The Mythology of Thomas Sowell

[kalm]

I’ve agreed before Hunter was grifting with the foreign contracts. All of it…money laundering, etc. never reached a level where he could be prosecuted. Despite the best in efforts of House R’s.

If we apply your level of evidence to the Trump crime syndicate, they’d fill half a cell block.

Mountain out of a molehill when it comes to how politics on both sides works.

Post the evidence on the Trump crime syndicate

You’re missing the point. Unless you honestly believe Trump and fam are innocent victims who do not grift or leverage the name for personal gain.

[Caribbean Hen]

Post the evidence on the Trump crime syndicate

You’re missing the point. Unless you honestly believe Trump and fam are innocent victims who do not grift or leverage the name for personal gain.

The name Trump has been brand for almost a half century

If you don’t see what The Joey Rotten crime family was doing while Jojo was the VP you’re far gone …

Get the NY Post on reading list

[kalm]

You’re missing the point. Unless you honestly believe Trump and fam are innocent victims who do not grift or leverage the name for personal gain.

The name Trump has been brand for almost a half century

If you don’t see what The Joey Rotten crime family was doing while Jojo was the VP you’re far gone …

Get the NY Post on reading list

No thank you. The Post skews right on all media bias org’s reporting and is owned by News Corp.

We know Hunter traded off his dad’s name with Burisma. We also know Kushner received $2 billion from the Saudis to his newly created private equity fund and that Trump Org has announced construction of a Trump tower in Jeddah and that Trump attended last weekend’s UFC fight with the head of Saudi Arabia’s public investment fund. This has all been widely reported by multiple news outlets. Not sure why the Post hasn’t?

Both relationships raise eyebrows and reek of corruption but unless sone new evidence has come forth Joe’s involvement with Burisma has not been established.

No need to rehash all of the conspiracy theories pushed by the R’s in subcommittee hearings. If there was hard evidence of a crime involving Burisma and corruption, it would have been prosecuted.

[UNI88]

You’re missing the point. Unless you honestly believe Trump and fam are innocent victims who do not grift or leverage the name for personal gain.

The name Trump has been brand for almost a half century

If you don’t see what The Joey Rotten crime family was doing while Jojo was the VP you’re far gone …

Get the NY Post on reading list

And if you don’t see what the trump crime syndicate has been doing under that "brand" for almost a half century you’re far gone …

[Caribbean Hen]

The name Trump has been brand for almost a half century

If you don’t see what The Joey Rotten crime family was doing while Jojo was the VP you’re far gone …

Get the NY Post on reading list

No thank you. The Post skews right on all media bias org’s reporting and is owned by News Corp.

We know Hunter traded off his dad’s name with Burisma. We also know Kushner received $2 billion from the Saudis to his newly created private equity fund and that Trump Org has announced construction of a Trump tower in Jeddah and that Trump attended last weekend’s UFC fight with the head of Saudi Arabia’s public investment fund. This has all been widely reported by multiple news outlets. Not sure why the Post hasn’t?

Both relationships raise eyebrows and reek of corruption but unless sone new evidence has come forth Joe’s involvement with Burisma has not been established.

No need to rehash all of the conspiracy theories pushed by the R’s in subcommittee hearings. If there was hard evidence of a crime involving Burisma and corruption, it would have been prosecuted.

really? the only reason Hunter was overseas was because of his sitting VP father.... Joey Rotten Biden.... who looked the other way and played dumb which comes easy for him, and if he wasn't that dumb he could always play his senile card....

And issued little Hunter a 10 year blanket pardon

[UNI88]

No thank you. The Post skews right on all media bias org’s reporting and is owned by News Corp.

We know Hunter traded off his dad’s name with Burisma. We also know Kushner received $2 billion from the Saudis to his newly created private equity fund and that Trump Org has announced construction of a Trump tower in Jeddah and that Trump attended last weekend’s UFC fight with the head of Saudi Arabia’s public investment fund. This has all been widely reported by multiple news outlets. Not sure why the Post hasn’t?

