Jump to content

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

markstanco

By markstanco
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21154

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

BUT TRRRUUMPPP 

So funny.  It is like a program stuck on a loop. 

10 RUN PROGRAM

20 IF AOC THEN BUT TTTRRRUUUMMMPPP

30 GOTO LINE 20

Not really.  I criticized her plenty and nobody pulled a 'but Trump' on me.  Probably because I'm not a fucking hypocrite and criticized the shit out of him for all his BS.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 13k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

oh, and to add, let's offer up a 'comparable' analogy reversal and see how it fits.  who's the aoc of the right?  jim jordan?  matt gaetz? this is basically like if there was a huge earthquake he

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

some people see 99% and consider that absolutism.  i am one of those people. this is not your wife grabbing your cell phone that you left in the other room.  this is not a quick favor.  this is a

RomaVicta
RomaVicta

Yes, of course. She is the only woman or woman of color the left right (edit) focuses their ire on. There are no other examples. Great point. It's really all intellectual and rational. And usually ver

Posted Images

David Dennison

David Dennison 18856

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BillyBadAss said:

I read the GND text. I support a good number of the items mentioned in it, but it almost feels like it's trying to turn people off to it rather than get people behind it. 

For instance: 

"Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);"

 

Do you need that statement to make the case the climate change is a huge problem and needs to be addressed aggressively? 

I would be trying to frame it that climate change affects us all, and to a large extent all equally. But that statement frames it in terms of race and injustice which obviously brings baggage into the issue. It just doesn't seem helpful to the cause.  

 

Like climate change, racism and social injustice affect everyone negatively, even the perpetrators.

I think that's probably why that language is included in the resolution.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cacti

Cacti 191

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, BillyBadAss said:

"Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth

 

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Like climate change, racism and social injustice affect everyone negatively, even the perpetrators.

I think that's probably why that language is included in the resolution. 

The long list of “disproportionately affected” groups is intentional. It is so extensive that nearly everyone could claim that they are one of the aggrieved.  Sort of like a physic reading—nearly every person can say, “Hey, they’re talking about me”. And that’s exactly why that language is included in the resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillyBadAss

BillyBadAss 189

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Like climate change, racism and social injustice affect everyone negatively, even the perpetrators.

I think that's probably why that language is included in the resolution.

But it's says climate change has exacerbated racial, social, etc. injustice.  That's a stretch for me, and unnecessarily adds political baggage to an issue we should be striving to remove politics from - if the goal is to truly address it. It just doesn't make sense. 

Climate change as a problem can fully stand on it's own. It affects everyone in the world. It has security, economic, even existential implications. WTF would you try to conflate it with issues of social/racial injustice. It seems asinine. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18856

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BillyBadAss said:

But it's says climate change has exacerbated racial, social, etc. injustice.  That's a stretch for me, and unnecessarily adds political baggage to an issue we should be striving to remove politics from - if the goal is to truly address it. It just doesn't make sense. 

Climate change as a problem can fully stand on it's own. It affects everyone in the world. It has security, economic, even existential implications. WTF would you try to conflate it with issues of social/racial injustice. It seems asinine. 

The poor will be disproportionately affected by climate change. In places like the United States, that means minorities will be disproportionately affected by climate change. That makes it a political issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillyBadAss

BillyBadAss 189

Posted
Posted

The poor will be disproportionately affected in that any bad thing that happens is usually magnified by being poor, sure. It still makes no sense to conflate the issues. I think we should be trying to unite around addressing climate change. The science is pretty clear. The implications of doing nothing are pretty clear. The effects are in many cases effectively permanent and non-reversible. We should all be able to be on the same "side" and agree to do something about it. We should not be trying to conflate it with other politically contentious issues.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45945

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

Vogue says hi.

So the fact that AOC consented to an interview that showed her partner and her apartment means her Mom's wishes to see her marry are fair game?  Is that your angle?

It's pretty much "she dressed like she wanted it".  Good for you.

The vast majority of right-wing lickspittles would wilt like creamsicles in a Texas summer under the scrutiny this chick gets, and yet she not only weathers it but fucking relishes the opportunity to put stupid out of touch old politicians and political wonks in their place.  I'm gonna guess her Mom is pretty strong, too, but AOC is right -- Mom should be off limits, just as that little kid Damien Barron is.  (Oops.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So the fact that AOC consented to an interview that showed her partner and her apartment means her Mom's wishes to see her marry are fair game?  Is that your angle?

It's pretty much "she dressed like she wanted it".  Good for you.

