All_Pro_Bills

History matters for context and understanding and acknowledging the past. But it doesn't matter when it comes to what might be 2021 "systemic racism" conditions. The examples you cite no longer exist and have been outlawed. So exactly what 2021 remedies and changes are there for problems created by conditions that no longer exist? Slavery has been abolished by the 13th amendment and Jim Crow and separate but equal laws have been stuck down and abolished by court rulings and legislation such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Those "systemic" issues no longer exist. You can no better argue hard numbers of the "systemic" impact on today of those events than you can argue impacts from slavery in Ancient Rome and Egypt on contemporary Italian or Egyptian society and culture. Again, I'm seeking an understanding through the use of hard data and numbers in order to quantify and validate "systemic" statements and opinions. My base view remains unmoved. Systemic racism in 2021 is a belief rather than some scientifically tested set of facts or statistics. And beliefs are subjective opinions. Therefore, the idea that systemic racism exists is an opinion.

You're making my point for me. Those systems no longer exist. In 2021 what is systemic? This is about what is happening now. That's all I'm asking. For somebody to objectively define what hard numbers and objective information they're pointing to when they voice a systemic perspective about present day life and race relations in America 2021.

What I object to is the term systemic. It appears to be a subjective and anecdotal conclusion that lacks any quantification or numerical identification. Like "systemic racism". Does that mean at least 51% of people are racist? And what are the traits and actions of these people that are considered racist? Can somebody outline them? Are they actions, thoughts, words, something else? The term "systemic" implies some widespread problem of some observable condition that exists above some threshold value vs. the total population. When I press people for examples of systemic racism all I ever seem to get are historical references. But nothing from present day that is quantifiable and validates the belief. And while there are certainly individual acts and instances of race motivated bad behavior the idea its systemic or epidemic seems absurd in today's society as the numbers just don't add up. It all comes down to if you can't quantify it how can you know or say its systemic?

And inter-racial marriage. Is there a logical explanation why an oppressor and an oppressed would want to engage in the act of marriage? For CRT to pass the "true" theory test these arrangements could not exist. But they do and they go unexplained. If I was to debate or challenge the theory with some believer I might start here along with requesting an explanation of how Asians, Native Americans, Hispanics, Native Africans, Middle Easterners, Pacific Islanders, and others fit into the theory. And why they are omitted. My guess is including them would paint a completely different picture of the current reality and invalidate the subjective conclusions and beliefs of the authors.

If anyone thinks they're entitled to outcomes they're wrong. You're existence does not entitle you to an equal outcome with anyone else. One word of advice, WORK!

George Soros and his PAC money with Obama & his cronies from the White House basement. Or maybe Mrs. Biden? But yeah it is a mess. Plan accordingly so you're prepared when the SHTF.

I'm also not sure how anyone can come away from an examination of CRT and exposure to it with the conclusion that its a history lesson that includes events and facts that have been generally omitted from the "white" version of history. Its a theory, and perhaps a hypothesis that doesn't even qualify to the level of theory. Its a subjective opinion and interpretation of events and race relations by the authors. It is not an objective, scientific method tested theory that survives the rigors of factual examination and alternative models of race relations and history. Even myself, not being what I consider a history or sociology expert can come up with a multitude of alternative "theories" that explain all these topics in a different way. One big problem is its being presented as some "hard science" that passes all the tests to qualify as fact rather than what it is, which is just a subjective view of race relations and events. And the fact it supports the agenda of specific interests and belongs in the fiction section of the library rather than the non-fiction section is what needs to be made clear. If you're looking for objectivity you need to look elsewhere.

I got to tell you. You ruined my day by posting a picture of Satan here. I can only guess this picture was taken right after she was told that Jeffery Epstein was killed in jail and she realized her husband's sexual activities on his private island with under-age girls would not be revealed. But you've failed to address my fundamental argument. And since you can't or won't do that I must conclude you know I'm right.

Good answer. Or attack Federal buildings and property in DNC controlled jurisdictions where crime committed by party members is legal. But whatever side of the issue you're on we all know what's going on here. And if anyone wants to pretend its not about this one thing then go ahead. But let's be honest about it. These round ups of "suspects" related to 1/6 have got nothing to do with "terrorism", or "justice", or a group of unarmed people trying to over-throw the government. Hell, Joe said yesterday you'd need nuclear weapons and F-15's to pull that off. What its all about is the political party in control using the events at the Capitol, whether genuine or manufactured, as pretense for an attempt to use the power of the State to oppress and silence its political opposition. If you don't understand that you're just sleepwalking through life.

