Strike

It really doesn't matter, but probably because of the role she just took on. As you move up the ladder the microscope on your past becomes larger. No one cares what the peon in the mailroom does when he's not at work. They do care what the CEO does, which is why the CEO of McDonalds had to resign when he had an inappropriate CONSENSUAL relationship with a colleague: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mcdonalds-ceo-steve-easterbrook-fired-for-violating-company-policy-having-consensual-relationship-with-employee/

Maybe the AP should read their own rules: https://www.ap.org/about/news-values-and-principles/telling-the-story/use-of-others-material

Yes

Why do you switch accounts so much Rusty? Do you use pimpledoosh when you're just regular trolling and Ron Artest when you want to be particularly distasteful? What is the criteria?

No. It's fact. She is woefully unqualified to be President of Harvard, regardless of all the issues that have come up. Why do you switch accounts so much Rusty? Do you use pimpledoosh when you're just regular trolling and Ron Artest when you want to be particularly distasteful? What is the criteria?

You should read it. In that piece they try to suggest that whitey invented the practice of SCALPING.

I don't believe we do. If so it's only to point out that she never would have been hired in to that position other than the DEI movement so this wouldnt even be a story if we still lived In a world where merit mattered.

Suspended by Facebook. Election season is ramping up!!! https://nypost.com/2023/12/31/news/facebook-suspends-libs-of-tiktok-for-violating-community-standards/

Tim is just one of those virtue signalling white people dealing with some form of white guilt such that he has to talk for black people and stick up for them. He also thinks they're inferior and incapable of jumping through the same hoops white people can in order to vote. He's the worst kind of racist. But not unexpected considering he's a nepotism baby who has never worked for anything in his life. On top of that, he got a useless degree that has nothing to do with his chosen profession and the only way he gets to exercise what he thinks he learned is by making life a game of politics. Best to treat him like the petulant child he acts like.

And since we're talking about reading ONLY the abstract, the following is from it: Wow, sure sounds like voter ID hasn't affected AA's at all. See what happens when you use incomplete, summary information? Do you have a link to the actual study that isn't paywalled or not?

Did you even read my post? I know you read the abstract. My point is you didn't read the actual study, did you? A simple yes I read the study or no I did not read the study will suffice on that question. We both read the abstract. Apparently neither of us read the ACTUAL study, which is what matters. What would make you think that the one short paragraph abstract would be compelling? Are you one of those people who got through school using cliff notes?

ROFLMAO. YOU said that the laws were enacted in "heavily minority areas." That's not true. Entire states are generally not "heavily minority areas" especially considering AA's make up like 13% of the U.S. population. You're AGAIN caught in a lie. It's amazing how indignant you always are when constantly caught just pulling sh*t out of your a$$. BTW, I tried to look at your study. It's not freely available so I can't read it. Are you a member of the U of Chicago press journals website? I doubt it. Which means you almost definitely have not actually read the actual study. You probably just googled for studies and found this one that supposedly supports your stance. However, without reading it there is no way to know if the abstract is actually worthy. Heck, I can't even tell when this "study" was done by the abstract. This explains why when people asked you to summarize it you refused to do so. Has anyone else here been able to actually read the study Tim linked?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/28/metro/professors-say-they-know-how-save-harvard-top-leaders-are-listening/ At least they're discussing the problem.

What another load of crap. You mean like the ENTIRE STATE OF GEORGIA? That's a "heavily minority area" to you? Because you railed against the Georgia voter ID law. And then guess what happened? They had record minority voting numbers in the election right after it was enacted. And a University of Georgia study showed that minorities said their experience voting was good. Focking stop with your made up BS. On EVERY issue.

Then you should never complain about voter ID ever again. But you will because you're a hypocrite.

Thanks Rusty!

Another good example of liberalism. When a word that you want to use to denigrate your opposition doesn't fit, simply misuse the word and/or try to redefine it. Keep them coming Rusty!!!!

Yes, there is. Who is being prevented from coming in? All you have to do is say the magic word "Asylum" and you're granted entry.

If the border was closed these people wouldn't be getting in and allowed to run free in the country. As it is, none of them are being stopped or prevented from entering. It's like when I was in SF about a year ago. I needed a belt and there was a TJ Maxx or something on a corner I wanted to go in to to see if they had what I needed. But due to all the crime in SF they weren't letting everyone in at once. They only let so many people in at a time and had security at the door. So there was a long line all the way down the street. The store was OPEN, and ANYONE could get in, but you had to wait in line. I chose not to but that wasn't because the store was CLOSED. Our border is the same way, although as many are just walking across as you indicated as are stopping to talk to the border people. But even if you stopped to talk to the border people all they do is hand you a piece of paper with a court date 10 years down the road and send you on your way. By any reasonable definition that is an open border.

and Jerry post a specific reason you're wrong, and I notice you haven't addressed that. What a shock!!!

That's all well and good, but there's a difference between "promoting" and "excluding." We should treat them exactly the SAME as we treat other groups. If we let other groups fly a flag we should let the gays. If we don't let other groups then we shouldn't let the gays.

So can you show me one city in America where it's illegal to fly a Gay thingy on a flagpole? Because we have many communities that lean heavily Christian and I've never heard of one banning LGBT sh*t, at least not since I've been an adult. So, as usual, you're FOS.

Alvin Bragg's "Star" witness: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/29/nyregion/michael-cohen-ai-fake-cases.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

No. While unlikely you never know how a given state might vote, especially right now. But that doesn't even matter. Taking away those people's right to vote violates a fundamental tenet of our republic. I find it funny that people like you are ok with this but as soon as conservatives want to enact voter ID laws to ensure the integrity of an election you scream "RACISM!!!!" and that we're taking away people's right to vote. This would impact a much larger portion of our electorate than voter ID laws. But here we are......

There is no way they allow this. If they do Biden will be removed in a bunch of red States and the entire election will be a joke.