Palin wants us all to speak "American"

in reply to Post 172 , whether I speak a foreign language or not is irrelevant JIM. Politicians like 'jebito' should speak the common language and the majority in the USA speak English .

You should help Mr Comb Over write speeches. You have that certain something.....

Oh, and thanks for alienating the Spanish community. The Dems need the extra votes.
to he11 with them , if they see themselves as anything other than Americans I want nothing to do with them . I am not gop , rino or a lover of a 'fifth column' of hyphenated people , races , religions , cultures in the USA . If a dem gets in , I hope that its Bernie . He at least has no big problems with guns . Plus Bernies habits or wishes for other peoples money oughta hit the 'gop' and moderate rinos right where it hurts , in the wallet JimH !!

Seriously, I find Bernie interesting, but I see visions of Dukakis, riding in a tank while looking like one of those little blue Smurfs.

I am not sure the country is ready to vote for a self described Socialist. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it. If it were between Trump and Bernie....wow. I don't know.
 
in reply to Post 172 , whether I speak a foreign language or not is irrelevant JIM. Politicians like 'jebito' should speak the common language and the majority in the USA speak English .



Do you really think bush can't speak English?
 
thing is that I don't support Bernie and I'm not really rich where he would go after me by increasing taxes . I also oppose going after the really rich on principle but if the really rich are just after money , well they aren't my friends . The really rich usually support the things that I oppose like immigration , 'chamber of commerce' WANTS and loose border control for THEIR cheap labor wants . I'm just saying that in a matchup between Bernie and any 'rino' I will vote for Bernie . He is at least ok on guns and I hear that he opposes big time immigration . -------------- I'm really hoping to vote for a Trump Cruz ticket JimH.
 
. The (D)s NOW have certainly changed... 'evolved' ... & can no longer be associated with that white hood .....


Says who?

Common sense. Why would a member of the KKK be in a political party that is the endorser for 'EQUAL protection under the law'? But of course, I don't expect you to understand common sense, since you are a defender for the walking talking bubble brain Sarah.

The Dems aren't for "Equal Protection under that Law".

Several of their policies and positions are directly opposed to that, such as the Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination.

LOL.... tell the homogays that. Tell women that.
 
. The (D)s NOW have certainly changed... 'evolved' ... & can no longer be associated with that white hood .....


Says who?

Common sense. Why would a member of the KKK be in a political party that is the endorser for 'EQUAL protection under the law'? But of course, I don't expect you to understand common sense, since you are a defender for the walking talking bubble brain Sarah.

The Dems aren't for "Equal Protection under that Law".

Several of their policies and positions are directly opposed to that, such as the Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination.

LOL.... tell the homogays that. Tell women that.

Err, I just did.
 
. The (D)s NOW have certainly changed... 'evolved' ... & can no longer be associated with that white hood .....


Says who?

Common sense. Why would a member of the KKK be in a political party that is the endorser for 'EQUAL protection under the law'? But of course, I don't expect you to understand common sense, since you are a defender for the walking talking bubble brain Sarah.

The Dems aren't for "Equal Protection under that Law".

Several of their policies and positions are directly opposed to that, such as the Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination.

LOL.... tell the homogays that. Tell women that.

Err, I just did.

BDDx7gO.jpg


Republicans are all for equal rights.

<pssst> that was sarcasm too....
 
Says who?

Common sense. Why would a member of the KKK be in a political party that is the endorser for 'EQUAL protection under the law'? But of course, I don't expect you to understand common sense, since you are a defender for the walking talking bubble brain Sarah.

The Dems aren't for "Equal Protection under that Law".

Several of their policies and positions are directly opposed to that, such as the Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination.

LOL.... tell the homogays that. Tell women that.

Err, I just did.

BDDx7gO.jpg


Republicans are all for equal rights.

<pssst> that was sarcasm too....


Sorry. I don't see the sarcasm. REpublicans ARE for equal rights.
 
Common sense. Why would a member of the KKK be in a political party that is the endorser for 'EQUAL protection under the law'? But of course, I don't expect you to understand common sense, since you are a defender for the walking talking bubble brain Sarah.

