BAN ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION backed by Supreme Court!

[UncleBeer 244]

What's the matter? CNN is not credible enough for you?

Lessee: that's the network that refused to cover Leland Yee for two weeks; the gun-control crazy Democrat state senator from CA, who was selling RPGs and automatic weapons to jihadists, with charges of bribery to boot. CNN claimed though that they don't cover "local politics" (which is why they ditched the story), while that's clearly not true.

This is your "credible source"?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Lessee: that's the network that refused to cover Leland Yee for two weeks; the gun-control crazy Democrat state senator from CA, who was selling RPGs and automatic weapons to jihadists, with charges of bribery to boot. CNN claimed though that they don't cover "local politics" (which is why they ditched the story), while that's clearly not true.

This is your "credible source"?

Does a report from Princeton count?

http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf

Princeton sociologist Devah Pager sent out job applicants with fictitious resumes and found that those with criminal histories received one-half to one-third the number of callbacks for similar kinds of entry-level positions. Black applicants were even less likely than white applicants to get a job interview even when they had the same criminal histories, Pager found.

So, what does it take?

[UncleBeer 244]

Does a report from Princeton count?

Not if the study's from Northwestern. Can you read?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Not if the study's from Northwestern. Can you read?

Princeton released the study. So I ask again, what's credible?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Princeton released the study. So I ask again, what's credible?

Anything that will support his point of view. Anything that will invalidate his point of view is not credible. Should be simple enough.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Anything that will support his point of view. Anything that will invalidate his point of view is not credible. Should be simple enough.

Understood. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Understood. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Any time. That's what I'm here for.

[Danno 1,228]

Does a report from Princeton count?

http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf

Black applicants were even less likely than white applicants to get a job interview even when they had the same criminal histories, Pager found.

We already took that study apart before, we showed the extremist who headed it up... the very limited size of the research pool and the inconclusive claims made.

Yet that study is your best bud for some reason.

Of all the research done over the years that would love to make the same claim.... why is that the only one that stands out with those results?

[UncleBeer 244]

Understood. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

The lefties here are stupefyingly one-dimensional.

[Danno 1,228]

What? It should be used to hiring and college. People should be able to compete REGARDLESS of color for ANYTHING. Jobs, education, etc.

My skin color or name should not be considered when applying for ANYTHING!

Again the state has an obligation to treat all people the same, you operating your own business should not have the boot of Gov't on your neck controlling who you hire. It is your property and your investment.

If we are not free to choose our associations we are not free at all.

You can't say you are non-violent and then use the force of law to make people do what you want..... you are simply hiring out the violence.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We already took that study apart before, we showed the extremist who headed it up... the very limited size of the research pool and the inconclusive claims made.

Yet that study is your best bud for some reason.

Of all the research done over the years that would love to make the same claim.... why is that the only one that stands out with those results?

Yes, Danno, that's it. You debunked a published scientific paper from Princeton.

You should really make an appointment and yourself checked out. I'm a bit worried about you.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Danno 1,228]

Yes, Danno, that's it. You debunked a published scientific paper from Princeton.

You should really make an appointment and yourself checked out. I'm a bit worried about you.

I appreciate your concern for me, if I should need to talk, are you there for me?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

We already took that study apart before, we showed the extremist who headed it up... the very limited size of the research pool and the inconclusive claims made.

Yet that study is your best bud for some reason.

Of all the research done over the years that would love to make the same claim.... why is that the only one that stands out with those results?

Actually there have been plenty of studies on the subject:

https://www.princeton.edu/~pager/ASR_pager_etal09.pdf Different article

Decades of racial progress have led some researchers and policymakers to doubt that

discrimination remains an important cause of economic inequality. To study

contemporary discrimination, we conducted a field experiment in the low-wage labor

market of New York City, recruiting white, black, and Latino job applicants who were

matched on demographic characteristics and interpersonal skills. These applicants were

given equivalent résumés and sent to apply in tandem for hundreds of entry-level jobs.

Our results show that black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to

receive a callback or job offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean

backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison. Additional

qualitative evidence from our applicants’ experiences further illustrates the multiple

points at which employment trajectories can be deflected by various forms of racial bias.

These results point to the subtle yet systematic forms of discrimination that continue to

shape employment opportunities for low-wage workers.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/06/2411761/fifty-years-march-washington/

Black Americans also just can’t get hired. Though the country has supposedly implemented the fair employment practices that the March on Washington protesters demanded, in reality, employers often hire friends and acquaintances who tend to be the same race as them, reinforcing segregated office places. Systemic poverty and police force bias have also led to massive incarceration of black men, leading to one out of every eight with a felony charge. It’s incredibly difficult in America to be hired as a felon. Yet perversely, employers on the whole prefer to hire white felons over black men with no criminal record.

Or are we going to debunk anything that shows there's a clear bias against people of color?

[Darnell 8,479]

What? It should be used to hiring and college. People should be able to compete REGARDLESS of color for ANYTHING. Jobs, education, etc.

My skin color or name should not be considered when applying for ANYTHING!

Hang on a mo -

affirmative action had it's time and place.

IMO (and others) it's outlived it's useful lifespan.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Again the state has an obligation to treat all people the same, you operating your own business should not have the boot of Gov't on your neck controlling who you hire. It is your property and your investment.

If we are not free to choose our associations we are not free at all.

You can't say you are non-violent and then use the force of law to make people do what you want..... you are simply hiring out the violence.

As a human being you should want to treat all people the same and equal, unless you are not human?