Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3307
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 58 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    Yeah, I can't help but laugh when I see posters who voted for Trump saying things on this board as if they think they're serious people who anyone else takes seriously.

    I’m telling you, these motherfuckers are walking, breathing examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

  2. 11 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    She also tweeted in 2012 that "Israel has hypnotized the world"

    To me, statements like these have to be judged on their fact/fiction nature, regardless of what motivates it. So in the case of the comment you mentioned, that was just flat out wrong. They have not "hypnotized the world," and you need no more evidence than how the annual Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question vote in the UN General Assembly shakes out every single year. The cause of the Palestinians is always supported in that resolution to the tune of around 164-7 (with the 7 being the US, Israel and a handful of Pacific islands that hardly any of Israel's "supporters" on this site could find on a map). So she was just factually wrong to say that. 

    Quote

    and said more recently that the pro-Israel position is about "allegiance to a foreign country." 

    Again, judge it on a fact/fiction basis. On this comment, it's a little mixed. When it comes to the right wing, it's definitely true. When it comes to the establishment wing? Not so much. But again, the establishment isn't allied with Israel because of some undying love/loyalty to Jews. Their motivation is no different than when it was first established in 1958 when an NSC document explained "if we choose to combat radical Arab nationalism and to hold Persian Gulf oil by force if necessary, a logical corollary would be to support Israel as the only strong pro-West power left in the Near East." Bear in mind, that was 1958. That was before such sentiments were intensified to the point where a certain Secretary of State articulated the current strategic policy known as "Stalemate."

    Quote

    Either way, Trump's overstatement of what she's said is disgraceful, and his self-serving effort to divide American support for Israel along partisan lines is more damaging thing for Israel that I've ever seen from an American politician. 

    No doubt.

  3. 2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

     If that story had stayed in the news a few more days we probably would've seen David Duke condemning her and standing up for Israel just to troll (please don't tell me that happened and I just missed it).  

    He did offer comment on it, and it was a troll effort, just not the kind you think. He went out of his way to push her to the moon, called her the "the most important Member of the US Congress!" etc. He knows he's a hated guy, and he also knows that the only thing that could used to make her portrayal in the mainstream media any worse than disagreeing with her is him agreeing with her. He knew that as soon as he tweeted those comments that anyone who bothered to read his drivel would have said "see, I told you Omar is horrible! EVEN DAVID DUKE AGREES WITH HER!!!" It's all an image game with them, and he did exactly what Trump would have wanted that jock-sniffing piece of shit to do in that situation.

  4. 9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    I think it was ill-advised because it also plays into the general stereotype of the Jewish puppet-master, but I don't think that was her intent. 

    With this, I'll agree. It's important for dissenters to take extra care with how they present a case because there is just no low to which power will not shrink when it suits their purposes in propagandizing and straw-manning the living shit out of what people like her say.

  5. 24 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

    Are you serious?

    You've never heard the phrase "Jew him down" when speaking of a negotiation?  Have you not read Shakespeare?

    The "greedy jew" is totally an anti-Semitic trope.

    Again, the exact same comment she made is precisely true for other states. Israel doesn't accept the US aid that she was lambasting because they're Jewish. They accept it because they're a powerful state, which is exactly why Saudi Arabia accepts it as well. What you just posted is a convenient excuse to deflect from the issue. 

    Just read from the exact article @yoladu referenced and you'll notice it says "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic leadership on Monday condemned Rep. Ilhan Omar for suggesting that Israel’s allies in American politics were motivated by money rather than principle." Those last 3 words are the entire crux of the case, and it's entirely accurate. Our alliance with Israel hasn't anything to do with principle. It has to do with money, and incidentally, it also cuts in both directions. The whole thing about money and greed isn't an exclusive Israeli domain, even in this particular relationship. It's also a domain of the US, which is precisely why we pursue that course. One is smoking the hopium if they think that our relationship with them has to do with some undying love for Jews or Judaism or any of that emotional/sentimental horseshit. That's man-made mythology and there isn't a word of truth to it.

    You knew better than to post a comment like that.

