Jump to content

Nancy Pelosi is a badass MF and I want her to be Speaker


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Remember Ralph Northam?

Circling of the wagons in the democrat party in Va.  Really really bad.  Northam and Herring should have resigned (just on the comments by Herring that Northam should have resigned. Herring's disappeared form the state right now as if he doesn't even exist) ). If the charges against Fairfax have merit, and it looks like he'll go down he needs to resign as well. He'l put the state thru a trial which is his right, but another black eye for the state is coming. 

I've stayed party neutral on this issue, because it's not a party issue but a voter/ citizen issue. Very bad for the state, BS act by the democrats to now just brush it off, and now they can't say shit about pics of republicans going forward, but they will, they'll say it's different somehow.  His indentured servant comment was so obscure and that somebody had to clue him in about it is BS. There were black indentured servitude folks, that was very early on, before it became out right slavery. He really looked  stupid in that interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Circling of the wagons in the democrat party in Va.  Really really bad.  Northam and Herring should have resigned (just on the comments by Herring that Northam should have resigned. Herring's disappeared form the state right now as if he doesn't even exist) ). If the charges against Fairfax have merit, and it looks like he'll go down he needs to resign as well. He'l put the state thru a trial which is his right, but another black eye for the state is coming. 

I've stayed party neutral on this issue, because it's not a party issue but a voter/ citizen issue. Very bad for the state, BS act by the democrats to now just brush it off, and now they can't say shit about pics of republicans going forward, but they will, they'll say it's different somehow.  His indentured servant comment was so obscure and that somebody had to clue him in about it is BS. There were black indentured servitude folks, that was very early on, before it became out right slavery. He really looked  stupid in that interview.

As long as Northam has the support of black Democrats in Virginia, he isn't going anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, David Dennison said:

As long as Northam has the support of black Democrats in Virginia, he isn't going anywhere.

He has their support only because he's a democrat. Tell me something I don't know. Double standards are alive and well always. This could come back and destroy their dream of taking the house in less than 2 years. I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only takeaway as an American Jew:  FUCK each and every person who has weighed in on this topic while staying silent during Trump's "both sides" remarks (and those other times he was reluctant to distance himself from Nazis). 

I think I'm starting to understand how African-Americans feel when used as political pawns.

Edited by Chuckie Finster
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

He has their support only because he's a democrat. Tell me something I don't know. Double standards are alive and well always. This could come back and destroy their dream of taking the house in less than 2 years. I

What whining nonsense is this?

It would be cool if, on issues that do not impact white people primarily, they would hang back for a second and listen to what the voices of the populations impacted have to say before charging forward. White libs and white conservatives both do this, and as the bolded section here indicates, they do it for cynical partisan reasons. As Chuckie says, political pawns.

Watching disingenuous conservatives (like you) and self-righteous white, non-Jewish liberals (like Chelsea Clinton) howl at this Muslim woman is a perfect example. The reality is that Jewish opinion is not nearly as unanimously outraged as white liberal opinion, which is an interesting thing to learn from.

Regarding Northman, is there really nothing to learn from the black community's reaction? Do they not have a valid voice in this? Is only the white voice the one that is capable of reason and ethical thinking?

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pokemon said:

This isn't a double standard. Every democrat there is requested he resign. He said no. And as it cooled, African American leaders from the state itself (the offended party, you see) tentatively forgave him, for the moment at least. As is their right.

They all did for about 4 days then they circled the wagons, the party leadership explained the huge issue it would come election time, and then they changed their tune.  Nothing new here, keep on walking 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

They all did for about 4 days then they circled the wagons, the party leadership explained the huge issue it would come election time, and then they changed their tune.  Nothing new here, keep on walking 

They also have support of the voters.

That's what sealed the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NIUHuskies said:

I disagree. Most hard core evangelicals (a big subset of Trump's base) wants Israel to succeed and provoke war so that the rapture can come.

"Jewish people" and "Israel" are not the same thing.

Anti-Semites often love the state of Israel because it gives weight to the ideas of ethnic homelands (which the white supremacists want America to be for whites) and racial/ethnic exclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Is that whataboutism or bothsiderism?

Let’s break this bullshit down before it gets worse. 

Side A sits quietly by while their leader incites violence, equivocates on Nazis, and falls in love with tyrants...also plenty of racist and sexist comments.  Never apologizes. NEVER.

Side B doesn’t really do these things but when called to account for a semi-offensive remark, the perpetrator immediately apologizes publicly after demands from Side B party leaders.

