(07-15-2019 05:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 05:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That AOC graduated *** laude in economics from BC diminishes BC in my eyes. The GND is NOT the creation of somebody who understands finance.

I think of AOC as a starry eyed idealist.

Tlaib and Omar are just racists.

Don't know enough about about the fourth one.

Can you run through the policy proposals in the Green New Deal and why those specific proposals aren’t things that someone who understand finance would propose?

I’ll definitely agree with your comment about the starry eyed idealist.

Some of the individual proposals are feasible, but not all at once in a 12-year plan. Others just are not feasible at all.

I am going out of town, and cannot take the time to go over each proposal with you. I suggest you read it, and ask yourself HOW these things can all be done at the same time. You're an engineer, tell us HOW. In some cases, Task A needs to be completed before Task B can be started, and some of these tasks will require a lot more than 12 years. And Task C must wait on Task B. And task D is impossible to begin with. And so forth. The GND is why I call her an idealist. She focuses on what she thinks SHOULD be done, with no idea of the cost or logistics of doing it.

(07-15-2019 05:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 05:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That AOC graduated *** laude in economics from BC diminishes BC in my eyes. The GND is NOT the creation of somebody who understands finance.

I think of AOC as a starry eyed idealist.

Tlaib and Omar are just racists.

Don't know enough about about the fourth one.

Can you run through the policy proposals in the Green New Deal and why those specific proposals aren’t things that someone who understand finance would propose?

I’ll definitely agree with your comment about the starry eyed idealist.

Some of the individual proposals are feasible, but not all at once in a 10-year plan. Others just are not feasible at all.

I am going out of town, and cannot take the time to go over each proposal with you. I suggest you read it, and ask yourself HOW these things can all be done at the same time. You're an engineer, tell us HOW. In some cases, Task A needs to be completed before Task B can be started, and some of these tasks will require a lot more than 12 years. And Task C must wait on Task B. And task D is impossible to begin with. And so forth. The GND is why I call her an idealist. She focuses on what she thinks SHOULD be done, with no idea of the cost or logistics of doing it.


"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."
"Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
"Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
"Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
"Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
"Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."
"Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."
"Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."
"Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

You tell me how to finance a whole new world in 10 years.

(07-15-2019 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 05:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 05:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That AOC graduated *** laude in economics from BC diminishes BC in my eyes. The GND is NOT the creation of somebody who understands finance.

I think of AOC as a starry eyed idealist.

Tlaib and Omar are just racists.

Don't know enough about about the fourth one.

Can you run through the policy proposals in the Green New Deal and why those specific proposals aren’t things that someone who understand finance would propose?

I’ll definitely agree with your comment about the starry eyed idealist.

Some of the individual proposals are feasible, but not all at once in a 12-year plan. Others just are not feasible at all.

I am going out of town, and cannot take the time to go over each proposal with you. I suggest you read it, and ask yourself HOW these things can all be done at the same time. You're an engineer, tell us HOW. In some cases, Task A needs to be completed before Task B can be started, and some of these tasks will require a lot more than 12 years. And Task C must wait on Task B. And task D is impossible to begin with. And so forth. The GND is why I call her an idealist. She focuses on what she thinks SHOULD be done, with no idea of the cost or logistics of doing it.

I've read it. The reason I was asking is that the Green New Deal doesn't actually propose anything, since it is a resolution that outlines goals that should be attempted to be completed within the next 10 years - a sort of moon shot, if you will. There are many people that actually think it contains concrete proposals and details, which it doesn't (see stop cows from farting).

That's why I agree that she is a starry-eyed idealist. And that is definitely not an issue I have with her. I have no problem with someone goal setting, building a consensus on the goals, and then working through the details of how to achieve them. Almost no big project starts with all of the details worked out - they start with saying I want to do X, Y, and Z, and then figuring out how to make it work.

It's not a long read - if you haven't read it fully, there are probably some parts you agree with: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres1...s109ih.pdf

(07-15-2019 10:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 09:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 09:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 08:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lolz...


