Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can't be pro-science and support cutting 30-50% of all science funding.
Do you happen to play golf? Do you think the handicap system that they use in that sport is unfair and unjust?haha, nice try. I can support efforts to help minority groups and also disapprove of methods. For instance I support providing government assistance to our elderly, disabled, vets, and our poor, but I think there is tremendous waste in our welfare programs and a need for reform. Just because I support these efforts doesn't mean I support the current methods. So while I do support helping minority groups get better education, I can disagree with the method of simply bumping their SAT scores because they are a minority. I don't see the effectiveness in doing that, it actually seems counter productive IMO.I don't know much about it but on the surface it doesn't seem like something i'd support. i'm fine with scholarships for the black community and programs that help get minorities better education and into better schools. Diversity is important and education is the best way to help any group ascend out of poverty, but giving a SAT bump doesn't make sense to me. I haven't read much on the issue though.I don't get what your argument with me is. I agree that anybody can be racist. If people say otherwise then I don't agree with them. However, as I explained, there is a point to be made about the difference between black and white racism in America society that is a result of our history.
Do you support the 230 sat point bonus blacks get for being black in Ivy League College admissions.
If you support the idea that "diversity" is important, and that programs to help minorities bet better education an into better schools, then you support the 230 point bump.
Because that's how they get the bump.
YOu can't discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against others.
They don't simply bump the SAT scores.
They have "efforts to help minority students". They work to get a more "diverse student body". They "target" minorities. ect ect ect.
The EFFECT is a 230 point sat point bump, revealed though statistical analysis of Ivy League Admission records.
You CAN'T discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against another, in a system of limited resources.
THe difference between "racism" and anti-white racism in our society, is that one is illegal and taboo, and the other is National Policy and celebrated.
I also believe you are misusing the term racism in relation to this issue. Racism involves discrimination on the belief that one race is superior to another. This situation is providing opportunity to people based on race because of systemic and cultural disadvantages that their racial group is in. It is not imposing discrimination against whites based on the belief that blacks are superiorhaha, nice try. I can support efforts to help minority groups and also disapprove of methods. For instance I support providing government assistance to our elderly, disabled, vets, and our poor, but I think there is tremendous waste in our welfare programs and a need for reform. Just because I support these efforts doesn't mean I support the current methods. So while I do support helping minority groups get better education, I can disagree with the method of simply bumping their SAT scores because they are a minority. I don't see the effectiveness in doing that, it actually seems counter productive IMO.I don't know much about it but on the surface it doesn't seem like something i'd support. i'm fine with scholarships for the black community and programs that help get minorities better education and into better schools. Diversity is important and education is the best way to help any group ascend out of poverty, but giving a SAT bump doesn't make sense to me. I haven't read much on the issue though.I don't get what your argument with me is. I agree that anybody can be racist. If people say otherwise then I don't agree with them. However, as I explained, there is a point to be made about the difference between black and white racism in America society that is a result of our history.
Do you support the 230 sat point bonus blacks get for being black in Ivy League College admissions.
If you support the idea that "diversity" is important, and that programs to help minorities bet better education an into better schools, then you support the 230 point bump.
Because that's how they get the bump.
YOu can't discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against others.
They don't simply bump the SAT scores.
They have "efforts to help minority students". They work to get a more "diverse student body". They "target" minorities. ect ect ect.
The EFFECT is a 230 point sat point bump, revealed though statistical analysis of Ivy League Admission records.
You CAN'T discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against another, in a system of limited resources.
THe difference between "racism" and anti-white racism in our society, is that one is illegal and taboo, and the other is National Policy and celebrated.
Just like your boy Trump you double down on your ignorance. I love it. haha! Keep it up manSays the boy-wonder who proclaimed that bakers are not private citizens on private property...Sounds like you missed the memo from the 60s when they passed the civil rights act. Learn your history dude. You just make yourself look like a fool.
Just because something was "passed" doesn't make it constitutional. It just means that you fascists managed to get just enough fellow fascists elected to get your agenda implemented. Generally the American people correct that error (like they did electing President Trump to repeal all of Barack Obama's illegal and unconstitutional Executive Orders).
Most of the Civil Rights Act was spot on because it involved government (and the government represents all legal U.S. citizens - so they have no right to discriminate). But a private citizen on private property has every constitutional right to their own beliefs - even if you fascists can't handle that reality.
Private citizens can do whatever they want on their private property as long as they say within the bounds of our laws. You can't go rape and murder somebody just because you are on your private property. There are a set of laws that citizens must obey on their property and also a set of laws that licensed businesses, such as the bakery, must obey. Funny that all this time you think you "got me" and you've just been sounding like a dumbass as usual.Most of the Civil Rights Act was spot on because it involved government (and the government represents all legal U.S. citizens - so they have no right to discriminate). But a private citizen on private property has every constitutional right to their own beliefs - even if you fascists can't handle that reality.
