|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 20, 2021 7:47:23 GMT
Wasn’t it you quoting individual teachers to infer that there are large groups of furious public school teachers opposing CRT? People who live in glass peapods… What did I restate into some version that no longer resembles anything close to what was said in reality in order to argue with the non reality version? Pretty much most of what you post. Peas know EXACTLY who you are and your MO. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 20, 2021 7:44:25 GMT
You clearly know NOTHING about me. That’s a pretty strong accusation based on a few posts. Well what you’re displaying… is what we see. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 20, 2021 7:42:27 GMT
Hopefully there will be a civil suit. Even when OJ was found not guilty, the family destroyed him in the civil suits. (So there’s hope he’s punished for killing) |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 20, 2021 7:41:27 GMT
Still looking for that laugh emoji. Can you point it out to me please? managed to say she agreed with the verdict without stomping on those who see this is a travesty of justice.  Great catch!!!! And chi Doha forgot her “bullshit fucking bullshit” post. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 20, 2021 7:37:53 GMT
Yeah, I stand by it. Decent people are upset by this decision. Only magats like you think justice is being served here. The thing is, justice was served. The jury said so. This decent person knows justice was served. Celebrating killers. Wow. You must have a different dictionary because that definitely not the definition of decent. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 20, 2021 7:35:57 GMT
And are profoundly biased in the favor of white Americans, particularly straight white men. Bullshit. Bull fucking shit!! Any I hope Kyle sues the living shit out of the so-called media. Sorry sweetie, but nope. What she wrote is true. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 20, 2021 7:34:09 GMT
I expected no less, so I’m not particularly shocked. With the amount of people convinced he’s a admirable patriot, I was afraid for what might happen today if he was found guilty. Now I’m just concerned that wholesale vigilantism in the name of white grievance has been enabled and rewarded. It already is… |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 20, 2021 7:32:47 GMT
I'm going to assume you're referring to the CNN article Don't assume. Read. According to CNN her office is a dysfunctional operation. That certainly speaks to not doing the job very well. You assumed. CNN was as vague and ambiguous as you are being. They had no specifics either, just an opinion and no evidence..looks like nothing more than gossip. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 20, 2021 7:30:09 GMT
Again so many falsehoods, partial truths, spin and exaggeration. Not a lot of actual evidence. When have Biden and Harris ever publicly criticized or blamed each other during his presidency? She is not solely responsible for problems at the border. Nor is this administration solely responsible. Every administration, including the Obama one kicked the can down the road and Congress has failed to pass any immigration laws. President Obama, to his credit, did create DACA but it was only intended as a temporary measure until Congress could pass the Dream Act or something similar. Many of the current problems are a direct result of the previous administration, including the cancelation of critical aid to Central American countries and a failure to plan for a surge of migrants in the spring. Going to the border does not solve the problem, it's just a photo op for Republicans. This administration and the VP are not solely responsible for Afghanistan. VP Harris was the last person in the room when the decision was made to withdraw from Afghanistan back in April. The decision was one they were forced into by the previous administration. Some of the Americans in Afghanistan are not ready to come to the US. The US Embassy is continuing to work on getting people out, they have not abandoned anyone. When have Biden and Harris ever publicly criticized or blamed each other during his presidency? Again, read what I ACTUALLY wrote. I never said they PUBLICLY criticized each other. What I said was: You took the time to bold it and quote it, did you bother to read it? So aj2hall was right…you were just stating your opinion and feelings |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 20, 2021 7:28:40 GMT
Aside from your opinion and assertion with zero evidence that's she's not doing well and low poll numbers, what evidence did you provide? Sorry, your opinion and a general statement is not evidence. I have no reason to believe THIS particular woman would do any better as the president. I have reason to believe THIS particular woman might do better as the president. I have several reasons for my opinion, and would have shared them if you'd shared your reasoning - other than "low poll numbers" Aside from your opinion and assertion with zero evidence that's she's not doing well and low poll numbers, what evidence did you provide? Sorry, your opinion and a general statement is not evidence. I know you're obsessed with evidence, but the conversation was about our reasoning not "evidence". Meaning—she’s got no evidence…just her opinion!!! |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 19, 2021 18:22:02 GMT
No surprise here.
