Posts made by bi4smooth

@raphjd said in Twitter, itself, spreads lies:

@bi4smooth

Is Don Jr a Rep from Colorado? Why mention that person?

Because she too is someone who said something dumb accidentally.

But, there's more to this:

• Trumpsters (rhymes with dumpsters - not accidentally) are getting all bent out of shape because Don Jr got caught saying something dumb... it's political lampooning, it's been done for decades (centuries, even!), and you (he) should laugh it off as a gaffe - something misspoken in the moment. But not if you're a Trumpster! Because it's directed as a lampoon of a Trump, you'll make a Trumpster Fire out of it! My point: let it die. It was just a funny gaffe. Even if it didn't really happen!
• The Colorado Rep issued a statement from her office, clarifying that the Rep didn't really disagree with all amendments, and that she clearly misspoke. And the statement wasn't even covered by the media, and the whole situation died - like nearly all gaffs do... unless someone decides to light a Trumpster Fire under it, so it won't die!

Twitter added their "factual statement" to tweets about the subject. That is their lie.

The "fact" warning label wasn't a lie - indeed, it was factually correct.

It was just like their "factual statement" that Biden was the actual winner of the election.

ROFL (literally) - you actually think the election was stolen from Trump, despite there being NO EVIDENCE? In fact, the evidence uncovered so far points to 2020 being a more accurate (less fraud, abuse) than in 2016 - or any other prior election!

NOTE: There are investigations that are still underway... so, who knows, maybe there will be some giant, multi-party, anti-Trump conspiracy uncovered still... but then again, maybe not... maybe he just lost. By a lot - e.g.: too much so to overcome by the small (smallest ever) numbers of vote-fraud attempts uncovered so far (which, it's worth noting, are running 2-1 in favor or Trump - that is, by a 2-1 margin so far, the fraudulent votes were FOR Trump! At least in AZ, PA, and GA, where those things have been reported).

Maybe Trump got fewer votes than most down-ballot candidates (which signals that he's a DRAG on the party)!!! I'll leave you to check that one out... I know the answer, you need to discover it for yourself though... more instructive that way!

But honestly, dude... It's almost March... Trump lost. EVEN IF IT WAS A FRAUD, it's too late now. Biden is the President, and we're much better off limiting how much he can do vs. re-hashing old, decided elections!

Get into the CURRENT GAME, let the last one go...

If they can lie in a "factual statement" about Don Jr, then they can lie in any other "factual statement" they made/make.

There you go with hyperbolic extensions again! Just like, if the cop lets one speeder go by, it's open-season on speeding! NOT!

I suggest you just dump Twitter! It's a private company. No Government Regulation is going to stop them from labeling (or declining to label) posts as false. If they're the liberal-loving platform you accuse them of being, just dump 'em! En masse! All Trumpsters should drop their Twitter accounts!

(Best John Lovitz impression) Yeah! That's the ticket!

@raphjd said in Biden said minorities are too stupid to get online:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1363224533759574016

Make sure you have the sound on.

That is a hilarious tic-tock video
Thanks for sharing!

@raphjd said in NY School Principal Urges Parents To Become ‘White Abolitionists’ With Propaganda Graphic:

AA is not a program for low-income PEOPLE.

Affirmative Action isn't race-based in every case. Affirmative Action is an admittedly wrong-headed attempt to provide some "on the edges" support to disadvantaged people. The most disadvantaged people are the poor, and those are mostly minority (brown) and women...

It's a program to benefit people based on race and gender, regardless of wealth.

I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong there.

Poor white boys have to get higher test scores than wealthy black females who had all the privileges. Poor white boys have a lot fewer options when it comes to scholarships than wealthy black females.

If what you want is true, government-enforced equality, then you are communist.

Government-sponsored scholarships are forbidden - by Federal Law - from being racially based. So, you must be talking about privately funded scholarships... and as the father of 3 current college students, I can tell you that you're wrong. There is plenty of scholarship money out there. What there isn't a lot of is help in finding those scholarships!

Hell, Shaun "Talcum X" King still fakes being black, as do many others. So being black can't be that bad.

Shaun King has a mental disorder. She is not the norm. She's sick, and your use of her mental illness to prove a political point is deplorable.

