Dude’s easy to get got because he can’t keep track of anything. He’s like @haw-key but far worse, actually.
Funny thing is I’m not into trying for gotchas and I don’t think you are either. But it becomes like a thing that has to be done to achieve some damn closure.
Lol. This is the worst goal post moving attempt ever.
Tell me how Republicans don't run on race again?The infrastructure bill the Senate passed Tuesday discriminates against white people at every turn.
Americans are enthusiastic about spending money on physical infrastructure — bridges, roads, broadband. But this racist bill hands out jobs and contracts and locates projects based on race, not merit. Minority businesses and neighborhoods hold the inside track. If you’re white, you’re low-priority.
The bill includes grants to install solar or wind technologies and generate jobs in areas decimated by closing coal mines or coal-fired electric plants. Here’s the catch: When contractors bid, the bill says minority-owned businesses will get selected first. Bad news for small-time white contractors in depressed areas.
The same is true for the bill’s proposals to improve traffic patterns in cities. Contractors and subcontractors get priority only if they’re owned by minorities or women. White male business owners can take a hike.
Americans should be outraged — but not surprised. After all, President Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act, passed in March, also put into place an ugly system of discrimination against whites. It offered debt relief to black farmers, but not white farmers. Another provision offered billions in aid to minority-owned and women-owned restaurants, but told struggling restaurants owners who happened to be white men that they had to go to the back of the line.
The injustice was obvious. White male farmers and restaurant owners sued, claiming the anti-white provisions are unconstitutional. So far, these challengers are winning. In every case, federal judges have halted the race-based programs in the American Rescue Plan Act until the challengers have their day in court. Politico reported last week that Biden’s Justice Department may fold without a fight on the black-farmer debt relief cases, because the law isn’t on the administration’s side.
You would think Democrats and the Biden White House would get the message. Instead, they’re doubling down on rigging legislation and divvying up taxpayer dollars to benefit minorities and shortchange whites.
Chances are high the infrastructure bill’s hodgepodge of anti-white discrimination will be struck down by federal courts. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution bars government from trying to even the score by discriminating against whites and in favor of minorities. The justices warned against creating “a patchwork of racial preferences based on statistical generalizations” to correct past injustices. That’s precisely what this infrastructure bill does.
The bill’s backers would have you believe that obsolete airports, dilapidated public works and deteriorating roads and public spaces are evidence of racial injustice. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) rails that “our infrastructure is racist” and calls on the Congress to pass a bill that “puts the needs of underserved and disadvantaged communities at the fore.”
That’s code for minority communities. But the truth is, there are plenty of poor white people in this country, too, and poor, predominantly white communities that could benefit from a bold federal infrastructure initiative. Race and ethnicity should have nothing to do with it. Locate the projects and put the funds where the economic need is greatest, regardless of race.
West Virginia has the lowest average income in the nation and ranks 46th in internet connectivity. Maine ranks 36th out of 50 states for income, and 34th in broadband connectivity. People in these states could really benefit from federal broadband assistance. Here’s the hitch: The infrastructure bill tilts the grant scale in favor of states with high minority and non-English-speaking populations, instead of considering only economic need and existing broadband capacity. Because Maine and West Virginia are 94 percent white, they’ll get less.
Polls show that Americans favor fixing roads, bridges, tunnels and airports. They know that good infrastructure promotes economic growth. But they’ve been kept in the dark about the fine print in the bill. Under the guise of upgrading the nation, the bill unfairly treats whites like second-class citizens.
Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.
Biden’s infrastructure bill is chock-full of anti-white racism
Americans are enthusiastic about spending money on physical infrastructure — bridges, roads, broadband. But this racist bill hands out jobs and contracts and locates projects based on race, not mer…nypost.com
It's not so much about ego, but about control of the company. The woman he's giving 51% to isn't his wife. It's an employee of his, but I get your point. He's probably making a good move. I just hope he writes in some protections in the contract.
Have you read the bill Rudolph? It’s over 2,700 pages. That’s not exactly light summer reading.
That's not what I said, "tossed" meaning removed and "ransacked" meaning beat to a bloody pulp by lawsuits going the other way are tel totally different things.
So a woman or a minority builds wealth and becomes majority owner of a going concern. Win.
There is nothing worse than some butt **** that took psych 101 using the term projection in 2020-2021. Im not, nor have I, projected shit.
The infrastructure bill the Senate passed Tuesday discriminates against white people at every turn.
Americans are enthusiastic about spending money on physical infrastructure — bridges, roads, broadband. But this racist bill hands out jobs and contracts and locates projects based on race, not merit. Minority businesses and neighborhoods hold the inside track. If you’re white, you’re low-priority.
The bill includes grants to install solar or wind technologies and generate jobs in areas decimated by closing coal mines or coal-fired electric plants. Here’s the catch: When contractors bid, the bill says minority-owned businesses will get selected first. Bad news for small-time white contractors in depressed areas.
