REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The utterly absurd fantasy world of today's kooky far Left.

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Sunday, June 23, 2013 08:37
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1452
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:05 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Where to begin ?

- NYC Police May Soon Be Allowed to Describe Suspects Only by Their Clothes

http://moonbattery.com/?p=32007


- U.S. employment commission: Some criminal background checks are racist

The U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) filed lawsuits on Tuesday alleging that automaker BMW and budget grocery store chain Family Dollar discriminated against African American employees and applicants by denying them work based upon the results of criminal background checks.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/12/u-s-employment-commission-some-c
riminal-background-checks-are-racist
/


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:09 PM

WHOZIT


It was a guy in a white tee shirt, jeans and sneakers! He shouldn't be hard to find right?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:36 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
It was a PERSON in a white tee shirt, jeans and sneakers! He shouldn't be hard to find right?



Had to fix that for ya. Claiming the suspect was a " guy " could be viewed as chauvinistic, and bigoted, as the individual may not have actually CHOSEN the sex by which they want to be identified. They tyranny of you trying to impose on this person a specific sex, according to YOUR standards, is narrow minded.






Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:45 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
It was a PERSON in a white tee shirt, jeans and sneakers! He shouldn't be hard to find right?



Had to fix that for ya. Claiming the suspect was a " guy " could be viewed as chauvinistic, and bigoted, as the individual may not have actually CHOSEN the sex by which they want to be identified. They tyranny of you trying to impose on this person a specific sex, according to YOUR standards, is narrow minded.



Kinda like "Murder on the Orient Express", EVERYONE'S a suspect.


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 19, 2013 3:38 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Where to begin ?

- NYC Police May Soon Be Allowed to Describe Suspects Only by Their Clothes

http://moonbattery.com/?p=32007


- U.S. employment commission: Some criminal background checks are racist

The U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) filed lawsuits on Tuesday alleging that automaker BMW and budget grocery store chain Family Dollar discriminated against African American employees and applicants by denying them work based upon the results of criminal background checks.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/12/u-s-employment-commission-some-c
riminal-background-checks-are-racist
/


Even NYC's nanny-mayor Bloomberg is against this absurd bill that was proposed by two Democrats on the city council. It's unlikely to pass, but if it does, then criminals, rapists, and murderers will have little to fear about anything.

As to the EEOC I'm quite familiar with those criminal background and drug tests for new applicants. For me, hiring a new employee was usually a squirrely proposition. You always had to be aware of potential personal or Govt. lawsuits. The whole thing used to give me stomach aches.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:05 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

As to the EEOC I'm quite familiar with those criminal background and drug tests for new applicants. For me, hiring a new employee was usually a squirrely proposition. You always had to be aware of potential personal or Govt. lawsuits. The whole thing used to give me stomach aches.




Because you're a racist, right ?

I'll bet that's why.

Racist.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:04 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Was a bit tired when I started this thread, and couldn't remember the 3rd thing I wanted to add...

Gun control group counts Boston Marathon bomber Tsarnaev as 'victim'

A gun control group that sought to raise awareness to their cause at a New Hampshire rally by reading off the names of 4,500 people killed by firearms since the Connecticut school shootings drew jeers when they included the name of Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, according to a report.

Supporters of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns movement held the rally on Tuesday, in Concord. And while it is true that Tsarnaev was shot by police -- and then run over by his fleeing brother -- during a gun battle four days after carrying out the deadly terror attack, several in attendance questioned including him as a "victim" of gun violence, according to the New Hampshire Union Leader.

“He's a terrorist,” several gun rights protesters in attendance shouted, according to the paper.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/20/gun-control-group-counts-boston-m
arathon-bomber-tsarnaev-as-victim/#ixzz2WnB80ucY




Incredible. A guy who blew up 3 ( including a child ) , wounded scores more, some seriously, and also murdered a cop by shooting him the head, point blank, is counted as a 'victim' of gun violence?

Talk about padding your #'s !

Stay classy, Lefties.


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 21, 2013 5:40 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Glad to see you guys having such fun, as usual.

The first one is absurd; it's pc taken to extremes and deserves the title "utterly absurd".

The second one is invalid. It's not that there WERE background checks, it's how they were done that was racist, detailed quite clearly in the provided link:
Quote:

The agency said in an advisory that while background checks themselves are not racist, they way they were applied — without individual consideration for each case — is.


Further details at link. If background checks are applied equally across the board, that's different.

The third one has nothing to do with "utterly absurd fantasy". He died by a gun, that makes him the victim of guns. The corollary would be if a robber was killed by a homeowner--whether the robber had a gun or not, he was killed by one. It's simple score keeping, nothing absurd about it. The guy might well have deserved to die, and was essentially killed in "self-defense" by the cops, but he died by a gun. By the reasoning that considers it "absurd", gang members killed by other gang members don't count as "victims of guns" either. You don't have to like it, it just "is".