The Dems aren't for "Equal Protection under that Law".

Several of their policies and positions are directly opposed to that, such as the Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination.

LOL.... tell the homogays that. Tell women that.

Err, I just did.

BDDx7gO.jpg


Republicans are all for equal rights.

<pssst> that was sarcasm too....


Sorry. I don't see the sarcasm. REpublicans ARE for equal rights.

Ban on Gay marriage anyone? Anyone?

Anyone?

Vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act? Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

Bueller?

:desk:

That would be the Republicans.
 
Last edited:
The Dems aren't for "Equal Protection under that Law".

Several of their policies and positions are directly opposed to that, such as the Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination.

LOL.... tell the homogays that. Tell women that.

Err, I just did.

BDDx7gO.jpg


Republicans are all for equal rights.

<pssst> that was sarcasm too....


Sorry. I don't see the sarcasm. REpublicans ARE for equal rights.

Ban on Gay marriage anyone? Anyone?

Anyone?

Vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act? Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

Bueller?

:desk:

That would be the Republicans.

Tell it to the New Haven firefighters.

Or do whites not count?
 
LOL.... tell the homogays that. Tell women that.

Err, I just did.

BDDx7gO.jpg


Republicans are all for equal rights.

<pssst> that was sarcasm too....


Sorry. I don't see the sarcasm. REpublicans ARE for equal rights.

Ban on Gay marriage anyone? Anyone?

Anyone?

Vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act? Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

Bueller?

:desk:

That would be the Republicans.

Tell it to the New Haven firefighters.

Or do whites not count?

LOL. You are talking about one specific case, that I know very well. They were correct in suing on the grounds of 'reverse discrimination' & they won. As they should have. Wow, you have your token case. Well played... but you know & I know that isn't an every day occurrence... & how friggin long ago was that?
 
Playtime, I used to be a Republican, and we believed in equality. It was just that some people were more equal than others......

My husband was as well. He's still registered as a (R) so he can vote in the primaries, but hasn't voted for a (R) on a national level since 2000. George W. was his last mistake. & he certainly didn't repeat that mistake in '04.
 
"So up there in Alaska, across the way Russia, you know there is a name for this taking advantage of America. There is a Russian name for that. And it is called 'fortochka.' And that means Obama's window of opportunity. So as Obama leads from behind the skirt of his right-hand man, Valerie Jarrett, then it's up to Congress to close that window. He may propose. You dispose, Congress. You gotta be in it to win it because we want peace. With unapologetic mighty red, white, and blue, will have peace."

That's Palin's recent speech. It doesn't even qualify as word salad. I'd call it "word splatter." Or it's close to LOLcat, just stick an "Oh hai" in front of it.

Oh, "fortochka" in Russian means "a small window within a window", and a "fortochkin" is a cat-burglar who could squeeze through the fortochka. The term has nothing to do with politics or windows of opportunity.
 
Err, I just did.

BDDx7gO.jpg


Republicans are all for equal rights.

<pssst> that was sarcasm too....


Sorry. I don't see the sarcasm. REpublicans ARE for equal rights.

Ban on Gay marriage anyone? Anyone?

Anyone?

Vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act? Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

Bueller?

:desk:

That would be the Republicans.

Tell it to the New Haven firefighters.

Or do whites not count?

LOL. You are talking about one specific case, that I know very well. They were correct in suing on the grounds of 'reverse discrimination' & they won. As they should have. Wow, you have your token case. Well played... but you know & I know that isn't an every day occurrence... & how friggin long ago was that?

Every democratically appointed judge voted AGAINST the white firefighters and for blatant race based discrimination.

The Ruling did NOT throw out the law the discrimination was based on,

so ALL employers are still in the same boat as the New Haven City government,

Required to have equal outcomes even when the Black applicants are less qualified.

Or they can be sued and if the Judge is a liberal who believes in Disparate Impact, they will lose.

Every employer has to consider this with every hiring and promotion decision every day or they are fools.
 
BDDx7gO.jpg


Republicans are all for equal rights.

<pssst> that was sarcasm too....


Sorry. I don't see the sarcasm. REpublicans ARE for equal rights.

Ban on Gay marriage anyone? Anyone?

Anyone?

Vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act? Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

Bueller?

:desk:

That would be the Republicans.

Tell it to the New Haven firefighters.

Or do whites not count?

LOL. You are talking about one specific case, that I know very well. They were correct in suing on the grounds of 'reverse discrimination' & they won. As they should have. Wow, you have your token case. Well played... but you know & I know that isn't an every day occurrence... & how friggin long ago was that?

Every democratically appointed judge voted AGAINST the white firefighters and for blatant race based discrimination.

The Ruling did NOT throw out the law the discrimination was based on,

so ALL employers are still in the same boat as the New Haven City government,

Required to have equal outcomes even when the Black applicants are less qualified.

Or they can be sued and if the Judge is a liberal who believes in Disparate Impact, they will lose.

Every employer has to consider this with every hiring and promotion decision every day or they are fools.

The SC ruled in favor of the firefighters (one was Hispanic btw... they weren't ALL white) based on TilteV11 of the Civil rights Act & the 14th A.
 
Sorry. I don't see the sarcasm. REpublicans ARE for equal rights.

Ban on Gay marriage anyone? Anyone?

Anyone?

Vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act? Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

Bueller?

:desk:

That would be the Republicans.

Tell it to the New Haven firefighters.

Or do whites not count?

LOL. You are talking about one specific case, that I know very well. They were correct in suing on the grounds of 'reverse discrimination' & they won. As they should have. Wow, you have your token case. Well played... but you know & I know that isn't an every day occurrence... & how friggin long ago was that?

Every democratically appointed judge voted AGAINST the white firefighters and for blatant race based discrimination.

The Ruling did NOT throw out the law the discrimination was based on,

so ALL employers are still in the same boat as the New Haven City government,

Required to have equal outcomes even when the Black applicants are less qualified.

Or they can be sued and if the Judge is a liberal who believes in Disparate Impact, they will lose.

Every employer has to consider this with every hiring and promotion decision every day or they are fools.

The SC ruled in favor of the firefighters (one was Hispanic btw... they weren't ALL white) based on TilteV11 of the Civil rights Act & the 14th A.


Nothing in your post refuted, or even addressed anything in the post you were replying to.

I will repost it so you can try again.

Every democratically appointed judge voted AGAINST the white firefighters and for blatant race based discrimination.

The Ruling did NOT throw out the law the discrimination was based on,

so ALL employers are still in the same boat as the New Haven City government,

Required to have equal outcomes even when the Black applicants are less qualified.

Or they can be sued and if the Judge is a liberal who believes in Disparate Impact, they will lose.

Every employer has to consider this with every hiring and promotion decision every day or they are fools
 
Ban on Gay marriage anyone? Anyone?

Anyone?

Vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act? Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

Bueller?

:desk:

That would be the Republicans.

Tell it to the New Haven firefighters.

Or do whites not count?

LOL. You are talking about one specific case, that I know very well. They were correct in suing on the grounds of 'reverse discrimination' & they won. As they should have. Wow, you have your token case. Well played... but you know & I know that isn't an every day occurrence... & how friggin long ago was that?

Every democratically appointed judge voted AGAINST the white firefighters and for blatant race based discrimination.

The Ruling did NOT throw out the law the discrimination was based on,

so ALL employers are still in the same boat as the New Haven City government,

Required to have equal outcomes even when the Black applicants are less qualified.

Or they can be sued and if the Judge is a liberal who believes in Disparate Impact, they will lose.

Every employer has to consider this with every hiring and promotion decision every day or they are fools.

The SC ruled in favor of the firefighters (one was Hispanic btw... they weren't ALL white) based on TilteV11 of the Civil rights Act & the 14th A.


Nothing in your post refuted, or even addressed anything in the post you were replying to.

I will repost it so you can try again.

