White Americans Are Biggest Terror Threat in U.S.: Study

[Denny Crane]

It's actually very true. Maris is right on this one. Went to a diversity conference and people from huge businesses talked about how they give bonuses to managers that hire and maintain a diverse workforce. So a lot of times they will hire a lesser qualified candidate if they are a minority because it gets them into bonus territory

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile.

 

[MarAzul]

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile.

I don't know! I found it extremely hard to follow the guide lines and hire anyone. The few Black people that would qualify, didn't want the job. The bar was set so high for the white kids, almost none could qualify.

 

[dviss1]

Now you're just throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks.

Having worked for the Feds for nearly 2 decades, I have an intricate knowledge of how AA works and who it benefits by discriminating on a massive scale against tens of millions of white applicants and employees, and doubly against white males.

To simplify, it's a points system.

White male = 0
white female = 1
non-white male = 1
non-white female = 2


As a rule, black women will be hired over anyone else, even if they have to be sent to school at taxpayer cost to train them for the job that they have no qualifications for even though many qualified white applicants are available. They are frequently promoted under the same conditions. Agencies receive budget "rewards" for attaining assigned AA hiring goals and personnel are often fired for not attaining AA goals.

He's not right:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

 

[blue32]

Interesting that we don't see this more in the media... http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/11/bunny_friend_park_shooting_sus_1.html


I have a pretty good guess as to why...

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

He's not right:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

Having sat in these actual discussions amongst recruiters of big business, I can tell you he is right

 

[MarAzul]

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

Yep, I buy this. It was damned hard to find a Black kid even with the lower GPA requirement and hardly ever one that wanted to work at IBM. But the affirmative -action recruiting did not
help women directly, it help them in the sense that it left more jobs open due to the excessive GPA requirement for White kids When the white kid with a GPA higher than the AA bar was found, it was more often than not a young woman. Ha! Funny, my own daughter came in this way, with a GPA of 3.9+ from UC Berkley after being pushed aside because of AA in getting into Stanford.

I have always felt this was a program of unanticipated consequences, one of which was contributing to IBM falling from the position of being the dominate top technology company in the world. Falling far too, hardly in contention.

 

[MarAzul]

Let's see, dviss says all white people benefit from the labor of the black people.
Well let's look at it another way. The majority of the Black people in Oregon, came here or their ancestors did, to work in the shipyards of Portland during WWII. Just a guess but odds are
dviss has this connection too. But no matter, most Black people in Oregon do.
They got jobs building Ships, payed quite well too. Now who were their customers? The Navy guys taking those ships into harms way, that's who. They died in the hundreds of thousand too.
I know some, do you? How much reparations do the decedents of these men owe? Or is the debt owed in the other direction?

 

[dviss1]

Having sat in these actual discussions amongst recruiters of big business, I can tell you he is right

Look at the study. The end result is white women disproportionately benefiting more from affirmative action than black people.

 

[dviss1]

Interesting that we don't see this more in the media... http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/11/bunny_friend_park_shooting_sus_1.html


I have a pretty good guess as to why...

What's your guess? You should also guess as to why no one heard about the 147 people who were killed at the school in Kenya by the terrorist attack. What's your guess on that?

 

[MarAzul]

What's your guess? You should also guess as to why no one heard about the 147 people who were killed at the school in Kenya by the terrorist attack. What's your guess on that?

Heh?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/africa/kenya-university-attack/

 

[MarAzul]

Did you know, a white man died in the civil war at the rate of 1 for every 4 slaves freed? It was probably the biggest sacrifice in freeing people in the history of the world.
The most costly in life for this country of any war by far.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

The "terrorists" are either mentally ill or über religious.

Same thing when you think about it.

oO

 

[blue32]

What's your guess? You should also guess as to why no one heard about the 147 people who were killed at the school in Kenya by the terrorist attack. What's your guess on that?

