Never trust Yankees

[Geeko Sportivo]

That America is an evil place. That's what theyre teaching.

That seems to be what you are preaching!

 

[Yakuda]

That seems to be what you are preaching!

Then you obviously can't read you fucking moron

 

[Minister of Truth]

Many reasons. #1, as you just displayed, is elitism through birth.

Being better is a choice, not a birthright.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Being better is a choice, not a birthright.

It should fascinate everyone on JPP that you think Down Syndrome or Hemophilia is a choice, but I'm sure you have your reasons.

 

[Jack]

As shown below, the Bluebellies of the United States government have broken over 368 treaties with Natives Americans.

Not wanting to be "judgy"** here or get into physiological differences, just pointing out a psychological Yin-Yang mindset that differentiated how the Yankees negotiated with Native Americans, Democrats with Republicans and Women with Men.

In general, the Yankees negotiated treaties with Native Americans until it was no longer convenient for the Yankees and so they forced a renegotiation or else.

This is the main reason why I don't trust Democrats when it comes to Nanny State laws. Like Yankees with Native Americans, they take and agree then take and agree again when it suits them.

An example would be the Yankees saying "This river will mark the line between our peoples. All that is on your side of the river will be yours for a long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and the wind blows."

Whatever tribe was being forced to bend the knee would agree to do so. Some would fight, called "renegade indians", rather than submit to a clear violation of trust, but they'd quickly be killed.

In the end, the Yankees won, have always won and they continue force those who disagree to bend the knee or else.

https://www.history.com/news/native-american-broken-treaties
From 1778 to 1871, the United States signed some 368 treaties with various Indigenous people across the North American continent.

**new word taught to me by Dark Soul/China Joe.

Praise Jesus the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese never engaged in any of these shenanigans.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Praise Jesus the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese never engaged in any of these shenanigans.

Which comes close to the history of "Six Flags over Texas"!


As mentioned before, there's a Yin-Yang ideology going on with human beings, especially balancing the needs of the many versus the needs of the few.

IMO, it comes down to energy and resources. Human beings need room to grow....or some will become very upset. LOL

 

[Jack]

Which comes close to the history of "Six Flags over Texas"!


As mentioned before, there's a Yin-Yang ideology going on with human beings, especially balancing the needs of the many versus the needs of the few.

IMO, it comes down to energy and resources. Human beings need room to grow....or some will become very upset. LOL

"Big Fish Eat Little Fish"
https://www.artic.edu/artworks/233437/big-fish-eat-little-fish

"In the foreground, a man directs a child’s gaze toward the scene, telling him to “behold” (ecce) the proverbial truth on display."

 

[Minister of Truth]

It should fascinate everyone on JPP that you think Down Syndrome or Hemophilia is a choice, but I'm sure you have your reasons.

Do you think having medical conditions makes someone less virtuous or worthy?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Do you think having medical conditions makes someone less virtuous or worthy?

No. Do you?

 

[Minister of Truth]

No. Do you?

Your denial does not comport with your previous post.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Your denial does not comport with your previous post.

How so?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Being better is a choice, not a birthright.

It should fascinate everyone on JPP that you think Down Syndrome or Hemophilia is a choice, but I'm sure you have your reasons.

Do you think having medical conditions makes someone less virtuous or worthy?

No. Do you?

Your denial does not comport with your previous post.

How so?

Try reading the transcript and see if you can figure it out.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Try reading the transcript and see if you can figure it out.

You must be using better mushrooms than I am because I still can't see it.

 

[Minister of Truth]

You must be using better mushrooms than I am because I still can't see it.

I can't cure your illiteracy, southern man.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I can't cure your illiteracy, southern man.

I doubt you can cure your own acne, kid.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

The Yankees don't play the Indians until April 22, Oom.

Bluebellies and Graybacks are pretty much all dead and thus won't be attending the game.

Have you any comments to offer that make any sense?

My high school wants to know.

he's trying to invent reasons to be anti dem that critical race theory based. even though their obvious selling out to china is already a good case, that doesn't work for dutch uncle, because he also loves globalism zealotry.

he's perpetuating the stupidity of the false dichotomy two party system.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

he's trying to invent reasons to be anti dem that critical race theory based. even though their obvious selling out to china is already a good case, that doesn't work for dutch uncle, because he also loves globalism zealotry.

