City Forced To Lower Police Testing Standards Because Not Enough Blacks Passed
- Thread starter rc8222
- Start date
Have a good day Lucrum. A little comic relief.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uOSuhxFo76o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
That's a different issue. Let's say there's no medical necessity. Should the owner of the burger place be able to deny service or not and why?
Quote from RCG Trader:
If I am diabetic, and my blood sugar is dropping, and you are the first place I come to after I realize what is happening to me, and I have the money, you have to serve me my burger!
Food is a basic good which you are trying to deny, which could impact my life, which is a basic right under the constitution, which is federally protected.
I WANT MY BURGER, and no mayo, I am allergic
He should not, because he is not a medical professional and does not know whether or not that person HAS to eat. It is a denial of a basic service, plain and simple.
Now if that person sold Rolex watches, fine. Whatever. I will go find someone less stupid than he, but any business that has an impact on the distribution of food, clothing, shelter, or travel, cannot be allowed to discriminate. Amazing that we are having this discussion.
So, by your logic, if a person can not pay for the burger, then the burger vendor should have to render him the burger too... WTF
Even back during jim crow, black people managed to find a way to eat, and buy gasoline. Hence, simply giving business owners back their right to contract, and freedom of association would not prevent black people from eating or getting gasoline. How dumb. I can't believe you actually went there. What a failure of a rebuttal
Even back during jim crow, black people managed to find a way to eat, and buy gasoline. Hence, simply giving business owners back their right to contract, and freedom of association would not prevent black people from eating or getting gasoline. How dumb. I can't believe you actually went there. What a failure of a rebuttal
There is an underlying assumption in much of the civil rights rhetoric that I think would be insulting to any intelligent or ambitious black person. The notion is that Blacks are unable to open their own businesses, build their own communities, have their own, black owned diners, etc. Today we have the notion that blacks can't do much of anything in life without special favors and handouts from whites. Rather than go to a black owned diner, they need mighty whitey to reserve a spot between two honkey's for him. Is this really true?
The entire retoric is based on the idea that blacks will be shut out from every good thing in life if mighty whitey does not make room for him at the world famous "lunch counter".
The notion that blacks should be supporting their own kind and helping to build their own communities is completely absent, when in fact this is how most all ethnic groups first succeeded in the united states, aside from the original settlers who had to make the country in the first place.
We are spoon fed the notion that all people have an absolute right to sit in any lunch counter in the world, as if that is the most important thing in the entire world. What is funny is the way the media obsesses over these historic, "astro-turf" events (staged by leftists for publicity) yet no one mentions a peep about the black crime problem. The reason some whites do not want blacks around has everything to do with behavior (including culture/manners) and nothing to do with the great boogyman of "skin color". Facts are facts.
Supposedly if I live in Japan, I should barge into the "no Gaijin" restaurant and demand a space at the counter as my god given right.
Did you know that (some) traditional Japanese consider white people vulgar, crude, and dirty? Well, good for them. If they have some standards I see no reason why I should violate them.
If blacks wanted a no honkey zone, I think it would be wonderful. In my opinion more blacks should develop their own sense of pride and place, free from the notion that the only thing of value they have can do is, "break into mighty whitey's world".
I used to read allot of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams in college. One thing they tend to stress is that blacks were rapidly improving in the pre-civil rights era. They speak of a black community that had pride in place, and was in fact building businesses and creating community.
Today, we see far to little of this. We have civil rights hucksters and unfortunately all too many mainstream blacks thinking the only way blacks can succeed is by riding on whites coat tales and bitching about things that happened 150 years ago in order to get handouts and goodies. Get some freaking pride!
The entire retoric is based on the idea that blacks will be shut out from every good thing in life if mighty whitey does not make room for him at the world famous "lunch counter".
The notion that blacks should be supporting their own kind and helping to build their own communities is completely absent, when in fact this is how most all ethnic groups first succeeded in the united states, aside from the original settlers who had to make the country in the first place.
