Blade96
Senior Master
As a survivor of intense bullying I think that whoever believes that can go get bent. Hard. ALL bully victims need help!!!
White kids are out of luck
- Thread starter Twin Fist
- Start date
As a survivor of intense bullying I think that whoever believes that can go get bent. Hard. ALL bully victims need help!!!
You seem to enjoy making counter arguments to arguments that were never made. No one absolved Bush DOJ of anything. No one asserted that things that come before have no impact on things that come after.
No ones fault but your own. Did you miss Holder's "my people" moment?
Nothing to do with anything said. I know you like to mince words and get sidetracked, but regardless of weather or not other presidents push legislation etc the way Obama does isn't the point. Rather, your assertion that all presidents admins. do it only further weakens your argument. If they all do it... then your attempts at absolving Obama and placing this on Dayton's head is fallacious.
As to patterns, you have consistently cherry picked sources for incomplete quotes. Lets try again;
"The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits.
It's a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam. The DOJ has forced other police departments across the country to lower testing standards citing once again that not enough black candidates were passing."
I'm sorry friend but it is DOJ policy. Were it Dayton city/Dayton PD policy - none of this would have happened in the first place.
I have. The fact that the initial decree is vague means nothing accept that... its vague! The DOJ holding Dayton PD hostage by freezing their hiring indefinitely (until they get what they want) is indicative of whose making decisions.
True. If I were to follow your pattern, simply adding some incomplete quotes and out of context info would make it so.
Again, this is a counter argument to an argument that was never made, and yet another incidence of your word games intended to put words in someones mouth. I blame the Bush admin for plenty, but I will not blame him for the outcome in this case. That is squarely on the Obama admin. The history of DOJ and Fed offenses into states and cities business goes back much further than Obama or Bush.
Back to the point...To further help you understand whose decision this actually is;
From the Free republic: "Black applicant protests lowering police entrance exam scores. Community leaders say Justice Department’s demand is ‘a slap in the face to black people.’"
"Zachary Williams is a 21-year-old black Wayne High School grad who wants nothing more than to be a Dayton police officer or firefighter. HeÂ’s one of 225 black applicants who took the November police entrance exam now at the center of a dispute between the city and the U.S. Department of Justice.His test results are pending the Justice DepartmentÂ’s demand that the city lower its passing score for a police exam to allow for a larger pool of black applicants, while the city argues it is trying to ensure it hires the most qualified candidates." (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2687841/posts)
From U.S. District Judge Walter H. Rice - “I cannot make a legal judgment on the Justice Department’s method, but there are lots of instances where competent people test poorly. What can happen in these cases, minorities are incorrectly branded as less qualified when they are infinitely qualified.”
Now, I don't think think this next quote could be any more clear:
Dayton proposed participants had to answer 57 of 86 (66 percent) questions correctly on one portion and 73 of 102 (72 percent) on the other. The Justice Department rejected those thresholds and wants the scores slightly lowered, city attorney John Danish said, because not enough blacks (57 of 225) passed compared to whites (386 of 788).
This is after the city of Dayton hired outside consultant. at a cost of 150k, to re write the test to ensure that it complies with civil rights laws. That still wasn't good enough for this admins. DOJ!
I would buy that if you simply gave citations, but you don't - statements like;
Clearly show any objective reader that you have some preconceived notion.. thus the "no less"...
I agree. However, this speaks more to my point. The initiation of the DOJ/Dayton issue back in 08 can be easily attributed to such lawyers as much or more than Bush, while (if we suspend the truth and run with your assertion) the willingness to accept lower tests scores falls squarely on Obama/Holder.
So ... now we're back to blaming Obama for racism in America, bullying white kids in America, the downfall of the heterosexual white male, blah blah blah and etcetera, just because he's the president *now.*
And, of course, when Bush was in office, he *inherited* all the bad **** from Clinton and he was trying to fix all the bad **** - and it wasn't his fault ... but sure as **** is Obama's.
Again (and again, and again and again and again) ... I don't like Obama. But this preposterous ******** that everything is Obama's fault just because he's in office and not the party affiliation of others on the board nor popular radio personalities IS SO ****ING STALE.
