level, African American students and some Hispanic students and Native American students receive 20 points out of a maximum of 150, not because of any academic achievement or life experience, but solely because they are African American, Hispanic or Native American.

To put this in perspective, a perfect SAT score is worth only 12 points in the Michigan system. Students who accumulate 100 points are generally admitted, so those 20 points awarded solely based on race are often the decisive factor.

At the law school, some minority students are admitted to meet percentage targets while other applicants with higher grades and better scores are passed over. This means that students are being selected or rejected based primarily on the color of their skin. The motivation for such an admissions policy may be very good, but its result is discrimination and that discrimination is wrong.

Some states are using innovative ways to diversify their student bodies. Recent history has proven that diversity can be achieved without using quotas. Systems in California and Florida and Texas have proven that by guaranteeing admissions to the top students from high schools throughout the state, including low income neighborhoods, colleges can attain broad racial diversity. In these states, race-neutral admissions policies have resulted in levels of minority attendance for incoming students that are close to, and in some instances slightly surpass, those under the old race-based approach.

We should not be satisfied with the current numbers of minorities on Americans college campuses. Much progress has been made; much more is needed. University officials have the responsibility and the obligation to make a serious, effective effort to reach out to students from all walks of life, without falling back on unconstitutional quotas. Schools should seek diversity by considering a broad range of factors in admissions, including a student's potential and life experiences.

Our government must work to make college more affordable for students who come from economically disadvantaged homes. And because we're committed to racial justice, we must make sure that America's public schools offer a quality education to every child from every background, which is the central purpose of the education reforms I signed last year.

America's long experience with the segregation we have put behind us and the racial discrimination we still struggle to overcome requires a special effort to make real the promise of equal opportunity for all. My administration will continue to actively promote diversity and opportunity in every way that the law permits.

Thank you very much.

<a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030115-7.html' target='_blank'>Bush Speech</a>

I'd sure be glad that I put in all those hours studying to get a perfect SAT score so that someone else could get 8 more points because their skin is a different color.

I am all for "Equal Opportunity", but that is not what this is. This is racism and putting Affirmative Action together in the same sentence as Equal Opportunity doesn't make it any less so.

blah Wrote:It is funny that you should mention both Texas and Michigan, both states that I have lived and worked in.&nbsp; I have never seen race used in rejection of a candidate ...

First of all what company is going to put as their official reason for not hiring a person as race in this day and age? No one!!! So that statement makes absolutely no since whatsoever. If the person making the hire reject you because of race, they will simply use another excuse....

Quote:Please provide your example of how you were rejected from a job based on race. Also please provide the name of the company which rejected you. It couldn't have possibly been because you weren't the most qualified candidate, could it?

First of America Bank in Kalamazoo MI 1996

Had an entry level financial analyst position open. Only requirements was a bachelor degree in Finance, Accounting etc.... I applied and was interviewed because because I have my degree. When I first saw the interviewee he gave the "Oh crap!! It is a nig nig boing!!!" look. I found out from HR that I was well qualified for the position, but he decided I just wasn't the person for the job. Ended up changing the position to a higher level and hired once of his friends and gave them a fat raise. I was jhappy as a clam when National City bought the bank and severenced the whole department while the department that I landed in was retained. :laugh:

blah Wrote:

Quote: 
AAAA Resources

Available Scholarships - Need More Minorities To Apply

Even if you do not have a college-aged child at home, please share this with someone who does. Pass this scholarship information on to anyone and everyone that comes to mind. Though there are a number of companies and organizations that have donated money for scholarship use to minorities, a great deal of the money is being returned because of a lack of interest.

<a href='http://www.affirmativeaction.org/resources/index.html' target='_blank'>Affirmative Action</a>

You don't think that is racism. Let's not give that money to any other deserving kids. If its not a minority, let's give it back. I'd love to see what would happen if there were a scholarship where only white folks could apply. The whole f'ing world would come apart.

No because of these words here "there are a number of companies and organizations that have donated money for scholarship use to minorities,". Seems to me that the companies and organizations could make the money available for who ever they choose. Just because they choose to give their money to minorities does not make it racist.

