TWS1405

What else is new. 

These idiots actually believe they have a right to question cops doing their job, refusing lawful commands, aggressively grabbing at a cop, reaching for their taser and/or service weapon, and all to contradict society’s established law and order. 

When you’re dumb enough to do this and you get yourself killed, you reap what you sow. Your fault, not the cops. 

The fact that the Regans made it a point to sit at the same dinner table every single Sunday, stay in contact, work together...that is the recipe for success across all ages of time, races, religions, groups, families, so on and so forth.

If only everyone on this green earth would see it and do it that way, this world would be a far better place. 

Amen

And despite the lefty conspiracy theories of the idiots of this forum like "IWantRoseveltAgain," among others, all political violence from the past 10 years have predominately come from the left. 

If the summer of 2020 and the aftermath is any indication, this November election day will be a repeat of the left throwing its infinite temper tantrum. 

Candace Owens new documentary PROVES Floyd died of an OD on Fentanyl. and the left needs to spin a different take on order to financially benefit the biggest lie ever sold to America: #BLM

Ever since SCOTUS found some BS excuse to legislate from the bench to allow same sex marriage, I knew, everyone with intelligence knew, that acceptance for transgenders, drag, pedophilia and polygamy would follow suit.

To date all have been accepted. Either by forced social inclusion (e.g., threats of violence, public humiliation, doxing, etc.) or by law (BS cases of legislating from the bench).

Add to that, so-called institutions of higher learning or not teaching anything higher than self-entitlement to be spoiled brats with carte blanche to be anything but law abiding in order to force their ideological agenda. That is, the agenda most popular at the moment. 

The world is going to shit in a hand basket, and the so-called progressive left is adding all the fuel to the flame of destruction as they possibly can without even knowing it. They are like the frog put in cold water and boiled to death. They do not know that they are but beggars of their own demise, and the cause of others demise as well. 

Humanity is lost. 

What a crock of 💩!! 

Floyd did die of a fentanyl overdose. The democrats and the lies of SHAM BLM made it about faux police brutality. 

Truth is an affirmative defense. He cannot be sued for telling the truth. No one can. No matter how much the truth hurts you. 

Greedy family. 

Greedy lawyers. 

Finally the proper and just outcome of an officer falsely charged for killing a so-called “unarmed” arrestee who was resisting arrest and armed with the officer’s own taser. 

But as usual and like clockwork, some within the black community are calling for protests (which we all know will only result in more rioting and violence directed at law enforcement) in the wake of the “not guilty” verdict. 

Some commentary on various social media platforms include statements like the judicial system is “fixed.” That simply couldn’t be any further from the truth. A random selection of community members were selected to serve on the jury of no personal relations to the defendant. They heard the evidence and agreed the state failed to meet its burden of proof. Thus, the not guilty verdict. 

Claiming the deceased had a mental disorder isn’t a get out of jail free card. And neither is having several so-called run-ins with the accused either. They lived in the same apartment complex where she assaulted the property manager, which is what the warrant was for. The officer knew her and attempted to serve the warrant. But many in the black community feel entitled to be combative with police, resist arrest and attempt to take their tools off their utility belt and use them against the officer as she did in this case. 

Pamela Turner reaped what she sowed. Her fault. Not the officer’s just trying to do his job. Like all officers who just try to do their job. It’s the citizenry with an attitude that’s the tried and true problem in these all too familiar scenarios that place the officer in a position to defend their life and potentially the lives of others. 

What are you thoughts on this case?

Has any member here found another site that is equally on par as debateart.com???

If so, please link here...

I have ZERO patience for stupid people.

None.

There just are too, far too many fucking UGLY people in this world.

And I am not talking about bad attitudes, behavior, etc. I am talking about physical appearance.

The freedom to procreate has been taken advantage thereof.  And it needs to stop.

Degenerates need to stop procreating. Yes. I am advocating Eugenics. 

Idiots, drug addicts, future Dahmers, et al. need to be stopped. 

Liberals are the truest threat to human evolution. 

From Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles to Liz Wheeler, they all get it wrong on abortion. 

None of them (pro-lifers) have the requisite intellect to grasp the simple fact that potentiality ≠ actuality. Never has. Never will. 

At conception the very (very) basic biological criterion for cellular “life” is met. That cellular life (ie, zygote) ≠ [a] human being. Neither does a blastocyst, embryo, or an unviable fetus. That’s just a scientific fact of human physiology and biology. 

The ONLY stage of gestational development where the fetus can be equates to that of [a] human being is the point of fetal viability. It is at this point of development within the womb that the viable fetus can survive outside the womb without further gestational development. With ir without medical intervention. 