That said, within the PoC community, it's a common thing: the lighter the skin, the less "black" (as-in belonging to the PoC community) a person is perceived to be.

For what its worth: I got an uncommon "view" into the PoC community because my ex-fiance (he passed away due to a medical misdiagnosis before our marriage) was a dark-skinned black man.

@raphjd said in Biden's plan for unity, picks vile Neera Tanden:

Swampies, RINOs, and Dems are guilty.

We're all guilty of something... my problem is that you consider true Republican leaders: like Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Michael Steele - even former President Bush - as RINOs, because they do not fall-in-line behind 3-time loser Trump!

I'll re-iterate: Donald Trump has has NEVER - EVER - won a national popular vote!

RINO Romney voting to convict says nothing about Trump's guilt. He would vote to convict Trump for breathing air.

If that were true, he would have voted Guilty on both counts - he didn't:

• Romney voted GUILTY on the count of colluding with the Russians
• Romney voted NOT-GUILTY on the count of obstruction of congress

Again, you ridiculously equate fealty to Trump to being a "real" Republican. If Trump is personally so important, why not rename the party: The Trumpian Party?

Hillary colluded more than Trump.

With who? Not the Russians, Chinese, or Iranians - they all attempted to interfere (each with different levels of success) in 2016, and they all interfered in favor of Trump. (Apparently, they were just as afraid of a Hillary Clinton Presidency as many others were: thus, the Trump Presidency!)

Certainly, Hillary had plenty of help - she outspent Trump by nearly $300m! The difference is who was helping: other Americans? , or other countries!?!?

You need to stop reading Democratic Underground and The Root. Trump referred to MS-13 as animals, not all brown people as MSM claimed. Likewise, in the full video, Trump condemned racists in Charlottesville.

Look, so much of Trump's political baggage (like Charlotte) is self-inflicted! -- The idiot drinks his own kool-aid!

When the video came out, Trump could have gone on the air and condemned the white supremacists - made it clear that he didn't side with them, and that he didn't consider white supremacists "good people".

But he refused. In spite of nearly every advisor saying he should clarify that he wasn't with the white supremacists! Trump was being his infallible self!

Dems were able to take that and make Trump "one of them" - a white supremacist - and he stupidly welcomed that label! (I don't think he actually believes it, I only think he embraced it - because those followers were so rabid in their support of him!)

It's just like how the Dems altered "evidence" for the impeachment. Or how FBI agents illegally altered documents so the "evidence" would fit their case.

You really do love shilling for Biden.

I've stated many times before: I have no love for Joe Biden.

• I was faced in 2016 with a lose-lose option: Trump or Hillary, and I went with Trump - and it was far worse than I expected. But: was it worse than Hillary would have been? I don't know... and I'm thankful that I never will!
• I was faced in 2020 with a lose-lose option: Trump or Biden, and like the last time, I went with the unknown vs the well-known and chose Biden. Will it be worse than a continued Trump presidency? I think he'll have to work awfully hard to do that, and he's too old for that kind of workload!

I think we'll have to wait for 2024 to "set a new course" for the country. And, I'm hopeful the "Drunk on Trump" era will be over by then, and true Conservatism will have a place again...

Getting back to the original topic:

Biden's team clearly failed to do the appropriate background check on Ms Tanden. She is likely to drop out before the Senate shows her the door.

Biden needs this: he needs a failure in the Senate. He needs to see the limits of his new powers.

@fun17 says:

Trump did something while Biden seems not being able to do anything...

I suggest you should be careful what you ask for.

So long as Biden remains focused on COVID-19, and getting his cabinet in place, he is NOT focused on the more left-wing, radical parts of his agenda - elements he's promised (and he's shown an unusual willingness to do EXACTLY what he promised in the campaign), and will certainly "get around to"...

A new President seems to get a "honeymoon" period, where they basically get their way. There's also an "expiration date" on that honeymoon period... the longer it takes him to get his cabinet in place (with congressional hearings going on.. even the always-doomed impeachment trial), the less he'll be able to ram through in this honeymoon period...

@raphjd said in Twitter, itself, spreads lies:

@bi4smooth

BTW, you lost, since you resorted to whataboutism. Just sayin'.

