Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

The New Normal, round 2


Muda69

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/24/2020 at 11:21 PM, Howe said:

 

Nicholas Sandman is already a multi millionaire before the age of 18. CNN and The Washington Post have already paid millions due to their fake news. This is further proof that the the mainstream media is fake news and the enemy of the American people.

  • Like 1
  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kindergarten Cop Is Canceled, Likened to Birth of a Nation

https://reason.com/2020/08/04/kindergarten-cop-is-canceled-likened-to-birth-of-a-nation/?itm_source=parsely-api

Quote

It's come to this: Kindergarten Cop, a banal 1990 comedy-action movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as a police detective who masquerades as a teacher, has been canceled and likened to the explicitly racist silent film Birth of a Nation.

Kindergarten Cop was slated to kick off Portland's Northwest Film Center's Cinema Unbound Drive-in Theater on August 6 until critics led by local author Lois Leveen said the PG-13 movie promoted a "school-to-prison pipeline," according to the Willamette Week.

What's so funny about School-to-Prison pipeline? Kindergarten Cop-Out: Tell @nwfilmcenter there's nothing fun in cops traumatizing kids. National reckoning on overpolicing is a weird time to revive Kindergarten Cop. IRL, we are trying to end school-to-prison pipeline.

— Lois Leveen (@LoisLeveen) August 1, 2020

 

In an email to Willamette Week, Leveen likened the Schwarzenegger vehicle to Birth of a Nation and Gone With the Wind:

It's true Kindergarten Cop is only a movie. So are Birth of a Nation and Gone With the Wind, but we recognize films like those are not 'good family fun.'…They are relics of how pop culture feeds racist assumptions. Because despite what the movie shows…in reality, schools don't transform cops. Cops transform schools, and in an extremely detrimental way.

The Northwest Film Center wouldn't tell the Willamette Week's Matthew Singer "how much influence Leveen's comments had on its decision, but the organization did respond to her tweets directly in announcing the cancellation." Kindergarten Cop has been replaced by a second showing of John Lewis: Good Trouble, a documentary about the recently deceased congressman and civil rights leader. Other films in the series include Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Xanadu, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, and The Shining.

It's a good thing that "cancel culture" doesn't exist or otherwise this would be deeply disturbing, wouldn't it? This sort of skirmish is the predictable and regrettable outcome of the politicization of everything and a totalist approach to cultural production and consumption that assumes audience members are either slack-jawed dullards who are effectively programmed by what they watch or ultra-sensitive flowers shredded by every imaginable slight. Either way, madness lies. Or maybe just a new episode of Portlandia.

....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At Converse College, One Professor Asserts His Conscience against Political Correctness

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/at-converse-college-one-professor-asserts-his-conscience-against-political-correctness/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in&utm_term=first

Quote

America has become a land of leave-takings. Some silent, others with considerable bravura. Americans are sundering their ties with things long close to their hearts: a sport, a product, a profession. Sometimes this is involuntary, as when the cancel culture smites the sender of an incautious tweet. Sometimes it’s via a burst of indignation: the fans who won’t brook athletes kneeling to the anthem. Sometimes it’s both, when demands are robustly defied. “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

 

Each widens an already yawning cultural fissure. On one side are those who see America as basically a land of freedom and justice; on the other, those who see it as one of profound inequity. The latter are now overwhelmingly dominant in academe.

A small but notable act in this drama is playing out on the campus of Converse College, a 130-year-old women’s institution in Spartanburg, S.C. There, Jeff Poelvoorde, an associate professor of political science, decided last week that he’s had enough with the new knownothingism. Refusing to be a party to Converse’s indictment of America as systemically racist, he dared it to do him its worst.

What’s interesting about his case is not its occasioning, nor its yet-undecided result, but its uncompromising assertion of the supremacy of the conscience — which places Poelvoorde in a long and storied tradition in the history of our civilization.

Not long after the death of George Floyd, Krista L. Newkirk, Converse’s president since 2016, issued a statement attributing the event to systemic American racism. She further asserted that systemic racism haunted Converse’s campus. A number of initiatives were accordingly announced to exorcise the local demon, including mandatory “anti-bias training.” Only one voice rose publicly against it: that of Professor Poelvoorde.

