you can't choose your son

I'm not asking you to defend me….all I'm doing is highlighting you and your supporters dis-honesty.

And walter, if you want me to jump to your defense, you better stop being so intentionally dishonest on this blog first, mister conservative.

do YOU know what he's talking about?

walter Says:

July 5th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Richard Cranium 1420 aka ptd sez on the Cap and Trade thread……."Act like your boy Obama…….."

this is the Getting Beyond Race thread……..the previous thread was Cap and Trade

King….you just can't help yourself, can you?

LOL

Or you can continue to be an ass. Your choice.

King….no comment on Cranium's racist statement? Why am I NOT surprised.

LOL

just what filfth did I write about Mexicans last week larry?

But he did revert to that old liberal standby by calling everyone a racist when he can't muster a rational argument, so the libs are teaching him well. Indoctrination proceeding.

Cranium…..you're a racist

King doesn't like conservatives who push back against republican propagandists but racists don't seem to bother him…..

just saying

No, most of it institutionalized equality and was just. Title VII, on the other hand, per your interpretation of the Ricci case, makes race the most important factor in hiring, elevated above all other considerations, even when it's shown that no discriminatory practices were being used. There's no way I can agree with that. Discriminating against one group of people to benefit another group of people is always wrong.

To be fair, people described as liberals violate the principals of liberalism almost as frequently as the conservatives betray the principals of conservatism.

Governments are formed to use the power of the many to ensure the freedom of the individual. Where conservatives err, IMHO, is that they tend to think that these threats only come from outside our borders. As I see it, the major threats come from within our borders as people cede more power to the government to provide them with the illusion of safety.

I'm gonna say this kindly, cause you're my budd…..

Civil rights legislation, if I use your argument, institutionalized unfairness because of past slights.

And…."slights" is a weak-tea word to describe brutality, hateful violence and slavery.

In a perfect world, your argument would be reasonable. Sadly, it's imperfect and America has done some pretty bad stuff to many groups of people. Setting aside American Indians….our treatment of blacks was straight out of the depths of hell* and the sulphur smell still lingers.

*Figuratively speaking, you understand.

Where we diverge is, I'm against unfairness to everyone else too. You want to institutionalize unfairness because of past slights. That is the wrong path to go down, it is unconstitutional, and it never ends. By your grievance standards, we should also institute firefighter hiring quotas for Native Americans, women, illegal immigrants, Jews, Irish, Japanese, Chinese, Mexicans, gays, the disabled, the illiterate, fat people, short people, people from broken homes, Muslims, Mormons, atheists, ugly people, stupid people, or anyone else who can come up with a claim that they have been treated unfairly in America. There'd be so much disparate impact that we'd never be able to sort it all out.

Or we can stop the Tower of Babel insanity and all adhere to the same set of standards.

Maybe you don't get it. The Rev and I vehemently disagree, but at least I know he's not blatantly lying. Nobody likes a petulant liar, walter.

"The elephant in the room is – there were no discriminatory practices in the New Haven firefighter testing."

That is an assertion….and that's fine.

At the same time, the Title VII law under which New Haven felt bound to obey clearly states that disparate outcomes along racial lines are a red flag to be taken seriously.

There's no question, and Justice Kennedy agreed, that the test results demonstrated a clear diaparate impact along racial lines. Can we at least agree on that fact?

The difficult question New Haven faced….was what to do about it.

For the five arch conservatives on the Supremes bench to interpret New Haven's difficult decision as motivated by blatant racism against whites is not only factually incorrect but also smells of bias.

Conservatives argue incessantly that activist judges are those who legislate from the bench. Turning the EEOC's Title VII section on it's head and making new requirements for employers not in the original law…..is the very definition of an activist court.

Many folks don't like the idea of affirmative action remedies. They see them as unfair. What's missing from today's discussion is the unfairness experienced for centuries by American blacks. An unfairness that left blacks, as a group, significantly behind in economic opportunities and wealth creation. While blacks have made progress…..fair minded folks, I don't think, would say that blacks have reached full equality.

The logical next step is the alleged discriminated firefighters who didn’t score high enough on the test should file their disparate impact suit. (As I've said, I don’t think the suit would float as I have read the distribution of the test results was within the guidelines of the law – thus proving no disparate impact.)

However, it would be fascinating if the test was proven to be in violation of Title VII. The city would be found to have broken Title VII law twice for the same action of trying to promote firefighters. Once against whites and then against blacks.

Regardless there was going to be a lawsuit (athough even that's debatable; I didn't hear official threats of suit from the african american firefighters).

Lastly, Corvair??