Both relationships raise eyebrows and reek of corruption but unless sone new evidence has come forth Joe’s involvement with Burisma has not been established.

No need to rehash all of the conspiracy theories pushed by the R’s in subcommittee hearings. If there was hard evidence of a crime involving Burisma and corruption, it would have been prosecuted.

really? the only reason Hunter was overseas was because of his sitting VP father.... Joey Rotten Biden.... who looked the other way and played dumb which comes easy for him, and if he wasn't that dumb he could always play his senile card....

And issued little Hunter a 10 year blanket pardon

hunter's pardon is just as much proof of his guilt as matt gaetz withdrawing as a nominee for Attorney General is proof of his guilt.

[kalm]

No thank you. The Post skews right on all media bias org’s reporting and is owned by News Corp.

We know Hunter traded off his dad’s name with Burisma. We also know Kushner received $2 billion from the Saudis to his newly created private equity fund and that Trump Org has announced construction of a Trump tower in Jeddah and that Trump attended last weekend’s UFC fight with the head of Saudi Arabia’s public investment fund. This has all been widely reported by multiple news outlets. Not sure why the Post hasn’t?

Both relationships raise eyebrows and reek of corruption but unless sone new evidence has come forth Joe’s involvement with Burisma has not been established.

No need to rehash all of the conspiracy theories pushed by the R’s in subcommittee hearings. If there was hard evidence of a crime involving Burisma and corruption, it would have been prosecuted.

really? the only reason Hunter was overseas was because of his sitting VP father.... Joey Rotten Biden.... who looked the other way and played dumb which comes easy for him, and if he wasn't that dumb he could always play his senile card....

And issued little Hunter a 10 year blanket pardon

Exactly! You may be close to getting it now.

[Caribbean Hen]

“Historians of the future will have a hard time figuring out how so many organized groups of strident jackasses succeeded in leading us around by the nose and morally intimidating the majority into silence”

Sowell

[BDKJMU]

“The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined”

You didn't answer my question, why should I answer sowell's?

How would you, Caribbean Hen, redefine marriage?

A compelling argument can be made to redefine marriage by changing the name of what the government calls a civil partnership and letting the term marriage be used by religious organizations. Changing the nomenclature won't change the fact that denying the ability of homosexual couples to enter into a civil or domestic partnership allowed to heterosexual couples is discrimination.

Nope, not fact. Your opinion.

[kalm]

You didn't answer my question, why should I answer sowell's?

How would you, Caribbean Hen, redefine marriage?

A compelling argument can be made to redefine marriage by changing the name of what the government calls a civil partnership and letting the term marriage be used by religious organizations. Changing the nomenclature won't change the fact that denying the ability of homosexual couples to enter into a civil or domestic partnership allowed to heterosexual couples is discrimination.

Nope, not fact. Your opinion.

Nope. Fact. It’s literally covered in the definition.

[BDKJMU]

Nope, not fact. Your opinion.

Nope. Fact. It’s literally covered in the definition.

Wrong. In your opinion it fits a definition.

[UNI88]

Nope. Fact. It’s literally covered in the definition.

Wrong. In your opinion it fits a definition.

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing — riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Homosexual couples want to be able to do exactly what heterosexual couples can do. Using CH's "definition", denying them the ability to do that is discrimination.

Let's skip the trite answers. If you disagree, explain why denying homosexual couples the ability to do something that heterosexual couples can do isn't discrimination.

[kalm]

Nope. Fact. It’s literally covered in the definition.

Wrong. In your opinion it fits a definition.

Double wrong. The definition is clear. So are the laws.
You just don’t like it.

[BDKJMU]

Wrong. In your opinion it fits a definition.

Double wrong. The definition is clear. So are the laws.
You just don’t like it.

