Antisemitic Far-Left Muslim Congresswoman refuses to condemn the murder of two innocent Jews

[JoeB131]

Th ignorance in that statement is astounding, 50,000 people who allow themselves to be pawns for hamas. Then you have Israelis who have rockets lobbed at them constantly by hamas. Tell the people in Gaza to stand up to hamas

Rockets that almost never hit their targets? Come on, man.

What the Israelis are doing is far in excess of what they need to do to neutralize Hamas. This is about terrorizing the people to flee their homes.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

As long as the Zionists are living on our dime, we should talk about it.

So I'll ask you the question, which I know you won't answer.

Why are the lives of an Israeli Couple more important than 50,000 Palestinians who have been murdered since the war began?

My goodness, how DARE those Jews have the hutzpah to live?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

It's okay when her side does it.

Amazing how quiet she is now, it just shows who she really is.

 

[Frankenstein]

Rockets that almost never hit their targets? Come on, man.

What the Israelis are doing is far in excess of what they need to do to neutralize Hamas. This is about terrorizing the people to flee their homes.

They are fired indiscriminately at civilian populations, Hamas being the cowardly swine they are, hide among civilians to use it as propaganda when they die and then fake footage.

 

[JoeB131]

My goodness, how DARE those Jews have the hutzpah to live?

Well, if you live next to people who want to kill you, that isn't very smart.

Giving them repeated good reasons to want to kill you is even dumber.

Now, normally, I'd say, "Send them back to Europe where they came from", but heck, they couldn't live with their fellow Europeans, either.

So a simple enough solution. If America is so keen on a Jewish State, let's give them one of ours. Let's forcibly displace Americans and give the Israelis their homes. I say we give them a big chunk of Oregon, let's say the part you live in, and just throw you out of your house and make you live a refugee in a squalid camp. I think you'd be perfectly fine with that in principle.

Oh, wait. No? You wouldn't?

They are fired indiscriminately at civilian populations, Hamas being the cowardly swine they are, hide among civilians to use it as propaganda when they die and then fake footage.

How is bombing people from a plane any better.

There was this great movie called "The Battle of Algiers" about the last days of the French occupation of Algeria. They captured one of the Rebel leaders, and the reporters asked him, "Why do you put bombs in women's baskets?" to which he replied, "Why do you drop bombs from planes? We'd happily trade our baskets for your planes."

Now, all this said, a fair solution would be a two-state solution where the land is evenly divided up. The Israelis wouldn't find this acceptable because they want it all. The Palestinians wouldn't find this acceptable because they would have to acquiesce to the theft of their land.

So plan B. "Why is this America's problem?"

 

[Hector12]

Then why did his university denounce him and distance itself from his writings? You can't say political pressure, there are so few black people in Canada they barely register as an interest group.

Rushton's university never disproved his assertions. No one has.

 

[Hector12]

Well, if you live next to people who want to kill you, that isn't very smart.

Giving them repeated good reasons to want to kill you is even dumber.

You are right. It is not very smart for the Palestinians to stay in the land Israel conquered in the 1967 Six Day War and to commit acts of terrorism against the Jews.

 

[Frankenstein]

Well, if you live next to people who want to kill you, that isn't very smart.

Giving them repeated good reasons to want to kill you is even dumber.

Now, normally, I'd say, "Send them back to Europe where they came from", but heck, they couldn't live with their fellow Europeans, either.

So a simple enough solution. If America is so keen on a Jewish State, let's give them one of ours. Let's forcibly displace Americans and give the Israelis their homes. I say we give them a big chunk of Oregon, let's say the part you live in, and just throw you out of your house and make you live a refugee in a squalid camp. I think you'd be perfectly fine with that in principle.

Oh, wait. No? You wouldn't?



How is bombing people from a plane any better.

There was this great movie called "The Battle of Algiers" about the last days of the French occupation of Algeria. They captured one of the Rebel leaders, and the reporters asked him, "Why do you put bombs in women's baskets?" to which he replied, "Why do you drop bombs from planes? We'd happily trade our baskets for your planes."

Now, all this said, a fair solution would be a two-state solution where the land is evenly divided up. The Israelis wouldn't find this acceptable because they want it all. The Palestinians wouldn't find this acceptable because they would have to acquiesce to the theft of their land.

So plan B. "Why is this America's problem?"

Israel goes after Hamas, not the arab population in gaza. Tell the arabs to throw off the shackles that hamas has on them. Arabs have no right to the land, it is Israels. Besides that point, that hamas and the other scum terrorist proxy organizations run
by Iran, will not be satisfied until all Jewish people are dead! The arabs have land and the arabs in Israel can go to those countries, for some reason most of those countries do not want them, what gives.

 

[Hector12]

Now, all this said, a fair solution would be a two-state solution where the land is evenly divided up. The Israelis wouldn't find this acceptable because they want it all. The Palestinians wouldn't find this acceptable because they would have to acquiesce to the theft of their land.

