Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Back to the topic at-hand. With AOC's new wishlist, she has moved from welfare statist to actual socialist, as it seems she wants to control energy production and energy conservation.

However, she's still relying on The Fed, which is a fatal flaw in her thinking. There are a three reasons why its a terrible idea, environmentally, financially, and ideologically, to continue to allow The Fed's continued existence, but I'm not going to go into that now... just too busy. SIGNY

The GOP does not believe that greenhouse gases change the climate. Since CO2 is not a problem in the opinion of the GOP, fossil fuels are not a problem and the cheapest energy will be burning fossil fuel for power. Trump administration on Wednesday (Feb. 6) moved to roll back an Obama-era rule that would make light bulbs more efficient. More CO2. https://qz.com/1546400/ Trump did the same with vehicle mileage standards. More CO2. And coal. More CO2. - SECOND

Well this is one area where I profoundly disagree with Trump specifically and the GOP in general. I also disagree with the LaRouche end of the Libertarians on that issue, since they believe that there is no limit to human growth and development because technology will always find new energy sources. Sorry, but what does that have to do with the topic? I'm not a single-issue voter, and IMHO the first thing that ANY President needs to do BEFORE instituting environmental regulations is to not make them hostage to "free trade" agreements. So AOC can thank Trump for keeping us out of two of the worst free trade boondoggles, and preserving her ability to dream big about possible solutions to the problem, and so can you and REAVERBOT.- SIGNY

You disagree with something specific from the GOP or Trump? Or you disagree with what second posits as the viewpoint of somebody else?
Second never tells the truth when ranting in his tangential diatribes.

So what are you disagreeing with?

Is CO2 your concern?

---

Yes

Quote:

---

I have not heard mention of rainforests lately.

---

I have.

Quote:

---

Do you feel wildfires add CO2? Instead of growing a little wood and then burning it in wildfires, would it not be better to harvest the wood and restart the wood growth before it is lost to wildfire? The harvested wood would displace some of the need for rainforest lumber.

---

The problem with wood harvesting is that the lumber companies promote clear-cutting even in old=growth forests, not the forest-thinning (clearing out the many small trees crowding the landscape) which is completely non-economic from a timber POV. That is why I have suggested producing biochar and biofuel in situ for forest-thinning operations ... at least you can get SOME economic recovery from that.
Also, rainforests aren't being cleared for timber, they're being cleared for agriculture. In Brazil, for soy and cattle, in Indonesia and maylaysia for palm oil.

Quote:

---

I have forgotten the answer to this: does a mature wood consume more CO2, or a growing wood or saplings in a similar footprint? We know that for fauna, the growth stage consumes far more essential resources than the full grown adult - is that the same for flora?

---

IIRC large trees store more carbon per footprint than small ones. It's a difficult measurement to make, but studies have been done. I'll look it up again when I get the chance.

One way to look at it tho.. while a young sapling can grow 2' per year, a large mature tree can add thirty pounds in one season ... carbon storage unlikely to be matched by a younger, smaller tree.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Before people used "socialism" as a smear, they used "commie". (Now, they use "Russian".) Then, when "socialism" became a smear, left-wing Democrats called themselves "Liberals". When "liberal" became a smear, they opted to call themselves "progressives". Now, I don't know WTF the left-end of the Democratic Party calls themselves, since they've allowed themselves to be pushed off their nomeclature.

---

Why do "they" have to call themselves something? Do they do it or does the opposition do it to smear? I think we know the answer (I do). > Insert Monty Python skit here <

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I suggest that people use the already-established definitions, as I do. If you believe that government should have a large hand in funding and determining production, you're a socialist; and if you believe in a national character to socialism (as opposed to global or international socialism) you're a national socialist. If you believe that such a government should be under control of the popular vote, you're a democratic socialist. If you believe that corporations should control government, you're a fascist. If you believe that governments should be under the control of international banks and corporations, you're an international fascist, AKA globalist. If you believe that corporatism is the right economc system but that government needs to step in to ameliorate its worst excesses, then you believe in the welfare state.

---

^Yep - you subscribe to old, limited, simple minded ways of thinking. That's the past - cya bye.

