DaveinElma Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 President Obama intends to close "persistent gaps" between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates. His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on "disparate impact" complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/110812-632759-obama-to-wield-bigger-disparate-impact-club.htm?src=SThru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Gee, and this worked so well when Billy did this with subprime mortgages. What could go wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Unintended (or maybe not) consequence of racial preferences is that while favoring one group it also discriminates against another Jim Crow for the 21st century Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted November 12, 2012 Author Share Posted November 12, 2012 Unintended (or maybe not) consequence of racial preferences is that while favoring one group it also discriminates against another Jim Crow for the 21st century Another irony is that it reveals the low expectations liberals have for the very people they are trying to "help". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Another irony is that it reveals the low expectations liberals have for the very people they are trying to "help". Entitled "soft bigotry of low expecations." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) I don't imagine that you care, however many of you are the reasons that the GOP is so damn unpalatable to so many. When I read that "disparate impact" was a "stealthy" way to advance racial preferences, the article lost credibility. Considering the "disparate Impact" on certain classifications of individuals is a way to demonstrate indirect or "stealthily" administered racially biased practices that disproportionately affects certain groups. It's about the only way that you can prove institutionalized racism against small municipal government entities and mom and pop employers. I don't expect this to matter cause I'm black and you're white, blah blah blah...but sometimes, and in some instances, people surreptitiously act in a racially or gender biased way that is difficult to follow in any conventional sense because the scrutinized requirement is facially neutral. If a restaurant says that you have to be under 5'2" to wait tables there, that is going to have a disparate impact on men. Unless there is a business necessity or the height requirement constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification (maybe the ceilings are only 7' tall, who knows...), I imagine that is going to be scrutinized. "Disparate Impact," if it's anything, is a shield, not a sword. Edited November 12, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I don't imagine that you care, however many of you are the reasons that the GOP is so damn unpalatable to so many. When I read that "disparate impact" was a "stealthy" way to advance racial preferences, the article lost credibility. Considering the "disparate Impact" on certain classifications of individuals is a way to demonstrate indirect or "stealthily" administered racially biased practices that disproportionately affects certain groups. It's about the only way that you can prove institutionalized racism against small municipal government entities and mom and pop employers. I don't expect this to matter cause I'm black and you're white, blah blah blah...but sometimes, and in some instances, people surreptitiously act in a racially or gender biased way that is difficult to follow in any conventional sense because the scrutinized requirement is facially neutral. If a restaurant says that you have to be under 5'2" to wait tables there, that is going to have a disparate impact on men. Unless there is a business necessity or the height requirement constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification (maybe the ceilings are only 7' tall, who knows...), I imagine that is going to be scrutinized. "Disparate Impact," if it's anything, is a shield, not a sword. Attorney-speak. Sepaking of a group of people "so damn unpalatable to so many".............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Attorney-speak. Sepaking of a group of people "so damn unpalatable to so many".............. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with ya on that RK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Don't forget he's also going to take away your guns and turn us all into Socialists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Don't forget he's also going to take away your guns and turn us all into Socialists! That kind of talk with stop once Obama is successful growing the economy from the middle out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I'm not necessarily disagreeing with ya on that RK. Ha! We mock what we dont understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 That kind of talk with stop once Obama is successful growing the economy from the middle out. Can you explain what "middle out economics" is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Considering the "disparate Impact" on certain classifications of individuals is a way to demonstrate indirect or "stealthily" administered racially biased practices that disproportionately affects certain groups. It's about the only way that you can prove institutionalized racism against small municipal government entities and mom and pop employers. Yeah, except credit scores have nothing to do with race, they have to do with actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Can you explain what "middle out economics" is? I've asked that question of every mindless progressive dolt from Exiled and New Bills to conner and Dr.Doofenshmirtz, and as far as I can tell, it works like this: 1) Raise taxes on rich. 2)Talk about abortion. 3) ??????? 