 

Bottom line: Because Side A doesn’t clean the shit out of their own house, they have ZERO credibility or influence to stand on when Side B’s apology doesn’t meet their standards.  Side A should immediately be told to go fuck themselves by Side B in the most polite way possible.  

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One side apologized.  The other side said there were good Nazis, spent years sending Soros memes, complained of rain and a bad hair day when speaking in Pittsburgh and intimated that the deaths were the congregation's fault for not being armed during a bris, and has King in their caucus, without apologizing for jack shit, even after someone sent a bomb to Soros' house.  There's nothing both sides about this.

 

Edit to add:  the other side also had a Jew for Jesus rabbi speak at the service after the Pittsburgh massacre.  But then Pence, who arranged for that "rabbi," either intentionally or because he couldn't do any basic research, has the fucking nerve to comment on antisemitism.  

Edited by lemonlime
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is her moment. I wasn't happy with the wall funding cave, but it was a compromise. If she doesn't crush her Louboutin on Dottard's bloated throat over this fake "national emergency" we might as well just lay back and make the best of it for the remainder of Trump's rein while enjoying the warmth of our Constitution as it burns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2019 at 11:45 AM, Chuckie Finster said:

My only takeaway as an American Jew:  FUCK each and every person who has weighed in on this topic while staying silent during Trump's "both sides" remarks (and those other times he was reluctant to distance himself from Nazis). 

I think I'm starting to understand how African-Americans feel when used as political pawns. 

That whole thing is disingenuous IMHO.  The organizer was a former Occupy moron.  And like Richard Spencer...he's more of a socialist.

 

But you're right about one thing...Trump was wrong. 

There were good people on both sides that day.  There were also racist, socialist, white supremist assholes AND racist, communist, ANTIFA, SJW assholes.

 

 

 

Edited by LowPressure
  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as I was looking through my Twitter feed this popped up...

Frankly I didn't want to get into this or bother to research it...but I remember the removal of statues was also huge at this time.

Many of the people that came out were there to protest against the destruction of history...not support white supremacy or antisemitism. 

DzfN6inWkAAGLVE.jpg:large

 

There has been a major effort by the left and the MSM to twist Trump's words...reading it makes it pretty clear. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, LowPressure said:

That whole thing is disingenuous IMHO.  The organizer was a former Occupy moron.  And like Richard Spencer...he's more of a socialist.

 

But you're right about one thing...Trump was wrong. 

There were good people on both sides that day.  There were also racist, socialist, white supremist assholes AND racist, communist, ANTIFA, SJW assholes.

"Bourgeoisie" is a noun. Fucking idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2019 at 11:45 PM, David Dennison said:

"Bourgeoisie" is a noun. Fucking idiots.

Some people might comprehension it as a nouning, sure, but when you noun all day, you make the occasion mistaken.

(It does bother me that we use a French term for Bourgeois and Latin for Proletariat. As if those peasants could address a table in the vocative if you spotted them the free "O Tabul__" and then let them paw at Google for 30 minutes.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, tjhooker said:

Explain how a wall is immoral?  Her saying a wall blocking illegal immigration is actually immoral is befuddling.  Walls and barriers dems thought were moral many times before are now immoral? 

They're willing to import the entire 3rd world if that will give them the votes to stay in power.

Murdering unborn children.  MORAL.

Building a wall to keep out drug dealers, sex traffickers, cartel members, gang members.  IMMORAL. 

 

I mean, it makes perfect sense.  🙄

 

I get it, these people want better lives.  So do the poor people of your town or San Francisco.

Just like illegals who break into our country for a 'better life' wouldn't the poor & homeless of Nancy's district be better off inside her house?  Wouldn't they benefit from better food like that Nancy no doubt enjoys?  Wouldn't their kids be better off in the school district that Nancy lives in...vs their current ones?  Might they too find more opportunity living in Nancy's neighborhood? 

So why does Nancy have an immoral wall around her home?  Why does she not invite these less fortunate souls into her home?  How about all the others who find the wall immoral?

Where do you draw the line?  The US border?  Your State border?  The County you live in?  A the city limits?  Your neighborhood?  Or your home?  

 

I'm guessing most people opposed to the wall fall into 3 categories. 

A.  Those who have never really thought about the costs of illegal immigration and open borders.  (Considering we all are the world's 'rich')  And are more emotional than logical about the entire situation.  (Which I understand to a degree...yes, many of those people do want better lives...but at what cost?  The real solution is to fix their countries).

