Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You voted for this>>>>>
I didn't vote for anybody.
However you voted for this..
View attachment 106902
Whoops my bad, I meant this.View attachment 106903
Now if we did that to either Barry or Michael Obama you'd be the first to scream "RACIST!"
BTW, that cute creature could still do a better job than the last 8 years
Now if we did that to either Barry or Michael Obama you'd be the first to scream "RACIST!"
BTW, that cute creature could still do a better job than the last 8 years
Now if we did that to either Barry or Michael Obama you'd be the first to scream "RACIST!"
BTW, that cute creature could still do a better job than the last 8 years
Yeah, because there is that massive history of white people being compared to monkeys.
Now if we did that to either Barry or Michael Obama you'd be the first to scream "RACIST!"
BTW, that cute creature could still do a better job than the last 8 years
Yeah, because there is that massive history of white people being compared to monkeys.
Time to call a spade a spade...........Genetic studies can provide much knowledge, and some of the newer technologies are quite powerful and useful. However, some of the older and more basic studies are quite interesting as well, and some shed important light on racial and species differences. I'd like to talk about two here.
The more important of the two is Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995. This study looks at some genetic markers and compares the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North Amerindians, South Amerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans, more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto Negroes from Nigeria [Nigerian sub-Saharan African Negroes]) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data were analyzed two ways - with Nei's standard genetic distance, and with modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.
Which group was genetically closest to chimpanzees? The answer for both methods was the Nigerian Negro group. Using Nei's method, the Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value (second closest was the Kachari value of 1.527 +/- 0.493). To be fair, and show we are not knee-jerk "Eurocentrics" hiding data, the group farthest from the chimps was the South Amerindians (1.901 +/- 0.529); however the Germans (1.865 +/- 0.506) and the more general Caucasians (1.860 +/- 0.497) were right behind them (and given the +/- values, virtually overlapping). Looking at the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin. The farthest were again the South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians (0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). So, while the two methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method, these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712. Thus, based on these data, the sub-Saharan African group is genetically closest to chimps. The authors state the following about "neighbor-joining trees" based on these data, using the chimps as the "outgroup":
lest we forget how libtards portrayed george bush.
http://www.sherv.net/impressed.devil-emoticon-5227.htmlYou have pictures of naked evangelicals and didn't support Trumpet?i was just the opposite....Evangelicals supported Trumpet,yet do not like his wife's porn pictures...Go figure...
Now if we did that to either Barry or Michael Obama you'd be the first to scream "RACIST!"
BTW, that cute creature could still do a better job than the last 8 years
Yeah, because there is that massive history of white people being compared to monkeys.
Time to call a spade a spade...........Genetic studies can provide much knowledge, and some of the newer technologies are quite powerful and useful. However, some of the older and more basic studies are quite interesting as well, and some shed important light on racial and species differences. I'd like to talk about two here.
The more important of the two is Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995. This study looks at some genetic markers and compares the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North Amerindians, South Amerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans, more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto Negroes from Nigeria [Nigerian sub-Saharan African Negroes]) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data were analyzed two ways - with Nei's standard genetic distance, and with modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.
Which group was genetically closest to chimpanzees? The answer for both methods was the Nigerian Negro group. Using Nei's method, the Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value (second closest was the Kachari value of 1.527 +/- 0.493). To be fair, and show we are not knee-jerk "Eurocentrics" hiding data, the group farthest from the chimps was the South Amerindians (1.901 +/- 0.529); however the Germans (1.865 +/- 0.506) and the more general Caucasians (1.860 +/- 0.497) were right behind them (and given the +/- values, virtually overlapping). Looking at the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin. The farthest were again the South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians (0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). So, while the two methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method, these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712. Thus, based on these data, the sub-Saharan African group is genetically closest to chimps. The authors state the following about "neighbor-joining trees" based on these data, using the chimps as the "outgroup":
lest we forget how libtards portrayed george bush.
Blacks mainly don't. Your agenda conveniently left out a significant modifier.And blacks mainly don't play or watch baseball.Actually Jackie wasn't the first black to play in MLB. That would be Moses Walker in the 1880s.
That's why Baseball Inc always goes out of his way to say JR "broke the color line" rather than "was the first black player". Weasel words to avoid saying they kept blacks out for decades by "gentleman's agreement'.
Actually JR has his own day, when MLB has every player on every team wear number 42.
They wear their ironed-brim baseball caps and St Louis caps (Mike Brown) in the name of blackness and name-drop Jackie Robinson in the name of self-segregating blackness. Phony and racist.
"Blacks don't" huh. You talked to all of them then?
I live in a predominantly and prominantly self-segregating black county.
