If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
CTP made a segway from Chongo's post to Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King and "cuckoos on the Left". I suppose he thought he was exposing some sort of "hypocrisy" vis-a-vis the Rubio/Cruz discussion that Chongo and I were having. It was a fail ... but bless his heart he does try.
Thanks, but I'm still not seeing that as "connected."
Shall we all try to stick to the topic at hand? There are limits to the tangents we can handle, even in the PWL... The specific subject of this thread is complex and convoluted enough as it is; going afield to pick oddities just makes it harder to follow. And it gives me a headache.
If you are talking about his white mother's family that's probably true. But when it comes to his black father's family that likely isn't the case. Are you suggesting that both Shaun King and his mother are lying about his biological father being a black man?
Yes, he's full of shit regarding his black father, they only concocted that after he was busted over it. If he could, he'd present DNA evidence to support it, it was talked about, but he buried it. The only logical reason why he wouldn't follow through is because he knows his claims are bogus (the results likely came back confirming what most already believe, he's just a regular caucasian dude).
"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." - M.L.King Jr
Can someone explain to me how we got to this part of the discussion in a thread supposedly about "neo progressive shenanigans"? Should I change the title of the thread to "Arguments About Ethnicity Claims"?
It's stylish for Progs to claim to be minorities, it makes them feel special. They can help join with the "downtrodden" against The Man and his white devils. You can't be proud of a white heritage, it makes you a racist, and if you aren't proud of a minority heritage, there's something wrong with you or you're some type of Uncle Tom. Frankly speaking, I think being proud of your race or ethnicity is silly. It isn't something you accomplished, it isn't something you earned for yourself.
"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." - M.L.King Jr
Out of respect for ghporter's wishes to keep the thread on topic I'll leave simply leave it at this:
Originally Posted by Shaun King
The reports about my race, about my past and about the pain I’ve endured are all lies. I refuse to speak in detail about the nature of my mother’s past, or her sexual partners, and I am gravely embarrassed to even be saying this now, but I have been told for most of my life that the white man on my birth certificate is not my biological father and that my actual biological father is a light-skinned black man. My mother and I have discussed her affair. She was a young woman in a bad relationship, and I have no judgment.
That certainly doesn't sound like someone who was talking about doing DNA tests ... which would require him to subject his mother to even further public embarrassment ... to satisfy those who wouldn't believe the results anyway. Just saying ...
Nice try, but they can tell you your racial composition from a single blood test now, they're rather advanced, finding out the ethnicity of a father would be easy. But it isn't something he'd ever willingly do (because he already knows), despite others (on both sides) saying they'd pay for it.
Anyhow... Down with The Man! Overturn the Patriarchy! What do we want?! Slavery reparations! When do we want it? NOW!!
"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." - M.L.King Jr
No. A single blood test can tell one's ancestral composition because biologically speaking "race" does not even exist. You make reference to the 23andme.com service. So where exactly does one need to fall on the scale to qualify as "black" in your estimation?
Indeed, the average self-described African-American has about 24 percent European ancestry, according to the study, indicating that descriptors like "black" and "white" mean a lot less from a biological standpoint than they do from a cultural one.
That being said, Shaun King's ancestry obviously has an even higher amount of of European ancestry because his mother is white and his father is described as a "light-skinned black man". But again, under the One-Drop Rule that would still make him "black" right? Well it would under normal social circumstances but since you are trying to make some semblance of a point I suspect it conveniently won't apply for you now.
You're being daft, again. It's easy to tell a parent's race from a blood test (whether they were black or white), you're weaseling. His father wasn't a "light skinned black man", he got caught, that shit happens.
"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." - M.L.King Jr
You're being daft, again. It's easy to tell a parent's race from a blood test (whether they were black or white), you're weaseling. His father wasn't a "light skinned black man", he got caught, that shit happens.
I've already mentioned that "race" doesn't exist. A DNA test and a "blood test" are two different things. So if you are now claiming that the latter can determine something that has no biological basis then I'm going to need more than just your word for it. Because this is clearly nonsensical. And even if you are using ancestry and "race" interchangeably and you mean a DNA test then we are back to my question ...
Originally Posted by OAW
So where exactly does one need to fall on the scale to qualify as "black" in your estimation?
75+ % African ancestry? 50-74%? 25-49%? 10-24%? 1-9%? Etc.? But we both know you are not going to answer. So how about we just respect ghporter's moderation and keep it moving?
