• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Fack Missouri!!!

Bermie, unfortunately there are a lot of places, in this country, where it can be unhealthy to be the wrong race. ...and no one is immune.
 
Bermie, unfortunately there are a lot of places, in this country, where it can be unhealthy to be the wrong race. ...and no one is immune.

In 99.9 % of cases those with privilege ARE immune. Did you learn how to lie from Trump? I ask because you are just as bad as he is at it.

(cue one of the Trumptards with a video of "The knockout game" to bring front and center that 1/10 of 1 Percent)
 
Three. things:

1. I was going to post this, but didn't want to overload the CONservative snowflakes here with too much racial stuff.

2. I remember you being black and CONservative from an exchange we had a while back.

3. If number 2 is recalled correctly by me, it's time for you to wake up.

Spreading your hate again I see.


Sent from my iPad using Steeler Nation mobile app
 
The source of this sobbing about civil rights violations is a new law, requiring that :protected conduct or characteristic" - filing a complaint, testifying in a proceeding, giving a statement about a civil rights claim, or a person's race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, marital status - is the sole reason for the complained-of conduct (usually related to housing or employment). The clown interviewed about the proposed legislation said this:

"Before, a plaintiff had to show that race or gender bias was a contributing factor to dismissal," Early said. "Under [Missouri Senate Bill 43], the plaintiff must prove that bias was, in effect, the sole reason that explains the treatment he or she received." The Missouri NAACP State Conference calls it a "Jim Crow Bill." "It says that you cannot sue the individual that harassed or discriminated against you," Chapel said.

Utter bullshit. Of course you can sue for discriminatory actions, but the plaintiff need prove that the protected conduct or characteristic was the sole motive for the conduct. So another idiot non-lawyer makes, not surprisingly, a stupid statement about the law.

"That's a first. That's different."

False. Numerous jurisdictions have the same policy in effect. The rule is known generally as a "mixed motive" defense, and has been recognized in that Reich-wing state, California, since 2013 under a case called Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203 [152 Cal.Rptr.3d 392], where the California Supreme Court held in relevant part, "under [California's Fair Employment & Housing Act] when a jury finds that unlawful discrimination was a substantial factor motivating a termination of employment, and where the employer proves it would have made the same decision absent such discrimination, a court may not award damages, backpay, or an order of reinstatement." [Emphasis added.] California's mixed-motive defense does permit a plaintiff to recover attorney fees if he or she proves that the discriminatory motive was a substantial factor in the termination, however.

But the "prevailing" plaintiff still gets nothing.

The California Supreme Court reviewed the history of the "mixed motive" defense throughout the United States, and noted that the Federal anti-discrimination law, via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. section 2000e, commonly known as "Title VII"), has precisely the same defense.

In other words, Missouri is doing nothing more than modeling its civil rights statute to mirror what most other jurisdictions already follow, and to mirror Title VII. As expected, the idiot non-lawyer's rant about the law is completely ******* wrong.
 
In 99.9 % of cases those with privilege ARE immune. Did you learn how to lie from Trump? I ask because you are just as bad as he is at it.

(cue one of the Trumptards with a video of "The knockout game" to bring front and center that 1/10 of 1 Percent)

Hate crime statistics from the FBI. Your anti-white bias blinds you to reality.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/topic-pages/victims_final

[h=2]Racial/Ethnicity/Ancestry bias (Based on Table 1.)
[/h]Among single-bias hate crime incidents in 2015, there were 4,216 victims of race/ethnicity/ancestry motivated hate crime.

  • 52.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Black or African American bias.

  • 18.7 percent were victims of anti-White bias.

  • 9.3 percent were victims of anti-Hispanic or Latino bias.

  • 3.8 percent were victims of bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group).

  • 3.3 percent were victims of anti-American Indian or Alaska Native bias.

  • 3.2 percent were victims of anti-Asian bias.

  • 1.1 percent were victims of anti-Arab bias.

  • 0.1 percent (6 individuals) were victims of anti-Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander bias.