---

Quote:

---

I had said saplings with similar footprint. Comparable groundspace, skyspace, water absorption. From the growth per year that I've seen in trees, I'd assume they gain numerous pounds, not sure how many would add up to 30.

---

Quote:

---

Old growth trees get burned in wildfires. Doesn't that add CO2?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
We should probably start harvesting hemp again, now that weed is being legalized all over the country.

Why isn't that at thing?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Probably because it is Illegal, all over the country. There is no place in America where it is not Illegal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Probably because it is Illegal, all over the country. There is no place in America where it is not Illegal.

---

Or...

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/12/13/18139678/cbd-industry-hemp-le
galization-farm-bill

Hemp is now legal. That’s huge for the CBD industry.
Legalizing hemp may also be important for scientists who want to study CBD’s effects.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Anybody who uses "Socialism" or "Socialist" because they know the lowbrows will consider it a smear, are just dead in the head. That's ancient, backward, minimal thinking at best. Think first of the problem and then how to solve it. Be as creative and inventive as you can, everything is on the table. It's called a "Wish List" for a reason. I'd call it a "Should List." We should have energy independence, we should have Health Care for all. And not just average HC, but leading the world health care. We should have free college, we should have... on and on. If you don't put the goals out there you have what we have now - old selfish crabbie rich f*cking white dudes just hanging and f*ck everyone else.

---

Before people used "socialism" as a smear, they used "commie". (Now, they use "Russian".) Then, when "socialism" became a smear, left-wing Democrats called themselves "Liberals". When "liberal" became a smear, they opted to call themselves "progressives". Now, I don't know WTF the left-end of the Democratic Party calls themselves, since they've allowed themselves to be pushed off their nomeclature.

I suggest that people use the already-established definitions, as I do. If you believe that government should have a large hand in funding and determining production, you're a socialist; and if you believe in a national character to socialism (as opposed to global or international socialism) you're a national socialist. If you believe that such a government should be under control of the popular vote, you're a democratic socialist. If you believe that corporations should control government, you're a fascist. If you believe that governments should be under the control of international banks and corporations, you're an international fascist, AKA globalist. If you believe that corporatism is the right economc system but that government needs to step in to ameliorate its worst excesses, then you believe in the welfare state.

Just keep in mind that there are political and economic dimensions to any description of government, and try not to confuse the two. There are democracies (with votes) and authoritarian governments (without votes, like China), there are centralizing forces (Like the international bank cartel) and decentralizing ones (in the current push towards globalism, nationalism counts as a decentralizing force, as does separatism) there are economic systems where the government controls almost all aspects of production (like the defunct USSR) or is a majority stakeholder in most production (China, own more than 50% of production as State Owned Enterprises or SOEs, plus does NOT have a private central bank), and economic systems where the government does not control or own even the most basic production like energy (the USA).

In reality, nations are a mix of the above.

Also, "Communism" has never existed, since it is international/ global socialism, so calling someone a communist is like calling them a purple dragon. Even socialism has never been instituted 100%. The closest any nations have gotten to socialism are the USSR, China, and Cuba. China is still closer to socialism than Russia or Cuba.

So when I call AOC a "socialist" I mean that she truly wants to control how energy iss produced and used, which means that she wants to control large aspects of production (what is produced, and how) since energy threads its way through every productive ctivity.

---

Quote:

---

Thanks for such an excellent display of your ignorance, fool.

A Socialist Government is one which controls all aspects of Production. Like Nazi Germany, for example. This form of Government has failed every time it has been tried. Many consider Venezuela to be the most recent example of this.
No Free Enterprise, no Free Market, and usually no other Freedoms or Liberties.
Maybe your own little world is Socialist, like the company you run, but America is not that way. Yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Thanks for such an excellent display of your ignorance, fool.

A Socialist Government is one which controls all aspects of Production. Like Nazi Germany, for example. This form of Government has failed every time it has been tried. Many consider Venezuela to be the most recent example of this.
No Free Enterprise, no Free Market, and usually no other Freedoms or Liberties.
Maybe your own little world is Socialist, like the company you run, but America is not that way. Yet.

---

I know that we are a Constitutional republic, but we have democratic socialist
undertones that helps our society as a whole; such as unions, social security,
medicaid, medicare, SNAP, SSI and TANF all designed to meet the needs of the American public. Generally these programs are in place to offset the affects
of capitalism. So, as you can see both the free market/enterprise and social programs do co-exist and have been running smoothly well over 50 years.

You've been watching too much of that Tucker "Fucker" Carlson on Fox. Don't believe the hype Jewels...the shit in your brains will thank you for it.

---

Quote:

---

I know that we are a Constitutional republic, but we have democratic socialist undertones that helps our society as a whole; such as unions, social security, medicaid, medicare, SNAP, SSI and TANF all designed to meet the needs of the American public. Generally these programs are in place to offset the affects of capitalism. So, as you can see both the free market/enterprise and social programs do co-exist and have been running smoothly well over 50 years.

---

Quote:

---

The middle class is still struggling
The superrich are still thriving
Half of all income goes to the top
Most post-recession gains went to the top
Minimum wage can’t keep up
It’s not just about income, but wealth
More wealth is trickling up

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

I know that we are a Constitutional republic, but we have democratic socialist undertones that helps our society as a whole; such as unions, social security, medicaid, medicare, SNAP, SSI and TANF all designed to meet the needs of the American public. Generally these programs are in place to offset the affects of capitalism. So, as you can see both the free market/enterprise and social programs do co-exist and have been running smoothly well over 50 years.

---

1) We don't have "capitalism" any more, even if we did once upon a time. "Capitalism" depends on competition, but with the advent of just a few large corporations dominating each sector, what we have is "corporatism". And lately, with the corporations having given up on production in the USA as a source of profit, we don't even have that: We have financialism.

2) "Running smoothly"? For who? If by "running smoothly" you mean the utter destruction of the middle class and transfer of wealth to the ultra-elite, well then .. why yes, it's been "running smoothly" ... for the top 0.01%!!

Quote:

---

The middle class is still struggling
The superrich are still thriving
Half of all income goes to the top
Most post-recession gains went to the top
Minimum wage can’t keep up
It’s not just about income, but wealth
More wealth is trickling up

---

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/america-income-inequality
-wealth-net-worth-charts/

Now, I want to point something out: If you didn't have the years written on the bottom axis, you would be hard-pressed to identify when a Republican was in office versus a Democrat. In fact, the two biggest "equalizing" events ... when the wealth of the wealthy dropped sharply which led to a corresponding relative rise of the non-wealthy ... both began under a Republican President GWB. But in that case, it wasn't because the poor got richer, but because stock values dropped (in 2000, the dot-com bubble, and 2008 the Great Recession), and so did capital gains.

Why do you think that there has been a surge of populism on both the right (Tea Party, Trump) and the left (Occupy, AOC)? Because everything's going so well?

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

I know that we are a Constitutional republic, but we have democratic socialist undertones that helps our society as a whole; such as unions, social security, medicaid, medicare, SNAP, SSI and TANF all designed to meet the needs of the American public. Generally these programs are in place to offset the affects of capitalism. So, as you can see both the free market/enterprise and social programs do co-exist and have been running smoothly well over 50 years.

---

1) We don't have "capitalism" any more, even if we did once upon a time. "Capitalism" depends on competition, but with the advent of just a few large corporations dominating each sector, what we have is "corporatism". And lately, with the corporations having given up on production in the USA as a source of profit, we don't even have that: We have financialism.

2) "Running smoothly"? For who? If by "running smoothly" you mean the utter destruction of the middle class and transfer of wealth to the ultra-elite, well then .. why yes, it's been "running smoothly" ... for the top 0.01%!!

