Sterling Gets NBA "Death Penalty" Banned for Life

[Saint3333]

Older white males didn't vote for Obama, let's look at the facts.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president

I'll use CNN data. 55% of women voted for him and 39% of whites over age 65 voted for him. So unless older women voted at a much greater rate for him than younger ones (which I'd argue the other way actually), somewhere between 30-35% of older white men voted for him.

Now there are groups that are obviously more biased based upon the voting trends, much more than older white males, but that doesn't seem to fit the agenda.

[bcoach]

How many white collage professors over 50 do you think voted for Romney?

[Saint3333]

Next you're going to tell me that people registered as republicans or democrats voted party lines in an election that paired two of the furthest left and right candidates either party has seen for 20 years. :D

[wataugan03]

Older white males didn't vote for Obama, let's look at the facts.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president

I'll use CNN data. 55% of women voted for him and 39% of whites over age 65 voted for him. So unless older women voted at a much greater rate for him than younger ones (which I'd argue the other way actually), somewhere between 30-35% of older white men voted for him.

Now there are groups that are obviously more biased based upon the voting trends, much more than older white males, but that doesn't seem to fit the agenda.

Only getting 30-35% of white males over 65 is incredibly low for a winner. I don't know this, but I bet you can't find a single presidential winner who ever had less than 40% of 65 year old white males. You might not even be able to find a loser from the last 25 years who did that poorly with older white males.

[Saint3333]

So you have NO problem with the results from other demographics, continue to ignore the more prominent examples.

2004 vs. 2012 (both CNN data)

white males - 62/37/1 Bush vs. 62/35/3 Romney

over age 60 - 54/46 Bush vs. 56/44 Romney

2004 data did not have a white over 60 demographic, but both are extremely similar in 2004 and 2012.

Looks like a conservative/liberal split vs. a white/black split.

[wataugan03]

So you have NO problem with the results from other demographics, continue to ignore the more prominent examples.

2004 vs. 2012 (both CNN data)

white males - 62/37/1 Bush vs. 62/35/3 Romney

over age 60 - 54/46 Bush vs. 56/44 Romney

2004 data did not have a white over 60 demographic, but both are extremely similar in 2004 and 2012.

Looks like a conservative/liberal split vs. a white/black split.

Its tough to comment on that data without white over 60 data (I can't find it for 2004 either), but it is notable that Romney does better with the over 60 crowd than Bush and still loses.

But, no I don't have a problem with the other demographics. The other demographics don't have a history of active discrimination. They weren't actively protesting integration in the 60's and early 70's . . . that's exclusively the province of the white over 60 crowd. And beyond that, the level of hate being thrown at this president is unlike anything we've ever seen. Why? How exactly is he more leftist than Bill Clinton? How exactly is he more liberal than our former senator John Edwards (who nobody hated until his indiscretions)? Its really hard to say. But, I can think of one way in which he is very different . . .

[Saint3333]

Romney does 2% points better in the demographic you are claiming, that isn't very much. In fact every republican candidate since 1996 has received at least 12% more of the white male vote than the democrat. Romney lost due to the volume of minority and young voters, the older white male vote had little to no bearing on the election results. The increase in split between the groups you claim haven't discriminated in the past is actually wider (almost double) historical results.

Wall street would say Obama is more left than Clinton. This may surprise you, but don't be surprised if wall street backs his wife in 2016.

[WVAPPeer]

Look - I have family members who hate the president for one reason - he is Black - I would use the term African-American but some of my idiot relatives still think he is a Muslim from Africa and not born in Hawaii --- He could personally rescind their taxes for the rest of their lives (or anything else that would be positive to them) and they'd still hate him because of his ethnicity --- and let me add, these relatives are in North Carolina - Not West Virginia ---

[Maddog1956]

You're still missing the point. If affirmative action etc is supposed to be functional, it needs to reflect that function. If we're helping people because they're poor, they should be evaluated on "poorness." The minute you start talking about the history or how they got that way, you're off track.

Actually, race-based affirmative action in public schools is no longer allowed for the purpose of helping the poor. Its only allowed for the purpose of creating a diverse environment where the leaders of tomorrow can learn to work with people of different races and backgrounds. This has been the law since about 2005. Schools are not allowed to assign points to race either, if they use a point system, it can only be one plus factor among many. Last year's big case, Fisher, said that colleges can only use race as a plus factor in admissions if there is no other realistic alternative to get a diverse student body.

It takes time to get new cases to court, but I can promise you that under the new standards federal courts all over the country are going to start striking down whatever affirmative action policies there are that haven't already been abandoned.