  6. 27 minutes ago, softlynow said:

    I still don’t get that one. Greed isn’t a trait peculiar to a negative stereotype of Jews. I get that they’re associated with money-exchanging occupations, but it just seems too much of a stretch to say that tweet was a slur. 

    Beat me to it. That comment in no way was anti-semitic. I mean hell, it's true for Saudi Arabia, it was true for Iran between 1953-1979, and it's true for a host of allies that we have/had over the years. Would any Republican or Democrat dare to accuse someone of anti-Arabism for denouncing the relationship we had with S.A. for being just about money? Any accusations of anti-Persianism for denouncing the relationship we had with Iran under the Shah for the same reason? Any accusations of anti-Indonesianism for denouncing our relationship with Suharto? Anti-Latinoism for denouncing Pinochet/Somoza/the Juntas? No. Only with Israel do we hear these chickenshit accusations of anti-semitism. That's special pleading, and fuck that noise.

    The mainstream of the Democratic Party reprimanded her for it, but that's because they're a spineless group of cowards who view support from Israel as a mechanism towards shifting elections in their favor. We heard a lot about Russian interference in the election over the course of the Mueller investigation, but Russia's efforts were pennies on the dollar compared to Israel and Saudi Arabia...yet literally none of the establishment Democrats speak critically of it. I wonder why.

    14 minutes ago, yoladu said:

    I don't disagree. i thought it was a bit of a stretch as well, but I figured maybe I was ignorant to it. I was open to being educated on how some people may have a strong negative reaction to it's use and implication.

    Just read Pelosi's comment and you'll understand the nature of their reaction. She said "Legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate that the United States and Israel share." It was completely disingenuous because 1) when have you ever heard of a Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, et al engaging in such monologues and 2) when one of their own has, when has it not been followed by baseless accusations of anti-semitism? It's a complete joke. She literally was saying "it's ok to criticize Israel, just don't criticize Israel."

    • Like 2
  7. 1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

    I'm not going to sit her and tell you that, having run an experiment twice and watching it fail, that we should continue running the experiment to see if one day it will succeed.  That's stupid.  I'm not sold on the Elizabeth Warren model.  And I'm steadfastly opposed to the Bernie Sanders model.  But it is correct to say that the Laffer model is a complete and total failure.

    Then what model is it that you support?

  8. 16 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    Folks, read the above.  Note the repeated use of "far left." And note the application of that term.  There are only two acceptable creeds in this country: fealty to Trump (as the GOP has made it clear there's no room for anyone who is not 100% in on Trump), or "you're the far left."  That's a pretty fucking incredible spectrum.  There is no "1-100 spectrum," where folks are at varying degrees.  Nope.  There's just Trump, and "far left."  Anything left of Trump is "far left."

    Narratives like "maybe we shouldn't demonize an ethnicity as invaders, because that can lead to bad shit" is "far left," for example.   Hell, here's some modern stuff that's at odds with Trump, and thus reflects "far left" ideology:

    I mean, of course, those are the farewell words from the oval office by PRESIDENT FUCKING REAGAN....but yeah.....far left and stuff.

    We don't even need to get into other notable members of the "far left" who loathe Trump and the direction of the modern GOP - dirty hippies like George Will, David Brooks, etc.

    Oh, and this part is fun:

    I guess you don't remember back in the day (granted, that was a while back) when I was a regular defender of GWB (not a 100% defender, mind you, but definitely a consistent defender as to a variety of attacks from, yep, the left).  And of course, my record of voting in GOP primaries and participating in GOP precinct conventions for many years is just a mirage, I guess. 

    Again, folks, read what he writes -- historical revisionism is a necessary foundation for their beliefs.  They have to create utter falsehoods for their deranged worldview to make any sense.  So, that's what they do.

    Again, that’s all that team sports bullshit. The guy who wrote that horseshit you quoted hasn’t the foggiest clue about domestic affairs, hasn’t the foggiest clue about economic affairs, hasn’t the foggiest clue about foreign affairs, hasn’t the foggiest clue what democracy/socialism/conservatism/liberalism/communism/etc even fucking are, much less could he, even if his life depended on it, correctly pin those terms on those who’d actually fit them.

