Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Loser left
Comments
-
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?BearsWiin said:
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"Sledog said:
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.BearsWiin said:
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.jecornel said:
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.BearsWiin said:
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.jecornel said:
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.allpurpleallgold said:A 10 minute interview where he doesn’t talk about policy once.
Here’s his website- https://www.peteforamerica.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImtiv5d-_4QIVKR6tBh0APQFEEAAYASAAEgJ1nfD_BwE
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules. -
Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnightSledog said:
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?BearsWiin said:
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"Sledog said:
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.BearsWiin said:
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.jecornel said:
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.BearsWiin said:
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.jecornel said:
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.allpurpleallgold said:A 10 minute interview where he doesn’t talk about policy once.
Here’s his website- https://www.peteforamerica.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImtiv5d-_4QIVKR6tBh0APQFEEAAYASAAEgJ1nfD_BwE
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules. -
Hillary outspent Trump by a lot and used the money of billionaires to do so but stillHardlyClothed said:
Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnightSledog said:
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?BearsWiin said:
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"Sledog said:
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.BearsWiin said:
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.jecornel said:
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.BearsWiin said:
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.jecornel said:
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.allpurpleallgold said:A 10 minute interview where he doesn’t talk about policy once.
Here’s his website- https://www.peteforamerica.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImtiv5d-_4QIVKR6tBh0APQFEEAAYASAAEgJ1nfD_BwE
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
She owed most of the world favors by the time November rolled around. Trump owed himself -
Trump owes Adelson and the Mercer’s directly, and the Koch’s/other right-wing billionaires indirectly for their cultivation of the congressional right-wing dark money networkRaceBannon said:
Hillary outspent Trump by a lot and used the money of billionaires to do so but stillHardlyClothed said:
Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnightSledog said:
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?BearsWiin said:
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"Sledog said:
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.BearsWiin said:
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.jecornel said:
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.BearsWiin said:
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.jecornel said:
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.allpurpleallgold said:A 10 minute interview where he doesn’t talk about policy once.
Here’s his website- https://www.peteforamerica.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImtiv5d-_4QIVKR6tBh0APQFEEAAYASAAEgJ1nfD_BwE
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
She owed most of the world favors by the time November rolled around. Trump owed himself -
No
He doesn't
And the Supreme Court didn't do anything either. Hillary was an cash cow and she lost
The AOC kids beat better funded democrats in primaries. AOC has her own dark money network
Winners win. Losers blame the ref
Get better ideas and candidates -
Race uses direct campaigns to argue why corporations giving to PACs isn't effective.RaceBannon said:
Hillary outspent Trump by a lot and used the money of billionaires to do so but stillHardlyClothed said:
Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnightSledog said:
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?BearsWiin said:
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"Sledog said:
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.BearsWiin said:
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.jecornel said:
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.BearsWiin said:
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.jecornel said:
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.allpurpleallgold said:A 10 minute interview where he doesn’t talk about policy once.
Here’s his website- https://www.peteforamerica.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImtiv5d-_4QIVKR6tBh0APQFEEAAYASAAEgJ1nfD_BwE
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
She owed most of the world favors by the time November rolled around. Trump owed himself
That being said, you are more making the point. That when a presidential candidate is promising to buy off corporations with a tax cut. Those same corporations are willing to contribute tons of money to ensure he gets elected and doesn't have to spend as much from his own pocket.
Thanks Race!! -
Nice gibberish as usual that has nothing to do with what I wrote2001400ex said:
Race uses direct campaigns to argue why corporations giving to PACs isn't effective.RaceBannon said:
Hillary outspent Trump by a lot and used the money of billionaires to do so but stillHardlyClothed said:
Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnightSledog said:
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?BearsWiin said:
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"Sledog said:
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.BearsWiin said:
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.jecornel said:
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.BearsWiin said:
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.jecornel said:
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.allpurpleallgold said:A 10 minute interview where he doesn’t talk about policy once.
Here’s his website- https://www.peteforamerica.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImtiv5d-_4QIVKR6tBh0APQFEEAAYASAAEgJ1nfD_BwE
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
She owed most of the world favors by the time November rolled around. Trump owed himself
That being said, you are more making the point. That when a presidential candidate is promising to buy off corporations with a tax cut. Those same corporations are willing to contribute tons of money to ensure he gets elected and doesn't have to spend as much from his own pocket.
Thanks Race!!
If money wins why did Hillary lose?
Who took more corporate money Hillary or Trump?
Fuck off
If corporations get taxed they get to be part of the election for the representation
You shills never have an issue with public unions do you -
As usual, Thomas and Kavanaugh should be impeached but the Kunt is too big a coward to state why.
-
Wow one primary it turned out the better funded/corrupt politician was defeated. Good thing I can’t think of dozens/hundreds? of incumbents in each party who would fit that moldRaceBannon said:No
He doesn't
And the Supreme Court didn't do anything either. Hillary was an cash cow and she lost
The AOC kids beat better funded democrats in primaries. AOC has her own dark money network
Winners win. Losers blame the ref
Get better ideas and candidates -
SFGbob said:
As usual, Thomas and Kavanaugh should be impeached but the Kunt is too big a coward to state why.