Affirmative Action is a animal unto itself, but what I don't understand is when people say on one the hand discrimination is "getting better" which means that AA is working, but say on the other hand that we should do away with it. Why would we do away with a program that is working and making things better?

Most people have a misconception about Affirmative Action. It prohibits .... "discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." It also requires contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

So hiring someone because they are white, black, etc, etc is illegal under AA. So if anyone here has not been hired due to race and can prove it you have a AA claim.

I'm really trying to understand what people have a problem with about it. Are they saying we should be able to discriminate in hiring?

[wataugan03]

Most people have a misconception about Affirmative Action. It prohibits .... "discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." It also requires contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

I think you might be confusing affirmative action with various employment discrimination laws. Until the mid 90's federal and state government could (and sometimes did) require or otherwise encourage their contractors to hire a certain number of minority subcontractors. These policies, along with school admission policies that factored in race, were commonly called affirmative action because the government was affirmatively acting to correct past racial misdeeds. With some exceptions this is now illegal. Though many believe the practice continues in some corners because people aren't bringing lawsuits to stop it.

[bcoach]

So you have NO problem with the results from other demographics, continue to ignore the more prominent examples.

2004 vs. 2012 (both CNN data)

white males - 62/37/1 Bush vs. 62/35/3 Romney

over age 60 - 54/46 Bush vs. 56/44 Romney

2004 data did not have a white over 60 demographic, but both are extremely similar in 2004 and 2012.

Looks like a conservative/liberal split vs. a white/black split.

Its tough to comment on that data without white over 60 data (I can't find it for 2004 either), but it is notable that Romney does better with the over 60 crowd than Bush and still loses.

But, no I don't have a problem with the other demographics. The other demographics don't have a history of active discrimination. They weren't actively protesting integration in the 60's and early 70's . . . that's exclusively the province of the white over 60 crowd. And beyond that, the level of hate being thrown at this president is unlike anything we've ever seen. Why? How exactly is he more leftist than Bill Clinton? How exactly is he more liberal than our former senator John Edwards (who nobody hated until his indiscretions)? Its really hard to say. But, I can think of one way in which he is very different . . .

People who talk about widespread hatred for this president do so when they can't defend his actions. I have a friend who does in fact hate every republican politician. I am talking real hate like he gets that twisted face kind of hate. So when it comes to the black republicans I guess I can call him a racist. What should I call him when it is white ones?
PS I have never been fond of Edwards. I have always thought he was a slime ball.
Me thinks you generalize way too much.

[Saint3333]

Look - I have family members who hate the president for one reason - he is Black - I would use the term African-American but some of my idiot relatives still think he is a Muslim from Africa and not born in Hawaii --- He could personally rescind their taxes for the rest of their lives (or anything else that would be positive to them) and they'd still hate him because of his ethnicity --- and let me add, these relatives are in North Carolina - Not West Virginia ---

Ignorance is everywhere no doubt about it (quite a bit in WV as well :D ), unlike humans though it doesn't discriminate.

[Maddog1956]

Most people have a misconception about Affirmative Action. It prohibits .... "discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." It also requires contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

I think you might be confusing affirmative action with various employment discrimination laws. Until the mid 90's federal and state government could (and sometimes did) require or otherwise encourage their contractors to hire a certain number of minority subcontractors. These policies, along with school admission policies that factored in race, were commonly called affirmative action because the government was affirmatively acting to correct past racial misdeeds. With some exceptions this is now illegal. Though many believe the practice continues in some corners because people aren't bringing lawsuits to stop it.

That's from Executive Order 11246 which is AA.

Minority Preference for contractors and business were only for equal qualified or company driven programs. Almost ever case of one race being hired over another has lost in court.

It's all pretty much here.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/t ... 11246.html

[ASUDieHard]

...the level of hate being thrown at this president is unlike anything we've ever seen. . . .

Seriously??? Were you hibernating the first 8 years of this century? Oh, I forgot, it's only hate when conservatives disagree with liberals. When liberals disagree with conservatives, it's compassion. The mainstream media really are doing a number on some of you.

[wataugan03]

That's from Executive Order 11246 which is AA.

Minority Preference for contractors and business were only for equal qualified or company driven programs. Almost ever case of one race being hired over another has lost in court.

It's all pretty much here.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/t ... 11246.html

You can technically call that executive order affirmative action. But, what people normally mean when they say "affirmative action" are the other executive orders, laws, and implementing regulations that attempt to combat racism by giving an advantage to minorities. The seminal cases that ended this in the employment/contracting business are (Crosson for states) and Adarand (for the feds) decided in 89 and 95. Before that many gov. contracts required contractors to employ certain percentages of minorities as sub-contractors, or gave them extra money for doing so.