More proof you never graduated HS. Sad.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

More proof you never graduated HS. Sad.

sorry to shit on your project, but it's sub par.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

sorry to shit on your project, but it's sub par.

That's all you can do, isn't it, son? Just shit on things because your life is just one big shitstorm and you have plenty to spread around?

The fact remains the "critical race theory" is pure bullshit but you keep pushing it. Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Criticism
Critics including George Will see resonances between CRT's use of storytelling and insistence that race poses challenges to objective judgments in the U.S., as exemplified by the acquittal of O. J. Simpson.[47][1][verification needed] Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry argue that CRT lacks supporting evidence, relies on an implausible belief that reality is socially constructed, rejects evidence in favor of storytelling, rejects the concepts of truth and merit as expressions of political dominance, and rejects the rule of law. Additionally, they posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications.[48][49][8]:9–11, 58 In particular, they suggest that the success of Jews and Asians within what CRT theorists argue is a structurally unfair system may lend itself to allegations of cheating, advantage-taking, or other such claims.[50] A series of responses to Farber and Sherry was published in the Harvard Law Review.[50] These responses argue that there is a difference between criticizing an unfair system and criticizing individuals who perform well inside of that system.[50][8] In the Boston College Law Review, Jeffrey Pyle argues that CRT undermines confidence in the rule of law, saying that "critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law."[51]

By jurists
Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals argues that critical race theory "turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative," and that "by repudiating reasoned argumentation, (critical race theorists) reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites.[9]

Former Judge Alex Kozinski, who served on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, criticizes critical race theorists for raising "insuperable barriers to mutual understanding" and thus eliminating opportunities for "meaningful dialogue."[52]

Controversies
Critical race theory has stirred controversy in the US since the 1980s over such issues as:[1]

• Deviation from the ideal of color blindness;
• Promotion of the use of narrative in legal studies;
• Advocacy of "legal instrumentalism" as opposed to ideal-driven uses of the law;
• Analysis of the U.S. Constitution and existing law as constructed according to and perpetuating racial power;
• Encouraging legal scholars to promote racial equity

.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

That's all you can do, isn't it, son? Just shit on things because your life is just one big shitstorm and you have plenty to spread around?

The fact remains the "critical race theory" is pure bullshit but you keep pushing it. Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Criticism
Critics including George Will see resonances between CRT's use of storytelling and insistence that race poses challenges to objective judgments in the U.S., as exemplified by the acquittal of O. J. Simpson.[47][1][verification needed] Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry argue that CRT lacks supporting evidence, relies on an implausible belief that reality is socially constructed, rejects evidence in favor of storytelling, rejects the concepts of truth and merit as expressions of political dominance, and rejects the rule of law. Additionally, they posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications.[48][49][8]:9–11, 58 In particular, they suggest that the success of Jews and Asians within what CRT theorists argue is a structurally unfair system may lend itself to allegations of cheating, advantage-taking, or other such claims.[50] A series of responses to Farber and Sherry was published in the Harvard Law Review.[50] These responses argue that there is a difference between criticizing an unfair system and criticizing individuals who perform well inside of that system.[50][8] In the Boston College Law Review, Jeffrey Pyle argues that CRT undermines confidence in the rule of law, saying that "critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law."[51]

By jurists
Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals argues that critical race theory "turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative," and that "by repudiating reasoned argumentation, (critical race theorists) reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites.[9]

Former Judge Alex Kozinski, who served on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, criticizes critical race theorists for raising "insuperable barriers to mutual understanding" and thus eliminating opportunities for "meaningful dialogue."[52]

Controversies
Critical race theory has stirred controversy in the US since the 1980s over such issues as:[1]

• Deviation from the ideal of color blindness;
• Promotion of the use of narrative in legal studies;
• Advocacy of "legal instrumentalism" as opposed to ideal-driven uses of the law;
• Analysis of the U.S. Constitution and existing law as constructed according to and perpetuating racial power;
• Encouraging legal scholars to promote racial equity

.

I don't believe critical race theory is accurate. stop lying, dickbar.

native americans were equally screwed over by everyone. you're trying trying to inflame regional division, like idiot the night was the other day, also on behalf of china. you both love china and hate america.