B. Those who see voters & power.

C. Those who don't worry about having to compete with these people for jobs...but do enjoy cheap law service, low cost construction, or having them as cheap labor in their businesses.

  • Like 4
  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2019 at 2:45 PM, NIUHuskies said:

I disagree. Most hard core evangelicals (a big subset of Trump's base) wants Israel to succeed and provoke war so that the rapture can come.

Depends--most hard core evangelicals want to live in big mansions, drive expensive cars and buy their own planes lord willing.  Televangelists don't dream small or want anything to do with the rapture because their heaven is here.  

And as I'm watching 60 minutes, apparently bringing your gun to church in case a hero is needed is a thing as well.  Doesn't have shit to do with scripture since this life is your tribulation for the afterworld which is what you sacrifice for.  Slap my cheek and I'll shoot you. If there's a rapture, we're all going to hell, with most of the christians leading the way. I'll at least try and vote for universal healthcare, background checks, climate science and healthy lunches for kids--seems like if it's not the Modern day Christian view, it's at least the right thing to do.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying anything.  I'm simply reporting that an erstwhile Labour MP has declared it to be "institutionally anti-Semitic."

Are you taking it as some sort of badge of honor that anti-Semitism on the left is not confined to fringe hate groups, but instead has become so mainstreamed as to infiltrate the left-of-center party in the UK on an institutional level?

Ummm, I mean--congratulations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Are you taking it as some sort of badge of honor that anti-Semitism on the left is not confined to fringe hate groups, but instead has become so mainstreamed as to infiltrate the left-of-center party in the UK on an institutional level?

What anti-Semitic "fringe hate groups" "on the left" are you talking about? (Please answer. You can't, I imagine, and will continue attempting to move the goalposts.)

Are there anti-Semites on the Left? Of course there are. Any sufficiently large group of people will have a smattering of different pathologies. Pointing out that there are anti-Semites in the Labour Party has nothing to do with what you quoted from me and, when measured against the mass murder of Jewish people by right-wing political zealots and the plethora of right-wing anti-Semitic hate groups it doesn't even merit mention.

- One side has multiple organizations centered around anti-Semitic hatred. This side also has dozens of incidents of anti-Semitic violence and murder within the last couple of years.
- The other side has some anti-Semites sprinkled around, most prominently in a completely different country. And... that's about it.

Genius Brain Ghost: "Both sides, actually!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm not saying anything.  I'm simply reporting that an erstwhile Labour MP has declared it to be "institutionally anti-Semitic."

Are you taking it as some sort of badge of honor that anti-Semitism on the left is not confined to fringe hate groups, but instead has become so mainstreamed as to infiltrate the left-of-center party in the UK on an institutional level?

Ummm, I mean--congratulations?

I have a feeling those seven former Labour MPs are using instances of anti-Semitism by individual party members as a pretext for leaving the party when what they really don't like is Labour's policy positions on Israel.

At least, that's what it seems like from the article you posted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I have a feeling those seven former Labour MPs are using instances of anti-Semitism by individual party members as a pretext for leaving the party when what they really don't like is Labour's policy positions on Israel.

At least, that's what it seems like from the article you posted.

 

I think you should re-read the article.  The internal Labour investigation is pretty damning.  It's not just a few individuals; there seems to be some merit to their complaint of institutionalized anti-Semitism.

But regardless--the issue of Brexit overlays all of this much more than any policy positions vis-a-vis Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2019 at 11:29 AM, tjhooker said:

Explain how a wall is immoral?  Her saying a wall blocking illegal immigration is actually immoral is befuddling.  Walls and barriers dems thought were moral many times before are now immoral? 

It's immoral because it wouldn't exist it the vast majority of people coming across the border from the south weren't brown.

How's that northern wall coming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tjhooker said:

That is nonsense.  So dems were OK with the wall before and voted for it many times but now it is immoral?  

Views can evolve, can't they?  I mean, apparently 30 years ago everyone in Virginia* thought it was perfectly fine to run around in blackface.  Since then, most of us have realized that one really shouldn't do that.

So yeah--one can realize some time later that one's previous opinions were racist/insensitive/immoral, and change those opinions.

In fact, I really question a person who has never done that.

