They are absolutely terrified of her.
-
-
Maybe these Virginian lads can get jobs in the NetherlandsComment
-
-
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1093667967055941634
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/s...67967055941634
Among other things, this is a very clear violation of the Enquirer's plea deal with the Southern District of New York.Comment
-
That video is great.
Pecker must have a terminal illness. I can't imagine another circumstance under which you'd break up the marriage of a man who can pay $1 million dollars a page and a success bonus, for evidence that will see you spend the rest of your life in jail.Comment
-
Well, Jeff Bezos is really not bothered about having his bits plastered all over the Internet.
Fair play.Comment
-
-
ok. I'm old, and even I know, that the number of views, is easily divisible by the people who know about it, divided by the people who are told about it, and watch 4 seconds of it.
(eg/ie: the other team, and those who don't give a fuck.)
Nef: don't fall into what you think you know, and you know that you know this. She is fresh, but... we'll see. So far, so fucking nuclear, admittedly.
*Oh, and repeat viewings? I watched it twice.Last edited by Gerontophile; 08-02-2019, 08:21.Comment
-
-
Not just coincidentally, Virginia was the state that lost the case on the ban on inter-racial marriage:
https://cnu.libguides.com/civilright...lovingvirginia
Comment
-
-
I was one of those people who didn't quite understand the excitement about AOC last year. She beat a tired old, white, non-progressive congressman in a diverse, young, progressive district. It didn't feel like a particularly revolutionary moment: the excitement felt more like the US left trying desperately to believe that they had their own Tea Party moment than anything to do with AOC herself.
It now feels like I was wrong - the more I see of her, the more impressed I am. The performative twitter stuff is entertaining fluff, but that video posted upthread is better than almost any congressional stuff I've seen And what I've read of her Green New Deal is actually pretty impressive and has most of the focus on the right things, which is a serious rarity. There appears to be both substance and sheen.Comment
-
-
I think it's only the MMT aspect that he's objecting to. I don't know how integral it is to the Green Deal.
Not that I understand MMT, but people I do read on economics aren't very kind about it. And chancer Richard Murphy (who might be in Yates's mind there when talking about Corbyn/McDonnell getting proper experts in) seems to bang on about it a lot.Comment
-
I was one of those people who didn't quite understand the excitement about AOC last year. She beat a tired old, white, non-progressive congressman in a diverse, young, progressive district. It didn't feel like a particularly revolutionary moment: the excitement felt more like the US left trying desperately to believe that they had their own Tea Party moment than anything to do with AOC herself.
It now feels like I was wrong - the more I see of her, the more impressed I am. The performative twitter stuff is entertaining fluff, but that video posted upthread is better than almost any congressional stuff I've seen And what I've read of her Green New Deal is actually pretty impressive and has most of the focus on the right things, which is a serious rarity. There appears to be both substance and sheen.
The fact that Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain is also frequently referred to as AOC is going to cause terrible confusion at some point in the future, you mark my words.Comment
-
(hipster voice) Oh, you like AOC then? Quote three of her tweets.Comment
-
Apart from her trying to slipstream Mexicans and Puerto Ricans into the reparations debate and decouple it from slavery and attach it to the New deal.Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View PostComment
-
You see, I think that reparations are the thing that's the biggest outlier - it doesn't really seem to have much to do with the green-ness aspect: The heavy focus on climate change is great, the "slipstreaming" (as you put it) of reparations into it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.Comment
-
TG: seriously, what reparations, and to whom? From whom? Fairly sure I know the "why" although the extent is unknown to me. But, it's never going to happen. Because any conversation about it will, within 3 seconds, devolve into "where's mine cos I got my ass kicked in 3rd Grade" -type whatabootery.
Last edited by Gerontophile; 08-02-2019, 16:55. Reason: I was going to say let's move to another thread, but that marginalises it, and is racist.Comment
-
The reparations was in a separate conversation and not part of her green deal.Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
Slipstreaming I think is an apt description, she first changed the premise of the argument (by switching it from slavery to the new deal) and then used that to add other non-deserving groups to the payout. Black people have seen this before when we were the ones lynched, bitten by dogs and clubbed for civil rights and affirmitive action. And when the legislation was written, the term "minorities" was expanded so the chief beneficiaries were white women.
With AOC in charge, Most of the reparations money will go to the Hispanic community whilst the black people get crumbs as usual. Surely you can see that?
Comment
-
Watching Matt Whitaker. He's not doing very well.Comment
-
Ok, I'll try and answer.Originally posted by Gerontophile View Post
From the American government to the African american descendants of Slavery important bit in bold.and to whom? From whom?
40 years ago, the same thing was said about Japanese Americans being compensated for being interned during WWII.Fairly sure I know the "why" although the extent is unknown to me. But, it's never going to happen.
Yeah, that's what the Liberals would say, they will agree in principle, but when you start talking specifics, they will start hand-braking, steering the conversation down cul de sacs or being outright hostile.Because any conversation about it will, within 3 seconds, devolve into "where's mine cos I got my ass kicked in 3rd Grade" -type whatabootery.
This is why Malcolm X taught the Liberals are black people's worse enemy as they pretend to be on your side whilst screwing him over.
This is why Neely Fully jnr teaches that white supremacy takes both sides of the argument.
It was the hands of Black slaves that built the united states. slaves that were uncompensated only for other immigrants to come over and reap the benefits.
You know, the funny thing is that many white people will acknowledge slavery, and the economic debt america owes to slaves, they will acknowledge the systematic polices of the US government that have kept the black population poor, but when you discuss tangible ways to redress 400 years of oppression, they quickly about face.
The same thing is happenning in South Africa.
Comment
-
Thanks TG. Please take all of my questions at face value. (I can be a total twat on here at times, but sometimes, I'm not, and this is one of them.)
At what point does it stop? How far back does it go? And why only the people who were ripped from Africa?
(Do you want to continue this on the 'white supremacy' thread?)Comment
Comment