Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A moment of zen You've chosen to ignore content by mikewof. Options You've chosen to ignore content by mikewof. Options You've chosen to ignore content by AJ Oliver. Options

Be good to get rid of the Jones Act for all sorts of reasons.

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, valis said:

I don't even care about AOC's weird tweet

So you don't know that her's was a response to a REALLY WIERD tweet from the Riech ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

So you don't know that her's was a response to a REALLY WIERD tweet from the Riech ?? 

Bull shit.  Here is the tweet from DeSantis 
 

E46E7A40-5D43-4366-AC0F-25C2BF4826FC.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Bull shit.  Here is the tweet from DeSantis 
 

E46E7A40-5D43-4366-AC0F-25C2BF4826FC.jpeg

 

Bullshit. It actually it all started with this tweet, and and it's the weirdest of all.

Attacking a congresswomen for her boyfriend's sandals and pale feet is:

  1. Really fucking weird
  2. All they have

image.png.68650c757fb3e12ff698be46ccce4e12.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, discussing the tweet, yes, that "pale male feet" comment is weird.  But I don't see how we get from there to this:

Quote

If Republicans are mad they can’t date me they can just say that instead of projecting their sexual frustrations onto my boyfriend’s feet Ya creepy weirdos.  It’s starting to get old ignoring the very obvious, strange, and deranged sexual frustrations that underpin the Republican fixation on me, women,& LGBT+ people in general. These people clearly need therapy, won’t do it, and use politics as their outlet instead. It’s really weird.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been conflated by the rest I guuess:

“You just want to have sex me” is potentially the filthiest, most immature response I’ve ever heard uttered from an elected official that is facing critique. She’s quite literally creating a Republican sexual fantasy about herself. #AocMeltdown
Quote Tweet
 
 
 
 
 
 
AbHcStkl_normal.jpg
 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
 
@AOC
· Dec 31, 2021
If Republicans are mad they can’t date me they can just say that instead of projecting their sexual frustrations onto my boyfriend’s feet. Ya creepy weirdos twitter.com/CortesSteve/st…
Show this thread
Link to post
Share on other sites

If starting from zero, yeah "you just want to have sex me" is fucked-up thing to say.

However, faked pics and videos of various RWNJ people including Trump raping AOC has been pretty common for the last couple of years. She's not just zooming in from nowhere with this.

Although IMHO it would have been better to say nothing.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Actually, the Tweet shared by The Joker was posted the day before the one from Steve Cortes.  Note the date/time stamp.

Screen Shot 2022-01-04 at 12.28.12 PM.png

 

Perhaps, but it was the weird creepy feet tweet that AOC responded to with the you-want-to-date-me comeback.

 

 

image.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Although IMHO it would have been better to say nothing.

Oh year, then the GOPPER Riech would for sure be civil. 

Not 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, valis said:

Can someone please turn that "Riech-converter" switch back on?  Thanks.

Serious question . . can you suggest a more appropriate term for those who violently try to end US democracy and their supporters ?? 

And the "converter switch" is still on. I misspell the word on purpose to get past the PA censors. 

I'm starting to question whether you are here in good faith. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nice! said:

Bullshit. It actually it all started with this tweet, and and it's the weirdest of all.

Attacking a congresswomen for her boyfriend's sandals and pale feet is:

  1. Really fucking weird
  2. All they have

You can count on @The Joker to lie about it. 

And I use the term "lie" advisedly. In his case it happens far too frequently to be merely accidental. 

Bad Faith personified 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Serious question . . can you suggest a more appropriate term for those who violently try to end US democracy and their supporters ?? 

And the "converter switch" is still on. I misspell the word on purpose to get past the PA censors. 

I'm starting to question whether you are here in good faith. 

Serious answer:  I think you are applying the term to many of those who are don't "violently try to end US democracy" and who wouldn't support such a notion.  I think the vast majority of the politicians you excoriate don't support such a notion.  "Riech" is such a repugnant and loaded term that you should use it with care, and not paint huge swaths of the population with it.  Honestly, doing so make you look unhinged.