Triple wrong. Whatever definition you are referring to isn’t an arbiter of fact. It is one of opinion.
Fact: SCOTUS in 2014 ruled it unconstitutional discrimination 5-4. But SCOTUS isn’t an arbiter of fact.
4 justices ruled it wasn’t discrimination. If this court (since 2021) had been in place in 2014, on conversely the case had reached SCOTUS 7+ years later, you likely would have had a 5-4 on 6-3 in the other direction.

You can give an opinion that it is/was discrimination. I can give an opinion that it’s not (since any man could marry and woman and any woman could marry any man). But opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. But I really don’t care about the gay marriage issue

[kalm]

Double wrong. The definition is clear. So are the laws.
You just don’t like it.

Triple wrong. Whatever definition you are referring to isn’t an arbiter of fact. It is one of opinion.
Fact: SCOTUS in 2014 ruled it unconstitutional discrimination 5-4. But SCOTUS isn’t an arbiter of fact.
4 justices ruled it wasn’t discrimination. If this court (since 2021) had been in place in 2014, on conversely the case had reached SCOTUS 7+ years later, you likely would have had a 5-4 on 6-3 in the other direction.

You can give an opinion that it is/was discrimination. I can give an opinion that it’s not (since any man could marry and woman and any woman could marry any man). But opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. But I really don’t care about the gay marriage issue

You care. You obviously care a lot.

The only people who would agree with you are the idiots on SCOTUS and other bigots who are freaked by human difference and want to control others due to their own fears.

But forget sexuality. Apply it to any rights granted to one group but not another. Or any other example of being discriminatory.

Hey…can I also use SCOTUS decisions, just the ones I agree with, to base reality and made up word definitions on?

Weeee!

[BDKJMU]

Triple wrong. Whatever definition you are referring to isn’t an arbiter of fact. It is one of opinion.
Fact: SCOTUS in 2014 ruled it unconstitutional discrimination 5-4. But SCOTUS isn’t an arbiter of fact.
4 justices ruled it wasn’t discrimination. If this court (since 2021) had been in place in 2014, on conversely the case had reached SCOTUS 7+ years later, you likely would have had a 5-4 on 6-3 in the other direction.

You can give an opinion that it is/was discrimination. I can give an opinion that it’s not (since any man could marry and woman and any woman could marry any man). But opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. But I really don’t care about the gay marriage issue

You care. You obviously care a lot.

The only people who would agree with you are the idiots on SCOTUS and other bigots who are freaked by human difference and want to control others due to their own fears.

But forget sexuality. Apply it to any rights granted to one group but not another. Or any other example of being discriminatory.

Hey…can I also use SCOTUS decisions, just the ones I agree with, to base reality and made up word definitions on?

Weeee!

Wrong. I don’t really care. I didn’t bring up the issue, and wasn’t part of the argument.I jumped in with a 5 word reply, which is 5 more words than I’ve said on the issue on here in months if not all year (can’t remember when I last said anything about it. Then you jumped in. Clearly you care A LOT more than I do.

So which idiots on SCOTUS are you referring to? Only those who give decisions you disagree with, So the ones who give decisions you agree with are the smart ones? Du I have that right?

[UNI88]

You care. You obviously care a lot.

The only people who would agree with you are the idiots on SCOTUS and other bigots who are freaked by human difference and want to control others due to their own fears.

But forget sexuality. Apply it to any rights granted to one group but not another. Or any other example of being discriminatory.

Hey…can I also use SCOTUS decisions, just the ones I agree with, to base reality and made up word definitions on?

Weeee!

Wrong. I don’t really care. I didn’t bring up the issue, and wasn’t part of the argument.I jumped in with a 5 word reply, which is 5 more words than I’ve said on the issue on here in months if not all year (can’t remember when I last said anything about it. Then you jumped in. Clearly you care A LOT more than I do.

So which idiots on SCOTUS are you referring to? Only those who give decisions you disagree with, So the ones who give decisions you agree with are the smart ones? Du I have that right?

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing — riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Homosexual couples want to be able to do exactly what heterosexual couples can do. Using CH's "definition", denying them the ability to do that is discrimination.