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The middle class is still struggling
The superrich are still thriving
Half of all income goes to the top
Most post-recession gains went to the top
Minimum wage can’t keep up
It’s not just about income, but wealth
More wealth is trickling up

---

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/america-income-inequality
-wealth-net-worth-charts/

Now, I want to point something out: If you didn't have the years written on the bottom axis, you would be hard-pressed to identify when a Republican was in office versus a Democrat. In fact, the two biggest "equalizing" events ... when the wealth of the wealthy dropped sharply which led to a corresponding relative rise of the non-wealthy ... both began under a Republican President GWB. But in that case, it wasn't because the poor got richer, but because stock values dropped (in 2000, the dot-com bubble, and 2008 the Great Recession), and so did capital gains.

Why do you think that there has been a surge of populism on both the right (Tea Party, Trump) and the left (Occupy, AOC)? Because everything's going so well?

---

Quote:

---

Looks like a correction under Reagan also, around 1987.

---

Quote:

---

Looks like the Bottom 90% lost about 12% of their share under Clinton, and another 8% under Obamanomics.

Although Obamanomics (and, obviously, Clinton) was a boon for getting poor poorer and rich richer, this trend started with the surge in 401K activity and Mutual Funds. Prior to that, the Commoner could not really partake in the Stock Market.

---

Quote:

---

This graph goes back about 40 years. The prior 200 years are not shown. I already stated that the Socialists like FDR are constantly trying to drag down the nation - he was able to drag out a simple depression for more than a decade via his incompetence.

---

Quote:

---

None of that is in the Constitution, and most of it was declared to be temporary programs when first enacted.
I guess the first 180 years of America must have been abject failure, without Socialist. Has everybody forgotten that the Socialism Experiment of the Colonists is what caused mass starvation and the ensuing First Thanksgiving, requiring charity from the Natives?

---

Quote:

---

It seems the nation has ADHD. Does nobody remember the first couple decades of Reaganomics, where effectively every body who wanted a job had a job.

---

Quote:

---

Before Unions demanded that we ship Jobs overseas,

---

Quote:

---

before Voters Elected Economy Mis-Managers. Before Clinton wasted the Peace Dividend and sent Federal Debt Skyrocketing.

---

Quote:

---

Their tiny brains can only handle thinking of Government as whatever label they - or someone they listen to - tell them it is. "Someone called it Socialism so ALL of it must be run as a Socialist Government! It's God's and Nature's Law of governing!" As soon as I hear someone labeling like that I know they're full of ill intent (bulls*t), and probably lying or too stupid to know what they're even saying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Looks like a correction under Reagan also, around 1987.

---

Savings & loan collapse of 1986-1995.

Quote:

---

Looks like the Bottom 90% lost about 12% of their share under Clinton, and another 8% under Obamanomics.

Although Obamanomics (and, obviously, Clinton) was a boon for getting poor poorer and rich richer, this trend started with the surge in 401K activity and Mutual Funds. Prior to that, the Commoner could not really partake in the Stock Market.

---

Huh? If the rich are getting richer with the stock market, why would the poor be getting poorer with the stock market. And if that's not what you're saying ... what ARE you saying?

Quote:

---

This graph goes back about 40 years. The prior 200 years are not shown. I already stated that the Socialists like FDR are constantly trying to drag down the nation - he was able to drag out a simple depression for more than a decade via his incompetence.

---

The Great Depression was a worlwide phenomenon. What do you think FDR should have done differently?

Quote:

---

None of that is in the Constitution, and most of it was declared to be temporary programs when first enacted.
I guess the first 180 years of America must have been abject failure, without Socialist. Has everybody forgotten that the Socialism Experiment of the Colonists is what caused mass starvation and the ensuing First Thanksgiving, requiring charity from the Natives?

---

There was also starvation during the day of the Robber Baron. Let's not be one-sided in our reading of history.

Quote:

---

It seems the nation has ADHD. Does nobody remember the first couple decades of Reaganomics, where effectively every body who wanted a job had a job.

---

And the Federal deficit expoded to then unheard-of heights?

Quote:

---

Before Unions demanded that we ship Jobs overseas,

---

Wow, there you lost me. Please provide some historical examples of this happening.

Quote:

---

before Voters Elected Economy Mis-Managers. Before Clinton wasted the Peace Dividend and sent Federal Debt Skyrocketing.