To call a zygote, blastocyst, embryo and unviable fetus the emotively charged term, “baby,” is an implicit misnomer. It’s factually inaccurate on all levels. 

“Not Us Again”

Former Officer Brandon Tatum shows a video of yet another store ransacked by black teens/adults, acting like a bunch of degenerate fools.

Fatherlessness is the cause of this degeneracy. Black people need to start taking personal responsibility and accountability for not only themselves, but their offspring as well. This country, let alone their own community cannot sustain this criminal behavior. Behavior that, as Mr. Tatum points out, that leaves others saying “no” to investment in black communities. The risk is too high, both financially and personally (including employees, if they can even find any wanting to work there).

If black people in America want meaningful change, they need to first look within and recognize that they are the first problem in this equation. Until they admit thee problem, no solution will be actualized. 

Instead of being creative, corporations like Disney are "blackwashing" traditional white characters, to be black like the Little Mermaid. Naturally it is causing backlash. The same as it has been for changing well-established characters like Superman and even 007, James Bond, to be "blackwashed" instead of the obvious solution: create your own new characters and stop ripping off well-established white (or other races) characters. All they are doing is causing further division. It's senseless and unneccesary. 

If America is such a hateful and racist country, as so many on the left constantly profess, then anyone wouldn't need go too far to find endless example after example to find factual cases of such hate and racism. But alas, many brainwashed lefties cannot find such bountiful crimes of hate and racism against POC and LGBTQ in America that they claim exists; as a result, they are creating the very race and LGBTQ hate crime hoaxes they seek but cannot find. 

What does that say about those POC crying wolf over race-based hate crimes that simply do not exist, then create them anyway?

What does that say about LGBTQ crying wolf over hate crimes against them that simply do not exit, then create them anyway?

What does it say about the media that feeds into these false narratives, where in some cases it causes people of color and/or LGBTQ lashing out at their perceived so-called enemies with violence?

What does it say about America were such fake crimes are tolerated and given a free pass (e.g., Jussie Smollett, Crystal Magnum, so on and so forth) to those who commit them? 

"Racism used to mean hating someone because of his race.

Liberals and progressives are the real "problem" in this country. They are the tried-and-true racists. Not conservatives. 

There are several members of this forum who keep "labeling" me (and others) racists for telling the truth. Two words: psychological projection. 

Before the huge fashion shows of drag queens making a mockery of women, showing/proving men can be better than women, there was pedophilia.

Pedophiles are in fact transgenders. Homosexuals and even bisexuals in disguise. 

Children are being targeted in masse, and if adults do not do anything about it... our future generations will be the end of us all. 

Why is it that blacks from abroad who come to America do far better than native born black Americans?

Simple answer, native born black Americans have both too much freedom that they take advantage of, and in doing so blame everyone else (namely white people) for their failures when they do not succeed where others (namely white people) have. 

Of the surviving 11 million Africans brought across the Atlantic, only an estimated 335k were brought to North America whereas the remaining 10.7 million were taken to the Caribbean and South America. Yet to this very day, no one the world over ever hears about racism against blacks except against those blacks in America.  Sure, there is some racism in other places, but it pales in comparison to the racism claimed in America against blacks. 

Growing up in the 70s into the 80s, blacks were more than present in television, movies and commercials. Yet as of late, racist self-oppressed celebrities like Jadda Pinkett Smith claims blacks are too underrepresented in the motion picture arts due to racism. Racism has nothing to do with it, but rather a lack of interest amongst their own to get into the motion picture arts. Download Brit Box (British Television) and choose any show or movie and blacks are equally, if not heavily represented in those shows or movies the same as it was in the past in America. Underrepresentation in television, movies or any other profession has very little to do with racism and everything to do with a lack of interest. 

Look at Nichelle Nichols from the original Star Trek. Did she inspire a lot of black women to become communications specialists/experts? No. Dr. McCoy inspired many to become doctors. Scotty inspired many to become engineers.  Captain Kirk inspired others to become leaders. Even Spock inspired others to get into the sciences. While Nichols broke barriers in television, especially with the first racial kiss with William Shatner, a Canadian actor, she simply did little to inspire other black girls to get into the communication fields. Which goes beyond merely answering calls and transmitting data. Far beyond it. 

