billsfan1959

If it is verified, and even if it is coming directly from Bergdorf without the approval of L'oreal, it is still a bad look as L'oreal hired her back simply because of the current environment. If it got any sort of approval from the company...an even worse look

Of course, L'oreal is leading the way in racially diversifying their management and leadership on their Board of Directors and Executive Committee..... Oh, wait....

We are in the midst of a deluded, fanatical purging by liberal whites of their own, self imposed guilt. In order to do that, and reach that place of moral and intellectual "enlightenment," they have to transfer their delusions onto everyone else. Then they can rightfully claim their exalted positions of superiority.

Absolutely right. If they really wanted to make a difference, they would increase the number of officers.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I am not an advocate of completely banning no knock warrants. They should be available in extreme cases where officers are trying to apprehend violent offenders and it would reduce the risk of injuries to officers. I am in favor of banning it for any other reason.

I have a few thoughts myself, Kay, regarding the reasons for the toxic state of political discourse in this country, a topic which would probably make for a good thread - if the clowns could be kept out of it. As for the topic at hand, I think there has been a shift in how we use language in our national dialogue. We love to apply labels, make sweeping generalizations, conveniently dismiss the complexities of human nature, and place people in defined categories for the expressed purpose of (1) diminishing the legitimacy of their message, (2) demonizing them, and/or (3) pitting groups against each other. In the process utilize words that have somewhat specific textbook definitions, but in reality are expanded into umbrella terms under which we can place any behavior we do not appove of, as long as it can tenuously be tied to the original definition of the term. I know this has always existed to some degree; however, it seems, to me, it has worsened. To be honest, specific textbook/dictionary definitions are a necessary means of creating a common dialogue through a common understanding of words; however, definitions of certain words/terms become relatively useless in their practical application to most human beings. Some words, such as, "defunding," have a specific meaning and should be used accordingly. For other words/terms, such as "racism" and "socialism," we can pull out the primary, agreed upon, dictionary/textbook definitions and read them over and over; but, the truth is, they have been pulled, stretched, and distorted to to such a degree to fit all their applications, from one extreme to another, that, in the end, they have become almost meaningless. Which then denies us that common ground on which to engage in honest dialogue. In those instances we need to find ways to accurately describe what it is we are talking about before we can meaningfully begin to discuss it.

B-man shared this one. I made it last night and it was great... Creamy Garlic Tuscan Salmon With Spinach and Sun-Dried Tomatoes https://www.eatwell101.com/creamy-garlic-tuscan-salmon-recipe

Ummmm, we still know you started the other thread, Gary, and your disingenuousness didn't disappear with the thread...

I am not in favor of completely banning no knock warrants; however, they should be used only in those circumstances when you are entering the home for the strict purpose of apprehending a dangerous felon (i.e.; someone wanted for murder). Even then, considerations have to be made about who else is in the house and if there is a reasonable alternative as a way to make the apprehension. To me, the potential danger to residents and officers inherent in breaking into a home, unnanounced and in the darkness, outweighs the benefits of a no knock warrant in all but the most extreme cases.

And since minorities were disproportiantely dying from the virus, doesn't that pretty much make him a racist as well?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: GTFOHWTS

Neither BillZStime nor Gary ever do any homework. Their posts are the very definition of the internet drive by. 98 % of their posts are embarrassingly simple minded memes, accompanied by intellectually equivalent one liners, designed to do nothing but incite. The other 2% might have some substantive content; however, it is always plagiarized from some other source and they never engage in any follow up debate because they literally have no original thoughts of their own.

I made this last night and it was fantastic! Thanks for sharing

The Boston Globe article didn't explain anything. They cited an argument (supported by research) that because blacks are disproportionately represented in violent crime arrests that, after controlling for the number of encounters, they are not actually disproportionately represented in police killings. The counter-argument by the Globe was that all encounters with police are not the same and that the rate numbers are diluted because Black people have many more interactions with police in non-deadly situations. It's a hypothetical argument with no empirical data to support it. It also ignores the disproportionate representation of blacks in every violent crime offender category including the killing of polce officers. They also ignore the disproportionately high violent crime rates in black communities that disproportionately draw law enforcement resources and lead to a disproportionate number of interactions between law enforcement and black citizens in high violent crime settings. The data is pretty clear if you care to look at it. I am not arguing racism doesn't exist. I am not arguing racism does not exist in law enforcement. I am not arguing that there are not unjustified killing by police of blacks, whites, and others. I am not arguing that it is not more difficult than it should be to convict police officers in unjustified killings, period, not just the killings of blacks. What I am arguing is that the reasons for all these are varied, complex, and intertwined - and it has little to do with "systemic racism" in law enforcement.

But isn't that what happens with most issues? There are those with experience at the particular issue being discussed and those that do not have the experience. Not having experience doesn't negate insightful, thoughtful dialogue. Nor does having it ensure it. That comes down to the specific individuals in the discussion. Of course, I agree with you that it is important to get the perspectives of people with the experience in whatever we are talking about. I have no idea who on this forum has experienced systemic racism. If they wish to express it I would love to hear their view. Absent that, it doesn't mean the white people on the board do not have anything useful to say. Let me ask you this. Does it bother you that are many people who have no experience at all in law enforcement offering all sorts of opinions at the moment about them as a group?

I have no idea what the breakdown is. I was just posting some hypothetical numbers for you to respond to. My point is, I don't know what the racial distribution of posters on this board is going to tell you, other than what the distribution is. I was just trying to ask you, in a sincere way, what the significance would be to you?

And they should have to present a legally recognized passport to get back into our country.....

That is f****ing hilarious

Let's say, 8o% is White, 10% is Black, 4% is Hispanic, 2% is Asian, 1% is Native American, 1% is pacific Islander, and 2% is some other race/ethnicity. What exactly is "revealing" about that? Other than providing a statistical breakdown by race/ethnicity, what else can that tell you?

We are fortunate, we live on 6 acres in the woods off a dead end road. To find us you literally have to be lost

LOL. I am up in Wake Forest... Like everyone else, I have no problem with peaceful protests all day and night. However, you would think it sets a precedent allowing outdoor gatherings over 25 people. Maybe one of our resident attorneys could weigh in...

Thanks. I am actually going to look into that.

I honestly do not know how a state can legally bar one group, over a certain size, from congregating because it poses a risk of illness and death to other people; however, actively allow another group to congregate in exactly the same manner. The entire reason for the ban is, as we have been told, the health and welfare of others. There were no provisions for the motive behind the gathering, it didn't matter, the congregation itself was simply a matter of "life and death" to others. I live near Raleigh, NC. The Governor, Roy Cooper, has a standing order that there will be no gatherings allowed of over 25 people. A race track, Ace Speedway, which is essentially an outdoor event, opened back up in a nearby county several weeks ago, against the order. We have had protests almost every day. Protesters are still out in droves. The State has now issued a restraining order and taking action against the speedway. The reason: "Dr. Mandy Cohen, secretary of the state health department and the lead official in shaping polices to contain the coronavirus outbreak, said Wednesday that Ace hasn’t responded to the abatement order issued Tuesday declaring the speedway an “imminent hazard for the spread of COVID-19,” due to the crowds of spectators there the last three weekends." https://www.thetimesnews.com/sports/20200610/state-takes-legal-action-against-ace-speedway-with-restraining-order

I have never used an air fryer. I was wondering if we would use it much if we purchased one.

Do you remember the national outcry when protesters were invited into the Michigan State House during the lockdown? I remember reading abut white supremists, Nazi paraphernalia, and how armed right wingers stormed the building... ....and, the worst sin of all, how they were going to kill someone's grandmother by congregating like that