---

This is counterfactual. Please look up the Federal deficit under the various Presidents, because ... like wealth inequality ... you would be hard-pressed to see where Ds were in power as opposed to Rs. Clinton reduced the deficit and GWB exploded it with a) tax cuts b) Medicare Part D, and c) multiple Mideastwars.

Besides, I think you're overusing the word "socialist". FDR was saving the "capitalist" system, not overthrowing it. His welfare-statism puts him squarely in the "liberal" column. It wasn't until WWII, when much of production and financing was effectively nationalized (for the war effort) that the USA became somewhat socialist. I don't know if you rememeber, but goods were even rationed during the war. So the time period that you would probably consider as representing the best of America (The War Effort) was veering towards socialism, and the part that you consider "socialist" was really liberalism.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. nk I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Their tiny brains can only handle thinking of Government as whatever label they - or someone they listen to - tell them it is. "Someone called it Socialism so ALL of it must be run as a Socialist Government! It's God's and Nature's Law of governing!" As soon as I hear someone labeling like that I know they're full of ill intent (bulls*t), and probably lying or too stupid to know what they're even saying.

---

Yep, I agree 1000%. I'll give you an "for instance" - I have Latino friends that swear by Trump (I know, go figure), and they follow his every move as though they had discovered gold in the hills of California in 1849. Anyway,
I've seriously tried to explain to them their misguided devotion to his Trumpness. I've told them how he sees all Latinos (and brown people in general) as Mexicans and that ultimately he will look to deport ALL Latinos
regardless of citizenship status. First the "illegals" and then, little by little, all brown peoples.

It's what I tell my Christian friends, watch out! If you can force someone, by law, to have a baby against their will. It won't be long before you are rounded up and persecuted for your religious beliefs. Trump operates on his wims, purely on what makes him feel good in the moment. That's the way dictators work, just ask the North Koreans. Trump idolizes Putin and Kim, and wishes to be like them. Let's see if he has the balls to defy the Constitution - the law of the land.

P.S. Let me add that he's already challenged the Constitution by blatantly flying in the face of the Emoluments clause (to name one).


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Look at you white knighting for these ignorant Mexican Americans who aren't intelligent enough to make up their minds on how they feel about things for themselves.

---

Quote:

---

You do realize that your attitude here is EXACTLY the same as somebody calling a black dude an Uncle Tom for not behaving exactly as black people are expected to, right?

---

Quote:

---

You do realize that your attitude here is EXACTLY the same as somebody calling a black dude an Uncle Tom for not behaving exactly as black people are expected to, right?

---

Quote:

---

It's what I tell my Christian friends, watch out! If you can force someone, by law, to have a baby against their will. It won't be long before you are rounded up and persecuted for your religious beliefs. Trump operates on his wims, purely on what makes him feel good in the moment. That's the way dictators work, just ask the North Koreans. Trump idolizes Putin and Kim, and wishes to be like them. Let's see if he has the balls to defy the Constitution - the law of the land.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

You do realize that your attitude here is EXACTLY the same as somebody calling a black dude an Uncle Tom for not behaving exactly as black people are expected to, right?

---

No. I'm talking about people that don't get that Trump is insulting a whole race right to their face. They support a man who has said that Mexicans are rapists, drug dealers and human traffickers. These same people are "Christians" who support a man who traumatizes little children by separating
them from their parents, some as young as two years old, who, experts say, will be scarred for life...even if they were to be reunited with their parents.

This sick motherfucker knows that he's doing this, purposefully. This is what I talk to them about. People being lied to and manipulated in order to keep them from applying lawfully to gain asylum. Fucking scumbag. And supporters
believe his phony bullshit. They think that he's defending the border. They cover their racism with the false belief that he's actually worried about
protecting Americans. BULLSHIT! He's actually sucking Putin's dick and fucking
Americans. Do you think for a moment he gives two shits about you? He does things without thinking....what am I saying, he doesn't have a brain.

Of course, you can say whatever the fuck you want...but me...a racist! Ha!
If Trump wins another term, you'll see. He'll round up every non-white person
and feed them to the lions. Deportations will have a new record, that's the
one area he will top Obama. Fucking douchebag!


