tvc184

Opinions are great. Sometimes he puts out “facts” that might be a little short of the truth. I am sure that he would fall back on, well it’s what I heard.

No, because people laugh at him like they do Rodney.

Count me as shocked! 😉

I think it is perhaps finally getting to the point where the DNC either gently or forcefully if needed, will be seeking a change of course.

I have no problem with someone changing but it strangely seems to be a one way street. So this guy Byrd wasn’t just on the fringe of racism, he was a leader and a major recruiter. But heck, what was in the past doesn’t matter. You know, he is different now. So I looked at Wikipedia, hardly known for its conservative spin. It showed that he filibustered the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Byrd started renouncing his views on segregation in the 1970s. Then “by the early 2000s, he had completely renounced racism and segregation”. Yes that is a quote. Ancient history? The 1964 Civil Rights Act? In the 1970s decided that segregation was wrong? Not long before his death in 2010, he had completely renounced racism. Apparently any transgressions more that 10 years ago don’t count, you know, that is past history. Well, unless you are from the other side of the aisle…. Then it goes back 160 years. So do we count the past or only selectively?

Maybe but she always, you know, has done that and uhhhh…. doing that is why it is done, so by doing it, it will be done. Haha.. and uhh…..

There are reasons. Okay can you name the reasons? We could talk about it but there are reasons. Are they capable? Well yes but there are reasons. What are they? There are reasons…

If I understand the bill correctly, it’s still have to pass both houses and be signed by the governor. Then it has to pass a constitutional election this coming November.

From the Fourteenth Amendment: …nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Maybe they are usually a new rationale for “equal protection”. It seems obvious that using race, sex, national origin, religion, etc., as a determining factor in sentencing, should not even be debated as being constitutional. Just when you think that the insanity has run out of ideas…..

It sounds suspiciously like a violation of the 14th Amendment….

It’s just what we do. It is like looking at a lot of things that might be disturbing to many people. I think it is like some medical professions, members of the military in a war, etc. You knew it going in. Of course we have had people quit in training. I have arrested a teenager who admitted to sexually assaulting his 7 year old sister. I have arrested a man for continually doing it to his 12 year old step-daughter and then caught in the act. After he was in jail awaiting an indictment and trial, his wife (child’s mother) came to me and recanted her statement. I guess she didn’t want to lose her husband’s paycheck and that was more important than her daughter. Things like that are disturbing. The things we see…….

I don’t know if it’s true but on another sports forum I saw a comment that CNN recommended that people not watch this movie.

They are right here in the Golden Triangle. From personal experience….

The myths are the claimed myths. They draw no conclusions, only numbers. As an example, the federal government. They probably have the most minority hiring program available. Yet, it appears as though only 14% of federal officers are female. The article claims that law enforcement, firefighters, etc., are proof of discrimination. I found a couple of different websites that said 10% of police applicants were female on one site and 15% on another. Having taken part in administering police examinations over about a 20 years, I would generally agree with those statistics. So the article uses female officers as proof of a bias when in fact they simply aren’t applying. Even the federal government can’t seem to hire any more than the locals. It is so easy to look at those numbers without looking for the cause. They simply jump straight to a bias.

Yes, the article looks at outcomes and not causation.

Ii is always her response, with only a slight variation on wording.

Some people are stuck in 1865 and/or 1965 and they shall never progress any further.

What is there to say? A fool let his mouth runneth over and got caught. Cruz then put on the smack down.