  9. 24 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

    The shit said here is no more outrageous than what our dumbfuck president says on a daily basis.  Its hysterical watching the right wing loons bitch about the board, meanwhile vote for a senile racist who says the shit he does.  Hypocrites 

    It’s actually worse than you think. A hypocrite is a person who applies to himself different standards than he does to others. But in order to do that, you have to have a standard in mind in the first place. Their only “standard” is their presumption that politics is just another team sport and that they’re supposed to cheer for the red team no matter what.

    • Like 3
  10. On 8/9/2019 at 8:18 AM, JBJ said:

    Maybe fined, but odds are strong that they complied with the law.

    Based on what? I'm sure you think you're going to come up with a clever answer that you think is smart and intelligent...

    but here's what the court documents say:

    "This affidavit sets forth facts establishing probable cause to believe that P H Food, Inc and others are willfully and unlawfully employing illegal aliens in violation of Federal Law and within locations which are further described in Attachment A, currently exists those items, set forth in Attachment B, which constitutes evidence, instrumentalities, contraband and/or fruits of the violations."

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6251347-Immigration-Raids-Affidavit-PH-Food.html

  11. 6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    This makes it really hard to not go with a conspiracy angle on this one.

    Any news on his "suicide" of choice?

    Haven’t seen anything other than he was being treated for cardiac arrest.

  12. 19 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

    “Stealing jobs from Americans?”  

    Fuck me with a chainsaw.  They’re working at chicken plants in rural Mississippi.  Americans won’t do those jobs for any amount of money.

    Well again, we have a labor shortage of nearly 8 million. One cannot argue that “illegals are taking our jobs” until

    1. that figure goes to 0

    2. it then turns into a labor surplus/job shortage

    3. That surplus number reflects that for every illegal immigrant that’s employed, there’s a citizen that’s unemployed and looking for work in a field that has at least 1 illegal working in it.

    Failing to meet any of these 3 conditions instantly nullifies that ridiculous claim. When you have a labor shortage of 7.6 million and an unemployment population of 6.2 million (as in there are enough positions for every single unemployed person in America and it would still leave us with a remainder of 1.4 million in terms of labor shortage if they took them), the claim is nullified.

    • Like 2
  13. 28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


    Oh, go find the twitter posts on this stuff and read the comments. The trumpkins are overjoyed, cheering this.

    And there’s the proof of evolution, folks.

    What you saw wasn’t “people” being “overjoyed.” What you saw, Brisket, was monkeys throwing feces.

    Now, here’s where the proof of evolution is:

    Evolution is the theory of biodiversity, and where Trumpkins divert from chimps is that when chimps throw shit for all the world to see, they don’t consider themselves intelligent for having done so. In fact, sometimes, they actually seem to feel guilty.

    • Like 2
  14. 2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    Agree 100%.   Democrats need to abandon the long-held narrative that reasonable means bipartisan compromise.   Compromise where you must to get law enacted, but ram through whatever you can and be proud of it. 

    It's not that they want to offer compromise; it's that they are compromised.

    • Like 1
  15. 1 hour ago, Rougarou said:

    I'm not sure if you are generally expounding here or specifically reply to what I said. If it's the former, I will defer to you on what the data says and what is true or false around mass shootings as I've honestly just now kind of woke to the issue of mass shootings as something that will be part of our reality. If it's the latter, not sure what the thoughts and prayers dig to me was.

    It wasn't directed at you in specific, just to anyone and everyone who defaults to that line whenever one of these nightmares plays out. 

    If the beginning of the quoted portion was in reference to my comments about the "good guy with the gun," that burden has always been on those making the positive claim, i.e. the claim that such people exist and in the numbers they infer. They've failed miserably to meet that burden, which is why they revert to the same tactic that 24/7-wrong-all-the-damn-time people use: shift the burden of proof. If they had data to support what they've said about it, they would have presented it rather than using the same fallacious arguments they've always been known to use. 