We are spoon fed the notion that all people have an absolute right to sit in any lunch counter in the world, as if that is the most important thing in the entire world. What is funny is the way the media obsesses over these historic, "astro-turf" events (staged by leftists for publicity) yet no one mentions a peep about the black crime problem. The reason some whites do not want blacks around has everything to do with behavior (including culture/manners) and nothing to do with the great boogyman of "skin color". Facts are facts.
Supposedly if I live in Japan, I should barge into the "no Gaijin" restaurant and demand a space at the counter as my god given right.
Did you know that (some) traditional Japanese consider white people vulgar, crude, and dirty? Well, good for them. If they have some standards I see no reason why I should violate them.
If blacks wanted a no honkey zone, I think it would be wonderful. In my opinion more blacks should develop their own sense of pride and place, free from the notion that the only thing of value they have can do is, "break into mighty whitey's world".
I used to read allot of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams in college. One thing they tend to stress is that blacks were rapidly improving in the pre-civil rights era. They speak of a black community that had pride in place, and was in fact building businesses and creating community.
Today, we see far to little of this. We have civil rights hucksters and unfortunately all too many mainstream blacks thinking the only way blacks can succeed is by riding on whites coat tales and bitching about things that happened 150 years ago in order to get handouts and goodies. Get some freaking pride!
Exactly. The leftist "egalitarian" school acts like we want to throw on hoods and kill black people. The fact is, it would make most of us would be quite pleased to not have to protect our love ones from black crime. We'd love nothing more than to not have friends and loved ones be raped, robbed, murdered, by blacks. We'd love to not have to move out of the cities which we built over centuries, just for our safety and prosperity. We'd love to not have to pick up the tab for small minority groups which are continually impoverished, and committing all kinds of horrific violent crime at several multiples of the white and asian rates. We'd love to not have our cities which were forged over centuries turned into 3rd world dumps, so that we feel the need to vacate them. We'd love to not have our personal freedoms taken, bit by bit, justified by high rates of crime, committed disproportionately by other groups; yet the rules must apply to everyone equally hence we loose liberty too. We'd love to not be subjected to the suffering that being exposed to these parasitic elements entails. Of course the logical fallacy is that we "hate" people because of their "skin color", or simply because they are non whites. Yet, you hear dramatically less bitching about east asians, ever wonder why that could be?
Despite the fact that minority on white crime happens at 1200% the rate of white on minority crime, and that there is rampant systemic discrimination against whites in the favor of nonwhites, despite the fact that the single biggest indicator for crime in a given area is what % of the population is black or hispanic, despite all these hard, quantitative facts people will tell you that the only reason whites would want to reside away from certain minorities must only be because of "hate". God forbid you want to prevent your daughter from getting gang raped, or your son getting shot for his sneakers, or your mother from being robbed and beaten, and take the most mathematically valid approach to avoiding those outcomes. God forbid you are saddened by seeing the grand cities that your forefathers built slowly being turned into 3rd world dumps. This sentiment could only occur as a result of "hate" because of "skin color". Despite the fact that forcible integration measures have been taken and discrimination policies which favor non whites have been instituted, to the tune of 4% of GDP, largely out of the pockets of white tax payers, the conditions have continued to deteriorate.
Ever notice how we didn't ever seem to need any drug laws until the 50s? Ever notice how personal freedom and privacy seem to be infinitely more sacred in America before the 60s? Ever wonder why Canada, just right next door delivers far more personal freedom and is infinitely better at respecting personal privacy, has better education despite sharing a highly similar culture, and geography? Hmmm, I wonder why this could be....
If you want to take the most statistically valid measure to protect yourself from violent crimes and sexual assaults, if you are saddened by the cities your forefathers built gradually being turned into violent, unsafe 3rd world dumps, if you are upset by your schools being turned to shit, if you are dismayed by standards of competency and education being lowered, if you are resentful towards the shrinking civil liberties and respect for privacy, if you want the admission and aid to go to the best student, or the job to the most qualified , REGARDLESS of race, then you are a "racist", and hate people because of their "skin color". If that's not the biggest left wing spin job fail in history, I don't know what is.