The where did he get it from question reminds me…. About 30 years ago I had arrested a guy for Public Intoxication. After the arrest I found a little marijuana in his pocket and arrested him for that also. Public Intoxication is a class C misdemeanor so goes to city court and marijuana possession is at least a B misdemeanor and anything above a C has to go to the county or district courts run by the county. A class C carries a maximum penalty of a $500 fine. So the guy I arrested for Public Intoxication actually went to a trial in the city court. He decided to act as his own attorney and then took the witness stand in his own defense. The reason that in most situation is a lawyer does not want you to take the stand in your own defense is because you cannot refuse to answer a question. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t allow a person to make a statement from the stand but then refuse to answer questions from the prosecution. So the guy took the stand and gave his scenario of what happened. I guess you could say as his own attorney, he questioned himself. After he made his statement, the city prosecutor got his chance to ask questions. The judge had admonished the man that if he took the stand in his old defense, he couldn’t refuse to answer questions for the prosecution. So the city prosecutor ask him something like, you said you were not intoxicated but didn’t you have marijuana on you at the time? The defendant said yes. The prosecutor then asked, where did you get it? The defendant said, it’s none of your business. The judge then told the defendant something like, I told you that once you take the stand, you have to answer questions or make a legal objection as to why you should not have to answer it. So where did you get the marijuana? Defendant….. It’s none of your business either! Within about two seconds the judge slammed the gavel and said, Guilty, $500 fine… next case. And… he still had to go to trial for the marijuana possession. 😂

That is what I was talking about in a prior post. Being denied a test is discrimination under EEOC. Affirmative action is what happened at Beaumont PD maybe 25 years ago. Beaumont PD I believe had a three tier hiring process. I think (been so long ago) the three lists were, a Black person from the first list, a female of any race from the second list and then White males. A White male could not be hired until a Black person (or maybe or Hispanic), then a female were hired. In that particular case I (again) believe that a White male came out number one on the test scores but could not be hired unless two other minorities were hired in front of him. Apparently the other two lists could not hire at least two qualified minorities so the guy who came out number one (who was already an officer at a local agency) was denied being hired because he was automatically in the third list and not enough qualified persons from the first two lists were hired. He filed a federal lawsuit and I believe settled out of court for over 6 figures. BPD had to do away with their discriminatory hiring practice. Actually, what BPD did would be against state civil service law however the union agreed to it in order to settle their collective bargaining contract. That is affirmative action. The person who came out on top and with police experience was denied a job by affirmative action discrimination. It was still allowed in college admissions.

I believe what you keep referring to as Affirmative Action (AA) is actually the EEOC. That has not been overturned nor will it ever be. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is federal law to give the chance to take the test, be hired, be promotions, etc., regardless of race, age, sex, national origin, religion, etc. That law is still in full effect and was not challenged in this ruling. In other words, “employment opportunity” or the chance to compete. That is understandable and completely correct. I don’t think you could find a person in this forum who would advocate doing away with equal opportunity. That however is not AA. AA is not a chance to compete. AA gives special consideration usually based solely on race and sex. AA is taking a person of one race scoring a 75% on a hiring/admissions test and putting him/her above a person scoring 95% who is from the (apparently) wrong skin color. The Supreme Court has in this ruled only that entrance should not be based solely on race because that is discriminatory and unconstitutional under equal protection. Do you have an argument against the Supreme Court upholding the Fourteenth Amendment or will you simply rehash history that everyone is aware if?

How long are you going to relive history that cannot change as a justification for any grievance? You claim that many years ago your father scored the highest but would have been denied a job by race. Apparently you believe that the most qualified by score should be at the top of the list. That coincidentally is your solution through AA, deny other races who scored higher. So if it was wrong against your father, why is it the right thing to do now? How many people are now forced to the back of the bus? This is a quote from the last sentence in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment: “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Please point out why under the Constitution, which is what the Supreme Court ruled on, equal protection of the laws should allow a lower scoring student of one race to deny entry to a college for a higher scoring student of another race. See if you can do so without going back 60, 100 or 150 years ago.

I don’t know by numbers but going by the Postsecondary National Policy Institute (pnpi.org), it is 12.5%. According to a US government website, the percentages of people from 18-24 years of age who attend postsecondary education by race are. Asian 60% White 38% Black 37% Hispanic 33% American Indian 28% Mixed/2 or more races 35% If we include everyone in the listed races (although Hispanic is not a race) from 18-24 years of age, that is how many are enrolled in postsecondary education. So 38% of all White adults in that age range, are going to school. All Blacks combined are at 37% and so on.

Why, SF is not a guaranteed loss.

The choice always has been and always will be the lesser of evils, with a rare exception like the second term of Ronald Reagan.