Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, pacman said:

People react so predictably to AOC, just as the establishment would want. Amazing how many of our populace are so ready to bend over and carry the water of the 1%.

My checklist:

She beat a worthless incumbent.

She's atypical of the ineffective group think in Washington.

What more could any of you want? The absolute brightest of us don't have the courage to run against this toxic political environment.

 

She needs to grow and learn quickly, as she is under unprecedented  levels of attack for a new member of our government. Most new members are roundly ignored by all.

Most new members don't make the noIse she has.  She's said some exciting things (that would bankrupt us potentially ) and also made some blunders. She's provided some of the ammunition, and the media has put her under a microscope as well. 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

54 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The point is that Icono is being Icono and is trying to imply that "Palestine" didn't exist until 100 years after Christ.  I know his bullshit.  I know what he was angling for.  I responded in kind.

If you're dead set on educating us that, yes jimmyjazz was right that "Palestine was mentioned 4 times in the Old Testament but that didn't exactly answer Icono's point", then fine, it's not a fucking debate, the guy is an intellectual midget who spews bigoted shit all day long and I'm going to head him off at the pass when I feel it's warranted.  By by all fucking means, keep on with your detailed analysis on the merits of the case without actually paying one fucking iota of attention to the man's behavior on this site day in and day out. 

Say, you wouldn't happen to agree with him, would you?

Crimony.  I'm going to go drink beer.  

So you admit that your argument was bullshit old man. Good 

[jimmyjazz 45952]

28 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I just read the last page and saw some points on a period of history that is interesting to me, and in particular I saw your post on the references to Palestine in the OT and was curious why you made that assertion.  That doesn’t imply that I endorse the position of another poster.  It seems your objection is against a poster in general and not a point in particular; I’m not interested in that squabble and will back out.  If he is as bad as you say, then it should be easy to challenge the points he does make without need to attack ones he does not make. 

Everything I stated was true.  Icono gets off in trying to gaslight people with factoids he pulls from whatever alt-right source he happens to be reading at the moment, and as usual it doesn't tell the whole story.  For one thing, your (and my) interpretation of Christ's race is not wholly supported by history, but disregarding that, Icono tried to imply something that just isn't true.  I'm sorry you don't approve of the give and take here -- maybe it's not the place for you.  Carry on, it's way beyond unimportant.

[Enchubben 5510]

11 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I just read the last page and saw some points on a period of history that is interesting to me, and in particular I saw your post on the references to Palestine in the OT and was curious why you made that assertion.  That doesn’t imply that I endorse the position of another poster.  It seems your objection is against a poster in general and not a point in particular; I’m not interested in that squabble and will back out.  If he is as bad as you say, then it should be easy to challenge the points he does make without need to attack ones he does not make. 

Who is this guy with sensible facts and reason?

[Anastasis 23469]

5 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Who is this guy with sensible facts and reason?

Clearly lost. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Everything I stated was true.  Icono gets off in trying to gaslight people with factoids he pulls from whatever alt-right source he happens to be reading at the moment, and as usual it doesn't tell the whole story.  For one thing, your (and my) interpretation of Christ's race is not wholly supported by history, but disregarding that, Icono tried to imply something that just isn't true.  I'm sorry you don't approve of the give and take here -- maybe it's not the place for you.  Carry on, it's way beyond unimportant.

What were you trying to prove ?  That Palestine existed ?  That Jesus was a Palestinian according to Congresswoman Ilhan ?  That there were indeed references to Palestine in the Bible ?

IT's post was in direct reference to Omar Ilhan apparently attempting to say Jesus was Palestinian and or from Palestine.

It seems the word Palestine was translated incorrectly from Philistine (if we are to rely on Axiom of Choices factoid), whereas you posted that the King James Bible does indeed have references to Palestine, correct but a bastardization of the original name Philistine.

 IT's point was that, Jesus was not Palestinian, and Omar Ihlian was incorrect in her assertion, which isn't really her fault if she, like 99.9% of the rest of the world was relying on a modern version of the Bible.  You made the claim that IT was trying to gas light the thread somehow. Please explain how claiming the Ilhan comment was incorrect is gaslighting the thread.  Palestine apparently didn't exist till the Romans renamed the region, the first known recorded example of foreign powers engaging ME meddling (more interesting trivia).

