So you understand discrimination occurred, you just don't care because of who was discriminated against?
Duhmazing
So you understand discrimination occurred, you just don't care because of who was discriminated against?I do, thanks.
This country was literally founded on preaching open rebellion. By definition nothing could be more American.One blindman's opinion.
America's right wing seethes with heavily armed rage & discontentment, stops just short of preaching open rebellion. They don't even mind cheering on the looney tunes who engage in it, like the Bundy militia. There's a plethora of well funded media manipulators & ideologues keeping them pumped up & nicely irrational. If they're not itching for an excuse to start shooting, they've got a lot of people fooled.
Contrast that with the Occupy Movement.
Different strokes. It may be an issue for you. It's not an issue for me.
So you understand discrimination occurred, you just don't care because of who was discriminated against?
Duhmazing
Lol! Yes discrimination occurred, it just wasn't only conservatives that were discriminated against, no matter how much you want that to be the case.
The process was flawed, end of story.
It's irrelevant that liberals were also affected. The relevant data is that conservatives were disproportionately affected.
Just like stop and frisk.
Funny. Target blacks (stop and frisk) and it's closet racism. Target conservatives and it's a flawed process.Nope, proportionality has nothing to do with it. It does in your mind because it was "your team" that was supposedly targeted more. Unlike you, I see it as a flawed process regardless of who happened to be disproportionately targeted.
Funny. Target blacks (stop and frisk) and it's closet racism. Target conservatives and it's a flawed process.
Disparate impact.Except, once again, not only conservatives were targeted. Keep believing! One day it might be true!
As for your stop and frisk straw man, it's a horrible policy, period.
Anything else you would like to make up to justify your irrational thought process?
It's irrelevant that liberals were also affected. The relevant data is that conservatives were disproportionately affected.
Just like stop and frisk.
Disparate impact.
As I recall, those 3 denials were very quick too. They weren't sent to pending purgatory.You mean like the fact that the only three groups denied were liberal?
I'm fairly certain the committee will in time.Supposition and innuendo again. Prove that conservatives were disproportionately targeted. Based on everything I've seen, you cannot. It is speculation, fueled by the right-wing propaganda machine.
I'm fairly certain the committee will in time.
Except, once again, not only conservatives were targeted. Keep believing! One day it might be true!
As for your stop and frisk straw man, it's a horrible policy, period.
Anything else you would like to make up to justify your irrational thought process?
More flawed than the selection process -- which flagged groups that should not have been given extra scrutiny as well many that appropriately received it but which were selected using improper criteria, according to the TIGTA report -- were the lengthy delays in processing applications and the excessive and intrusive questions asked of the selected groups. According to the report, 58 percent of inquiries asked of those groups were later deemed unnecessary.
At this point there is more evidence supporting my theory of discrimination via disparate impact than there is disproving it.Exactly. You are asserting supposition as fact, based on your feelings. That has been my point throughout.
Nope, proportionality has nothing to do with it. It does in your mind because it was "your team" that was supposedly targeted more. Unlike you, I see it as a flawed process regardless of who happened to be disproportionately targeted.
Proportionality has everything to do with it.
Disparate impact.
Really? So 1000 "tea party" apps get submitted, 100 "lefty" apps get submitted. 100 tea party apps are reviewed/scrutinized and 100 "lefty" apps are reviewed/scrutinized, proportionally they are equal, 100 from both groups got reviewed! Nothing wrong with that is there?
Nothing wrong there! Only if you are a fucking moron! Oh wait, you are!
100% off all apps should be reviewed/scrutinized or if they can't achieve that then some percentage of ALL apps should be reviewed, no keywords or BOLO lists.
It's not that fucking hard to understand once you stop being a hack!
Just keep making absolutely ridiculous statements and then call people fucking morons and hacks for calling you on it.
What's wrong, you can't defend my example?
Is your example true? Was it a 10 to 1 ratio?
Was it a 1 to 1 ratio?
That's what I thought. Just keep pulling shit out of your ass and calling people hacks. Good job comrade.