I see you're using the same science scientists used when they noted that Dahmer and Gacy existed and therefore, determined that all white males are serial killer cannibals. That logic holds.
For being the folks supposedly devoted to "individual responsibility," you right-wingers sure do love to group blame.
Imagine having to live with so much internalized homophobia.
GOP donor Anton Lazzaro, along with the head of the Young Republicans at University of St. Thomas, guilty of sex trafficking little girls. I guess all of those GQP believers didn't realize that the call was coming from inside the house all along.
LINK: Republicans Not Backing Down On Abortion Bans Despite New Election Losses
I thought the GOP was for "States Rights" and leaving issues up to the State. Weren't we supposed to be shrinking the Federal government?
However, when voters start enshrining abortion rights into state constitutions, suddenly the GOP is in favor of federal solutions. From the article:
“We can’t give in to the idea that the federal Congress has no role in this matter because if it doesn’t, then the pro-life movement is basically not going to exist, I think, for the next couple of years,” Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) warned on Wednesday, calling the results “depressing.”
As much as I hate and despise that man and his politics, watching that video make me profoundly sad and sick to my stomach. America should be better than this.
The thing that I liked about Heartstoppers is that the main characters homosexuality and bisexuality are not defined by acts of sex. The two boys aren't portrayed as wanting to fuck each other...I mean, they're 14-15 years old. They just want to kiss and be with each other. So often, homosexual love is solely and exclusively portrayed as sex acts, as opposed to relationships between individuals.
The person doing the windmill is Cole from Fratmen.com. He does webcam on Chaturbate now.
[https://www.newsweek.com/i-didnt-understand-jussie-smollettuntil-i-compared-him-trump-opinion-1686831](link url)
As correctly pointed out by the commentator in the link above, all you need to do is keep repeating your lie with the support of a vocal minority and the acquiescence of everyone else on your side of the political divide. Keep doing that and you won't really suffer any punishment in Cancel Culture. Smollett maintaining his innocence despite overwhelming evidence and investigation is no different than Trump maintaining he won the election despite overwhelming evidence and investigation.
Having met both of them, they really did seem like genuinely nice people even if you disagreed with some of their politics.
I believe they were both admitted to hospice care earlier this year in their home, with Jimmy Carter still helping as much as he could with Rosalynn's dementia. Now that she's dead, I expect to read that Jimmy has past any day now. Usually when one elderly spouse goes, the other one goes shortly afterward.
There is a spectrum upon which we must find a balance toward the middle when it comes to analyzing race in America. On one side of the spectrum is the "I don't see color" un-critical ignorance referenced in the original post. On the other side is modern Critical Theory, which posits that everything...EVERYTHING...is the product of power differentials, and almost everything can be explained by racism.
@raphjd said in Sandra Day O'Connor dead at 93:
I respect @hubrys for putting it in Politics & Debate because it could turn into a political discussion.
That was my thought process.
@raphjd
As was indicated in the original article, those who lie to themselves by telling themselves that they "don't see color" then don't have any motivation or inclination to examine the unconscious or implicit biases that they actually do possess, despite their lie to themselves.
In other words, someone who tells themselves they don't see color doesn't think they have any room for improvement. However, no one is free from all cognitive or social biases, no matter how hard they lie to themselves.
@blablarg18 said in Sandra Day O'Connor dead at 93:
Again, only one who tried to make Sandra's passing political is u, when u posted it there.
I assumed because she was the decisive vote on cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey (upholding Roe v. Wade), Grutter v. Bollinger (allowing colleges to use affirmative action in admissions), or and several cases upholding separation of church and state; that one or more of you numbskulls would turn the post into a political discussion.
I forgot that you're an idiot and probably had no idea what her jurisprudential oeuvre included.
"What the new recording does not do is present a substantively different picture of what Trump was up to on that call than the Post’s original story. Trump, though, is savvy about the fact that most people will only vaguely remember the details, will mix the Raffensperger and Watson calls up, and will see reports of a correction regarding Trump’s Georgia phone call. Those sympathetic to Trump or skeptical of the media will wonder if he got a bad rap regarding that larger story. He did not."
https://www.vox.com/2021/3/16/22333805/washington-post-correction-trump-georgia
Can you imagine how stupid a President would have to be, with our soaring debt, to propose a $2 trillion infrastructure bill.....oops...
I love when conservatives bitch about the debt, citing Medicare, but then conveniently forget that it was their boy, George W. Bush, that created the last, large entitlement program, Medicare Part D.
This case was not decided under the 2nd Amendment. Guns were only incidentally involved in the facts of the case.
The legal issue in the case was the 4th Amendment's search and seizure clause. Both the liberal justices and the conservative justices are generally against warrantless searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment, hence the 9-0 decision.
So, you guys are full-on anti-vax retarded, then?
@raphjd said in MyPillow Guy, Mike Lindell, is Caca for Cuckoo Puffs:
Mind you, the courts actively worked against Trump by using legal technicalities rather than having the courage to actually let the cases be heard and ruling on the merits.
I'm not being insincere or sarcastic. I would genuinely like to know what "legal technicalities" you think the courts used to prevent Trump's case from being heard.