Axiom of Choice schooled us all with his interesting bit of knowledge (I had no idea about the change in translation), and pretty much killed your gas lighting comment.

[Mo Horn 8841]

This page perfectly sums up where things stand these days.  Let's argue about whether someone's claim that Jesus was Palestinian is accurate or not and how the incorrectness of this sums up the ability and character of the person who said it. Meanwhile the President of the United States tweets falsehoods multiple times a day and it's a normal day. We are so screwed. 

[jimmyjazz 45952]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Axiom of Choice schooled us all with his interesting bit of knowledge (I had no idea about the change in translation), and pretty much killed your gas lighting comment.

Gaslighting?  Hardly.  I quote the original statement by Icono:

Quote

This repulsive shitstain knows exactly what she is talking about and refers to Jesus as a Palestinian (Judea was not renamed Palestine until after Bar Khokba revolt 100 years after Jesus’ death you fucking idiot).

He is clearly saying that Jesus could not have been Palestinian because Judea wasn't renamed "Palestine" until after Christ died.  Correctly pointing out Biblical references to the region of Palestine that occur in the Old Testament neuters that argument.  (He didn't even need to go there -- it is widely thought that Jesus was a Jew, and of course this is central to Christianity, but also accepted in Islam, etc., regardless of what the frosh Congresswoman implies.)

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Gaslighting?  Hardly.  I quote the original statement by Icono:

He is clearly saying that Jesus could not have been Palestinian because Judea wasn't renamed "Palestine" until after Christ died.  Correctly pointing out Biblical references to the region of Palestine that occur in the Old Testament neuters that argument.  (He didn't even need to go there -- it is widely thought that Jesus was a Jew, and of course this is central to Christianity, but also accepted in Islam, etc., regardless of what the frosh Congresswoman implies.)

How about quoting yourself. That's what I'm questioning.  If you both believe Jesus wasn't from Palestine why did you refute his comment ? 

[jimmyjazz 45952]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

How about quoting yourself. That's what I'm questioning.  If you both believe Jesus wasn't from Palestine why did you refute his comment ? 

You're drawing a distinction between locale and heritage.  The borders of "Palestine" are not well defined in a historical context, but we can damn sure assert that his point that Judea wasn't renamed "Palestine" until after Christ's death is irrelevant to the argument about whether or not Jesus was a Palestinian.  I'd have to dig but I imagine it was possible to be a Palestinian Jew.  Even if that's not true, his argument was stupid.

Edited April 27, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

You're drawing a distinction between locale and heritage.  The borders of "Palestine" are not well defined in a historical context, but we can damn sure assert that his point that Judea wasn't renamed "Palestine" until after Christ's death is irrelevant to the argument about whether or not Jesus was a Palestinian.  I'd have to dig but I imagine it was possible to be a Palestinian Jew.  Even if that's not true, his argument was stupid.

You're now moving the goal post. He said Jesus wasn't a Palestinian. Palestine wasn't created till after the death of Jesus. There are no references to Palestine in the Bible. You came back with 4 references that are now believed to be just translation errors, and are now agreeing that he wasn't. The phrase you're looking for is, I was wrong.  Happens to the best of us.

Palestine wasn''t a place till the Romans renamed it that after the death of Christ. He was a Judean Jew according to all translations of the Bible except the incorrect reference Ms. Ilhan made.

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

Why are we talking about the historical Jesus?

[Enchubben 5510]

2 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

This page perfectly sums up where things stand these days.  Let's argue about whether someone's claim that Jesus was Palestinian is accurate or not and how the incorrectness of this sums up the ability and character of the person who said it. Meanwhile the President of the United States tweets falsehoods multiple times a day and it's a normal day. We are so screwed. 

Omar has a pretty clear anti-Israel, anti Jewish track record and went as far as calling Jesus not a Jew. It’s ok to discuss and point out that she’s a moron and call her out when she makes inflammatory and incorrect statements.  

We do probably need a “some people some things” thread though because I got a feeling Omar will be feeding us crap like this for quite a while and we don’t need it mixed in with the other dipshit, AOC.

