Barrett’s adoptions are act of racist

[Jim in CT]

a director at Boston University claims that amy barrett’s adoption of two haitian orphans, is an act of white supremacy. that because she tore these kids away from their inferior black culture to raise them in an elite honky setting, barrett is actually a “white colonizer.”

true story. that’s not crazy. nope.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-...TDWbzhcDKZEbec

[wdmso]

And your point .. ? can you show me in your link were anyone said this

"because she tore these kids away from their inferior black culture to raise them in an elite honky setting" or was these just you showing us those good Catholic values

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-54238642

Stories of transracial adoption most often feature white families adopting black and Asian children. When the opposite happens, and black and Asian parents adopt white children, officials and members of the public can become very suspicious.

funny how that works

[Pete F.]

Just another of his great sources like this one
“Judge tosses suit over Trump affair story after Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And your point .. ? can you show me in your link were anyone said this

"because she tore these kids away from their inferior black culture to raise them in an elite honky setting" or was these just you showing us those good Catholic values

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-54238642

Stories of transracial adoption most often feature white families adopting black and Asian children. When the opposite happens, and black and Asian parents adopt white children, officials and members of the public can become very suspicious.

funny how that works

used the wrong link like a moron. here ya go.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ssor-says.html

my point? leading people who are teaching our students, hate barrett so much because she has different opinions, that they say her adopting two orphans is an act of racism, not an act of incredible love.

what do you think of that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just another of his great sources like this one
“Judge tosses suit over Trump affair story after Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

tucker carlson is deeply critical of prominent republicans almost every day, and complimentary of
prominent democrats regularly. show me another commentator in prime time who is capable of praising or criticizing both sides? and he’s funny, and he has terrific guests, including thoughtful liberals.

his ratings speak for themselves

who should we take seriously? rachael maddow, whose predictions are almost always wrong? Fresh Cuomo? Don Lemon?

good one. you sure showed tucker carlson.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Glad you’re proving my point
“Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Glad you’re proving my point
“Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

where did that quote come from?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Court records
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Court records
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

provide a link, please?

[Pete F.]

https://www.google.com/search?q=tuck...obile&ie=UTF-8
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

used the wrong link like a moron. here ya go.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ssor-says.html

my point? leading people who are teaching our students, hate barrett so much because she has different opinions, that they say her adopting two orphans is an act of racism, not an act of incredible love.

what do you think of that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Even with your new link I didn't see anyone suggesting or saying

because she tore these kids away from their inferior black culture to raise them in an elite honky setting"

Just curious where that came from

And honestly I don't care why she choose to adopt thas her business and it doesn't make them heros or rasist villians

not sure why conservative love to represent comments such as his as a liberal idea or even mainstream

And her qualifications for the court are not the issue . Its her appointment and the senators lies and abandonment of a precedent they themselves established

she her self have similar comments on the issue in 2016

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Even with your new link I didn't see anyone suggesting or saying

because she tore these kids away from their inferior black culture to raise them in an elite honky setting"

Just curious where that came from

do you know how to read? They called her a white colonizer who forced the kids out of their savage black culture to raise them in a white culture.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

do you know how to read? They called her a white colonizer who forced the kids out of their savage black culture to raise them in a white culture.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

TDF i have never adopted. but in my opinion, people
who do, especially to adopt orphans from haiti, is one of the most loving, selfless acts in the human experience. you can’t do much more to
improve the world
for someone, than to do what the barrets did. their thanks is to be called racists, and wdmso denies it happened. he can’t just say they deserve credit for what they did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

I think it's pretty funny when academics say outlandish things just to make people think.

[Pete F.]

Probably did it to “own” the Trumplicans
That’s cool when they claim it was Tweety’s motive, isn’t it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think it's pretty funny when academics say outlandish things just to make people think.

Yes it was very outlandish.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Probably did it to “own” the Trumplicans
That’s cool when they claim it was Tweety’s motive, isn’t it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m owned by the person who said that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I think it's pretty funny when academics say outlandish things just to make people think.