[Watauga72]

...the level of hate being thrown at this president is unlike anything we've ever seen. . . .

Seriously??? Were you hibernating the first 8 years of this century? Oh, I forgot, it's only hate when conservatives disagree with liberals. When liberals disagree with conservatives, it's compassion. The mainstream media really are doing a number on some of you.

Bush was not the target of the type of irrational hatred directed towards Obama, especially his first two years in office. His own actions, with the misguided and underfunded invasion of Iraq, unfunded tax cuts, and the economic issues that arose under his watch (not all his fault, and that's not what I'm arguing), contributed to a very negative atmosphere over his second term.

Obama has faced irrational attacks since the day he took office, usually from the fringe right wing.

[asutrnr81]

The problem isn't race that problem in America is parenting, and that crosses over all races.

I loved this line:

"It’s been made clear to me that education begins in the home, and the importance of parents’ involvement with their kids’ education—from mathematics to morality—cannot be overstated."

It is unfortunate that people of all colors don't get the attention, support, and critical lessons from their parent(s) that I did from mine. But that is the root of the problem, not the color of skin.

My daughters will start out ahead of 80+% of the population not because they are white, but because of the lessons we provide them daily. I would never ask them to apologize for that.

Rep Point! As Cline would say

(Three (SPOKEN and UNSPOKEN) rules in my home growing up:

1. Do not have the school call me about anything you did.
2. You are responsible for your own learning.
3. Do not bring me any bad grades.

Same for my 2....I'd bet it will be the same for theirs if they have any!

It is CLEARLY about parenting!.....or sadly, the lack thereof.

[Watauga72]

True affirmative action did not mandate hiring of protected classes. It did mandate that firms over a certain size analyze hiring and employment practices in light of qualified candidates within the geographic area. If significant disparate impact results were detected, EEOC would/could require justification reports. In other words, if 20% of the available electrical engineers within an area were minority males, and IBM hired at a rate of 5% minority males, they may have to justify the underrepresentation in their workforce population.

The goal was to force large companies to review hiring practices and make efforts to reach out to underrepresented groups. We, as humans, tend to hire those with whom we feel commonalities. This was to make us think about what we are doing.

[Maddog1956]

True affirmative action did not mandate hiring of protected classes. It did mandate that firms over a certain size analyze hiring and employment practices in light of qualified candidates within the geographic area. If significant disparate impact results were detected, EEOC would/could require justification reports. In other words, if 20% of the available electrical engineers within an area were minority males, and IBM hired at a rate of 5% minority males, they may have to justify the underrepresentation in their workforce population.

The goal was to force large companies to review hiring practices and make efforts to reach out to underrepresented groups. We, as humans, tend to hire those with whom we feel commonalities. This was to make us think about what we are doing.

Exactly, it was to address direct and indirect discrimination. It was always about equal hiring.

[wataugan03]

People who talk about widespread hatred for this president do so when they can't defend his actions. I have a friend who does in fact hate every republican politician. I am talking real hate like he gets that twisted face kind of hate. So when it comes to the black republicans I guess I can call him a racist. What should I call him when it is white ones?
PS I have never been fond of Edwards. I have always thought he was a slime ball.
Me thinks you generalize way too much.

I know that 30% of people over age 65 disapprove of interracial marriage (and I can guess that more than 30% of white's over 65 disapprove). Its not a stretch to imagine that those people have some irrational hate of Obama that transcends any idea or position he might have. Its not a stretch to imagine that Donald Sterling and his very rich and powerful (and apparently even more racist) friends hate Obama. I know that people call him the "n" word, I've hear it. I know that people think he isn't an American citizen and that he's in league with terrorists, I've heard it. I know that even important people, that should have their act together, are saying terrible things about him. I know that a federal judge sent a horridly racist email to tons of people making fun of his mixed race ancestry and implying that his mother was a slut. I know that a congressman interrupted the state of the union speech to yell "you lie" at him. I know the list goes on. I remember stupid attacks on George Bush. I remember a couple crazies who called him a war criminal (I don't think they were serious). I remember people unfairly calling him stupid. But, I don't remember anything like this.

Reasonable people can disagree over the CFPB or ACA, just as they did the Iraq war or Bush tax cuts. This is way past that. And this is not an indictment of every older white person, but its clear that there are too many who still can't get on the right side of the most important moral development of the last half-century. These same bad eggs can't seem to get on the right side of the first major moral issue of the current century. Fortunately, their voices will be drowned out soon enough.