HeloDude

No, no…you have it all wrong. This is to help out minorities, per the article below. If you don’t support the measure, then clearly you’re against helping minorities achieve home ownership. "Why was this done? The answer is simple, it was to try to narrow the gap in access to credit, especially for minority home buyers who often have lower down payments and lower credit scores," Stevens said. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/biden-rule-will-redistribute-high-risk-loan-costs-to-homeowners-with-good-credit/ar-AA1a4tTx

Sounds also quite a bit like the leftists these days.

Sounds like the federal government…except it doesn’t ask for money, it takes it at the barrel of a gun…and it wants far more than 10%.

I appreciate your honesty that Prozac wouldn’t provide. I wonder, do you tell your Christian friends (if you have any of them?) that you believe they’re same as Muslim extremists? If so, why not? Also, why would ever have any type of relationship with someone you believe is the same as a Muslim extremist? Additionally, why should Christians want to be friends with you if you think they’re the same as Muslim extremists?

You think Liberty University is the same as Muslim extremists—got it.

Since it’s been two weeks with still no response, I’ll ask you again: Are there any Democrats in the House or Senate who you would label an “extremist”, and if so, who are they?

Swing and a miss pal. You intentionally brought up Liberty University and then used Muslim “extremists” as a comparison.

Funny how you mention Liberty University wrt saying gay marriage is a sin…and then using a comparison have to say Muslim “extremists”…not once, but twice. Why couldn’t you have just said Muslims? Or is Liberty University the same as Muslim “extremists” in your mind?

Wait…so you’re saying that the media being upset with a religious organization for its values is valid if that religious organization is large and has influence…but if there’s another major (but smaller) religious organization doing similar (or worse) things, that it’s ok for that same media to not call them out because they have less influence? Dude, I know you’re a progressive and you’re not very pro-religion, but you’re either intentionally being obtuse about this, or we’ll just never see eye on it because our values and opinions are quite different. Either way, it is what it is.

Are you suggesting that Muslims in Middle East are worse towards LBTQ folks than Christians in the US? You’re really reaching here, even for you.

Check this out…

Do you want examples because you disagree that this happens?

But to answer your question, the bias is that it’s more acceptable in the media to be easier on non-Christian religions/leaders when they screw up vs not. Example—how often is it reported about how Christian denominations are against LGBT-whatever, abortions, gay marriage, etc compared to how often it’s reported how the Muslim faith sees those same issues.

Wait…so then what is media bias if it’s not reporting what your viewers want to see?

By your logic, there is zero media bias as they’re all just selling advertising. Or…bias means that they only cover what their viewers want to see?

No worries man, I was just posting for sake of conversation. Best of luck and hope it all works out well for you and your family.

A little confused here… From what you wrote, I interpret that you didn’t do your (what I assume) ACSC correspondence, you believe that you would have made O-5 (I assume that’s what you got passed over for) if you would have done your correspondence, you have a bonus (assume) and took continuation which prevents you from getting out of your bonus earlier…but you’re also hoping to be able to retire earlier under TERA? If this is all true, then why didn’t you do your ACSC correspondence and/or why didn’t you just decline continuation to get out of your bonus (which I assume you took)? I know you said this “may have been done purposely”…but I have yet to meet anyone who wanted to do 20 years in the AF and who would rather retire as a Major than a Lt Col. By the way, from my vantage point, very few people that make Lt Col, and are not in the top 1/3 of selects, get non-vol’d to become commanders and/or get staff jobs since the priority is to fill cockpits. Unless something has changed quite a bit recently? I know that I offer a lot of assumptions on my part, but it’s what I gathered from your post.

Oh it is 100% media bias. If you think the media only reports (and to what level) on what the country finds “interesting”, then we’ll just have to disagree.

Thanks for confirming the bias in the media! For what it’s worth, I’m not a Catholic.

That’s exactly my point…the media will provide more coverage if the pope did what the Dalai Lama did…so why is that?

Got it—bias. We should judge individuals on their actions, not on the actions of others.

Are you suggesting because of what some priests did that makes what the Dalai Lama did ok? This was in the news for one day at the most and that was it. I’m sure if the Pope did the same thing it would have been in the news for more than a day…

Appreciate the responses, but my post was in response to Pooter saying that people vote on party lines and when they don’t, they vote on candidate personality. A California Dem primary is already composed of Dems (so no party line vote), so are Dems in California saying Kamala and Newson were picked in their primaries because of their respective personalities were the best available?

If Kamala or Gavin are so bad, then why were they able to win their Dem primaries in California?

If this dude transitions to a female then precedent shows that a Democrat President will commute his sentence.