I've already mentioned that "race" doesn't exist. A DNA test and a "blood test" are two different things. So if you are now claiming that the latter can determine something that has no biological basis then I'm going to need more than just your word for it. Because this is clearly nonsensical. And even if you are using ancestry and "race" interchangeably and you mean a DNA test then we are back to my question ...
I gave you a link, send them a blood sample and they can tell you the ancestry of your parents. Race doesn't exist? Holy shit, you really need to let BLM and the Nation of Islam know about that, that way they can stop blaming white people for their problems, since we're all PoC to one degree or another.
75+ % African ancestry? 50-74%? 25-49%? 10-24%? 1-9%? Etc.? But we both know you are not going to answer. So how about we just respect ghporter's moderation and keep it moving?
I'm glad to see that matters to you, at least when it suits you. Keep it moving where? This is my thread, which I started to talk about my issues with the "progressive" Left, a blog of sorts, no one is forced to read it if they don't want to (just like your anti-police thread).
"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." - M.L.King Jr
I gave you a link, send them a blood sample and they can tell you the ancestry of your parents.
No. You don't send a blood sample. Hence my comment above.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Race doesn't exist? Holy shit, you really need to let BLM and the Nation of Islam know about that, that way they can stop blaming white people for their problems, since we're all PoC to one degree or another.
"Race" does not "exist" as a biological reality. It is, however, very real as a social construct. It's not a complicated concept.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I'm glad to see that matters to you, at least when it suits you. Keep it moving where? This is my thread, which I started to talk about my issues with the "progressive" Left, a blog of sorts, no one is forced to read it if they don't want to (just like your anti-police thread).
As I figured, you aren't going to answer a very simple question of what level of African ancestry the 23andme.com test needs to indicate in order to be considered "black". So whatever. And FTR ... the "Police Discrimination & Misconduct" was started by The Final Dakar. Not me. But we all know you aren't one to let little things like facts get in the way or your routinely uninformed opinion.
No. You don't send a blood sample. Hence my comment above.
Whatever, stop nitpicking over bodily fluids.
"Race" does not "exist" as a biological reality. It is, however, very real as a social construct. It's not a complicated concept.
Indeed, the Left has been building the walls on that social construct for decades, they're now so tall that no one can see over them. The Regressives believe in those differences, preach them, and use them as a wedge to enhance their political power, it's called identity politics and they've mastered the art of exclusion. Some people make a very handsome living off those differences, like the two idiots I pointed out who even use it to pretend they're something they aren't, and those with weak minds lap it up.
As I figured, you aren't going to answer a very simple question of what level of African ancestry the 23andme.com test needs to indicate in order to be considered "black". So whatever. And FTR ... the "Police Discrimination & Misconduct" was started by The Final Dakar. Not me. But we all know you aren't one to let little things like facts get in the way or your routinely uninformed opinion.
I think the given for social programs is 1/2, if he can prove that 1/2 of his ancestry is from Africa, he can call himself an "African American" and cash in on the victim status. I don't give a single **** who started your thread, he obviously doesn't care that you adopted it.
"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." - M.L.King Jr
BACK. ON. TRACK. This has gone from a derail to something of a rant - that is 100% irrelevant to the topic, despite the "it's stylish" statement. It has nothing to do with "neo-progressivism."
Back to something about what progressives and neos believe, stand for, put up with, say they support, etc. As I said, how one identifies is personal, not political, and this isn't the place to be discussing that as a political issue any more than it would be the place to discuss how one identifies one's gender as a political issue.
Many Americans don’t have to worry about giving Uncle Sam part of their hard-earned cash for their income taxes this year.
An estimated 45.3% of American households — roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group. (Note that this does not necessarily mean they won’t owe their states income tax.)
Roughly half pay no federal income tax because they have no taxable income, and the other roughly half get enough tax breaks to erase their tax liability, explains Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
Income level Share of total federal individual income tax paid Average income tax bill per person
Lowest 20% -2.2% -$643
Second lowest 20% -1.7% -$621
Middle income 4.2% $1,743
Second richest 20% 12.9% $6,285
Richest 20% 86.8% $50,176
Source: Tax Policy Center
Income level Share of total federal individual income tax paid Average income tax bill per person
Lowest 20% -2.2% -$643
Second lowest 20% -1.7% -$621
Middle income 4.2% $1,743
Second richest 20% 12.9% $6,285
Richest 20% 86.8% $50,176
Source: Tax Policy Center
You can't put this solely on so-called "Neo-progressives". The GOP has long been quite enamored with spending via the tax code. Tax credits are a fundamental feature of just about any GOP proposal and situations like this are a direct result. Moreover, Mr. Trump's tax plan would even increase this figure!