They both lied under oath during their confirmation hearings. You sure feel entitled to a reply to every stupid question you ask. -
HardlyClothed said:
Wow one primary it turned out the better funded/corrupt politician was defeated. Good thing I can’t think of dozens/hundreds? of incumbents in each party who would fit that moldRaceBannon said:No
He doesn't
And the Supreme Court didn't do anything either. Hillary was an cash cow and she lost
The AOC kids beat better funded democrats in primaries. AOC has her own dark money network
Winners win. Losers blame the ref
Get better ideas and candidates
-
Race now wants double the representation from corporations. Chinteresting.RaceBannon said:
Nice gibberish as usual that has nothing to do with what I wrote2001400ex said:
Race uses direct campaigns to argue why corporations giving to PACs isn't effective.RaceBannon said:
Hillary outspent Trump by a lot and used the money of billionaires to do so but stillHardlyClothed said:
Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnightSledog said:
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?BearsWiin said:
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"Sledog said:
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.BearsWiin said:
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.jecornel said:
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.BearsWiin said:
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.jecornel said:
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.allpurpleallgold said:A 10 minute interview where he doesn’t talk about policy once.
Here’s his website- https://www.peteforamerica.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImtiv5d-_4QIVKR6tBh0APQFEEAAYASAAEgJ1nfD_BwE
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
She owed most of the world favors by the time November rolled around. Trump owed himself
That being said, you are more making the point. That when a presidential candidate is promising to buy off corporations with a tax cut. Those same corporations are willing to contribute tons of money to ensure he gets elected and doesn't have to spend as much from his own pocket.
Thanks Race!!
If money wins why did Hillary lose?
Who took more corporate money Hillary or Trump?
Fuck off
If corporations get taxed they get to be part of the election for the representation
You shills never have an issue with public unions do you -
What goal post is being moved? A handful of successful primary challengers on the democratic side doesn’t make the vast majority of congress reliant on super PACs and wealthy individuals to fund their political campaigns. Which was enabled by the conservatives on the supreme court.RaceBannon said:HardlyClothed said:
Wow one primary it turned out the better funded/corrupt politician was defeated. Good thing I can’t think of dozens/hundreds? of incumbents in each party who would fit that moldRaceBannon said:No
He doesn't
And the Supreme Court didn't do anything either. Hillary was an cash cow and she lost
The AOC kids beat better funded democrats in primaries. AOC has her own dark money network
Winners win. Losers blame the ref
Get better ideas and candidates
Claiming I moved the goal posts is a convenient way for you to give up. -
The libs had a majority on the courtHardlyClothed said:
What goal post is being moved? A handful of successful primary challengers on the democratic side doesn’t make the vast majority of congress reliant on super PACs and wealthy individuals to fund their political campaigns. Which was enabled by the conservatives on the supreme court.RaceBannon said:HardlyClothed said:
Wow one primary it turned out the better funded/corrupt politician was defeated. Good thing I can’t think of dozens/hundreds? of incumbents in each party who would fit that moldRaceBannon said:No
He doesn't
And the Supreme Court didn't do anything either. Hillary was an cash cow and she lost
The AOC kids beat better funded democrats in primaries. AOC has her own dark money network
Winners win. Losers blame the ref
Get better ideas and candidates
Claiming I moved the goal posts is a convenient way for you to give up.
Money does not equal wins
What part of your argument is there left for me to destroy? -
More gibberish2001400ex said:
Race now wants double the representation from corporations. Chinteresting.RaceBannon said:
Nice gibberish as usual that has nothing to do with what I wrote2001400ex said:
Race uses direct campaigns to argue why corporations giving to PACs isn't effective.RaceBannon said:
Hillary outspent Trump by a lot and used the money of billionaires to do so but stillHardlyClothed said:
Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnightSledog said:
Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?BearsWiin said:
Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"Sledog said:
Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.BearsWiin said:
WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.jecornel said:
Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.BearsWiin said:
He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.jecornel said:
He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.allpurpleallgold said:A 10 minute interview where he doesn’t talk about policy once.
Here’s his website- https://www.peteforamerica.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImtiv5d-_4QIVKR6tBh0APQFEEAAYASAAEgJ1nfD_BwE
You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.
What policy positions does he have that you support?
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.
There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
She owed most of the world favors by the time November rolled around. Trump owed himself
That being said, you are more making the point. That when a presidential candidate is promising to buy off corporations with a tax cut. Those same corporations are willing to contribute tons of money to ensure he gets elected and doesn't have to spend as much from his own pocket.
Thanks Race!!
If money wins why did Hillary lose?
Who took more corporate money Hillary or Trump?