She's projecting. And clearly playing defense with that flimsy explanation. And on top of its she's plain ugly..

You spoke the magic word - Merit. Eliminating merit or the system of meritocracy is at the heart of everything the left supports. And everything they oppose. In their minds nothing is earned. Everything is the result of privilege or the lack of privilege. And their most recent fantasy is that its all based on race. Its at the core of some very stupid ideas which boil down to eliminating the assessment of qualifications or ability in deciding anything. Imagine how pro sports or the Olympics would look like if the concept of merit and ability were eliminated. Too many tall NBA players or too many fast track athletes on the national team. That's the world they seek. The liberals dream world is one completely devoted to mediocrity and the pursuit of a lowest common denominator to create an under-performing and dysfunctional society.

A "theory" is generally some conclusion that is supported by a set of observable facts and data but falls short of being accepted as fact. And what we do is gather and analyze more information, facts, objective data and observations, and statistics in order to validate or invalidate the theory. As these facts are gathered they support the theory or suggest other causes or other more plausible theories. I just don't see how critical race theory passes any of these objectives tests. It appears to be a subjective interpretation of history created by the authors while bypassing the scientific method of validation and invalidation. For example, concluding the primary reason behind the Revolutionary War was so the colonies could maintain the system of slavery. Its possible this could have been a factor but there is no evidence to support the conclusion it was the primary factor. It is the author's subjective opinion. The evidence and documentation and data of the period suggests the primary driver was the desire for independence from the Britain and the rule of the King. None of the important documents of the time, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and others emphasize the support of slavery at the expense of other objectives and principles. The preponderance of evidence that points to other factors should invalidate the assumption that slavery was the primary cause. But the originators of this theory ignore the data and cling to their narrative. The core of the theory is that "Race" is the primary driver of all social, political, and economic relationships. Whites share a collective persona and blacks share a collective persona and nothing exists outside of these persons. All white people share an inclusive and exclusive list of traits and that all black people share an inclusive and exclusive list of traits. But we can invalidate this conclusion by looking at demographic data in different aggregations such as income or education levels. A wealthy white person has far less in common with a poor white person than they have with a wealthy black person. And a wealthy black person has far less in common with a poor black person than they have with a wealthy white person. I would argue the prevailing factor determining status and person attributes in a "Capitalist" dominant culture has nothing to do with race and everything to do with income. And I can development an alternative view of culture and classifications using income to explain all the negative consequences faced by the poor. Consequence of being poor which are shared by whites and blacks. Privileges of being wealthy shared by whites and blacks. From statistics and simple observations. Observations the authors of CRT ignore. Observations that better explain how culture works in this country. And that's the flaw in CRT. I could go over each and every one of their key conclusions and provide an alternative explanation for every one of them that is much more plausible based on the examination of facts and data available. And invalidate the entire theory. But ideologists don't want to listen to facts or statistics. They just want to believe. At best the authors of CRT suffer from confirmation bias when analyzing facts and data. At worst they are knowingly perpetrating a fraud for some purpose other than "teaching history". What they are teaching is a flawed subjective interpretation of history and culture. And frankly if the objective is to "teach history" we can view events of the past from the perspective of others without CRT.

And then in 2022 "fight" to restore the filibuster when the Republicans gain control of the Senate.

it would be a lot quick to just throw a grenade in the middle of the group and see who falls on it. There's your winner!

A Bocces and a Mighty Taco would look good down in the business district here too.

Raise you hand if you think any productive individuals or businesses are contemplating expanding or locating inside the city limits of Buffalo this morning?

Please refrain from using binary gender terms. It could trigger a panic attack in progressives as they attempt to dial their crisis councilors.

I guess I hit the bullseye here. And I'm not a pus-sie leftist so I don't have any safe space. The entire concept is childish and just shows how mentally and emotionally weak these progressive really are here. Why anyone is afraid of them is a mystery. They're scared of their own shadow and will cry and curl up at the first sign of stress. But insurrection is insurrection. Right? Destruction of Federal property is destruction of Federal property. Right? Attacking Federal and local law enforcement is still attacking Federal and local law enforcement. Right? I've got no problem with enforcing the law and seeing justice served at all here. But you need to ask yourself why you support conditional application of the law. All over the law and order theme here but ignoring all kinds of violence elsewhere. Maybe its your dumb ass political views? Maybe the fact not a single person has been charged with insurrection should give you a clue. Or is that too difficult to comprehend?