The Trump Tax Plan Achieves These Goals
If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, “I win,” those who would otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each.
"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." - M.L.King Jr
That was amazing, I didn't expect they'd sack-up and can that hateful old ginger. The shitstorm over her firing has splattered all over Twitter, it's hilarious.
"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." - M.L.King Jr
That was amazing, I didn't expect they'd sack-up and can that hateful old ginger. The shitstorm over her firing has splattered all over Twitter, it's hilarious.
She worked in Communications. The irony was off the charts.
Yeah, a journo professor shitting on the 1A, I don't even... Of course, she wrote her thesis on Lady Gaga, or something like that.
"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." - M.L.King Jr
Holy shit! My sides! My god, what a moron. Hon, it wasn't about your race, or your gender, it was about you being an idiot. If anything, the only reason they kept you for so long is because they were trying to be PC, even at the expense of ratings.
"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." - M.L.King Jr
Other students expressed similar frustration with the university’s expectation that they keep up with their schoolwork during the protests, saying that some professors refused to grant extensions on homework and tests. Justice Gaines, an undergraduate student who uses the pronouns xe, xem and xyr, even recounted suffering from what xe describes as “a panic attack” related to xyr emotions over the Daily Herald op-eds, adding that xe “couldn’t go to class for several days” following the episode.
Liliana Sampedro, one of the students who compiled the diversity ultimatum, argued that refusal to grant such accommodations “has systemic effects on students of color,” who she said may sometimes feel obligated to prioritize their activist work over their studies. “I remember emailing the professor and begging her to put things off another week … I hadn’t eaten. I hadn’t slept. I was exhausted, physically and emotionally,” Sampedro recalled. The professor nonetheless insisted that she submit a previously-assigned research presentation on time, which she claims forced her to stay up late to finish the project after having already spent hours working on the list of demands.
Oh the horror. Poor snowflakes, you mean they're actually requiring that you turn in your work on time?! Well, I'm shocked. (Shocked that they had the balls to stand up to these over-privileged brats.) I see a lot of this crap working itself out, as the idiots who can't be bothered to do their work will simply be kicked out, to make room for those who will.
"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." - M.L.King Jr
The last paragraph of the article quotes a school official as saying "90% of such requests are routinely accepted".
If that's the policy the school goes with, it's going to look bad if a protest leader lands in the 10%.
To put it another way, if the school is that permissive with extensions, they better have a rock solid case for why protest leader doesn't meet the criteria versus the 9 other people did.
Now here's some real skullduggery. Remember a month ago when those 3 students from the University of New York were attacked and called racial slurs? This led to rallies and demonstrations, even Hillary showed up to lend her support (and get a photo op).
“The evidence shows that, contrary to how the defendants originally portrayed things, these three individuals were not the victims of a crime,” University Police Chief Frank Wiley said in a statement, after police interviewed witnesses and looked at surveillance cameras. “Rather, we allege that they are the perpetrators.”
Can you imagine? You're just riding the bus and then, out of the blue, some people verbally abuse, assault you, and then you get blamed for it? Well, that's what happened to the fella in the video. I can't even... WTF? Fortunately the women who filed the false reports are being charged for it, and not only with that, they're being charged with assault. They're getting off light, though. The poor guy who was beat-up could very well have been indicted for civil rights violations and likely could have seen 10 years in federal prison, if the videos hadn't surfaced. I hope he sues them into oblivion, because those scumbags very well could have ruined his life.
"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." - M.L.King Jr
The last paragraph of the article quotes a school official as saying "90% of such requests are routinely accepted".
If that's the policy the school goes with, it's going to look bad if a protest leader lands in the 10%.
To put it another way, if the school is that permissive with extensions, they better have a rock solid case for why protest leader doesn't meet the criteria versus the 9 other people did.