My guess on why nobody is giving a shit about the shooting in the park? Easy. It does not fit the fucking agenda that is rolling through the nation right now. Oh how the BLM movement (among others) would hate to see "black people" shoot up a park which had hundreds of innocent people in it, and damn the "white people" if they start raging publicly about "black people" shooting at innocents, white people can't do that because then they're labeled as racist.


The Kenya thing? I heard about it, it was on the major news outlets. Not sure what you're reaching at there.

 

[blue32]

Did you know, a white man died in the civil war at the rate of 1 for every 4 slaves freed? It was probably the biggest sacrifice in freeing people in the history of the world.
The most costly in life for this country of any war by far.

I'm sure there are people that will say that it doesn't count for shit. /shrug its a never ending, circular argument of steaming bullshit.

Most Black people forever will want reparations from white people for being enslaved. Even though that is how the world worked back then, not just in America.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Look at the study. The end result is white women disproportionately benefiting more from affirmative action than black people.

The study has data from 1995. I'm telling you in the past three years when I've been In these seminars and events with big business recruiters what they are focusing on. They want to hire minorities over white people in order to increase management bonuses.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Ideologues of any stripe, creed or color are the biggest terrorist threat. Own it.

 

[MarAzul]

Ideologues of any stripe, creed or color are the biggest terrorist threat. Own it.

No sir! I think you own that pearl.

 

[Sedatedfork]

Did you know, a white man died in the civil war at the rate of 1 for every 4 slaves freed? It was probably the biggest sacrifice in freeing people in the history of the world.
The most costly in life for this country of any war by far.

Does this include those that died who wanted to maintain slavery? I don't think that would qualify as a sacrifice to free people.

 

[MarAzul]

Does this include those that died who wanted to maintain slavery? I don't think that would qualify as a sacrifice to free people.

There were only about 385,000 slave holders (owners) in the country. The number includes the the black slave holders. One of the largest slave holders was a Black in Louisiana. This number also
includes the slave holders that were not residents of Confederate states.

 

[Sedatedfork]

There were only about 385,000 slave holders (owners) in the country. The number includes the the black slave holders. One of the largest slave holders was a Black in Louisiana. This number also
includes the slave holders that were not residents of Confederate states.

That sounds interesting. I had never heard or known about black slave holders, but a little googling confirms it. You learn something new every day.

 

[barfo]

There were only about 385,000 slave holders (owners) in the country. The number includes the the black slave holders. One of the largest slave holders was a Black in Louisiana. This number also
includes the slave holders that were not residents of Confederate states.

Nevertheless, the confederate soldiers were not fighting to end slavery.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Nevertheless, the confederate soldiers were not fighting to end slavery.

barfo

The union soldiers weren't either. They were fighting to preserve the union. A house divided upon itself cannot stand, and all that.

The emancipation proclamation was made 3 years into the war.

 

[MarAzul]

Nevertheless, the confederate soldiers were not fighting to end slavery.

barfo

emancipation proclamation

Only about 4% of the population in the south owned a slave. You don't really think those poor bastard in army were fighting to retain slavery do you?
Mr. Lincoln made his war about freeing the Slave on January 1, 1863. He could have purchased the slaves in the Confederate states for about 750 million dollars (going market value), but instead he chose warfare. With this plan he lead the way to getting 620,000 men killed and close to that many wounded. Probably another 400,000 civilian casualties. While the carnage is bad enough, he spent around 3 billion dollars waging the most bloody war this nation has yet to see. The 3 billion is around four times the market value of the slaves he freed.

Hell, even Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil". Jefferson tried to end it, not many sane men were actually in favor of it, and damn few citizens owned a slave.

Lincoln may have ended it, but he made the American people pay and then pay even more. History does not do justice by this man.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

This thread is the exact opposite of jinx's "we're better this year" junk.

Keep it going fellas.

 

[barfo]

Only about 4% of the population in the south owned a slave. You don't really think those poor bastard in army were fighting to retain slavery do you?