Despite the fact that minority on white crime happens at 1200% the rate of white on minority crime, and that there is rampant systemic discrimination against whites in the favor of nonwhites, despite the fact that the single biggest indicator for crime in a given area is what % of the population is black or hispanic, despite all these hard, quantitative facts people will tell you that the only reason whites would want to reside away from certain minorities must only be because of "hate". God forbid you want to prevent your daughter from getting gang raped, or your son getting shot for his sneakers, or your mother from being robbed and beaten, and take the most mathematically valid approach to avoiding those outcomes. God forbid you are saddened by seeing the grand cities that your forefathers built slowly being turned into 3rd world dumps. This sentiment could only occur as a result of "hate" because of "skin color". Despite the fact that forcible integration measures have been taken and discrimination policies which favor non whites have been instituted, to the tune of 4% of GDP, largely out of the pockets of white tax payers, the conditions have continued to deteriorate.
Ever notice how we didn't ever seem to need any drug laws until the 50s? Ever notice how personal freedom and privacy seem to be infinitely more sacred in America before the 60s? Ever wonder why Canada, just right next door delivers far more personal freedom and is infinitely better at respecting personal privacy, has better education despite sharing a highly similar culture, and geography? Hmmm, I wonder why this could be....
If you want to take the most statistically valid measure to protect yourself from violent crimes and sexual assaults, if you are saddened by the cities your forefathers built gradually being turned into violent, unsafe 3rd world dumps, if you are upset by your schools being turned to shit, if you are dismayed by standards of competency and education being lowered, if you are resentful towards the shrinking civil liberties and respect for privacy, if you want the admission and aid to go to the best student, or the job to the most qualified , REGARDLESS of race, then you are a "racist", and hate people because of their "skin color". If that's not the biggest left wing spin job fail in history, I don't know what is.
I guess that I am going to have to disagree with you Libertarians who say that business owners (who serve the publice) should be able to deny service to customers based on their race. I always thought that I was more of a Libertarian than anything else, but I guess not.
I have to admit that nothing in the constitution grants the right to eat a burger at a specific lunch counter. However, I do think that local govts, state govts and the Federal govt can exercise powers to regulate commerce. Governmental bodies need the power to license businesses in order to promote commerce, as well as to regulate community behavior. This is what keeps someone from opening a brothel, or gambling hall right in your neighborhood. This is what keeps some streetwalker from walking down the street in front of your kids with a sign that says "Pussy for Sale". Without rules governing businesses and their customer practices, chaos would eventually ensue and the US would become weaker and further divided.
Now during the "Jim Crow" era the primary races, in the United States, were blacks and whites. Allowing private businesses to serve only the races they wanted was a much more workable situation back then...prior to so many other racial groups coming into the country. Even so it was a very negative practice for all involved. Whites who wanted to serve everyone were often prevented from doing so because they would face reprecussions from other whites. Once the US became deeply involved in fighting the USSR, many politicans were worried about seperate Americas weaking the nation's overall strength. The politicans and the public as a whole decided that it was more important to start unifying the nation than it was to allow the local burger joint to have "whites only" signs up. Of course for some, being able to racially discriminate is their ultimate goal in life, but the nation as a whole made a choice to go in a different direction.
It would be interesting to see if those of you who support the idea that private businesses should have the right to serve only the groups they want to...would still have it if you had to travel to Southern California with your families and could not get service at a Mexican restaurant, or get gas at the Korean service station. How would you feel if your children were unable to buy a toy they wanted or candy at certain stores because that was for Vietnamese only? Back during the 1930's, 40's and 50s most whites probably did not have a desire to go to black owned businesses, so many of them that lived in the South did not have a problem with Jim Crow. Whites did not feel like they were missing out on anything. Do you think they would feel the same way if they constantly encountered signs all over major cities (for private businesses) that said "No Whites"? How might your children feel about that?