Where did I resort to what-about-ism? The twitter feed you're complaining about is all about the Liberal press suggesting Donald Trump, Jr said the Texas Governor was a Democrat (that is, blaming everything on the Democrats, including the mess in Texas).

You were suggesting that this error (that is, the fact that he didn't say that at all, although his actual quote is his typical grammatical and stream-of-unconsciousness mess, so it was admittedly confusing WHAT he meant!

I simply replied that the situation wasn't similar to the election fraud lies (and calls for vigilante justice) that Twitter removed. I didn't change the topic, nor did I even change actors in the topic!

@raphjd said in Biden's plan for unity, picks vile Neera Tanden:

Both parties sabotaged Trump's chances in 2020.

That's a new argument from you... You are so enamored with "The Great Orange One", that you now claim that Republicans (the ones in power, not the Lincoln Project and similar "traditionalist" cry-babies) sabotaged his Presidency?

As Tucker Carlson showed, Dems spent 3 years lying about Russian collusion on MSM, while in the various hearings saying they knew nothing.

Russian interference was not a hoax. That the FIRST EVER Senator to cross party lines to vote to CONVICT in a Presidential impeachment trial should say something about the strength of their case.

Russians certainly interfered, and the Trumps certainly knew about it and accepted it. I'm not as convinced they planned any of it together, and that would be the collusion part of it.

MSM clearly lied about Trump in all manner of things. One clear example is the Charlottesville statement.

MSM mostly played the video. They didn't need to add anything. Trump was hoisted by his own petard there!

MSM and big tech covered up for the Biden family corruption.

Those corruption inquiries were made and came up empty. Republicans in the House and Senate chambers both agreed there was nothing there.

Also: just to be clear. There was insufficient fraud or abuse in any of the 50 states to affect the election of a dog-catcher in rural Kansas, much less change the Presidential election!

Trump lost - for the 3rd time:

• He lost the popular vote in 2016 by some 3-million votes, and squeaked by in the Electoral College with just 78,000 votes in 3 counties making the difference. This in an election where he ran against the MOST UNPOPULAR Democratic candidate EVER!
• He made the mid-term elections a referendum on him and his policies... and the House flipped to Democrat control
• He lost the popular vote in 2020 by over 7-million votes, even though running against the oldest (and most milque-toast) candidate in history!

One thing Trump hasn't lost yet, though: his grip on the Republican Party - though that is slipping (maybe)...

Look - there's a LOT of stuff to dump on about the Democrats!

• They're essentially re-opening the Southern Border, releasing the illegal immigrants being held, and all-but advertising that we're open!
• They think money grows on trees! It is the socialist/communist Karl Marx's prediction that Democracy is doomed to fail because once the electorate learns it can just vote to make everyone rich, it falls apart!
• We apparently want to cozy up to Iran, tell the we're sorry about Trump pulling out of that terrible agreement, and all-but-let them off the hook for continuing their nuclear development plans

... and I'm just getting started!

But Dems are NOT the downfall of Trump - he needs to own that himself! He kicked himself in the balls with his Pandemic non-response, and then burned himself in effigy with his Jan 6 antics!

@raphjd

You and your labels... sigh...

You treat this as-if this was a zero-sum game - giving a slight advantage to low-income students (which, BTW, get the hand-up regardless of their race - but when you're coming from a public school in downtown Detroit that is 98% black, it only makes sense that their valedictorian is black) requires a hurt or harm against a white person.

We are all improved when the poor get a lift. They make more money, and unlike the rich (who generally save or invest "wisely"), they SPEND it!

Studies have shown (I'll look for them, but they come from my MBA studies) that the velocity of a dollar given to a bank is less than 1/10 the velocity of that same dollar when given to a poor or middle class "regular guy".

This was demonstrated by the Obama administration - who STUPIDLY tried to get us out of the Great Recession by giving Treasury money to the banks (who promptly used it to prop up their bottom-lines, vs. making the loans the Administration had hoped).

The lesson was LEARNED - because Trump and now, even Biden, no longer want to "prod" the economy by giving cash to banks - they have already seen the proof that it doesn't work - and the money they gave (stimulus checks) was almost universally (esp at the lower end of the earnings scale) spent on goods and services.... allowing that dollar to be "spent" 10x more times than it was with the banks...