  • 8.1 percent were victims of anti-Other Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry bias.
 
Hate crime statistics from the FBI. Your anti-white bias blinds you to reality.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/topic-pages/victims_final

[h=2]Racial/Ethnicity/Ancestry bias (Based on Table 1.)
[/h]Among single-bias hate crime incidents in 2015, there were 4,216 victims of race/ethnicity/ancestry motivated hate crime.

  • 52.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Black or African American bias.

  • 18.7 percent were victims of anti-White bias.

  • 9.3 percent were victims of anti-Hispanic or Latino bias.

  • 3.8 percent were victims of bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group).

  • 3.3 percent were victims of anti-American Indian or Alaska Native bias.

  • 3.2 percent were victims of anti-Asian bias.

  • 1.1 percent were victims of anti-Arab bias.

  • 0.1 percent (6 individuals) were victims of anti-Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander bias.

  • 8.1 percent were victims of anti-Other Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry bias.

Trumptards, so gullible......

We were talking about racism/discrimination. I mentioned someone would be stupid enough to post a knockout game video.....and like clockwork.
 
Says the dimwit who bought the asinine, idiotic, false "Oh, Missouri is so racist" bullshit in this thread.

Idiot.

Yes you have history on your side.......the history of being a jackass.

You think because you posted some nonsense saying it's not what it's being painted to be we are jyst going to believe you?

Well never mind, your fellow Trumptards will believe anything.
 
You think because you posted some nonsense saying it's not what it's being painted to be we are jyst going to believe you?

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

I didn't "jyst" post some "nonsense." I gave a specific factual analysis of the idiocy bloviated by a typical leftist, and provided a citation to a California case - just Google the case name, asslick, and read it yourself - to show how dumb leftists are.

You "jyst" cannot resist further proving the point by failing to read THE ******* CASE I CITED BY NAME AND CITATION, so that even somebody as stupid as you could find the case, read it and see that what I wrote is 100% correct.

I forgot, however, that not only are you stupid, you are lazy; apparently "jyst" too lazy to read the case I cited.

Don't go away mad; "jyst" put a gun to your head and pull the trigger.
 
Trumptards, so gullible......

We were talking about racism/discrimination. I mentioned someone would be stupid enough to post a knockout game video.....and like clockwork.


giphy.gif
 
You really are that stupid, aren't you?

I didn't "jyst" post some "nonsense." I gave a specific factual analysis of the idiocy bloviated by a typical leftist, and provided a citation to a California case - just Google the case name, asslick, and read it yourself - to show how dumb leftists are.

You "jyst" cannot resist further proving the point by failing to read THE ******* CASE I CITED BY NAME AND CITATION, so that even somebody as stupid as you could find the case, read it and see that what I wrote is 100% correct.

I forgot, however, that not only are you stupid, you are lazy; apparently "jyst" too lazy to read the case I cited.

Don't go away mad; "jyst" put a gun to your head and pull the trigger.

I don't need to read any case. Did you see where I said 'you have history on your side'? I'm talking about the history of Missouri, and about a racist POS like you. All in one beautiful sentence you can't grasp.

I know EXACTLY what this law's intent is. It's to allow the racists in that state to verbally /psychologically abuse people of color then use some ancillary reason as an excuse for discriminatory action taken against said people.

There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to albino shape shifting lizard ******* like you.

Your game is tired.
 
I don't need to read any case.

Yes, you clearly did. I noted with detail why the "whaaaa, Missouri is racist due to Senate Bill 43" is demonstrably asinine, wrong, dumb, stupid, moronic, and embarrassingly dimwitted.

And how you fell for that reasoning.

If the shoe fits, *****, wear it.
 
2. I remember you being black and CONservative from an exchange we had a while back.

I imagine that exchange would have included you calling Bermuda either an Uncle Tom, a traitor, or a porch monkey.

Right Maxine?
 
So in Missouri it is harder to sue an employer when you are fired and say it was because you are black. I would think that proves some positive movement in the whole race neutral thing, which is what most people I know subscribe to. You got fired. The whole world doesn't have to prove that it wasn't because you are black. People of all colors get fired every ******* day. Work on being a better employee next time.
 
