How about the quota reflect the number of qualified Republican African Americans the Governor has to choose from in the interviewing process??

Is he supposed to determine that from their resumes alone?

Writerbuckeye;656308 wrote:Yet here I am, defending him. They want QUOTAS, by your words and theirs. The cabinet should reflect the diversity...that's a quota.

There is nothing more racist than quotas or affirmative action. It purposely hires people based on their race, as much as their qualifications, perhaps more...because if you get two candidates of equal strength on their resume, this system would hire the minority BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Martin Luther King Jr., I Have a Dream, 1963.

You seem to miss the point continually. There must be a reason for this but I digress. The word quota never was in my post. I am 100% against racial quotas. I said a smart business seeks out the best candidate for the jobs and also they should reflect a wide diversity of opinions. Read the fucking article writer. Kasich has no clue what he is doing. His claiming that he only hired the best candidates and all just happen to be white is blowing smoke up your ass but not mine. Do you really believe that there were no equally qualified applicants that applied? How many people have you ever hired just out of curiosity?

I demand that Power 107.5 in Columbus hire white people, even if they have to fire some of the black employees.

LJ;656437 wrote:I demand that Power 107.5 in Columbus hire white people, even if they have to fire some of the black employees.

Really LJ, I come to expect better out of you. Are you comparing a small radio station with the state of Ohio? As a business do you know what the state would compare with if it was a private entity?

The governors cabinet is what a couple of dozen people. The Government of the state of Ohio and its surrounding bureaucracy is as you say very large. Minorities are represented throughout.

Bigdogg;656442 wrote:Really LJ, I come to expect better out of you. Are you comparing a small radio station with the state of Ohio? As a business do you know what the state would compare with if it was a private entity?

Same difference. They say they are only hiring "the best for the job".

I personally do not buy into this conspiracy. Power 107 has around the same number of employees as Kasich has hired for his positions. You are telling me that they couldn't find a white person that was qualified?

Bigdogg;656442 wrote:Really LJ, I come to expect better out of you. Are you comparing a small radio station with the state of Ohio? As a business do you know what the state would compare with if it was a private entity?

Well considering it's like 8 billion in the hole it would compare to a business that is out of business.

I Wear Pants;656515 wrote:Well considering it's like 8 billion in the hole it would compare to a business that is out of business.

Not necessarily. How far in the hole has GM been?

Bigdogg;656436 wrote:You seem to miss the point continually. There must be a reason for this but I digress. The word quota never was in my post. I am 100% against racial quotas. I said a smart business seeks out the best candidate for the jobs and also they should reflect a wide diversity of opinions. Read the fucking article writer. Kasich has no clue what he is doing. His claiming that he only hired the best candidates and all just happen to be white is blowing smoke up your ass but not mine. Do you really believe that there were no equally qualified applicants that applied? How many people have you ever hired just out of curiosity?

Eh, your childish slams aside, look at what you wrote. You're blatantly saying if both candidates are equal, he should hire the minority BASED SOLELY ON THEIR RACE AND IN THE NAME OF DIVERSITY. That's using diversity to meet some unspecified quota, is it not? Of course it is.

Don't question my intelligence when you don't seem to understand what your own words mean.

I love people who claim the only way to overcome racism is to use racism

derek bomar;656667 wrote:I love people who claim the only way to overcome racism is to use racism

Indeed!

Look, if you don't think Kasich hired the best people for the job then say who you believe would have been a better fit. But complaining about his picks because of the color of their skin is stupid.

Kasich has previously met with some caucus members, and they conceded Thursday that Kasich talked to two minorities from Ohio who turned him down.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110127/NEWS0108/101280320/1196/NEWS/Kasich-s-all-white-cabinet-draws-fire

Writerbuckeye;656589 wrote:Eh, your childish slams aside, look at what you wrote. You're blatantly saying if both candidates are equal, he should hire the minority BASED SOLELY ON THEIR RACE AND IN THE NAME OF DIVERSITY. That's using diversity to meet some unspecified quota, is it not? Of course it is.

Don't question my intelligence when you don't seem to understand what your own words mean.

No, it's not. But your failure to understand the difference is not my problem either, and I don't see the point in debating with you about it anymore. Read some managements books and get back with me.