Ah, so you counted 'the blacks' in your county. Well, everybody needs a hobby.
I can't think of a baseball team that doesn't have a healthy mix of black and white players.
What is healthy about race mixing? I am referring to negroes...i have no problem with more advanced races aka orientals, spanish, Jews....just sub-saharan types....who are not quite human.
I would like to celebrate MLK day by talking about his close friend, Jackie Robinson.
It has been said that Jackie Robinson had as much to do with the progress of civil rights as MLK himself. For you see, baseball had been a big influence of the culture during that time, and Jackie was the first black to be allowed to play in MLB. Before accepting the role, the owner of the Dodgers, Branch Rickie, took Robinson aside and made him understand what confronted him. He would be verbally and physically assaulted. He would receive death threats for himself and his family. He would be the focal point for every racist group in America and it would probably continue for the tenure of his MLB career. Branch Rickie then added, that he must take it and not fight back in any way, at least for the first few years or the project would have to come to an end.
And that is exactly what happened, and exactly what he did. America saw his class, his dignity, and the fact that he was the best player on the team, if not in all of MLB, and it won over converts. More than one of the players on the team and around the team, including fans, said that Jackie Robinson made them better men as he helped them overcome racism.
Interestingly, Jackie Robinson was also a Republican, for he thought that the doctrine of self help was exactly what the black community needed to hear. Of course, he was not a partisan shill. In fact, he did not like Barry Goldwater in the least.
“I’m a black man first,” he once calmly stated, while appearing on a 1968 television program, “an American second, and then I will support a political party—third.”
Like the vast majority of black Republicans in 1964, Robinson vehemently opposed Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater. That year, he chaired a chapter of “Republicans for Johnson” and likened black Goldwater supporters to racial sellouts and “Uncle Toms.” But his rejection of Goldwater did not affect his affiliation—in fact, he remained a Republican, and in July 1964 he helped found the National Negro Republican Assembly, a national black Republican protest organization that grew out of the nightmarish experience of black Republicans at the 1964 Republican National Convention at the Cow Palace in San Francisco
So the next time someone tries to sell you the notion that all Republicans are racists via their mindless and toxic partisan drivil, tell them this. In fact, Hillary once referred to herself as a "Goldwater girl".
Like most moderates aka politically correct republicans you are way too sensitive to charges of racism...get over it...most pay no attention to those who cry 'racism' that term is being relegated to the dustbin of history as it should have been long ago.
Meanwhile the science of genetics continues to advance which proves things liberals and politiccally correct morons get all nervous about.
You think I'm PC? LOL.
No, I'm just making the point that the left is just poisoning the minds of people with race, for it is ONLY the left who continually mentions it.
It is like Obama. He refuses to mention the words "Islamic terrorist" so as not to incite violence against Muslims but then in the next breath says how racist the system is and wonders why innocent police are being shot around the country.
Now if we did that to either Barry or Michael Obama you'd be the first to scream "RACIST!"
BTW, that cute creature could still do a better job than the last 8 years
Yeah, because there is that massive history of white people being compared to monkeys.
Time to call a spade a spade...........Genetic studies can provide much knowledge, and some of the newer technologies are quite powerful and useful. However, some of the older and more basic studies are quite interesting as well, and some shed important light on racial and species differences. I'd like to talk about two here.
The more important of the two is Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995. This study looks at some genetic markers and compares the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North Amerindians, South Amerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans, more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto Negroes from Nigeria [Nigerian sub-Saharan African Negroes]) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data were analyzed two ways - with Nei's standard genetic distance, and with modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.
Which group was genetically closest to chimpanzees? The answer for both methods was the Nigerian Negro group. Using Nei's method, the Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value (second closest was the Kachari value of 1.527 +/- 0.493). To be fair, and show we are not knee-jerk "Eurocentrics" hiding data, the group farthest from the chimps was the South Amerindians (1.901 +/- 0.529); however the Germans (1.865 +/- 0.506) and the more general Caucasians (1.860 +/- 0.497) were right behind them (and given the +/- values, virtually overlapping). Looking at the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin. The farthest were again the South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians (0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). So, while the two methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method, these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712. Thus, based on these data, the sub-Saharan African group is genetically closest to chimps. The authors state the following about "neighbor-joining trees" based on these data, using the chimps as the "outgroup":
lest we forget how libtards portrayed george bush.
SOME liberals, moron
but it wasn't based on race.
it's so cute how you racists think you're empowered now.
Keep it up and learn nothing from the death your Party.Doesn't take much does it. A white hood or an orange con artist, either or both.
Keep it up and learn nothing from the death your Party.Doesn't take much does it. A white hood or an orange con artist, either or both.
