Search Results: time to call him

Return to the Land, an ethnonationalist organization, has established a whites-only settlement in Arkansas and plans expansion into Missouri. The members forming this "white people only town" say its to protect benefit and act as a stronghold for the white race of americans in the United states, that they apparently don't see it as being anything bad..

Welll being not white and born in the southern united states, all my life, I never seen how white people honestly anywhere in the south, or in america in general, being oppressed in any way. Historically there's only ever been white people having the lucky upper hand at every point of their life.

Just for a little example let's take the time black people did try and build a successful community. Just 1 state away. In Tulsa Oklahoma, It was called "Black Wall Street" it was made of a community of black owned businesses that actually thrived in the early 1900s. It didn't keep out anyone based solely on their race or LGBT status or beliefs. It was a community that welcomed everyone. But not long after it was seen as being successful. The Tulsa Race Massacre happened in 1921. All because some white residents that lived near it didn't like seeing blacks being able to have a successful self sustained community.

Now a days most Maga would claim this is just woke bullshit that shouldn't be taught in schools. But they're just wrong this is what happened and for some the only way some people would even hear about it is from the history books or a black person that remembers the events happening, even I didn't know about it until I heard it from my dad.

Look what I'm saying is it's not bad to just build a community. But when you actively push out people based solely on their skin, religion, or LGBTor immigrant status then thats just not fair and not right. Frankly it goes against what america has valued for the past 120 years.

But what do you think? Good thing or a bad thing?

Gift article: No paywall

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/28/opinion/supreme-court-emergency-rulings.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Z08.Irh-.kt6JIwxPFdWD&smid=nytcore-android-share

"The credibility of judges depends on their ability to offer public explanation for the legal basis of their decisions. When judges show their work, the public can assess it by the standards the judiciary sets for itself — reasoning grounded in law and judicial precedent. Without that, judges risk their legitimacy. Clear explanation is especially important for the Supreme Court, which sets national rules. When the court fails to make these rules clear, confusion can set in.

The current Supreme Court is creating precisely this problem by issuing many important rulings as brief, unsigned orders on its so-called emergency docket. On this shadow docket, the votes among the nine justices are not public, and the majorities typically offer little explanation for their decisions. Yet the justices have used the emergency docket this year to hand down a series of rulings allowing President Trump to expand executive power and alter the structure of government.

In following this path, the justices are ducking one of their crucial responsibilities: making persuasive public arguments.

The first problem is the lack of explanation, which leaves the public unable to assess the justices’ reasoning and lower courts and policymakers uncertain about the full meaning of the rulings.

The second problem is the perception of Supreme Court partisanship, which the emergency docket exacerbates via speculation & lack of individual accountability.

The third problem is that the Supreme Court is using this docket to make itself more powerful, too, deciding many of the country’s most pressing political questions in real time. This is a power grab, in which the justices reduce the role of lower courts, where judges are more evenly divided between Republican and Democratic appointees than the justices are.