The vast majority of right-wing lickspittles would wilt like creamsicles in a Texas summer under the scrutiny this chick gets, and yet she not only weathers it but fucking relishes the opportunity to put stupid out of touch old politicians and political wonks in their place.  I'm gonna guess her Mom is pretty strong, too, but AOC is right -- Mom should be off limits, just as that little kid Damien Barron is.  (Oops.)

make fun of the autistic kid, nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

About the group that paid for that billboard -

The Job Creators Network (JCN) is a conservative U.S. advocacy group. It was founded by Bernie Marcus, the co-founder and former CEO of Home Depot.

The organization has received significant funding from the Mercer Family Foundation, a private grant-making foundation that invested about $70 million into conservative causes between 2009 and 2014.[1][2][3][4]


Folks associated with that group -

Mike Gallagher is an American radio host and conservative political commentator. He is the host of The Mike Gallagher Show, a nationally syndicated radio program that airs throughout the United States on Salem Radio Network and is also a FOX News Channel Contributor and guest host. According to Talkers magazine, Gallagher is the ninth most-listened-to radio talk show host in the United States [1].

In December 2006 Gallagher made a controversial comment on Fox News, in response to a discussion of whether film actors and television personalities should be held to account for public statements they make against the government in a time of war, specifically Joy Behar's comparison of then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to Adolf Hitler. Gallagher stated that, "I think we should round up all of these folks. Round up Joy Behar. Round up Matt Damon, who last night on MSNBC attacked George Bush and Dick Cheney. Round up [Keith] Olbermann. Take the whole bunch of them and put them in a detention camp until this war is over because they’re a bunch of traitors."[20]

Gallagher has come under fire of accusations of racism and Islamophobia after stating that airports ought to have a "Muslims Only" line in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, saying "It's time to have a Muslims check-point line in America's airports and have Muslims be scrutinized. You better believe it, it's time."[21]



Newt Gingrich


Bradbury "Brad" Anderson (born 1949) is the former CEO and Vice Chairman of consumer electronics retailer Best Buy.

He also serves on the board of PragerU, a website that produces conservative educational videos.

In April 2018, OpenSecrets reported that Anderson along with the Best Buy founder Richard Schulze were financial supporter of the Secure America Now group which ran anti-Muslim ads during the final months of the 2016 US Presidential Election[6]


Paul Ryan


Andrew Franklin Puzder is the former chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants, the parent company of Hardee's and Carl's Jr., a position he held from September 2000 to March 2017.[1] He was previously a commercial trial lawyer in private practice from 1978 to 1995 who handled many high-profile cases and was active in the pro-life movement.

On December 8, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump nominated Puzder to serve as Secretary of Labor, but on February 15, 2017, he withdrew due to lack of votes needed for his confirmation.[3]

Speaking to Business Insider in 2016, Puzder said that increased automation could be a welcome development because machines were "always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there's never a slip-and-fall or an age, sex, or race discrimination case.".[63][65] However, Puzder does not advocate completely removing humans from the "fast food equation," and has mentioned several drawbacks to increased automation, including detrimental effects on customer service and difficulty in building company culture.[66]

He backed comprehensive immigration reform in 2013.[67] At that time, Puzder stated "If we had immigration reform and were able to hire these people who really want to work, we’d have a more diverse, incentivized and productive workforce, you’d really reinforce this idea that the United States is the land of opportunity, the land of entrepreneurial vision — and that could use some reinforcing.”[68] In 2013, Puzder said "Immigrants appreciate what America offers. They are not taking jobs from Americans, because there are not sufficient Americans applying for jobs. Maybe they feel they have better options."[69]



Sounds like they’re a totally unbiased group. Really a bunch a folks just looking out for the little guy, truly.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, BillyBadAss said:

I read the GND text. I support a good number of the items mentioned in it, but it almost feels like it's trying to turn people off to it rather than get people behind it. 

For instance: 

"Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);"

 

Do you need that statement to make the case the climate change is a huge problem and needs to be addressed aggressively? 

I would be trying to frame it that climate change affects us all, and to a large extent all equally. But that statement frames it in terms of race and injustice which obviously brings baggage into the issue. It just doesn't seem helpful to the cause.  

 

If it is disproportionately affecting every type of community known to mankind is it really disproportionately affecting any community?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, BillyBadAss said:

But it's says climate change has exacerbated racial, social, etc. injustice.  That's a stretch for me, and unnecessarily adds political baggage to an issue we should be striving to remove politics from - if the goal is to truly address it. It just doesn't make sense. 

Climate change as a problem can fully stand on it's own. It affects everyone in the world. It has security, economic, even existential implications. WTF would you try to conflate it with issues of social/racial injustice. It seems asinine. 