I'm sort of a Devil's Advocate, but I try to act in good faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, valis said:

Serious answer:  I think you are applying the term to many of those who are don't "violently try to end US democracy" and who wouldn't support such a notion.  I think the vast majority of the politicians you excoriate don't support such a notion.  "Riech" is such a repugnant and loaded term that you should use it with care, and not paint huge swaths of the population with it.  Honestly, doing so make you look unhinged.

I'm sort of a Devil's Advocate, but I try to act in good faith.

It certainly appears that AJ's slander is actually true for 30-35% of the voting population.  That's all it really takes if they're effective enough in their vote suppression. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, valis said:

Serious answer:  I think you are applying the term to many of those who are don't "violently try to end US democracy" and who wouldn't support such a notion.  I think the vast majority of the politicians you excoriate don't support such a notion.  "Riech" is such a repugnant and loaded term that you should use it with care, and not paint huge swaths of the population with it.  Honestly, doing so make you look unhinged.

Fair answer, but I respectfully disagree. Only a very tiny percentage of GOPPERS have come out against Jan 7th or the vile threats their elk is now using. 

As the old saying goes, "Silence is the voice of complicity". 

Their silence in the face of the Big Lie, insurrection, etc.  speaks volumes. 

Some of them used to be my friends and cherished former students. 

I feel I need to confront them, and will continue to do so. 

A few have seen the light. 

If it sounds like I am angry, I am. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, valis said:

Serious answer:  I think you are applying the term to many of those who are don't "violently try to end US democracy" and who wouldn't support such a notion.  I think the vast majority of the politicians you excoriate don't support such a notion.  "Riech" is such a repugnant and loaded term that you should use it with care, and not paint huge swaths of the population with it.  Honestly, doing so make you look unhinged.

I'm sort of a Devil's Advocate, but I try to act in good faith.

Labels are necessary to avoid all that troublesome thinking and being able to state your own position.  They are particularly useful to impute another's beliefs which you oppose but cannot argue against coherently.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

It certainly appears that AJ's slander is actually true

If it is true it is not libel or slander. 

Libel is written, slander is spoken. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

If it is true it is not libel or slander. 

Libel is written, slander is spoken. 

Pedantic Assholery isn't a crime. But it's still assholery.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Pedantic Assholery isn't a crime. But it's still assholery.

Oh BS, just get your facts straight. 

My correction was civil, your response was childish. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Oh BS, just get your facts straight. 

My correction was civil, your response was childish. 

I'm glad you missed the original point that you were actually correct. Oh well. you be you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I'm glad you missed the original point that you were actually correct.

Which you combined with a childish insult. 

You be you indeed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

If starting from zero, yeah "you just want to have sex me" is fucked-up thing to say.

However, faked pics and videos of various RWNJ people including Trump raping AOC has been pretty common for the last couple of years. She's not just zooming in from nowhere with this.

Although IMHO it would have been better to say nothing.

- DSK

Oh dear. Doug ... sincerely ... RIF ...

AOC DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU THINK SHE SAID. CANDACE OWENS SAID IT, INTENTIONALLY MISQUOTING AOC JUST TO BE A BITCH. 

I posted both remarks so all could see the intentional harm. A guy that won't read is just as dumb as a guy who can't.

You were duped by knee jerk.  I'll dumb it down for you and others: 

20 hours ago, Blue Crab said:
@AOC
· Dec 31, 2021
If Republicans are mad they can’t date me they can just say that instead of projecting their sexual frustrations onto my boyfriend’s feet. Ya creepy weirdos twitter.com/CortesSteve/st…

Candace said: 

20 hours ago, Blue Crab said:
“You just want to have sex with me” is potentially the filthiest, most immature response I’ve ever heard uttered from an elected official that is facing critique. She’s quite literally creating a Republican sexual fantasy about herself. #AocMeltdown

See how propaganda works? The Rs make up shit and all of them and most of us are too lazy or just not equipped to comprehend.

I have some tiny hope that the solid block of stupid TFG supporters haven't actually groked that authoritarian rule will fuck them over too. Dunno if there's enough time left for that to happen or what could change to help them get what's actually happening. But it doesn't matter if the Ds have their ears closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Oh dear. Doug ... sincerely ... RIF ...