He complained of the condescending implication of the mandate. He had assumed that the faculty of a self-respecting college was a community of intellectual equals, not one subject to thought reform by institutional bureaucrats. He didn’t object to their having their own convictions on these matters, but did request that they not try to impose them on him.

 

A seasoned academic, and a scholar of politics, Poelvoorde knew that the proposed training would be — could not but be — ideologically inflected. He was particularly appalled by the coercion of conscience the training involved. To complete some of its modules, faculty members would be required to agree to politically correct answers to statements about purported bias. Portions of the training couldn’t be concluded without this coercion of conscience occurring.

Poelvoorde wouldn’t submit, and hired Samantha Harris, a distinguished civil-liberties attorney, to represent him. Then came the temptation that has faced the conscience of many throughout history: If Poelvoorde agreed to take the training program, Converse would spare him from having to answer the questions. Instead, a college staffer would randomly enter answers for him for which he would have no responsibility. His training could therefore proceed to its finish with his conscience uncorrupted. But this exception would be for Poelvoorde and Poelvoorde alone.

An easy out? Some hesitation ensued. Thirty-four years at Converse were on the line. But finally there came a firmly delivered “no.” Personal exemption wasn’t enough; the training was polluting the intellectual life of a liberal-arts college Poelvoorde had grown to love. He couldn’t be an accomplice to its violation, even when shielded behind a personal cordon sanitaire. Let the heavens fall, he would not be moved.

This is but one episode in a much bigger drama. But it does have a larger significance. If our nation continues along its divisive path, individuals and institutions required to bow to false, often perverse, gods, the first victims — the earliest collateral damage — will inevitably be America’s best, most principled and morally upright: the Jeffrey Poelvoordes of the world. They’re the proverbial canaries in our collective coal mine, men and women whose unwillingness to bend either knee or conscience bears witness to how high the intellectual and moral stakes of our cultural warfare have become.

Martyrdom usually seems foolhardy to the commonsensical. But those with the soul (and guts) for it can gain a consequence beyond prudence’s reach. Way back when, the Christian martyrs achieved this, as did many later who resisted repression and its totalizing creeds. To be sure, Professor Poelvoorde isn’t faced with loss of life. Nor is he Christian, for that matter, but as a lay leader in three synagogues, he surely knows his own faith’s history of martyrdom. Instead, he simply faces the loss of a life he loves. Yet in our unheroic age, and in a very unheroic academy, his predicament is worth notice, regret — and alarm.

Kudos to Mr. Poelvoorde and standing for his principles in the face of almost overwhelming political correctness.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

At Converse College, One Professor Asserts His Conscience against Political Correctness

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/at-converse-college-one-professor-asserts-his-conscience-against-political-correctness/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in&utm_term=first

Kudos to Mr. Poelvoorde and standing for his principles in the face of almost overwhelming political correctness.

 

Cool story, bro. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is what happens when "protesters/rioters" are allowed to continuously run rampant without punishment.  "Criminals took to the streets confident there would be no consequences"

A 20 (with many prior arrests) is fleeing police and gets shot after firing shots at police (who didn''t miss, btw)  so these hoodlums "protest" by driving cars into the stores, breaking in and stealing.......Where's the protest?  Where's the calls for justice?  The guy FIRED SHOTS AT COPS FIRST.....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Non-Woke Grad Students Need Help

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/non-woke-grad-students-need-help/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=second

Quote

It is increasingly difficult for tradition-minded grad students in history to find support. Few faculty members are interested in working with students who aren’t enthused about looking at the world through the standard lenses of race, gender, and oppression. Moreover, financial support is drying up for students who don’t want to pursue “progressive” projects.

That is the argument of Harvard history professor James Hankins in today’s Martin Center article. He writes:

Some of us came into history precisely to escape the passions of the moment, to gain the breadth of outlook that comes with a deeper historical perspective. We understand, as many of our contemporaries seem not to, that importing modern agendas into the study of the past makes us worse historians, less able to understand the past in its own terms.

