I want to sympathize with you and I would have been more able to if the data only showed job discrimination (which they don't.) But, how about the rest of the stats? Frightening. Very hard to charge some perception of discrimination for all of that. "They didnt hire me at ABC Co and I abandoned my kid?" I can't see it. Something else is at work here. Sorry. Btw, I'm not against AA - I only think that a rigorously aplied EEO would be better in the long run.
Blanket statistical data is not the only source of evidence, as you should know being a trader. Also, many things are hard to test for en masse. Nor am I claiming that discrimination in hiring causes any other problems than that the discriminated person did not get the job. So, please do not use straw man arguments. Personal experience from the real world is concrete, indisputable data. I have seen, and heard from reliable sources who experienced it first hand, numerous cases of clear discrimination in job hiring, on the job treatment, and other areas such as getting accommodation, general social treatment etc. This is then corroborated by a huge body of experience and reporting by others in similar or even more directly exposed situations. Thus, it is pretty much indisputable that there exist significant problems with discrimination. If you want to effectively challenge that, then you have to explain which of those experiences were not actually suffered by the people involved. It's kind of like telling a mugging victim that there is no crime in the area. I am strongly against AA for various reasons, and also mildly against equal opportunity laws. However, that is an entirely separate question from whether a large proportion of white people discriminate against black people in the job market. Many of them do - it's as simple as that. There are far too many cases of it happening for any sincere person to say otherwise.
Your post makes me think of South Africa. If we are thing of the past your future is bleak. Leech can only live off of the host.
Unfortunately, U.S. is not Pinochet's Chile. Not compromising, not negotiating with socialist scum, just get rid of it.
for anyone who doubts whether your racist,doubt no more.Truth is whether we admit it or not,everyone is racist . I live in chicago and work in the construction industry,there are many immigrants who speak their native tongue all day and they are more comfortable with their own countrymen who act, speak, and in some ways think the way they do. Others who didn't grow up in poland, or ireland or mexico or serbia or russia don't understand completely what it's like to be the other guy so they keep to their own. They prefer to harbor safe positive thoughts about their own and negative thoughts about those that are different from themselves, ,most people find safety in walling off that which they are unfamiliar with,so if michelle obama said whitey ,who cares,even if she didn't say it publicly i stilll would've thought she had said it once or twice in her life, she' s human and that's normal human behavior.
Race is an issue in the minds of racists. So you are a racist because you continue to focus on race. We never hear the repubs talking about the fact that McCain is white. Why is that? Because white males are not an issue with republicans. Yes, they have other issues with McCain on policy. Repubs had issues with Clinton and Hillary on issues. However, never was race an issue, and has never been an issue when we have two white males running for president. So now, the truly color blind don't see a black man vs. a white man running for president now, they don't bring race into it. You, and your party will continue to bring race into the discussion....rationalizing it of course as the "right" thing to do.
So, you say that all those who discuss race-related problems are racists. In particular, you are agreeing with millions in saying that Obama, who sat in those pews for 20 years listening to, and presumably agreeing with, the anti-white racist rants of his mentor, after officially espousing the racist black liberation theology stuff as a confirmed member of that congregation, is a racist. OK, I see. I think the situation is a bit more complicated than that, but I understand your point.
All those who discuss the race of a presidential candidate, are likely racists because that is something they focus on. If Obama were white would we be talking about race? Even if he had gone to the same church that Wright was speaking at because he married a black woman and wanted to keep her happy, would we really be talking about race? I doubt it...
I don't think you and I differ much, in reality, Z, but I still disagree with you on some things. Call me racist if you will, but I (and millions more) don't think that Obama would have been where he is now in the presidential run if he were white. Geraldine Ferraro was right, period. This fact alone makes race a key issue here. Or would you call him the AA candidate? He was chosen by the hard left that controls most media in this country, not because of his (very few and far between) accomplishments and experience and correct positions on key issues, but because he is a very well presented, liberal, black politician. The questions about Rev Wright and Fr Pfleger and Louis Farrakhan and William Ayres et al are questions about his character and judgment, which also happen to be the main attributes he's peddling to the American public. The fact is that he WAS a member of that racist congregation for 20 years and his mentor often speaks in racist, anti-American terms, etc. Same for the other characters especially if you add domestic terrorism to the list. Why would I trust a President who did this? I don't. Not because of his race, but because of his poor judgment and lack of character. Give me Colin Powell or Condi Rice and I'd be glad to vote for them.