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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Who stained your shorts?
For some reason, they don't like to answer when I ask them that question, either.
Other than Emily no liberals and very few conservatives ever answer that question.
Wonder why?
Misery loves company...There is no sweeter sound than the crumbling of one's fellow man.Money has more influence in court than color....
True, but that does not change the fact that white people do not have equal standing in our courts of law.
I seem to get treated the same as those without connections or influence...
Maybe that is because you are a NOBODY...as I am as well.
Who stained your shorts?
For some reason, they don't like to answer when I ask them that question, either.
Other than Emily no liberals and very few conservatives ever answer that question.
Wonder why?
I seriously doubt you all ever talk to a liberal besides trading barbs on this board. You live and breathe in a vacuum, and from what I can see, running dangerously out of oxygen.
Money has more influence in court than color....
True, but that does not change the fact that white people do not have equal standing in our courts of law.
That's the stupidest thing I think I've read on here in the two years I've been posting. Absolutely the stupidest. Take your fear and loathing and bigotry to your KKK buddies, I'm sure they'll listen.
Lol, would it shock you to learn that most white people are not wealthy?
Therefore to say the courts have more sensitivity to wealth does not equate to 'they therefore have more sensitivity to white people.'
BTW, I think it is plain who the idiot is here, and whats more, I don't care what you try to think beyond mocking your stupid responses.
I suggest you test your theory and attend as many civil and criminal hearings and trials as possible and see who the attorneys are and who wins and who loses.
Do some research instead of yakking. Money talks while you squawk.
Actually, I just might do that. It will take years of research, and I will have to find some way of claiming standing, but I have plenty of time, and I learn fast.
Like that white guy who killed 4 people while drunk driving and wasn't made to serve even a single day in prison?
How does that have a thing to do with the specific laws I referred to?
lol, thank God you libtards are so freaking stupid.
Like that white guy who killed 4 people while drunk driving and wasn't made to serve even a single day in prison?
How does that have a thing to do with the specific laws I referred to?
lol, thank God you libtards are so freaking stupid.
I know. Right?
___________________
I'm a little off topic here as I don't really know enough about the law in this regard to comment, but the governor's action of calling for a "vigorous prosecution" as he refers to Brown as the "victim" in the midst of an investigation is disgusting, utterly depraved and cowardly.
Missouri Governor Calls For 8220 Vigorous Prosecution 8221 Before The Completion Of The Investigation Into Ferguson Shooting JONATHAN TURLEY
P.S. some questions that Democrats/Liberals refuse to answer
A. how is the ACA system "prochoice" and keeping govt out of personal health care decisions if it imposes FEDERAL mandates UNLESS someone buys insurance as the "ONLY CHOICE" to pay for health care to avoid tax penalties
B. why is it okay to ban the CHOICE of reparative therapy as damaging or harmful but not okay to ban the CHOICE of abortion? Why makes reparative therapy so dangerous that it has to be banned and policed, but abortion is not?
If you only believe in banning it for teens, are you applying the same logic to both abortion and this contested therapy?
If the problem is you have no knowledge of other forms of therapy that are NOT abusive but HAVE helped people change their unwelcome sexual attractions, isn't that a similar argument that some forms of abortion are safe and not dangerous and shouldn't be banned because of the practices that are dangerous and abusive?
Why oppose bans/policing of the choice or practice of abortion, but push to regulate or eliminate the choice of or practice of reparative therapy?
C. if you don't trust corporations to act in the best interest of the people,
why do you trust party leaders and govt to use those resources and power?
If the same problem, with massive resources in the hands of a few who are hard to reach and check
directly to hold accountable to the people, clearly occurs in corporations as "large collective entities
with more resources and influence than a single individual"
Why can't this be understood to be the problem with govt?
If you trust govt is made of people and answers to the people,
why can't corporations be made of people who answer to the people?
If you forgive Democrat and liberal party leaders for problems with waste or abuse,
why not forgive corporations? if you hold corporations accountable for paying back
taxpayers for govt funds abused, why not hold Democrat party leaders and liberal politicians accountable?
D. If you believe in abolishing the death penalty, war, etc. because the billions wasted on that should be better invested in health care and education, and social programs to address solutions to crime, disease poverty etc. then why wasn't that pursued as the source of funding health care reforms?
Why wasn't there a push to hold the criminal justice system accountable for wasting
taxpayers money so this could fund health care facilities research and development?
Why this push to hold LAW abiding taxpayers to pay more, while losing freedom how to pay for health care,
and NOT holding criminals responsible who ARE the cause of racking up costs imposed on the public?
E. If you believe that health care is a right, if you believe in gay marriage, if you believe in
"going through govt" for these solutions as the ONLY way or the BEST way, even if others disagree and "believe in other ways or solutions that work for them."
Why is this treated any differently than a religious belief where people believe
going through Jesus is the ONLY way or the BEST way, while you believe there are "other ways" that are equal choices to be respected? And people should be TRUSTED with their choice to be under a religious affiliation or NOT!
Why "separate church and state" only when YOUR beliefs about others choices are infringed upon. Why isn't this recognized when OTHER people believe in "other ways" besides going through govt?
Why can't they separate church and state on that issue, and recognize it is
a BELIEF whether health care can be decided "freely by an individual without going through govt," the same way in religion people can do the right thing by "individual free choice without
depending on faith in God, Jesus, Christianity or the Bible to live their life responsibly."
Why this distrust that individuals "must be required by govt" to do the RIGHT THING with health care for ALL PEOPLE. When this is opposed if people push Jesus, God or the Bible as the ONLY WAY or the BEST/RIGHT way for ALL PEOPLE.
Isn't this equally a matter of faith? Why isn't that respected?