Under the current laws you can create a bar or restaurant that serves only members of a private club or association, and that would effectively keep non-whites from eating at your business, but it would harm you with the wider white population. I am willing to bet that if you opened up a business in places like Montanta you would not have to be burdened with a lot of black people patronizing it. Hell, if you called it KKK Burgers and Fries you could open it up almost anywhere and be assured that most of your customers would be white.
I have to admit that nothing in the constitution grants the right to eat a burger at a specific lunch counter. However, I do think that local govts, state govts and the Federal govt can exercise powers to regulate commerce. Governmental bodies need the power to license businesses in order to promote commerce, as well as to regulate community behavior. This is what keeps someone from opening a brothel, or gambling hall right in your neighborhood. This is what keeps some streetwalker from walking down the street in front of your kids with a sign that says "Pussy for Sale". Without rules governing businesses and their customer practices, chaos would eventually ensue and the US would become weaker and further divided.
Now during the "Jim Crow" era the primary races, in the United States, were blacks and whites. Allowing private businesses to serve only the races they wanted was a much more workable situation back then...prior to so many other racial groups coming into the country. Even so it was a very negative practice for all involved. Whites who wanted to serve everyone were often prevented from doing so because they would face reprecussions from other whites. Once the US became deeply involved in fighting the USSR, many politicans were worried about seperate Americas weaking the nation's overall strength. The politicans and the public as a whole decided that it was more important to start unifying the nation than it was to allow the local burger joint to have "whites only" signs up. Of course for some, being able to racially discriminate is their ultimate goal in life, but the nation as a whole made a choice to go in a different direction.
It would be interesting to see if those of you who support the idea that private businesses should have the right to serve only the groups they want to...would still have it if you had to travel to Southern California with your families and could not get service at a Mexican restaurant, or get gas at the Korean service station. How would you feel if your children were unable to buy a toy they wanted or candy at certain stores because that was for Vietnamese only? Back during the 1930's, 40's and 50s most whites probably did not have a desire to go to black owned businesses, so many of them that lived in the South did not have a problem with Jim Crow. Whites did not feel like they were missing out on anything. Do you think they would feel the same way if they constantly encountered signs all over major cities (for private businesses) that said "No Whites"? How might your children feel about that?
Under the current laws you can create a bar or restaurant that serves only members of a private club or association, and that would effectively keep non-whites from eating at your business, but it would harm you with the wider white population. I am willing to bet that if you opened up a business in places like Montanta you would not have to be burdened with a lot of black people patronizing it. Hell, if you called it KKK Burgers and Fries you could open it up almost anywhere and be assured that most of your customers would be white.
Well, at least you can admit that the regulations on race are unconstitutional.
Since many businesses are large corporations, it's pretty stupid to think that any group would be excluded from having access to any particular product, particularly staple products; gas, food, clothing, etc. Add to that the advent of e-commerce and we can quickly see how stupid and inconceivable this notion becomes.
Many people are "libertarians" except for when it comes to an infringement that suits their personal views. Be it drugs, abortion, race, homosexuality, whatever. The fact is that as a libertarian, you must swallow the fact that different people have different views, and they are entitled to those views, and to act upon those views so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Not being able to sit at any particular "lunch counter" or shop at any particular (privately owned) store, is not a constitutional right. Abolishment of any discrimination whatsoever in any public venue or organization is absolutely constitutional. The only public discrimination we currently have is against euro americans- white people, "my people". Said discrimination is every bit as unconstitutional as Jim Crow was, yet any challenge to it is slandered as "racist".
