obama You have to Hire Crooks

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by diehardgator1, Jun 22, 2013.

  1. diehardgator1
    Offline

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,791
    Likes Received:
    177
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +499
    obama now says you cannot do criminal background checks on people because it discriminates it against blacks. What a sad state of affairs when company's have to hire people to handle their money and not know if they are crooks. This country is going to hell in a hand basket under obama


    "The Obama administration is suing Dollar General and a BMW facility in South Carolina for the alleged unfair use of criminal background checks for job applicants, months after warning companies about how such screenings can discriminate against African Americans.

    The suits were filed June 11 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which last year issued new guidelines that cautioned against rejecting minority applicants who have committed a crime and recommended businesses eliminate policies that “exclude people from employment based on a criminal record.”

    The suits have re-ignited concerns over such issues as potential federal overreach, the overlap of state and federal law and companies losing their rights to protect customers, workers and assets while trying to adhere to fair hiring practices.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sses-using-criminal-background/#ixzz2Wz4Xsg3j
  2. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,031
    Likes Received:
    2,840
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,022
    Violent felons, thieves and sex offenders need to be garbage collectors and/or ditch diggers. All others should be able to get some sort of employment opportunity.
  3. diehardgator1
    Offline

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,791
    Likes Received:
    177
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +499

    True but without background checks how do you know.

    This law is designed to protect blacks If you are white you can go to hell

    "new guidelines that cautioned against rejecting minority applicants who have committed a crime and recommended businesses eliminate policies that “exclude people from employment based on a criminal record.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sses-using-criminal-background/#ixzz2Wz6tbkht
  4. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,031
    Likes Received:
    2,840
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,022
    What I mean to say is that those kinds of records should be left on some sort of work safety background check.

    I wonder if this new edict has anything to do with illegal aliens and radical Muslims, and not just blacks?
  5. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,893
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,334
    It looks to me that this ruling is designed to protect criminals.

    I don't know how democrats can say with a straight face that democrats in power are not unfriendly towards business, and they don't export U.S. jobs overseas. This is exactly the kind of policy that pushes American companies to do business elsewhere. Why would a business want to risk hundreds of millions of dollars of capital on a manufacturing site or a retail business in a place that forces them to trust the operation of that business to criminals?

    I could see if Obama was to do something like make background checks more expensive, so a company would have to weigh the option of paying for the background check versus the potential loss if the employee turns out to be a criminal. For a fast food restaurant, maybe the potential loss is not that great. But for BMW, the potential loss could be huge. As for Dollar General, the choice should be theirs to make, not the gov't.

    I think that policies like this indicate that Obama is a bit of a racist. Bill Cosby would tell you the answer is to tell black kids to stop committing crimes. By pushing this through, Obama is saying that black people are by nature more inclined to commit crimes, and that's o.k. That's part of their heritage, and employers should not discriminate against a black person's heritage. I don't believe he could actually say this in public with a straight face, but that seems to be how he thinks. He would probably say something like, "Committing crimes does not make a person a criminal for life, so they should not be treated like a criminal after they pay their debt to society."

    The other possibility is that Obama views crimes committed by blacks as something that they were forced to do by the racism and discrimination of Whitey. They only committed the crimes to feed their families, because Whitey would not hire them. I could see him justifying this in his mind, since there could be a small amount of truth to this in a few circumstances.

    Is it too late to make Bill Cosby president?
  6. diehardgator1
    Offline

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,791
    Likes Received:
    177
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +499
    So now a convicted child molester has to be hired at a day center for children with out checking their background . Boy they are licking their chops over this law
  7. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,031
    Likes Received:
    2,840
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,022
    More Obama commie crap. Obama needs to stay out of the private sector all together. He has no business telling corporate America who they can and cannot hire.