 

 

 

 

* I cast stones at Virginia, but I really shouldn't.  I've attended costume parties before in which white people were dressed up as various black celebrities.  I personally never did it, but I didn't see any particular problem in college when my girlfriend (who was/is as liberal as the day is long) dressed up as Diana Ross.  In retrospect, I'm pretty mortified by it.  And if I was talking to her regularly and I raised the issue, I suspect she'd share my mortification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Views can evolve, can't they?  I mean, apparently 30 years ago everyone in Virginia* thought it was perfectly fine to run around in blackface.  Since then, most of us have realized that one really shouldn't do that.

So yeah--one can realize some time later that one's previous opinions were racist/insensitive/immoral, and change those opinions.

In fact, I really question a person who has never done that.

 

 

 

 

* I cast stones at Virginia, but I really shouldn't.  I've attended costume parties before in which white people were dressed up as various black celebrities.  I personally never did it, but I didn't see any particular problem in college when my girlfriend (who was/is as liberal as the day is long) dressed up as Diana Ross.  In retrospect, I'm pretty mortified by it.  And if I was talking to her regularly and I raised the issue, I suspect she'd share my mortification.

This isn't a 30 year old issue. Those folks were all on board just a few years ago, and the situation is no different now.  That's not called evolution, that's called partisan politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

We aren't talking 30 yrs ago.  We are talking just a few years ago.  Only thing that changed is it is was a keystone of Trump's campaign promise. 

Well, perhaps the fact that Trump's campaign was so overtly racist caused a reconsideration of whether the "keystone" campaign promise was unavoidable and inherently tinted with racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, perhaps the fact that Trump's campaign was so overtly racist caused a reconsideration of whether the "keystone" campaign promise was unavoidable and inherently tinted with racism.

Doesn't matter who's in the WH (well it does to the parties). The democrats were for a border wall/increased security up until Trump took office. It's not a racist issue it's a legal issue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

Whether or not Trump supports the concept of a border wall has nothing to do with actual morality of a wall that already exists and has been constantly expanding under all administrations. 

That's true.

But the fact that it was the "keystone" campaign promise of an avowed and overt racist may have caused a number of people to reconsider their views and think "huh--it didn't occur to me at the time that that was really, really racist, but now that I give it some thought, it actually was; I should change my position."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

first, the democrats were 64-131 in the house and 26-17 in the senate on the secure fence act back in 2006 so it's not that much of a for it before against it, so that's a lie.

second, a few hundred miles of fencing, much of which is vehicle barriers, is not the same as a 3000 mile gapless wall. 

after the existing fence was put in place, we found out it was largely useless:

Quote

Illegal border-crossings

A report in May 2008 by the Congressional Research Service found "strong indication" that illegal border-crossers had simply found new routes.[13] A 2017 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, citing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, found that from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015, the U.S.-Mexico border fence had been breached 9,287 times, at an average cost of $784 per breach to repair.[14] The same GAO report concluded that "CBP cannot measure the contribution of fencing to border security operations along the southwest border because it has not developed metrics for this assessment."[12] GAO noted that because the government lacked such data, it was unable to assess the effectiveness of border fencing, and therefore could not "identify the cost effectiveness of border fencing compared to other assets the agency deploys, including Border Patrol agents and various surveillance technologies."[15]

The fence is routinely climbed or otherwise circumvented.[9] The GAO reported in 2017 that both pedestrian and vehicle barriers have been defeated by various methods, including using ramps to drive vehicles "up and over" vehicle fencing in the sector; scaling, jumping over, or breaching pedestrian fencing; burrowing or tunneling underground; and even using small aircraft.[16]New York Times op-ed writer Lawrence Downes wrote in 2013: "A climber with a rope can hop it in less than half a minute. ... Smugglers with jackhammers tunnel under it. They throw drugs and rocks over it. The fence is breached not just by sunlight and shadows, but also the hooded gaze of drug-cartel lookouts, and by bullets. Border agents describe their job as an unending battle of wits, a cat-mouse game with the constant threat of violence."[9][17]

for those that actually were "for it before they were against it," after finding out it was useless, why wouldn't you change your mind?  what moron doesn't change their mind?

the biggest lie in this is that being against a 3000 mile boondoggle of a useless wall means you're against increased security.  what's actually true is that if you're for this useless piece of shit you're blowing the opportunity cost of actual increases in security.

Edited by elfenix
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, elfenix said:

the biggest lie in this is that being against a 3000 mile boondoggle of a useless wall means you're against increased security.  what's actually true is that if you're for this useless piece of shit you're a moron and a coddled, whiny pussy to boot.

fify

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...