Biden’s big announcement
 

There have only been 2 black Supreme Court justices in the 232 year history of the court. Both men.

Only 5 women have served on the Supreme Court (also a disgrace) & none of them have been black.

Structural racism writ large.

Unless you believe no black woman has ever been qualified for the job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's a $&@%ing surprise, Pete with no sense of humor.

Saw this yesterday and got a kick out of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think he has more funnies than most people in this pit.

Stay Ahead of the Censors
Big Tech is suppressing conservative voices. Sign up for our free newsletter so you'll keep getting our content, no matter what.
Your Email
Sign Up
Fake news you can trust, delivered straight to your inbox.

conservative Christian news satire another group fleecing the base

Jim dont forget to buy your copy of the Babylon Bee Guide to Wokeness 19.99 or a site Fav Let's Go Brandon! T-Shirt
Regular price 27.99 or I Identify As Vaccinated T-Shirt for 27.99

love the caption Tired of getting asked to show your vaccination card to go to concerts, ball games, or exotic vacation destinations? Show the powers that be your shirt officially declaring your personal identity is "Vaccinated." They can't argue with science!



Just how I expected.. where and How you get your outrages from..

the Black woman thing really bothers you and other conservatives even Christians Funny how that works


A very selective effort of conservatives to cast Biden’s Supreme Court pick as an affirmative action hire And Jim your carrying the water again like a good foot soldier

Yet Again Affirmative action is just another trigger world to support 49% of the US population whites Suggesting victimHood oppression at the hands of 13% of Black Americans . whom can never be qualified or the best for the Job in the eyes of conservatives unless
that person Identifies with an R next to their names then everything is Aok

or if your wifes white she gets a pass

Ginni Thomas, Wife of Clarence, Cheered On the Rally That Turned Into the Capitol Riot
“GOD BLESS EACH OF YOU STANDING UP or PRAYING!”

or

Ginni Thomas’s name stood out among the signatories of a December letter from conservative leaders, which blasted the work of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection as “overtly partisan political persecution.”

Here Husband being a SCJ no big deal :lama:

whats Sad is you think Jim posted it because it was Funny :laugha:

liberalism requires that liberals surrender the ability to laugh at themselves.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete, tell me which part of this you don’t understand…

i believe that for a job that important, you go with THE most qualified candidate. regardless of skin color or presence of a wee wee.

i’m sure there are black women who’d do fine. but if there’s a white man who’d do better, i want him.

if the best candidate is a native american, non binary, non cis, asexual or pan sexual, pick he/she/they/them.

but i see zero value in passing over the best candidate, for the sake of appearances

you disagree. fine. but don’t claim
my view is racist. i’m ignoring race, you’re the one denying opportunity for race. that’s the definition of racism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you can’t grasp the simplest thing. maybe that’s what comes from a lifetime of avoiding meaningful time in the private sector, i don’t know. i do know, that your inability to be logical, is staggering.

i never mentioned affirmative action. maybe his pick will be phenomenal. but it’s stupid to set racial
and gender limits, before you know if and when you’ll have a vacancy to fill.

WHAT IF the ten most qualified candidates, don’t include any black women? What if that’s the case? I’m not saying it is the case, but it could be.

it’s your side who believes that black women can’t compete on a level playing field, and therefore certain spots have to be reserved for them. it’s your side who believes that black women can’t prevail if there’s fair competition for the job.

There’s a term for that. it’s called “the soft bigotry of low expectations”.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wrong again. shocker.

i posted it because it’s funny, and to be honest, because it was funny at your expense. i also knew for a certain, that the humor and intent would go sailing right over your head. you completely missed it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure you said the same thing when Reagan said he would pick a woman.

If that’s your argument make the case for Kavanaugh and Barrett being the “most” qualified people.
All of the rumored black women have far more impressive qualifications than either of those.
But they’re not white as all but two of the Justices have been to date.