The point is: a rising tide lifts all boats - letting kids from lower-income neighborhoods get Ivy League educations (and the incomes that come from them) actually helps a lot more people (and generates more for the economy) than accepting only the rich ones.

However, there is a significant difference in our arguments here:

• When I say poor, you hear black

I am not saying any of this about black (or asian, or latin, or any other race-based) groups of students! I am saying it about LOW-INCOME, poor neighborhood, disadvantaged students OF ALL RACES (even whites!)

That more of them are black and latin is something that will be corrected over time as the "white privilege" of old is washed away with the time and tides. (Not that it's gone now, but it's on the retreat, for sure!)

@raphjd

I feel confident that Don, Jr saying the TX Governor was a Democrat (if he DID say it) isn't a really big thing... we all mis-speak at times! His reputation will not be defined by it. His political future won't be staked on it. His next paycheck (nor anyone else's) won't be affected by it.

Just as I'm sure the Rep. from Colorado who decried ALL amendments to the Constitution will recover from her gaff...

@raphjd

A lie is a lie is the moral equivalent to saying that speeding is murder.

But also there's this: a lie has to be intentionally wrong. Being wrong doesn't make it a lie! To BE a lie, you have to have KNOWN it was a lie when you said it.

And again, I'm not a Liberal, though I will admit that as HARD-RIGHT as you are, Ronald Reagan would seem a liberal from your viewpoint! (And I will also say that there's nothing wrong with BEING a Liberal - it's not that they're always wrong, it's just that their pie-in-the-sky-ideals aren't achievable - usually on many levels!)

just as YOU are not always wrong - you're usually just so hyperbolic in your presentation! Your constant level-of-outrage makes it impossible for you to ever show ACTUAL outrage if/when it occurs. It'll get mixed in with the exaggerated, undeserved outrageous material...

@sirronkcaj

Many torrents that are heavily seeded are "saturated" - that is, there are tons of seeders, but few leechers.

To get upload credits (not points), you need to be seeding torrents that people are actually downloading!

But keep seeding those "dying" (leecher-less) files! You get POINTS just for making them available.. 600 points = 10 GB of upload credit!

Look at some of the NEWEST posts - they typically get the most action!

@raphjd said in Twitter, itself, spreads lies:

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/02/19/twitter-publishes-misinformation-about-donald-trump-jr-in-trending-topic/

Social media titans claim to value the truth but have no problem lying when it suits them.

Says Breitbart? A "news" source as reliable as the "People's Daily" in China!

The point (and the Section 230 protections) about social media policing itself of lies and incitement posts isn't that they stop them before they're published... its that they stop them once discovered.

But there is a world of difference between the lie that "Trump won the election, it was stolen, and you should rise up in arms to defend his presidency" vs. "Trump Jr. is so clueless, he thought the Texas Governor was a Dem"...

Now if the trending articles were "Trump, Jr is so dumb we should hunt him down and euthanize him" -- THAT would be stopped. And rightly so.

Its the incitement to violence, and the danger to society part that you're missing.

If Donald, Jr said it (I don't really care if he did or did not - it is of no real consequence: Donald, Jr doesn't hold public office, and his saying it does not make, or otherwise imperil the office of the Governor of Texas - who is one of 4 big-state governors with their dicks' in a grinder right now: New York is the biggest dumpster-fire, followed by Texas, then CA, and then FL - where our dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks Governor not only allowed COVID-19 vaccines to be re-routed to wealthier ZIP codes, but when the local officials complained, he threatened to take away ALL of their COVID-19 allocation! Has the man NEVER heard of optics? Shit! He's gotta run for re-election in 2022!)

But back to the topic here:

You can still go on Twitter and suggest your ex-boyfriend's new beau did kitty porn (sic) and has equine syphilis - without proof - so long as you don't suggest the Proud Boys arm up and take him out!

@anythingold said in Biden's plan for unity, picks vile Neera Tanden:

@raphjd By the the end of four years, Joe/Kuala & Fuck Face Cuomo will destroy this country so bad, it will NOT be recognizable. Even if Trump wins in 2024, it would take an act of god to repair this country. I hate all of those mutherf******.