If you can't understand the contextual difference between:

"Go back to where you came from"; and

"Go back, fix things, them come back and tell us how to do it";

then I really dont know what to say.

If you dont understand the implications of playing 'hide the monkey' with the remainder, then again, I dont really know what to say.

So by saying these women (some of which aren't even immigrants) can come back, his statement is appropriate?

I didn't realize it was so easy to get away with being such a ****** person and saying such ****** things - you can wipe away any the **** by laying down a single flower petal.

Trump was wrong for incorrectly identifying multiple women of color as immigrants. Why did he think AOC was an immigrant? Trump was also wrong to pull out the racist/xenophobic trope of "go back where you came from," and a single throwaway line of "come back" doesn't provide him a get out of jail free card.

You seem to be perfectly willing to say Trump is crass, but why try and defend this statement? It's actually resulted in quite a few Republicans speaking out because of how gross and thoughtless it was.

The only thing you have made crystal clear is that you have zero clue as to a New Yorker taunt: "you think you can do a better job, go there, fix a bad part of the world, come back, and tell us how to do it." Are you *that* naive that you havent ever heard that? Seriously?

Funny thing here, that restructure thing I had to do this weekend: I said the *exact* same thing...... lolololololololololol.

Hey, as for 'quite a few', I was one of them. When you chop, snip, and edit it down to 'go back home Paco', yes it seems that way. But that isnt what was said, was it?

And you all *had* to chop, snip, and edit it down to that, didnt you? Lolz..... this is friggin' hilarious...... Hey, just edit the crap out of anything said to get it to say what you want...... this is absolutely delicious!!!!

Let me get this straight: telling someone who is continuously criticizing to 'hey go back, fix it, come back and do a better job' is *now* racist *and* and ********* thing to say..... this is really funny stuff.

So telling people who were born in America: *EXACT TRUMP QUOTE* "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...6994723841

Actually -- that is *not* the "EXACT TRUMP QUOTE"; you are still doing the "edit, chop", but at least left off the "alter". Perhaps try again with a more complete version. I actually provided one above --- one that isnt chopped to all hell.

And for completeness, the statement should be finished with: 'and come back and tell us how to [fix it]'.

Cmon, stop with the edit, chop, alter. Doesnt do anyone any good in this context.

Quote:Implying that they didn't come from America but they came from a different (probably s...h...) country. These are Americans, correct? Why would they go to a different country? Because their parents were from there? You think that's OK? Just some New Yorker blunt talk?

Bluntly, what Trump said was pretty much: "Y'all came from some bad places. Funny that you are the ones bitching and moaning abut how *bad* the United States is, given the state of where you and/or your ancestors (fairly fresh) came from. Since you all have all the answers on why the United States is sooooooooo bad and y'all have *all* the answers --- there is a great petri dish that y'all can try to fix. Go fix it. Then tell us what those results are"

If the 'squad' had deep roots in Detroit I am absolutely positive he would have described Detroit as such a petri dish to do a beter hob with, along with the shithole intimations that Detroit so easily seems partnered with in these times.

Since the 'squad' were either immigrants (Omar), and two others families were from Palestinian lands and Puerto Rico within one generation, one would hazard a guess that most immigrants (or within one generation) would actually relish America. But lets face it --- Omar, OAC, and Talib are amazing examples of toxic pits of vitriol --- to the extent that their own whacked out party shuns them for it......

Most immigrants I run across, interact with, and work with absolutely love the hell out their new environments; and Trump did a job in showing their complete antithesis to that from the squad.

Considering the squad's impunity with respect to their own toxicity, you know what? Blunt talk in light of that monolith of toxicity I really dont have an issue with. Perhaps you do.

As I noted, that blunt talk put the *entire* Democratic party in alignment with these four horsemen of the toxicolypse; the 'squad' is *now* the standard bearer for the Democratic party. It is really hilarious.

So far in July Trump has forced the Democrats to: a) come out against Fourth of July, b) come out against Betsy Ross, c) come out against the original flag of the nation, and now d) forced them to adopt the toxic four as the people whose values that they are deeply defending. Wow.

