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

Cypress...

"No, I do not have a problem with this program as it does not discriminate based on age, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation."

Already posted that for you, but since you apparently have very selective reading comprehension abilities, I thought I would highlight that portion again for you.
 
Superfreak said:
"When did that become the requirement of the argument? I thought we were talking about the program mentioned above being considered affirmative action.......as we've already proven. "

When THAT was what was in Cypress's original post. It had nothing to do with labor law, it had to do with ownership of the companies. They were trying to give a break to companies owned by disabled vets. It had nothing to do with hiring practices. You and Cypress were the ones who continually have tried to spin this into a hiring practice that would be included in labor laws.
Click to expand...

The 3% thing isn't a requirement. It's a goal. A policy. There is no legally binding requiment to have exactly 3% vet contracts. That would be illegal. Quotas are illegal.

This policy or guideline, is part of the broader affirmative action programs and laws that apply to disabled vets.

Do you think, broadly speaking, that we should have AA for disabled people and vets?
 
"Well, my neodixie name was way funnier. You're trying to spin it like a classic Dixie whereas Wanderingbear had wild tinfoil hat theories and was high all the time. I gave you nothing but link after link debunking you're untruths.

We give that futile attempt at humor a 3 out of 10."

There is no spin. One is a law dealing with hiring practices for employers. The other is dealing with company ownership which is NOT included in the labor laws you keep bringing up. You and Cypress are the ones trying to spin the two together.

and DAMN... I thought I would at least get a 4... I knew it wouldn't be higher than that since I had to have an assist from Damo... but I still thought it was worth a 4. :(
 
Superfreak said:
Cypress...

"No, I do not have a problem with this program as it does not discriminate based on age, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation."

Already posted that for you, but since you apparently have very selective reading comprehension abilities, I thought I would highlight that portion again for you.
Click to expand...

But, it goes beyond making discrimination illegal. Discrimination is almost impossible to prove, in a court of law. It also requires government agencies to proactively seek out and give contracts to qualified vets. to take affirmative action, as it were. That's the essence of affirmative action programs. Whether is applies to race, physical disability, or gender.


Do you support AA for the disabled, but not for other groups? and if so, why?
 
"The 3% thing isn't a requirement. It's a goal. A policy. There is no legally binding requiment to have exactly 3% vet contracts. That would be illegal. Quotas are illegal. "

Then why is it that you continue to hoist up labor laws and the affirmative action programs within those labor laws and act as if that justifies calling this practice affirmative action????????

"This policy or guideline, is part of the broader affirmative action programs and laws that apply to disabled vets. "

Really... then show me where it states that. Not on your labor law sites you keep posting... because it has NOTHING to do with labor law.

"Do you think, broadly speaking, that we should have AA for disabled people and vets?"

Again, I said ""No, I do not have a problem with this program as it does not discriminate based on age, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation."

Again, that was ""No, I do not have a problem with this program as it does not discriminate based on age, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation."

again... perhaps three times in one post will help you to read it....""No, I do not have a problem with this program as it does not discriminate based on age, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation."
 
"Do you support AA for the disabled, but not for other groups? and if so, why?"

For disable VETS.... then.... "No, I do not have a problem with this program as it does not discriminate based on age, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation"
 
As to the why... because they put their lives on the line so that the rest of us could sit at home and breath free under their protection and they were disabled because of it.
 
Superfreak said:
"The 3% thing isn't a requirement. It's a goal. A policy. There is no legally binding requiment to have exactly 3% vet contracts. That would be illegal. Quotas are illegal. "

Then why is it that you continue to hoist up labor laws and the affirmative action programs within those labor laws and act as if that justifies calling this practice affirmative action????????

"This policy or guideline, is part of the broader affirmative action programs and laws that apply to disabled vets. "

Really... then show me where it states that. Not on your labor law sites you keep posting... because it has NOTHING to do with labor law.

"Do you think, broadly speaking, that we should have AA for disabled people and vets?"

Again, I said ""No, I do not have a problem with this program as it does not discriminate based on age, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation."

Again, that was ""No, I do not have a problem with this program as it does not discriminate based on age, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation."

again... perhaps three times in one post will help you to read it....""No, I do not have a problem with this program as it does not discriminate based on age, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation."
Click to expand...

Again, that was ""No, I do not have a problem with this program


Okay. Thanks. I think we're done.

You support AA for the physically disabled. But, you oppose AA for gender or race.

Fair enough.
 
The difference Cypress, even though you are lumping this into AA, which I do not agree that it is.... assume you are correct and it is indeed AA... this is not trying to right some past/current discrimination that one group had over another.... this is protecting our vets. There is a huge difference in that too me.

Saying that a disabled vet has an advantage because they put their lives on the line for this country.... and saying that we are going to have a policy based on race (which would be racist), gender (which would be sexist) or sexual orientation (which would be bigoted) are two different things.
 
On a positive note, I can report that most Federal agencies in the future will be able to reach or exceed the 3% disabled vets goal.

Many of the old vietnam vets are retiring, or dying off. These days, it's actually pretty difficult for an agency to find a qualified disabled vet. The pool of disabled vets is shrinking as they die or retire.


Thanks to Bush and his Iraq war, we're creating a whole new generation of disabled vets, who will be able to take advantage of these AA programs.
 
Cypress said:
On a positive note, I can report that most Federal agencies in the future will be able to reach or exceed the 3% disabled vets goal.
.........
Thanks to Bush and his Iraq war, we're creating a whole new generation of disabled vets, who will be able to take advantage of these AA programs.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you're right.
 
Cypress said:
On a positive note, I can report that most Federal agencies in the future will be able to reach or exceed the 3% disabled vets goal.

Many of the old vietnam vets are retiring, or dying off. These days, it's actually pretty difficult for an agency to find a qualified disabled vet. The pool of disabled vets is shrinking as they die or retire.


Thanks to Bush and his Iraq war, we're creating a whole new generation of disabled vets, who will be able to take advantage of these AA programs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess that is the upside huh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top