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

You do realize that your attitude here is EXACTLY the same as somebody calling a black dude an Uncle Tom for not behaving exactly as black people are expected to, right?

---

No. I'm talking about people that don't get that Trump is insulting a whole race right to their face. They support a man who has said that Mexicans are rapists, drug dealers and human traffickers. These same people are "Christians" who support a man who traumatizes little children by separating
them from their parents, some as young as two years old, who, experts say, will be scarred for life...even if they were to be reunited with their parents.

This sick motherfucker knows that he's doing this, purposefully. This is what I talk to them about. People being lied to and manipulated in order to keep them from applying lawfully to gain asylum. Fucking scumbag. And supporters
believe his phony bullshit. They think that he's defending the border. They cover their racism with the false belief that he's actually worried about
protecting Americans. BULLSHIT! He's actually sucking Putin's dick and fucking
Americans. Do you think for a moment he gives two shits about you? He does things without thinking....what am I saying, he doesn't have a brain.

Of course, you can say whatever the fuck you want...but me...a racist! Ha!
If Trump wins another term, you'll see. He'll round up every non-white person
and feed them to the lions. Deportations will have a new record, that's the
one area he will top Obama. Fucking douchebag!


SGG

---

I can't tell if you're doing a parody bit here or if you're absolutely delusional.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I found myself, once again, defending AOC in real life yesterday.

I really think it's sad she's being destroyed over the whole Amazon thing in NY. I keep hearing "she's stupid. she says stupid shit. she drove out tens of thousands of jobs with the stupid shit she says".

Yanno what? That might all be true... But she's "stupid" enough to have the courage to say a lot of shit about how the working class is screwed, and how it's only going to get worse. The middle class is disappearing, and by the time my niece is my age it won't exist anymore.

Big Businesses in bed with our political "leaders" who are all bought and paid for by them absolutely love AOC. They love how the loss of Amazon in her state is going to make people turn on her. She will be a great example to any other young politicians who have a bigger heart than a brain out there to keep their fucking mouths shut and tow the Big Business line or else.


People keep talking about a civil war brewing. I don't think it's going to happen the way, or for the reasons that they think it will though. It won't be about race or political affiliation. It will be about class warfare.

Big Business better figure it out. Our government stopped working to protect us a long time ago. We have laws against monopolistic monoliths and anti-trust, but they are never enforced. What the yellow jackets recently did in France is only a small sample of what's going to happen here when workers collectively raise their hands in disgust and say fuck it.


And I'm sure at that time, all of the newspapers like WaPo that are owned by Big Business will call us the bad guys.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

I can't tell if you're doing a parody bit here or if you're absolutely delusional.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I found myself, once again, defending AOC in real life yesterday.

I really think it's sad she's being destroyed over the whole Amazon thing in NY. I keep hearing "she's stupid. she says stupid shit. she drove out tens of thousands of jobs with the stupid shit she says".

Yanno what? That might all be true... But she's "stupid" enough to have the courage to say a lot of shit about how the working class is screwed, and how it's only going to get worse. The middle class is disappearing, and by the time my niece is my age it won't exist anymore.

Big Businesses in bed with our political "leaders" who are all bought and paid for by them absolutely love AOC. They love how the loss of Amazon in her state is going to make people turn on her. She will be a great example to any other young politicians who have a bigger heart than a brain out there to keep their fucking mouths shut and tow the Big Business line or else.


People keep talking about a civil war brewing. I don't think it's going to happen the way, or for the reasons that they think it will though. It won't be about race or political affiliation. It will be about class warfare.

Big Business better figure it out. Our government stopped working to protect us a long time ago. We have laws against monopolistic monoliths and anti-trust, but they are never enforced. What the yellow jackets recently did in France is only a small sample of what's going to happen here when workers collectively raise their hands in disgust and say fuck it.