The Jews did not steal anything. They conquered land in wars started by the Arabs.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Omar was asked by a reporter for a comment about the cold-blooded murder of two innocent young Jews right here in Washington DC - and the anti-American, antisemitic Muslim REFUSED to answer.

Couldn’t she have said something like “the taking of innocent lives is always wrong” or “violence is never the answer”? Nope. She just snubbed her nose at the reporter and got into her cab.

(at least she didn’t say “so big deal….someone did something.”)

86Omar

 

[Frankenstein]

yes, you have your racist reading list... your obsession is probably not healthy.

Do you spew this stuff IRL? Do people roll their eyes when you say it?


Then why did his university denounce him and distance itself from his writings? You can't say political pressure, there are so few black people in Canada they barely register as an interest group.

Anyway, this is all off topic, let's get back to the point, which is why we think two Dead Israelis are more important than 50,000 dead Palestinians.



It's okay when her side does it.

Question is actually, why are you complaining, you leftists are anti semetic it should thrill you

 

[Hector12]

yes, you have your racist reading list... your obsession is probably not healthy. It is also dishonorable.

Lying about what is obviously true is unhealthy. It is also dishonorable.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2002, robberies with white victims and black offenders were more than 12 times more common than the opposite.[57][58]
Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Hector12]

Rockets that almost never hit their targets? Come on, man.

What the Israelis are doing is far in excess of what they need to do to neutralize Hamas. This is about terrorizing the people to flee their homes.

It's about time.

The Palestinians have had plenty of time to become a docile source of cheap labor for their Jewish masters. They haven't done it so the Jews have decided to force them out.

 

[JoeB131]

Rushton's university never disproved his assertions. No one has.

sure they have. His studies were all bunk based on manipulated data and dishonest surveys.

It's about time.

The Palestinians have had plenty of time to become a docile source of cheap labor for their Jewish masters. They haven't done it so the Jews have decided to force them out.

One only imagines Hitler saying the same thing about Jews in 1942.

You call yourself a Christian, but you lack Christian compassion.

 

[Hector12]

sure they have. His studies were all bunk based on manipulated data and dishonest surveys.

How was Rushton's data manipulated? How were the surveys dishonest? Keep in mind there is nothing counter intuitive about assertions documented in Rushton's essay "Race, Evolution, and Behavior,"

Race, Evolution, and Behavior:

Anyone with extensive experience with Orientals, Whites, and blacks knows that Orientals tend to be more intelligent than Whites, and to have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than Whites. Whites tend to be much are intelligent than blacks. We have much lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than blacks.

It is only with the civil rights movement that it became fashionable to lie about what is obviously true, and to force others to lie.

 

[Hector12]

One only imagines Hitler saying the same thing about Jews in 1942.

While thus examining the working of the Jewish race over long periods of history, the anxious question suddenly occurred to me whether perhaps inscrutable Destiny, for reasons unknown to us poor mortals, had not inalterably decreed the final victory to this little race?

Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter II, "Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna"

 

[JoeB131]

How was Rushton's data manipulated? How were the surveys dishonest?


On 22 June 2020, the Department of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario issued a statement regarding their former faculty member, which read in part:<

Despite its deeply flawed assumptions and methodologies, Rushton's work and other so-called "race science" (currently under the pseudonym of "race realism") continues to be misused by white supremacists and promoted by eugenic organizations. Thus, Rushton's legacy shows that the impact of flawed science lingers on, even after qualified scholars have condemned its scientific integrity. Academic freedom and freedom of expression are critical to free scientific inquiry. However, the notion of academic freedom is disrespected and abused when it is used to promote the dissemination of racist and discriminatory concepts. Scientists have an obligation to society to speak loudly and actively in opposition of such abuse.

Also in 2020, Andrew Winston summarized Rushton's scholarly reception as follows: "Rushton's work was heavily criticized by psychologists, evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, and geneticists for severe scientific inadequacies, fundamental errors, inappropriate conceptualization of race, inappropriate statistical comparisons, misuse of sources, and serious logical errors and flaws."

In 1989, geneticist and media personality David Suzuki criticized Rushton's racial theories in a live televised debate at the University of Western Ontario. He said: "There will always be Rushtons in science, and we must always be prepared to root them out". At the same occasion, Rushton rejected believing in racial superiority, saying "we've got to realize that each of these populations is perfectly, beautifully adapted to their own ancestral environments".<a

Also in 1989, Michael Lynn published a paper in the Journal of Research in Personality criticizing a study by Rushton & Bogaert that had been published in the same journal two years earlier. Lynn cited four reasons he considered Rushton & Bogaert's study to be flawed:

First, they did not explain why natural selection would have favored different reproductive strategies for different races. Second, their data on race differences are of questionable validity because their literature review was selective and their original analyses were based on self-reports. Third, they provided no evidence that these race differences had significant effects on reproduction or that sexual restraint is a K characteristic. Finally, they did not adequately rule out environmental explanations for their data.

