You can't prove that blacks don't like you because of your alleged white race. They may think you're a twit and/or a liar. In fact, we all think that's the likely reason that blacks shove you around on the streets and call you names. You are going to have face reality on this trauma in your life and realize that you may be the proximate root cause.
The mental retard data is verified. The rest of your post is some weird attempt to qualify or second guess the data because you don't like the facts and reality. You're just going to have to work on that impulse as well.
This response makes several baseless assumptions and logical missteps. First, it asserts that someone is disliked or mistreated based solely on personal character without any evidence, dismissing the possibility of racial bias outright. This is an example of circular reasoning—assuming the conclusion (that the person is the problem) without considering other factors. Second, the claim that “mental retard data is verified” is dubious at best. No reputable source compiles state-by-state rankings of intellectual disabilities in this manner, and the burden of proof is on the claimant to provide a legitimate source. Third, accusing someone of rejecting "facts and reality" without addressing counterarguments is not a valid debate strategy; it’s an ad hominem attack meant to dismiss rather than engage. In short, this response relies on personal insults, unfounded assertions, and misrepresentation of data rather than substantive argumentation.
Wrong. We have evidence in the form of your posts here which illustrate a certain type of personality colloquially referred to as "twit." We also have abundant evidence that you are a liar (see page 620, post #12400). We have no evidence that you are white, other than your tenuous claim to be so. But in any case, our analysis based on the evidence we have is that black people shove you around on the streets and call you names because you are a twit and not because you are allegedly white. We have met the preponderance of the evidence standard to support our conclusion. This issue will not be revisited unless you come up with new and compelling evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, you have been presented with verified, uncontroverted data of mental retardation rates in your favorite states. You have attempted to qualify, question and deny the facts and data. You have failed in that endeavor. The mental retardation data stands.
Do federal employees have the right to express critical opinions of the President and keep their jobs? Or must they all be sycophants? Trump is making it clear that he doesn’t want anyone employed by the government who has said anything critical of him, and hasn’t since renounced those criticisms and sworn loyalty to Trump, as Vance and Rubio have.
Liberal federal employees actively worked to hinder Trump’s agenda in his first term. So I completely support firing any who are not loyal to Trump.
Please tell me that you would support Biden’s right to all conservative federal employees.
Do federal employees have the right to express critical opinions of the President and keep their jobs? Or must they all be sycophants? Trump is making it clear that he doesn’t want anyone employed by the government who has said anything critical of him, and hasn’t since renounced those criticisms and sworn loyalty to Trump, as Vance and Rubio have.
Leading into what, 2 decades, of constant political & personal attacks from the deep state would piss anyone off.
Trump threatens the cancelation of government contracts to firms that he’s mad at. That’s never happened before.
He’s also deporting people without due process, condemning innocent people to hell on earth.
Isn't that what they've done to Trump? Weaponized gov.? I believe so. Politics have become dirty. Mostly because Trump vs. the deep state candidates weren't in the same Skull & Bones chapter together at Yale, if you catch my populist drift.
Anyway,
The claim that Trump is the first president to threaten the cancellation of government contracts due to political disagreements is historically inaccurate. Presidents from both parties have exercised discretion over federal contracts, often citing national security, economic concerns, or ethical considerations. Biden issued executive orders affecting federal contractors over vaccine mandates and environmental policies, while Obama barred companies that violated labor laws from receiving federal contracts. Trump’s actions may be controversial, but they are not without precedent in the exercise of executive power.
As for deportations without due process, the U.S. has long had expedited removal procedures, which allow for rapid deportations under specific conditions—this policy existed before Trump and continued under Biden. Due process concerns regarding immigration enforcement are valid but not unique to Trump’s administration. Obama was sometimes called the “Deporter-in-Chief” for his administration’s record-high deportations, many of which occurred through fast-track processes.
This isn’t fast track deportation. It’s haphazard and without concern if the people in question merit deportation. The government is declaring any Venezuelan migrant with a tattoo to be a gang member without any opportunity to defend themselves and their lives.
Liberal federal employees actively worked to hinder Trump’s agenda in his first term. So I completely support firing any who are not loyal to Trump.
Please tell me that you would support Biden’s right to all conservative federal employees.
Republicans don’t select ideologues. Democrats do. That’s why there are occasionally problems with RINO judges yet Democrats never have those problems since they only pick activist judges.
This isn’t fast track deportation. It’s haphazard and without concern if the people in question merit deportation. The government is declaring any Venezuelan migrant with a tattoo to be a gang member without any opportunity to defend themselves and their lives.
The law is meant to be fair and impartial to all.
I couldn’t care less. They’re not citizens. Deport them.
This response makes several baseless assumptions and logical missteps. First, it asserts that someone is disliked or mistreated based solely on personal character without any evidence, dismissing the possibility of racial bias outright. This is an example of circular reasoning—assuming the conclusion (that the person is the problem) without considering other factors. Second, the claim that “mental retard data is verified” is dubious at best. No reputable source compiles state-by-state rankings of intellectual disabilities in this manner, and the burden of proof is on the claimant to provide a legitimate source. Third, accusing someone of rejecting "facts and reality" without addressing counterarguments is not a valid debate strategy; it’s an ad hominem attack meant to dismiss rather than engage. In short, this response relies on personal insults, unfounded assertions, and misrepresentation of data rather than substantive argumentation.