Sad, isn't it? No wonder these idiots end up as baristas serving coffee at Dunkin' Donuts, with >$100k in student loan debt that they'll never be able to pay off. Picketing and bitching doesn't really help prepare anyone for a career, unless they can luck out and fall into one of the rare Social "Sciences" professorship openings (or they go on to be professional victims, but that does require at least passing good looks):
I imagine that poor guy will fantasize about brushing up against her sideboob for the rest of his life.
"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." - M.L.King Jr
If I am reading the reports correctly, the majority of arrests were of immigrants rather than refugees, with most coming from Algeria and Morocco I believe. This may be a distinction without a difference if one opposes immigration in general or just immigration from Muslim countries, but there is a difference between legal, documented migrants and the new wave of refugees.
I thought the more interesting part of the article I linked was the reports of anti-immigrant/refugee violence since the incident, which has, predictably, caught up innocents- businesses have been vandalised and destroyed because of the skin colour of the owners.
None of this changes either of my opinions- that the decision to keep the reports of the assaults secret was a mistake and that the decision was likely motivated by a desire to keep public order rather than a progressive plot to discourage criticism of muslims.
Sorry for the extreme delay!
I want to be clear I was never arguing there wouldn't be retaliation. To put it another way, we're discussing Henk's "disorder quotient". My claim certainly wasn't the number was zero.
What I'm arguing is Henk needed to compare the potential for further disorder to the attacks which were happening at the moment.
Unless I misread, there were over a thousand reports from that evening, though we have to assume some were duplicates.
The question I pose, and I must admit it's a very ugly question, because innocent people will get harmed regardless of the decision.
Who do you protect?
One of the reasons my last post took so long is I wanted to take my time and think very hard about this question... and to be fair, this isn't a luxury Henk could afford.
The best I can come up with is to be cold and calculating about it. On one side you have the disorder quotient, on the other you have the attacks happening at that moment. Just like the disorder quotient, those attacks, their amount and severity, can be boiled down to a quotient. Well call it the "attack quotient", though I don't really like that name.
Compare the two numbers. Protect the higher number.
If the attack quotient is higher, protect the citizens by releasing the news. If the disorder quotient is higher, protect the migrants by suppressing the news.
How do those 1,000 reports from that night stack up versus the violence committed towards migrants since the night of the attack? Is it even remotely comparable? It sounds like there have only been a few examples of incidents which would register on the disorder quotient.
And this is the important part... that's over two months. Unless Henk is blisteringly moronic, he knows the news is going to get out over a much shorter time frame. The migrants can be protected for only as long as the news can be suppressed. Not only does the disorder quotient need to be higher than the attack quotient for protecting the migrants to be the correct choice, the disorder quotient should only be comprised of potential short-term incidents.
If I'm not mistaken, the short-term disorder quotient did turn out to be zero.
I'm ultimately arguing two potential scenarios.
One is Henk made the best decision he could based on the data, the problem was the data didn't even bear a glancing resemblance to reality.
The other is Henk had better data, and made the choice based on something other than strictly comparing the potential outcomes.
You can't make this stuff up! We knew there would be a push to legalize incest, but necrophilia?
The youth wing of the Swedish Liberal party has filed a motion to legalize necrophilia and incest.
Liberal Youth of Sweden said that just because it is 'viewed as unusual and disgusting', does not mean that the deprived sexual acts should be illegal.
They want to legalize sex between two consenting siblings over the age of 15, and sex with a corpse if there is a written permission made before the person died.
While not high on my list of things to crash and burn over, as one of the (I imagine) more radically sex-positive types (with a libertarian chaser), I'm fine with both of those things being legal.
There are some practical considerations (ownership/sanitation and recessive genes respectively), but my philosophical attitude is knock yourself out.
So it's not that Rubio and Cruz aren't Latino ethnically. Obviously they are. The issue is that the policy positions they adopt are viewed by more than a few Latinos to be more about ingratiating themselves with the overwhelmingly white GOP electorate ... many of whom routinely exhibit anti-Hispanic sentiment ... at the expense of the political interests of the masses of Latino people in the US.
4. As for Justice Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell my personal view of them ... and that of the overwhelming majority of African-Americans ... is exactly the same as I outlined above. I'll substitute a few words to make it abundantly clear ...
"So it's not that Thomas and Sowell aren't Black ethnically. Obviously they are. The issue is that the policy positions they adopt are viewed by more than a few African-Americans to be more about ingratiating themselves with the overwhelmingly white GOP electorate ... many of whom routinely exhibit anti-black sentiment ... at the expense of the political interests of the masses of African-American people in the US."