Fuck off
If corporations get taxed they get to be part of the election for the representation
You shills never have an issue with public unions do you
akiwe 'tj 'pwiojdpasou gpoweut]prvirm]c0weu rntpovquyt'oivyaoruic0wreip'votu 'po utpouer 'porp
courn'oiwuy
p[
prporutopberuty[oueru]tbie -
“The libs had a majority on the court”RaceBannon said:
The libs had a majority on the courtHardlyClothed said:
What goal post is being moved? A handful of successful primary challengers on the democratic side doesn’t make the vast majority of congress reliant on super PACs and wealthy individuals to fund their political campaigns. Which was enabled by the conservatives on the supreme court.RaceBannon said:HardlyClothed said:
Wow one primary it turned out the better funded/corrupt politician was defeated. Good thing I can’t think of dozens/hundreds? of incumbents in each party who would fit that moldRaceBannon said:No
He doesn't
And the Supreme Court didn't do anything either. Hillary was an cash cow and she lost
The AOC kids beat better funded democrats in primaries. AOC has her own dark money network
Winners win. Losers blame the ref
Get better ideas and candidates
Claiming I moved the goal posts is a convenient way for you to give up.
Money does not equal wins
What part of your argument is there left for me to destroy?
You’re senile -
No they didn't any more than Ruth Buzzie or the Wise Latina lied when they claimed they'd rule on every case that comes before them with an open mind. They make your snatch sore, that's it.HardlyClothed said:SFGbob said:As usual, Thomas and Kavanaugh should be impeached but the Kunt is too big a coward to state why.
They both lied under oath during their confirmation hearings. You sure feel entitled to a reply to every stupid question you ask. -
They wouldn’t be reparations anyway. They’d be payments on account for votes rendered and appeasement of AA grievances. Bought votes and bribed loyalties. Period.jecornel said:
It's entertaining but shows how lost the left is in regards to what they stand for. The Warren's, Kamala's, Bernie's, Beto's are huge problems. They have no shot against Donald.SFGbob said:I love leftist cat fights.
Pelosi supporting reparations is a mistake.
-
Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations
It's a bill to discuss reparations
Gutless as always
It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset -
To discuss? Wow just wow.RaceBannon said:Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations
It's a bill to discuss reparations
Gutless as always
It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset -
You sound old, white and racist. If you think reparations means paying cash to the poor black folk.RaceBannon said:Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations
It's a bill to discuss reparations
Gutless as always
It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset -
Sure faggot2001400ex said:
You sound old, white and racist. If you think reparations means paying cash to the poor black folk.RaceBannon said:Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations
It's a bill to discuss reparations
Gutless as always
It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset
Here's where you stumble about trying to tell me what reparations mean
Once the bill is passed we can discuss it -
But what does Rush Limbaugh think about reparations?
-
There's too many white racists in Congress who won't even read the bill and will vote no.RaceBannon said:
Sure faggot2001400ex said:
You sound old, white and racist. If you think reparations means paying cash to the poor black folk.RaceBannon said:Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations
It's a bill to discuss reparations
Gutless as always
It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset
Here's where you stumble about trying to tell me what reparations mean
Once the bill is passed we can discuss it
There was a time when I first started bantering with you that you actually had coherent points to make. Now you are just a bad Rush and Fox parody bot. -
So now that you've called everyone a racist what do reparations mean to you?2001400ex said:
There's too many white racists in Congress who won't even read the bill and will vote no.RaceBannon said:
Sure faggot2001400ex said:
You sound old, white and racist. If you think reparations means paying cash to the poor black folk.RaceBannon said:Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations
It's a bill to discuss reparations
Gutless as always
It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset
Here's where you stumble about trying to tell me what reparations mean
Once the bill is passed we can discuss it
There was a time when I first started bantering with you that you actually had coherent points to make. Now you are just a bad Rush and Fox parody bot.
I see Rush is big in the Team Hondo talking points this morning
Good job team -
Do you know the answer to this question?allpurpleallgold said:But what does Rush Limbaugh think about reparations?
-
Plenty of black folks think reparations means paying cash to black folks. Are they white racists too Hondo?2001400ex said:
You sound old, white and racist. If you think reparations means paying cash to the poor black folk.RaceBannon said:Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations
It's a bill to discuss reparations
Gutless as always
It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset
-
Why do we need to ask Rush about what you liberal Kunts think reparations means?allpurpleallgold said:But what does Rush Limbaugh think about reparations?
-
I see hondo has left the pool or drowned. Either way
Booker is a craven politician who thinks his base is as stupid as hondo. I'll present a bill to discuss reparations not a bill to implement them which could then be discussed
Like a guideline for discussions
Then we call GOP types racists and declare victory -
Did you know that a majority of "black folks" are really white racists?RaceBannon said:I see hondo has left the pool or drowned. Either way
Booker is a craven politician who thinks his base is as stupid as hondo. I'll present a bill to discuss reparations not a bill to implement them which could then be discussed
Like a guideline for discussions
Then we call GOP types racists and declare victory
A YouGov online survey in 2014 showed roughly six in 10 black Americans said that the U.S. government should offer cash payments and education and job training programs to the descendants of slaves. A Kaiser Family Foundation/CNN survey from 2015 found that 52% of blacks said that "as a way to make up for the harm caused by slavery" the government should "make cash payments to Black Americans who are descendants of slaves" (8% of whites agreed). A Marist poll from 2016 showed that 58% of blacks supported the idea for reparations for African-American descendants of slaves.