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 21, 2013 5:07 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Topic one:

Quote:


In fact, this bill would re-affirm the existing ban on illegal racial profiling by police, expand the class of protected groups, and provide previously unavailable avenues to litigation for civil rights abuses in state court. What the bill by its own terms explicitly would not do - contrary to the ad's depiction of a blindfolded police officer - is prohibit police from continuing to use race or any of the other protected group characteristics as part of a suspect's description. Rather, race and these other criteria cannot be the sole "determinative" factor proffered for a police stop of an individual, consistent with existing law. Absent other reasonable suspicion for the encounter, utilizing race alone as the reason for the police stop has long been illegal.



http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/21/right-wing-media-parrot-claims
-in-dishonest-ad/194546



a. Definitions. As
used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
1. "Racial or ethnic profiling" means an act of a member of the force
of the police department or other law enforcement officer that relies on
race, ethnicity, religion or national origin as the determinative factor
in initiating law enforcement action against an individual, rather than
an individual's behavior or other information or circumstances that
links a person or persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion or
national origin to suspected unlawful activity.
2. "Law enforcement officer" means (i) a peace officer or police
officer as defined in the Criminal Procedure Law who is employed by the
city of New York; or (ii) a special patrolman appointed by the police
commissioner pursuant to section 14-106 of the administrative code.
b. Prohibition. Every member of the police department or other law
enforcement officer shall be prohibited from racial or ethnic profiling.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/ADC/14/1/14-151

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:55 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Quote:

The agency said in an advisory that while background checks themselves are not racist, they way they were applied — without individual consideration for each case — is.


Actually, it isn't.

Treating each case the same, you know... with OUT regard to one's race, like was done here, is the opposite of racism.

Justice is suppose to be blind, no ? It's nothing but double speak to claim that treating each case with out individual consideration is some how racist.

And it only figures that you'd stand by the insanity of claiming Tsarnaev was a " victim " of gun violence. Making no distinction between bad guys who die via a gun and good guys is the completely disingenuous and deceptive trick the gun control nuts use to pad their numbers.

It takes a good guy w/ a gun to stop a bad guy. In this case, the dead Tsarnaev used a gun, and tried to kill more than just the 1 cop he did. Thankfully, he was put down , and then run over by his own brother.

I guess he should also be counted in the car fatalities total, right ? That number is far greater than those killed by guns. So, I guess we should ban cars too.

Think of the children.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 3:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


You're wrong: "Treating each case the same" is precisely what they did NOT do, and the very issue at hand in that instance. Read your own link, it gives examples. But of course you know that, because all you're doing is being argumentative, and we know it.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 3:30 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Apparently, you don't 'know it', you merely wish it were true, because it makes your position more valid in your mind.

" without individual consideration for each case "

Treating every case the same.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 5:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

It was a PERSON in a white tee shirt, jeans and sneakers! He shouldn't be hard to find right?

Had to fix that for ya. Claiming the suspect was a " guy " could be viewed as chauvinistic, and bigoted, as the individual may not have actually CHOSEN the sex by which they want to be identified. They tyranny of you trying to impose on this person a specific sex, according to YOUR standards, is narrow minded.

Not entirely fixed. The statement should read
Quote:

"IT shouldn't be hard to find".


-----------------------------

Quote:

In one case, a 14-year employee of a BMW facility in South Carolina was fired over a misdemeanor that was on the books for more than 20 years. In another, an applicant to Dollar General disclosed a drug arrest six years earlier and was offered the job, only to see it revoked once the criminal background check went through. A third complaint alleged that Dollar General rejected an applicant based upon inaccurate information contained in a background check and stood by the decision even after the record was corrected.
I think all of these examples are pretty egregious. Losing a 14-year-old job over a 20-year-old misdemeanor? Losing a job offer over an arrest? (NOTE, not a conviction, an arrest. You can be arrested for all kinds of horrible crimes that you didn't do. I know a guy who was arrested for murder, but he wasn't the perp.) Losing a job offer over inaccurate information??

I just want to smack the employers on the backs of their collective heads and tell them they're idiots, because the events in the criminal background checks have nothing to do with whether or not the person can do the job, whether or not the person is a security risk, or (in one case) has nothing to do with the person at all- it was just a mistaken entry.

Unfortunately, commissions and judges can't just lean down from the bench and smack the miscreants on the back of the head while hissing Fool!. They have to write regulations and file lawsuits, and reading the EEOC recommendations makes my head hurt because, although I can recognise fairness and common sense when I see it, writing a regulation that enforces both is practically impossible, since some people insist on being so inventive in being stupid and unfair.