I hope that clarifies things for you.
OAW
Now that I think about, this is why I posted in the Cosby thread that is the reason he was turned on. Hollywood turned a blind eye to his shenanigans until he started making comments about "pulling up your pants, be men and stop blaming the "the man" for your problems".
The comments the panel made about Rubio (and Bush)speaking perfect Spanish, but not doing so. I can guarantee when Rubio makes stump speech in Spanish theses same people will say he's pandering to Latino voters.
Does that sort of consensual incest between siblings get punished when they caught? I can't imagine sentences are terribly harsh. My inclination would be to simply not enforce the law under the healthier circumstances but to leave it in place to discourage it in general and protect those where such a freedom might be open to abuse.
This is a reasoned way of looking at things. I have a few thoughts.
1. Was there a continuing danger of additional attacks or were they limited to the large, public celebrations/events?
2. Were the police vigorously pursuing the attackers even though they did not make the attacks public?
3. Most importantly to this thread, and something I don't think your analysis covers, was the question as to if suppression of facts was down to neo-progressivism or not.
I don't think there is an analysis of the events that would convince me that the right choice was made, possibly barring the 'Henk has better data' theory. I just don't think the wrong choice was based on P.C. nonsense, and I've seen no evidence to support that it was.
While not high on my list of things to crash and burn over, as one of the (I imagine) more radically sex-positive types (with a libertarian chaser), I'm fine with both of those things being legal.
There are some practical considerations (ownership/sanitation and recessive genes respectively), but my philosophical attitude is knock yourself out.
Yeah, they don't particularly bother me, either. So long as there's no product from a sibling union, I don't care. The necrophilia thing... that's gross, but realistically it's not that different from a sex doll. (How many people are going to give permission before they die anyway?)
"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." - M.L.King Jr
I'm crazy radical WRT sexuality, you know that. I, quite literally, do not care who, or what, someone chooses to fornicate with. There are at least a million more important things to concern myself with. As long as no one is being harmed (and I'm not counting anyone's precious "fee-fees"), do what thou will.
"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." - M.L.King Jr
The article says there will be a consent form. So instead of being an organ donor or donating your body to science, you can donate your body to a necrophiliac.
You know, the ones who are guilty of making the "slippery slope" argument.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
Does that sort of consensual incest between siblings get punished when they caught? I can't imagine sentences are terribly harsh. My inclination would be to simply not enforce the law under the healthier circumstances but to leave it in place to discourage it in general and protect those where such a freedom might be open to abuse.
Theres a case to be made that anyone who turns up to a morgue wishing to exercise the necrophilia clause of a will should be referred for psychiatric treatment.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Now this is serious WTF moment. While there are those who have talked about it, this hospital in the Netherlands is actually doing it.
Groningen University Medical Center commit infanticide. If a baby is born with serious disabilities–and the death doctors conclude they will have an “unlivable life”–the baby’s fate is often to be on the receiving end of a lethal injection. Doctors there even created a how-to-decide-which-babies-to-kill bureaucratic checklist known as the Groningen Protocol
Holland to New Jersey. Bureaucracy has trumped morality in the Netherlands. How else can one explain a country where, when doctors admit publicly that they commit eugenic infanticide, the leaders’ response is not to prosecute them for murder, but instead to urge that guidelines be created under which future baby killings can openly take place? The “Groningen Protocol”–named after a pediatric hospital which admittedly permits doctors to end the lives of babies born with disabilities or terminal conditions–seeks to normalize infanticide by bringing the practice out of the shadows and into the light of day. Under this thinking, it isn’t the killing that is wrong, but the secrecy. Secrecy? What secrecy? It has been widely known for years that Dutch doctors kill disabled and dying babies. As far back as 1992, the Dutch Royal Society of Medicine published guidelines to be used in deciding whether to kill a baby, including whether the child would ever be able to live independently, experience “self realization” (being able to hear, read, write, labor) and have meaningful interpersonal relations.
