White Lives Don't Matter - apparently

Wow...Pepsi anyone?

1614028690048.png
 
Did anyone else just shake their heads about the Ted Cruz Cancun story? And not the story, but the fact that we as a society examine the minutia of everyone's life if they are in politics.

The power went out, there's a long weekend or some time off ahead, you have resources, so you decide to get out of town. Anyone would! Who cares that Ted Cruz went out of town to escape the dead power situation? It's just all so ridiculous. And I would say the same if some other random Democract sentator went there too
 
An ominous wind is developing into a hurricane. Obama had nominated Garland to the US Supreme Court as a supposed "moderate". Biden, was "sold" to the US public as a supposed "moderate". Instead, Biden has initiated a string of left wing policies. Biden in his inauguration speech called for a "war" against White supremacy. Now, Biden is appointing Garland to be Attorney General. Garland, it would appear, is coming-out as a rabid sycophant for implementing Biden's "war". Seems that Garland is tossing off his judicial robes of "blind justice" and has now assumed the role of a political hack to implement politically based persecutions guider the guise of the law. The "red scare" has now been replaces by a "domestic terrorism scare".

Merrick Garland vows to target white supremacists as attorney general
“If confirmed,” Garland said, ‘I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on 6 January – a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.”
 
Last edited:
Google is now identifying black-owned businesses as a separate category and with a special icon. Does anyone but me consider that to be racist?
 
I watched some of the hearing. Merrick Garland is pretty scary. I wouldn't want him for dogcatcher let alone head of the DOJ. His answer was "i haven't given it any thought". Why would I want someone who has no mind to lead the DOJ?
 
I only saw/read occasional excerpts. Nevertheless, it was enough to make me wonder how a judge, in-fact one nominated to the Supreme Court, would avoid answering a question concerning illegal immigrants. They are committing a crime. Seems that he has tossed out his "blind justice" judicial robes for rabid partisan politics were the law is irrelevant to the political agenda. The "ends justify the means". That translates into Garland supporting illegal immigration into the US.
 
Google is now identifying black-owned businesses as a separate category and with a special icon. Does anyone but me consider that to be racist?
Maybe it will lead to racist decision making where those who are fed up with these political statements will deliberately avoid purchasing from the labelled store. In other words, fomenting racism rather than the opposite.

Edit: Quite how the following website is not deemed racist is beyond me. This is the stated mission:

We’re a discount card and discovery platform, making it easy for you to find and shop at the best of independent black-owned businesses in the UK.


How about a website that says this:

We’re a discount card and discovery platform, making it easy for you to find and shop at the best of independent white-owned businesses in the UK. Not a black owner in sight.

I embellished a little at the end, but you get my point, yes? But it amounts to the same thing, which is discrimination based on colour. Or does it?
 
Maybe it will lead to racist decision making where those who are fed up with these political statements will deliberately avoid purchasing from the labelled store. In other words, fomenting racism rather than the opposite.
When one company like Coca-Cola buys all their competitors, Wal-Mart shutdown it's competition and so on it makes it hard to use your greenbacks in a positive way.
 
This makes interesting reading:

39722200-9295787-image-a-49_1614185470785.jpg


It covers ethnicity, but one area that stood out to me is that the 2020 target for LGBTQ+ employees was 8% of the staff. But the data also shows that the UK population has only 4.6% of people from that classification. In other words, they are heavily over-represented at the BBC compared to the population average. Given that, is it right to discriminate against heterosexuals in hiring decisions?

Example scenario

Manager (Sue): "What, you are not gay? I am sorry, but you do not qualify for the position. We only want people who have sexual preferences for their own gender."

Job applicant (Dave): "But I am just as qualified for the job!"

Manager (Sue): "Not quite. You need to start sleeping with men to get the job. Have you ever looked at Grinder?"

My tactic to get around this:

Job application (Dave): "Today, I am identifying as a woman, and I sleep with women. I am a lesbian since I have never slept with a man."

Manager (Sue): "Oh I am so sorry! Please don't tell my boss, Zie will do their nut! You are just the type of person we want! By the way, can you actually work the camera?"

Call me old fashioned...

1614191752355.png


Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ector-Tim-Davie-launches-bottom-shake-up.html
 
Last edited:
These days, Racism is everywhere. I hope It will not get any worse.
 
Racism is everywhere
Racism in America is a figment of the imagination of the Marxists. They figured out that class warfare wasn't working to divide us so they switched to racism. Of course there are individuals who are racist, and many of them are black and brown and yellow. Harry and Megan moved to the US because Megan thought the Britts were racist so she wanted to come "home" where apparently we aren't racist. Look at all the black and brown and yellow people who spend their life savings and wait years for a visa to come here and once here are accepted and do remarkably well? Are they all stupid? The race-baiters like Al Sharpton have convinced inner city poor black people that they are oppressed and are now pushing for reparations!!!!!! The Marxists have also infiltrated our educational system and convinced our children that Socialism is good and we (Americans) are evil and must repent. My ancestors weren't even in the country when slavery was allowed so why do I have to pay? Many people who would be on the receiving end are immigrants. They came here willingly to get a better life. Why would they benefit? The whole idea is just plain stupid and completely unmanageable. The Southern Democrats blocked any meaningful reparations that could have happened after the Civil War and left us with bitterness and a hundred years of "separate but equal" which current racists are now promoting on college campuses in the form of segregated dorms and segregated graduation ceremonies. The "oppressed" inner city folks need to divorce the government and vote for people who will actually help them to succeed instead of using their power to continue keeping poor people in debtor's prison.

The Marxists talk about reparations to the Japanese who were interned during WWII out of fear. I don't recall ever learning about that in history. I only learned about it when I worked in Seattle in the 70's. Those people deserved reparations. The people who were actually affected got the payments. Each survivor got $20,000 in 1988. It was not enough for losing their homes and businesses and being displaced in camps for several years but it was better than nothing. What about the families of the 600,000 people who died in the Civil War? Don't they deserve compensation for giving their lives to free the slaves? Slavery exists today all over the world but primarily in Africa and Asia. I think that anyone who feels oppressed in America should try living in Nigeria for a year to see how they like slavery in the 21st century.
 
These days, Racism is everywhere. I hope It will not get any worse.
As a follow-up to @Pat Hartman excellent post; this will get worse since there has been a subtle change to the very concept of how to solve the (artificially generated) issue of racism in the US. Essentially, the progressive "left" has now implemented the Orwellian strategy that we must inflame racism to end racism. Obviously that is very inflammatory and divisive.

Let's step back 60 years. Yes 60 years. Under then President Johnson, the Great Society, implemented "Affirmative Action" programs to bring an eventual end to racism. These programs can be considered essentially the same as "reparations". Additionally, consider Martin Luther Kings, I have a dream speech. Where (paraphrased) "he looked forward to decisions being made on the content of one's character and not on the color of one's skin."

The progressive left has tossed aside 60 years of "civil rights" work as if it did not exist and has dismissed Kings admonishment that decisions must not be based on race. The new keyword is "equity", where decision will be based on race. Basing decisions on "equity" promotes racism. Biden's recent Executive Orders are now designed to force the use of "equity" as a decision tool on the government and by implication on the rest of society. The Democrats control Congress, including the legal system, so there is not much hope that the "equity" steamroller will be stopped in the near future.

Update: Since posting, Bob Woodson wrote: The Civil Rights Movement I was a part of has been betrayed by a twisted progressive ideology
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom