Conservative group behind Aff. Action lawsuit is now suing West Point over using race in admission

[Stir Fry]

Sounds about wyte

 

[SupaDupaFresh]

Remember when the hashtag acronym nikkas was all about getting at anyone who dares disrespects the foundation American descendant of slaves and our place in this motherfukker WE built.

I guess all that tough talk was just the words of pathetic cowards. Looking for the weakest victims to punch down on so they can feel important. Convincing themselves that Africans, LGBT, Democrats, liberals and other people doing them no harm are the real enemies so they can pretend to be fighting for pro-black causes while avoiding white supremacy like little bytches

Because now that black people are being legal discriminated against by law and having our history erased in entire school system, everyone that use to get the most hysterical about these made up politically charged anti-AA Africans "disrespecting us" are just quiet and even defensive towards anyone that don't believe both sides are the same and voting matters. Just happy to see white people spit all over them.

What is it gonna take for people to realize this whole hashtag internet clique shyt was a fukking failure that did more to hurt black political power and help white supremacists than it did to grow black power and move the needle on any causes. A complete washed failure that was nothing but white worshipping bourgeios c00ns scared to fight white supremacy and rather fight against their own race like cowards. The most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

I didn't say they didn't. Before insulting folks work on those comprehension skills breh.

That's a talking that's starting to hold less weight. On the local level you have a valid point although redlining can impact that. On the federal level, the SCOTUS is appointed. Not voting by the American people in that case doesn't matter.

This you?

If you meant something else ur teacher was shyt at teaching you command of the English language

 

[karim]

Nope, because the stuff the military does goes all the way back to the Truman Administration and even before.

The supreme court is controlled by activist conservative judges, they will do what the fukk they want.

 

[karim]

The guy doing these lawsuits

Yea man if only everyone in this thread had voted.

This never would have happened.

You tried to warn us bro. You really tried. This thread was the last line of defense and we failed you bro. You were right all along. It was you. It was always you. You were the one who was really gettin it poppin, but cats didn't listen... and now here we are.

You're a c00n

 

[karim]

Why is it that everytime some outside group does something political you guys do not like, the first impulse some of you have is to attack other Black people? Really, do you guys not notice how that demonstrates a level of self-hatred exhibited by you? You choose to attack your own people you disagree with than to attack the actual people seeking to harm us all. It is ridiculous.

As long as they have the Supreme Court in their pocket, they will continue this progression to what they think is their conservative paradise. Now what needs to be done by the Democrats is they need to be getting more of that dirt on some of those Justices who are being bought and paid for by conservative oligarchs, like Clarence Thomas.

Also, both parties needs to push for limits on Supreme Court Justices. That is too much power over too long of a period of time in the hands of failable people who may have their own agendas. Unfortunately, that would take a Constitutional Amendment. Since Republicans are getting what they want at the moment, I seriously doubt they would agree. Then again, if the shoe was on the other foot, then I doubt the Democrats would agree either. So here we are, and we will be dealing with this, unless some impeachments happen, for at least 10+ years.

Both sides babble

 

[OperationNumbNutts]

This you?

If you meant something else ur teacher was shyt at teaching you command of the English language

Lol. Ok I'll break down my point Barney style since you want to get your panties in a bunch. My first post was simple. Yes, the American people vote in politicians. When it comes to the SCOTUS, yes politicians the American people voted for vote them in. However, we do live in a system where politicians will vote based on leadership and/or party lines which may contradict their voter base. My point was simple, just saying people need to vote takes away critical elements that many be overlooked. Last, I already acknowledged I may not have explained it clearly. Change your pad breh because you are typing like you are experiencing a heavy day.