AOC DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU THINK SHE SAID. CANDACE OWENS SAID IT, INTENTIONALLY MISQUOTING AOC JUST TO BE A BITCH. 

I posted both remarks so all could see the intentional harm. A guy that won't read is just as dumb as a guy who can't.

You were duped by knee jerk.  I'll dumb it down for you and others: 

...

Perhaps I should spell it out for you with blocks.

I knew quite well what statements AOC made, and which ones Candace made pretending to be speaking for AOC. You're jumping to conclusions again. Sorry for not specifically attributing each quote, when I know you're easily confused.

Glad we agree that Candace's statements were a fucked up thing to say.

I stated that it would have been better for AOC to not comment on degrading things RWNJs say about her. That won't stop them, but IMHO there are better things to do with her time. I dunno what else Candace has on her schedule, it may be that spouting hateful shit is about the best she's capable of. You?

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2022 at 6:48 AM, The Joker said:

What a great example of MSM BIAS. You guys don’t know about it because it wasn’t covered by your go to sources.  But if a GOP dog catcher in Fargo said democrats are frustrated about sex there would be a 3 page thread going on by now.  

I saw it, ignored it and went on with my day..  Meh....  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Joker said:


AOC tests positive for COVID-19 after partying in Miami maskless. 

I’m sure it will be DeSantis’s fault for tempting her with those policies of his. 

What is it about her male friend's feet that you boys find so attractive?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Joker said:


AOC tests positive for COVID-19 after partying in Miami maskless. 

I’m sure it will be DeSantis’s fault for tempting her with those policies of his. 

image.thumb.png.c12a0fe87d018a657a21c4463eef9687.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindsey Graham's fantasties...

Black Guys Gangbang White Guy | Gay Fetish XXX

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

What is it about her male friend's feet that you boys find so attractive?

They're bigger than TFG's HANDS!!! OMG!!!! CAN YOU JUST IMAGINE THE SIZE OF THE BOOTS HE MUST WEAR!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the YCMTSU category Sarah Palin is ranting about AOC  https://www.newsweek.com/sarah-palin-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-liberals-conservative-sex-sexuality-1667925

I just picked that source, Google has a long list to choose from.  Sex and family values - that's what I want to hear from Palin on.  The Daily Outrage is really scraping the bottom of the barrel these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nice! said:

image.thumb.png.c12a0fe87d018a657a21c4463eef9687.png

I’m not owning her at all.  You are seeing a fundamental shift from the left.  In that as more and more vaccinated people  are getting Covid.  I expect the “we just have to learn to live with it” is not to far away.   You know like Florida is already doing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, d'ranger said:

In the YCMTSU category Sarah Palin is ranting about AOC  https://www.newsweek.com/sarah-palin-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-liberals-conservative-sex-sexuality-1667925

I just picked that source, Google has a long list to choose from.  Sex and family values - that's what I want to hear from Palin on.  The Daily Outrage is really scraping the bottom of the barrel these days.

That's pretty funny coming from a woman who got at least 50% of her votes from guys who dreamed about about fucking her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

That's pretty funny coming from a woman who got at least 50% of her votes from guys who dreamed about about fucking her.

:ph34r: And I also felt lust in my heart as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're drifting over into Creepy-World

Have y'all given any thought to growing up ??   

It is not AOC's fault she is drop dead gorgeous. 

And so unlike MTG or Sarah, AOC is actually sane. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone here support AOC's efforts to counter Puerto Rican statehood as our 51st State?

Her rationale seems sus ... she seems to feel that not enough people voted on the issue to move the statehood forward. Except, the vote keeps turning out the same way since Obama, so huh?

Could the people who oppose Puerto Rican statehood be more beholden to special interests that profit off of the existing colonial status, than they are invested into the health and economic well-being of the Americans who live in Puerto Rico?

