Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree'

Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

teamosil said:

It is illegal to give a less qualified person a job because of their race. In the small number of jobs where AA applies (government contractors and government jobs) all it says is that if the organization chooses to, they are permitted to hire an equally qualified applicant based on their race.

Click to expand...

Are you ****ting me? Do you really believe that any employer tells the job applicant and the employed staff "We are giving Mr. Jones this job, even though he is not qualified for it, because we need to have more black men in our department in order to meet corporate diversity goals and to prevent EEOC audits and long drawn out and expensive legal defenses against their Lawfare tactics."

Besides, in the economy as a whole whites are the ones getting jobs they're less qualified for. If a white person and black person apply for the same job with exactly the same resume, the white person gets the interview 2.4 times more often.

Click to expand...

You're like a broken record and you're making an ass of yourself. Resumes are not the sum total of qualifications. I linked to a study which looked at sector specific skills and found that they accounted for very little of the variance and that more could be explained by looking at general skills and IQ. Those fakes resumes didn't even touch on these factors.

Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

RiverDad said:

This is just Becker rehashed. If you are correct in your observation, then the problem solves itself. Irrational discriminators will be run out of business by employers who do not discriminate.

Click to expand...

What I've experienced with irrational discriminators is that the business they work in do less well, fail more often, than businesses that don't discriminate. (Ones that discriminate rationally do well, possibly better than ones that don't discriminate.) However, I've observed that the discriminatory staff easily find new positions at companies that don't yet discriminate. Companies fail, new ones start, but the people stay in their field and discrimination continues.

Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

RiverDad said:

Are you ****ting me? Do you really believe that any employer tells the job applicant and the employed staff "We are giving Mr. Jones this job, even though he is not qualified for it, because we need to have more black men in our department in order to meet corporate diversity goals and to prevent EEOC audits and long drawn out and expensive legal defenses against their Lawfare tactics."

Click to expand...

Not sure what your argument is. Are you claiming that employers illegally discriminate in favor of blacks? I'm sure that does happen, but as I have shown over and over and over, far, far, more of them illegally discriminate in favor of whites.

RiverDad said:

You're like a broken record and you're making an ass of yourself. Resumes are not the sum total of qualifications.

Click to expand...

I don't see what you think that has to do with anything... Sure, probably the people discriminating against blacks do so out of some gut instinct that black people are bad workers regardless of what it says on their resumes... Not sure how you think that is an argument for your side of the debate though...

RiverDad said:

I linked to a study which looked at sector specific skills and found that they accounted for very little of the variance and that more could be explained by looking at general skills and IQ.

Click to expand...

Again, that just looks at wages for people already hired. So, again, fail.

Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

apdst said:

None of the above, as I said already.

Click to expand...

Obviously that's just a nonsense answer... It has to be one of those three. There isn't any "none of the above" option... If you refuse to take a position I'm not sure how we can debate here...

MrVicchio said:

Isn't about time we moved past such vile, angry bull****?

Oh wait, I can't say that about the esteemed Rep. Carson, to criticize him, since I am a white male and tea partier, is racist.

Just reading that filthy dung heaps rant makes my stomach churn in disgust.

Click to expand...

This country is soooooo divided on sooooooooooo many levels. I dont know how we are going to continue being a union. I cant even watch Fox News anymore because it makes me ill. CNN is better but still it isnt PURE news. The vile disgusting words spewed on talk radio on BOTH sides is HORRIBLE. On the far Right... (ie Hannity) I get lies and hatred. On the far LEFT I get Ignorance and Childishness.

The politicians are self serving boneheads with low intelligence and a VERY high greed factor. Now I see more and MORE racist crap making our society just plain ugly. We have white collar crime growing, street crime in the news daily. Our economy erroding and close to zero compromise from either side of the aisle. Unemployment at 9.1% Black unemployment hovering around 20%. Kids in large cities that dont know how to spell.

Im finding myself more and more compelled to shut off the news. Its too depressing and I cant do a damn thing about it.

The Giant Noodle said:

This country is soooooo divided on sooooooooooo many levels. I dont know how we are going to continue being a union. I cant even watch Fox News anymore because it makes me ill. CNN is better but still it isnt PURE news. The vile disgusting words spewed on talk radio on BOTH sides is HORRIBLE. On the far Right... (ie Hannity) I get lies and hatred. On the far LEFT I get Ignorance and Childishness.

The politicians are self serving boneheads with low intelligence and a VERY high greed factor. Now I see more and MORE racist crap making our society just plain ugly. We have white collar crime growing, street crime in the news daily. Our economy erroding and close to zero compromise from either side of the aisle. Unemployment at 9.1% Black unemployment hovering around 20%. Kids in large cities that dont know how to spell.