And I'm sure at that time, all of the newspapers like WaPo that are owned by Big Business will call us the bad guys.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Were you defending AOC at work? Family?
What/why did you defend? Communism? Socialism? Illiteracy?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I found myself, once again, defending AOC in real life yesterday.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I really think it's sad she's being destroyed over the whole Amazon thing in NY. I keep hearing "she's stupid. she says stupid shit. she drove out tens of thousands of jobs with the stupid shit she says".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
People keep talking about a civil war brewing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
And I'm sure at that time, all of the newspapers like WaPo that are owned by Big Business will call us the bad guys.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
How did you defend her?

---

Quote:

---

Where are you hearing this? You and JSF... "I heard... someone said... I read somewhere..." WTF?

---

Quote:

---

So you have heard of that? And where did you hear it? Maddow? No? Source is important. Was it from the same people that said there was an invasion at the border? Rapists and drug smugglers crawling across from Mexico? (trick question) Did you notice that this conclusion was being voiced at about the same time on a bunch of these Media outlets and online pundits, almost like it was coordinated? The same ones that say things like "the Main Stream Media... bark bark Obama..." even though they are part of the main stream media? They try to distance themselves from Trumps blather about the press is your enemy, "we're not that press." Do you sense an over all pattern happening? Could you see it as a new way to rev up The Base? You have to have fresh meat for the followers, right? Like you have to have original programming for tv. Like you need a Nunes memo that is going to blow things open and arrests will be made, Pelosi in jail. Q-Anon, The Awakening... they keep feeding Trump's people Bull Sh*t and they keep lapping it up.

---

Quote:

---

Have you ever read the WaPo? Or do you only know it from people saying negative things about it online? You just found out that it's owned by Bezos so your knee jerk reaction is to hate because he's so f*cking rich and you're not, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Your problem here is that it's all bullshit.

Do you know who's behind this fake attack? The Koch brothers.

National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) is a front group and industry funded right-wing political and policy lobbying organization. NLPC was founded in 1991 by Peter Flaherty and Ken Boehm, who previously worked for "Citizens for Reagan".[1]

NLPC is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt foundation and a former "associate" member of the State Policy Network, a web of right-wing “think tanks” in every state across the country.[2] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Legal_and_Policy_Center

What is the State Policy Network?

The State Policy Network (SPN) is a web of right-wing “think tanks” and tax-exempt organizations in 49 states, Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., Canada, and the United Kingdom. As of October 2018, SPN's membership totals 158. Today's SPN is the tip of the spear of far-right, nationally funded policy agenda in the states that undergirds extremists in the Republican Party.

SPN describes itself as a network and service organization for the "state-based free market think tank movement," and its stated mission is "to provide strategic assistance to independent research organizations devoted to discovering and developing market-oriented solutions to state and local public policy issues."[1] It was founded in November 1991[2] and incorporated in March of 1992.[3]

SPN groups operate as the policy, communications, and litigation arm of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), giving the cookie-cutter ALEC agenda a sheen of academic legitimacy and state-based support.

Many SPN groups are and often write ALEC "model bills."

In the states, SPN groups increasingly peddle cookie-cutter "studies" to back the cookie-cutter ALEC agenda, spinning that agenda as indigenous to the state and giving it the aura of academic legitimacy. Many SPN groups, such as the Mackinac Center in Michigan, have been accused of lobbying in their states, in violation of IRS rules for non-profit "charitable" organizations.

Some SPN groups, like the Goldwater Institute in Arizona, also contain litigation centers funded by national foundations to defend or pursue the SPN/ALEC agenda.

SPN shares many of same sources of funding as ALEC, including Koch institutions.

The Kochs' Americans for Prosperity provides the "grassroots" boots on the ground for this agenda.

Although many SPN groups claim to be independent and non-partisan, they promote a policy agenda -- including union-busting, attacks on the tort bar, and voter suppression -- that is highly-partisan and electoral in nature. SPN President Tracie Sharp told the Wall Street Journal that she had always felt Wisconsin and Michigan were only "thinly blue," and that the GOP has been put on better footing by the unions' slide. "When you chip away at one of the power sources that also does a lot of get-out-the-vote," she says, "I think that helps -- for sure."[4]
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Policy_Network

So you see, anyone can see that this is just a smear attempt from the Koch brothers' fascist libertarian reichwing flying monkeys.