    1 hour ago, Rougarou said:

    I'm pretty okay with being emotional/fear driven around this issue

    That's a very poor choice.

    It's a poor choice because it opens one to being easily led by people with a skin in the game to make one decision over another. In this case, as Bama Chick mentioned, this is the exact frame of mind to which NRA people want people like you to fall. It's not because they're earnest, honest believers in the 2nd amendment (they don't even know what it actually says), it's not because they believe in the good-guy-with-a-gun myth (they have to know by now that it's all 100% bullshit), and it's not even because they think law enforcement would be helped by earnest citizens who are armed to the teeth (even they know that's profusely stupid). They push this because they are tied to gun manufacturers/retailers and, in exchange for the support that they get from same, they have to promote the kind of climate that produces as many gun purchasers as possible. It's the same reason that drug dealers promote the idea that the world is shit, that there's nothing you can do about it except continue to escape reality temporarily by getting high off whatever they're selling. Yeah, no shit they promote that idea; they benefit from people believing it.

    A fool is a person who too readily believes in improbable claims (good guy with a gun) from questionable sources (the NRA) based on insufficient evidence (BECAUSE WE SAID SO, DAMNIT!!!). Organizations like the NRA prey on fools.

     

    • Like 2
  16. 2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    I don't care if he quoted Karl Marx.  The guy drove 650 miles to kill brown people.  It doesn't have to be a clean sheet to understand that racism is at the core of this shooting and that Trump incites this type of behavior with his rhetoric.

    That reminds me of the Dayton shooting. Right wingers are bellowing loudly all over social media about how this guy was a "socialist," was "anti-gun" and "supported Elizabeth Warren."

    1. If he supported Warren, he couldn't have been a socialist, and fancying himself as one already raises questions about his mental faculties.
    2. Nothing in Warren's speeches or in socialist literatures would have ever possibly condoned his actions. If he ever saw that in them, he simply was seeing things that weren't really there. That's the definition of what it is to be deluded.
    3. If the Trump administration ever wanted to be correct about diagnosing "mental illness" as a cause of one of these shootings, this would have been their chance and to my understanding, they haven't even tried it. This guy loathed guns, loathed capitalism, loathed the Republicans, etc, and his solution was to...go to some random bar with a gun, shoot the place up, and in the process, take the life of his own sister...

    Sounds like a nutcase to me.

  17. 2 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

    I've been on the fence about buying guns but the Wal-mart shooting has made me want to buy a gun and take classes and get trained and then get a CHL. I don't ever want to be a sitting duck like that as long as I have people I'm responsible for. This story has really affected me and it's just so sad and infruriating. I think it's for everyone to personally decide until the laws (hopefully) change.

    And i know, you are statistically more likely to die of a heart attack or something, but the odds of dying in a blaze of manifesto bullets seems to be cracking the top 10 in America.

    However unlikely it is, it's that much less likely that the "good guy with a gun" scenario actually plays itself out to the point where lives are saved. Any manifestation of "more guns" is dishonest because it asserts as fact something that is evidently not true. 

    Oh and one more thing, we're at a point now where there is no doubt that when the default response from the right wing on these shootings is "thoughts and prayers," they are just trying to be offensive.

     

  18. 1 hour ago, Horn Dog said:

    Holy shit.  So when right wing white extremists go on a rampage its all the fault of liberal dems.  

    I must admit awe at how the white suprematist movement has made “anti-semitism” a criticism of the left.

    That's their game: The Pot Calling the Silverware Black

  19. 10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    This.  "They say what I'm thinking."

    The GOP is -- and we are now officially at a point where this is ZERO hyperbole -- a terrorist organization.  Seriously, if this was a political organization in another country, riling up hate and inspiring lone wolf terrorists to come kill 20 Americans because of who they are, we'd unquestionably brand it as a terrorist organization.

    You may be surprised that this is not an original take, and it happens to be correct. I doubt any of our resident Trumpanzees can correctly recite the definition of terrorism, but it fits that chickenshit cult like a glove.

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...