[jimmyjazz 45952]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You're now moving the goal post. He said Jesus wasn't a Palestinian. Palestine wasn't created till after the death of Jesus. There are no references to Palestine in the Bible. You came back with 4 references that are now believed to be just translation errors, and are now agreeing that he wasn't.

That's just not true.  The land known as Palestine was acknowledged as such prior to Christ's birth.

I'm not going to continue arguing this -- feel free to dig around in the historical references and actually learn how complicated the issue is.  I'm now heading out for Palestine San Antonio to watch regional soccer.  Have a great weekend.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Why are we talking about the historical Jesus?

Ms. Ilhan stated that Jesus was from Palestine, That's been refuted and as has usual people on opposite sides of the site are arguing over that fact.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Onboard 2.0

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's just not true.  The land known as Palestine was acknowledged as such prior to Christ's birth.

I'm not going to continue arguing this -- feel free to dig around in the historical references and actually learn how complicated the issue is.  I'm now heading out for Palestine San Antonio to watch regional soccer.  Have a great weekend.

Scurry away, good thing you got a goal post to take with you.

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

Ms. Ilhan stated that Jesus was from Palestine, That's been refuted and as has usual people on opposite sides of the site are arguing over that fact.

Ms who?

[Anastasis 23469]

56 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Why are we talking about the historical Jesus?

Cause there is no equivalent quacks board here so naturally these type of discussions all end up interweaves in the politics board. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

36 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ms who?

Congresswoman Omar Ilhan

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You're now moving the goal post. He said Jesus wasn't a Palestinian. Palestine wasn't created till after the death of Jesus. There are no references to Palestine in the Bible. You came back with 4 references that are now believed to be just translation errors, and are now agreeing that he wasn't. The phrase you're looking for is, I was wrong.  Happens to the best of us.

Palestine wasn''t a place till the Romans renamed it that after the death of Christ. He was a Judean Jew according to all translations of the Bible except the incorrect reference Ms. Ilhan made.

The Egyptians and Assyrians referenced Palestine well before that even though I know you don't care what they thought. But even your Western Supremacist mind should know that Herodotus in Ancient Greece referenced a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" 500 years before Jesus' birth.

The Romans called it Roman Judea when Jesus was born and Syrian Palestine 130 years later.  

Who gives a shit what the Bible calls it?  The Bible is not a contemporary Roman gov't record.  It's pseudo fiction written well after the events actually took place if they took place at all. 

Arguing over Bethlehem is silly anyway. It has always been a city on the edge of Arab and Jewish rule and still is. 

[tucker 238]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Why are we talking about the historical Jesus?

Because hipster jesus could be confused as gay

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

The Egyptians and Assyrians referenced Palestine well before that even though I know you don't care what they thought. But even your Western Supremacist mind should know that Herodotus in Ancient Greece referenced a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" 500 years before Jesus' birth.

The Romans called it Roman Judea when Jesus was born and Syrian Palestine 130 years later.  

Who gives a shit what the Bible calls it?  The Bible is not a contemporary Roman gov't record.  It's pseudo fiction written well after the events actually took place if they took place at all. 

Arguing over Bethlehem is silly anyway. It has always been a city on the edge of Arab and Jewish rule and still is. 

Ooh, Western supremacist mind.... nice. Yeah not the case on my part.  Love how you jump to conclusions though.    

If the Egyptians and Assyrians were referring to it as Palestine, that's another reference point to be discussed.  I'll use the biblical interpretation when it's accepted as being accurate.

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

Congresswoman Omar Ilhan

Is that your congresswoman?

[workswithseed 2106]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Is that your congresswoman?

Why does it matter, if Mitch McConnell says something stupid, do you not make fun of it?

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

Why does it matter, if Mitch McConnell says something stupid, do you not make fun of it?

Come to think of it, I don’t think I ever have. Can you find an example?

 

But Mitch McDonnell is the Senate Majority Leader, not some rando backbencher nobody’s ever heard of outside of their own district and AM radio shows sponsored by prepper supply companies and MLM vitamin scams.

[elfenix 34240]

Why are we talking about the historical Jesus?

Because instead of starting a new thread icono decided to use this one to bring up a different newb congresscritter who was talking about jesus. Likely because if he started that one no one but he, onboard, and euro would be in there posting regarded memes. And then he wouldn't have an audience.

[TDunk 590]

[Skyline 325]

So Kellyanne went on Tapper today to try and dunk on AOC for not tweeting about the latest synagogue shooting (she did). Then Kellyanne says that AOC didn't tweet about the Sri Lankan massacre (AOC did, but later on because AOC was in PR). Now Kellyanne is trying to dunk on Hillary and Obama for referring to the Sri Lankan victims as "Easter Worshippers" and not Christians. 

The obsession with a freshman member of the House is absurd. 

[EuroHorn 3264]

Oh no!

[Thetexashammer 1062]

6 minutes ago, Skyline said:

So Kellyanne went on Tapper today to try and dunk on AOC for not tweeting about the latest synagogue shooting (she did). Then Kellyanne says that AOC didn't tweet about the Sri Lankan massacre (AOC did, but later on because AOC was in PR). Now Kellyanne is trying to dunk on Hillary and Obama for referring to the Sri Lankan victims as "Easter Worshippers" and not Christians. 

The obsession with a freshman member of the House is absurd. 

The other day I heard the BBC describe her as a "rising star in the Democratic Party". I mean those right wingers just won't shut up about her!!!!

[Skyline 325]

1 minute ago, Thetexashammer said:

The other day I heard the BBC describe her as a "rising star in the Democratic Party". I mean those right wingers just won't shut up about her!!!!

...ok? 

One of the chief members of the WH Admin is going on tv to complain about a freshman member of the House not tweeting about something in a timely fashion. Is that not over the top to you considering the main topic was yet another synagogue shooting? 

 

 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

14 minutes ago, Skyline said:

...ok? 

One of the chief members of the WH Admin is going on tv to complain about a freshman member of the House not tweeting about something in a timely fashion. Is that not over the top to you considering the main topic was yet another synagogue shooting? 

 

 

Politicians being political? Heavens to Betsy, whatever shall we do? 

They're all scumbags. Why are you shocked at their behavior? Did you just fall off the turnip truck? Oh but wait, it'll all change when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Socialism really will work this time, because tits.  The media is making a big deal because they love socialism.

When AOC leaves office, she'll be worth tens of millions of dollars, own several homes and probably several SUVs. Think about who the loser is in this scenario. Its you. For believing the bullshit.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[GSU&UT 1798]

Imagine looking at the gross amount of inequality in this country and thinking AOC is somehow contributing to that problem. Also imagine ignoring what the Nordic countries do to fight against inequality that unfettered capitalism produces and thinking that won't work here.

[workswithseed 2106]

6 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Imagine looking at the gross amount of inequality in this country and thinking AOC is somehow contributing to that problem. Also imagine ignoring what the Nordic countries do to fight against inequality that unfettered capitalism produces and thinking that won't work here.

The Nordic countries are very capitalistic with lots of social services.

[GSU&UT 1798]

9 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

The Nordic countries are very capitalistic with lots of social services.

Sounds good to me, let's use that model and raise taxes on the wealthy.

[HenryJames 66052]

 

[jimmyjazz 45952]

12 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

The Nordic countries are very capitalistic with lots of social services.

Holy shit, I think you've stumbled onto something.  But socialist!

[Skyline 325]

Quote

Politicians being political? Heavens to Betsy, whatever shall we do? 

They're all scumbags. Why are you shocked at their behavior? Did you just fall off the turnip truck? Oh but wait, it'll all change when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Now you're just assuming things and ranting about stuff I haven't done. Go back and read what I wrote. 

Quote

Socialism really will work this time, because tits.  The media is making a big deal because they love socialism...

This is terrible trolling. I didn't even mention socialism. The rest of your post is just gish gallop. If you wish to yell at clouds, do so in your own head. 

[workswithseed 2106]

46 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Holy shit, I think you've stumbled onto something.  But socialist!

The information is out there. I just hate that people shit on capitalism, but then go look at the Nordic countries. They work with capitalism, and thier top marginal tax about 60% in Denmark and 39% in Norway. 

I don't agree at all with what they do, but I can understand that why people like it.

[workswithseed 2106]

20 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Come to think of it, I don’t think I ever have. Can you find an example?

 

But Mitch McDonnell is the Senate Majority Leader, not some rando backbencher nobody’s ever heard of outside of their own district and AM radio shows sponsored by prepper supply companies and MLM vitamin scams.

