chockalicious Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Funny how so many comprehend but a few can't. The gesture in the picture and words could be from a top mark student rejected from university because of skin colour only. Woxof...refusing to be racist in my hiring past. Although someone just posted that they would have supported me being that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Funny how so many comprehend but a few can't. The gesture in the picture and words could be from a top mark student rejected from university because of skin colour only. Woxof...refusing to be racist in my hiring past. Someone just posted that they would have supported me being that way. I wonder how long any of those hires worked for you. I've always had trouble working for sanctimonious windbags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 The insult route. Typically done when someone has no credible argument. There is an easy reply to this one, but I'll keep my credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 The the supporters of the racist affirmative action legislation can't admit they are wrong(or racist) so they try to make it look like I am saying something else by quotes like these.... Woxof, you are obviously confused. I have never once indicated I supported any "racist affirmative action legislation" and neither have I accused you of being racist, though you clearly just accused me of being so. My comments and questions were aimed at gaining clarity, and showing you where more is needed, but you just keep stirring in more mud, so never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Perhaps best to just agree to disagree. Back to aviation related threads for a bit We all seem to get along better, except for one subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 So there it is Chock.- you believe AA still has a place TODAY!!! Your passion in this argument stems from that belief. Historically I agree with but in today's world I do not. We don't need to lower scores to 'get people in the door'. The 21 year old today does not experience the systemic racism of the past. He or she should get the job based on qualifications period. A perfect example is the CN issue a few years ago. The company was forced by law to hire woman to work on the line gangs that made repairs to the tracks. The problem was that women did not WANT the job hence CN could not meet the requirment. I don't know the final outcome but I do know it was a huge issue. The examples are endless. Finally, I always find it intersteing that that these type of 'programs' target everyone but the white male!!!! Why do we not have such programs to ensure that 50% of all nurses are male...or Early Childhood Educators......... AA had its place in and most certainly ended the systemic racism that existed at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 So there it is Chock.- you believe AA still has a place TODAY!!! Your passion in this argument stems from that belief. uuh OK, is your use of caps supposed to be indicitive of some sort of "gotch" moment? In some places AA still has a place today. Historically I agree with but in today's world I do not. We don't need to lower scores to 'get people in the door'. The 21 year old today does not experience the systemic racism of the past. He or she should get the job based on qualifications period. Qualified people are not being denied opprtunities. This is the fallacy of the arguement against AA. There is an effort to diversify a workforce, school class, training program, whatever. If by targetting some people who have not had the advantages in society I don't see the harm. A perfect example is the CN issue a few years ago. The company was forced by law to hire woman to work on the line gangs that made repairs to the tracks. The problem was that women did not WANT the job hence CN could not meet the requirment. I don't know the final outcome but I do know it was a huge issue. Well I would hope that a "huge issue" would have at least left enough an impact that you could recall the outcome. The examples are endless. Finally, I always find it intersteing that that these type of 'programs' target everyone but the white male!!!! Why do we not have such programs to ensure that 50% of all nurses are male...or Early Childhood Educators......... Seriously, the lack of logic here is baffling. I had not heard of any nursing programs that denied white males because of their gender and skin color. As for the point about early childhood educators. Faculties of Education have encouraged males to choose that teaching path due to the lack of males. I know of a female teacher who was passed over for a male teacher who had the same qualifications to teach grade 3. Was she discriminated against? There seems to be a whole lot of ignorance on what exactly AA is as demonstrated by the posts on the board. There are shades of grey in life and not everything has to have absolutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I had not heard of any nursing programs that denied white males because of their gender and skin color. First off, I'd like to say I have no idea why this conversation is being had in a thread about Obama... unless maybe the man who introduced the topic is missing some cards in his deck? ...but now that it's here... Choc, if you've seen any programs where either females or non-whites were given any kind of preferred status, then you have seen white males being disadvantaged because of their gender or skin colour. There may have been good reason to have such hiring policies in place, to correct wrongs of the past and make sure racist hiring practices didn't prevent minorities from being hired... And in your example of the RCMP, I can see possibilities for some initial bennefit... But from all I've seen lately, they are no longer needed in the western world. Personally, I think all of us here are Red Blooded ...so we're ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 And then of course there is the poor female who has been discriminated against. We hear how they are not making as much as men so it must be discrimination. AA programs are necessary, they say, to make an even playing field. Yet what are a large percentage of the high paying jobs in this country? Construction workers, plumbers, mechanics etc. Dirty, greasy, sweaty jobs that the vast majority of women just are not going to do. But, when they choose an office secretery job instead, it is going to pay less. But, it is a choice. However, the supporters of gender biased legislation won't admit that. They seem to say that it must only be hiring discrimination. Not the reality that a large percentage of women avoid the higher paying jobs because it will mean a sacrifice of family time. If one takes the time to actually use some logic instead of giving it lip service they will ask themselves or others questions such as.....what percentage of my high school trades classes(classes that directed people toward