Afrimitive action

now that we have a spic in the supreme court, when will it be illegal to hire white people?

（　´_ゝ`） Get out.

>>2
I take it you are a benefactor of affirmative action. Enjoy wondering whether you've been tokenised for the rest of your life.

>>3
I take it you are a benefactor of affirmative action.
No, I'm White. I just dislike ignorance from people like you.

>>4
Ok so you score higher on a test than a black man but he gets the scholarship to fill a quota. How is this not racist?

>>5
Ok so you score higher on a test than a black man
So?
but he gets the scholarship to fill a quota.
If he scored high enough to fulfill the requisites for said scholarship, and we both get in, then there is no problem. Now if I don't get in simply because I'm White, and because of the aforementioned quota then yes there is a problem.

How is this not racist?
Things certainly can be abused and then later the accused pull "the race card". So yes, discrimination against a White by a non-White and discrimination of a non-White by a White and vice-versa should be treated exactly the same.

now that we have a spic in the supreme court, when will it
be illegal to hire white people?
This is bigoted, ignorant trash. I don't see how having "a spic in the supreme court[sic]" will enact laws that will make it so that it will be "illegal to hire White people". Jesus, do you people even read what you author in your posts before posting them?

Look at the the recent decision on Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). Eminent Domain is now going to be abused more than ever, thanks to our wonderful Supreme Court Justices, regardless of race. I don't believe that having "a spic in the supreme court[sic]" is going to make things any worse than how the Supreme Court has been handling its cases for many years now.

>>6
>Now if I don't get in simply because I'm White, and because of the aforementioned quota then yes there is a problem.
Sotomayor believes it's ok.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608.html

If the selection process was based on merit then she wouldn't be in the supreme court due to this enormous mistake.

If the selection process was based on merit then she
wouldn't be in the supreme court due to this enormous mistake.
Hmm, yes. Then there is a need for reform. And she was part of a unanimous decision in the second court of appeals, so she isn't the only one who upheld New Heaven's decision.

I agree it should be based upon merit and not race. People should be rewarded for their hard work and achieving adequate scores on various tests, and if people meet such requirements they should receive the job regardless of their race.

>>6 If he scored high enough to fulfill the requisites for said scholarship, and we both get in, then there is no problem. Now if I don't get in simply because I'm White, and because of the aforementioned quota then yes there is a problem.

The problem is that they will move the standards down, down, down, down, down for the benefit of illiterate IQ-55 crackhead niggers, then say "Dayshawn here is qualified because he passed this test (which we just dumbed down until a chimp could pass it), so we hire him instead of you.  Honkeys aren't welcome here."

The legal term for this is "disparate impact."  Read a book.  Jesus H. Christ.

*Sigh* These bigots never seem to miss an opportunity to spread their garbage around.

*sigh* These self-hating White faggot children never seem to miss an opportunity to show their ignorance.

Waah, waah, you called me a "bigot."  Now that the namecalling is out of the way, please demonstrate that anything I just said was factually incorrect, or else shut your cock holster and gb2/b/.

>>11
No thanks, I haven't been on /b/ in years now.

>>8
But you instantly think anyone who opposes affirmative action is a racist.
>>9
I associated disparate impact more with the equality of outcomes but you have shed light on the discrimination it causes in the equality of opportunity. I shall read more and research the subject as I was supposed to.
>>10
>>12
If you think you're like one of these smug liberals you see in movies who are surrounded by dumb hicks (who don't seem to exist outside the silver screen) and continually prove them wrong, you're a deluded idiot. You haven't contributed anything to this discussion.

My favorite part was how all the media treated her pending induction into the Supreme Court as 'monumental' and 'a great step forward for America'.  It was all like "Guys, we have to let her in because it's for America's greater good!  Stop looking at her record and her beliefs, that's dumb!  She's hispanic for christ's sake!  Let her in!"

When that didn't work, liberals resorted to saying they would convince the hispanics that conservatives are racist.  But, you know, dems were allowed to vote against Alito in full force, but if reps vote against Sotomayor, OH SHIT YOU RACIST.

Fucking sheep disgust me

>>13
But you instantly think anyone who opposes affirmative
action is a racist.
When did I ever say that? I just said that there is much need for reform and the system should rightfully base merit and not race as a judge of qualifying.

If you think you're like one of these smug liberals you see in movies who are surrounded by dumb hicks (who don't seem to exist outside the silver screen) and continually prove them wrong, you're a deluded idiot.

No. I wouldn't consider myself a "Liberal" at least not in the modern sense.

You haven't contributed anything to this discussion.
Ignorant bigotry doesn't contribute much to discussion either. I'm against collectivist ideologies like racism and bigotry. They subjugate individual liberty and freedom for people on both sides of race. It's destructive, and I won't have any part of it.

My favorite part was how all the media treated her pending induction into the Supreme Court as 'monumental' and 'a great step forward for America'.  It was all like "Guys, we have to let her in because it's for America's greater good!  Stop looking at her record and her beliefs, that's dumb!  She's hispanic for christ's sake!  Let her in!"

I didn't like that much either. I actually was watching some of her Senate confirmation hearing on C-SPAN, and many of the Republicans (including some Democrats) were skeptical of her being qualified for a position for the Supreme Court because of past cases during her tenure on the Second Court of Appeals.

Regardless of race, there seems to be an increasing misreading and misinterpretation of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is not upholding it like it should. I agreed very much with the decision of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) which held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use.
I very much disagreed with the decision on Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) because it may open the doors to widespread Eminent Domain abuse.

>>15
>When did I ever say that?
Here.
>Ignorant bigotry doesn't contribute much to discussion either.
Why are you telling me this? Has someone been ignorant and bigoted here? If it's me then you're accusing me of racism even though I've only been stating logical arguments which prove infallibly that affirmative action is racist.

There is an increasing misreading and misinterpretation of the constitution exactly because judges are selected on a political basis rather than merit and all these ethnic minority voters voting for candidates just because they look like them isn't going to help.

>>16
Here.
I never said that nor implied that I instantly think anyone who opposes affirmative action is a racist. If you believe I have, show me the post where I said such.

Why are you telling me this? Has someone been ignorant and bigoted here? If it's me then you're accusing me of racism even though I've only been stating logical arguments which prove infallibly that affirmative action is racist.

Someone earlier in this thread said some bigoted things. If I've wrongly accused you for saying such things, I truly apologize. If World4ch was still under an ID system, I probably wouldn't have made this mistake.

As for "affirmative action is racist", I'm not denying it can be misused and abused towards certain negative agenda. When first enacted, minorities had difficulties in society and the workplace. I'm sure the people who promote it see it as a good moral agenda to improve the plight of minorities. Perhaps you're correct in that it has inherent flaws, and is working for minorities while having the side effect of "reverse racism" upon Whites.

There is an increasing misreading and misinterpretation of the constitution exactly because judges are selected on a political basis rather than merit and all these ethnic minority voters voting for candidates just because they look like them isn't going to help.

I can see where you're coming from. Like I said there's need for reform, and perhaps now is a ripe time to turn to a system based upon merit, rather than let's include x amount of minorities in y this year. Race relations have improved dramatically in this country, and I believe that having a system based upon merit is beneficial to all races. Perhaps government and society as a whole can learn from that.