Im finding myself more and more compelled to shut off the news. Its too depressing and I cant do a damn thing about it.

Click to expand...

Your tale is interesting. You fit the pattern of behavior that results from too much diversity in your environment. You're not alone. Disengagement is the expected response that researchers find as diversity increases. It's not just racial or ethnic diversity. In your case it's clearly too much ideological diversity, because people are becoming ever more tribal, that's leading to your disengagement.

RiverDad said:

Your tale is interesting. You fit the pattern of behavior that results from too much diversity in your environment. You're not alone. Disengagement is the expected response that researchers find as diversity increases. It's not just racial or ethnic diversity. In your case it's clearly too much ideological diversity, because people are becoming ever more tribal, that's leading to your disengagement.

Click to expand...

You're doing the binary thing again... That study showed that *some* people disengage when exposed to diversity. We call them "bigots" normally. That doesn't mean it is normal or acceptable, let alone some kind of blanket explanation for every frustration anybody feels...

RiverDad said:

Disengagement is the expected response that researchers find as diversity increases.

Click to expand...

This conclusion directly contradicts the history of the United States.

teamosil said:

You're doing the binary thing again... That study showed that *some* people disengage when exposed to diversity. We call them "bigots" normally. That doesn't mean it is normal or acceptable, let alone some kind of blanket explanation for every frustration anybody feels...

Click to expand...

"That study?" There have been a number of studies. Which study are you referring to and which study called such people bigots? Link it.

Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

teamosil said:

It doesn't have much to do with improving oneself. Blacks who are equally qualified to whites are the ones we're talking about. People who have already improved themselves and are still facing overwhelming discrimination.

Click to expand...

That's illegal.

Not sure what your point is. The study looked at jobs where you drop the resume off in person. Obviously at K-Mart or wherever, they see what race you are when they interview you, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The complaint was that they didn't get the interview.

Again, if a white person and a black person apply for the same job with the same resume, the white applicant is 2.4 times more likely to get an interview. Think about that. Imagine that 3/5 of the jobs you've gotten in your life you didn't get. Where would you be today? On welfare? A criminal? That is MASSIVE discrimination. Almost incomprehensibly massive. And it comes from an ultra credible study. It was done first by Northwestern University, then repeated by an entirely different group in a different city with the same results. The second time it was conducted by Princeton and Brown universities with Harvard and the National Science Foundation providing support. I frankly can't imagine what could possibly be more credible proof.

But, again, if you think you have superior evidence, lets see it. But if you have nothing, then maybe you need to rethink your assumptions.

Click to expand...

I don't believe it because as I said, that's illegal and would be very easy to prove. It's illegal. There are ramifications when this happens. Did they follow the studies up with answers as to why nobody enforced the law?

RiverDad said:

"That study?" There have been a number of studies. Which study are you referring to

Click to expand...

You're the one that is referring to the study(ies). I don't care which one.

RiverDad said:

and which study called such people bigots? Link it.

Click to expand...

Huh? No, the studies pointed out that some people dislike diversity and care less about people who are different than them. That's what a bigot it.

Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

1Perry said:

That's illegal.

Click to expand...

Yep. Hence the need for strict enforcement.

1Perry said:

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The complaint was that they didn't get the interview.

Click to expand...

So, you have no point? Just mentioning that the study's methodology wouldn't have worked if they had been studying Wal Mart?

1Perry said:

I don't believe it because as I said, that's illegal and would be very easy to prove. It's illegal. There are ramifications when this happens. Did they follow the studies up with answers as to why nobody enforced the law?

Click to expand...

Why would it be easy to prove? It's insanely hard to prove discrimination...

teamosil said:

You're the one that is referring to the study(ies). I don't care which one.

Click to expand...

So now you're critiquing studies that you know nothing about. Good job, Brownie.

RiverDad said:

Your tale is interesting. You fit the pattern of behavior that results from too much diversity in your environment. You're not alone. Disengagement is the expected response that researchers find as diversity increases. It's not just racial or ethnic diversity. In your case it's clearly too much ideological diversity, because people are becoming ever more tribal, that's leading to your disengagement.

Click to expand...

You can find reinforcement for your racist views in virtually anything, can't you?

My advice, if you are understandably sickened by the slanted "news" on cable TV, is to watch PBS news. It's as close as you will find to an actual newscast -- facts without spin.

Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

teamosil said:

Yep. Hence the need for strict enforcement.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with that.

So, you have no point? Just mentioning that the study's methodology wouldn't have worked if they had been studying Wal Mart?

Click to expand...

It doesn't work for any business of any account any more.

Why would it be easy to prove? It's insanely hard to prove discrimination...

