A person who does a verb is often referred to by adding 'er' to that verb Eg ski/skier. But a person who makes a noun is often referred to by adding er to the noun. Eg hat/hatter.
To Pants someone means to pull down their pants in order to embarrass them, so does a panter make pants or pull them down?
An extra $500/month would be a game changer for so many individuals and households in the US. That's money to catch up on debt, money to save toward buying a house, money to immediately improve current living standards, money to move to a different city with better jobs.... the list goes on.
When I was at my lowest income, roundabouts 12 years ago when Mr. Anzu had just finished grad school and we were living off just my crappy phone banking job, that money would have been really welcome. As it was, we went on SNAP to eat, and pretty much all my money went to rent and bills, with some of the overage going onto a credit card until his first paycheck at his shiny new job. $500 would have made it so we didn't have to go into debt during that lean, lean summer.
Hard to believe that Nixon, of all people, would be considered too insanely Marxist for any Republican position today. (Assuming, of course, that security guard never noticed the taped door in the Watergate complex.)
The statute is California Proposition 209, the Affirmative Action Initiative,, passed in 1996. It "added Section 31 to the California Constitution's Declaration of Rights, which said that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences in California."
A municipal welfare program does not seem to be covered by this state law. That doesn't mean a whiny Ward Connerly wannabe wypipo won't file a lawsuit, but my guess is that by the time it wends its way through the courts, the pilot project will be complete.
If it specifically excludes whites, then, by definition, it is racist. Do you think no white folks are poor? Or do you just think poor white people should suffer?
America is rich enough that many such programs of lifting up the poorer could be instituted. but that would mean higher taxes on the richest among us. Conservatives will never allow it. Their solution to every problem is to cut the taxes on the wealthy.
The investigation was started and run out of the Baltimore AUSA offices, and Nixon's AG #2 is the one who let them keep going when they had hard proof Agnew was a criminal fuckwad
Having lived most of my life as a poor white person and without an empathy deficiency, no, I don't think either of those things. But I'm also not bothered that a small, privately funded trial of a UBI program chose to target demographics whose poverty is more likely to be compounded by systemic racism. Presumably a full, government-funded program would be open to everyone.
Not to be one of those people, but that stock photo is OLD, because downtown Oakland looks a lot shinier now and that portion of the Bay Bridge in the background has been torn down and replaced, though not in that order, and now looks like this:
[snark] For shame! That wasn't a "bullet", it was a "freedom seed"! [/snark]
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Participation will be limited to Black, Indigenous, or other people of color ....
Fox News and especially Tucker Carlson are going to pass out from screaming about how racist this is.
A person who does a verb is often referred to by adding 'er' to that verb Eg ski/skier. But a person who makes a noun is often referred to by adding er to the noun. Eg hat/hatter.
To Pants someone means to pull down their pants in order to embarrass them, so does a panter make pants or pull them down?
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
An extra $500/month would be a game changer for so many individuals and households in the US. That's money to catch up on debt, money to save toward buying a house, money to immediately improve current living standards, money to move to a different city with better jobs.... the list goes on.
When I was at my lowest income, roundabouts 12 years ago when Mr. Anzu had just finished grad school and we were living off just my crappy phone banking job, that money would have been really welcome. As it was, we went on SNAP to eat, and pretty much all my money went to rent and bills, with some of the overage going onto a credit card until his first paycheck at his shiny new job. $500 would have made it so we didn't have to go into debt during that lean, lean summer.
Hard to believe that Nixon, of all people, would be considered too insanely Marxist for any Republican position today. (Assuming, of course, that security guard never noticed the taped door in the Watergate complex.)
The statute is California Proposition 209, the Affirmative Action Initiative,, passed in 1996. It "added Section 31 to the California Constitution's Declaration of Rights, which said that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences in California."
A municipal welfare program does not seem to be covered by this state law. That doesn't mean a whiny Ward Connerly wannabe wypipo won't file a lawsuit, but my guess is that by the time it wends its way through the courts, the pilot project will be complete.
If it specifically excludes whites, then, by definition, it is racist. Do you think no white folks are poor? Or do you just think poor white people should suffer?
America is rich enough that many such programs of lifting up the poorer could be instituted. but that would mean higher taxes on the richest among us. Conservatives will never allow it. Their solution to every problem is to cut the taxes on the wealthy.
The investigation was started and run out of the Baltimore AUSA offices, and Nixon's AG #2 is the one who let them keep going when they had hard proof Agnew was a criminal fuckwad
Having lived most of my life as a poor white person and without an empathy deficiency, no, I don't think either of those things. But I'm also not bothered that a small, privately funded trial of a UBI program chose to target demographics whose poverty is more likely to be compounded by systemic racism. Presumably a full, government-funded program would be open to everyone.
Not to be one of those people, but that stock photo is OLD, because downtown Oakland looks a lot shinier now and that portion of the Bay Bridge in the background has been torn down and replaced, though not in that order, and now looks like this:
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Good lord, yes, it does.
The genocide in Cambodia was very unlike Clinton or Obama.
Nixon veto'd family leave. Clinton got it passed. Obama ensured you would not lose health care during it.
So weird that Kennedy who screwed LBJ by assassinating the leader of S Vietnam gets a total pass in your history.