As for Bush and the University of Michigan issue, to me that is a case of this statement:

Quote:First of all affirmative action is not about hiring less qualified minorities to take jobs away from qualified white males. That is the assumption that is always made and it is incorrect. When it was used in that manner, you can look at your own white brethren who f-ed that one up because probably like swoosh they know so much about us po' black folk.

I personally believe that all students should have to meet the same standards for admission. Universities changing their standards for minorities is the same as politicians using welfare to get black votes. Both of them are wrong and hinder the people they are supposedly trying to help.

Just for the record, I disagree with the way the welfare system works and affirmative action, but I am very supportive of strict anti-discrimination laws.

However, uhmump, what you are calling for are quotas. I don't see how that is conducive to the company's goal. It's there to provide a profit for their shareholders, not to offer jobs to people. When it comes down to it, which do you think is the first to go, the employee? Or the profit, aside from SWA in the early 70's? A company that only hires white people will be punished by the system that is known as capitalism. If 13% of the population considers your company anti-insert race, your company profit margin is hindered. Add the other races that are appalled by this practice to INCLUDE white people, you're all but doomed to hell.

RebelKev Wrote:However, uhmump, what you are calling for are quotas.

Kev,

Please search my posts on this thread and show me where I am calling for quotas. What I am calling for is the ability to equal access to jobs without being automatically disqualified because of my race.

Why is it always assumed that the only way that affirmative action can be set it by quotes or by lowering job standards? To me those things are done by people who are not interested in truly integrating their work place.

uhmump95 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:However, uhmump, what you are calling for are quotas.

Kev,

Please search my posts on this thread and show me where I am calling for quotas. What I am calling for is the ability to equal access to jobs without being automatically disqualified because of my race.

Why is it always assumed that the only way that affirmative action can be set it by quotes or by lowering job standards? To me those things are done by people who are not interested in truly integrating their work place.

Well then let's call it "Equal Opportunity" and I am all for it. I think every other Republican would be too.

However, when you put in a quota/job standard lowering system aimed at increasing the percentage of minorities in a job at any cost and then call it affirmative action, you will never get support from Republicans.

Integrating the work force shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be to have the best qualified candidate in the position regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. I think anyone would support that.

If you really feel it is important to have job place integration should the NBA go out and get a bunch of white/asian players, as they are currently under-represented (percentage-wise) in the NBA?

Should hospitals go hire a bunch of male nurses because they are currently under-represented in hospitals?

It sounds stupid, doesn't it. If you pick the best candidate, you give yourself the best chance to win. Look what transpired with Jackie Robinson. At first no one wanted black players in MLB. Then the desire to win, won out over race issues. A few teams still held their ground on not employing black players (Red Sox.) They got worse and were leap-frogged by the teams that used the best players available. Eventually to compete they had to join in on what everyone else was doing. Why would business be any different?

Let's put affirmative action everywhere, starting with the NBA.

Rather than getting the best players, the leagure would have to ensure that all teams have 6 women, 3 African-Americans, 1 Hispanic, and 1 Asian or Pacific Islander. And Foreign-born players would obviously have to be excluded.

I wonder how that little experiment would work out?

Quote:Well then let's call it "Equal Opportunity" and I am all for it. I think every other Republican would be too.

I know all I would like to have is equal opportunity for a job. So that sounds good to me. Why haven't Replublicans added something like this to their political agenda?

Quote:However, when you put in a quota/job standard lowering system aimed at increasing the percentage of minorities in a job at any cost and then call it affirmative action, you will never get support from Republicans.

Why is it when I say affirmative action all I hear from the white people are quotas and job standard lowering? If this is what affirmative action has been lowered to, isn't it the white people's fault for not wanting to give "Equal Opportunity" to minorities.

Quote:Integrating the work force shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be to have the best qualified candidate in the position regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. I think anyone would support that.

But for some reason Republicans have not made this a political plank

Quote:If you really feel it is important to have job place integration should the NBA go out and get a bunch of white/asian players, as they are currently under-represented (percentage-wise) in the NBA?