I guess if you hammer a lie long and often and loud enough, it eventually becomes truth for some.
It's like arguing the laws of physics with a toddler - pointless and nonproductive.
I'm out ... at least until the banter gets better.
And, of course, when Bush was in office, he *inherited* all the bad **** from Clinton and he was trying to fix all the bad **** - and it wasn't his fault ... but sure as **** is Obama's.
Again (and again, and again and again and again) ... I don't like Obama. But this preposterous ******** that everything is Obama's fault just because he's in office and not the party affiliation of others on the board nor popular radio personalities IS SO ****ING STALE.
I guess if you hammer a lie long and often and loud enough, it eventually becomes truth for some.
It's like arguing the laws of physics with a toddler - pointless and nonproductive.
I'm out ... at least until the banter gets better.
I'm not sure if the last time I posted this it was deleted, or if I failed to post it correctly, so I will try one more time;
Probably the most inapplicable and unproductive post I've ever read.
Feel free to show me where I (or anyone) said that.
Please show me where that was said?
Who brought up Clinton? Who said this?
Everything? Who said that? I recall a discussion being had as to weather the decision to lower acceptable test scored for Dayton PD was Obama's DOJ or Dayton itself. I don't recall any mention of "everything"....
What lies would that be? I have to believe that since you are posting in response to the discussion regarding Obama's DOJ decision to lower test scores for Dayton PD testing that you are referring to that as a lie. If that is the case, please try to gather you maturity, refrain from projections and simply refute all the statements I quoted.
And I suppose you are the physicist and anyone with a dissenting view is the toddler. Typical to say the least.
I disagree with 5-0 as to who is most responsible for this decision, and while we may be slightly cheeky with each other, I expect the continuation of citing articles and quotes to support our respective opinions to be as far as it goes. Pity you can't do the same.
Probably the most inapplicable and unproductive post I've ever read.
Feel free to show me where I (or anyone) said that.
Please show me where that was said?
Didn't know they were experiencing a downfall... but please show me where that was said, or how it applies to the thread.
Who brought up Clinton? Who said this?
Again... who absolved Bush of all blame? Where did this happen?
Everything? Who said that? I recall a discussion being had as to weather the decision to lower acceptable test scored for Dayton PD was Obama's DOJ or Dayton itself. I don't recall any mention of "everything"....
What lies would that be? I have to believe that since you are posting in response to the discussion regarding Obama's DOJ decision to lower test scores for Dayton PD testing that you are referring to that as a lie. If that is the case, please try to gather you maturity, refrain from projections and simply refute all the statements I quoted.
And I suppose you are the physicist and anyone with a dissenting view is the toddler. Typical to say the least.
If childish tantrums and outbursts accompanied by insults like your post above is your MO for contributing to threads... then you choosing to be "out" is hardly a loss.
I disagree with 5-0 as to who is most responsible for this decision, and while we may be slightly cheeky with each other, I expect the continuation of citing articles and quotes to support our respective opinions to be as far as it goes. Pity you can't do the same.
And I guess that happens when people no longer post links to articles and quotes supporting their position, but rather, follow your example and give in to accusations and rants?
yorkshirelad
Master Black Belt
So all this talk about Obama has got you to leave the conversation.....Nice one Mr. President, now look what you've done!!
Empty Hands
Senior Master
President Obama cut me off in traffic this morning, and served me cold coffee at Starbucks.
Nice going Fartbama!
Archangel M
Senior Master
Someone I know said something along these lines (I paraphrase): "a campaign to end bullying is praiseworthy for a school principal, noteworthy for a superintendant, questionable for a mayor, a distraction for a governor, and ridiculous for a President. "
OP
OP
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
I can make new points in an on-going debate, can't I, based on what I perceive as the implications of statements made by others? The argument still remains that it is quite inconceivable to believe that Obama could simply reject out of hand a change to the test in some manner after the Bush Administration's DOJ found evidence of bias.
And since we are talking about responsibilty, which can cross a single day of
You mean where he was talking about his a disservice in a person's comments regarding people who put their lives on the line, specifically his sister-in-law, or "my people".