Every democratically appointed judge voted AGAINST the white firefighters and for blatant race based discrimination.

The Ruling did NOT throw out the law the discrimination was based on,

so ALL employers are still in the same boat as the New Haven City government,

Required to have equal outcomes even when the Black applicants are less qualified.

Or they can be sued and if the Judge is a liberal who believes in Disparate Impact, they will lose.

Every employer has to consider this with every hiring and promotion decision every day or they are fools

And any case would be ruled upon & upheld under Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act & the 14th Amendment, as was Ricci v Stephano ; where Ricci won. It set the precedent for any further cases.
 
Tell it to the New Haven firefighters.

Or do whites not count?

LOL. You are talking about one specific case, that I know very well. They were correct in suing on the grounds of 'reverse discrimination' & they won. As they should have. Wow, you have your token case. Well played... but you know & I know that isn't an every day occurrence... & how friggin long ago was that?

Every democratically appointed judge voted AGAINST the white firefighters and for blatant race based discrimination.

The Ruling did NOT throw out the law the discrimination was based on,

so ALL employers are still in the same boat as the New Haven City government,

Required to have equal outcomes even when the Black applicants are less qualified.

Or they can be sued and if the Judge is a liberal who believes in Disparate Impact, they will lose.

Every employer has to consider this with every hiring and promotion decision every day or they are fools.

The SC ruled in favor of the firefighters (one was Hispanic btw... they weren't ALL white) based on TilteV11 of the Civil rights Act & the 14th A.


Nothing in your post refuted, or even addressed anything in the post you were replying to.

I will repost it so you can try again.

Every democratically appointed judge voted AGAINST the white firefighters and for blatant race based discrimination.

The Ruling did NOT throw out the law the discrimination was based on,

so ALL employers are still in the same boat as the New Haven City government,

Required to have equal outcomes even when the Black applicants are less qualified.

Or they can be sued and if the Judge is a liberal who believes in Disparate Impact, they will lose.

Every employer has to consider this with every hiring and promotion decision every day or they are fools

And any case would be ruled upon & upheld under Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act & the 14th Amendment, as was Ricci v Stephano ; where Ricci won. It set the precedent for any further cases.

Libs don't care about precedent.

And considering the demographics trend, the court will reverse itself sooner or later.
 
LOL. You are talking about one specific case, that I know very well. They were correct in suing on the grounds of 'reverse discrimination' & they won. As they should have. Wow, you have your token case. Well played... but you know & I know that isn't an every day occurrence... & how friggin long ago was that?

Every democratically appointed judge voted AGAINST the white firefighters and for blatant race based discrimination.

The Ruling did NOT throw out the law the discrimination was based on,

so ALL employers are still in the same boat as the New Haven City government,

Required to have equal outcomes even when the Black applicants are less qualified.

Or they can be sued and if the Judge is a liberal who believes in Disparate Impact, they will lose.

Every employer has to consider this with every hiring and promotion decision every day or they are fools.

The SC ruled in favor of the firefighters (one was Hispanic btw... they weren't ALL white) based on TilteV11 of the Civil rights Act & the 14th A.


Nothing in your post refuted, or even addressed anything in the post you were replying to.

I will repost it so you can try again.

Every democratically appointed judge voted AGAINST the white firefighters and for blatant race based discrimination.

The Ruling did NOT throw out the law the discrimination was based on,

so ALL employers are still in the same boat as the New Haven City government,

Required to have equal outcomes even when the Black applicants are less qualified.

Or they can be sued and if the Judge is a liberal who believes in Disparate Impact, they will lose.

Every employer has to consider this with every hiring and promotion decision every day or they are fools

And any case would be ruled upon & upheld under Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act & the 14th Amendment, as was Ricci v Stephano ; where Ricci won. It set the precedent for any further cases.

Libs don't care about precedent.

And considering the demographics trend, the court will reverse itself sooner or later.

:eusa_boohoo: Only in an Orwellian Obama world full of sprinkly fairy dust blown from atop a unicorn as [they] are peeking through a really pretty pink kaleidoscope?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top