I can't address what she's saying. It's deliberately vague.
Still rumble shilling...Don't know about non-whites being white, but Oakland whites can't be in need:
Poverty Program Excludes White Families; Minority Families Get $500/Month in Oakland | Facts Matter
Sure you can, it’s easy. She said some words, you can quote those words and respond to them. If you want to discuss something else, you could start another thread.
Not in any meaningful way.
Imagine if you got a call...
"Sir, your daughter just got contacted by some matter that was moving at a dynamic speed, historically speaking, and she is seeking resolution which can happen anytime in the near future."
I'm sure you know what all those words mean. I'm sure you can explain any of them.
Can you tell me what happened to your daughter? No. Why not?
Still rumble shilling...
Which laws? Do you have a non-rumble link to what he is referring to? And who are "they"?That's racial discrimination. Those writing such laws do so against the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
They are racists and they are vile.
You deliberately ignored this post....
Just tell me what happened to your daughter in that hypothetical scenario and I'll gladly address anything Beltran says about "whiteness" being "a political project" that "emerges from history" and is "dynamic and changing".
I didn't respond to your post because it is irrelevant word salad.
Which laws? Do you have a non-rumble link to what he is referring to? And who are "they"?
Oh ok....do you not understand English?
I'm certain you can read so which of those words don't you understand?
If you can’t manage an adult conversation, resorting to pigeon chess doesn’t help.
Can you stick to the topic please?
1) Do you understand the words and sentences in the article, or not?
2) If not, what particular words and sentences do you not understand?
3) Do you understand what, from those words and sentences, is the idea of the person who expressed them?
4) If not, why not? What is preventing you from reading and understanding the collections of words into sentences?
Can you give the soapbox stuff a rest please, we have a topic to discuss, not everything that might be possibly associated with it.
I can point out where you said nearly the exact same thing to me....I didn't run away or whine about it.
Put on your big boy pants and answer the question already.
If not, admit that people can express ideas in a deliberately vague manner.
Your bizarre comparison is just that - bizarre. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying that you probably know that, but perhaps you really don’t? Either way, the only adult choice here is to read the plain English in the article and respond to what is being said. If I were you, I’d ask myself why I felt the need to resist doing that so desperately. If you can do those two things, we can have an adult conversation. Denial makes men into infants.
I can't tell what she means by political project.....it's too vague.
A million endeavors can be called political projects.
If you can me what that means say so.
Emerging from history refers to all of human history. Present day, the past, the future....it all emerges from history.
Dynamic and changing in this context means literally the same thing. This is typical of idiots trying to appear smart.
She makes reference to things in the past like slavery or the decimation of native tribes....but at no point does she explain why that has anything to do with Latinos voting for Trump. You can't explain it either.
Lastly there's mention of the politics of "exclusion" and "domination" and "whatever".....which again are vague and unexplained. I you can explain the politics of exclusion in any way if I gave you all day.
Her definition requires a lot of guessing and assumptions because it's deliberately vague and that's the point.
No, you’re making it vague by pretending you don’t know what the context is.
No, you’re making it vague by pretending you don’t know what the context is.
Private funding, but still distributed to the public through Government -- in violation of CA ConstitutionIt said the city of Oakland....so I assumed the program came from them as a matter of policy or law.
If it's private charity...feel free to explain.
They would be any lawmakers who seek to discriminate by race. They appear to be on the left these days.
Usual SCOTUS language is "repugnant" and "noxious"They are racists and they are vile.
"R.u.m.b.l.e." is not a "get out of debate with the win for free" card, that's essentially ad hominemStill rumble shilling...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?