According to the Portland DA planning and carrying out an attack on a Federal building while carrying riots shields, body armor, and helmets along with assorted weapons is not a criminal offense.

You listen to and watch great classic comics like Pryor and Carlin and they simply take apart and attack the establishment. Fast forward to today and guys like Colbert not only don't attack the establishment, they dutifully support it by being critical of people that question it. What goes through their mind during the conversation is this. How dare anyone attempt to apply critical thinking and logic in questioning the official narratives about everything that the government provides to you. No discussion and debate is allowed. The words of our omnipotent overlords shall not be challenged. You will believe what you are told to believe. And if you continue to question the narratives I will be forced to name you the name we dare not speak. I will accuse you of the worst possible transgression, being a "Trump supporter". A disciple of the messenger of Satan. And as such you should be burned at the stake for expression such words. And that's a glimpse into the mind of the insane "Progressive" movement. As for Colbert, I guess it like they say "when a persons livelihood depends on not believing something its impossible to get them to believe it".

Because invoking the battle cry of racism is the quickest and easiest path to shut down any debate. As from that point forward anyone that disagrees is obviously a racist.

Traditional liberal of the 60's questioned and criticized the government and distrusted "the establishment". Today the "liberals" of the 21st century are the establishment and would like nothing more than to outlaw all criticism and opposition to "their" government. The oppressed have become the oppressor.

Rep. Waters, the very person that encouraged supporters to get in peoples faces and get confrontational", is just trying to get in front of the curve by blowing more smoke to counter the developing story that the FBI played a significant role in what is looking like another "false flag" event. Facts are pointing to the use of informants and assets (potentially leadership) inside the liberty movement that were coached and directed by the FBI to initiate and incite violence. This is a well established and common practice of the agency. One term for it is "entrapment". As several persons known to be prominent actors in the event were not indicted while anyone caught jaywalking near the Capitol on 1/6 has been arrested and held without bail in solitary confinement under maximum security logical and critical thinking points to something being amiss. But of course all the usual apologists, dimwits, dullards, and lobotomized progressives will proclaim "nothing to see here" because Google and Facebook say it isn't so. The narrative that will be pushed by their stooges in the press is the Trump campaign is responsible for the planning violence and is trying to deflect blame to other parties. Or so says "anonymous" sources. or perhaps truthfully "imaginary" sources.

First off, Mr. Winslow is a known critic and opponent of the former Trump administration. A Trump hater. So lets understand his motivation. And that motivation is not necessarily the pursuit of the truth. That's a common theme in lots of places including the media. Like CNN which employs a multitude of former FBI officials playing the role of journalist and analyst. Can you guess what they always conclude when the motives and conduct of the FBI are questioned? The questions being asked about FBI involvement in 1/6 have nothing to do with this guy pictured above. Its purely for dramatic effect. The question is what role did the FBI and other law enforcement or intelligence agencies play in the planning and execution of the events that lead to the violence at the Capitol on 1/6? Did informants or assets act on directives from the FBI to riot? To create an incident? To create the pretext for passing "terror" legislation aimed at domestic enemies of the government? We don't know. But what we do know is this tactic has been used by our government before both domestically and internationally. And what we do know is the legal filings appear to admit the government had "assets" embedded in certain groups and at the event. What we don't know yet is what role they played. What we do know is the government has no interest in telling us what role they played. So what are they hiding? And for the media we've pretty much figured out their role. To run interference as a propaganda and information distribution racket in service of the State. And given how many times they've been on the wrong end of the truth when it comes to these "conspiracies" I can't understand why they've got any credibility left to even speak. At this point who can believe anything they say?

Yes, no process is 100% perfect all the time and the mRNA vaccines are around 94% effective in generating the antibodies in the systems of the population getting vaccinated. Which means it didn't work for 6% which remain sustainable to the virus. The risk is not knowing if it worked for you. An antibody test would determine if it worked on any specific person or if they have "natural" immunity or if they have no antibodies and no immunity.