If you still have the right to vote in 2024, use it wisely.

Utter nonsense

BTW… you LOVE the SCOTUS when they rule the way YOU want, but screech whenever they don’t.

You do the same.

THIS MEME TRANSLATED FOR LEFTIST.

Please take down this meme. You do not have the right to say I want anyone killed.

Heh heh heh

Please stop posting racist rhetoric against white straight males, it's very offensive Larry.

I have not said outright or implied that "white straight males," are inferior to others based on race. I cannot cease doing something I have not done and do not do. Please stop posting lies about me, it's very offensive.

Boo-hoo…

Now you want stuff that offends you to stop…shame you are not willing to do it for others that you offend

If you read his original post, I just copied his tag line. I am comfortable with being criticized within the site's rules for posting.

What, is wrong with you?

Bullshit

Sorry whippy-dip racists you are no longer getting your way no matter how much you whine, complain, and epically fail at justifying your whippy dip racism.

Trolls. They will tell you they support equality under the law, until they get the opportunity to do away with it. Then, all "others," have the right to do what Straight White Males tell them to do. Just like in Russia and the other dictatorships they worship.

You tell them evil straight Whitey bastards Larry, I think you should remove (cancel) white text from your memes to virtue signal your non support of SCOTUS...lol

How long is the suspension for posting nudity?

My point of reference is the Declaration of Independence, which says "All Men are created Equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." The Constitution was written to provide a path to those rights. Your problem is with our "Forefathers," and framers of the Constitution.

In that they are "endowed," with "inalienable" rights by their creator, which our Forefathers used to justify our legal rights, you are mistaken. Your misinterpretation of their use of "equal," has caused you to misinterpret it as meaning "equity." While I am all in favor of people working hard and gaining equity for their labors, "Equality," to our Forefathers was clearly a Birthright.

The Colonies had or tolerated slavery. Slaves did not have "inalienable rights," until the Constitution was amended to make it so. I wish we were a "colour-blind," society. We never have been. I am old enough to remember "White" and "Colored" drinking fountains and other public accommodations. It took laws, law enforcement and the 101st Airborne to do away with overt racism, in this regard. So, everyone was not "treated the same by default." I believe that you are probably fair in your treatment of others, in your mind. Why are you so opposed to equal opportunity?

You have described a racist system that employed slavery as one in which "Everyone was treated the same by default." You are saying that slaves had the same opportunities as free men. That is the extent of what I know about you.

PitMonster confessed to not being from America in his/her last post, before the massive evacuation of Trolls. The timing of their removal coincides with the shutdown of the IRA.

Dear Trolls,

Thank you for your usual level of intelligence and insights in your posts.

With all due respect,

Larry

Notice Larry didn't include Asians in his list of "oppressed" groups. Wonder if it's because Asians are the ones that will benefit most from this ruling. And it's not because of their race it's because the come from cultures that value an education and hard work.

BTW… you LOVE the SCOTUS when they rule the way YOU want, but screech whenever they don’t.

Anti-Affirmative Action propaganda suggests that Harvard's admissions policy should now be only merit driven. In the early 1980s I worked with a World-Renowned Vascular Surgeon who was a Harvard Medical School Grad and did admission interviews to help determine who got into the program. One year, after returning from interviews, he mused about what the top candidates had in common, according to an unofficial poll he did of his fellow interviewers. That year, it was an interest in Greek Philosophers. He said that one might think an interest in a science related subject might make candidates interesting during an admissions interview. I guess having something in common with the interviewer gives a candidate an advantage. The Supreme Court did not rule against considering extra-academic interests in candidate interviews.

A person being interviewed for a Harvard Graduate program has to post a high level of grades and take specific classes. My daughter is in charge of Veterans financial programs for a large public University. My bias would be in favor of admitting a Veteran based on equity. But, they are not given a pass when it comes to grade requirements, etc. That is the first step. All people being interviewed make similar grades in the required classes. It is the likes and dislikes of the interviewer that make the difference for highly sought after programs.

We are all supposed to be "equal under the law." We're not all the same. The Constitution is supposed to guarantee Equal Rights and opportunities for All. Some of us will succeed, some will fail. Most will end up somewhere in the middle. But, if one group has all the power and makes all the decisions, that group will have an advantage. I have succeeded at most things I have tried. I never feel threatened by the success of others. I don't understand what compels some people to limit others' rights and access to opportunities.

Right!
Now just get the Democrats to cease and desist and everything will improve for everyone, equally.

University undergrad and grad school admissions policies are not and never have been totally merit driven. Grades and scores are just some of the factors that interviewers use to determine if students should be granted admission. It has always been thus. Consultants ae well paid for telling candidates how to dress, wear their hair and make-up, how to speak, etc. for grad school interviews. They recognize that interviewers' likes and dislikes have bearings on admissions. Behaviorists tell us we all have biases. They are, "natural," but not always "reasonable."

Universities have never been meritocratic and dry-academic environments. They are centers of innovation, invention and intellectual evolution. They have actively sought after the most interesting people from qualified applicants. It is this balance of the art and science of education that you don't seem to understand makes for the best outcomes for all involved.

IQ is not tested or measured by admissions programs. Grades are compared. But since thousands of high schools and tens of thousands of teachers are involved in the grading process not all of them measure with 100% comparability. None the less, if you have 1,000 applicants with 4.0 GPAs for 500 slots, merit needs to be measured in other ways.

You may not consider yourself to be racist. But, your assertion in the form of an explanation is. This is not based soley on my casual observations but also on the work of Dr. Kevin Mitchell, Associate Professor of Genetics and Neuroscience at Trinity College Dublin, whose research is aimed at understanding the genetic program specifying the wiring of the brain and its relevance to variation in human faculties, especially to psychiatric and neurological disease and to perceptual conditions. I have summarized a recent article of his here:

​Review
Why genetic IQ differences between 'races' are unlikely

The idea that intelligence can differ between populations has made headlines again, but the rules of evolution make it implausible

The idea that there may be genetic differences in intelligence between one population and another has resurfaced recently, notably in the form of a New York Times op-ed by the Harvard geneticist David Reich. In the article, Reich emphasises the arbitrary nature of traditional racial groupings, but still argues that long periods of ancestry on separate continents have left their genetic marks on modern populations. These are most evident for physical traits like skin and hair colour, where genetic causation is entirely uncontroversial. However, Reich asserts that all genetic traits, including those that affect behaviour and cognition, are expected to differ between races.

To end up with systematic genetic differences in intelligence between large, ancient populations, the selective forces driving those differences would need to have been enormous. What’s more, those forces would have to have acted across entire continents, with wildly different environments, and have been persistent over tens of thousands of years of tremendous cultural change. Such a scenario is not just speculative – I would argue it is inherently and deeply implausible.

The bottom line is this. While genetic variation may help to explain why one person is more intelligent than another, there are unlikely to be stable and systematic genetic differences that make one population more intelligent than the next.--I hope you find this to be helpful.

Hogwash... pure BS... you never disappoint Larry to deliver the garbage...