    I despise that dictator.
  8. channingcrowderhungry
    Offline

    channingcrowderhungry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,186
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Bottom of a pint glass
    Ratings Received:
    +1,132
    I really hope there is another side to this that some of left leaning posters can bring to the discussion. Otherwise this looks really bad.
  9. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,031
    Likes Received:
    2,840
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,022
    :laugh:

    Yes we need some sugar-coating on this.
  10. oragator1
    Online

    oragator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,171
    Likes Received:
    527
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,226
    There is a downward repeating cycle that needs to be addressed, someone who gets out of prison and can't get a job is more likely to turn to crime again, which we all pay for twice or even three times, in insurance costs and paying for their stay, plus their loss of productivity. I am not sure this is the way to address it, but it is a valid problem - once someone has paid their debt it shouldn't necessarily ruin their lives in perpetuity, depending on what they did.
  11. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,031
    Likes Received:
    2,840
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,022
    And if you hire a violent criminal you endanger your whole place of business and all of your employees. Liability insurance, lawsuits, loss of clients... Which one do you think the private sector is more likely to pay for?
  12. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,152
    Likes Received:
    939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,985
    Sure but a privately owned business should have the option of hiring someone without a criminal past vs someone with one.

    One of my larger clients is a quasi-governmental agency and they require us to do them yearly and then they tell us in what capacity someone with a criminal background can perform functions for them.
  13. oragator1
    Online

    oragator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,171
    Likes Received:
    527
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,226
    Which is why I said "depending on what they did". I also said this wasn't necessarily the right answer, but the problem is a legitimate one. Society pays in a number of ways for crime and in particular for recidivism, simply casting them out and then throwing them back in jail clearly isn't working for anyone.
  14. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,031
    Likes Received:
    2,840
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,022
    I understand your point, but I'm more intrigued with the possibility of some private sector companies actually listening to the POTUS on this issue. I think he's overstepped his boundaries/job description and pay grade. He is not the one and only dictator of an autocratic society.
  15. Tasselhoff
    Offline

    Tasselhoff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,453
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +448
    Will the IRS and NSA stop doing them?
  16. diehardgator1
    Offline

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,791
    Likes Received:
    177
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +499

    How do you know what they did? You cannot pull back ground checks to find out
  17. diehardgator1
    Offline

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,791
    Likes Received:
    177
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +499
    Just think a day care center will have to hire this guy if he apply's for the job with out checking out his past


    "Charish Perriwinkle, 8, was abducted at a Walmart Friday night and later killed. Police have arrested Donald J. Smith, 56, in her slaying. Smith is a registered sex offender who was just released from jail on May 31. Here are updates from throughout the day.

    5:30 p.m.: Family friends began gathering early Saturday to be with Charish Perriwinkle's mother, Reyne Perriwinkle, at her one-story Northside home on Alan Avenue in a working class neighborhood just west of Interstate 95 and Lem Turner Road.

    Richard Harvey and Perriwinkle embraced in a tear-filled hug about noon on the porch. They’ve been friends for about three years and he described her as a protective mother.

    Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...urday-jacksonville-sex-offender#ixzz2WzftCZoL
  18. PIMking
    Offline

    PIMking New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    10,528
    Likes Received:
    894
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tuscaloosa, AL (Ft. Myers)
    Ratings Received:
    +894
    A lot of companies do background checks. mine did, and he should be happy that no one did one before he was hired
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,031
    Likes Received:
    2,840
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,022
    Maybe Obama's trying to order this preemptively, because half of his appointees will have a criminal record after all the investigation are done. The NSA, IRS, EPA, FBI and Homeland Security will have many felons... :grin:
  20. oragator1
    Online

    oragator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,171
    Likes Received:
    527
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,226
    A fair question, but again I am not supporting the proposal, only saying that the underlying motivation isn't completely misguided. We all lose when we have 2 million people in jail, looking at ways to help mitigate that isn't wrong, and being frozen out from society is a decent sized part of the problem. Even if we could help 50% of them that's 1 million folks.
    But no, I don't have a good solution, other than registries being kept for certain offenses (murder, rape etc) similar to sex offenders. That would avoid the need for larger checks in many cases, but would also give local communities knowledge of people with violent histories in their midst. Maybe that already exists, don't know? Just a thought.

Share This Page