Obama and Racial-Preferences; Business, school, employers, etc watch out he is coming after you!!

Originally posted by Annee
I worked on Affirmative Action government reports 20 years ago.

Is this something new?

Perhaps you can shed some light on my questions ?

reply to post by xuenchen

Originally posted by xuenchen
Does anyone know if guidelines are set according to the census ??

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by GideonFaith

Originally posted by Annee
I worked on Affirmative Action government reports 20 years ago.

Is this something new?

Wow! 20 years ago!!! You need to read the whole thread before asking if this is something new!!

How is it new?

First off - - you're source is FOX "entertainment".

edit on 12-11-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

And let me guess, you have a problem with FOX? Like I care!!

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by GideonFaith

It shouldn't be about white, black, asian, hispanic, or another race. This was a quote from me it is in this same thread.

It's about representation of a cross section of all Ethnicities.

Which is needed to inspire those of various Ethnicities of the up and coming generation.

I'm 66 - - so I have personal experience of how things were in White Christian Man's world - - - before laws of equality became Federal.

I also live in both SoCA and Arizona. Which is Real Time experience in different attitudes of Equality.

I think that is what I said. I don't know why the past is still trying to tie up the present. If everyone wants to be treated equal, then leave the past in the past and work for what you want. It shouldn't be up to the taxpayers to pay your debts.

Originally posted by Quadrivium

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
The FoxNews source in the OP does not give any information or context to go along with the article. Before we go to far into this, we need to know their source of reference.

virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.

For example, what is the definition of "negatively impacts"?

This is yet another problen we face in this country. Certain groups of people generally on the left feel a need to OVER analyze everything.
I mean really, who needs a definition for "negatively impacts"? That is kinda self explanatory. No need to break it down, it means NEGATIVE IMPACT.

Really? If someone asks a question about the definition or context of a particular statement, they may just be a Leftist?

Ok.....never head that before, but the reason I ask is because we are talking about the Justice department and legal matters. In US law, the definition or contextual implication of a word or statement can be key.

The definition of " negatively impacts", in a legal sense, is quite vague and must be clearly defined so we can understand exactly how it can be applied in the courts.

I am not making a judgement either way until there is some context. Otherwise, it is foolish to jump to either side of the issue...simply because we don't know what is actually going on.

reply to post by GideonFaith


You must be referring to the Community Investment act. While it is politically expedient to place blame on Barney Frank and the act itself, the act did not "force" banks to make unsavory loans. What it did what say that the banks can no longer "redline" communities. In other words, they could not mark certain areas of low-income people and minorities as off-limits for loans and such.

And let's be honest.....there were more foreclosures and short-sells on $300,000 homes then there were for the $50,000 homes in Compton.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by GideonFaith

 

You must be referring to the Community Investment act. While it is politically expedient to place blame on Barney Frank and the act itself, the act did not "force" banks to make unsavory loans. What it did what say that the banks can no longer "redline" communities. In other words, they could not mark certain areas of low-income people and minorities as off-limits for loans and such.

And let's be honest.....there were more foreclosures and short-sells on $300,000 homes then there were for the $50,000 homes in Compton.

First, I was quoting what someone else had said on this thread. Now, the banks, government and whoever else allowed people who could not afford items to purchase them without any creditability as to how to pay it back. It doesn't matter what price the items were, it hurt the economy. Here we are now, more in debt than we can ever pay off. Unless our great, great grandchildren find a huge gold mine somewhere.

reply to post by GideonFaith


I understand that you quoted another member. Xtrozero's post was directed towards the CRA, as I interpret it, and I disagree with the implication that the CRA is tied to the housing crash and the subsequent bailouts.

Moreover, I do not see how the CRA and the bailouts tie into "racial preferences" as it is implied in the post made by Xtrozero.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by GideonFaith

 

I understand that you quoted another member. Xtrozero's post was directed towards the CRA, as I interpret it, and I disagree with the implication that the CRA is tied to the housing crash and the subsequent bailouts.

Moreover, I do not see how the CRA and the bailouts tie into "racial preferences" as it is implied in the post made by Xtrozero.

It's not just tied to CRA or the bailouts. Those were just examples of some of the many things that have failed under the Obama Administration.

President Obama intends to close "persistent gaps" between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.

His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on "disparate impact" complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.

Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.

Read more: nation.foxnews.com...

reply to post by GideonFaith

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Guess we're not there yet.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


You are correct, in today's legal system you do have to be clear. Although I feel you must draw the line somewhere.
Now if you were to ask the limitations of the negitive impact, that's one thing but to ask for the definition of negative impact is something else.
Generally it is those groups on the left that try to over analyze things. Mostly to get their way.
That is why legal documentation is so lengthy today.
Take the phrase "separation of church and state" for instance.
This phrase is not found in the constitution. It appeared ONCE in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Dunsbury (sp?) Babtist Church.
If one reads the constitution in context it is very clear this statement does not mean what many today try and make it mean, especially the ACLU. If further context was needed then the Federalist Papers should be consulted. What many people fail to realize is that the Constitution was written to protect the people, not necessarily the government.
The Constitution is a fairly short document, incredibly short compared to just one bill written by our government in this day and age.

reply to post by GideonFaith


The CRA Was originally passed n 1977, well before Obama's term. The bailout...I agree, but I fail to see the correlation between bailouts, banks and racial preferences.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by GideonFaith

 

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Guess we're not there yet.

I must agree Beez! In the America we are living in right now, I don't see it happening. Cause the government will not allow it!

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by GideonFaith

 

The CRA Was originally passed n 1977, well before Obama's term. The bailout...I agree, but I fail to see the correlation between bailouts, banks and racial preferences.

Ok, thanks for posting.

reply to post by GideonFaith


It's easier to manipulate if we are all divided. Be it race, gender, wealth, political ideology.

It's a damn shame.

reply to post by Quadrivium


How do we know the limitations if we do not know the definition?

Generally it is those groups on the left that try to over analyze things. Mostly to get their way. That is why legal documentation is so lengthy today.

This is a generalization and therefore hypocritical.

Take the phrase "separation of church and state" for instance. This phrase is not found in the constitution. It appeared ONCE in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Dunsbury (sp?) Babtist Church. If one reads the constitution in context it is very clear this statement does not mean what many today try and make it mean, especially the ACLU. If further context was needed then the Federalist Papers should be consulted. What many people fail to realize is that the Constitution was written to protect the people, not necessarily the government. The Constitution is a fairly short document, incredibly short compared to just one bill written by our government in this day and age.

We have the right to freedom of religion. Which means that I can choose to worship in any way I wish, as do you. If the Constitution was written to protect the people, and their freedom of religion, why would we believe that it is ok to implement religious ideology into our government?

That is also hypocritical.