Let's skip the trite answers. If you disagree, explain why denying homosexual couples the ability to do something that heterosexual couples can do isn't discrimination.

[Caribbean Hen]

Wrong. I don’t really care. I didn’t bring up the issue, and wasn’t part of the argument.I jumped in with a 5 word reply, which is 5 more words than I’ve said on the issue on here in months if not all year (can’t remember when I last said anything about it. Then you jumped in. Clearly you care A LOT more than I do.

So which idiots on SCOTUS are you referring to? Only those who give decisions you disagree with, So the ones who give decisions you agree with are the smart ones? Du I have that right?

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing — riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Homosexual couples want to be able to do exactly what heterosexual couples can do. Using CH's "definition", denying them the ability to do that is discrimination.

Let's skip the trite answers. If you disagree, explain why denying homosexual couples the ability to do something that heterosexual couples can do isn't discrimination.

So why don’t they?

[UNI88]

Homosexual couples want to be able to do exactly what heterosexual couples can do. Using CH's "definition", denying them the ability to do that is discrimination.

Let's skip the trite answers. If you disagree, explain why denying homosexual couples the ability to do something that heterosexual couples can do isn't discrimination.

So why don’t they?

They currently can but there are freedom-hating state officals and judges who want to take away that ability.

[kalm]

You care. You obviously care a lot.

The only people who would agree with you are the idiots on SCOTUS and other bigots who are freaked by human difference and want to control others due to their own fears.

But forget sexuality. Apply it to any rights granted to one group but not another. Or any other example of being discriminatory.

Hey…can I also use SCOTUS decisions, just the ones I agree with, to base reality and made up word definitions on?

Weeee!

Wrong. I don’t really care. I didn’t bring up the issue, and wasn’t part of the argument.I jumped in with a 5 word reply, which is 5 more words than I’ve said on the issue on here in months if not all year (can’t remember when I last said anything about it. Then you jumped in. Clearly you care A LOT more than I do.

So which idiots on SCOTUS are you referring to? Only those who give decisions you disagree with, So the ones who give decisions you agree with are the smart ones? Du I have that right?

Obviously I care more. Why wouldn’t any reasonable person care quite a bit about constitutional rights and argue against discrimination?

Your track record on LGTBQ issues obvious.

RE: SCOTUS

Of course the ones I agree with are smarter. Duh. The others are just hyper-political hacks who contradict their self proclaimed originalism and sense of justice. And they openly proclaim fealty to theocratic oligarchy.

It’s really simple. We the people and our rights are > private wealth, > the president > the church and religious beliefs, > the court justices themselves. It’s idiotic to think otherwise. Yet here you and the sophistic six are.

[Caribbean Hen]

So why don’t they?

They currently can but there are freedom-hating state officals and judges who want to take away that ability.

No they can’t

[UNI88]

They currently can but there are freedom-hating state officals and judges who want to take away that ability.

No they can’t

Obergefell v. Hodges

Unless you're going to argue that freedom-hating MAQA yahoos aren't going to try and get it overturned.

[kalm]

They currently can but there are freedom-hating state officals and judges who want to take away that ability.

No they can’t

Who can’t what?

Gay marriage can’t be taken away? Or gays can’t marry?

Regardless, are you a proponent of gays having the right to marry, hospital visitation, non-discriminatory hiring practices or are you not.

That’s the very simple question you and BDK are dancing around.

[Caribbean Hen]

No they can’t

Who can’t what?

Gay marriage can’t be taken away? Or gays can’t marry?

Regardless, are you a proponent of gays having the right to marry, hospital visitation, non-discriminatory hiring practices or are you not.

That’s the very simple question you and BDK are dancing around.

do you even know what the difference between ladies and gents ?

[UNI88]

Who can’t what?

Gay marriage can’t be taken away? Or gays can’t marry?

Regardless, are you a proponent of gays having the right to marry, hospital visitation, non-discriminatory hiring practices or are you not.

That’s the very simple question you and BDK are dancing around.

do you even know what the difference between ladies and gents ?