Quote:

More than 90 percent of employers in the U.S. rely on criminal background and credit checks to screen employees, The Wall Street Journal noted. The EEOC recommends that employers not solely rely upon the data from the background checks, and that consideration be given to individual workers and applicants, along with the nature of their crime and how long ago it occurred.
Well, so far so good. I would reiterate that in two of these three examples, there is not even a crime attached to the applicant.

Quote:

According to the EEOC’s 2012 guidelines, employers have to watch out for biased statements about workers or applicants by their hiring managers
Even Paul Deen can't get away with the n-word.
Quote:

committing inconsistencies in the hiring process
Okay, so far so good. Among other things, job application criteria have to be relevant to the job. This is trickier that outright biased statements. Firefighting and law enforcement and heavy-duty assembly were typically closed to women because of the physical bar that had to be passed. On the other hand, there is no reason to require that an applicant be able to lift a 100-lb weight when the biggest thing they will handle is a 5-lb penumatic drill. I've had a lot of experience with creating written tests that look for the required skills, and ONLY the required skills.

In my opinion, criminal background checks, as applied in these cases, failed to show relevance to the job AND to the applicant.
Quote:

and any major racial imbalance in their workforce statistics, or they could be in violation of the law.
Ruh roh. They didn't say "quota", but they may as well have.

There are two threads of thought on this. The first is that bias is still alive and hearty in the USA. There is bias against blacks, bias against browns, bias against women, bias against Muslims... all kinds of prejudice (prejudice, from "pre" meaning before, and "judice" meaning judgement: judgement before the facts, prejudgement) still exists today. For example, when scientific papers are submitted with women's names as authors, they are judged far more harshly than when the same papers are submitted with men's names on them, or submitted blinded. That is why a major scientific journal just adopted a policy where papers can be submitted blinded for peer review.

Too many studies on similar prejudice against blacks, browns, single women etc in renting apartments, buying cars, applying for jobs, being arrested... people with EXACTLY the same FICO score or job background or level of suspicion are treated very differently depending on their gender and race/ ethnicity. So imbalances are quite often created by consistently-operating bias.

But sometimes the imbalance is created by real discrepancies in the applicant populations. In my view, you don't fix the problem by giving some people a "pass", you (a) make the process rigorously relevant to the job and (2) blinded as much as possible, and you fix the background educational and policing mileu which created the imbalances.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:53 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I don't know why Rap is determined to be so obtuse, except that when it serves his cause, that seems to be his modus operandi, but the link is totally clear as to why there is an issue.

--In one case, the applicant VOLUNTARILY "disclosed a drug arrest six years earlier and was offered the job"...in other words, he was offered the job when they KNEW about the arrest (as well as what Sig said about it only being an ARREST record), then had the offer rescinded.

--In another case, the applicant was rejected "based upon inaccurate information contained in a background check" and then the employer stood by the decision even after the record was corrected.

That's not discriminatory?? The idea of "without individual consideration for each case" means just that, but what's detailed there are individual cases where individual consideration was somehow used AGAINST the applicant, and of course it's an easy way to get around racism, because nothing can be proven conclusively.

The point is perfectly logical: Applicants should be reviewed on an individual basis; "consideration be given to individual workers and applicants, along with the nature of their crime and how long ago it occurred". In other words, consideration should be given to skills, work ethic, and many other things, not just rejecting someone on the basis of a single factor, criminal background check, like a 20-year-old ARREST record or inaccurate information in the background check. It's not just the guidelines; the story is about things that have gone wrong by utilizing the practice incorrectly, and that's quite valid.

Whatever Rap's need to twist this, it's not worth further time or effort, as far as I'm concerned. It's a very understandable issue, trying to twist it into something it's not is only important to him.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:17 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I'm not 'twisting' anything here Niki. You're the one who is tilting at windmills here,claiming discrimination on suspect 'evidence' here.

But thanks for making my original point for me.

Here's your sign.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 8:37 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Ayep

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
South Korea
Tue, November 5, 2024 05:00 - 4 posts
Worst poll yet!
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:43 - 19 posts
Poll Shows Americans' Massive Disapproval Of Both Parties: "Now It's Just An Oligarchy"
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:36 - 24 posts
New CNN Poll Raises Eyebrows
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:32 - 10 posts
Elections; 2024
Tue, November 5, 2024 03:22 - 4512 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Tue, November 5, 2024 02:49 - 4675 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Mon, November 4, 2024 20:13 - 636 posts
Game Companies are Morons.
Mon, November 4, 2024 18:24 - 175 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 4, 2024 16:54 - 7421 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Mon, November 4, 2024 16:52 - 37 posts
The DEI Hires Thread
Mon, November 4, 2024 15:23 - 4 posts
U.S. Senate Races 2024
Mon, November 4, 2024 15:15 - 11 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL