Biden Admin Sued over its Explicitly Racist Loan Program

627 Views | 13 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by JXL
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FIVE PLAINTIFFS FROM FOUR STATES WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL PROGRAM, BUT FOR THEIR RACE
The News: The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the unconstitutional race discrimination in the American Rescue Plan's provision to offer loan forgiveness based on racial categories. WILL filed the lawsuit, Thursday, in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of five plaintiffs from Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Ohio. Each plaintiff would be eligible for the federal loan forgiveness program, but for their race.

https://will-law.org/will-sues-biden-administration-for-race-discrimination-in-farmer-loan-forgiveness-program/
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dumbocrats think that can't be racist. After all, dementia joe is only just trying to help minorities.

Wonder what they would think if he was only trying to help the whities and disqualified everyone else based on color and ethnicity.
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

dumbocrats think that can't be racist. After all, dementia joe is only just trying to help minorities.

Wonder what they would think if he was only trying to help the whities and disqualified everyone else based on color and ethnicity.
I think there are a bunch of current policies that will not stand up to legal scrutiny. It's literally crazy to me that people dont seem to get that you can do something based strictly on race, it's almost like this sort of thing was already legislated.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Over the next 20 years, as the ruling class makes an explicitly anti-white ideological turn, we will start to find out what the 1960s civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation introduced all over the West was actually intended to be about.

Most mainstream people at the time argued it was a general movement to remove race from government decisions, policy, and actions. To create a fair and neutral policy among all citizens.

Some outside the mainstream argued at the time that it was just meant as simply a tactic by the radical left, Marxists, and anti-whites to soften up the Western populations for their eventually overthrow/subjugation. AKA that the civil rights laws would never be used in a situation when it was whites or men who were being discriminated against or hate crimes laws would never be used when it was whites being beating and killed.

Again we are going to find out over the next 20 years if the Supreme Court (the condensed body of the ruling class) means by "no discrimination by race". Is that what the laws actually mean or if whites need not apply for such protections?

Christopher Caldwell's recent book, The Age of Entitlement, outlines how elites have been able to use Civil Rights precedents where laws are decided in courts rather than by elected representatives and referendum to radically transform American society by in many cases overruling the US Constitution and the will of the people.

We will find out if the elite intend to use those precedents to create a race neutral state or one where whites are driven into becoming 2nd class citizens.

bularry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nein51 said:

Rawhide said:

dumbocrats think that can't be racist. After all, dementia joe is only just trying to help minorities.

Wonder what they would think if he was only trying to help the whities and disqualified everyone else based on color and ethnicity.
I think there are a bunch of current policies that will not stand up to legal scrutiny. It's literally crazy to me that people dont seem to get that you can do something based strictly on race, it's almost like this sort of thing was already legislated.
in this case, there are many historical examples of race being used against black farmers for loans, etc. This law is an effort to correct some of that...

I don't see why that rubs people so wrong. It isn't hurting anyone, it is helping people where it is proven they have suffered harm.

bularry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Over the next 20 years, as the ruling class makes an explicitly anti-white ideological turn, we will start to find out what the 1960s civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation introduced all over the West was actually intended to be about.

Most mainstream people at the time argued it was a general movement to remove race from government decisions, policy, and actions. To create a fair and neutral policy among all citizens.

Some outside the mainstream argued at the time that it was just meant as simply a tactic by the radical left, Marxists, and anti-whites to soften up the Western populations for their eventually overthrow/subjugation. AKA that the civil rights laws would never be used in a situation when it was whites or men who were being discriminated against or hate crimes laws would never be used when it was whites being beating and killed.

Again we are going to find out over the next 20 years if the Supreme Court (the condensed body of the ruling class) means by "no discrimination by race". Is that what the laws actual mean or if whites need not apply for such protections?

Christopher Caldwell's recent book, The Age of Entitlement, outlines how elites have been able to use Civil Rights precedents where laws are decided in courts rather than by elected representatives and referendum to radically transform American society by in many cases overruling the US Constitution and the will of the people.

We will find out if the elite intend to use those precedents to create a race neutral state or one where whites are driving into becoming 2nd class citizens.


we are a long, long, long way away from whites becoming 2nd class citizens. Where this paranoia comes from I have no idea...

read this to yourself "Some outside the mainstream argued at the time that it was just meant as simply a tactic by the radical left, Marxists, and anti-whites to soften up the Western populations for their eventually overthrow/subjugation" that sounds like the ravings of some manifesto of a guy that blows up a mosque or jewish temple.

who are "anti-whites"?? You just make up lables. It is really remarkable.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bularry said:



we are a long, long, long way away from whites becoming 2nd class citizens. Where this paranoia comes from I have no idea...

read this to yourself "Some outside the mainstream argued at the time that it was just meant as simply a tactic by the radical left, Marxists, and anti-whites to soften up the Western populations for their eventually overthrow/subjugation" that sounds like the ravings of some manifesto of a guy that blows up a mosque or jewish temple.

who are "anti-whites"?? You just make up lables. It is really remarkable.
Again I did not invent the term "anti-white", I am simply describing arguments that were made.

I would imagine that those who describe themselves as "anti-white" would be the people you need to speak with if you have a problem with the term.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jun/25/abolish-whiteness-academic-calls-for-cambridge-support

[Priyamvada Gopal tweeted on Tuesday: "White lives don't matter. As white lives" and "Abolish whiteness"]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/postscript/noel-ignatievs-long-fight-against-whiteness

[Noel Ignatiev, a historian known for his work on race and class and his call to abolish "the white race," died at Banner-University Medical Center Tucson on Saturday. He was 78.

So don't come at me for a description of a term I did not invent or advocate for.

I certainly hope the elite of this country is satisfied with a race neutral government and policies. That is the only way to peace and certainly the only moral standard for a society to adhere to.

Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bularry said:

nein51 said:

Rawhide said:

dumbocrats think that can't be racist. After all, dementia joe is only just trying to help minorities.

Wonder what they would think if he was only trying to help the whities and disqualified everyone else based on color and ethnicity.
I think there are a bunch of current policies that will not stand up to legal scrutiny. It's literally crazy to me that people dont seem to get that you can do something based strictly on race, it's almost like this sort of thing was already legislated.
in this case, there are many historical examples of race being used against black farmers for loans, etc. This law is an effort to correct some of that...

I don't see why that rubs people so wrong. It isn't hurting anyone, it is helping people where it is proven they have suffered harm.


If you are advocating that some farmers get money and other farmers not get money based on their race....then you are a racist period.

If you advocate that some people get into med school or get jobs because of their race while others are denied those spots based on their race...then you are a racist period.

If you advocate racist policies bularry you are a racist straight up.
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bularry said:

Redbrickbear said:

Over the next 20 years, as the ruling class makes an explicitly anti-white ideological turn, we will start to find out what the 1960s civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation introduced all over the West was actually intended to be about.

Most mainstream people at the time argued it was a general movement to remove race from government decisions, policy, and actions. To create a fair and neutral policy among all citizens.

Some outside the mainstream argued at the time that it was just meant as simply a tactic by the radical left, Marxists, and anti-whites to soften up the Western populations for their eventually overthrow/subjugation. AKA that the civil rights laws would never be used in a situation when it was whites or men who were being discriminated against or hate crimes laws would never be used when it was whites being beating and killed.

Again we are going to find out over the next 20 years if the Supreme Court (the condensed body of the ruling class) means by "no discrimination by race". Is that what the laws actual mean or if whites need not apply for such protections?

Christopher Caldwell's recent book, The Age of Entitlement, outlines how elites have been able to use Civil Rights precedents where laws are decided in courts rather than by elected representatives and referendum to radically transform American society by in many cases overruling the US Constitution and the will of the people.

We will find out if the elite intend to use those precedents to create a race neutral state or one where whites are driving into becoming 2nd class citizens.


we are a long, long, long way away from whites becoming 2nd class citizens. Where this paranoia comes from I have no idea...

read this to yourself "Some outside the mainstream argued at the time that it was just meant as simply a tactic by the radical left, Marxists, and anti-whites to soften up the Western populations for their eventually overthrow/subjugation" that sounds like the ravings of some manifesto of a guy that blows up a mosque or jewish temple.

who are "anti-whites"?? You just make up lables. It is really remarkable.
The anti whites are all over twitter. Bashing white people is now en vogue on social media and in the MSM. Just go to the thread on twitter currently about the Eyes of Texas. There you can read dozens of posts by millennial libs telling white men to shut up bc their opinions about a song don't matter bc white people don't get to have an opinion. Or you could go read the NYT editor Sarah Jeongs opinions of whites or really any journalist at any MSM outlet.
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bularry said:

nein51 said:

Rawhide said:

dumbocrats think that can't be racist. After all, dementia joe is only just trying to help minorities.

Wonder what they would think if he was only trying to help the whities and disqualified everyone else based on color and ethnicity.
I think there are a bunch of current policies that will not stand up to legal scrutiny. It's literally crazy to me that people dont seem to get that you can do something based strictly on race, it's almost like this sort of thing was already legislated.
in this case, there are many historical examples of race being used against black farmers for loans, etc. This law is an effort to correct some of that...

I don't see why that rubs people so wrong. It isn't hurting anyone, it is helping people where it is proven they have suffered harm.
Solving racism with racism is not going to solve much of anything.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bularry said:

nein51 said:

Rawhide said:

dumbocrats think that can't be racist. After all, dementia joe is only just trying to help minorities.

Wonder what they would think if he was only trying to help the whities and disqualified everyone else based on color and ethnicity.
I think there are a bunch of current policies that will not stand up to legal scrutiny. It's literally crazy to me that people dont seem to get that you can do something based strictly on race, it's almost like this sort of thing was already legislated.
in this case, there are many historical examples of race being used against black farmers for loans, etc. This law is an effort to correct some of that...

I don't see why that rubs people so wrong. It isn't hurting anyone, it is helping people where it is proven they have suffered harm.



I rarely say this RebelT quote but ......

You, like he, are an idiot!

100% certifiable fool and idiot!

Racist idiot too!
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More from the Idiocracy crowd!

Thanks again you racist
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bularry said:

nein51 said:

Rawhide said:

dumbocrats think that can't be racist. After all, dementia joe is only just trying to help minorities.

Wonder what they would think if he was only trying to help the whities and disqualified everyone else based on color and ethnicity.
I think there are a bunch of current policies that will not stand up to legal scrutiny. It's literally crazy to me that people dont seem to get that you can do something based strictly on race, it's almost like this sort of thing was already legislated.
in this case, there are many historical examples of race being used against black farmers for loans, etc. This law is an effort to correct some of that...

I don't see why that rubs people so wrong. It isn't hurting anyone, it is helping people where it is proven they have suffered harm.


I am confused, these people who are suing clearly met the need and show that they were being harmed but were denied based on their race, that's not right

There is no possible argument where you can say that denying something based on their race is right
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bularry said:

nein51 said:

Rawhide said:

dumbocrats think that can't be racist. After all, dementia joe is only just trying to help minorities.

Wonder what they would think if he was only trying to help the whities and disqualified everyone else based on color and ethnicity.
I think there are a bunch of current policies that will not stand up to legal scrutiny. It's literally crazy to me that people dont seem to get that you can do something based strictly on race, it's almost like this sort of thing was already legislated.
in this case, there are many historical examples of race being used against black farmers for loans, etc. This law is an effort to correct some of that...

I don't see why that rubs people so wrong. It isn't hurting anyone, it is helping people where it is proven they have suffered harm.




When will the use of race against the white farmers be corrected?
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.