I mean, lets go for a clean sweep. Call Francis Scott Key a fascist; or better yet, make sure that apple pie is a symbol of oppression and should be banned. It is amazing what the Orange Monster is making the progressives go on record as being against, and being for. This is absolutely hilarious........

If AOC is a toxic pit of vitriol, what is Trump?

I also love all the hate thrown at these women for criticizing portions of America, when Trump ran a campaign that explicitly did the same thing. Why do you think Trump said "again" in his slogan?

(07-15-2019 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 05:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 05:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That AOC graduated *** laude in economics from BC diminishes BC in my eyes. The GND is NOT the creation of somebody who understands finance.

I think of AOC as a starry eyed idealist.

Tlaib and Omar are just racists.

Don't know enough about about the fourth one.

Can you run through the policy proposals in the Green New Deal and why those specific proposals aren’t things that someone who understand finance would propose?

I’ll definitely agree with your comment about the starry eyed idealist.

Some of the individual proposals are feasible, but not all at once in a 12-year plan. Others just are not feasible at all.

I am going out of town, and cannot take the time to go over each proposal with you. I suggest you read it, and ask yourself HOW these things can all be done at the same time. You're an engineer, tell us HOW. In some cases, Task A needs to be completed before Task B can be started, and some of these tasks will require a lot more than 12 years. And Task C must wait on Task B. And task D is impossible to begin with. And so forth. The GND is why I call her an idealist. She focuses on what she thinks SHOULD be done, with no idea of the cost or logistics of doing it.

I've read it. The reason I was asking is that the Green New Deal doesn't actually propose anything, since it is a resolution that outlines goals that should be attempted to be completed within the next 10 years - a sort of moon shot, if you will. There are many people that actually think it contains concrete proposals and details, which it doesn't (see stop cows from farting).

That's why I agree that she is a starry-eyed idealist. And that is definitely not an issue I have with her. I have no problem with someone goal setting, building a consensus on the goals, and then working through the details of how to achieve them. Almost no big project starts with all of the details worked out - they start with saying I want to do X, Y, and Z, and then figuring out how to make it work.

It's not a long read - if you haven't read it fully, there are probably some parts you agree with: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres1...s109ih.pdf

So we will revamp transportation and infrastructure and every building the US and eliminate pollution from our energy production and revamp agriculture and manufacturing while guaranteeing a job to every person (why would they want or need one, anyway?)while building light rail everywhere and, and and.

Some of these thing are good 50 year projects. Some are feasible if taken alone. But to do it all at once - to go from where we are today to Utopia in 10 years - yes, it is idealistic to the nth degree. Isn't this where a critical eye should be employed?

Her plan sounds more like a 5th grader's plan. All puppies and kitten. Yes, it would be nice is everybody could be nice and eat healthy and smile, and, and, and. If you want to spend your time on working out how to meet these goals, fine. Tell us when you know how to do it, and at a cost that is supportable.

Democrats are good at identifying places to spend money. They are not so good at figuring out where the money comes from. You either tax it or borrow it or print it. None of those have ever worked particularly well, certainly not on the scale that the GND requires.

In theory, theory works well in practice. In practice, it doesn't.

(07-15-2019 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 05:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 05:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That AOC graduated *** laude in economics from BC diminishes BC in my eyes. The GND is NOT the creation of somebody who understands finance.

I think of AOC as a starry eyed idealist.

Tlaib and Omar are just racists.

Don't know enough about about the fourth one.

Can you run through the policy proposals in the Green New Deal and why those specific proposals aren’t things that someone who understand finance would propose?

I’ll definitely agree with your comment about the starry eyed idealist.

Some of the individual proposals are feasible, but not all at once in a 12-year plan. Others just are not feasible at all.

I am going out of town, and cannot take the time to go over each proposal with you. I suggest you read it, and ask yourself HOW these things can all be done at the same time. You're an engineer, tell us HOW. In some cases, Task A needs to be completed before Task B can be started, and some of these tasks will require a lot more than 12 years. And Task C must wait on Task B. And task D is impossible to begin with. And so forth. The GND is why I call her an idealist. She focuses on what she thinks SHOULD be done, with no idea of the cost or logistics of doing it.