You made a generalized statement, and I made one back. There is no evidence to support that he tied anyone's hands in this case either.
Except for the fact that there is no legal document stating that the DOJ required this specific remedy.
There is no proof of that that it is a DOJ policy.
And the fact that the only specific remedy that it requires is that they not use the 2006 test, and (generally) be compliant with Title VII.
And making statements about facts not in evidence doesn't either.
And that is the problem with out discussion. This "blame game" can go any such way, dependent upon perspective. I could just as easily say that were in not for the Bush Administration's DOJ determination of bias, this outcome would have never happened either. A remedy, once the determination is made, is inevitable.
This I actually agree with.
Again, there is no evidence that this is a Justice Department demand, and even if so, there is no way that short of a court order that they can compel compliance.
And what method is he referring to:
This says nothing about arm twisting, but litigation, which the cities are perfectly capable of going to court regarding.
Wants. And the city had every right to disagree and contest it. They chose not to. And since the test scores were put forth by them, it is their decision.
Perhaps because it was, in fact, inadequate. I don't know, but neither will I make an assumption.
Or it could be because of the fact that Fox is generally believed to be anti-Obama station made such a comment, perhaps lending credibility to said statement. Otherwise, why not say Obama's DOJ forced them to do it in an effort to make him look bad. It had nothing at all to do with your acceptance of Fox News as a credible source, but, even thinking that they might be biased against Obama, they still credited the change to Dayton, not him.
No, I would actually say that willingness to accept lower test scores also falls to career lawyers, and not Obama. Just like the original investigation under the Bush DOJ likely had more to do with career lawyers. The whole theory that people have made here is that because the outcome occurred under Obama, that he must have had a hand in it's decision, and it was based on his "racial preferences". Not only that, but future decisions of the DOJ will have the same racial bias. I have denied that because there is nothing in the evidence to support such a conclusion. So though he may be in charge, in an ultimate sense, it is not like he, or Eric Holder for that matter, has a hand in the day-to-day decision making of every aspect of the DOJ.
You can do anything you want, but what you do with each post, is sidestep the argument in favor of ancillary points. You aren't writing them as a "new point" you want to bring up, but rather, as a counter argument to and argument never made.
This was never the argument. The argument revolves around Obama/Obama DOJ/Obama appointees making policy decision that are racially motivated. They have made decisions based on race politics and not law. The end result pushed by Obama et al and accepted by the same is the issue, not who started the inquiry.
Both sides have stated that the DOJ disallowed Dayton from continuing the hiring proccess until the DOJ was satisfied (lower test scores obtained). Dayton desperately needed new recruits, so yes, they accepted the DOJ policy. Complicit? Yes. Their policy? No.
Just statements by the DOJ/Loretta King, Dayton PD, city attorneys, Dayton FOP. numerous press interviews and sources etc... but you just continue to believe they are all making it up?
I do not think it is possible that your understanding of politics, government, legal system, lobbying etc is so shallow as to believe a court order is the only way to compel compliance. You are simply choosing to be obtuse in the face of evidence. As though budgetary/economic/time and resource constraints as well as political capitol can't be used to compel. In our system, as well as international systems, the very threat of having to go to court against a more heavily funded opponent is enough to compel. Surely you understand this.
So you have come around to my original argument? The DOJ wanted test scores lowered. It was their policy. The city chose to accept rather than undergo a drawn out legal battle, bleed resources, etc... and so they are complicit, but it is still a DOJ policy.
Which is exactly what I said. You were not simply making a citation... but bringing in a preconceived notion about the source. You responded you were just making a citation as you always do. Apparently that wasn't the case.
The notion that the Obama admin. DOJ/Holder and appointees make racially driven policies is hardly new. It's an assertion made by many on both sides of the political spectrum.
Obama's appointee Loretta King has come under much condemnation for this, as has Obama and Holder for sharing her objective.
Yet you say you are failing to see a pattern from this admin. and DOJ?
Perhaps this will help;
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/21/c...-guided-more-by-racial-politics-than-the-law/
“Some of the most outlandish policies of the Holder Justice Department over the last two years flow directly from Loretta King’s worldview,” J. Christian Adams, who worked with King while serving as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department, told The Daily Caller.
According to Adams, race-based decision making has been a consistent staple of KingÂ’s actions and resume.
“In the spring of 2009, Ms. King, who had by then been appointed Acting AAG [assistant attorney general] for Civil Rights by the Obama Administration, called me to her office and specifically instructed me that I was not to ask any other applicants whether they would be willing to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the VRA [Voting Rights Act],” he testified. “Ms. King took offense that I was asking such a question of job applicants and directed me not to ask it because she does not support equal enforcement of the provisions of the VRA.”
“The bigger issue was the testimony we uncovered while we were trying to investigate — that there is a pervasive atmosphere of hostility to race-neutral enforcement...“The most important thing was testimony from four witnesses…that there is a racial double standard to the enforcement...And no one in the Justice Department has denied the specific facts or specific allegations."
In New York, King is currently the lead attorney in an effort to disregard low test scores to allow more minority candidates to become firefighters. The effort, as some have pointed out, disregards the 2009 New Haven firefighter case, Ricci v. DeStefano. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that objective test results could not be thrown out merely to meet a desired racial outcome.
Ms. King glosses over the professional challenges of firefighting to focus on whether minorities feel ’stigmatized’ or if black firefighters could further their ’sense of fairness in their place of employment’ if surrounded by more workers of their own race,” the Times reported.
Again, with regards to Dayton;
Last week, reports came out of Dayton, Ohio that the DOJ, led by King, is compelling the Dayton Police Department to lower their test standards to make the equivalent of an “F” a passing grade. The reasoning behind this: the DOJ believes that not enough African Americans are passing the test.
When asked why the DOJ demanded that test scores be lowered, their answer wasn't it wasn't our policy, it was Dayton's..." as you suggest. It was and has always been "because not enough African Americans are passing".
They aren't just pushing this policy in Dayton, either.
Whether or not you fail to see the pattern, doesn't mean it isn't there.
According to some who know her, King simply wonÂ’t allow even Supreme Court decisions to get in the way of her pushing race-based policies.
“I know [King]. I worked with her, and look, she is somebody who believes in racial quotas and she is not going to allow a Supreme Court decision, like Ricci, prevent her from what she wants to do,” said Hans Von Spakovsky, former counsel to the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, explaining why King has continued to push forward with cases like Dayton.
King declined to comment to TheDC.
It is in fact DOJ policy, and there is in fact evidence of a pattern of racially motivated policy decisions. Dayton accepted because they desperately needed to hire, and they new testing isn't the only weeder of applicants in the hiring proccess. Their willingness to submit to the DOJ doesn't mean it wasn't DOJ policy.
Again, with regards to Dayton;
Last week, reports came out of Dayton, Ohio that the DOJ, led by King, is compelling the Dayton Police Department to lower their test standards to make the equivalent of an “F” a passing grade. The reasoning behind this: the DOJ believes that not enough African Americans are passing the test.
When asked why the DOJ demanded that test scores be lowered, their answer wasn't it wasn't our policy, it was Dayton's..." as you suggest. It was and has always been "because not enough African Americans are passing".
They aren't just pushing this policy in Dayton, either.
Whether or not you fail to see the pattern, doesn't mean it isn't there.
According to some who know her, King simply wonÂ’t allow even Supreme Court decisions to get in the way of her pushing race-based policies.
“I know [King]. I worked with her, and look, she is somebody who believes in racial quotas and she is not going to allow a Supreme Court decision, like Ricci, prevent her from what she wants to do,” said Hans Von Spakovsky, former counsel to the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, explaining why King has continued to push forward with cases like Dayton.
King declined to comment to TheDC.
It is in fact DOJ policy, and there is in fact evidence of a pattern of racially motivated policy decisions. Dayton accepted because they desperately needed to hire, and they new testing isn't the only weeder of applicants in the hiring proccess. Their willingness to submit to the DOJ doesn't mean it wasn't DOJ policy.