That's what the Dems said about Trump / McConnell / Paul Ryan in early 2017!

While I'm not happy about being totally on the outs just 4-years later (thank's Trump! WINNING! Indeed! If that's your definition of winning, I will admit... I tired of it, just as you predicted during the campaign!)

But the fact is, Conservatives control 30 of the 50 state legislatures... these are the bodies what will draw the new districts for 2022 (although, if the Census doesn't release data on-time, it may have to wait for 2024!).

Either way, Conservatives are well-positioned to take the House in 2022, and while we'll likely lose seats in the Senate in 2022, we should have a strong-enough showing in 2024 (we'll have the numbers on our side) that, with a Conservative winning the White House, we should have FULL control again by 2024! Almost exactly the same way that we lost it!

Panic and hyperbole are the losing tactics of Trump. He lost the popular vote in 2016, and only skimmed by in the Electoral College. He became so polarizing, the 20218 midterms were a referendum on Trump - and he lost MASSIVELY (and we lost the House!). And in 2020, when it was an ACTUAL referendum on Trump, he lost again! (Though, in fairness, not as badly as he lost in 2018, but far worse than in 2016!)

Conservative ideals aren't about playing "Follow the Leader"... they're about having better ideas, better plans, and better implementation than the head-in-the-clouds Democrats!

@dvt said in THIS or THAT: the game:

@andergarcia

Anywhere :D... but maybe on the couch

Snowballing or not?

Sorry, @andergarcia - but you didn't pose a new question.

I'm not so much into snowballing - I like my cream fresh from the fountain, and it gets swallowed right then and there!

Into "sexy underwear" or more "just take 'em off already"?

@raphjd said in Is this politics or humor? Rep. Boebert is against ALL amendments!:

@bi4smooth

If you like to read a cross-section of news, then why do you only seem to know about the stupid staff conservatives say/do, but never seem to know about liberals doing stupid crap?

Um, this is one of the few political posts I have initiated that was directed at one side or another... you do a fine job of picking on the left, you just tend to overplay your hand!

Had you written about Rep. Boebert, you would have made it seem like she was an active threat to all of Democracy, and the failure of the House to censure or remove her would be tantamount to removing all of the constitutional amendments, erasing our freedoms!

I don't resort to hyperbole - in fact, I even GAVE HER THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, even while laughing at her!

We're all human - we ALL make mistakes!

I would think that Obama (via the Dear Colleagues letters) stripping male college students of their Due Process would be an important thing to know about for a conservative. Or the Betsy DeVos was "controversial" because she was hell-bent on restoring their right to Due Process and other rights Obama took away.

I still have no idea about the historical context of this "due process" argument you keep making - and you keep failing to clarify... but let's skip that - let's give you the point that somehow Betsy DeVos restored someone's due process rights... she also tried - very hard - to defund public education (in favor of using public money in private schools, with the Government choosing "winners and losers" in which schools could receive that money). She worked HARD to allow schools - secondary and collegiate - to infringe on the free-speech rights of students and faculty, under the guise that these publicly-owned institutions were "special" government institutions.

She was a nightmare for educators... even Conservative educators I know despised her as the head of the Dept of Education!

Just as Trump did do some good things (actually, quite a few) while he overall trashed and diminished the office of the Presidency, I'll give you that not every breath Betsy DeVos took was evil incarnate. I still don't know what you mean about this due-process thing, but I'm tired of asking about it - I'll cede that to you... you win, albeit an empty one.

@raphjd said in NY School Principal Urges Parents To Become ‘White Abolitionists’ With Propaganda Graphic:

@bi4smooth

Whataboutisms are valid. Just ask Democrats for the next 4 years.

You totally ignored my point, intentionally.

Wealthy blacks get affirmative action, while we ignore poor white boys. Only racists (aka liberals) believe that is ok.

It's not just in WV. I used WV as an example.

What-about-ism's are disqualifying in debate. It's "changing the focus" of the discussion.

And your argument that Democrats will do it over the next 4-years is, in itself, a what-about-ism! (Circular logic, anyone?)