 

[karim]

Lol. Ok I'll break down my point Barney style since you want to get your panties in a bunch. My first post was simple. Yes, the American people vote in politicians. When it comes to the SCOTUS, yes politicians the American people voted for vote them in. However, we do live in a system where politicians will vote based on leadership and/or party lines which may contradict their voter base. My point was simple, just saying people need to vote takes away critical elements that many be overlooked. Last, I already acknowledged I may not have explained it clearly. Change your pad breh because you are typing like you are experiencing a heavy day.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

Lol. Ok I'll break down my point Barney style since you want to get your panties in a bunch. My first post was simple. Yes, the American people vote in politicians. When it comes to the SCOTUS, yes politicians the American people voted for vote them in. However, we do live in a system where politicians will vote based on leadership and/or party lines which may contradict their voter base. My point was simple, just saying people need to vote takes away critical elements that many be overlooked. Last, I already acknowledged I may not have explained it clearly. Change your pad breh because you are typing like you are experiencing a heavy day.

If people vote more progressives in your party line becomes progressive and you will get progressive judges. Your point is still stupid and doesn’t make any sense

 

[null]

 

[Uachet]

Both sides babble

Of course you and your cronies would say this, but no matter how much you hate the truth, it remains the truth. You Democratic true believers are just as bad as your counterparts in the Republican party. You can see the plank in your enemy's eye, but fail to see the one in yours. Example, all of these multiple times when the Democratic party could have solved the abortion issue, taking it out of the hands of the Supreme Court. Why did they not do that, when they had the chance over and over again? Well, it is a wedge issue they can use. That's right, even when Obama was asked after he was elected about it, though he stated he would codify if he became president in 2007.

"You could have codified Roe v. Wade in 2009, but you didn't because 'abortion rights weren't the priority,'" tweeted Ash Sarkar, contributing editor at progressive outlet Novara Media.

Barack Obama Blasted for Not Codifying Roe v. Wade: 'Dem Failure'

Obama told Planned Parenthood in 2007 that the first thing he would do as president was sign legislation on abortion.

www.newsweek.com

So you can continue to be angry because I point out the BS both sides are, but that does not change the fact that both sides be on some massive BS.

 

[Samori Toure]

The supreme court is controlled by activist conservative judges, they will do what the fukk they want.

They can do whatever the fugg they want, but the military is going to do whatever the fugg they want.

 

[CreepyMcCreeperson]

Of course you and your cronies would say this, but no matter how much you hate the truth, it remains the truth. You Democratic true believers are just as bad as your counterparts in the Republican party. You can see the plank in your enemy's eye, but fail to see the one in yours. Example, all of these multiple times when the Democratic party could have solved the abortion issue, taking it out of the hands of the Supreme Court. Why did they not do that, when they had the chance over and over again? Well, it is a wedge issue they can use. That's right, even when Obama was asked after he was elected about it, though he stated he would codify if he became president in 2007.

"You could have codified Roe v. Wade in 2009, but you didn't because 'abortion rights weren't the priority,'" tweeted Ash Sarkar, contributing editor at progressive outlet Novara Media.



So you can continue to be angry because I point out the BS both sides are, but that does not change the fact that both sides be on some massive BS.

Okay. But had Hillary been elected, there wouldn’t have been 3 new conservative Supreme Court justices. I just find it very interesting that black people are telling other black people not to vote, as if we aren’t affected, regardless of who gets in office. We are citizens, we work and pay taxes, and our ancestors were lynched, terrorized, and sprayed with fire hoses trying to vote.

 

[Uachet]

Okay. But had Hillary been elected, there wouldn’t have been 3 new conservative Supreme Court justices. I just find it very interesting that black people are telling other black people not to vote, as if we aren’t affected, regardless of who gets in office. We are citizens, we work and pay taxes, and our ancestors were lynched, terrorized, and sprayed with fire hoses trying to vote.

Point out where in my statement I said not to vote? Pointing out the shenanigan's of the party that is nominally on myside is not the same as stating not to vote. So take that strawman somewhere else.

 

[Mowgli]

You're a c00n

No you are


I can tell by who daps you that youre a clown and not accepted.