Wanting to end discrimination against whites is not "racist". Wanting to restore the freedom of private individuals and organizations, to reinstate the right to contract and freedom of association is not "racist". Sure, you could prohibit it on public land, like you can the hooker signs, maybe you could even prohibit signs which said "no blacks", or "kill whitey" in public view. However, the prohibition of private entities to do business with anyone they so choose on any basis they so choose is highly unconstitutional. The government has no place in making business decisions for private entities.
I personally would have no problem with some black folks having a black only establishment. I also wouldn't presume it to mean that they wanted one simply because they hate white people. However, I'd extend the same right to white people. Yes, maybe white businesses would receive backlash from the broader community for a racially based policy. If so, oh well... That was their decision and their right.
Since many businesses are large corporations, it's pretty stupid to think that any group would be excluded from having access to any particular product, particularly staple products; gas, food, clothing, etc. Add to that the advent of e-commerce and we can quickly see how stupid and inconceivable this notion becomes.
Many people are "libertarians" except for when it comes to an infringement that suits their personal views. Be it drugs, abortion, race, homosexuality, whatever. The fact is that as a libertarian, you must swallow the fact that different people have different views, and they are entitled to those views, and to act upon those views so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Not being able to sit at any particular "lunch counter" or shop at any particular (privately owned) store, is not a constitutional right. Abolishment of any discrimination whatsoever in any public venue or organization is absolutely constitutional. The only public discrimination we currently have is against euro americans- white people, "my people". Said discrimination is every bit as unconstitutional as Jim Crow was, yet any challenge to it is slandered as "racist".
Wanting to end discrimination against whites is not "racist". Wanting to restore the freedom of private individuals and organizations, to reinstate the right to contract and freedom of association is not "racist". Sure, you could prohibit it on public land, like you can the hooker signs, maybe you could even prohibit signs which said "no blacks", or "kill whitey" in public view. However, the prohibition of private entities to do business with anyone they so choose on any basis they so choose is highly unconstitutional. The government has no place in making business decisions for private entities.
I personally would have no problem with some black folks having a black only establishment. I also wouldn't presume it to mean that they wanted one simply because they hate white people. However, I'd extend the same right to white people. Yes, maybe white businesses would receive backlash from the broader community for a racially based policy. If so, oh well... That was their decision and their right.
Wow phenomena!!! Your last post provided a lot of insight as to why you write the things that you do. Were you a victim of a crime committed by blacks? I am asking that sincerely. Sometimes people have frustrations and pinted up anger because of things that have happened in their lives, that others may not be aware of when they debate or challenge them.
I know that if I thought that almost all black people were crazed lunactics with a genetic pre-disposition to murder, rape and steal from every white person who crossed their field of view and lacked even enough basic common sense to know that what they were doing was wrong...I would also respond with the same intensity and conviction that you do.
Have you ever considered seeking counseling, or perhaps pursuing a career in law-enforcement? (Just joking...about both)
I must admit that I am curious as to what you see as solutions to the problems with blacks in the USA. I already know that you want all diversity programs and affirmative action ended...but what else do you want done? Should a new more modern version of racial segregation be instituted...in order to protect whites from being raped and killed by mindless rampaging blacks? Do you see a way of deporting the black population back to Africa? You have done a very good job of defining the problem (as you see it) what now are the solutions?
I know that if I thought that almost all black people were crazed lunactics with a genetic pre-disposition to murder, rape and steal from every white person who crossed their field of view and lacked even enough basic common sense to know that what they were doing was wrong...I would also respond with the same intensity and conviction that you do.
Have you ever considered seeking counseling, or perhaps pursuing a career in law-enforcement? (Just joking...about both)
I must admit that I am curious as to what you see as solutions to the problems with blacks in the USA. I already know that you want all diversity programs and affirmative action ended...but what else do you want done? Should a new more modern version of racial segregation be instituted...in order to protect whites from being raped and killed by mindless rampaging blacks? Do you see a way of deporting the black population back to Africa? You have done a very good job of defining the problem (as you see it) what now are the solutions?