Bottom line, no one in America or abroad hears about any level of racism, oppression, or supremacy experienced by blacks in America on par anywhere else in the world. Why is that? Perhaps it has more to do with how blacks in America, no thanks to the Black Panther Party and its lasting effects, have been a far more detriment to black success in America than any so-called claimed oppression or racism. The latter of which is more of a creation of (i.e., cause and effect) of black outlash than any overt oppression by the general society on the whole, or even in part. Blacks are much to blame for their own failures and problems in America than anyone else. If you raise a victim, you will always be a victim, generation after generation. 

It is of no coincidence that the number one place recommended for black Americans to move to is Costa Rica, among other Caribbean, South America and European places. Everywhere else where blacks have learned to live and let live, making a life for themselves, appreciating what life they have (which is precisely why when foreign blacks move to the US, they do far far better than native born blacks).

Thoughts?

Discussion?

Discuss 

Discuss 

Elie Mystal is a flagrant racist and wholeheartedly ignorant of the US Constitution, despite claiming to be an authority on the subject. 

Discuss. 

I am listening/watching to this garbage as I sit at the laptop. 

The garbage of humanity being televised for money and others entertainment is just disgusting. 

Money for violence on television. 

Wow.

Discuss. 

Difference of opinion is an inherent expectation of debate/discourse. 

If you come to a "Debate" forum like DART, and expect to be coddled, then you came to the wrong place. 

Blocking members [as a new member] with zero history of comments let alone debates engaged, just demonstrates what an overly sensitive snowflake you are. Blocking members just proves what an intellectual coward you so obviously are. It is counter intuitive to "diversity." 

Just leave before you begin if you cannot handle the heat in the kitchen. 

I just do not see it happening (her pulling it off); what say you?

Discuss 

Discuss 

White privilege is a myth, pure fiction.

Prove me wrong. 

Elie Mystal, a so-called legal scholar has got to be one of the most ignorant ones where it comes to the US Constitution.

The BS he wrote about in his book "Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution" is nothing short of pure racist rhetoric, anti-American rhetoric, anti-law enforcement rhetoric, and more with a complete misconstruing of what the Constitution actually says.

He has gone on television too to repeat his nonsense, and there has been backlash against his flagrant ignorance just the same.

https://youtu.be/zSqKJxeuS7k.

The man is a racist. On par with Don Lemon, Joy Ann Reid, et al. 

It is because of this divisiveness that causes further strife for the very people they claim to help and defend.

What say you?

Does America need flagrant racists protected by the veil of "black privilege"  like this causing more harm than good? I think not. 

Again, what say you?

Discuss.

Debate. 

~ R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Wikipedia

~ What Is Legislative Intent | Legislative Intent (legintent.com)

The Supreme Court was founded in part to balance the executive and legislative branches of government, and it can help prevent the legislative branch from overstepping its legal obligations by measuring the laws they pass against the U.S. Constitution.

~ Judicial activism Definition & Meaning | Merriam-Webster Legal

"Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.[1]"

~ Textualism - Wikipedia

Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination against transgender individuals, either as a form of sex discrimination or as impermissible “sex stereotyping” under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins?

MY ARGUMENT AGAINST THE RULING GIVEN BY GORSUCH:

Justice Gorsuch violated the intent and purpose of legislative history and likewise the rules of statutory construction when he evaluated the case of transgender Aimee Stephens. In effect, he legislated from the bench via judicial activism. He essentially created law where no law existed within the original crafting, intent and purpose of Title VII within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where gender identity and sex stereotypes are concerned. 

The arguments presented by Stephens are patently illogical.

Stephens argued that Title VII "specifically" prohibited transgender discrimination [because] it barred employers from terminating their employees “because of [an] individual’s . . . sex.”  Stephens further argued that by terminating someone because they are not conforming with their employer’s view of how that person’s “biological sex” ought to present itself, the employer is using that person’s “sex” as it was determined at birth in order to purposely discriminate against them. 

When one looks at the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "specifically" Title VII, there is absolutely no language or debate involving transgender, gender identity and/or sexual orientation rights given the glaring fact that none were even an issue in 1964 where legal protections were concerned. Issues meaning neither was seen as apparent then as they theoretically are present-day where legal protections were necessarily needing addressed by said Act in 1964. 

The origins of gender identity did not appear to take a foothold in law until the early 1970s, which had more to do with hermaphroditism and transsexualism than actual transgenderism. 