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 19, 2021 12:25:30 GMT
Just because someone has an advantage that someone else doesn't have, doesn't mean they don't also have disadvantages. Maybe even big disadvantages. Read the question you quoted. Can you logically answer it? Are you saying that all disadvantages are equal? What is a little disadvantage? What is a big disadvantage? Do you decide the difference on what is a big disadvantage vs a little one? That is sure what it sounds like here. Me having divorced parents is nothing like experiencing racism or discrimination based on someone's skin color. Do you feel differently on that? I’d not bother. She is clearly saying that people of color are not being discriminated against because of race—that it has to be something else. She’s clearly and purposefully ignoring the systemic racism that has continued to happen today. It is that “pull yourself up by the bootstraps-stop whining about your color” bullshit mantra that republicans are pushing. She gaslighting. She’s attempting to do it subtly, but it’s there. It’s dangerous rhetoric she’s spewing. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 19, 2021 2:07:20 GMT
Because the color of your skin is a disadvantage that you're born with. It's a disadvantage that affects you every single day of your life. And its not something you can overcome like poverty, a single parent etc. I posted this before but seriously, please look at this. It's worth your time. graphics.reuters.com/GLOBAL-RACE/USA/nmopajawjva/No, not all of us have disadvantages. There are many middle class and wealthy whites, especially men that do not have disadvantages. At least recognize their privilege. Just because someone has an advantage that someone else doesn't have, doesn't mean they don't also have disadvantages. Maybe even big disadvantages. Read the question you quoted. Can you logically answer it? Convenient that you’re choosing to ignore the systemic racism that goes on today, and what republicans are doing to further it. You are whitewashing. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 18, 2021 9:04:49 GMT
They’ll obstruct every a Democrat proposes, then reap credit when it passes.
This should be loud and clear just who republicans actually work for, and it ain’t their constituents.
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 18, 2021 8:59:40 GMT
So it really wasn’t a “one off error” or the context he is trying to claim—he really wants to see if his delusional fucked up republican power can get AOC or someone else killed. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 17, 2021 13:08:02 GMT
Going just off your bolded posts, as that seems to be what you're asserting... Your link shows no video, it only plays audio with accompanying commentary on what the commentator thinks/wants you to think. No video provided for someone to decide for themselves. It even says "But the videos also show cases where some protesters clearly tried to incite the police, highlighting the complexity of the event." Police Commissioner William Gross placed a sergeant who bragged about hitting three protestors with his car on administrative leave. In a statement, Gross said his office is also looking into other abuses shown on the tapes. They're investigating a particular instance and looking into some vague claim of others. A single verifiable instance of bad behavior. There is solid evidence that police infiltrated the recent demonstrations. A North Dakota officer posed as a protester, photographed activists, and yelled “F**k the police” while checking for guns at a Black Lives Matter protest in Fargo. Undercover officers disguised as Orthodox Jews attended anti-racism protests in New Jersey. The Texas Department of Public Safety outright acknowledged embedding undercover officers in the protests to root out “criminals.” Going undercover for surveillance is not instigating violence. A broader solution is to simply prohibit plainclothes police from attending protests. Using undercover police in connection with protests and protest movements can only further undermine trust between law enforcement and communities at a time when that trust has already been badly eroded by repeated, high-profile instances of racialized police brutality. Whatever the merits and drawbacks of undercover operations in other settings, protests are one context where people should feel free to come together and express themselves without fear of surreptitious law enforcement monitoring. So stop wearing protective gear and stop keeping an eye on protests. That doesn't seem very productive and still not showing police as instigating violence. We asked experts to watch videos showing officers using tear gas, pepper balls and explosives on protesters. Police actions often escalated confrontations. Videos from social media. How can we rely on those videos when they don't show what happened prior to the so called "escalation"? Not proof police are instigating violence. weapons that aren’t designed to be lethal, from beanbag rounds to grenades N ot only can some of these weapons cause considerable injury to protesters, particularly if misused, but experts say the mere presence of the weapons often incites panic, intensifies confrontations and puts people on all sides at risk.People call for non lethal force and then demonize the police when they comply. Still not showing police as instigating violence. about 10 minutes before an 8 p.m. curfew went into effect, the marchers encountered scores of police officers with riot gear, including