Free Dating Site    

So we have one token black Presidential candidate and now all blacks have equal opportunity? What an idiotic conclusion to draw.

wasn't the goal to be color blind?

then, how is it that some guy is 'better' cause he has black blood?

Colorblind society? Excuse me, but when was the last time you were a minority? When was last time you were pulled over because you were in the 'wrong' neighborhood, driving the 'wrong' car? When was the last time you 'fit the description'?
When was the last time you went to an upscale department store and got followed around like a suspect? When was the last time your kid came home crying because someone called them , or spic, or wetback, or camel jockey, etc.? WHen was it?? YOu, and others like you, who have NEVER personally experienced reacism in this day and age really have some nerve to suggest we live in a colorblind society. WE do not. People in general are not as racist as they were in years past. The ones that are, usually keep their ideas to themselves...in public anyway. So, if you aren't a minority you might 'think' it doesn't exist. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's not there. I can agree that affirmative action needs to be revamped. Some of the policies that are implemented because of affirmative action are convoluted nonsense, that sometimes do more harm than good as is it pertains to race relations. But to say we live in a colorblind society is asinine! It kills me when people (non- minorities) spew drivel like this. We almost had a female president, and Oprah is like uber-rich. Women are CEO's, prominent doctors, lawyers,senators, and too many other viable, and important things to name. So by your logic, I suppose there is no sexism anymore because of the shining examples of some women who are successful right? So let's do away with separate bathrooms for the sexes. No more sexual harasment lawsiuts. Let's also get rid of sexual division in sports. See where I'm going w/ this? Sounds pretty stupid huh? Well that's what you, and others like you, sound when you imply we live in a 'colorblind society' as if it were just a given. Affirmative action was implemented to counterbalance the discriminatory practices of the white power structure of the time. Racism, made affirmative action necessary. Without racism, there'd be no need for affirmative action. We have as a society come a long way in terms of race relations, but in NO way is racism gone. Affirmative action practices in every arena shold be looked at, and revised to actually makes sense,and help do what it was designed to do.But sadly, as long as there is racism, ther will be a need for affirmative action, in some form or another.

I think it is very well documented that "race hustlers" like to cry racism , even if they need to fabricate injustice

Also , if YOU stand to benefit from A.A. rather than to suffer discrimination from AA , then , I don't think you can be counted on to be just or unbiased and to oppose it.

wasn't the goal to be color blind?


The goal of What? Affirmative Action? Actually, NO - it wasn't , isn't the goal, or ...
even the 'Premise' , of the policy.
Affirmative Action is , was created as a 'system of checks & balance'.

hmmmm, kinda like all the white people on here crying about how AA is causing an unfair advantage to people of color in the work force, collages ect.

YOU are just as biased your just on the other side of the spectrum.

The difference is one group CAN legally be discriminated against with no recourse based on their race, while the other can't and has legal remedies available should they feel this is the case.

The NBA! On the surface it looks like a bad example, but when you dig deeper it isn't so. Because folks also want the coaching ranks to match the playing ranks in percentage wise, not the general population. Same could be said for the NFL also.

There are instances where AA does work and is needed, but there are also other areas where all it does is deny better qualified people opportunities.

Show me a high paying field were there is systemic racism against white people.

Show me a high paying field were there is systemic racism against white people. By this I mean a measurable deficit in the caucasian population as a percentage of it's membership.

No Charles you show me where "systemic racism" against any protected group is still common today. The system allows racial discrimination agains one group and one group alone the caucasian (preferably mid-class and male). Equal outcome IS NOT equal opportunity.

High paying people typically aren't the ones who suffer discrimination, or if they do, they can afford a decent lawyer to fight for them. As difficult as it may be for limousine liberals to comprehend, not every white person is an ivy league millionaire

The difference is that on this subject I am the one who is LEGALLY the target of discrimination , something (apparently) that would not be of concern to YOU .

In fact , you are "special status" under AA ....correct ?

BTW ...how does it feel to be "special needs" ??

How are you LEGALLY the target of discrimination? What IS of concern to me is that people have been discriminated against for YEARSdue to race, and white people thought it was AOK but now that we feel there is an advantage that is not fair to us we whine like children.

How incredibly sexist of you. Is theis the new term for women? "special needs?" I wouldn't know how it feels. Like many many other women I worked my ass off to get into college and to get the job i currently have. I had to do the same exams as everyone else, male or female and I got my job because of my skills not simply because i am a women and they felt obligated to hire me. i find it amusing how you whined about how you are LEAGALLY the target of discrimination and then blatantly discriminated against women in the same paragraph.

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=8b38e8a9-f7de-460b-9bd7-723991e9d12e

White males need not apply

Internal e-mail reveals hiring ban at Public Works
Tom Blackwell , National Post
Published: Saturday, November 19, 2005

A major federal department has temporarily banned the hiring of able-bodied white men in an unusual move critics say could spark a backlash against the very disadvantaged groups it is meant to help.

Managers in the Public Works department must hire only visible minorities, women, aboriginals and the disabled, except with written permission from their superiors, David Marshall, the deputy minister, ordered in an e-mail circulated yesterday.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does allow some discrimination by government to aid groups it identifies as being disadvantaged, said Robb Macpherson, a labour lawyer with the firm McCarthy Tetrault.

However, that usually means implementing equity programs that promote the hiring of qualified people from those groups. The Public Works order appears to take the idea a step further, he said. "They are in effect cutting off a significant portion of the workforce from these opportunities," Mr. Macpherson said. "It sounds like a pretty extreme measure that they're contemplating."

Federal statistics for 2003-04 show that the representation of women, aboriginal people and the disabled in the government was actually greater than in the Canadian workforce as a whole.

Equal opportunity is obviously not actually equal, if outcomes for groups are widly divergent. The rest of your post is lame annecdote and I don't really give a damn.

I do know one thing, women used to have a hell of a lot harder time getting into university, Loony will tell you it was because of Tribalism though, because obviously it couldn't have been something systemic.