Fucking kill yourself.
Another double down on your idiocracy. Yes I used google to give a quick definition that refers to Fascism as "extreme right wing", I then showed a definition of "right-wing" that listed fascism as a characteristic in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics:My friend...you have been throughly defeated (and you know it). It's ok - you were duped by the left. It happens. You're not the only one.Oops. You're just plain wrong. Accept it.
At the end of the day - there is absolutely no disputing that an authoritarian, centrally-planned, totalitarian government is exclusively left-wing. The right of the scale goes conservative...libertarian....Sovereign Citizens....anarchist. Each one of those steps towards the right means more personal freedom and less government until you reach the end - anarchist - or absolutely no government at all.
It's a simple fact. It's why I can properly articulate it while you haven't even attempted to articulate how you are right. Instead you keep hopping around from Google (which you hilariously cited as a "dictionary") to encyclopedias to tantrums.
Don't be a doucheFucking kill yourself.
Is that what you said to Pat Tillman before you shot him and then later lied about it?
I don't blame you for wanting me to go away. I would too if I were you. I'd be embarrassed by your absurd and idiotic posts. I've asked you several times now to articulate how fascism is to the right of libertarianism and you won't even attempt it because you can't. I was easily able to articulate the political spectrum in a rational, logical way.You're done man, you got nothing to stand on, I've proven you wrong multiple times and you keep kicking, pivoting, diverting, and proclaiming false victory. Go take a nap.
Your dictionary link proved me RIGHT! I posted several quotes from it that referred to Fascism as Right Wing. Are you high?I don't blame you for wanting me to go away. I would too if I were you. I'd be embarrassed by your absurd and idiotic posts. I've asked you several times now to articulate how fascism is to the right of libertarianism and you won't even attempt it because you can't. I was easily able to articulate the political spectrum in a rational, logical way.You're done man, you got nothing to stand on, I've proven you wrong multiple times and you keep kicking, pivoting, diverting, and proclaiming false victory. Go take a nap.
First you state to "grab a dictionary" and when I did that, it proved you were wrong. So then you started crying about encyclopedias being the key (once you failed with the dictionary). So stop moving the goalposts, pivoting, twisting, backpedaling, and whining. Simply explain to the readers here how fascism is to the right of libertarianism. What's the problem, snowflake?
If the Right believes in small limited government then why do you support beefed up immigartion laws, growing the military, the war on drugs, LGBT issues, and outlawing a women's right to have an abortion? We don't need to dig into the details off all I listed but you should get my point. Your ideology isn't as pure as you think it is. You want small government when it suits you and big government for other issues that you believe in.
Like I said, big government is fine when it suits your narrative. I guess thats the difference between Conservatives and Libertarians.If the Right believes in small limited government then why do you support beefed up immigartion laws, growing the military, the war on drugs, LGBT issues, and outlawing a women's right to have an abortion? We don't need to dig into the details off all I listed but you should get my point. Your ideology isn't as pure as you think it is. You want small government when it suits you and big government for other issues that you believe in.
Because the overwhelming vast majority of those of us on the right are not anarchists. We recognize that there are certain legitimate functions and duties that government ought to provide, that among these are defending this country and its people from foreign invaders, protecting women and children from morally-disordered sexual perverts, and certainly protecting the very most innocent and defenseless of all human beings from being killed by those who find their mere existence to be inconvenient.
Your side promotes madness, immorality,and overt evil, in the name of “freedom”, while demanding that government be abused to suppress genuine, essential freedoms.
My god, you need help...Jesus...
You attack Evolution
You attack the green house effect
You make shit up that doesn't even make sense and fight to defund the research but have the nerve to point fingers at the left? lol
You're anti-science and anti-civilization..Truly a backwards piece of shit on the level of the isis.
Says the boy-wonder who proclaimed that bakers are not private citizens on private property...Sounds like you missed the memo from the 60s when they passed the civil rights act. Learn your history dude. You just make yourself look like a fool.
Just because something was "passed" doesn't make it constitutional.
I posted several quotes from it that referred to Fascism as Right Wing
So if the Republicans pass a bill tomorrow stating that it is in the "General Welfare" of the United States to immediately execute all Democrats - and the Supreme Court upheld it - you would honestly consider that to be "constitutional"? You would support it? Don't be a coward SW.... Yes or No?If it's passed, challenged and ruled on by the SCOTUS? Is it constitutional then, "patriot"?
So if the Republicans pass a bill tomorrow stating that it is in the "General Welfare" of the United States to immediately execute all Democrats - and the Supreme Court upheld it - you would honestly consider that to be "constitutional"? You would support it? Don't be a coward SW.... Yes or No?If it's passed, challenged and ruled on by the SCOTUS? Is it constitutional then, "patriot"?