There still are students like that, but the deck is badly stacked against them. Finding a faculty adviser is very difficult. Hankins explains:

Even if someone who came into our program wanting to study the American Founders, for example, could pin down a professor to direct his research, he’d quickly find himself isolated. His fellow graduate students would think his interests outdated and he would have difficulty finding sympathetic people to talk to about his research. He would soon get the message that he should work on a topic that his peers think is cool and compelling, something attuned to climate change, globalization, or social justice, for instance.

As for the funding, that’s also a big problem. Foundations that used to assist students with a wide array of interests have lately turned leftist — the Mellon Foundation, for instance.

Hankins pleads for more support for the few associations that remain friendly toward grad students of all persuasions and for donors who see the problem to create new institutions to support conservatives.

He concludes:

Viewpoint diversity, freedom of conscience, a fair presentation of the achievements of Western civilization, and sound, unbiased historical scholarship will never be restored unless it is possible for traditional and conservative historians to survive and flourish in American graduate schools.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2020/08/mavericks-clippers-luka-doncic-montrezl-harrell-barkley

The incident from Game 3 of the Dallas Mavericks’ playoff series against the Los Angeles Clippers in which Clippers forward Montrezl Harrell appeared to call Luka Doncic a “(expletive) white boy” ended with Harrell apologizing and the pair hugging it out before Game 4.

But it was still the subject of discussion among NBA fans as well as with the crew on Inside the NBA that resulted in an in-depth and frank conversation.

Kenny Smith was glad Harrell apologized and added, “We all need to break the habit” of using that kind of language. Shaquille O’Neal noted a lot of things are said to competitors on the court, and Charles Barkley pointed out “you can’t have a double standard.”

“The reason he apologized, he shouldn’t have said it,” Barkley added.

Because "reverse racism" doesn't exist........SF knows this now, after being corrected prior to this.......

I mean a black man calling a white man a "Bi&*# A$$ White Boy" and then apologizing (as he should) is not the same as the white man calling the same black man a "Nappy Haired Black Boy" then apologizing.....I mean the white guy certainly would have lost his job long before he even got the chance to apologize and we would be treated to wall to wall coverage of the event, the following peaceful BLM riots, looting and protests......because reverse racism cannot exist....in the new normal......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

Because "reverse racism" doesn't exist........SF knows this now, after being corrected prior to this.......

I mean a black man calling a white man a "Bi&*# A$$ White Boy" and then apologizing (as he should) is not the same as the white man calling the same black man a "Nappy Haired Black Boy" then apologizing.....I mean the white guy certainly would have lost his job long before he even got the chance to apologize and we would be treated to wall to wall coverage of the event, the following peaceful BLM riots, looting and protests......because reverse racism cannot exist....in the new normal......

 

I believe you are confusing the word "racism" with "bigotry".  Two different things according to many..............

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, I "Owe" a "Debt" "to African-Americans"

https://reason.com/2020/08/30/apparently-i-owe-a-debt-to-african-americans/?itm_source=parsely-api#comments

Quote

Hans Bader (Liberty Unyielding) writes:

Reparations took a step closer to becoming a reality. California's state senate just voted 33-to-3 to create a reparations commission. The commission will "study the effects slavery had on California and recommend to the legislature no later than 2023 what type of compensation would be appropriate, how it might be dispersed and who could be eligible to receive it," according to Fox News.

Supporters of reparations assume the racial wealth gap between blacks and whites is the result of slavery, and thus, something to be fixed through reparations. "If the 40-acres-and-a-mule that was promised to free slaves were delivered to the descendants of those slaves today, we would all be billionaires," state Sen. Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, said. "I hear far too many people say, 'Well, I didn't own slaves, that was so long ago.' Well, you inherit wealth—you can inherit the debt that you owe to African-Americans."

My parents and my brother and I came to the country in 1975. We didn't inherit any wealth in the U.S. (and really none anywhere). I don't owe any debt—because of my skin color my ancestors or theirs—to blacks or whites or Asians, and neither do other Californians.

https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/08/30/california-moves-toward-reparations/

Quote

...

