We don't need no educashun...

LoL ok.

 

Then I will go with 80% of things are subjective.

 

Yeah too late. You already revealed yourself.

 

As?

 

Being accidentally honest.

 

It doesn't.

The term genocide is seldom used by its advocates. Exactly what are they advocating? Are they advocating genocide by name and deed? Advocating genocide is against the law on and off university grounds.

 

'This Is Definitely Plagiarism': Harvard President Claudine Gay Copied Others' Work Without Attribution

'This is Definitely Plagiarism': Harvard University President Claudine Gay Copied Entire Paragraphs From Others’ Academic Work and Claimed Them as Her Own.'


President of Harvard, sure misusing pronouns is an act of violence, surrounding Jewish students and threatening genocide, she's less sure about.

Are anti-plagiarism rules of the White Power structure to keep the oppressed down?

'Harvard University president Claudine Gay plagiarized numerous academics over the course of her academic career, at times airlifting entire paragraphs and claiming them as her own work, according to reviews by several scholars.'

'In four papers published between 1993 and 2017, including her doctoral dissertation, Gay, a political scientist, paraphrased or quoted nearly 20 authors—including two of her colleagues in Harvard University’s department of government—without proper attribution, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.'

'The Free Beacon worked with nearly a dozen scholars to analyze 29 potential cases of plagiarism. Most of them said that Gay had violated a core principle of academic integrity as well as Harvard’s own anti-plagiarism policies, which state that "it's not enough to change a few words here and there."''

'Rather, scholars are expected to cite the sources of their work, including when paraphrasing, and to use quotation marks when quoting directly from others. But in at least 10 instances, Gay lifted full sentences—even entire paragraphs—with just a word or two tweaked.'

 

Donald Trump is charged with 91 felonies in four criminal indictments, and has been found guilty of fraud in a New York civil case.

Do Republican voters know that?

"President Trump famously declared during his 2016 campaign that he loved the “poorly educated” because voters with lower levels of schooling delivered an overwhelming share of votes to him," the conservative Washington Times."

Iowa is farm state. Trump dominates in rural counties. https://inthesetimes.com/article/20...ulism-peoples-action-win-rural-america-report

It would appear that the Iowa voters did not know that.

Or, they know it, and they don't care. For those voters, the President of their choice is accused of 91 federal crimes. It's Biden's fault.

The Times reports, "Multiple Republicans have ended their presidential campaigns over the past two months, narrowing the field against former President Donald J. Trump — but the only person who has gained much ground in the first voting state is Mr. Trump, according to a new poll.

"Mr. Trump has the support of 51 percent of likely caucusgoers in a Des Moines Register/NBC News/Mediacom Iowa Poll released Monday, up from 43 percent in the last Iowa Poll from October."

It gets worse for our President.

CNN reports, "Former President Donald Trump has the upper hand over President Joe Biden in two critical battleground states – Michigan and Georgia – with broad majorities in both states holding negative views of the sitting president’s job performance, policy positions and sharpness, according to new CNN polls conducted by SSRS.

"In Georgia, a state Biden carried by a very narrow margin in 2020, registered voters say they prefer Trump (49%) over Biden (44%) for the presidency in a two-way hypothetical matchup. In Michigan, which Biden won by a wider margin."

Why do Republican voters favor a potential felon for President? We will never know for two reasons.

Republican voters seemingly do not have the ability to respond to issues, as this thread shows. Except for reports on the recent polls shown here, Republicans do not have a thread concerning the issues involving Trump or their party. There is an abundance of such issues.

The second reason is supposition based on an overwhelming amount of evidence. Republicans tend to avoid reality. Republicans avoid this thread. Republicans avoid respected news sources such as ABC, CBS, NBC, AP, Reuters, and the like. Because Trump is their overwhelming favorite, one can easily assume that Iowa farmers supporting Trump do not know Trump is charged with 91 felonies in four criminal indictments. Farming and running small, local stores is a tough living. They don't have time for the six-o-clock news.

As far this thread is concerned, I can ask, where are the Republicans?

It can be said that I am somewhat critical of their choice for President and their party's activities. Republicans never defend their choice for President or their party.

Where are they?

 

The union is there to make sure the teacher gets a fair hearing from the employer. That doesn't mean "anything goes."

Barak is expressing a view held by many Israelis. No, I don't Barak is lining up for Netanyahu's job.

What does this have to do with Barak suggesting Netanyahu work with the PA?

Of course, they do. We all have to explain our actions.

Supported in what way?

 

Your point is what?

 

Supporting a terrorist organization whose stated goal is to kill all Jews is definitely a call for genocide.

 

I used the term "allegedly" because everyone, at least in civilized countries, is innocent until proven guilty. Not because I was trying to defend Gay. Newspapers, even the most ethical and reliable among them, are not courts of law.

The surprise in my link is Carol Swain's statement on X. She seems to think that the system itself - DEI and affirmative action - are the real culprit, and people like Gay are victims of this system. Not sure about the "victim" part, but it seems that DEI will soon go the way of affirmative action.

 

Now, it's extensively plagiarized? Why, she damn near copies most of an article and puts it on a debate website. That would be real low, wouldn't it?

 

This what Bing says about Hamas' attitude toward Jews:

"Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, has a complex history and its stance has evolved over time. The original 1988 charter of Hamas contained anti-Semitic language and called for the destruction of Israel to establish an Islamic Palestinian state in its place. It also included claims that Jews control the global media and explicitly demanded their deaths.

However, in 2017, Hamas issued a new document that distanced itself from some of the anti-Semitic language of the 1988 charter. The updated platform stated that its fight was against the “racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist” Zionist project, Israel, but not against Judaism or Jews. This suggests a shift from targeting Jews as a religious group to focusing on the political conflict with Israel."​

Hamas doesn't advocate killing all Jews.