I think this racist bullshit has to end asap, and Puerto Rico is the closest to the solution. The Americans who live in Washington D.C., USVI, Saipan, Tinnina, American Samoa and the outlying islands need representation and rights as full citizens. And now, reducing the rights of many American Samoans from "American Citizens" to "American Nationals" ... reprehensible, yet AOC adds fuel to the fire and her actions on this have flown well below the radar. The reason these citizens didn't have statehood in the first place is because of entrenched racism from the 1800s, and now it's 2022, yet materially, nothing has actually changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple thoughts: PR statehood has always been a mystery to me. Been there years ago. "Continentals" weren't all the welcome on the street. But I imagine it's not a mystery for AOC, being who she is and all. As recently as March of last year she, and a couple of other Hispanics introduced a popular bill that outlined a process for self determination. Your characterization of her activities reads a bit otherwise, and tossing in the Obama reference was propaganda plain and simple.

I'm going with AOC's insight over a verbose malcontent in Colorado. She has genuine concerns about the numbers who bother to vote on the various non-binding resolutions since the [pre-Obama] days of 1960. One of those votes (maybe 2018) had 97% approval for statehood but something like just 22% of the 3M residents voted. Are you unaware of these factoids or is this just an exercise to impress a bunch of fairly unimpressible readers?

That's the hard question but the second, easier, question for you is: What do we get out of the deal beyond military bases that we already occupy? 

7 hours ago, mikewof said:

I think this racist bullshit has to end asap, and Puerto Rico is the closest to the solution. Why racist

The Americans who live in Washington D.C., USVI, Saipan, Tinnina, American Samoa and the outlying islands need representation and rights as full citizens. WHY? What's in it for them and more importantly, what's in it for us beyond the obvious extra presumably D votes?

Should Tinian, with maybe 5,000 pop have  its own two US Senators? Or perhaps all the Mariana isles combined with maybe 60K pop?  Who besides you gives a flying fuck?

As a suggestion, If you can keep your paragraphing reasonable like mine, folks might read your comments. Pages of dense blather?  Dont bother, it won't be read. That's what TL;DR means I think. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mikewof said:

Does anyone here support AOC's efforts to counter Puerto Rican statehood as our 51st State?

Her rationale seems sus ... she seems to feel that not enough people voted on the issue to move the statehood forward. Except, the vote keeps turning out the same way since Obama, so huh?

Could the people who oppose Puerto Rican statehood be more beholden to special interests that profit off of the existing colonial status, than they are invested into the health and economic well-being of the Americans who live in Puerto Rico?

I think this racist bullshit has to end asap, and Puerto Rico is the closest to the solution. The Americans who live in Washington D.C., USVI, Saipan, Tinnina, American Samoa and the outlying islands need representation and rights as full citizens. And now, reducing the rights of many American Samoans from "American Citizens" to "American Nationals" ... reprehensible, yet AOC adds fuel to the fire and her actions on this have flown well below the radar. The reason these citizens didn't have statehood in the first place is because of entrenched racism from the 1800s, and now it's 2022, yet materially, nothing has actually changed.

I would be cool with whatever the people of PR want.  The 2020 vote was non-binding, so it may not be clear what they want.  But if it is binding, then they have their change to self determine.  They also have the chance not to care by not voting.  

Racism certainly plays a role in human history, but how is it relevant to PR today?  Anyone in PR can move to other states.  Anyone in other states can move to PR, and it seems that plenty are, but net migration remains negative.  As far as living in PR, what is not to like?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that AOC is a self-declared democratic socialist, but so what ?? 

The policies she supports are overwhelmingly popular with the American people. 

Of course, the Riech is well aware of that, so they fall back on stupid memes and character assassination.  

https://www.ocasiocortez.com/issues

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mikewof said:

Does anyone here support AOC's efforts to counter Puerto Rican statehood as our 51st State?

Ummm, "counter PR statehood" means she opposes it?  Mighty unclear there hombre. 

In fact, her website takes no stand on the statehood issue. 

https://www.ocasiocortez.com/issues#solidarity-with-puerto-rico

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2022 at 8:45 PM, The Joker said:


AOC tests positive for COVID-19 after partying in Miami maskless. 

I’m sure it will be DeSantis’s fault for tempting her with those policies of his. 