I've read it. The reason I was asking is that the Green New Deal doesn't actually propose anything, since it is a resolution that outlines goals that should be attempted to be completed within the next 10 years - a sort of moon shot, if you will. There are many people that actually think it contains concrete proposals and details, which it doesn't (see stop cows from farting).

That's why I agree that she is a starry-eyed idealist. And that is definitely not an issue I have with her. I have no problem with someone goal setting, building a consensus on the goals, and then working through the details of how to achieve them. Almost no big project starts with all of the details worked out - they start with saying I want to do X, Y, and Z, and then figuring out how to make it work.

It's not a long read - if you haven't read it fully, there are probably some parts you agree with: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres1...s109ih.pdf

So we will revamp transportation and infrastructure and every building the US and eliminate pollution from our energy production and revamp agriculture and manufacturing while guaranteeing a job to every person (why would they want or need one, anyway?)while building light rail everywhere and, and and.

Some of these thing are good 50 year projects. Some are feasible if taken alone. But to do it all at once - to go from where we are today to Utopia in 10 years - yes, it is idealistic to the nth degree. Isn't this where a critical eye should be employed?

Her plan sounds more like a 5th grader's plan. All puppies and kitten. Yes, it would be nice is everybody could be nice and eat healthy and smile, and, and, and. If you want to spend your time on working out how to meet these goals, fine. Tell us when you know how to do it, and at a cost that is supportable.

I’m sure the actual New Deal’s goals sounded the same way - think of the fact that the Hoover Dam was designed and built in the 30s. We’ve lost the ability to set ambitious goals on a large scale and attempt to achieve them.

I’d rather our leaders set ambitious goals, attempt to achieve them, and perhaps fall short, then not set goals at all. The entirety of the resolution is not impossible to achieve - so let’s identify key areas we agree need to be addressed, and address them. But there is a ton of misinformation floating around about the GND, and it has become a conservative boogeyman.

(07-16-2019 08:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 05:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Can you run through the policy proposals in the Green New Deal and why those specific proposals aren’t things that someone who understand finance would propose?

I’ll definitely agree with your comment about the starry eyed idealist.

Some of the individual proposals are feasible, but not all at once in a 12-year plan. Others just are not feasible at all.

I am going out of town, and cannot take the time to go over each proposal with you. I suggest you read it, and ask yourself HOW these things can all be done at the same time. You're an engineer, tell us HOW. In some cases, Task A needs to be completed before Task B can be started, and some of these tasks will require a lot more than 12 years. And Task C must wait on Task B. And task D is impossible to begin with. And so forth. The GND is why I call her an idealist. She focuses on what she thinks SHOULD be done, with no idea of the cost or logistics of doing it.

I've read it. The reason I was asking is that the Green New Deal doesn't actually propose anything, since it is a resolution that outlines goals that should be attempted to be completed within the next 10 years - a sort of moon shot, if you will. There are many people that actually think it contains concrete proposals and details, which it doesn't (see stop cows from farting).

That's why I agree that she is a starry-eyed idealist. And that is definitely not an issue I have with her. I have no problem with someone goal setting, building a consensus on the goals, and then working through the details of how to achieve them. Almost no big project starts with all of the details worked out - they start with saying I want to do X, Y, and Z, and then figuring out how to make it work.

It's not a long read - if you haven't read it fully, there are probably some parts you agree with: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres1...s109ih.pdf

So we will revamp transportation and infrastructure and every building the US and eliminate pollution from our energy production and revamp agriculture and manufacturing while guaranteeing a job to every person (why would they want or need one, anyway?)while building light rail everywhere and, and and.

Some of these thing are good 50 year projects. Some are feasible if taken alone. But to do it all at once - to go from where we are today to Utopia in 10 years - yes, it is idealistic to the nth degree. Isn't this where a critical eye should be employed?