Yeah I saw that case the other day. Long story short. STL is one of the most racially segregated metropolitan areas in the country. The school districts reflect that. The settlement involved busing busing black kids from the city of STL to better funded and better performing districts in the predominantly white suburbs. And suburban white kids to the "charter" or "magnet" schools in the city. In order to maintain the federally mandated balance between the number of white and black students in the highly prized "charter" or "magnet" schools ... strict limits were placed on the racial and residential background of the student body. AKA ... "quotas". So the headlines about this story are somewhat misleading. It's not that this kid can no longer attend this particular school because he's black. It's because he's black and no longer lives in the city limits.
My personal opinion is that the "settlement" of the school desegregation case in STL has been an all-around clusterf*ck. Way too much emphasis has been placed on trying to address inequality by focusing on the racial makeup of student bodies when the real issue has always been one of disparate funding. The bottom line is that white flight is so ingrained around here that there are plenty of white people who will move even further out in the suburbs the minute there are more than a handful of minorities living in the neighborhood. And very often those "pioneer" minorities are better off economically than the white people fleeing in a panic. But little things like facts have never stopped such individuals from driving down their own property values by throwing up the For Sale sign all at the same time ... for no other reason than the neighborhood is no longer lily-white. In any event, chasing these sorts of people all around STL County in order to achieve a "racially balanced" student body is a fool's errand. Neither is having black students from the city standing on bus stops at 5 AM to be shipped off to some suburban school. Sitting next to white students isn't going to magically make those black students achieve better. And that process only serves to further defund the schools in their own neighbor's to the benefit of suburban school districts. The better approach IMO would have been to equalize the funding mechanism for public schools and not worry about the racial makeup of the student bodies. Then we would't be dealing with cases like this.
Racists attack some other racists, BLM clashes with the KKK:
So protestors came to a KKK rally (an entirely legal rally, the Klan had a permit), as was their right. But then they prove that they're every bit as bad as the Klan dipshits, by assaulting them. Listen up, you pea-brained idiots, let the KKK people gather, let them speak, their own words will tear them down. By attacking them you're only making people stand up in their defense, not because of their ideals, but because they have as much right to voice them as anyone else.
We often go to their rallies and carry signs telling them exactly what we think of their bullshit, but that's it, we don't even disrupt their speeches, decent people know they're wrong and their own words betray them.
"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." - M.L.King Jr
“I am not stealing, I am serving the ones in need. I take from the rich and give to the poor.”
“It was just me doing my part to do what I thought was in my power to help people. Some people couldn’t afford to have that glass of juice or soda,”
So the poor & needy are in need of soda?? This is the perfect example of how the average progressive thinks. If you're poor and needy you probably should be cooking your own food & not drinking soda. But then again we dont actually have real poor people in the US. Instead we have people that afford the things they want to the point they dont have money for the things they need.
... the three women were less than full, frank and forthcoming.
"There is no tangible evidence. There is no DNA. There is no 'smoking gun'...it is impossible to determine, with any acceptable degree of certainty or comfort, what is true and what is false," Horkin wrote.
He added, "the cross-examination dramatically demonstrated that each complainant was less than full, frank and forthcoming in the information they provided to the media, to the police, to Crown counsel and to this Court."
The first woman to testify in the trial acknowledged that she emailed Ghomeshi a bikini-clad picture of herself a year after he allegedly sexually assaulted her, pulling her hair and punching her in the head. She claimed on the witness stand to have forgotten about the email and another flirtatious email she sent a year after.
So it's been determined that these women had rough sex with the guy, but then stayed on cordial terms with him and even tried to hook up with him again (one actually did). Years later, however, they tried to say he sexually assaulted them. See? This is why we don't just "Listen and Believe", women can (and do) lie about these things, in this case several women did. And frankly, if it hadn't been for some really good investigative work, this guy would be going to prison, very possibly for the rest of his life. Unbelievable.
The feminist response? Not surprising. As you can see in the article they're losing their shit. Listen. Verdicts like these aren't what hurt real rape survivors, false allegations do. These women who lied (DeCoutere, et al) need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, there need to be real consequences for wrongfully accusing someone of rape, lying in statements, and misleading the court. Until these people start going to prison, this behavior will not stop.
"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." - M.L.King Jr
You can't be proud of a white heritage, it makes you a racist, and if you aren't proud of a minority heritage, there's something wrong with you or you're some type of Uncle Tom. Frankly speaking, I think being proud of your race or ethnicity is silly. It isn't something you accomplished, it isn't something you earned for yourself.
Of course, she wrote her thesis on Lady Gaga, or something like that.
Top