If De Satan is doing such a slick job on Covid, then why is Fla's death rate 292, 

vs. 195 in California. ???

Big difference there sport. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

I know that AOC is a self-declared democratic socialist, but so what ?? 

The policies she supports are overwhelmingly popular with the American people. 

Of course, the Riech is well aware of that, so they fall back on stupid memes and character assassination.  

https://www.ocasiocortez.com/issues

Most Americans, if unencumbered by the stigma that has been applied to labels, would find that their political preferences fall into the democratic-socialist realm.

But socialism is evil, because my team says so, and because Venezuela or something.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Most Americans, if unencumbered by the stigma that has been applied to labels, would find that their political preferences fall into the democratic-socialist realm.

But socialism is evil, because my team says so, and because Venezuela or something.  

The Democratic Socialists of America is now up to around 100,000 people. 

I am one of them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2022 at 12:19 PM, valis said:

 "Riech" is such a repugnant and loaded term that you should use it with care, and not paint huge swaths of the population with it. 

Well sir, you are welcome to your opinion, but the dictionary does NOT describe it as a "repugnant and loaded term", and that is not how I use it.  

I use it in the sense of "on the road to fascism, but not quite there yet".  

I could use plain old "fascist", but that is not what I want to convey.  

Respectfully, who says you get to decide what the word connotes and denotes ??? 

(I would have responded sooner, but I've been on the 2,600 mile road from the Sweetwater Seas, to NorCal's Humboldt. Got good weather all the way out. I kid the NorCalistas about monopolizing all the perfect weather on the continent. They have not had an atmospheric river or cyclone bomb for about three weeks - it's all gone north to WA.  Today bright sun and 59 degrees.) 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

I know that AOC is a self-declared democratic socialist, but so what ?? 

The policies she supports are overwhelmingly popular with the American people. 

 

4 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Most Americans, if unencumbered by the stigma that has been applied to labels, would find that their political preferences fall into the democratic-socialist realm.

inconvenient reality for righty fools/assholes everywhere, from the rube all the way to bitch mcconnell/shitstain. 

 

all things that comprise right-wing ideology should be burned to the ground and only pissed on when it's gone cold.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

all things that comprise right-wing ideology 

You'll notice that here on PA, the right wingers only very rarely get into policy. 

They are not mature enough to grasp politics at that level, 

and that makes them easy targets for the Riech's stupid memes, name-calling, and character assassination. 

You can see that dynamic at work on this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[Regarding the use of the word "Riech" (deliberately misspelled) or "**Dogballs**"]

15 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well sir, you are welcome to your opinion, but the dictionary does NOT describe it as a "repugnant and loaded term", and that is not how I use it.  

I use it in the sense of "on the road to fascism, but not quite there yet".  

I could use plain old "fascist", but that is not what I want to convey.  

Respectfully, who says you get to decide what the word connotes and denotes ??? 

(I would have responded sooner, but I've been on the 2,600 mile road from the Sweetwater Seas, to NorCal's Humboldt. Got good weather all the way out. I kid the NorCalistas about monopolizing all the perfect weather on the continent. They have not had an atmospheric river or cyclone bomb for about three weeks - it's all gone north to WA.  Today bright sun and 59 degrees.) 

 

Who says I get to decide?  Nobody.  But I can share my observations on this with you, and you might choose to pay attention.  Perhaps get some opinions from the "non-Reichistas" here?  I'm sure there are at least a couple whose opinion you might trust?  I seem to recall that there are others here who feels this way, although I haven't verified their credentials.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, valis said:

Who says I get to decide?  Nobody. 

You are "deciding" when you incorrectly claim the word is ""repugnant and loaded" 

when such a meaning only exists in your own imagination.  

Compared to the Riech Wing smears about AOC in this very thread, my language is the picture of civility.  

Complain all you wish, I will not stop using that term just because you choose to misinterpret it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

You are "deciding" when you incorrectly claim the word is ""repugnant and loaded" 

when such a meaning only exists in your own imagination.  

Compared to the Riech Wing smears about AOC in this very thread, my language is the picture of civility.  