higher paying skilled jobs) in mechanics, electricity, woodworking etc was female? When I was a flight instructor, what percentage of my students were female? Woxof.....an equal opportunity hirer(in the past) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 First off, I'd like to say I have no idea why this conversation is being had in a thread about Obama... unless maybe the man who introduced the topic is missing some cards in his deck? ...but now that it's here... Choc, if you've seen any programs where either females or non-whites were given any kind of preferred status, then you have seen white males being disadvantaged because of their gender or skin colour. There may have been good reason to have such hiring policies in place, to correct wrongs of the past and make sure racist hiring practices didn't prevent minorities from being hired... And in your example of the RCMP, I can see possibilities for some initial bennefit... But from all I've seen lately, they are no longer needed in the western world. Personally, I think all of us here are Red Blooded ...so we're ok. Hi Mitch Ths thread certainly took a turn from where it started that is for sure, I suppose if someone wants to go back and note what comment made it go off the rails they could however I am not sure of the point. I see what you are saying and for the most part agree. I would hope that AA would not be needed anywhere and I hope that the world is getting there. However as a person that has said in the past that you don't really travel I am wondering how much perspective you have on this to talk about it's need in the "western world" I think you are one of the reasonable guys on here with good common sense but I don't think our neighbors to the south are quite there yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I don't think our neighbors to the south are quite there yet. Well then they've just lept a great deal closer by electing Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 could not agree more !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakelad Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 every party has a pooper..... The inaugural address Obama should have delivered January 24, 2009 - National Post by NP Editor David Frum President Barack Obama’s inaugural address was a sad, flat effort that cruelly wasted one of the grandest moments in American history: the swearing in of the first black president. Perhaps you have to live here in Washington to feel the full intensity of the waste. Washington is a city crammed with monuments connected to slavery and the great war to end it. And it was on the steps of the grandest of those monuments, the Lincoln Memorial, that Martin Luther King delivered his “I have a dream speech.” As King stood, his eyes would have faced directly at the centre of the west front of the Capitol — precisely the place where Barack Obama would take the oath of office, five days after what would have been King’s 80th birthday. This moment meant a great deal to almost all Americans, including many who did not vote for Obama. Obama let them down. The costs of this missed opportunity are not immediately apparent. But they are real and large even so. 'Is it possible that Obama could not see what was in front of him because his gaze was fixed upon himself?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Reason 1 in the linked article is bang on for how many feel. I feel AA is not necessary and Obama has proven me correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 David Frum should go back to cheerleading for Bush and fellating the architects of the Iraq war. I have no problem with a difference of opinion but Frum is not someone I think views anything objectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I admit I was disapointed by his speech. I felt like I was being sermonized in a baptist church, to be honest. I think his speech writer could have done a better job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I admit I was disapointed by his speech. I felt like I was being sermonized in a baptist church, to be honest. I think his speech writer could have done a better job. Nothing wrong with that. At least he is not afraid to display his convictions. Also of course you should remember that "In God We Trust" is the official national motto of the United States and the majority of US Citizens (over 90%) say they believe in GOD. In Canada, at least according to a recent poll, only 73% of the population holds a similar belief. http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/434725 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I admit I was disapointed by his speech. I felt like I was being sermonized in a baptist church, to be honest. I think his speech writer could have done a better job. His speech writer may have done so, BO rewrote the whole speech himself. I agree that it wasn't as rousing as perhaps it could have been, but I think that expectations are so artificially high for this administration perhaps the speech was toned down a bit so as not to raise any more expectations that are going to be unfulfilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Or, perhaps, Obama did not want to linger on the fact that he is black. He made a few references to it , left it at that, and then went on to talk about the tasks he and Americans (and he always phrased it that way) face going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 What makes you say he is black. I say that I am just as accurate or innacurate by saying he is white. After all one parent was white. Actually, there is a term for being a mix. I just can't remember right now. So if people are accurate by saying...Obama, the first black American president, then I am accurate saying...Obama the 44th white Americanpresident. Woxof....how about Obama...the 44th president of the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 What makes you say he is black. I say that I am just as accurate or innacurate by saying he is white. After all one parent was white. Actually, there is a term for being a mix. I just can't remember right now. So if people are accurate by saying...Obama, the first black American president, then I am accurate saying...Obama the 44th white Americanpresident. Woxof....how about Obama...the 44th president of the U.S. You don't like black, woxof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Actually, there is a term for being a mix. I just can't remember right now. Mulatto............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Mulatto...thanks. I like black and white and all other colours equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 A good portion of both races in the US are calling him black (African American). The only one who really does not acknowledge or talk about it is Obama himself. I suspect it is because he rises above it and sees himself as a President and American - not black or white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.