In reality, most wealth isn’t inherited. America’s billionaires include immigrants who were once poor. And racial wealth gaps often have nothing to do with discrimination. “Asian Americans have the highest average net worth and highest average income,” despite historical discrimination against Chinese and Japanese Americans (who were once barred from even testifying in court).

As the New York Post notes, “everal historically marginalized groups out-perform whites today. Take Japanese Americans, for example: For nearly four decades in the 20th century (1913 – 1952), this group was legally prevented from owning land and property in over a dozen American states. Moreover, 120,000 Japanese Americans were interned during World War II,” which forced many interned Japanese people to sell their businesses at fire-sale prices, ruining them. But by 1959, the income disparity between Japanese Americans and white Americans nearly vanished. Today, Japanese Americans outperform whites by large margins in income statistics, education outcomes, test scores and incarceration rates.”

For California to give reparations to black people for slavery would be an unconstitutional racial preference. A state is sometimes allowed to give racial preferences to black people to remedy its own recent discrimination against them. But slavery wasn’t perpetrated by California, a free state, but rather by slave states. For California to give blacks reparations would be considered a remedy for “societal discrimination,” not California’s own. And the Supreme Court has said that’s not a legitimate reason for a racial preference. The Supreme Court ruled that even the southern city of Richmond, Va., couldn’t give blacks a preference in access to city contracts merely because blacks were severely underrepresented among contractors due to the effects of “societal discrimination.” (See Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989).

 

Slavery ended over a century ago. Many courts have ruled that discrimination has to be recent, like in the last 20 years, before it justifies a racial preference.  (See, e.g., Hammon v. Barry (1987); Brunet v. City of Columbus (1993)).

The reparations commission may try to justify reparations based not on slavery but, rather, on current racial disparities between blacks and whites. California’s reparations legislation, AB 3121, complains that “nearly 1,000,000 black people” are “incarcerated,” the black unemployment rate is “twice” the white unemployment rate, and blacks have a fraction of whites’ wealth.

All of these racial disparities could be due to societal discrimination rather than discrimination by California itself. Or they could be due to other causes, such as the high rate of family breakdown in the black community. People from single-parent households are more likely to drop out of high school and turn to a life of crime. And blacks have the highest rate of out-of-wedlock births.

None of these causes would be a legitimate reason for California to give blacks a racial preference. To legally give them a preference, California would need to show it itself had recently engaged in a “systemic pattern of discrimination” against minorities, according to the federal appeals court in California. (See Coral Construction Co. v. King County (1991)).

The fact that blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate than whites in California does not prove such discrimination by the state, much less justify discrimination in their favor in completely unrelated contexts, such as giving blacks who have never been incarcerated reparations.

The Supreme Court says there is no legal “presumption that people of all races commit all types of crimes” at the same rate, since such a presumption is “contradicted by” real world data showing big differences in crime rates. Thus, racial disparities in arrest or incarceration rates don’t usually show discrimination. (See United States v. Armstrong (1996)). Indeed, demanding that punishment rates be the same for all groups would be an unconstitutional racial quota.

Nor can it be assumed that California’s black inmates are there due to bias in sentencing. The statistical expert Stephen P. Klein studied California’s state criminal justice system and found that criminal sentencing in California was racially fair. (See Stephen P. Klein, et al., “Race and Imprisonment Decisions in California,” 247 Science 812 (1990)). He had been an expert witness for civil-rights groups.

California’s reparations legislation states that “any state level reparation actions that are undertaken as a result of” it “are not a replacement for any reparations enacted at the federal level.”

It is unclear whether the federal government would enact reparations during a Biden administration. As Newsweek notes, Joe Biden said in June that “he was in favor of paying slavery reparations to African Americans and Native Americans if studies found direct cash payments to be a viable option.” Kamala Harris has previously expressed support for reparations.

But the New York Times notes that reparations could cost taxpayers “several trillion dollars,” and most Americans oppose reparations. So reparations probably will not be enacted, unless Democrats take control of the Senate and abolish the filibuster.

