Reply With Quote
She was hispanic and I asked her when she was hired. Nice try. She was just bum- ing-stupid. She could have NEVER made the test scores that whites had to make during the same time period to get in the civil service.
Yes
Yes
But the EEOC that was originally created didn't have any real power. Under le VII the EEOC originally only had the power to receive, investigate, and conciliate complaints where it found reasonable cause to believe that discrimination had occurred. Where EEOC was unsuccessful in conciliating the complaints, the statute provided only that individuals could bring private lawsuits, and where EEOC found evidence of "patterns or practices" of discrimination, EEOC could then refer such matters to the Department of Justice for litigation.
All the quotas came with later legislation and Executive over-reach.
She was hispanic and I asked her when she was hired. Nice try. She was just bum- ing-stupid. She could have NEVER made the test scores that whites had to make during the same time period to get in the civil service.
all i am saying is that conservatives more alligned to the tea party ideology are not ardent supporters of the civil rights act of 64.
this is from ron paul, one of the few real conservatives today:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Cons ution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
there are plenty of other conservative intellectuals who have posited the same stance.
You don't agree with that? You think racial quotas implemented almost 50 years ago created racial harmony and a color blind society?
Yeah, and they just won't say it because it's not popular to be against civil rights. We all know it's true though. Ron Paul is just saying what other TEA Baggers believe. He's not the exception, he's just dumb enough to actually say it.
Remember the Fireman case That Sonya Sotemayor ruled on that ultimately went to the Supreme Court and was overturned? THAT kind of racial harmony from quotas?
nice try but this is not about my opinion on quotas. it is about whether many tea party cons uents would have been against the civil rigts acts of 1964. i believe paul's message clearly states the belief that many tea party types would have opined back in the 60's. if you do the research you will see that this is the very argument, more or less, that was made against the act even back then.
anybody else question the timing of the attacks on the tea party? libs, and especially blacks shouldn't try and dillute the true meaning of someone being racist. Especially over an election season. this is political capital being spent.In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
I'll ing say it. Racial quotas are ing wrong. Go to school. Stay out of trouble. Study hard. Be a good solid citizen. Work hard. After that? May the best man win.
By definition quotas aren't color blind. Society should be and could be, but not as long as you have organizations on the left AND right stirring up.
I will say it too. reverse racism is still racist and wrong!! too bad liberals can't use common sense and courage.
You're not running for Congress though.I think that was his point.
The implicit message of racial quotas is:
You (pick your minority) are too stupid and lazy to compete with white applicants. We understand that. Don't worry. We know you are stupid and lazy. You don't even have to work as hard. We will take care of you.
Don't forget to vote for us this November!
It was.You're not running for Congress though.
How did this discussion become about quotas?
Are you for the 1964 Civil Rights Act or not?
He's a TEA Bagger, so of course he's not.
But somewhere down the line, he was raped by quotas. I don't know which quotas, but evidently quotas got him good.
Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
100% of voters have voted "Yes", that the TEA Party would have been against Civil Rights if it were around in 1964.
I can't say this is a surprise.
However, it's interesting to learn that apparently some TEA Baggers are against it even now.
DMX, this is about as accurate of a poll as one done by the msm
My guess is that they would not.
Robert "Sheets" Byrd (God rest his soul after a pretty stern talking to) was opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and I'd say he was about a far from being a Tea Party member as anyone in Congress.
Maybe CC and Yonivore get the instinct from the minicons over at NR. Lately, they mostly bow down or make sweet cooing noises wrt Civil Rights (circa 1965) over there, I'm not really sure why. WFB didn't bow down to it, but Jonah Goldberg seems to at times.
Your mom swallows my semen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