The same is true for the bill’s proposals to improve traffic patterns in cities. Contractors and subcontractors get priority only if they’re owned by minorities or women. White male business owners can take a hike.
Americans should be outraged — but not surprised. After all, President Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act, passed in March, also put into place an ugly system of discrimination against whites. It offered debt relief to black farmers, but not white farmers. Another provision offered billions in aid to minority-owned and women-owned restaurants, but told struggling restaurants owners who happened to be white men that they had to go to the back of the line.
The injustice was obvious. White male farmers and restaurant owners sued, claiming the anti-white provisions are unconstitutional. So far, these challengers are winning. In every case, federal judges have halted the race-based programs in the American Rescue Plan Act until the challengers have their day in court. Politico reported last week that Biden’s Justice Department may fold without a fight on the black-farmer debt relief cases, because the law isn’t on the administration’s side.
You would think Democrats and the Biden White House would get the message. Instead, they’re doubling down on rigging legislation and divvying up taxpayer dollars to benefit minorities and shortchange whites.
Chances are high the infrastructure bill’s hodgepodge of anti-white discrimination will be struck down by federal courts. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution bars government from trying to even the score by discriminating against whites and in favor of minorities. The justices warned against creating “a patchwork of racial preferences based on statistical generalizations” to correct past injustices. That’s precisely what this infrastructure bill does.
The bill’s backers would have you believe that obsolete airports, dilapidated public works and deteriorating roads and public spaces are evidence of racial injustice. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) rails that “our infrastructure is racist” and calls on the Congress to pass a bill that “puts the needs of underserved and disadvantaged communities at the fore.”
That’s code for minority communities. But the truth is, there are plenty of poor white people in this country, too, and poor, predominantly white communities that could benefit from a bold federal infrastructure initiative. Race and ethnicity should have nothing to do with it. Locate the projects and put the funds where the economic need is greatest, regardless of race.
West Virginia has the lowest average income in the nation and ranks 46th in internet connectivity. Maine ranks 36th out of 50 states for income, and 34th in broadband connectivity. People in these states could really benefit from federal broadband assistance. Here’s the hitch: The infrastructure bill tilts the grant scale in favor of states with high minority and non-English-speaking populations, instead of considering only economic need and existing broadband capacity. Because Maine and West Virginia are 94 percent white, they’ll get less.
Polls show that Americans favor fixing roads, bridges, tunnels and airports. They know that good infrastructure promotes economic growth. But they’ve been kept in the dark about the fine print in the bill. Under the guise of upgrading the nation, the bill unfairly treats whites like second-class citizens.
Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.
Biden’s infrastructure bill is chock-full of anti-white racism
Americans are enthusiastic about spending money on physical infrastructure — bridges, roads, broadband. But this racist bill hands out jobs and contracts and locates projects based on race, not mer…
Perhaps. I understand why governments do these sorts of things, but I can't say I always agree with them.
Me either. For example, I wouldn't have agreed when the federal govt made it official policy to deny or restrict home, business, and college loans to people of color.
I didn't claim otherwise. Excellent reasons for the policy already exist. They are certainly informed by those past policies.
What’s worse is someone that doesn’t understand words like “ransacked” and incessantly flails when challenged to back up what they said.
Lol. Have you read the thread? Every time I mention reading the bill I include that I read the part of the bill relevant to the article linked by OP. Every single time.
The person owning 51% certainly isn’t his employee, s/he is closer to being his employer. As for those “protections”, if they leave him in control they contradict the conditions upon which minority contracts are granted.
Lol. I didn't realize psychological projection had an expiration date. You have all kinds of defense mechanisms popping up, that's for sure. It's messy.
Jesus man, it was a joke about the length/size of the bill.
Dude lighten up. Why so pissy? I was goofing because I knew not only did you not read the ENTIRE bill, no one else has either. Including the people who voted for/against it. I’m not surprised you read the relevant parts.
Seriously. Good luck to you. I paid you a compliment. I said I figured you read the relevant parts because I knew you wouldn’t be speaking about it if you didn’t. I wouldn’t say that about the overwhelming majority of posters on here.
Sometimes. But not at the moment. I've just been ƒucking with you the last several posts.
That is still part of the formula. This is more of a tie breaker in selecting bid winners.
The year? "What years?" would be the question to ask. The 30's and 40's and 50's and maybe into the 60's. So not ancient history, you know. The.covenants prohibiting the sale of FHA covered homes to people of color still exist in some home deeds. Those covenants were required by our federal govt before the govt would issue a loan for the property. They just can't be enforced today.
How do you treat people equally if some people have never had the opportunity to be on equal footing? What these measures do is to try to get more underserved, underprivileged people in the "game" so they can be treated equally.