Biden announced he'd nominate a Black woman to SCOTUS and the white wing is losing their #^&#^&#^&#^&. For centuries there was no announcement that the nominee would be a white man b/c it was assumed. That's how racial ideology works; it passes as uncontroversial & natural landscape.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's not forget Trump said the same thing after the death of Ginsburg. He said he would name a woman to succeed her before he had chosen a nominee.

"white wing" must be pretty big....

A new ABC News/ Ipsos poll found that 76 percent of Americans want Biden to consider “all possible nominees,” while only 23 percent want him to automatically follow through on his promise to nominate a black woman.

you are ignoring the race part, which is weird because that is usually your obsession....

seems like Reagan and Trump are not racists and not even sexits and Brandon is :kewl:

i never mentioned affirmative action.

Playing dumb again?

You didn’t have to

Your intention it’s perfectly clear to anyone who’s read any of your posts..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i was a tad young so no, not at the time.

whet do you think my response will be to reagan and teump doing it?

(1) it’s just as stupid as biden doing it?

or

(2) it’s ok when republicans do it?

the answer, obviously, is (1). i’m not a naked hypocrite paul. that’s you guys, not me.

i think it was brilliant, politically, for trump to pick a woman because it put the democrats in an impossible situation.

Barrett was also clearly brilliant and qualified, and Trump knew that ( knew her) when he said he’s luck a woman. we all knew, for many reasons, it was going to be Barrett.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry Jim your not very good at hiding how you feel. then suggesting Its conservatives humor

There’s no such thing your only fooling yourself

Ps there’s a good chance Brady will be replaced by a black just a women
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Barrett was also clearly brilliant


Really please tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

my intention is clear to anyone with a speck of comprehension. yet you completely miss it again and again.

you want to make these picks based on race and gender. i want to pick the best candidate regardless of race and gender.

you want to exclude
many candidates based in their race and gender. i’d prefer to consider everybody, regardless of race and gender?

who does that make the bigot?

by the way harvard has decided they have enough asians and are raising the admission requirements specifically for them. is that discrimination?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

can't wait to see what brandon #ucks up next :scream:

But it seems like you had no problem when both Reagan and Trump said they would nominate a woman while you don't like that Biden said he would nominate a Black woman. Hmm, I can't put my finger on the difference.

Reagan and Trump didn't exclude other minorities...

got through days of questioning, often without having to take notes. Dianne Feinstein, who single handedly led the with hunt against Kavanaugh, was repeatedly impressed by her.

Got a full scholarship to Notre Dame law and taught there. Has taught at ND and at University of Virginia, which is a great school.

Character? She adopted two children from Haiti, and is raising a kid with Downs, we all know what your side does to those kids.

Unlike Sotomayor, Barrett doesn't have a history of getting unanimously overturned by higher courts, nor has Barrettt ever said that judges of her race and gender make better judges (which is what Sotomayor once claimed).

I notice you avoided “I like beer”

Choosing a black woman to sit on the Supreme Court isn't racist. Choosing white men 110 times out of 115 to be Justices is racist. And sexist.

As RGB said when asked how many women should there be on the Supreme Court
“When there are nine”
Nobody ever questioned it when there were nine men on the court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's is when you announce publicly that you won't even be considering other races...

Bunch of white wingers...

I've said multiple times, it was stupid for Trump and Reagan to announce ahead of time they'd exclude ANYBODY based on race or gender. Fair enough? Maybe get the facts before you make demonstrably false and stupid assumptions.

I'm not a naked hypocrite Paul, I have principles that you don't agree with, but I apply them to both sides.

You tell me what's wrong with the following sentence...

Refusing to consider whites, asians, hispanics, and native americans based solely on their race, is racist. It's the exact textbook definition of racist.

Limiting the choice to a black woman isn't racist against blacks. It's racist against everyone else. Two things can be true at once, and in this case, those two things are true.

Choosing someone JUST because of their race or sex is racist/sexist. Choosing an outstanding candidate who also happens to be those is not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device