 

[JoeB131]

Anyone with extensive experience with Orientals, Whites, and blacks knows that Orientals tend to be more intelligent than Whites, and to have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than Whites. Whites tend to be much are intelligent than blacks. We have much lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than blacks.

I've met really smart black people and some really stupid Asians.

My HS's Valedictorian was a Filipino, but the Salutatorian was a black guy.

 

[Hector12]

I've met really smart black people and some really stupid Asians.

My HS's Valedictorian was a Filipino, but the Salutatorian was a black guy.

I am sure you have, and that what you say is true.

 

[Hector12]

How was Rushton's data manipulated? How were the surveys dishonest?


On 22 June 2020, the Department of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario issued a statement regarding their former faculty member, which read in part:<


Also in 2020, Andrew Winston summarized Rushton's scholarly reception as follows: "Rushton's work was heavily criticized by psychologists, evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, and geneticists for severe scientific inadequacies, fundamental errors, inappropriate conceptualization of race, inappropriate statistical comparisons, misuse of sources, and serious logical errors and flaws."

In 1989, geneticist and media personality David Suzuki criticized Rushton's racial theories in a live televised debate at the University of Western Ontario. He said: "There will always be Rushtons in science, and we must always be prepared to root them out". At the same occasion, Rushton rejected believing in racial superiority, saying "we've got to realize that each of these populations is perfectly, beautifully adapted to their own ancestral environments".<a

Also in 1989, Michael Lynn published a paper in the Journal of Research in Personality criticizing a study by Rushton & Bogaert that had been published in the same journal two years earlier. Lynn cited four reasons he considered Rushton & Bogaert's study to be flawed:

Also in 1989, Michael Lynn published a paper in the Journal of Research in Personality criticizing a study by Rushton & Bogaert that had been published in the same journal two years earlier. Lynn cited four reasons he considered Rushton & Bogaert's study to be flawed:

First, they did not explain why natural selection would have favored different reproductive strategies for different races. Second, their data on race differences are of questionable validity because their literature review was selective and their original analyses were based on self-reports. Third, they provided no evidence that these race differences had significant effects on reproduction or that sexual restraint is a K characteristic. Finally, they did not adequately rule out environmental explanations for their data.

-------------

RACE, EVOLUTION AND BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective​

2nd Special Abridged Edition
Professor J. Philippe Rushton
University of Western Ontario

The Out-of-Africa theory explains the good fit between the r-K life history traits and race differences. It is hard to survive in Africa. Africa has unpredictable droughts and deadly diseases that spread quickly. More Africans than Asians or Europeans die young -- often from tropical disease. In these African conditions, parental care is a less certain way of making sure a child will survive. A better strategy is simply to have more children. This tilts their life history toward the r-end of the r-K scale. A more r-strategy means not only more offspring and less parental care. It also means less culture is passed from parent to child, and this tends to reduce the intellectual demands needed to function in the culture. And the process continues from one generation to the next.

In contrast, the humans migrating to Eurasia faced entirely new problems -- gathering and storing food, providing shelter, making clothes, and raising children during the long winters. These tasks were more mentally demanding. They called for larger brains and slower growth rates. They permitted lower levels of sex hormones, resulting in less sexual potency and aggression and more family stability and longevity. Leaving the tropics for the northern continents meant leaving the r-strategy for the K-strategy -- and all that went with it...

Climate differences also influenced mental abilities. In Africa, food and warmth were available all year round. To survive the cold winters, the populations migrating northwards had to become more inventive. They had to find new sources of food and methods for storing it. They needed to make clothing and shelters to protect against the elements. Without them the people would have died. Both parents had to provide more care to help their young survive in the harsher climates.

Whites and Orientals in Eurasia had to find food and keep warm in the colder climates. In the tropics, plant foods were plentiful all year round. In Europe and Asia they were seasonal and could not be found during many winter and spring months.

To survive the long winters, the ancestors of today's Whites and Orientals made complex tools and weapons to fish and hunt animals. They made spearheads that could kill big game from a greater distance and knives for cutting and skinning. Fires, clothes and shelters were made for warmth. Bone needles were used to sew animal skins together and shelters were made from large bones and skins.

Making special tools, fires, clothing and shelters called for higher intelligence. Moving "Out of Africa" meant moving into a K-type life-history strategy. That meant higher IQ, larger brains, slower growth, and lower hormone levels. It also meant lower levels of sexuality, aggression, and impulsive behavior . More family stability, advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity were needed.

Race, Evolution, and Behavior:

With this Professor Rushton answers Mitchel Lynn's first and third objection.

Putting this in my own words, I will say that in sub Saharan Africa there was no defense against the diseases. The best reproductive strategy wwas to have large numbers of children. I will add to this by saying that by having children by several partners men and women could expect some children to have more resistance from the African diseases than other children.

The importance of environment can be dismissed because when Negroes move to white countries they continue to have large numbers of largely illegitimate children, and they usually spend less time raising them.