Complain all you wish, I will not stop using that term just because you choose to misinterpret it. 

AJ, you are a piece of work.  Do as you wish, I never had any intention of trying to stop you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I've begun to notice is that print journalists are picking up "fascist." No cites but a couple of days ago I noted 'fascists" in WaPo, I think. Yesterday I read 'fascists" in Salon. People are finally catching on to what's happening.  Nobody uses "**Dogballs**." I suppose AJ is technically correct but it's clear most of us interpret it as Valis mentioned, and I imagine we'll see many more references from here til Nov.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, valis said:

AJ, you are a piece of work. 

I was/am looking for a term for the far right that is a bit less harsh than "fascist", and I settled on Riech and Riechista. 

Can you suggest a term that is more appropriate ?? 

If it makes you feel any better, PA poster Grog from Germany does not like the term either. 

And when we finish up, how about we go after the purveyors of obscenity and misogyny here on PA.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

I was/am looking for a term for the far right that is a bit less harsh than "fascist", and I settled on Riech and Riechista. 

Can you suggest a term that is more appropriate ?? 

I don't mind the term if it's applied appropriately.  You, however, often seem to brush it onto anybody who disagrees with you in the slightest degree.  Believe it or not, I am actually trying to help you stop coming across as a wild-eyed spittle-spraying raving monomaniac.

And I can't believe that you are so tone-deaf that you think "Riechista" is less harsh than "Fascist".  I don't care what the dictionary says, people hear "Riech" and they think "Hitler/Nazi/Death Camp".  No matter how you twist it that's worse, and since you seem smart enough to know the difference I have to assume you have chosen to use "Riech" for just that reason. 

All my opinion of course, and at this point I don't care if you want to consider it or not.  Welcome back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

One thing I've begun to notice is that print journalists are picking up "fascist." No cites but a couple of days ago I noted 'fascists" in WaPo, I think. Yesterday I read 'fascists" in Salon. People are finally catching on to what's happening. 

Not before time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, valis said:

I don't mind the term if it's applied appropriately.  You, however, often seem to brush it onto anybody who disagrees with you in the slightest degree. 

I think it is appropriate term for a wide range of conservatives, including a number of my acquaintances. 

If you decline to speak out vigorously against the use of threats as a political tool. . . which is rampant at this time  . . 

not to mention the trashing of voting rights, and the disrespect of our darker skinned Bros & Sisses  . ..

you might well be a man/woman of the Riech   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neo-Fascists or Riechistas? What's more appropriate these days?

Just cruising around Wikipedia, I easily found references to "German Fascism" as "Nazism."  More specifically, "Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism."  Wiki Fascism. Several references were noted that modern fascism could/should be referred to as "neo-fascism." Project Gutenberg distinguishes between the terms: Readings on Fascism and National Socialism www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14058

And consider further reading from Wiki references: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism [bolding - BC]:

Albright, Madeleine (2018). Fascism: A Warning. New York: HarperCollins.

I don't want to spend a lot more time on this, but it's clear to me that most of these are very recent works and all are using the term "fascists" and none are using "*Double Dogballs**." 

Just saying.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

I don't want to spend a lot more time on this, but it's clear to me that most of these are very recent works and all are using the term "fascists" and none are using "*Double Dogballs**." 

Just saying.

This is probably because "fascist" is likely an accurate term for what the authors are discussing.  "R**ch" is a more general term with a specific vile connotation, presumably chosen by AJ because of this.

If I'm wrong, somebody (other than AJ) please say so.  But otherwise, I'm done too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2022 at 1:04 AM, mikewof said:

Does anyone here support AOC's efforts to counter Puerto Rican statehood as our 51st State?

Her rationale seems sus ... she seems to feel that not enough people voted on the issue to move the statehood forward. Except, the vote keeps turning out the same way since Obama, so huh?

Could the people who oppose Puerto Rican statehood be more beholden to special interests that profit off of the existing colonial status, than they are invested into the health and economic well-being of the Americans who live in Puerto Rico?