And if you argue that people are using govt anyway, "might as well" make it uniform official policy,Christians can argue everyone is connected through Jesus and God, so "might as well" recognize that as the one law for everyone since it already applies to us all anyway.
Why is one situation horrifying, but the other is considered naturally the right way anyway.
isn't that the same as when Christians see belief in Jesus and God as natural and not a religion but already the law for all people?
Good questions; do you mind if I repost them?
Agreed, but I don't think I am arguing that. I am saying that our standing before the law should be race neutral and no laws or policies in our courts should take race into effect unless the crime considered is specific to race.
If student A has higher grades than 50 other students and they all got jobs and she did not despite being more qualified, having more experience and having better grades, does it really matter if she is black or white? Our laws say if the is a minority she has standing but not if she is white, due in part to the 'reasonable minority' rule, which gives minorities trump over lawsuits in court..
. . .
No, do you believe the AA policies, and racial set aside laws, etc are then constitutional if they do not give whites equal standing?
And this Emily person here needs a Xanax.
You have the Constitutional right to exhibit your ignorance and stupidity, which you exercise freely in your post.Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?
You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.
Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.
Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?
You have the Constitutional right to exhibit your ignorance and stupidity, which you exercise freely in your post.
Like that white guy who killed 4 people while drunk driving and wasn't made to serve even a single day in prison?
How does that have a thing to do with the specific laws I referred to?
lol, thank God you libtards are so freaking stupid.
I know. Right?
___________________
I'm a little off topic here as I don't really know enough about the law in this regard to comment, but the governor's action of calling for a "vigorous prosecution" as he refers to Brown as the "victim" in the midst of an investigation is disgusting, utterly depraved and cowardly.
Missouri Governor Calls For 8220 Vigorous Prosecution 8221 Before The Completion Of The Investigation Into Ferguson Shooting JONATHAN TURLEY
Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?
You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.
Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.
Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?
Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?
You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.
Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.
Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?
Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?
You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.
Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.
Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?
Ohhhh tha crackaaass are in a tizzy this fine eve!!!!!
Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?
You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.
Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.
Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?
Then why are there so many blacks incarcerated? Way beyond their percentage of the US population.
Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?
You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.
Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.
Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?
How do you conclude police officer shot Michael Brown in "self defense"?
Because, uhmmmm,.... he is white?
You have the Constitutional right to exhibit your ignorance and stupidity, which you exercise freely in your post.Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?
You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.
Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.
Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?
Agreed, but I don't think I am arguing that. I am saying that our standing before the law should be race neutral and no laws or policies in our courts should take race into effect unless the crime considered is specific to race.
If student A has higher grades than 50 other students and they all got jobs and she did not despite being more qualified, having more experience and having better grades, does it really matter if she is black or white? Our laws say if the is a minority she has standing but not if she is white, due in part to the 'reasonable minority' rule, which gives minorities trump over lawsuits in court..
. . .
No, do you believe the AA policies, and racial set aside laws, etc are then constitutional if they do not give whites equal standing?
The laws are unconstitutional either way if they base policy on race.
I believe the same problems could be better solved by creating more opportunities for all people so there isn't this false "scarcity mentality" and fear of competition over limited resources
This solves both sides by: 1. addressing the root cause of oppression that minorities complain about; 2. opening up more positions and opportunities so nobody is left out as the minority.
Better ways to close the gaps are to support programs that address the gaps in education, knowledge of laws and property ownership, financial business management, media and technical literacy, etc.
Not by quotas. By people reaching out and helping those in need. So this includes all people equally.
Even Obama's personal research into reparations resulted in the conclusion that solutions to address poverty
in general was naturally going to help Blacks who are disproportionately behind on the curve due to 150 years of
being enslaved as property instead of not being able to own and pass down property. (Where I would add that the fear and rejection of "white man's" property laws and corporate run government are an ADDED complication obstructing recovery with a vicious cycle of blame and victim mentality dividing people from helping each other.)
So as long as you focus on what is causing poverty and debt, and work to eliminate the causes (not by bandaids and handouts, but longterm education and training to break out of the poverty cycle and mentality),
this will naturally help "minorities" of all kinds, and no group has to be targeted by race, etc.
The one place I would recommend using race is if people already identify themselves with race related churches, businesses, parties, schools, etc. I would recommend using the community representation that motivates them to work most effectively. So if this involves racial identity, that's fine as long as it is self-chosen to affiliate that way. Nothing wrong with race as a factor there in how someone chooses to identify and affiliate.
The laws about AA were correctly found to be unconstitutional the way they were written and implemented.
The way they were set up was "off" to begin with. (In Houston, when urban groups first met to set up AA programs, the focus was on empowering people through investment, not quotas. But when legislative and political agenda got mixed in, it turned into something else. So I would recommend going back to the original idea of community leaders investing in their own solutions that meet the needs of their local populations, where they are free to affiliate by race or whatever "by choice" and there is no need to mandate this based on race, for example.)
There are better ways to create equal opportunity, that do not require regulations, penalties or quotas based on race. Schools and communities should be rewarded for setting up programs to teach ANYONE how to break out of poverty and recover from hardships. People will NATURALLY flock to groups they relate to, so OF COURSE the Black groups will focus on outreach with members who respond to that, and same with Latino groups. There is nothing wrong with people CHOOSING to organize and focus by race or culture, just not to impose by force.
The same solutions would create equal opportunities by creating more schools, paid internships, jobs etc. to serve more people in every community. So there would no longer be a need to "complete" for the same positions if people are instead taught and rewarded for creating MORE positions
where EVERYONE can either be studying, teaching or working at their best potential or working toward that.
None of this has to be mandated by fines or punishments. It can be done freely by donations, investments, tax deductions, etc. similar to how businesses are created or succeed by voluntary patronage when they serve the needs of their base audience.
Sorry if this wasn't clear.