Prescott;656758 wrote:http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110127/NEWS0108/101280320/1196/NEWS/Kasich-s-all-white-cabinet-draws-fire

"Nichols declined to give their names." Why? As a taxpayer it is my right to know.

Bigdogg;656816 wrote:"Nichols declined to give their names." Why? As a taxpayer it is my right to know.

If Kasich approached them and they declined the job opportunities in order to keep their privacy, no, you don't.

Bigdogg;656816 wrote:"Nichols declined to give their names." Why? As a taxpayer it is my right to know.

Can I ask you, on a serious level, why is this such a thorn in your side?

CenterBHSFan;656868 wrote:Can I ask you, on a serious level, why is this such a thorn in your side?

Because he's already declared Kasich to be a failure in his mind and will continually find fault, real or imagined (this one's the latter to anyone who's not a stone racist) to confirm that opinion.

queencitybuckeye;656871 wrote:Because he's already declared Kasich to be a failure in his mind and will continually find fault, real or imagined (this one's the latter to anyone who's not a stone racist) to confirm that opinion.

Sounds like what many do/did with Obama.

I Wear Pants;656885 wrote:Sounds like what many do/did with Obama.

Fair's fair. This is very true.

I Wear Pants;656885 wrote:Sounds like what many do/did with Obama.

Well, I do think this is a little different. Mainly because I don't think Obama is a racist or if he's hired or not hired somebody who is meeting some sort of diversity standard. I mean, I get and agree with your point about the nit-picking, but this is on a much lower level, I think.
Not to mention that most people's contention with Obama is from what he's said and done on his own.

CenterBHSFan;656890 wrote:Not to mention that most people's contention with Obama is from what he's said and done on his own.

I certainly didn't vote for the guy, but it seems like "MOST" people's contention with Obama, even prior to his election, was the letter beside his name. Since then, what he has said has simply added fuel to the fire.

CenterBHSFan;656890 wrote:Well, I do think this is a little different. Mainly because I don't think Obama is a racist or if he's hired or not hired somebody who is meeting some sort of diversity standard. I mean, I get and agree with your point about the nit-picking, but this is on a much lower level, I think.
Not to mention that most people's contention with Obama is from what he's said and done on his own.

I agree that this is uncalled for in regards to Kasich. But while you're right that there are many legitimate disagreements with Obama over things he's said or policy he supports there's also a ton of stuff that is uncalled for and downright untrue that some groups of people like to espouse in regards to Obama.

O-Trap;656893 wrote:I certainly didn't vote for the guy, but it seems like "MOST" people's contention with Obama, even prior to his election, was the letter beside his name. Since then, what he has said has simply added fuel to the fire.

Not just the letter...his record. What record he had (inexperience was another huge issue with a lot of us) was VERY liberal. The media purposely didn't do due diligence in finding more about him because what is out there shows him to be so liberal and out of touch with most views of Americans.

I still contend that if the media had not gone all in on this man, he wouldn't be sitting in the Oval Office; Hillary Clinton would be. They purposely didn't dig into his past and record critically like they generally do with every candidate, and certainly all Republican candidates.

Back on topic...

Doggie, deny it all you like, but your own words say you'd pick the minority person if both are equal. That can only mean you've selected based on some arbitrary view of diversity in the workplace. And what's an HR person gonna tell me? That you should have representation from all races, if possible? Again, a blend of affirmative action and quota thinking.

I know, I HAVE hired people (with the state) and was pressured to hire minorities and women, even when they were less qualified.

Writerbuckeye;656897 wrote:Not just the letter...his record. What record he had (inexperience was another huge issue with a lot of us) was VERY liberal. The media purposely didn't do due diligence in finding more about him because what is out there shows him to be so liberal and out of touch with most views of Americans.

I still contend that if the media had not gone all in on this man, he wouldn't be sitting in the Oval Office; Hillary Clinton would be. They purposely didn't dig into his past and record critically like they generally do with every candidate, and certainly all Republican candidates.

Everything you said in terms of his record is true. However, I'd suggest that if that hadn't been the case, most the people who objected to him would have found another reason to dislike him, based on the letter next to his name.

I'm not talking about you specifically, as you may not be in that "most" I'm referencing. As a general trend, though, it's almost laughable how quickly most people will flip sides on a topic depending on the party affiliations involved, and that goes in all directions (even us third-party people are prone to it).

We're our own best spin doctors.