4) Prosperity for all!!! Or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Yeah, except credit scores have nothing to do with race, they have to do with actions. in what category would you put redlining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I don't imagine that you care, however many of you are the reasons that the GOP is so damn unpalatable to so many. When I read that "disparate impact" was a "stealthy" way to advance racial preferences, the article lost credibility. Considering the "disparate Impact" on certain classifications of individuals is a way to demonstrate indirect or "stealthily" administered racially biased practices that disproportionately affects certain groups. It's about the only way that you can prove institutionalized racism against small municipal government entities and mom and pop employers. I don't expect this to matter cause I'm black and you're white, blah blah blah...but sometimes, and in some instances, people surreptitiously act in a racially or gender biased way that is difficult to follow in any conventional sense because the scrutinized requirement is facially neutral. If a restaurant says that you have to be under 5'2" to wait tables there, that is going to have a disparate impact on men. Unless there is a business necessity or the height requirement constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification (maybe the ceilings are only 7' tall, who knows...), I imagine that is going to be scrutinized. "Disparate Impact," if it's anything, is a shield, not a sword. When I read the OP it pissed me off, but in reading over this (your) post I'm going to give it a second look. Some of us angry white men have a point or two ourselves with the alienation and racial division Obama has promulgated. What about the racial sides he took with the Boston Professor (beer summit) Trayvon Martin case and the refusal to do anything serious about the New Black Panthers voter intimidation and bounty on George Zimmerman. You see, it is hard to trust this guy to do what is right and easy to question his motives:. The USDA held back its report on food stamp participation for August until after the election---biggest one month jump in history (400k+). Benghazi---before, during and after. Petraeus conveniently timed resignation. I could go on and on but it's just too hard to trust this guy in anything he proposes. I liken it to having a wife who has had 3 different affairs and then asks you to trust her when she claims to be spending the weekend with "the girls". I'll give some thought to and consider your position though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Yeah, except credit scores have nothing to do with race, they have to do with actions. I can't tell you how credit scores factor into the equation. If the administration is trying to turn credit scores into a racial issue, then they're dolts and need to not take credible legal shields and make them applicable to matters of personal indiscretion. That would be stupid and a dilution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) in what category would you put redlining? The same place I put credit checks for potential employees: a valuable tool that can be used as a practical, reliable, and efficient bright line cut off to reduce overhead and bring the best candidates to the forefront. People who live in ****ty neighborhoods are less likely, statistically, to be good candidates for loans. That's not a racial issue, it's a socioeconomic issue. Edited November 12, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 When I read the OP it pissed me off, but in reading over this (your) post I'm going to give it a second look. Some of us angry white men have a point or two ourselves with the alienation and racial division Obama has promulgated. What about the racial sides he took with the Boston Professor (beer summit) Trayvon Martin case and the refusal to do anything serious about the New Black Panthers voter intimidation and bounty on George Zimmerman. You see, it is hard to trust this guy to do what is right and easy to question his motives:. The USDA held back its report on food stamp participation for August until after the election---biggest one month jump in history (400k+). Benghazi---before, during and after. Petraeus conveniently timed resignation. I could go on and on but it's just too hard to trust this guy in anything he proposes. I liken it to having a wife who has had 3 different affairs and then asks you to trust her when she claims to be spending the weekend with "the girls". I'll give some thought to and consider your position though. The beer summit he spoke indelicately and obviously favored the professor. I think gates was his friend. I hope that his motivations for speaking impulsively were not racial. I'm not sure though. I still don't understand the meaning of his comments on Trayvon Martin (the "if he had a son" commentary). That seemed somewhat outside the scope of presidential decorum to speak on that issue. He should have the Justice Dept look into any claims of voter intimidation - to include the alledged intimidation by the Black Panther folks. I don't know know many of the details. I do know that intimidation at the polls, from any source, is problematic. I'm not sure what he or the Justice Department can do about threats to Mr. Zimmerman. That is a job for local law enforcement. Food Stamp thing is sad for myriad reasons. I think that that is something that should have been in the public discourse pre-vote. Those are the kinds of things that people should know before going into the voting booth. It implicates the budget, public resources, and the allocation of tax monies. If those numbers were held for that reason, that would be pretty pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 The same place I put credit checks for potential employees: a valuable tool that can be used as a practical, reliable, and efficient bright line cut off to reduce overhead and bring the best candidates to the forefront. People who live in ****ty neighborhoods are less likely, statistically, to be good candidates for loans. That's not a racial issue, it's a socioeconomic issue. Have you ever used redlining since it's practical, reliable and efficient Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts