|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Majorian posted:If he has no chance, there's no harm in him trying to primary her. If he does have a chance, that suggests there's a real problem with Pelosi, as far as her (overwhelmingly Democratic) constituents are concerned. I'm not holding my breath. I was hoping he'd be a serious challenger so that Pelosi would be forced to move left, but it doesn't sound like it'll even be close.
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The ones you posted 40 minutes ago? lol those rationales aren't non-racist. i've explained that "my property taxes! my commute! i was promised this exclusive school!" are not good excuses for being pro-segregation. they are all subordinate to improving the educational outlook of children of color, who are pushed into poorly funded schools and left with so little education benefit that their reading level can be 4 years behind the students at the good schools. but good job on sticking up for segregation too jeffersonclay. shows just how much good centrists are for PoC when they all line up to stand up again desegregation. Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:55 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
ostensibly non racist. Like economic anxiety is ostensibly non racist until you realize its anxiety about brown people stealing all the jobs, cheating us in trade agreements, and taking all the welfare.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:ostensibly non racist. Like economic anxiety is ostensibly non racist until you realize its anxiety about brown people stealing all the jobs, cheating us in trade agreements, and stealing all the welfare. sorry, but being pro-segregation isn't ostensibly non-racist. it's just racist. especially in a state as segregated wrt schools as NY. hth edit: quote:Today, the idea that parents would consider some notion of the common good when deciding on schools can sound quaint; it certainly runs counter to Betsy DeVos’ vision of unrestricted parental choice. But it’s an idea with deep roots. A half-century ago, a parent named Bernice Silverman faced the same decision confronting the rezoned families today: Whether or not to integrate P.S. 191. “It touches very deeply at home. These are your kids. This is their education,” she said in December. She still lives in the same apartment in Lincoln Guild, the co-op building that was part of the 1960s pairing and the current rezoning. At the time, she couldn’t afford private school, but she could have fought against the pairing. “But my philosophy was, as a responsible citizen, as a liberal: This is the right thing to do.” So she sent her boys to 191. Condiv fucked around with this message at 21:02 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
I actually think the ostensibly non-racist Trump voter vs. parents against the rezoning is a pretty good comparison. In both cases the people in question are doing very bad things for some understandable (yet unquestionably wrong) reasons. Like, I can understand why a parent who wants the best for their kid and bought a home with the intent of attending Rich Elite School would be upset if they were suddenly rezoned into Non-Rich School. They're still wrong and causing harm, but I can at least understand where the feeling comes from. The only thing wrong with the comparison is that some Trump voters actually have poo poo lives and real, serious problems, so it's a little more excusable for them to prioritize their own well being over that of others'. In the case of this school rezoning situation, however, the people affected are all rich as gently caress and are merely experiencing a small downgrade to a still-elite/rich lifestyle (and also presumably have the option of just sending their kid to a private school). So their concerns are less easy to empathize with.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Condiv posted:lol those rationales aren't non-racist. i've explained that "my property taxes! my commute! i was promised this exclusive school!" are not good excuses for being pro-segregation. they are all subordinate to improving the educational outlook of children of color, who are pushed into poorly funded schools and left with so little education benefit that their reading level can be 4 years behind the students at the good schools. but good job on sticking up for segregation too jeffersonclay. shows just how much good centrists are for PoC when they all line up to stand up again desegregation. PS 191 got $6130 per kid PS 452 got $6310 per kid The "poorly funded schools" trope is where there's different tax bases because the schools are operated under entirely different systems
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:PS 191 got $6130 per kid Does this include the money invested by the parents themselves in the PTA and what have you? I think I remember some quote about the rich school getting like $770,000 donated from the PTA. I agree that direct government investment isn't always the problem (depending upon the area), but schools in more well-off areas still end up getting more money in the end for various reasons. The goal should be for the overall resources of the school to end of the same, even if that means the government has to give more money to schools in poorer areas than richer ones.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Parents that oppose integrating a school with an ostensibly non-racist rationale--dirty racists, should be liquidated. still curious to hear your planks the national party should adopt that wont be attacked by republicans btw
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:PS 191 got $6130 per kid did you ignore the part where the rich schools had PTAs that were pulling in near millions in fundraising for their schools? or that ps 191 had low enrollment and thus low budget? here, let me quote them for you: on 191 posted:When it was their turn to ask questions, many zeroed in on the school’s resources. Like other high-needs schools, it has faced a budget double-whammy: Its low enrollment reduces per-pupil funding, and its low-income population limits parent donations. (It receives about $348,000 in federal Title I money that’s reserved for schools with many disadvantaged students—less than half the amount that 199’s PTA raises.) Gonsalves asked how the school would pay for the new Mandarin classes; Keville said she had asked elected officials for help. Another woman asked whether each class had assistant teachers. Keville said the school couldn’t afford them beyond pre-kindergarten—unlike P.S. 199, whose PTA pays for teaching assistants in certain classes. “If we had the funding for it, it’d be really fantastic,” she said. on 199 posted:Nine blocks away, P.S. 199 faced a different problem. The school, which has won a National Blue Ribbon Award, has such pull among affluent parents that many shop for homes within its boundaries. (During the rezoning process, an ad for a $2.7 million apartment near the school reassured potential buyers that it was still zoned for 199.) Once they’re in, parents invest heavily in the school. “I think a piece of it is we all know if we didn’t have this amazing school that we’d be sending our kids to private school or leaving the city,” said Nadine Gerber, whose daughter is in the fifth grade at 199. The parent-teacher association amassed $777,000 last year. (P.S. 191’s PTA raised $27,000.) The group has funded class trips, theater workshops, recess monitors, a science teacher, and student laptops, according to PTA documents. But 199’s abundant resources have led to a shortage of seats. Even with the building filled above capacity, nearly 100 would-be kindergarteners in the school’s zone had to be placed on a waitlist in 2015. So, that fall, the city proposed shifting some families in 199’s zone to its under-enrolled neighbor, P.S. 191. so districts like 452 and 199 have high enrollment and get ridiculous amounts of extra funding from rich parent donors. meanwhile poor schools like 191 are undercapacity so get little money, and also are composed almost entirely of poor students and their familiies get barely anything. stop trying to pretend they got equal funding and that institutional racism is just fine and dandy in this case Condiv fucked around with this message at 21:18 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Lol I was mocking your reflexive need to excuse Trump voters' racism I don't think I've ever done this once. I have explained why they voted as they did, but that's a different thing from acting like it's okay. Is your argument really so weak that you have to set up strawmen this blatant?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Is your argument really so weak that you have to set up strawmen this blatant? 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:did you ignore the part where the rich schools had PTAs that were pulling in near millions in fundraising for their schools? or that ps 191 had low enrollment and thus low budget? here, let me quote them for you: PS 191 has 128 more kids than PS 452, and gets, off memory from looking it up for my post earlier, $700k more in funding. Anyway, this rezoning isn't going to desegregate anything quote:Starting in September of 2017, PS 191 will offer a Gifted & Talented program. This is a suggestion proposed by the PS 199 Change.org petition that argues their parents are “entitled” due to the years they spent paying taxes. The new G&T won’t be one that begins at the Kindergarten level, which would require going through the city centralized process outlined here, but one that starts in 3rd grade and doesn’t use standardized test scores, but instead employs grades and teacher recommendations to determine admission.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
oh my god this argument is the worst. is part of the resistance to the re-zoning based on racism? most definitely. can sam bee or jason jones be shown to be members of that faction of those in opposition? without clearer evidence, no. like i am not a fan of sam bee but give them the benefit of the doubt that their reasons for opposing it is something more benign
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:PS 191 has 128 more kids than PS 452, and gets, off memory from looking it up for my post earlier, $700k more in funding. and again your argument immediately drops back to "do nothing" because the current plan is imperfect, yet again reinforcing institutional racism. why can't this rezoning be done and then fixing the gifted program or removing it later instead of letting heavily segregated schools remain heavily segregated rich white enclaves. also lol that you keep trying to play off 452's funding advantages the people you have gone to such lengths to defend would be against a school program that would actually truly integrate schools, so i don't even know why you fall back on the "it's not perfect" defense. the perfect solution would anger the rich people. why are you pro-segregationist wj? Condiv fucked around with this message at 22:04 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The only thing wrong with the comparison is that some Trump voters actually have poo poo lives and real, serious problems, so it's a little more excusable for them to prioritize their own well being over that of others'. In the case of this school rezoning situation, however, the people affected are all rich as gently caress and are merely experiencing a small downgrade to a still-elite/rich lifestyle (and also presumably have the option of just sending their kid to a private school). So their concerns are less easy to empathize with. 13 percent qualify for free/reduced lunch. The majority is wealthy, but not all. Kind of like trump supporters. Condiv posted:sorry, but being pro-segregation isn't ostensibly non-racist. it's just racist. especially in a state as segregated wrt schools as NY.: No poo poo, segregation is racist. Is the problem here you don't understand what the word ostensible means? Raskolnikov38 posted:still curious to hear your planks the national party should adopt that wont be attacked by republicans btw Republicans don't like anything democrats do, but it doesn't follow that they hate everything with the same intensity, or that every policy is identically vulnerable to their fear-mongering.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Republicans don't like anything democrats do, but it doesn't follow that they hate everything with the same intensity, or that every policy is identically vulnerable to their fear-mongering. Milquetoast candidates like Clinton and half-measures like the ACA seem to be met with the same degree of reflexive animosity from the Right as genuinely left-wing candidates and policies.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No poo poo, segregation is racist. Is the problem here you don't understand what the word ostensible means? i understand it's a weasel word that lets you claim they're not provably racist, and then when i show they actually are racist you get to try to pretend you actually meant they were secretly racist. you wanna call them racist, call them racist, not "ostensibly non-racist" thank
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i understand it's a weasel word that lets you claim they're not provably racist, and then when i show they actually are racist you get to try to pretend you actually meant they were secretly racist. you wanna call them racist, call them racist, not "ostensibly non-racist" thank I said they should be liquidated along with trump supporters you illiterate rube. I was joking about you not understanding the meaning of ostensible but here we are. Majorian posted:Milquetoast candidates like Clinton and half-measures like the ACA seem to be met with the same degree of reflexive animosity from the Right as genuinely left-wing candidates and policies. Centrist candidates like Clinton, Bill and Obama, and their success getting moderate republicans to cross the aisle, indicate otherwise. What genuine left wing candidates and policies are you comparing them to, here? The easiest comparison is with the minimum wage, at different rates. 60% of republicans support raising it to $10.10, but only 32% support raising it to $15. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 22:43 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I said they should be liquidated along with trump supporters you illiterate rube. I was joking about you not understanding the meaning of ostensible but here we are. ostensibly 1) outwardly appearing as such; professed; pretended: as i said, their views aren't ostensibly non-racist in any sense, and you are only hanging on to ostensibly cause you don't want to say they're actually racist. claiming schools shouldn't integrate cause of property values is not outwardly appearing as "non-racist" cause it's outwardly pro-segregationist, and therefore, straight-out racist. hth
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Stop misusing the word "problematic". ????? e: oh are you saying because it's not a problem? nah, phrases like the ones i described are shorthand for "it's not a big deal, you're just being hysterical" in order to dismiss or downplay real forms of structural violence that disadvantaged groups wish to address. it's problematic (troublesome, bad, something that perpetuates problems - take your pick) to hide your unwillingness to act against forms of structural violence behind a phrase like that. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 23:17 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Actually, caring about your property values outwardly appears not to be racist but it's a pretended objection to integrating schools that is actually rooted in racism, either explicitly or implicitly. The only way your argument makes sense is if you think homeowners who oppose building a waste treatment plant or prison nearby because it will negatively affect their property values are in fact racists.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Actually, caring about your property values outwardly appears not to be racist but it's a pretended objection to integrating schools that is actually rooted in racism, either explicitly or implicitly. The only way your argument makes sense is if you think homeowners who oppose building a waste treatment plant or prison nearby because it will negatively affect their property values are in fact racists. no, because caring about your property values over desegregation is literally racist. there's no ouward appearance of non-racism at all. desegregation is not subordinate to property values. people that think so are racist
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
except the "property value" thing here really does look like "distance to school" not "proximity to blacks", because they're still selling 800 square foot condos for $1.6m across the street from Amsterdam Houses
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
^^^ The motivation is mostly irrelevant if the change itself would do anything at all to help with segregation. If the change would help with segregation, even if it's just a minor improvement, being against it is inherently a racist action. While a person with an explicitly racist motive is *worse* than one without one, they're both still bad.JeffersonClay posted:Centrist candidates like Clinton, Bill and Obama, and their success getting moderate republicans to cross the aisle, indicate otherwise. What genuine left wing candidates and policies are you comparing them to, here? Are you referring to voters or politicians? Because I won't deny that Republican politicians can be convinced to cross the aisle for certain centrist policy, though I feel like Democrats should only resort to this if there's literally no other option (and even then this only applies to the end legislation, not what politicians openly voice support for). If you're talking about voters, voters have been increasingly polarized in recent years, with the numbers who might "cross the aisle" diminishing to the point where the more reliable Democratic voters lost while attempting to appeal to them is very likely greater. At the very least, Bill Clinton is definitely no longer a good example, and it's very questionable whether Obama's campaign successes can be associated with his explicit policy goals (due to his individual charisma and posturing as a progressive). Also, when was the last time Democrats oriented their strategy around appealing to more progressive voters (which is inherently mutually exclusive from appealing to moderates, since they have many directly contradictory goals)? We know that attempting to appeal to moderates is increasingly in-viable as a strategy, and it is irrational to demand historical precedent for any proposed change in strategy (because if you always did this, no change would ever occur). Not that historical precedent is useful in this case unless it's within the past 10-20 years anyways; as the situation in our country and its political landscape changes, so do the strategies that might be most effective.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Centrist candidates like Clinton, Bill and Obama, and their success getting moderate republicans to cross the aisle, indicate otherwise. Except that neither Bill Clinton nor Obama ran as centrists or neoliberals. They burnished their populist credentials and promised to raise wages, protect worker's rights, bring jobs back to the Rust Belt, etc. They ended up welching on a lot of those promises, but at least they had the political instinct to make those promises at all. Hillary didn't even have the sense to do that.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:except the "property value" thing here really does look like "distance to school" not "proximity to blacks", because they're still selling 800 square foot condos for $1.6m across the street from Amsterdam Houses and it doesn't matter and desegregation is not subordinate to it. what part of this are you not getting? crying about "my property values!!" when your hilariously segregated schools are being desegregated is racist af cause you're trying to put the brakes on desegregation quote:Today, the idea that parents would consider some notion of the common good when deciding on schools can sound quaint; it certainly runs counter to Betsy DeVos’ vision of unrestricted parental choice. But it’s an idea with deep roots. A half-century ago, a parent named Bernice Silverman faced the same decision confronting the rezoned families today: Whether or not to integrate P.S. 191. “It touches very deeply at home. These are your kids. This is their education,” she said in December. She still lives in the same apartment in Lincoln Guild, the co-op building that was part of the 1960s pairing and the current rezoning. At the time, she couldn’t afford private school, but she could have fought against the pairing. “But my philosophy was, as a responsible citizen, as a liberal: This is the right thing to do.” So she sent her boys to 191. real liberals don't make excuses for why their schools shouldn't integrate. you pretend to be a socialist, so i don't understand why you defend property rights of rich people, much less fail to meet the standards of 1960s liberals wj.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Here's where I think the disconnect is. People like Samantha Bee, Hillary Clinton, Obama and other centrists say the right things but their actions don't reflect what they say. Taking untold millions of wall street/corporate money, supporting bush era policies/warmongering, protecting the status quo, having double standards when it comes to integration, buddying up to known war criminals like W Bush/Henry Kissinger or trying to rehab the reputation of a noted nutcase like Glenn Beck...all of it runs counter to the things they say. And there's no logical reason they would take those actions if they actually believed the things they were saying. (spoiler: liberalism/idpol to those people is just a means to an end) Where as progressives have some sort of internal logic/morals so even if you disagree with their actions (or even think they're actively causing harm), you can kind of understand how they reached the end conclusion. That's why shrike/JC's attempts to brand me or third party voters with a scarlet letter don't stick because when you read the posts explaining how we reached our conclusions, you can see there's some sort of thought behind it. We're not contrarian trolls or people trying to twist reality so we win the argument. Same way I didn't abandon Bernie for endorsing Hillary or attempting to work within the Democratic party because I read his book and I listened to him speak and I could understand why he'd take that position (even if I didn't agree with his conclusion regarding the Clintons) Majorian posted:Except that neither Bill Clinton nor Obama ran as centrists or neoliberals. They burnished their populist credentials and promised to raise wages, protect worker's rights, bring jobs back to the Rust Belt, etc. They ended up welching on a lot of those promises, but at least they had the political instinct to make those promises at all. Hillary didn't even have the sense to do that. b-b-but hillary ran on the most progressive platform ever  why didn't they believe her?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, because caring about your property values over desegregation is literally racist. there's no ouward appearance of non-racism at all. We are in complete agreement. You just don't know how the word ostensibly is used. The white racists, ostensibly concerned with their property values, were in fact opposed to school integration at any cost. Majorian posted:Except that neither Bill Clinton nor Obama ran as centrists or neoliberals. They burnished their populist credentials and promised to raise wages, protect worker's rights, bring jobs back to the Rust Belt, etc. They ended up welching on a lot of those promises, but at least they had the political instinct to make those promises at all. Hillary didn't even have the sense to do that. Bill Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it" in 1992, actually did it in 1996, and won re-election by a landslide 4 months later. You're trying to rewrite history to salvage your narrative.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:We are in complete agreement. You just don't know how the word ostensibly is used. The white racists, ostensibly concerned with their property values, were in fact opposed to school integration at any cost. that's not what you were originally saying, but I agree, the rich white racists are in fact very racist. it's kinda sad that i'd come to an understanding with you before whiskeyjuvenile, since wj is supposedly socialist. but maybe wj isn't egalitarian in his socialism Condiv fucked around with this message at 23:46 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:????? There is no real form of structural violence happening in Jefferson Clays posts and leftists are not a disadvantaged group.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:There is no real form of structural violence happening in Jefferson Clays posts and leftists are not a disadvantaged group. the photons containing his posts are violence upon my eyes
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that's not what you were originally saying, but I agree, the rich white racists are in fact very racist. I mean my solution is "desegregate neighborhoods" but whatever
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I mean my solution is "desegregate neighborhoods" but whatever and you support that solution by defending people who would fight your solution to the bitter end? why do you think the people who are throwing a giant fit about having to shoulder the burden of integration of schools wouldn't throw an even bigger fit about desegregated neighborhoods Condiv fucked around with this message at 00:29 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and you support that solution by defending people who would fight your solution to the bitter end? why do you think the people who are throwing a giant fit about having to shoulder the burden of integration of schools wouldn't throw an even bigger fit about desegregated neighborhoods i mean fact-specific re nyc but like "thar be black people on the streets" is kinda an inescapable fact of life wherever you are in Manhattan
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:i mean fact-specific re nyc but like "thar be black people on the streets" is kinda an inescapable fact of life wherever you are in Manhattan neighborhood integration is more than black people on the same streets. it's black people living in the same areas. that means some rich people are gonna have to move out of some lucrative white enclaves, and PoCs take places in those formerly white enclaves. and the rich people who are already angry they have to integrate schools will be doubly angry when they have to integrate their neighborhoods it's weird your idea of neighborhood integration is black people are allowed on the same streets as white people btw
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Speaking of Sam Bee, this trend of liberal woke comedians (e.g., Trevor Noah) is pretty emblematic of how corrosively vacuous liberalism is.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Look guys, being pro segregation doesn't make me a racist. I just don't think black people should have access to the education or social network required to escape poverty and live in my neighborhood. They just don't share our property values.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Bill Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it" in 1992, actually did it in 1996, and won re-election by a landslide 4 months later. You're trying to rewrite history to salvage your narrative. Mmmmm, nope. The public didn't know that "ending welfare as we know it" meant that he would slash the hell out of the social safety net, and he certainly wasn't elected on an austerity platform. e: Clinton himself knew full well that he was doing a 180 on his populist campaign message, when he was in the process of negotiating NAFTA. From Bob Woodward's The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House: quote:"Where are all the Democrats?" Clinton bellowed. "I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans,' he said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. "We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?" Majorian fucked around with this message at 02:15 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:There is no real form of structural violence happening in Jefferson Clays posts and leftists are not a disadvantaged group. people advocating for affordable health care and other unaffordable necessities or protesting exploitative third world labor or unilateral military occupations by saying that the people who support these shouldn't be allowed to continue to heavily influence the political process are protesting structural violence. People like you constantly shutting this down is to say that the problems being addressed aren't worth consideration. so in effect you support their continuation by the people who carry these things out. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 02:46 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
"Raising the minimum wage and breaking up the banks won't solve racism. We have to focus on solving racism, we can only do one thing at a time so if everything you're doing isn't solving racism, you're a racist." "Okay so we can finally integrate the schools then?" "Whoa hold on there, no my property values, no my PTA donations they might help poor black people!" 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 02:43
|
|