Yeah, except that so called “Academic” received a $10 million donation from the CEO of Twitter to continue to say such outlandish (hateful) things
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

I see a lot of “triggered” Trumplicans today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I see a lot of “triggered” Trumplicans today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you haven’t been triggered every single day since 2016? using your own logic, trump owns you up the azz.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Yeah, except that so called “Academic” received a $10 million donation from the CEO of Twitter to continue to say such outlandish (hateful) things
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

these are the people teaching our kids. Hooray!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I see a lot of “triggered” Trumplicans today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As someone who has constantly been "triggered" for the past four years, you might possibly have some insight.

[Pete F.]

I saw who Trump is and didn’t buy in

“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

That’s the famous question that everyone remembers. But it wasn’t the only question Reagan posed during that campaign. In his election eve address to the nation, Reagan also asked the following:

Is our nation stronger and more capable of leading the world toward peace and freedom, or is it weaker?
Is there more stability in the world, or less?
Are you convinced that we have earned the respect of the world and our allies, or has America’s position across the globe diminished?
Are you personally more secure in your life? Is your family more secure?
Is America safer in the world?
I would add one more: Does America under Trump’s leadership bring us closer to—or further from—that “shining city upon a hill” of which Reagan often spoke?

He described it thusly:

…a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.
The answers are obvious.

As unappealing as it might be to Reagan to vote for a Democrat, he was an American and patriot first. Nothing was more important to him than the well-being of our country.

So what would the Gipper do? Reagan would be ridin’ with Biden.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

do you know how to read? They called her a white colonizer who forced the kids out of their savage black culture to raise them in a white culture.

from their inferior black culture to raise them in an elite honky setting"


not the same are they

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I saw who Trump is and didn’t buy in

“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

That’s the famous question that everyone remembers. But it wasn’t the only question Reagan posed during that campaign. In his election eve address to the nation, Reagan also asked the following:

Is our nation stronger and more capable of leading the world toward peace and freedom, or is it weaker?
Is there more stability in the world, or less?
Are you convinced that we have earned the respect of the world and our allies, or has America’s position across the globe diminished?
Are you personally more secure in your life? Is your family more secure?
Is America safer in the world?
I would add one more: Does America under Trump’s leadership bring us closer to—or further from—that “shining city upon a hill” of which Reagan often spoke?

He described it thusly:

…a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.
The answers are obvious.

As unappealing as it might be to Reagan to vote for a Democrat, he was an American and patriot first. Nothing was more important to him than the well-being of our country.

So what would the Gipper do? Reagan would be ridin’ with Biden.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are too influenced by quick, surface, tidbits. If you dig deep into the Reagan political philosophy, you will find that he was adamantly against the Progressive administrative state under which the Progressives have placed us.

Reagan was way, way, more a constitutionalist than any contemporary Progressive/Democrat. He would have approved of a lot of what Trump has done as President.

He may not have approved of Trump's past moral shortcomings, but he would have definitely approved of Trump's tax and regulatory cuts. He would have approved of Trump's attempt to curb the rise of China at our expense. He would have approved of Trump's redoing the international trade deals that were destroying our industrial base and putting us in the precarious position of being at the mercy of our adversaries for medical supplies and the raw materials and various technologies needed for our military defense, as well as approving Trump's strengthening of our military. He would have approved of Trump's SC choices including at the district level as well. He probably would have approved of the Jerusalem thing and the Middle East Peace treaty. Probably of a lot more.

But he would not have voted for any Democrat over any Republican because he was concerned with preserving our constitutional system against the Progressive assault against it. It wouldn't have been about Trump or Biden for him. It would have been about the fundamental foundations of Progressivism vs. constitutionalism.

[Jim in CT]

kind of worth noting that nit one if the liberals could
just simply denounce this charge of white colonization, yet they all accuse the right of being unable to criticize trump. kind of ironic, almost, in a way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

kind of worth noting that nit one if the liberals could
just simply denounce this charge of white colonization, yet they all accuse the right of being unable to criticize trump. kind of ironic, almost, in a way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because it wasn't really a charge, it was intentional hyperbole to start a discussion, which you did. But sadly you can't learn.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Because it wasn't really a charge, it was intentional hyperbole to start a discussion

no, he was being an a-hole

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Because it wasn't really a charge, it was intentional hyperbole to start a discussion, which you did. But sadly you can't learn.

you can read minds. impressive, given your track record in predictions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device