I don't know, but I was just stating that when someone says something stupid and they have power, even if it's small, people will shit on them.

Since she seems to be in the limelight whatever she says is known by many people.

[David Dennison 18860]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

The information is out there. I just hate that people shit on capitalism, but then go look at the Nordic countries. They work with capitalism, and thier top marginal tax about 60% in Denmark and 39% in Norway. 

I don't agree at all with what they do, but I can understand that why people like it.

Capitalism does a good job of shitting itself, which is why mixed economies work so well.

[Dbeasy 15051]

The people in the Nordic counties are very different from many Americans. What works there may or may not work here.

[GSU&UT 1798]

9 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

The people in the Nordic counties are very different from many Americans. What works there may or may not work here.

Gotta love that casually racist "homogeny" argument. Aren't we Americans and isn't being a snowflake that's incapable of doing something because it's too hard something to be ridiculed from y'all now?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Gotta love that casually racist "homogeny" argument. Aren't we Americans and isn't being a snowflake that's incapable of doing something because it's too hard something to be ridiculed from y'all now?

Saying that what works for people in Nordic countries, that have a different cultural history than Americans or Australians, or Eskimos or Kenyans may not work here is racist ?  Do even shave yet ?   Do you even know what the definition of racism is ? 

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Saying that what works for people in Nordic countries, that have a different cultural history than Americans or Australians, or Eskimos or Kenyans may not work here is racist ?  Do even shave yet ?   Do you even know what the definition of racism is ? 

One of the most commonly cited arguments that a Nordic version of capitalism with strong social welfare programs wouldn't work in the US is because we're not as homogeneous. Basically we're too racially diverse to enact policies that are used in the Nordic countries. So, 1. we can't make sure everyone has affordable healthcare and ensure our most wealthy contribute their fair share because we have too many non-whites and 2. American has suddenly become the country where we immediately give up on things because they're too hard.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

13 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

One of the most commonly cited arguments that a Nordic version of capitalism with strong social welfare programs wouldn't work in the US is because we're not as homogeneous. Basically we're too racially diverse to enact policies that are used in the Nordic countries. So, 1. we can't make sure everyone has affordable healthcare and ensure our most wealthy contribute their fair share because we have too many non-whites and 2. American has suddenly become the country where we immediately give up on things because they're too hard.

The point was some countries have a history of accepting socialist types of gov't more than Americans have seemed to.  That is not racist it's cultural.  

And a diverse racial component of a population does Bring with it different cultural traits, tendencies, shared history, etc.  That is not racist, that's racial, big difference between the 2. 

[David Dennison 18860]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The point was some countries have a history of accepting socialist types of gov't more than Americans have seemed to.  That is not racist it's cultural.  

And a diverse racial component of a population does Bring with it different cultural traits, tendencies, shared history, etc.  That is not racist, that's racial, big difference between the 2. 

The most popular policies in America are socialist in nature.

[jimmyjazz 45952]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The point was some countries have a history of accepting socialist types of gov't more than Americans have seemed to.  That is not racist it's cultural.  

And a diverse racial component of a population does Bring with it different cultural traits, tendencies, shared history, etc.  That is not racist, that's racial, big difference between the 2. 

Lulz.  What an utterly formed-in-bullshit argument.  The right loves to write off change because . . . well, it only worked because everybody there is a whitey.

Could you be any more transparent?

[Bullneck 19090]

38 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

One of the most commonly cited arguments that a Nordic version of capitalism with strong social welfare programs wouldn't work in the US is because we're not as homogeneous. Basically we're too racially diverse to enact policies that are used in the Nordic countries. So, 1. we can't make sure everyone has affordable healthcare and ensure our most wealthy contribute their fair share because we have too many non-whites and 2. American has suddenly become the country where we immediately give up on things because they're too hard.

No kidding.  Every time I see ANYTHING in the U.S. that looks like it might have been even slightly difficult (replacement of the Tappan Zee and Goethals bridges around NYC) I'm amazed we pulled it off.  

Meanwhile, the Chinese are building shit all over the globe, whether people want it or not.  

[Incredulity 11671]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

The most popular policies in America are socialist in nature.

It’s not a lie if you believe it.