I imagine that exchange would have included you calling Bermuda either an Uncle Tom, a traitor, or a porch monkey.

Right Maxine?

No. Anyone can choose to act stupidly and become a Repugnican, it's not a crime.

If he had said something that represented or supported the Uncle Tom position....then yeah both barrels.

Porch Monkey is a term racists use, so no I would never call him that. Tells us about you though.....
 
Porch Monkey is a term racists use, so no I would never call him that.

Yeah, elfiePolo would never post ignorant racist ****.

There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to albino shape shifting lizard ******* like you.

Well, not racist **** as to BLACK people, I mean. Other than that Uncle Tom thing, I mean.

elfiePolo - obvious racist, but too dumb to know it. Jyst too dumb.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/06/us/missouri-naacp-travel-advisory/index.html

This is UTTER BULLCHYT!!! I can't believe that I risked my life to defend these turds...

Alright Berm.......you started this,which turds ?

Please tell us what you find so egregious and UTTER BULLCHY. To post this and get Elfie all steamy you must have a problem with this law or were you referring to the NAACP ? I noticed that the NAACP is partnering with the ACLU and ThinkProgress, not exactly a level path.

“People read the initial draft of the new criminal code and perceived there was a potential felony charge for students who get into a fight at school ―when they read it that way, they said, ‘Well this is something new,’” said Haahr. “The truth is that’s always existed.”



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/missouri-school-law_us_585d26b1e4b0de3a08f4f5c0
 
Last edited:
I don't need to read any case.

then how do you know what was said? or what this means? or if there is even a distinction?
 
butt weight... there's more exclusion and segregation going on depending on your:
1. race
2 sexual preference

http://coed.com/2017/07/27/universi...-straight-students-safe-space-tongues-untied/

University of Minnesota Has A Group That Bans White And Straight Students From Their Safe Space

The University of Minnesota has allowed a group to exclude/prohibit white and straight students from dropping into their safe space. The school’s Gender and Sexuality Center for Queer and Trans Life hosts an event called “Tongues Untied.” So, if you’re identified as a straight Caucasian person, you won’t be allowed entry.

“Tongues Untied,” is a safe space to speak about the impact of sexuality, race and gender, according to Campus Reform. The description for the event reads, “For our allies: we do appreciate your voices and commitment to dismantling racism and homophobia; however, please note that this is a space created for LGBTQIA and/or same-gender-loving people of color.”

I wonder what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would say about this group’s specific racial-enforcement policy. I’m sure the same could be applied for sexual orientation/gender segregation. Let’s see what the King thinks is the best way to judge others…

The Tongues Untied Facebook page says, “If you identify as a queer and/or trans indigenous person or person of color, we welcome you to take part in our discussions.”

It appears as if their idea of promoting progress among particular groups is via segregation tactics targeting skin color and sexual orientation. To these new age segregationists, it isn’t necessarily separate but equal, as Democrat lawmakers of decades past use to characterize their racial policies in the south. But for Tongues Untied, separation means comfort and a superior alternative compared to the status quo environment full of Caucasian and heterosexual individuals intermingling with the lot of the melting pot. For them, segregation gives them an outlet to discuss particular issues they may feel uncomfortable discussing openly in the integrated society.

Looking for the literal definition of segregation? Here’s the dictionary’s definition of the word: “the action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart,” and/or “the enforced separation of different racial groups in a country, community, or establishment.”

Earlier this year, a “White Privilege Checklist” was found on campus at the University of Minnesota. The statement reads, “I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed,” and “Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial responsibility.”

Is it also a privilege to carry “the mark of the oppressor” on your skin? Just wondering.

By perpetuating a continued sense of “otherness” within the collegiate community, you are somehow benefiting yourselves?

Enjoy your echo chamber, students!
 
Most people would be very happy to avoid that safe space. Then you have the other kind. The ones that force bakers to make them a special cake, etc.
 
Top