The third option is to be a mindless sheep, which of course you would advocate.
living to an average of 30, in the elements, with no common currency or basic public services, and the frightful threat of inter-tribal violence every day.... is your definition of happiness? LMAO.
The third option is to be a mindless sheep, which of course you would advocate.
Happiness is relative. Example: You have a roof over your head, food to eat, probably a fat girlfriend to pork. You probably don't work hard. Still, you're full of hate and vitriol. You don't sit around a campfire smoking a peace pipe nor have you earned the respect of your tribe. The little frilly creature comforts used to be seen as pussy stuff. The men of that era were explorers, they didn't sleep indoors and drink green tea.
Well the "macho man" culture of past eras (in almost all societies of all races tbh) is also an example of a vestige of archaic primality. Intelligent cultures of today value women as capable equals to men, not simply homemakers and child bearers.
What happens when the red guy with the peace pipe gets his little sun dance rained on? What then? When hosting the party indoors isn't an option. When taking out a loan to finance replacement survival tools and food isn't an option. That's a microcosmic example of why intelligent civilized society is superior to primal subsistence life.
Bleeding heart Snitch Factor basically.
The most possible human?
And the bolded is absolutely nuts.
The world does not need blacks because we have robots...
You know what we really dont need? we really dont need you saying such ridiculous things.
Which of these is more likely an action of a mindless sheep?
1. Releasing do ents describing a strategy for racial gerrymandering
or
2. Reflexively ignoring the release and focusing on the fact that the releaser looks like a
(You don't have to answer.)
Whoops, I meant most perfect human, but the message stands.
You're moving the goal posts, chicken .
Gerrymandering by demographic commonality is common sense. Making perfect square districts would mix rural, suburban, ghetto, urban way too much. It's better to have like-minded people in the same district.
That's not how they do it. They split certain demographics into multiple districts to dilute their influence.
You need to read up on gerrymandering before you talk . You should have taken my suggestion that you not answer.
I've known since the 2000 census (age 6) that all districts must be contiguous.
Do you want a cookie?
Though the libs complain and laugh about it, it makes perfect sense that some of the districts would be shaped like snakes, rings and horseshoes, because you're talking about suburbia (likely run by a rich GOP representative), ghettoland (likely run by a Democrat and very often a minority one), urbia (likely run by a rich white or jewish democrat), and rural lands (likely a tough, evangelical, old fashioned country Republican representative).
Again, that's not why those districts are shaped that way. It's the opposite of why they're shaped that way. The districts aren't made up of like-populations.
then explain the Texas fajita strip?
The one that was shut down by the Supreme Court? Is it your position that a district snaking from south Austin to the Mexican border should be represented by one person?
I'm a mindless sheep for preferring the topic over inane speculation about the sexual orientation of Jennifer Hofeller and gratuitous bigotry?
Whatever you say, man.
That was a bull statement no doubt. Robots make black Americans obsolete? Gtfoh!
The racial war and victimhood muscle flexing going on here![]()
you want to nuke the whole middle east
you think jews are ruining your lifeand victimhood muscle flexing going on here![]()
Zionist semen shielder.
noecon shill
reprobate
another great Michael Harriot thread
after Justice Roberts proclaimed racism dead in Shelby versus Holder, racist Republicans restricted voting and passed racist gerrymanders more or less instantly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)