Click to expand...

Hardly if as you say that whites were called for interviews with everything being equal nearly 2 and a half times as often as blacks. How tough would that have been to have shown?

Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

1Perry said:

I have no problem with that.

Click to expand...

Ok, then what are we debating about? There are two ways you can enforce the civil rights act. Option 1 is individual lawsuits. The problem with this approach is that it is almost impossible to prove in any but the most overt situations. Almost all cases where somebody wins the defendant admitted flat out that they were discriminating. Short of that how would anybody prove what was going on in their heads? The more realistic enforcement mechanism is affirmative action. It takes a statistical approach. The way it currently works is that government contractors and government offices need to report the percentages of people from various races they hire. If their numbers are way off, they are asked to provide an explanation. Usually the explanation is that they got fewer qualified applicants from the under-represented race. There is no investigation of their explanation usually. If they can't explain it or their explanation seems to be ridiculous then they are required to take steps to address the discrimination. Usually that means conducting a training for their hiring managers encouraging them not to discriminate. In theory, if a company refuses to take any steps to address it, it can go further to the point where they would lose government contracts and face a fine. To my knowledge, that has only happened once in US history. It was a big factory that built things for the government that had an explicit policy to only hire whites and refused to eliminate the policy...

So, not exactly strict enforcement at present. I would support strict enforcement. For example, I think we should ramp up the investigation of companies that are way out of whack with the norms for their industries and we should reduce the burden of proof for discrimination suits by allowing plaintiffs to use statistical evidence that a company has a history of not hiring members of their group. You say you don't have a problem with strict enforcement, but I suspect you aren't on board with that. Or are you?

1Perry said:

It doesn't work for any business of any account any more.

Click to expand...

Tons of jobs people apply by dropping off an application or resume. But regardless, I don't see how submitting it online would change anything, it would just mean they would be discriminated against in the interview instead of before the interview, but that doesn't help anybody. Maybe it would make it harder to study...

1Perry said:

Hardly if as you say that whites were called for interviews with everything being equal nearly 2 and a half times as often as blacks. How tough would that have been to have shown?

Click to expand...

In order to win a discrimination suit you need to prove that the individual who didn't hire you did it because of your race. If they just made a dumb decision or something, that isn't illegal. And, generally, you can't introduce statistics about past hiring tendencies. That's considered prejudicial and usually it is not allowed.

AdamT said:

My advice, if you are understandably sickened by the slanted "news" on cable TV, is to watch PBS news. It's as close as you will find to an actual newscast -- facts without spin.

Click to expand...

PBS is a basket case of bias, no better than NPR. Fox News is the least biased network on the air.

Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Grant said:

I agree that Blacks were at a disadvantage but Latinos? How so? Latinos at one time controlled much of what is the USA and they still have Mexico , Central America and South America. How are they at a disadvantage?

Click to expand...

Blacks dont have a disadvantage either lol, they have africa :roll:.

Of course it can't, and your statements verify that.

Click to expand...

Instead of trying to make sense of the senseless I will just say, yeah it's called racism, they don't know why it's still around.

What bias? Show where there is race based bias?

Click to expand...

It's actually why we have to make up for their lack of being hired, you see... the government didnt just make this up for no reason to oppress you so you could feel like a victim.

There are certainly problems in some Communities, Black, White and Latino, but that is more a cultural problem rather than anything race driven.

Click to expand...

Part of not having access to jobs is a problem that perpetuates their 'cultural' issue. =\

Nonsense. There have been many examples where people have gotten along despite racial differences.

Click to expand...

That doesn't address what I said. They don't get hired at the same rates having the same qualifications...

So employers should hire incompetent people to meet government quotas? Do you have any idea yet why businesses are moving out of the United States?

Click to expand...

Who said incompetent, I dont think your debating but attempting to scratch at anything that could be construed as an argument.

Are you still a racist after 45 years? Are those still the conditions in your State?

Click to expand...

Quack quack... you miss the point.





Shall I spell it out for everyone plan and simple.

There is an unexplained structural deficiency on the hiring of qualified minority members, it is being made up. I don't see whats so hard about this. I know racism is likely a shameful part of Americas past, but I don't see why you have to turn a blind eye to the fact its remnants are still around. Nobody is being an overt racist an not hiring. The people who dont hire blacks are likely not aware that they are contributing and prepetuating the problem.

And somehow creating racist organizations are? Now yes, why do we create laws if we have absolutely no intention of enforceing them? (I'm just argueing this, we do enforce them).
Do you not have to enforce these other "solutions"? Why would you not support legally enforcing our laws? Or is it really not about racism?

Click to expand...