It'll go nowhere, no wrongdoing will be found, but they'll be able to use it to smear her for the rest of her long career. If it costs her some money, even better. They've got more than enough to do this over and over.

AOC is a superstar of the left, and has replaced Hillary as the Emmanuel Goldstein of the reich wing.

Now you're educated about what's going on. You're welcome.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Blames Right-Wing Media For Daily Death Threats
“There’s clearly a correlation between the intensity of Fox News and Breitbart and all those folks and the amount of threats that we get.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-death-threats-
ring-wing-media_n_5c95ea12e4b057f7330b184e

"Ocasio-Cortez said there was “clearly a correlation” between the intensity of the critical coverage of her on widely watched conservative cable network Fox News and far-right media outlet Breitbart “and all those folks and the amount of threats that we get.”

She feels “safest when I’m home” in the Bronx, she added, and revealed how Capitol Police had now advised her against sharing her schedule due to the ongoing threat to her security."

I've seen reichwingers criticize her for riding in SUVs. Don't they know she needs security wherever she goes now?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Blames Right-Wing Media For Daily Death Threats
“There’s clearly a correlation between the intensity of Fox News and Breitbart and all those folks and the amount of threats that we get.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-death-threats-
ring-wing-media_n_5c95ea12e4b057f7330b184e

"Ocasio-Cortez said there was “clearly a correlation” between the intensity of the critical coverage of her on widely watched conservative cable network Fox News and far-right media outlet Breitbart “and all those folks and the amount of threats that we get.”

She feels “safest when I’m home” in the Bronx, she added, and revealed how Capitol Police had now advised her against sharing her schedule due to the ongoing threat to her security."

I've seen reichwingers criticize her for riding in SUVs. Don't they know she needs security wherever she goes now?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Blames Right-Wing Media For Daily Death Threats
“There’s clearly a correlation between the intensity of Fox News and Breitbart and all those folks and the amount of threats that we get.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-death-threats-
ring-wing-media_n_5c95ea12e4b057f7330b184e

"Ocasio-Cortez said there was “clearly a correlation” between the intensity of the critical coverage of her on widely watched conservative cable network Fox News and far-right media outlet Breitbart “and all those folks and the amount of threats that we get.”

She feels “safest when I’m home” in the Bronx, she added, and revealed how Capitol Police had now advised her against sharing her schedule due to the ongoing threat to her security."

I've seen reichwingers criticize her for riding in SUVs. Don't they know she needs security wherever she goes now?

---

That's what happens when you make yourself a celebrity. How many house reps can you name? She's on the short list.

I'm going to guess that more than 90% of Americans couldn't even name 10 US house reps. I'm probably being exceedingly generous here.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is this Troll suggesting that the gas-guzzling vehicles and firearm usage should not be controlled/permitted/regulated by the State - which is a subsidiary and employee of The People, The Electorate, The Voters?

This Troll is arguing on behalf of all Conservatives, the reasonable folk.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Blames Right-Wing Media For Daily Death Threats
“There’s clearly a correlation between the intensity of Fox News and Breitbart and all those folks and the amount of threats that we get.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-death-threats-
ring-wing-media_n_5c95ea12e4b057f7330b184e

"Ocasio-Cortez said there was “clearly a correlation” between the intensity of the critical coverage of her on widely watched conservative cable network Fox News and far-right media outlet Breitbart “and all those folks and the amount of threats that we get.”

She feels “safest when I’m home” in the Bronx, she added, and revealed how Capitol Police had now advised her against sharing her schedule due to the ongoing threat to her security."

I've seen reichwingers criticize her for riding in SUVs. Don't they know she needs security wherever she goes now?

---

That's what happens when you make yourself a celebrity. How many house reps can you name? She's on the short list.

I'm going to guess that more than 90% of Americans couldn't even name 10 US house reps. I'm probably being exceedingly generous here.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

If you limited your 90% of Americans to 90% of Liberal Americans, which defines the Low-information Voter demographic, you would be spot on.
I don't know of any reasonable, or well-informed, aka Conservatives who couldn't name 10. But yeah, Democrats are oblivious.

---