Wrong. We have evidence in the form of your posts here which illustrate a certain type of personality colloquially referred to as "twit." We also have abundant evidence that you are a liar (see page 620, post #12400). We have no evidence that you are white, other than your tenuous claim to be so. But in any case, our analysis based on the evidence we have is that black people shove you around on the streets and call you names because you are a twit and not because you are allegedly white. We have met the preponderance of the evidence standard to support our conclusion. This issue will not be revisited unless you come up with new and compelling evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, you have been presented with verified, uncontroverted data of mental retardation rates in your favorite states. You have attempted to qualify, question and deny the facts and data. You have failed in that endeavor. The mental retardation data stands.
Damn, dude. You really are twisted around. Haha. This was a cute attempt, though.
Anyway,
Your response relies on a mix of more ad hominem attacks, misrepresentation of evidence, and a false sense of authority. First, claiming that someone's posts prove their personality as a "twit" is purely subjective and not evidence in any meaningful sense—it's an insult dressed up as analysis. Second, referencing a non-existent “page 620, post #12400” as proof of lying is an attempt to sound official while providing no verifiable data. Third, the insistence that racial identity is “tenuous” while simultaneously asserting certainty about personality and behavior is a contradiction, revealing a biased and selective approach to evidence.
Regarding the so-called "verified, uncontroverted data" about mental retardation rates, the claim is void. No reputable source compiles and ranks states in the manner presented, and the burden of proof is on the claimant to produce legitimate sources, as you have, again, failed to do. The response also engages in a classic tactic of declaring an issue "settled" to avoid scrutiny, despite failing to present actual verifiable data. Overall, this argument substitutes mockery for logic and bluster for evidence, making it more of a rhetorical rant than a serious engagement with facts.
This isn’t fast track deportation. It’s haphazard and without concern if the people in question merit deportation. The government is declaring any Venezuelan migrant with a tattoo to be a gang member without any opportunity to defend themselves and their lives.
The law is meant to be fair and impartial to all.
I couldn’t care less. They’re not citizens. Deport them.
By what reasoning do you consider yourself to be a good person?
Isn't that what they've done to Trump? Weaponized gov.? I believe so. Politics have become dirty. Mostly because Trump vs. the deep state candidates weren't in the same Skull & Bones chapter together at Yale, if you catch my populist drift.
Anyway,
The claim that Trump is the first president to threaten the cancellation of government contracts due to political disagreements is historically inaccurate. Presidents from both parties have exercised discretion over federal contracts, often citing national security, economic concerns, or ethical considerations. Biden issued executive orders affecting federal contractors over vaccine mandates and environmental policies, while Obama barred companies that violated labor laws from receiving federal contracts. Trump’s actions may be controversial, but they are not without precedent in the exercise of executive power.
As for deportations without due process, the U.S. has long had expedited removal procedures, which allow for rapid deportations under specific conditions—this policy existed before Trump and continued under Biden. Due process concerns regarding immigration enforcement are valid but not unique to Trump’s administration. Obama was sometimes called the “Deporter-in-Chief” for his administration’s record-high deportations, many of which occurred through fast-track processes.
This isn’t fast track deportation. It’s haphazard and without concern if the people in question merit deportation. The government is declaring any Venezuelan migrant with a tattoo to be a gang member without any opportunity to defend themselves and their lives.
The law is meant to be fair and impartial to all.
One error in a sea of effort. What was Obama's success rate?
Lyttle v. United States is a legal case that emerged from a series of administrative errors and racial profiling that led to wrongful deportation proceedings against a U.S. natural-born citizen in 2008. Mark Daniel Lyttle, bo...
Please tell me that you would support Biden’s right to all conservative federal employees.
Republicans don’t select ideologues. Democrats do. That’s why there are occasionally problems with RINO judges yet Democrats never have those problems since they only pick activist judges.
All Republicans today do is promote ideologues. See Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk who struck down the approval for a drug that’s been on the market for over 20 years based solely on his uneducated bias.
Guys what happened from asking all federal employees to email 5 things they did that week? Can someone point me to what it accomplished?
Why is no one able to answer what this accomplished?
We were told it was to find out which employees weren't actually working anymore, right? Like people who never login to check their e-mail?
This exercise was incredibly stupid. Any e-mail server can show you the last login date for an account. Sort it so you can see who hasn't logged in for a month or more. Send those names to their manages or HR for a followup. Easy.
It's incredible that Tech Bros don't seem to know you can do this.
So? Who says I care about Sydney. Throw another shrimp on the barbie, mate.
Besides, economic policy is a balancing act, and dismissing tariffs outright without considering their strategic advantages is just as misleading as overstating their benefits.
Got any other stereotypes or is Crocodile Dundee the only thing you remember from your school syllabus?
The leading Australian paper and others around the world is reporting on polls that ought to be known by you, except Trump doesn't want you to.
Of course there are strategic advantages to tariffs besides hurting your economy and your wallet. Pi$$ing off allies, and your alliaes making new alliances. Long term it is good for us, for Canada etc. Already got a $6.5B radar tech order from Canada. The cancellation of our AUKUS submarine deal should be next.
Invest in a trailer now...or maybe you are in one, if so, get a tent just in case