Racial wealth gaps will not be “fixed” by even large-scale reparations. Many people just spend windfalls they receive from the government, rather than saving or investing them. Zimbabwe’s policy of redistributing wealth from whites to blacks ruined its economy and left even blacks worse off.

When Uganda seized the businesses of Indian immigrants and gave them to African people, the businesses did not last for long afterwards. Uganda’s dictator Idi Amin kicked those Indians out of the county, and they never received any compensation. But 14 years later, a kinder Ugandan ruler let Indians come back to Uganda. After they came back, Indians ended up dominating Uganda’s commercial sector once again, even though they had to start from scratch. Indians ended up with more wealth than Uganda’s black population.

As the BBC explains, “[D]espite making up less than 1% of the population,” Indians “are estimated to contribute up to 65% of Uganda’s tax revenues. One of those who came back is today the country’s richest man, Sudhir Ruperalia, worth an estimated $800m.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hating America In The Heartland:  https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/washburn-university-hating-america-in-heartland-franklin-jefferson/

Quote

Look at this:

Statues of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin have been removed from the Washburn University campus after protests against racial injustice elsewhere led to statues honoring slaveholders being vandalized, pulled down or moved, the school said Thursday.

The two bronze statues that had stood outside the university’s law school in Topeka for two decades were removed in July after Washburn President Jerry Farley discussed the concerns with the family of the donor, who has since died, school spokesman Patrick Early said.

In Topeka. Topeka! Not New Haven, not Cambridge, not Ithaca or Palo Alto. Topeka. 

This is an important insight:

I’m not sure what can be done here. It’s overwhelmingly clear that a critical mass of the cultural elite, with institutional power, wants to do this. Even if most Americans do not. @SWGoldmanhttps://t.co/XxA6NWyhuY

— Avi Woolf, Wilderness Conservative🐺 (@AviWoolf) September 2, 2020

To be fair to the institution, it does not appear to have been a decision made the the administration:

Some Washburn students have questioned the propriety of the statutes but the decision to remove them from campus was not in response to a protest or request from students, Early said.

“It was the donor’s decision to have the statues returned,” he said. “They didn’t want the statues to become a source of embarrassment so they asked that they be returned.”

But that is misleading. Campus Reform reports:

Washburn University President Jerry Farley said he wanted to get ahead of possible disapproval of the founding father statues during an interview with WIBW-TV. The move came just months after the University of Missouri rejected calls by students to remove a statue of Thomas Jefferson because he was a slave owner, as Campus Reform reported at the time.

They didn’t want the statues to become a source of embarrassment so they asked that they be returned.”

Farley called the widow of statue donor alum Gerald Michaud, who died in 2005, to explain his concerns about the statue situation.

According to Farley, a family representative said if it was going to start problems, they didn’t want their name associated with it. Then, the donor family asked for the statues to be returned to them.

The donor’s family responded to efforts by the university’s president to censor the statues before students even protested against them. Farley is one more example of a gutless university administrator who is abandoning standards to placate the woke mob — in this case, anticipating what the woke mob wants before the even demand it! We are in a country now in which bronze statues of the Founding Fathers stand to be a “source of embarrassment” to our elites and the institutions they run.

....

The ruling class in our institutions want to erase American history, to purge our cultural memory. It has never been more important for us to commit ourselves to preserving our cultural memory.

....

These people hate America. If Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, signers of the US Constitution, are too offensive to be memorialized at a law school in Topeka, Kansas, then what other conclusion can we draw?

Now is the time to start protesting, loudly, against this gutting of American history and American higher education by these radicals and the cowardly institutional leaders who will not stand up to them. Washburn is a public university. What does the Kansas legislature have to say about this outrage?

....

Is that where we are now? In order to affirm that Black Lives Matter, we have to hate the Founding Fathers, and remove all evidence of them from our sight? We can’t ask rhetorically “is this what the Left really wants?”, because of course it’s what the Left wants. And it’s what they’re getting.

...

