Optimism of whites in US lags blacks by big margin

Aug 1, 2013 Full story: Log Cabin Democrat 2,746

Americans' attitudes about their economic future are sharply divided by race, with whites significantly less likely than blacks or Hispanics to think they can improve their own standard of living.

Full Story
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#2739 Sep 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you're not bringing back the idealized 1950's no matter how much you want it.
Hmm, it was not my intention to bring back anything. You just needed an education on how things have evolved and impact today. How on Earth would I be able to do such a thing even if I wanted to?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2740 Sep 6, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, you have to open your eyes to it to see it. How can you document it if you do not look for it? ACORN got busted, now you hear nothing of any further investigations on the subject.
Sure you can. As I said, what is done if there is a mission to bomb a target, and it gets called off? Aborted mission. Again, look up the definition of abort before profiling your ignorance.
Preventing a pregnancy from occurring is when the mission is to NOT get pregnant. You know, birth control pills or devices are used? When the mission is to knock off a chunk, then pregnancy is an afterthought, any measures taken is to abort pregnancy.
A pregnancy and a military operation are not analogous. I realize the term "operation" may confuse a "doctor" like you, but they don't mean the same thing.

A pregnancy doesn't occur until a fertilized embryo is implanted in the uterus. Preventing that implantation with Plan B is preventing a pregnancy from occurring; not aborting a pregnancy.

You're really just making yourself look even dumber by insisting on continuing that analogy.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#2741 Sep 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The only reason women are banned from combat or were banned from other aspects of military service in the past is simple sexism.
Only in your mind.
serfs up

Ormond Beach, FL

#2742 Sep 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you're not bringing back the idealized 1950's no matter how much you want it.
yeah, but the back wil be broken on the amount of taxes people pay or they will continue to keep adding to the collecting rolls. And then we will go from there. Dumb ass progressives sayings. The 1950's one.
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

#2743 Sep 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't click links from people I don't know or trust.
If the plaintiffs all won their cases as you claim, that only proves a few employers violated the law in misapplying Affirmative Action. The problem wasn't Affirmative Action, but rather how the employers applied that to their hiring or firing or promotions decisions. The justice system obviously worked as it was supposed to and the plaintiffs got their redress.
A few employers still refuse to hire blacks just because they're black. That doesn't mean there is a problem with our anti-bias laws; it just means a few employers violated the law.
So I will give you the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that a few employers have likely violated the law in regards to Affirmative Action.
If you feel the law has been violated, then feel free to sue your employer.
Good to see you admit that you were wrong about white people being passed over for a less qualified minority applicant.
Was it a lie or a mistake when you claimed it never happens?
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#2744 Sep 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't click links from people I don't know or trust.
If the plaintiffs all won their cases as you claim, that only proves a few employers violated the law in misapplying Affirmative Action. The problem wasn't Affirmative Action, but rather how the employers applied that to their hiring or firing or promotions decisions. The justice system obviously worked as it was supposed to and the plaintiffs got their redress.
A few employers still refuse to hire blacks just because they're black. That doesn't mean there is a problem with our anti-bias laws; it just means a few employers violated the law.
So I will give you the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that a few employers have likely violated the law in regards to Affirmative Action.
If you feel the law has been violated, then feel free to sue your employer.
If you don't click links then you should quit asking for proof . Since you have never had the intention of reading the proof, you are just an annoying troll.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2745 Sep 6, 2013
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, Mr Sheep?
It is >you< who says there is insufficient data.
It was me who axed you how >you< would get the other data sets needed to draw conclusions to >your< satisfaction.
I never claimed such a thing Mr. Sheep. I axed you how you were going to go about gathering the missing data sets. sheeeesh
Good Lord man. Get a grip.
The same way you get all other statistical data; research, field work, interviews, cross referencing with other available databases, etc.
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

#2746 Sep 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't click links from people I don't know or trust.
...
Only idiots and dummies are incapable of looking at the link site's url verbage to learn how to conduct a search of their own and avoid opening a link posted here from someone else. You avoid opening the truth because it contravenes your dialog and nonsense.
You do not trust the Huffington Post? Strange.

Funny, your posts are chock full of your words claiming to know all about what I think, and that you know me.
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

#2747 Sep 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Where is that stipulation in the enlistment contract?
Now you're back to just making crap up.
In the fine print.
I'd give you a link, but why waste my time.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2748 Sep 6, 2013
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>You are getting things confused. We have not been talking about working in any job...we are talking about a job that can't be performed completely if the woman is pregnant. The reason people are disgusted with feminists is because they whine about getting jobs with preferential treatment. Who is going to respect that? Not me and I was once a feminist! It's ok to allow everyone equal access to the same job but it is NOT ok to change the rules for some in order to participate. So when you say women have a right to get pregnant whenever they wish......that's fine but they must accept the consequences of their decisions. I think if a woman becomes pregnant when she should be deployed, any costs relating to this situation should be taken out of her pay. I don't think a business should be forced into hiring a pregnant woman....it should be their right to hire who they want as it is her right to get pregnant.
Wow, you really ARE living the 1950's.

So now every business should be able to discriminate against pregnant women in employment as well.

Btw, a woman who gets pregnant DOES accept the consequences of getting pregnant- she either has to have the baby or terminate the pregnancy. The choice is entirely hers.

So do you oppose birth control pills as well because that makes women too promiscuous?
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

#2749 Sep 6, 2013
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>Then you should quit asking for proof if you refuse to read it.
Good point.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#2750 Sep 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
HE is responsible as well, which is why HE has to pay child support.
No, she doesn't need to find other employment.
Yes, she can function just fine in a foxhole.
Yes, she should be drafted.
Yes, you're obviously still living in Pleasantville......
You are talking about two different things. I am talking about a woman who agrees to not get pregnant in her job. Child support has nothing to do with this discussion.

