Is maxine Waters calling Obama a racist

Deez, you accuse Democrats of ignoring evangelicals while completely neglecting to mention that Republicans do little more than give lip service to them and thier concerns. Since Reagan, Republicans have used the carrot of outlawing all abortions to activate its base while doing next to nothing for them other than mollify them with prodigious Jesus language when the situation calls for doing do.

Why would any self respecting black person support a party tha supports employer efforts to discriminate against the unemployed when unemployment among black men approaches 50% in some urban communities? Why would we support a party that opposes a jobs bill that would bring relief to many of those same unemployed in our communities? Why support a party that wasted numerous opportunities to improve access to health care and now seeks to rescind coverage of preexisting conditions and other critical care provisions? Why support a party who invests in training others to vote against their own economic interests?

The Republican Party might be Colonel Sanders but we ain't chickens.
Peace and a long life.
 
Satch

You posted, 'It was in part because we have sense enough to recognize when a political party advances interests that are inimical to our own."

Give some examples of interests that the Pubs have advnaced that are inimical to blacks.
 
I've already done that. Why don't you provide some specific reasons black people should vote for Republicans instead of Democrats.
 
Satch
when did you do explain that? What thread? i will go back and read it.

You are the one asserting this and i am trying to understand.

I know you get accused of dodging direct questions but i am hoping this time you will explain what you meant.
 
Chango
We disagree. That doesn't mean either of us is totally right.
why the need to be petty and rude?
Why can't you post in a civil manner? Resorting to such childish tactics does nothing but make you look small.

satch
don't let that cute reply be your out. if you could give a few examples of the GOP's policies being inimical to you and other black people I would like to understand , what chango wrote not withstanding.
 
I wouldn't want you to get it twisted, so let me be crystal. I don't need an out. Re read my earlier post to get the examples you need.
cool.gif
 
Satch
i gave you more credit than to accept Dem talking points as a bases for your opinions.

1. Why would any self respecting black person support a party tha supports employer efforts to discriminate against the unemployed when unemployment among black men approaches 50% in some urban communities?"

IF you are speaking about extending unemployment benefits the Pubs offered a plan to extend unemployment benefits including COBRA insurance benefits but it was rejected in the Senate by Dems.
Typical of Dems to lie about what the Pubs .

2. Why would we support a party that opposes a jobs bill that would bring relief to many of those same unemployed in our communities?
Which party? Dems in Senate( and many in the House) don't support the obama jobs bill either. Why blame only 1 party? maybe it is a porrly contructed bill?

obamacare
You act as if only obmacare can address health insurance/ coverage issues when it has been shown over and over that it will end up causing more problems that any fixes it promises.
Why not try to find ways to help more people without bankrupting us and driving docs and hospitals out of the profession?

Dems saying over and over that the GOP hates black people doesn't make it so.
 
I'm beginning to believe some of you are posting when you should be keeping up with going on in the world:

Mr. Obama’s jobs bill would prohibit employers from discriminating against job applicants because they are unemployed.

Under the proposal, it would be “an unlawful employment practice” if a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person “because of the individual’s status as unemployed.”

Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just as when an employer discriminates on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

White House officials see discrimination against the unemployed as a serious problem. In a radio interview last month, Mr. Obama said such discrimination made “absolutely no sense,” especially at a time when many people, through no fault of their own, had been laid off.

Mr. Obama’s proposal would also prohibit employment agencies and Web sites from carrying advertisements for job openings that exclude people who are unemployed. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has received reports of such advertisements but has no data to show how common they are.

Republicans and some employers criticized the White House proposal. They said that discrimination was not common and that the proposed remedy could expose employers to a barrage of lawsuits.

“We do not see a need for it,” said Michael J. Eastman, executive director of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Already, Mr. Eastman said, the Civil Rights Act outlaws employment practices that have “a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin,” unless an employer can show that a particular practice is “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.”

Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, said the president’s proposal would, in effect, establish the unemployed as a new “protected class.”
 
Gotcha. Wanting to ensure the unemployed are not discriminated against in the hiring process is clearly class warfare.
rolleyes.gif
 
There are many reasons for being unemployed. So you want employers to be forced to hire unemployed people even if they were terminated for cause? Say a person has been fired twice, both times for consistent tardiness, petty theft, non-productivity, etc. My understanding of the law is that if a potential employer calls you for a reference, you can only say positive things. If there are lots of negative things you could say, you can only say that he/she worked there from such-and-such a date until ...... The potential employer can read between the lines - if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. But there is nothing concrete - just a pretty strong sense that this would not be a good hire. So they cannot refuse to hire him? Because that would be pathetic and a good example of lots that is wrong with America right now.
 
Here's the reality: Millions of long-term unemployed Americans face a cruel dilemma: Many hiring managers look down on laid-off workers, and won't hire them. And employers can afford to be picky. There are currently five unemployed workers for every job opening available.

How will the jobs numbers ever improve if employers create a permanent class of ineligibles. The outlook is even worse for blue and white collar workers 55 and above.
 
In order to not open your company or employer up to lawsuits when a prospective employer calls for ' references" you ONLY give employment dates of former employee.
You never say anything critical.

One thing you can say, if asked, is whether or not you would rehire the person.


Regarding a lawsuit brought by someone unemployed who doe not get hired. sure they can sue and asMrdeez points out will likely lose if the hire was justified
BUT how much will it cost a company or employer to pay for attroneys to defend against such a lawsuit?

That threat added to all the other hindrances being imposed by the obama Admin could cause companies to forego new hiring. How does that help?
 
Stop with the straw man of lawsuits. Employers are presently refusing to hire the "long term" unemployed with impunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top