As much as any soldiers can be said to be fighting for the political cause that caused their side to go to war, yes.

Mr. Lincoln made his war about freeing the Slave on January 1, 1863. He could have purchased the slaves in the Confederate states for about 750 million dollars (going market value), but instead he chose warfare.

Pretty sure it was the south that fired the first shots. And the idea that the slaves were all for sale is really pretty ridiculous.

With this plan he lead the way to getting 620,000 men killed and close to that many wounded. Probably another 400,000 civilian casualties. While the carnage is bad enough, he spent around 3 billion dollars waging the most bloody war this nation has yet to see. The 3 billion is around four times the market value of the slaves he freed.

Typical fucking Republican, huh? Always starting unnecessary wars.

Hell, even Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil". Jefferson tried to end it, not many sane men were actually in favor of it, and damn few citizens owned a slave.

Of course, Jefferson was a slave owner, so...

Lincoln may have ended it, but he made the American people pay and then pay even more. History does not do justice by this man.

What history have you been reading? Texas textbooks?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually barfo, if it was the Democrats that fired the first shot, it wouldn't be Lincoln who started some unnecessary war. And from the Civil War through Desert Storm, all the wars were started by Democrats.

Only two republicans started wars, both named Bush.

 

[MarAzul]

What history have you been reading?

All of it.

The Supreme Court as issued the opinion that the start of the Civil War began with the Blockade of Charleston and the southern ports.
This order, the Blockade Proclamation was issued on April 19th 1861, by Lincoln.
Under international law and maritime law, a Blockade is an act of war. Not only did Lincoln officially begin this carnage, he did so without Congressional authorization for war.
Thus the newly inaugurated President began a series of actions prohibited in the Constitution.

 

[barfo]

Actually barfo, if it was the Democrats that fired the first shot, it wouldn't be Lincoln who started some unnecessary war.

And if my aunt had balls she'd be SlyPokerDog. So what?

The Supreme Court as issued the opinion that the start of the Civil War began with the Blockade of Charleston and the southern ports.
This order, the Blockade Proclamation was issued on April 19th 1861, by Lincoln.
Under international law and maritime law, a Blockade is an act of war. Not only did Lincoln officially begin this carnage, he did so without Congressional authorization for war.
Thus the newly inaugurated President began a series of actions prohibited in the Constitution.

Your history needs some brushing up. What you wrote is not correct. The supreme court ruled that the blockade was legal because the US was already effectively at war, because of the confederate attack on Fort Sumpter, which happened a week prior to the blockade order.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Actually barfo, if it was the Democrats that fired the first shot, it wouldn't be Lincoln who started some unnecessary war. And from the Civil War through Desert Storm, all the wars were started by Democrats.

Only two republicans started wars, both named Bush.

Granada!

 

[MarAzul]

And if my aunt had balls she'd be SlyPokerDog. So what?



Your history needs some brushing up. What you wrote is not correct. The supreme court ruled that the blockade was legal because the US was already effectively at war, because of the confederate attack on Fort Sumpter, which happened a week prior to the blockade order.

barfo

Can't be.

South Carolina seceded from the Union in December 1860. (not an act of war)

South Carolina fire on Fort Sumter April 12. All other Union force had left the South but Sumter which was interfering with Shipping. ( Not an act of war to eject foreigners from your territory)

Lincoln issues a proclamation of insurrection April 15 1861. He very carefully uses the term "insurrection" to avoid acknowledging the Confederate States. So by Lincoln intended use of the term he is not at war because he does not recognize them as a sovereign nation. The South is not at war, they are just ejection foreigners for their territory.

April 19, Lincoln changes direction and issues the Blockade Proclamation and does the act, the first act of war. This act also notified the world that he recognized the Confederacy as a Nation at war with the United States. The whole world recognizes a blockade as an act of war. Now the Brits and the French begin to trade with the Confederate States.