Yes, she should be fired
No, she can't function just fine in a foxhole.
No, she should NOT be drafted.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2751 Sep 6, 2013
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>And yet you want special accomodations for them. Hypocrite. Women should never be drafted or on the front lines.
Nope, no special accommodations are necessary.

If women shouldn't be drafted then they shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property either.

If you don't have the same obligations of citizenship, then you shouldn't be entitled to the same benefits of citizenship.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2752 Sep 6, 2013
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>Then you should quit asking for proof if you refuse to read it.
Proof can be provided with names, dates, events, court cases etc. I can then google the information myself from trusted sources like I did with the post from AnswersRus.

Only an idiot looking to get a computer virus clicks on links posted from an unknown person.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#2753 Sep 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm NOT saying that, because I'm not interpreting the stats.
No, I'm NOT saying that, because I don't use use racist terms.
No, the stats DO NOT say ANYTHING about whether black men are interested in supporting their "hoes".
That is merely YOUR RACIST INTERPRETATION of the stats.
Thanks for making that clear for all to see once again.
Thank you for proving without the slighest doubt that you will not look at the facts when it hits you square in the nose. You'll shut your eyes with finger in the ears yelling lalalalalala rather than address the issue. Even blacks know they have this problem except some of them want to blame whites because they can't stay in a committed relationship after they knock their bitch up.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#2754 Sep 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't live in the Leave it to Beaver world anymore, and in fact that world never really existed except on TV.
One parent staying home to raise the kids while the other goes off to work is simply unrealistic except for the wealthy. What are you going to do, ban the average American from having children? Yeah, that should go over well.....
Even when I was growing up both my parents worked the farm just to make a living. Though I never spent a single hour in daycare (who could afford that), my siblings & I often spent hours without parental supervision while Mom & Dad were out in the field trying to get the harvest in. Of course they taught us how to be responsible for ourselves at an early age, as did most farm families.
Time to throw the bull$hit flag again! We raised five children and my wife stayed at home for 14 years while raising them. We were not wealthy. We saw the importance of rearing our kids free from daycare nannies and the alien affections garnered by them.
Our kids a highly successful and are...wait for it...self-reliant! That's right! They don't require adult supervision nor the approval and aid of the federal government! Gasp! Yes, they can succeed without Uncle Sam's tender loving handouts.

I am amazed at how many households I see where there is a single child whose parents are approaching retirement just as the kid is starting college. The kid had everything done for them from these "caring" parents and yet fail in college because they are now required to do something for themselves. We know of two that never even owned a car! Because the parents are control freaks.
My kids not only owned cars but they bought and paid for them from their own labor. Heck, my 18n yr old daughter just bought her own new car yesterday without us co-signing.
Our eldest son bought his first house at 21 on his own.

I could go on and on about how the facts have been proven out over and over again based upon morals and work ethic and yet you libbies just turn to jealous name calling and ignore the truth.

Life is not based on feelings. It's based upon acting in a resposible fashion and then feelings of satisfaction bear fruit. Libbies act on feelings and then are satisfied when they can control others.

But, thanks for proving you can't debate based on facts alone.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2755 Sep 6, 2013
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>Hmm, it was not my intention to bring back anything. You just needed an education on how things have evolved and impact today. How on Earth would I be able to do such a thing even if I wanted to?
I don't know, but apparently you're intent on living in the past.

Women serve in the military.
Women can get pregnant when they choose.
Women serve in limited combat roles.
Women will soon serve in direct ground combat roles.

Complaining about all that knowing you can't do anything about it makes you appear irrational or just another whiner.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#2756 Sep 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Where is that stipulation in the enlistment contract?
Now you're back to just making crap up.
Remember? You don't click links. You just want to remain ignorant.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#2757 Sep 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you really ARE living the 1950's.
So now every business should be able to discriminate against pregnant women in employment as well.
Btw, a woman who gets pregnant DOES accept the consequences of getting pregnant- she either has to have the baby or terminate the pregnancy. The choice is entirely hers.
So do you oppose birth control pills as well because that makes women too promiscuous?
Who said it's ok to discriminate? I not only support bc pills, I would support mandatory abortion for those who are on welfare.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2758 Sep 6, 2013
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
Good to see you admit that you were wrong about white people being passed over for a less qualified minority applicant.
Was it a lie or a mistake when you claimed it never happens?
It was a mistake.

You are the first person to offer actual proof that a couple of employers violated the intent of the Affirmative Action laws by hiring or promoting a less qualified applicant.

Maybe you could give the others a lesson in how that can be done for future reference.

Of course just because a couple of employers violated the law doesn't mean that Affirmative Action should be scraped.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min red and right 313,379
Netanyahu to use Congress' bully pulpit to assa... 4 min Emily Latella 52
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min THE DEMON SEED 1,192,437
Latest gay marriage ruling creates confusion in... 7 min Lamer 35
Wall Street pushes SCOTUS on gay marriage 7 min david traversa 4
GOP Leaders Allow Obama's Amnesty 7 min Who Guessed It 30
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 8 min Rick Santpornum 249
Netanyahu Assails Iran-Nuclear Talks In Congres... 8 min Cat74 52
Senate fails to override Keystone pipeline veto 2 hr goonsquad 3
Ferguson officials to meet with Justice Department 2 hr goonsquad 46
More from around the web