helmets, shields, and batons. Bicycle police used their bikes to form a wall and prevented the protesters from moving forward, while other officers pushed from behind – a tactic known as “kettling.” The protesters were trapped, with no way to disperse.Don't know if that was a mistake on the police's part, they had a specific reason for doing what they did, or not how it actually happened. But still not showing police as instigating violence. Just after 8 p.m. and the start of the city-wide curfew – imposed a few days earlier due to looting in other areas– the police moved in on the protesters, unprovoked and without warning, whaling their batons, beating people from car tops, shoving them down to the ground, and firing pepper spray in their faces. How do we know that really happened? Where's the proof? T he City Council will consider a report Wednesday, Sept. 22, that largely blames Portland police for violence at political protests and calls for a series of reforms.Did they get police input at all or just input from a bunch of people already pissed off that police exist? As someone recently posted to me in a post that you personally LIKEd "Once again you put a lot of stuff out there but do not provide any actual proof what is being said is actually happening . People make all kinds of accusations but that doesn’t mean what they are saying is actually happening." So yeah, that goes both ways. So glad to see you acknowledge your own distribution of baseless, alternative so called facts and bullshit! |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 17, 2021 9:36:24 GMT
Conservatives win election by using critical race theory propaganda… www.insider.com/conservatives-won-elections-with-critical-race-theory-propaganda-2021-11?ampconservatives—fear mongering, weaponizing racism because of their resentment and fears over race vs what is actually taught in schools. For all those religious conservatives with their panties in a bunch…you subjecting your children/any children to religion is indoctrination—more so than any imagined CRT propaganda you’re supporting. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 16, 2021 13:18:26 GMT
This stuff pisses me off - go off and debate Rittenhouse and self defense all day long - don't care - this meme isn't actually about him - it's an opportunity to make a statement about the oh so "difficult" problem of someone wanting to use different pronouns. It's bigoted period - and anyone who doesn't realize that Rittenhouse is a red herring for their real agenda is just fooling themselves. 100% |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 16, 2021 13:17:04 GMT
He went there to kill people. Your defence of him is inexcusable. No he didn't. Your statement is not backed up by the facts. I'm defending the right to self defense. After looking to hunt people down for the purpose to kill them. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 16, 2021 13:15:31 GMT
The meme is not against gay people. It's meant to say that if you can understand the trauma of being called by the wrong pronoun on purpose, you should be able to understand the trauma happening in a 17 year old brain that was in a situation where he thought he was going to die and the trauma of having killed 2 people and severely injuring a third.If you purposely choose to ignore that fact in order to make fun of him, you're no better than someone who refuses to honor your pronouns and who you are as a person. Nope. Wrong again. It is absolutely offensive and a slam to gay people. If you continually choose to ignore that, to try to make it fit your defense of a murderer, then you’re the asshole here. You need to stay in your lane and not talk about LBGTQ because clearly, you have no fucking clue. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 16, 2021 13:08:57 GMT
People are bat shit crazy anymore. Their racist crap has no place in the USA.
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 15, 2021 23:57:36 GMT
My team and I just decorated a tower room of a historic mansion today and it feels good to be done. Now on to finishing the 14,000 Sq foot home I do each year!! We were talking that we are going to be “Christmased out” before thanksgiving!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 15, 2021 11:55:21 GMT
Oh…so not a cult!!! 😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳 Or sheeple… 🐑 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑 |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 14, 2021 0:11:53 GMT
❤️❤️❤️
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 13, 2021 12:43:00 GMT
Is anyone paying attention to this? I listened to an episode of The Daily the other day and it was depressing that they said it is would not be a surprise if they got off because of the laws in Georgia at the time. From what I have heard on TV, it sounds like there have been some pretty inflammatory things said, particularly yesterday by the defense attorney regarding black pastors. What are your thoughts on this case? Gough said Thursday he had "nothing personally against" Sharpton, adding, "We don't want any more Black pastors coming in here or other Jesse Jackson, whoever was in here earlier this week, sitting with the victim's family trying to influence a jury in this case." “We don't want any more Black pastors coming in here”. That statement is inflammatory at best but I’d say it’s racist. Now I’m no where near an Al Sharpton fan in any way, but the family invited him there to support them. Sharpton sat there completely respectfully, quietly, as any one in court