It’s happening right now, and is going to be getting much worse, fast. You must forget and despise America’s Founders to prove that you aren’t a racist. You must accept that certain enemies of the people are guilty of crimes, and not dispute that publicly. You must affirm these lies, or be condemned.

If you call this alarmism, I would merely like to warn you that you had better open your eyes right now, or you are going to leave yourself and your family defenseless. It’s 1943 in America. I really believe that.

Removing statues of our founding fathers is disgusting.     It must be a living hell at the University of Virginia, which was founded by Thomas Jefferson himself.   The woke scolds  and snowflakes that are enrolled there must be having a real existential crisis.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USC Suspended a Communications Professor for Saying a Chinese Word That Sounds Like a Racial Slur

https://reason.com/2020/09/03/usc-greg-patton-chinese-word-offended-students/

Quote

Greg Patton is a professor of clinical business communication at the University of Southern California. During a recent virtual classroom session, he was discussing public speaking patterns and the filler words that people use to space out their ideas: um, er, etc. Patton mentioned that the Chinese often use a word that is pronounced like nega.

"In China the common word is 'that, that that that,' so in China it might be 'nega, nega, nega, nega,'" Patton explained to his class. "So there's different words you'll hear in different cultures, but they're vocal disfluencies."

But because the Chinese word nega sounds like nigger, some students were offended and reported the matter to the administration. Patton is now suspended, according to Campus Reform:

On Tuesday evening, the USC Marshall School of Business provided Campus Reform with a statement, confirming that Patton is no longer teaching his course.

"Recently, a USC faculty member during class used a Chinese word that sounds similar to a racial slur in English. We acknowledge the historical, cultural and harmful impact of racist language," the statement read.

Patton "agreed to take a short term pause while we are reviewing to better understand the situation and to take any appropriate next steps."

Another instructor is temporarily teaching the class.

USC is now "offering supportive measures to any student, faculty, or staff member who requests assistance." The school is "committed to building a culture of respect and dignity where all members of our community can feel safe, supported, and can thrive."

This is ridiculous. It seems clear that Patton did not mean to harm anyone, and that the point he was making was perfectly valid. The resemblance between these two words is purely coincidental, and adults should be perfectly capable of hearing the Chinese version without fainting in front of their computer screens. Anyone who is this prepared to be bothered all the time needs to turn down their outrage dial.

 

"I'll say this ten thousand times, but if anyone thinks they're helping the cause of racial equality by engaging in absurd, over-the-top speech policing of innocent people, then they're sadly mistaken," wrote The Dispatch's David French.

There is nothing for the university to investigate: Patton should be restored to his teaching position immediately. If anything, the offended students should apologize to him for causing the inconvenience.

Agreed.  The individuals who tried to cancel Mr. Patton are nothing but liberal snowflakes actively looking to bothered, offended, outraged, etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

plagiarized from a friend's post....

“How would you feel?"
“Imagine there is a man who, for the last five years, has assaulted you, on average, two times a year. He has raped you in the past. Then, he shows up at your house at 4:00 in the morning. You wake up to find him standing above you, you have your child in bed with you. He has his 'junk' out and then he sexually assaults you. He leaves the room, you quiet your child and go into the living room. He is gone. You look out the window and your car is gone. You check your purse, your keys and ATM card are gone. You call the cops. Cops show up. As you cry, you describe the sexual assault. The cops tell you this man has withdrawn money from your bank account twice in the last several minutes. Okay, are you 'imagining' all that? Well, then imagine this. The guy who sexually assaulted you has received over TWO MILLION from a 'GoFundMe' account. NFL players, such as Drew Brees, have your rapist's name on his helmet. MLB baseball players walk off the field to support your rapist. EVERY THING I JUST TYPED IS FACT! It comes from the police report on the Jacob Blake incident. Not shit, we have professional sports figures celebrating a friggin' rapist! The Left loves the guy! You can argue if the shooting was justified...but to celebrate a multiple time offending RAPIST is INSANE! But, this is where we are in 2020. VOTE BIDEN/HARRIS TO CELEBRATE RAPISTS!”

 

Anybody else feel the surrealism taking place right now.......

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...