I think this racist bullshit has to end asap, and Puerto Rico is the closest to the solution. The Americans who live in Washington D.C., USVI, Saipan, Tinnina, American Samoa and the outlying islands need representation and rights as full citizens. And now, reducing the rights of many American Samoans from "American Citizens" to "American Nationals" ... reprehensible, yet AOC adds fuel to the fire and her actions on this have flown well below the radar. The reason these citizens didn't have statehood in the first place is because of entrenched racism from the 1800s, and now it's 2022, yet materially, nothing has actually changed.

Was just on Zillow looking at condo's San Juan PR, Avg temp 85 degrees, Florida this morning 40, make it a country with her as Queen I'm there! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Not for nothing said:

Was just on Zillow looking at condo's San Juan PR, Avg temp 85 degrees, Florida this morning 40, make it a country with her as Queen I'm there! 

I get your joke, but it does seems that is the prevailing sentiment of those who have the wealth of the USA, rather than the poverty of the USA's colonies ... they want to preserve the poverty to continue to enable the economic opportunities for the wealthy people here who make money there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Neo-Fascists or Riechistas? What's more appropriate these days?

Just cruising around Wikipedia, I easily found references to "German Fascism" as "Nazism."  More specifically, "Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism."  Wiki Fascism. Several references were noted that modern fascism could/should be referred to as "neo-fascism." Project Gutenberg distinguishes between the terms: Readings on Fascism and National Socialism www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14058

And consider further reading from Wiki references: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism [bolding - BC]:

Albright, Madeleine (2018). Fascism: A Warning. New York: HarperCollins.

I don't want to spend a lot more time on this, but it's clear to me that most of these are very recent works and all are using the term "fascists" and none are using "*Double Dogballs**." 

Just saying.

 

There is no longer such a thing as contemporary Nazism, it died when Adolph swallowed rat poison and shot himself in the head.

Those who adhere to Hitler's ideals are Neo-Nazis. German fascism was absolutely Nazism. Spanish fascism and Italian fascism was not Nazism except for the portions that were taken over by the Nazi. It helped by very much to read Orwell's journalism on the distinctions, he views were untarnished by history, since they were recorded nearly as they happen, but they were (and are) as clear-eyed as anything written today. He even saw much of this before it actually happened (Coming up for Air), as it happened (Homage to Catalonia) and after it happened (his newspapers essays). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

I think it is appropriate term for a wide range of conservatives, including a number of my acquaintances. 

If you decline to speak out vigorously against the use of threats as a political tool. . . which is rampant at this time  . . 

not to mention the trashing of voting rights, and the disrespect of our darker skinned Bros & Sisses  . ..

you might well be a man/woman of the Riech   

What about people who cross picket lines? I have seen handfuls of these soul-bereft jerks saunter right past the lines of supermarket workers trying to support their families, willing to cross the lines so that they don't have to be inconvenienced to go across the street to a different supermarket.

I wouldn't call them members of the 'r-word' and yet, the ones whom you deem worth of that (at least the ones I know) honor the picket lines in an apolitical way. That's why it's not a label with which I feel comfortable, it creates a division between the people with whom we desperately need on our side of social justice.

I really wish you would just stop using it, but you seem too proud to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2022 at 11:44 AM, AJ Oliver said:

Ummm, "counter PR statehood" means she opposes it?  Mighty unclear there hombre. 

In fact, her website takes no stand on the statehood issue. 

https://www.ocasiocortez.com/issues#solidarity-with-puerto-rico

Huh? Why would you let someone's website take precedence over their voting record? Of course she isn't advertising it, it would damage her political ambitions ...

https://projectpulso.org/2021/03/15/pr-statehood-explainer/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2022 at 10:48 AM, jzk said:

I would be cool with whatever the people of PR want.  The 2020 vote was non-binding, so it may not be clear what they want.  But if it is binding, then they have their change to self determine.  They also have the chance not to care by not voting.  

Racism certainly plays a role in human history, but how is it relevant to PR today?  Anyone in PR can move to other states.  Anyone in other states can move to PR, and it seems that plenty are, but net migration remains negative.  As far as living in PR, what is not to like?

Puerto Rico WASN'T a state because of the same kind of racism that left American Samoa, Saipan, USVI, Guam and Tinninan without statehood. And it remains not a state because the desire to extract wealth from Puerto Rick has overwhelmed the desire to create equity with justice by statehood ... walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, racism.

Your take on "not to care by not voting" is exactly right, imo. But AOC and others have used this ammunition to shut down PR's statehood process, by claiming that those who chose not to vote still need a voice in the process. It makes no sense until we view it through the lens of profits from PR's continued "stepchild" status.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2022 at 7:13 AM, Blue Crab said:

Couple thoughts: PR statehood has always been a mystery to me. Been there years ago. "Continentals" weren't all the welcome on the street. But I imagine it's not a mystery for AOC, being who she is and all. As recently as March of last year she, and a couple of other Hispanics introduced a popular bill that outlined a process for self determination. Your characterization of her activities reads a bit otherwise, and tossing in the Obama reference was propaganda plain and simple.

I'm going with AOC's insight over a verbose malcontent in Colorado. She has genuine concerns about the numbers who bother to vote on the various non-binding resolutions since the [pre-Obama] days of 1960. One of those votes (maybe 2018) had 97% approval for statehood but something like just 22% of the 3M residents voted. Are you unaware of these factoids or is this just an exercise to impress a bunch of fairly unimpressible readers?

That's the hard question but the second, easier, question for you is: What do we get out of the deal beyond military bases that we already occupy? 

As a suggestion, If you can keep your paragraphing reasonable like mine, folks might read your comments. Pages of dense blather?  Dont bother, it won't be read. That's what TL;DR means I think. 

You have taken AOC's and Velazquez's approach ... someone voices their opinion by not voting, heck, they MUST have an opinion and we need to overrule the people who dragged their butts to the polls because they wanted and still want statehood for Puerto Rico.

"AOC's insight" as you call it efficiently derails Puerto Rican's desire for statehood. So you want to declare me a malcontent for siding with AMERICANS who have followed THE CONSTITUTION to move correct generations of racism? Best of luck in your attempt to bend reality.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

What about people who cross picket lines?

Wot about them ?? 

Are you among that elk ?? 

And what does that have to do with the OP ??

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mikewof said:

And it remains not a state because the desire to extract wealth from Puerto Rick has overwhelmed the desire to create equity with justice by statehood ... walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, racism.

How does that work?  Who is extracting wealth from PR, and how are they preventing PR from becoming a state?  How does Statehood hurt their ability to keep extracting wealth?  Just asking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

I get your joke, but it does seems that is the prevailing sentiment of those who have the wealth of the USA, rather than the poverty of the USA's colonies ... they want to preserve the poverty to continue to enable the economic opportunities for the wealthy people here who make money there.

Interesting that you mention that, just read this;

Puerto Rico: low taxes, island life make it hot for bitcoin fans (cnbc.com)

Bitcoin millionaires are moving to Puerto Rico for lower taxes and island living

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mikewof said:

I get your joke, but it does seems that is the prevailing sentiment of those who have the wealth of the USA, rather than the poverty of the USA's colonies ... they want to preserve the poverty to continue to enable the economic opportunities for the wealthy people here who make money there.

How does one make money by preserving other people's poverty?  Like how does that business plan work?  Let's say that I wanted to become wealthy by preserving other people's poverty.  How would I do it?  What kind of return can I expect?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Not for nothing said:

This is interesting. Could be a game changer. These newcomers will be the loudest voices for getting infrastructure money from D.C.  I think Mike sees a connection between the influx of techies and AOC's offshore bank account ... if she has one as Mike assumes she does. The techies are there for the tax breaks which go away with statehood, I bet.

At this point I prefer to take AOC as the 110# champion of powerless uninformed people with their best interests at heart until proven otherwise over whatever Mike's motivation is from the Front Range.

I notice Mike skipped what I thought would be the fun part for him: Telling us why we should make any of these tiny places that we already essentially own into full-fledged rootin tootin U.S. States. Because human equity or something. A reminder: "equity" is mentioned 29 times in the Bible but not even once in the US Const. or the other way around, I forget.

Link to post
Share on other sites