AA-haters: I agree with this form of Affirmative Action, don't you?

Um... genius... that is NOT affirmative action. Affirmative action is when a past discrimination is "made right" by a current use of discrimination.
 
Stating that a certain percentage of business should go to those that have put their lives on the line for this country is a benefit to those that serve. It is does not discriminate based on age, race or relgion. It simply states that those who serve this country will have this opportunity provided them.
 
Um... genius... that is NOT affirmative action. Affirmative action is when a past discrimination is "made right" by a current use of discrimination.


Uhhh, SF? The reason congress passed this law, is because diabled vets have traditionally been underrepresented and discriminated against in business contracting.
 
Cypress,

please show me where that article of yours states they were discriminated against. Because unless I completely missed it, the article simply states that they are not doing enough to ensure the disabled vets businesses get more of the pie. It does not state that they are being discriminated against. To be discriminated against, the government agencies would have to be saying "oh, that business is run by a disabled vet... because of that no way do they get the business"
 
In 1999, Congress told the federal agencies that they should “award 3 percent of their contracts to businesses owned by service disabled veterans.”

But currently, only FEMA has met the target. “Government-wide, less than 1 percent of all federal contracts have gone to businesses owned by service-disabled veterans.”


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/veterans/story/17533.html


Sorry for being off-topic but must one be a "hater" to disagree with a policy? People rightfully claim they don't like being called a traitor for disagreeing with the President (for example) yet the title of this thread is just another way to demigod a group of people.

As far as your topic I definitely like the idea of disabled vets getting contracts. As far as the government mandating it? I'm not so high on that.
 
Um... genius... that is NOT affirmative action. Affirmative action is when a past discrimination is "made right" by a current use of discrimination.
Isnt that what this is? (In this case, past discrininatory effects being their disability?)
 
Sorry for being off-topic but must one be a "hater" to disagree with a policy? People rightfully claim they don't like being called a traitor for disagreeing with the President (for example) yet the title of this thread is just another way to demigod a group of people.

As far as your topic I definitely like the idea of disabled vets getting contracts. As far as the government mandating it? I'm not so high on that.

Cawacko, every thread I see you on, you have a complaint. Did you know that Damo has a cyber complaint box?
 
don... no, just because they have not been getting the business doesn't mean they were discriminated against due to the fact that they were disabled vets.
 
Cawacko, every thread I see you on, you have a complaint. Did you know that Damo has a cyber complaint box?

My bad. I didn't mean to complain but thought I was pointing something legitimate out. However if it comes off as complaining then I will chill on it.
 
Um... genius... that is NOT affirmative action. Affirmative action is when a past discrimination is "made right" by a current use of discrimination.

"Um... genius... that is NOT affirmative action."


Ummm.....The United States Department of Labor disagrees with you:


US Department of Labor Website:

The affirmative action provisions of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA) prohibits job discrimination and requires federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified Vietnam era veterans, special disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, and veterans who served on active duty during a war on in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/vetsdisc.htm
 
Cypress,

please show me where that article of yours states they were discriminated against. Because unless I completely missed it, the article simply states that they are not doing enough to ensure the disabled vets businesses get more of the pie. It does not state that they are being discriminated against. To be discriminated against, the government agencies would have to be saying "oh, that business is run by a disabled vet... because of that no way do they get the business"

Okay, I just addressed this.

I linked you up with the U.S. Department of Labor, which states the law is intended as an affirmative action to prevent or address discrimination against disabled vets.

Next question?
 
Okay, I just addressed this.

I linked you up with the U.S. Department of Labor, which states the law is intended as an affirmative action to prevent or address discrimination against disabled vets.

Next question?

If we can put a man on the moon, can't we make a nail polish that doesn't chip?
 
Cypress.... AGAIN... show me where these disabled vet run businesses were being discriminated against. There was NO indication that they were from your article.
 
By the way Cypress, since you seem incapable of reading your own articles. The 3% number was enacted in 1999.... NOT 1974.
 
By the way Cypress, since you seem incapable of reading your own articles. The 3% number was enacted in 1999.... NOT 1974.

It's all part of the same labor laws. You do realize that laws are constantly amended and updated? And that new rules and regulations, in accordance with existing laws, are constantly being updated?


I provided you the evidence that preferential treatment of disabled vets is affirmative action. You laughed at me and claimed it wasn't affirmative action.

Any response to your mistake? ;)
 
Back
Top