To briefly address that point, though: YES, they are certainly going to pull that shit - politicians on all sides have become adept at it, because it works! At least it works with the masses..., but that doesn't mean that smart people won't see through it!

Still, as I said above: comparing wealthy blacks to poor whites to try to highlight racial inequities is apples and oranges.... unless you're inferring that the wealthy blacks shouldn't be allowed to create wealth so long as there are still poor whites! But that would be racist and moronic... so, I'm glad that's NOT the point you're making... right?

As for affirmative action, you need to get out of your echo chamber once in a while. Your ideas about it appear to be highly skewed.

So you know, I, a middle-income, middle-aged, white man have benefited from affirmative-action set-asides: in my case, small-business set-aside government contracts!

There is no way I could compete against the huge companies that would normally gobble up all of the Government contracts... but the Government sets aside some of the smaller of those contracts and INSISTS that ALL competitors for those set-aside contracts be "certified small businesses".

To qualify to BID on these contracts, you have to meet certain criteria - and SOME (though, certainly not all... mot even a majority) of the "seats at the table" (that is, some of the companies that get certified) have a fast-track to getting there by being minority-owned. (There are also affirmative-action "seats" for Veterans & women)...

But, to paraphrase the great Paul Harvey, you don't know the Rest of the Story!

Once you get the seat at that table (that is, once you qualify as a certified small business), you still have to BID on the contracts that the Government brings to you... and you have to WIN - based on your competence, price, and other factors... factors that are germane to the contract, not race, gender, or other superfluous information!

Mind you, AT THAT POINT, there is nothing in your BID that identifies you as a small black-owned, or veteran-owned, or woman-owned) business. The bids don't include the identity of the bidder! The Government picks the winner, then "unveils" who submitted that bid.

The point is, affirmative action may set-aside a few seats at the table for blacks, or hispanics, or veterans, or women... but those are not ALL of the seats. You also STILL have to qualify, and more importantly, you still have to WIN the bidding!

But focusing on the front-end is a waste of time... these small-business set-asides still have to perform! I have WON re-bids on contracts because the original bidder didn't perform! The Government doesn't award 5-year contracts: they award 1-year contracts with 4 possible renewals of 1-year each! You don't perform, and you get replaced! Lose too many contracts that way and you also lose your "seat at the table"...

A lot of people look at college admissions. Most stupidly focus on the Ivy League schools - because that's where the wealthy white "legacy" parents get butt-hurt (to borrow @raphjd 's term) when their little Johnny Junior, with his private tutors, coaches, and counselors with a solid 3.5GPA from his "competitive private school"... lost out to a black kid from the ghetto who had 2 jobs, no tutors, no counselors, and a similar 3.4GPA from some low-income public school...

The same thing happens at high-end schools. You get there, sure! You were a super-star in High School! But now you're competing against nothing-but other super-stars! And you excel in that competition, or you're out! There are plenty of 1st year rejects and also-rans waiting to transfer in Sophomore year!

Case in point: in my freshman orientation at Ga Tech, they sat us in a room in groups of 5 in rows of 20 total... and they were quite blunt:

• 2 of you in your section.. EVERY section... will not be here for your Sophomore year.
• A third will transfer to another school before their Senior year.
• That leaves just 2 of you in your section that will graduate...

Now, look across... in your entire row, only 8 of you will make it to graduation at Tech at all... but 5 of you will have changed majors. And, finally, only TWO of you - on the entire row - will actually graduate in exactly 4 years... the rest will take longer. There will be obstacles. There will be winners and losers.

The situation at other high-tier colleges and universities is the same, or even harsher! It's hard to get in - with or without set-asides (you call it affirmative action)... but it's harder still to stay in!

There are ALWAYS winners and losers in life. If everyone gets a medal, the value of that medal is diminished. (How many kids of the 80's and 90's kept their participation trophies? Kids from the 50's and 60's kept those trophies on their mantle to show their kids...and grandkids! Kids from the 80's and 90's tossed them - and in many cases, also tossed their REAL trophies - because their meaning was diminished... diluted.)