 

We'll we won't take someone's assets or freedoms without adjudication, but, I'm not adjudicating this, I'm not taking any of her assets or freedoms, so I'm perfectly free to declare her guilty as she obviously is. I certainly understand and respect your choice not to, as well.

 

Oh, so Hamas wants to kill only the 7,000,000 Israelis Jews. Phew, what a relief!

Hamas is a terrorist organization, following the same jihadist ideology as Al Qaeda and ISIS. But sure, you're free to believe whatever they tell you, ignore everything they have done so far, be completely oblivious to the statements of their leaders, and blame everything on Israel. We're used to it.

 

Like my father's Greek buddy who used to salt his language with "stick a Turk?"

If you understand propaganda, you'd know talk about guilt and "white privilege" grows out of racism in our society and how leftwingers have organized their political action. It's not about Soviet propaganda from 30+ years ago.

 

They're organizing politically, not developing a strategy around killing 7m Israelis. If you don't understand their politics, you don't appreciate their objectives.

No, they're not like ISIL.

What? Who says I believe Hamas' propaganda? BS claim #1.

BS claim #2.

BS claim #3.

BS claim #4.

Four whoppers in one sentence.

You're used to believing propaganda you're being fed.

You can't effectively fight what you don't understand.

 

Pisa is one of those spreading false propaganda

 

I understand that, but I gave Germany, France, Britain, and Belgium. The Europeans, Western Europeans, were the first to say "white race" after they discovered Africa and Africa eventually became one big colonial continent among the European powers of those four nations. Portugal, Spain, England, and France primarily colonized the Americas. Spain, Portugal, Britain, France, and Belgium did some parts of Asia, but not all of it thank god. It was the foundation of the infamous Boxer Rebellion in the last days of the Qing Dynasty. At that time, we were unofficially a colonial power but used colonial idealogy in the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico.

Second, I am well aware they have been enslaved by Arabs, but that is not the point. However, slavery by Arabs was more of a conquered nation than anything else. It was not based on race, it was based on war, totally different, and the slaves were captured soldiers mostly, not anyone or everyone. And yes they were sold and once a slave always a slave. But if the Arabs conquered a nation, and the person did not fight, say a young girl or boy, with their mother, then they were technically free under the rule. Slavery in the US was strictly based on race. Blacks in the US Constitution counted 3/5 of the total population of slave states. They were not US Citizens, no rights whatsoever until the 13th and 14th Amendments came along. I think what you need to look at is Saladin, not even he made slaves of Christians. They were made "second class citizens" if they lived within Salidin's territory, but he did allow freedom of religion to some extent, not like what the Taliban or Iran says government-wise. There is a huge difference in how we viewed slaves, strictly by race, and how Arabs viewed slaves, as consequences of war.

Soviet propaganda made us look decadent, without morals, especially with rock n roll, our belief in the bourgeoisie, the ruling class against the working class, the proletariat, and race relations was piss poor in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, which is why the Soviets focused their propaganda on the fringes of society, among the poor people, homeless, minorities, etc. Education-wise, their history books said they won the war, WW2. or as the Soviets called it, the Great Patriotic War, and had had "little help" from others, if mentioned at all, giving all praise and glory to Stalin, among other things. Their view of history, even world history, is through a kaleidoscope, a rose-covered lense, with Soviet political doctrine incorporated in every phase of their education. So, yeah, I am well aware.

 

I understand that, but I gave Germany, France, Britain, and Belgium. The Europeans, Western Europeans, were the first to say "white race" after they discovered Africa and Africa eventually became one big colonial continent among the European powers of those four nations. Portugal, Spain, England, and France primarily colonized the Americas. Spain, Portugal, Britain, France, and Belgium did some parts of Asia, but not all of it thank god. It was the foundation of the infamous Boxer Rebellion in the last days of the Qing Dynasty. At that time, we were unofficially a colonial power but used colonial idealogy in the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico.

Second, I am well aware they have been enslaved by Arabs, but that is not the point. However, slavery by Arabs was more of a conquered nation than anything else. It was not based on race, it was based on war, totally different, and the slaves were captured soldiers mostly, not anyone or everyone. And yes they were sold and once a slave always a slave. But if the Arabs conquered a nation, and the person did not fight, say a young girl or boy, with their mother, then they were technically free under the rule. Slavery in the US was strictly based on race. Blacks in the US Constitution counted 3/5 of the total population of slave states. They were not US Citizens, no rights whatsoever until the 13th and 14th Amendments came along. I think what you need to look at is Saladin, not even he made slaves of Christians. They were made "second class citizens" if they lived within Salidin's territory, but he did allow freedom of religion to some extent, not like what the Taliban or Iran says government-wise. There is a huge difference in how we viewed slaves, strictly by race, and how Arabs viewed slaves, as consequences of war.

Soviet propaganda made us look decadant, without morals, especially with rock n roll, our belief in the proletariat, the ruling class, race relations was piss poor in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, which is why the Soviets focused their propoganda on the fringes of society, that we had inequality back then, even poor people, homeless, etc,

 

Actually, it's your claim that does that.

 

But it's getting worse:

 

I think claims of indoctrination are not exaggerated at all. There are many examples of brainwashing of young children by the left. Hell, look at Florida's so called "Don't say gay" law. It was only geared toward those in third grade and younger. Republicans themselves didn't make the law for anyone from the fourth grade on and yet leftists screamed bloody murder that they couldn't teach children younger than the fourth grade about gayness and sexuality.

 

Yes, it is. I said revisionist or ideologue history has no place in any school meaning it doesn't belong there. I did not say it wasn't there anyway........ in spades.