should. He supported the family as he was asked to do. Sharpton has every right to be there as a member of the public but even more so at the invitation of the victims family. The things said by the attorney about him are simply bigoted racist crap. He didn’t even bother to correctly identify whoever was there before Al Sharpton. The attorney tried to walk back his language today but IMO he still made an ass of himself - racist asshole to be exact. If the family wants someone there to support them then they can have someone. The lawyer seems to be implying that simply because they are known black pastors their very presence will be intimidating to the court. Which is a load of racist bullshit. And yet that same defense used their challenges to strike down the last of 11 black jurors. The judge even stated himself tgat the defenses jury selected appeared to be “intentionally discriminatory “. This is what the defense has said about jury selection: “We are very pleased that we have been able to select now 16 members of this community," Sheffield said as he exited the courthouse. "Where this community can now decide the pending issues of this indictment, and we truly believe that they will do so fairly and in keeping with what we all understand justice to be about." Read that again—“WHAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND JUSTICE TO BE ABOUT” He is purposely choosing jurors who he thinks will vote their feelings of how it should be, void of what the murderers did. And… “Not enough 'Bubba' men, defense attorney said Defense attorneys previously expressed concern over not only how many people didn't show, but also who was missing among those who did. "It would appear that White males born in the South, over 40 years of age, without four-year college degrees, sometimes euphemistically known as 'Bubba' or 'Joe Six Pack,' seem to be significantly underrepresented," defense attorney Kevin Gough, who represents Bryan, told the court Friday. "Without meaning to be stereotypical in any way, I do think there is a real question in this case whether that demographic is underrepresented in this jury pool," Gough added. "And if it is, then we have a problem with that." Sheffield, the attorney for Travis McMichael, brought up demographics again this week, stressing that the low turnout of people during the jury selection process meant the pool didn't "fairly reflect the accused in this case, where the accused can't look across the courtroom and see persons that are similarly situated.” Imagine if they extended the same jury selection thinking when a black man is on trial… |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 13, 2021 3:12:21 GMT
Clearly, you’ve never seen someone start to cry. What he did…ain’t it. But keep trying to excuse a murderer. You trumpy cultists are the worst kind of disgusting. Just horrible people. You talk about cultists, lol. Have you prayed at Lord Fauci's alter today? "Please, Father Fauci! SAVE US from natural immunity!" You know there is talk of a 4th shot, I bet you'll be first in line. And with this post—you’re not here to do anything other than stir up crap and bring on lies and bullshit. Troll. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 13, 2021 3:10:40 GMT
anonaname - don't care. Rittenhouse is a punk, a white supremacist menace, he's guilty, and if they let him walk, he's likely to eventually become Derek Chauvin. So you are now judge and jury. You think he will turn into Chauvin so it must be so, let's string him up even though the evidence is pointing to self-defense. You've turned this into a sporting event and you are going to root for your team come hell or highwater! You are actually as bad as you think he is, you don't even see how warped your thinking is. What parts—specifically—that cycworker posted are not true? |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 12, 2021 16:46:31 GMT
He’s cute!! Handsome!
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 12, 2021 16:45:56 GMT
I don’t think they’ll skate free. What they did is pretty damn clear. They hunted down a black man and killed him. I hope not. But apparently there was a citizens arrest law in Georgia that dated back to the Civil War. It was repealed after Arbery's murder, but was still on the books when he was killed. The killers had no evidence or a crime being committed. The old law allows citizens arrest IF a crime is witnessed. The killers actually took the time to get guns and hunt him down —-BEFORE the police were event called. They hit him with their truck, Had a physical fight with them, And then shot him. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 12, 2021 15:02:09 GMT
Because he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too. No twisting necessary. Now matter how arduously you defend him, Gia, he’ll never love you. You pretending to read his mind in order to claim he meant something other that the actual words he used, doesn't change the words, the meaning of them, or reality. You trying to do that is absolutely twisting. So it would seem you deemed it necessary. The only way the words he said mean something different than the words actual meaning is for you to pretend. My name is pixiechick. To call me someone else is rude. But to call me by someone's name that you've already successfully vilified only shows your desperate need to vilify. It reveals that you don't have enough faith in your twisting of reality. If you need to vilify ME you can do it by basing it on MY posts. Peas are. They call out your lies and bullcrap under you. |
|
