My point exactly.
1 Like
My lord… we’re in the days of kings and queens. Nuts!
Yes. It’s appropriate the mob boss will break his stooges’ legs if they step out of line.
Edit: Or maybe… The CLAMPS!
4 Likes
Media, Democrats (same things, actually) slam Republicans and Conservatives for praising Dr. King on his special day. This despite:
Nota bene
Dr. King was a Republican. When the 1964 Civil Rights Act finally passed Congress it was supported by just 65% of Democrats while receiving over 80% of Republican votes.
When it comes to Dr. King, Democrats are dripping with sanctimony and hubris. Course that is true for a great many other things, as well.
Media, Democrats quick to slam Republicans for praising Martin Luther King, Jr.
The important aspect is that he doesnt try to hide it, or claim the moral high ground. It’s one thing to be full of crap, another to be full of crap but insist it smells like daisies.
Trump is very driven, goal focused, and self confident. As such he easily becomes embroiled in controversy with persons who disagree with him. Trump and Pence have reconciled, by the way.
Two men I admire a lot, Major Edwin H. Armstrong and Glenn H. Curtiss, were also constantly caught up in controversy. They were highly creative chaps, each in his own field. They were rugged individualists, like Trump, who had to fight hard for most of what they achieved.
Today such rugged individualists are neither valued nor respected. Pity.
“luv” usually means “love”, but I think in this case it means “fear”.
1 Like
2 Likes
Surprise! Who would’ve guessed?
2 Likes
At least eight people allegedly affiliated with organizations such as The Three Percenters, The Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, Texas Freedom Force, and other self-described Nazis and white supremacists were among those who joined the thousands that stormed the U.S. Capitol building, according to federal investigators.
Details of their arrests highlight how different, yet organized, extremist groups, with members throughout the country, coalesced to support Trump and his (disproven) claims that the November election was stolen.
The United States Senate will convene today at noon. Nancy can send over her article of impeachment today, or tomorrow before noon, and still be acting in accord with the Constitution to remove a sitting POTUS.
Thereafter? No
Or does she want to impeach Biden! 
Biden will cut off the USA in favor of his Chinese benefactors and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
When he shuts down the Keystone XL pipeline project tomorrow, Biden will be acting to ensure a steady supply of Canadian crude for his Chinese collaborators while imperiling American hopes for continued energy independence. Rely on Biden to put China first. After all, he is bought and paid for by the CCP.
Communists stick together.
1 Like
Biden, Schumer, and McConnell - perfect together
What a love fest!
McConnell is already working to expedite confirmations for Biden’s cabinet picks. This is very much in the pattern of four years ago, right? You remember how eager Schumer was back then to move fast on President Trump’s cabinet picks? Right?
No, wait . . . . . . .
“Thanks to MyPillow, I’m both well rested and ready to commit Sedition.”
2 Likes
Disparate impact is not a new theory, and was not “popularized” under Obama. It’s a theory of constitutional law. I’d reframe your explanation as there are two primary types of constitutional problems: laws that are unconstitutional on their face (i.e., black people are banned from restaurants) and those which are not unconstitutional on their face, but have a disparate impact on a select group (i.e., people who live in “x” zip code are banned from restaurants, where the vast majority of people in x zip code are black).
IF there’s a disparate, THEN you proceed to analyze whether the law is reasonable, based on whatever level of scrutiny applies, which is determined by the group there is an impact on. Giuliani can explain levels of scrutiny very well 
.
You could take it out of the constitutional law context, but it’s not as if “suddenly” it’s racist. It’s not even necessarily saying there was racist intent at the beginning. But if a certain race is disproportionately affected by laws and policies, then yes, it does need to be looked at. This isn’t political at all. It’s not even really a contentious viewpoint.
Boycotting “Trump loving insurrectionists” does have a disparate impact on white people. That does not mean the practice is inappropriate. And in our society, white people are already granted significant privileges, so while it is still a question of race and may be subject to the same scrutiny from a constitutional law perspective, from a society perspective, there’s not nearly as much need to protect white people, because the system is already designed for that. You know black people are at a disadvantage in our society, and you know this from the results. White people are in power. Unless your argument is that white people are inherently smarter, better, whatever, then it’s clear that black people are at a disadvantage.
Does it? Are you indicating these businesses are racist in hiring practices? If not, why would it have a disparate impact on white people?
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.