 

Duhhhhhhh, duh, duh, DUH DUH

071118_2001.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, David Dennison said:

The poor will be disproportionately affected by climate change. In places like the United States, that means minorities will be disproportionately affected by climate change. That makes it a political issue.

So are you implying that only minorities can be poor or are you implying that only poor can be minorities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm implying that if I was a middle or upper class minority I would be a tad bit pissed at your post.  Also, if I was a poor white person I would a tad bit pissed at your post.

Facts don't care about your feelings bro.

Edited by Fozzz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18856

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm implying that if I was a middle or upper class minority I would be a tad bit pissed at your post.  Also, if I was a poor white person I would a tad bit pissed at your post.

You'd only be pissed if you didn't understand what "disproportionately" means.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillyBadAss

BillyBadAss 189

Posted
Posted (edited)

I could argue (not seriously), that the rich will be disproportionately affected by climate change. The rich tend to live in coastal areas (rising sea levels, hurricanes). They have homes in forested areas (wildfires), bla bla bla. It's a stupid argument because it doesn't matter. Just as the opposite is a stupid argument. 

If some of the worst effects of climate change take shape, we are all affected. The fact that we are arguing over who is affected more is exactly my point. We should be agreeing that climate change is the biggest problem human kind faces, and be looking for world-wide solutions to it; Not trying to slice out groups who are getting more screwed by it than others. What purpose does that serve? It is counter productive. 

If anything we should be highlighting that "hey, you people in power, it will affect you just as much as everyone else. It's not just a problem for 'other' people". 

 

Edited by BillyBadAss
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45945

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm implying that if I was a middle or upper class minority I would be a tad bit pissed at your post.  Also, if I was a poor white person I would a tad bit pissed at your post.

Good lord.  Let's walk through this:  there are more minorities than whites below the poverty level.  If we assume climate change adversely affects the poor as compared to middle or upper class Americans, then we can easily conclude climate change will disproportionately affect minorities.  

Here, look at these numbers and try some simple arithmetic.  We're all rooting for you:

Picture

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

It's a moot point anyway according to the U.N. we've all been fucked for almost two decades now.

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.

Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.

Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″

He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.

″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″

He said there is time to act, but there is no time to waste.

UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.

Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.

″We have no clear idea about the ecological minimum of green space that the planet needs to function effectively. What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,″ said Brown.

Each acre of rain forest can store 100 tons of carbon dioxide and reprocess it into oxygen.

Brown suggested that compensating Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya for preserving rain forests may be necessary.

The European Community is talking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said.

The treaty could also call for improved energy efficiency, increasing conservation, and for developed nations to transfer technology to Third World nations to help them save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, said Brown.

 

Oh yeah, this is an AP article from June 1989.   Last I checked there have been no charity concerts organized to donate wading boots for the citizens of the Maldives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No. Are you implying that minorities aren't disproportionately poor in this country?

Compared to the rest of the poor in the world they're all a bunch of Rockafellers. We have the best poor people in the world.  You wanna see poor, visit the "informal housing" in South Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17534

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Lurch said:

We should all ignore science because a scientist was wrong 20 years ago.

He doesn't appear to be a scientist at all actually, but rather a diplomat.

https://www.pace.edu/sites/default/files/files/commencement/hdr-2003-dr-noel-j-brown.pdf 

 Dr .Noel Brown is the former Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, North American Regional office. Dr. Brown holds a B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Seattle University, an M.A. in International Law and Organization from Georgetown University and Ph. D. in International Relations from Yale University .He also holds a diploma in International Law from The Hague Academy of International Law

Also, it isn't even clear that his statements were necessarily wrong. His prediction from 1989 doesn't appear to have a time element as to when those things would come to pass. It sets 2000 as a deadline for action, but it doesn't say anything about those events actually occurring by the year 2000. I'd have to look at the current science, but I don't think those conclusions are inconsistent with what we expect to happen in a hundred years or so given our current conditions. We still need to act in order to prevent additional damage, but we already believe that some amount of damage is going to occur (and has been occurring). 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Reminds me of a Norm McDonald joke about how when the Bill Cosby scandal came out, someone said to him, “And the worst thing about it is Cosby was such a hypocrite!”  Norm responds, “Really?  I think the serial drugging and raping was worse than the hypocrisy.”

You know the worst thing about catastrophic climate change melting down the earth’s ecosystem and causing widespread death and destruction?  The micro aggressions!

A million points of heat ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18856

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Compared to the rest of the poor in the world they're all a bunch of Rockafellers. We have the best poor people in the world.  You wanna see poor, visit the "informal housing" in South Africa.

That's great.

We're talking about the United States of America. You can find American poor all over the place. Their relative wealth compared to South African poor is irrelevant to their poverty here.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...