My counter argument....that that's not what you said....and it's still inaccurate.

You said the blanket statement about any/every group of 50 whites being a violent racist gang is not entirely inaccurate. It is.

Now, had you said the blanket statement about every group of 50 whites being a lynch mob was true some of the time, that would still be a wildly inaccurate overstatement, but better. There has been no point in time when every group of 50 white men was a lynch mob.

Had you said what you now say, it's not entirely inaccurate because it's true some of the time in certain specific areas with certain groupings, it would be contradicting the original blanket statement which is inaccurate, so it's still technically incorrect, just like saying the statement about groups of black people isn't entirely inaccurate....it is, because the unwritten but undeniable subject of the statement is ANY group of 50 black/white people, not one specific group in a few specific places at some times.

If you understand that, you understand why it's entirely inaccurate no matter how you wish to interpret the rest.

Is it true that there have been groups of 50 white men that were a lynch mob, yes. That doesn't resemble what you said.

Just as incorrect as always, at least you're consistent.

1) All those things aren't rights, voting is. To remove a constitutional right should take more that a racist whim or the lack of a document. That should end your argument right there, but rationality and understanding my country's constitution isn't your strong suit.

2) buying smokes or liquor....not if you're over 25 or know a place.

3) getting a job....nope, only to get non cash job or benefits

4) getting a gun....not if it's a private sale

5)renting a house....nope, not true at all

6)getting married....not common law or religious marriage

7) I doubt you have an honest clue what's required to receive public assistance, but it's not a driver's license

Poor people don't do much of the rest of what you mention, they use cash, don't own a car, and don't travel.

These false excuses for violating the constitution and placing targeted obstacles in the path of mostly minorities to keep them from voting are brought to you by the anti voting rights party, Republicans, every election since voter protection was lifted and they could legally go after minorities voting rights again.
Odd, they weren't an issue before the court removed the coverage formula, making it nigh impossible to enforce voting rights.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

...the reason being, had the right implied this was their plan, or even a concern of theirs, the supreme court would have ruled that the protections are still needed and not removed said "coverage formula", which would bar most states from enacting any voting requirements, as they had historically proven and been ruled to be blatantly racially motivated.

Since that decision, republican led legislatures have tried everything but reinstating literacy tests to disenfranchise minorities. Voter id laws and voter purges based on minor clerical errors (errors made by the same people who then decide the error makes the registration invalid, errors that happen 3/4 of the time to minorities in areas with less than 30% minority populations, while whites in the same areas are 1/4 the errors caught, but almost 3/4 the population) these purely Republican sponsored laws are blatantly targeting minorities because Republicans don't represent minorities so don't expect their votes.

Merrimack Garland was often right leaning and above reproach, and in your words, "his entire life was ruined" by dickheaded obstructionist republicans that wouldn't allow the unAmerican Muslim black activist to impact the supreme court if they could obstruct it, only they get to do that in their favor by any underhanded means necessary. Recall, they were proud of their pure obstructionist position from day one of Obama, pretty infantile to complain now that Trump doesn't get cooperation with his disastrous hyper partisan divisive plans and nominations.

Really, no republican argued against them? Sotomayor 68-31, Kagen 63-37, barely confirmed with 3 votes to spare, that's not no republican argument, and not confirmed with ease. You are such a blatant revisionist or so authoritatively ignorant it's astonishing and makes any discussion a chore, requiring I teach you actual history before replying to your always incorrect claims. Try googling before spouting more easily debunked nonsense, have some pride. Only trolls don't care that 98% of their claims are dead wrong and easily proven so.

I think you dead this incorrectly.

Bob, if you're going to be such an ugly troll, at least try to not be an easily debunked idiot at the same time.
Here's twice he claimed to be conservative I found in under 10 seconds

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuoS7HRdeD0

And he's clearly decided he's Republican, but you seem to be admitting now that he's not conservative (by incorrectly claiming he never said he was one in a misguided defense).....but what you said was "If you are a Republican you don't sell out conservative principles.----------------This is where I hang my hat."....and you 110% hang your hat on him....a non conservative wholly unprincipled republican.....sooooooo......

Repeatedly calling patriotic and heroic McCain, a decorated veteran (who's numerous military decorations and awards include the Silver Star, two Legion of Merits, Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Star Medals, two Purple Hearts, two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals, and the Prisoner of War Medal) a traitor starting while his body is still warm and treasonous and cowardly draft dodging Trump a hero solidifies your position as a non American and a irrefutable troll. It won't be forgotten. #Derp state

Anyone who bikes in NY should know that you're just as likely to get over the Brooklyn Bridge as through the bike lane in Times Square. Basically, you're an idiot if you do it.

Go over the Manhattan Bridge just down the way a bit, and it's got an entirely dedicated bike lane. Granted, people coming/going from Chinatown oftentimes incorrectly take it, but they're few and far between.

Your assumption is incorrect. As I've stated repeatedly, I think people should be seen and assessed individually on the totality of their character. It's just that I see the inpracticality of that in institutional settings where a few people must assess tens of thousands of applicants in months. That necessitates putting people into groups and making assumptions, sometimes by necessity that's by race. Fund education better, they might screen better. Fund all education better, they might be able to abandon all criteria beyond past performance, but that just won't happen (but $12 billion for Trump's trade war's damage to soy bean farmers, no problem, who's next?).

Ahhh....but those discriminatory practices have, and still are encoded in the law against these groups in many forms. Some have been rectified, many not, and never has there been a reasonable attempt to make up the shortfalls/damages these policies have caused these groups over decades and centuries. If I beat you daily and take your lunch until 11th grade, then stop, it's still horrifically unfair of me to insist you meet weight requirements to be on my JV wrestling team and yet not offer you weight training and free lunch to help you get there. Same goes for groups, however you wish to divide them, that have been downtrodden.
Creating policies to address the damage done in order to get the long abused back to their natural ability level isn't bad unless they aren't ever modified once equality is reached. We aren't close yet.

Some won't, most do. You make a thousand little sacrifices for the greater good daily, one more won't hurt you. If your ability is actually equal to the poor kid trying to take your place, the advantages you have over them should make that point abundantly clear and your scores should be excessively higher. If they aren't, you just aren't taking advantage of your advantages, making them the better choice.

Time will tell, but I don't see this as political, I see it as rational realism vs irrational tribal wishful thinking.
My parents both worked at Stanford, and are Republicans, and both support giving less advantaged students more opportunities to excell, and both think diversity on campus benefits everyone to the extent that it merits using race and gender as points to consider during the application process if that's what it takes to get diversity.

Your main problem seems to be that it's decided purely by race. Let me again attempt dissuade you of that notion. Race is only one tiny part of the equation, and it's only part because they tried not including race and, for reasons I've been excessively sesquipedelien about, that left many races vastly underrepresented because they don't have the tools required to compete, be that education, finances, support of family, support of community, extra curricular opportunities, safety in their neighborhood, transportation, etc., much of which is caused by centuries of codified law that kept them poor, uneducated, and powerless to change that status. No white male with a 1600 and 4.0 is being turned away for a black woman with 1000 and 2.9, they might be turned away for a black woman with 1550 and 3.8 because she likely worked much harder to achieve those scores, indicating she'll do even better on a level field.

I don't see why Republicans care, they're now the proudly ignorant party of anti-intellectualism who claim all higher education is nothing but a bastion of liberal lefty PC thugs doin book lernin. Y'all don't want none of that no how. ;-)

Edit: note, according to reports I saw years ago, without racial preferencing FOR white kids, many universities would be nearly all Asian because their cultures value education above most other things so, in general, they test better than other groups.

It's not the best footage out there, just the best I could find....but that's incorrect, a glowing, 2' across rock punched a hole in the roof and, in other footage, can be seen glowing on the deck of the boat afterwards.

You're correct about gnosticism, but incorrect about (a)theism.

And dictionary.com is also wrong.
Merriam Webster defines it as:
a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

If you ask google to define: atheist, you get:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Theism/atheism speak only to BELIEF.

This chart explains it well

Title is incorrect. The cyclist and the vehicle make contact.

They've been here long enough to get to silver star. I have a hard time believing they don't understand. They'd have to, if even just by osmosis and inference.

It's the changing the channel assignments back to the incorrect ones that's kinda putting me off.

I think you'll find they understand perfectly, they just don't care and are basically "spamming".

Maybe you're correct, but that's often incorrect to assume. I'm almost at poverty level income and I'm white.

, I said it was more controversial.

I dare say even agreeing that we don't solely choose our sexual interests, when it comes to our actions I insist we treat those as the result of free will, aka choice.

When I'm not typing from a 4in screen I can pull up the references, but the peer reviewed studies on genetics hardly illustrate that sexual orientation and identity are dominated by it. Twins studies do show that identical twins more often share orientation than non-identical, which gives a correlation to genetics. However, I'll pull up the studies but last I reviewed them, more than half the identical twins in the studies did NOT share the same orientation. That is an arguably compelling indicator that genetics does not solely determine orientation.

Other twin studies comparing other behaviours like religion show a similar pattern. Studies with twins on violent and aggressive behaviour show an even stronger "genetic" component than the orientation studies, and nobody has any qualms about being politically incorrect declaring that violence is a choice and not a birth attribute...

As someone with a deaf person in the family, I've watched a lot of Closed caption TV. I also have someone in my family who types translation for Medical Transcription who types reports in real time. An amazing feat, typing 120 words per minute.

Some text is Pre-typed like in TV shows and Movies.
Some text is Auto typed by a computer
And some text is physically being typed by someone live in real time.

You can usually tell if it's typed in real time, because they can be running one or two sentences behind as they try to keep up. It's a very unforgiving medium. Once typed it's broadcasted. You can't just go back in time and remove it. A lot of this typing uses Auto-complete on typing words to speed up the typist to keep the typing in line with the audio.
This is most likely what happened in this case, as the Auto completion incorrectly chose the wrong word.

Don't read into things more than what's there. If you've watched as much closed caption as I have, you'd know that mistakes happen constantly, especially on live broadcast news stories. This is one example out of maybe 20-30 mistakes that will come up in an hour of time.

A few leagues have been using the VAR system (video assistant referee) for a while now, and it'll also be used at the upcoming World Cup in Russia.

They only interfere in case of obviously incorrect decisions by the ref or situations of significant impact (i.e. penalties, send-offs, off-side goals, etc). This particular case would have led to the ref booking the attacker for a dive.

Works pretty well in Germany these days after going through some issues in the first half of this season.