The introduction of the dichotomy between anatomical sex and gender identity, then commonly referred to as the psychopathological condition of gender identity disorder, was not introduced into the APAs Diagnostic Statistical Manual until the Third version in 1980, 16 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As such, there is absolutely no measure by which Stephen's argument that Title VII "specifically" prohibits transgender discrimination in employment, or any other area of employment law either. And what one's perception is of what another's sex "ought" to present themselves as is legally irrelevant. To argue such is to also argue how one "ought" to behave when employed, take for example lawfully vs unlawfully; kind or unkind; professionally or unprofessionally. Each measure is a commonsense expectation of behavior, and for a biological man to present himself as a man for nearly two decades as a man, only to one day abruptly claim they are not what they were born as and wish to live their personal fantasy as the opposite sex is a shock to commonsense and the laws governing fraud.

You apply as a man, are hired as a man, work as a man, conduct yourself as a man and then inform your employer you will be coming to work as a woman in appearance and wish to be treated as a biological woman is fraud under the law. An employer is not obligated to facilitate your fraudulent behavior. The Funeral Home had every legal right to terminate employment with Stephens. For Justice Gorsuch to find legal justification for acceptance of transgenderism in Title VII flies in the face of both legislative intent and unquestionably demonstrates judicial activism. 

Stephens then argues that should the Court exclude transgender discrimination from Title VII, it would add to the only codified exception to Title VII's protections. This exception being the bona fide occupational qualifications exception that HOOTERS prevailed in regarding being sued by male applicants denied employment as waiters. Hooters maintained it was on the right side of the law in asserting a “bona fide occupational qualification” based on the essence of its business model. Hooters states that the “Hooters Girl” is the foundation of its business. Which is precisely why Hooters is allowed to continue this business model. It is also another reason why we see no male centerfolds in Playboy, but rather that of Playgirl, and no female centerfolds in the latter magazine. 

Stephens continues to argue, and with emphasizes, that it mattered not if Congress understood Title VII to encompass transgender discrimination during its 1964 enactment having no bearing on how the Court should determine the statute’s meaning and application present day of that case. This inherently flies in the intent and purpose of the Court to include legislative history in the laws intent and purpose behind its creating and passing in correcting wrongs that have subsequently been made illegal. Ignoring that history of legislative intent and making up terms, intent and meaning of a historical law to fit a present-day issue far removed from the historical law is nothing but judicial activism (i.e., legislating from the bench). And that is EXACTLY what Justice Gorsuch did. 

This argument of Stephens is a patent false equivalency fallacy: "Stephens analogizes an employer’s decision to fire employees for their transgender status to the impermissible act of terminating employees because they changed religions." Religion is "specifically" referenced in Title VII, transgenderism is not. Therefore, there is no equal comparison, period. 

Sex stereotypes do not come into legal argument in this case either, despite the arguments Stephens made employing it. Stephens was born a man. He applied as a man. He was hired as a man. He worked as a man until such day without warning he informed the Funeral Home he wanted to be employed as a woman when in fact he is/was not a woman. That is an act of fraud, but also a change in employment terms that an employee has no authority to make. Only the employer can change terms of employment conditions, not an employee. Therefore, the funeral home terminating Stephens had nothing to do with a sex stereotype as he was not being discriminated as a biological female employee, but rather that of the obvious: a biological male employee making unrealistic expectations upon his employer to change the terms of his employment with the employer for which he had no legal authority to affect or force upon the employer. 

IMO, Justice Gorsuch legislated from the bench via judicial activism and read into Title VII that which was simply not there, nor supported by the legislative history, intent and purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Prove me wrong. 

To date I have been permanently suspended from Instagram, Facebook and Twitter directly (and very specifically) due to posting fact-based truth backed by criminological (and other scientific) data that clearly demonstrates that black Americans, namely half of the roughly 6% of black male population in the US do in fact commit over 50% of the entire nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters; and that they are also disproportionately represented among other violent crimes like robberies and rapes. And yet those on the left, brainwashed black Americans, white guilt liberals and democrats deny these truths. They twist and manipulate the news to fit their agenda in order to divide people by race, class and more poignantly by gender/sex.

Nearly every single day there is a video posted online across various social media platforms of some black person acting a fool, and intelligent blacks rip them apart for being just that, acting a fool. Former Officer Brandon Tatum is one of them. Larry Elder. You name it. In fact, I am impressed by the number of black American's who are posting their reactions on YouTube to what they see/hear from Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest scholars of this time, regarding black history across the world; but namely America since he too is an American and wanted to understand the plight of blacks on this side of the planet (North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean).

Blacks, like Hispanics, are moving to the right and for good reason. Yet so many try to keep them under the Democratic bootheel. 

Thoughts for discussion?

I just found this debate site and like it so far, but I am curious as to why there is no law enforcement or legal/law section for debates?

Seeing as there is a big push on the left to argue cops are bad and the law is racist, it would be a great section to debate under.