There is a need to give others a "seat at the table" - to provide a way to compete in the marketplace. There will always be a need to provide SOME set-asides for some group or another. This is reality, not a board game!

https://www.queerty.com/rep-lauren-boebert-lampooned-twitter-not-knowing-constitutional-amendment-20210219

So, the long and the short of this is that Rep. Lauren Boebert, a QAnon-spouting nutjob from Colorado, stuck her foot in her mouth in a hilarious way that validates her High School's decision NOT to award her a diploma:

She said on twitter: Protecting and defending the Constitution doesn’t mean trying to rewrite the parts you don’t like.

Um... it's written into the Constitution that we can, and should, update it from time to time, as needed!

It should also be ironic (if it weren't so sad) then that she campaigned on her undying support of the 2nd Amendment... you get it, right? The 2nd Amendment was a change to the Constitution!

Now, I want to point out something here: clearly, this woman isn't THAT dumb... she tried to say something, tried to shorten it for Twitter, and wound up with something ridiculous! And now, she's being roasted in the liberal social-sphere (queerty claims there's "no agenda but the queer one," but you don't have to read far to see a clear liberal - hard liberal - bent!).

Liberals and Conservatives both have their outlets for this kind of thing... and I, for one, like to read a cross section of them all!

I'm posting this here to offset the hard-left posts others seem to flood this forum with...

I have found, personally, that by reading the opinions and thoughts of others - especially those who think differently than I do - helps me either strengthen my beliefs, or question them... either is a positive, personal-growth step!

@raphjd said in NY School Principal Urges Parents To Become ‘White Abolitionists’ With Propaganda Graphic:

We've been discriminating against whites and males for over 50 years.
Poor white boys in the hollers of West Virginia are ignored, while wealthy blacks get AA.

Again with the "what about... isms"... you do realize that is a disqualifying factor in actual debate?

So.... wealthy blacks in WV get Alcoholics Anonymous? I never knew ANYONE had to pay for that!

Seriously though, there's a difference (and not a difficult one to discern) between under-served communities (virtually ALL of West Virginia - for reasons that go beyond this discussion) and racist policies.

The correct analogy isn't between poor whites and wealthy blacks - it's between poor whites and poor blacks!

Are you honestly implying you'd rather be poor and BLACK in West Virginia than poor and WHITE?

@raphjd said in NY School Principal Urges Parents To Become ‘White Abolitionists’ With Propaganda Graphic:

@bi4smooth

Even Oprah said I have far more privilege than she does, simply because I'm white and male.

Of course, she ignores how much privilege her massive wealth gives her over me.

Obama and many other wealthy blacks have said similar things.

When the tortoise and the hare start off the race, and the tortoise has a brick tied to its tail... but through it all, the tortoise still finds a way to win... you just can't let him look back and say "you know, I started this thing with a brick tied to my tail"???

That Oprah and Obama have done so well is a testament to their hard work (and a lot of luck!)... NEITHER of them had parents with the ability to give them $million "starter packages"...

Consider:

• Obama's "kickstart" fund: $0,000,000
  Obama's business & personal bankruptcy filings: 0

• Oprah's "kickstart" fund: $0,000,000
  Oprah's business & personal bankruptcy filings: 0

• Donald Trump's "Kickstart" fund: $68,000,000 (he admits to $1M, his father's tax records put it at over $68M)
  Donald Trump's business & personal bankruptcy filings: 6 (so far - more are likely with his current fiscal crisis)

Mind you, Donald Trump has been VERY successful - financially: I'm not posting about politics here, just about race and finances - but you can't discount the fact that he got a "head start"...

That head start of Trump's, though, wasn't race-based... or was it?

Even into the 1980's, US Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans were supposedly (legally) available to all... but in practice more than 95% of FHA loans went to white people... and it's not that black people didn't apply! Their applications were often declined for laughable reasons (one example I read about, but cannot find a reference for: when asked on the form to list their income, the applicant wrote $11,000/yr - the application was declined because their tax form says the made $11,247 in a year, thus they misstated their income... )

That's HISTORY, not politics... the political question is what do we do about it now... and while I don't know, I DO know that just giving cash to black families - because their ancestors were slaves and/or disadvantaged by race-based polities (both legal and illegal) - is not a starting point.

You don't fix one race-based wrong with another race-based wrong.