Yes because I am tired of seeing black players play isolationist, one on one, streak shooting basketball. To me basketball was better back in the day when teams were more integrated. Call me a racist, but I think that white people are better jump shooters. But this is my opinion.

Quote:Should hospitals go hire a bunch of male nurses because they are currently under-represented in hospitals?

Are more males applying for positions as nurses? By this I mean that historically, nursing has been seen as a woman's job and males hardly ever applied for the position. But if more qualified males are applying to be nurses, then shouldn't more male nurses be hired? You are not saying that hospitals should not hire male nurses are you?

uhmump95 Wrote:

Quote:Well then let's call it "Equal Opportunity" and I am all for it. I think every other Republican would be too.

I know all I would like to have is equal opportunity for a job. So that sounds good to me. Why haven't Replublicans added something like this to their political agenda?

Quote:However, when you put in a quota/job standard lowering system aimed at increasing the percentage of minorities in a job at any cost and then call it affirmative action, you will never get support from Republicans.

Why is it when I say affirmative action all I hear from the white people are quotas and job standard lowering? If this is what affirmative action has been lowered to, isn't it the white people's fault for not wanting to give "Equal Opportunity" to minorities.

Quote:Integrating the work force shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be to have the best qualified candidate in the position regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. I think anyone would support that.

But for some reason Republicans have not made this a political plank

Quote:If you really feel it is important to have job place integration should the NBA go out and get a bunch of white/asian players, as they are currently under-represented (percentage-wise) in the NBA?

Yes because I am tired of seeing black players play isolationist, one on one, streak shooting basketball. To me basketball was better back in the day when teams were more integrated. Call me a racist, but I think that white people are better jump shooters. But this is my opinion.

Quote:Should hospitals go hire a bunch of male nurses because they are currently under-represented in hospitals?

Are more males applying for positions as nurses? By this I mean that historically, nursing has been seen as a woman's job and males hardly ever applied for the position. But if more qualified males are applying to be nurses, then shouldn't more male nurses be hired? You are not saying that hospitals should not hire male nurses are you?

To answer your questions...

1. Because first they have to get rid of the false "equal opportunity" known today as affirmative action....See University of Michigan admissions standards.

2. I don't believe it is just "white people" saying this. Many of my friends (yes, I have non-white friends) agree that the way affirmative action is presented today does not and will not fix the problem. Two of these friends, one who got a full-ride scholarship to Princeton because he is black (his words) and another who got a 75%-ride scholarship because she was Asian (although she was adopted, so the only thing Asian about her is her skin) agree that it was unfair that they received scholarships based mostly on skin color. (They did have decent grades, but I had both a better GPA and scholastic test scores than both.)

3. See answer #1. Have to eliminate the broken system before presenting a new one or we will never be able to move forward.

4. I am surprised you could say that with a straight face, but Ok. Who did you have in mind to replace? And which "white guy" do you plug in?

5. No, I am not saying that hospitals should not hire qualified males as nurses and no, I do not know if more males have applied to be nurses. What I am saying is that it does not make any sense to hire unqualified males as nurses just ensure there is a good integration of sexes.

My favorite quote from you was the following....

Quote:But if more qualified males are applying to be nurses, then shouldn't more male nurses be hired?

Which is exactly my point regarding race. As there are more qualified <insert race, creed religion>, there should be more <insert race, creed, religion> hired.

uhmump95 Wrote:Oh please I love how swoosh can make a racist comment that "everyone (i.e. us good white conservatives)" on this board know about black people and then when I snipe back all of a sudden I am the one with a problem. If his comment was acceptable than so was mine.

Oh please stop trying to dig yourself out a hole. Swoosh's comments are not even remotely racist. He's stating that we all knew that the true underlying problems with black poverty has little to do with racism and more with their social structure.

Yours on the other hand, directly called Kev out as a member of the Klan. Big difference.

Quote:1. Because first they have to get rid of the false "equal opportunity" known today as affirmative action....See University of Michigan admissions standards.

How are you going to get rid of affirmative action and its flaws if you do not offer an alternative. If Republicans are interested in "Equal Opportunity" for all (and that is a big IF) and they do not like the current policy, then they should put out their own policy for fixing the problem.