I can tell you really think youre getting somewhere with this, you're not. If 150 million of 300 million are minority, do you seriously expect that if 10% of them who dont even get past an interview would actually have a case against someone who isnt an outright racist who tends to hire a lower ratio of minorities out of his selection of candidates subconsciously? Your solution is absurd, even if they could sue wed need to raise a dozen million more lawyers and thatd cause far more resentment if it actually played out to the degree of hiring disparity that exists.

Today by and large one is not able to tell the race of an applicant until they get an interview.

Click to expand...

Jobs ask for photos... also Jacquelyn Moesha Brown-Quincy Vs. Susy Blanche Vs. Anita Santa Maria de la Gudalajara on the application may tell you something.

Despite that- despite the fact that we are continuing to discriminate against blacks to a massive extent-
Total bull****.

Click to expand...

It is, they're conforming quite nicely to our societal norms nowadays. :roll:

Click to expand...

RiverDad said:

PBS is a basket case of bias, no better than NPR. Fox News is the least biased network on the air.

As for Dunn's complaint about Fox News' coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points.​

Click to expand...

You need to try college again... Firstly thats a measure of whitehouse coverage lean... for a brief period of time. Secondly, Fox is literally in bed with republicans, several of whom have worked for fox news. Who the **** are you kidding? Create an index of bias across multiple studies for multiple networks analysing the source references of the networks and language analysis when referring to candidates. If youre willing to do something actually useful with your time than give us snippets of us news... :roll: god.

RiverDad said:

PBS is a basket case of bias, no better than NPR. Fox News is the least biased network on the air.

As for Dunn's complaint about Fox News' coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points.​

Click to expand...

You've got to be joking. Fox is so far out on the right wing it flies in circles.

"Dr. Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA, has evaluated various media programs based on think tank citations to map liberal verses conservative slants. He has said that, based on his research, PBS NewsHour is the most centrist news program on television and the closest to a truly objective stance."

RiverDad said:

So now you're critiquing studies that you know nothing about. Good job, Brownie.

Click to expand...

You posted one earlier and we discussed it. At the time you didn't seem to deny that it just meant that some people disliked those who were different than them... That's the explicit finding you are presenting the studies as backing up, no?

MrVicchio said:

Isn't about time we moved past such vile, angry bull****?

Oh wait, I can't say that about the esteemed Rep. Carson, to criticize him, since I am a white male and tea partier, is racist.

Just reading that filthy dung heaps rant makes my stomach churn in disgust.

Click to expand...

If we do move past B/S this assh...'S loose all legitimacy and power, a shame as it is that these individuals are still around, just think how much farther we would be today. Bottom line is that they would no longer receive money or power.

SE102 said:

You need to try college again... Firstly thats a measure of whitehouse coverage lean... for a brief period of time. Secondly, Fox is literally in bed with republicans, several of whom have worked for fox news. Who the **** are you kidding? Create an index of bias across multiple studies for multiple networks analysing the source references of the networks and language analysis when referring to candidates. If youre willing to do something actually useful with your time than give us snippets of us news... :roll: god.

Click to expand...

There will be left bias and right bias. Nobody's ever been able to pull off centrist bias. that being the case, I'd rather see right bias than left bias, because we've seen how much damage progressives have managed to do since the '20's.

Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

theplaydrive said:

take that up with history. i'm just telling you what it is.

Click to expand...

no, you are repeating a common misconception.

and your version of "the actual historical balance of racial policy" is based on a false understanding of history.

Click to expand...

HAH. no, sadly, in fact, this is not correct. from eugenics, to the minimum wage, to anti-miscegenation laws, to Jim Crow, and so on and so forth, Democrats, have the actual balance for racism tilted in their "favor".

mind you, it's sort of a moot point. the fact remains that the notion that the Tea Party wants to bring back lynchings is a particularly ridiculous and vile smear. It's the Godwin's Law violation of racial politics.

AdamT said:

You've got to be joking. Fox is so far out on the right wing it flies in circles.

Click to expand...

News is different than commentary. Fox's news broadcasts are the least biased, as the analysis shows.

"Dr. Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA, has evaluated various media programs based on think tank citations to map liberal verses conservative slants. He has said that, based on his research, PBS NewsHour is the most centrist news program on television and the closest to a truly objective stance."

Click to expand...

I'll have to see the details of what he's found. I've always found that PBS exerts a bias by what it choses not to report. There are lies of commission and then there are lies of omission. Giving minor reporting to conservative issues and major reporting to liberal issues but making sure that the time spent on them is equal, doesn't equate to the least amount of bias.

Speaking of Dr. Tim Groseclose, he also noted this week, that: "According to Tim's data, without media bias most US states would vote more like Texas or Tennessee."