Her plan sounds more like a 5th grader's plan. All puppies and kitten. Yes, it would be nice is everybody could be nice and eat healthy and smile, and, and, and. If you want to spend your time on working out how to meet these goals, fine. Tell us when you know how to do it, and at a cost that is supportable.

I’m sure the actual New Deal’s goals sounded the same way - think of the fact that the Hoover Dam was designed and built in the 30s. We’ve lost the ability to set ambitious goals on a large scale and attempt to achieve them.

I’d rather our leaders set ambitious goals, attempt to achieve them, and perhaps fall short, then not set goals at all. The entirety of the resolution is not impossible to achieve - so let’s identify key areas we agree need to be addressed, and address them. But there is a ton of misinformation floating around about the GND, and it has become a conservative boogeyman.

The Hoover Dam and the Apollo project were led by people who understood that to turn an idea into reality required them to do the hard work of assembling the right team of experts to work the details, while campaigning tirelessly for buy-in and funding.

Leaders like that are rare now. They've been replaced by magical thinkers, who define leadership as being able to articulate their vision in an inspirational way, believing that if they can do that, then what they envision will happen. Magical thinking is the scourge of modern business and political leadership. I'd say that AOC isn't so much an idealist as a magical thinker.

(07-16-2019 08:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 05:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Can you run through the policy proposals in the Green New Deal and why those specific proposals aren’t things that someone who understand finance would propose?

I’ll definitely agree with your comment about the starry eyed idealist.

Some of the individual proposals are feasible, but not all at once in a 12-year plan. Others just are not feasible at all.

I am going out of town, and cannot take the time to go over each proposal with you. I suggest you read it, and ask yourself HOW these things can all be done at the same time. You're an engineer, tell us HOW. In some cases, Task A needs to be completed before Task B can be started, and some of these tasks will require a lot more than 12 years. And Task C must wait on Task B. And task D is impossible to begin with. And so forth. The GND is why I call her an idealist. She focuses on what she thinks SHOULD be done, with no idea of the cost or logistics of doing it.

I've read it. The reason I was asking is that the Green New Deal doesn't actually propose anything, since it is a resolution that outlines goals that should be attempted to be completed within the next 10 years - a sort of moon shot, if you will. There are many people that actually think it contains concrete proposals and details, which it doesn't (see stop cows from farting).

That's why I agree that she is a starry-eyed idealist. And that is definitely not an issue I have with her. I have no problem with someone goal setting, building a consensus on the goals, and then working through the details of how to achieve them. Almost no big project starts with all of the details worked out - they start with saying I want to do X, Y, and Z, and then figuring out how to make it work.

It's not a long read - if you haven't read it fully, there are probably some parts you agree with: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres1...s109ih.pdf

So we will revamp transportation and infrastructure and every building the US and eliminate pollution from our energy production and revamp agriculture and manufacturing while guaranteeing a job to every person (why would they want or need one, anyway?)while building light rail everywhere and, and and.

Some of these thing are good 50 year projects. Some are feasible if taken alone. But to do it all at once - to go from where we are today to Utopia in 10 years - yes, it is idealistic to the nth degree. Isn't this where a critical eye should be employed?

Her plan sounds more like a 5th grader's plan. All puppies and kitten. Yes, it would be nice is everybody could be nice and eat healthy and smile, and, and, and. If you want to spend your time on working out how to meet these goals, fine. Tell us when you know how to do it, and at a cost that is supportable.

I’m sure the actual New Deal’s goals sounded the same way - think of the fact that the Hoover Dam was designed and built in the 30s. We’ve lost the ability to set ambitious goals on a large scale and attempt to achieve them.

I’d rather our leaders set ambitious goals, attempt to achieve them, and perhaps fall short, then not set goals at all. The entirety of the resolution is not impossible to achieve - so let’s identify key areas we agree need to be addressed, and address them. But there is a ton of misinformation floating around about the GND, and it has become a conservative boogeyman.

The bolded is exactly what Trump is doing, so we are in agreement there.

But your Hoover
Dam analogy falls short. Try building 1,000 Hoover Dams while completely changing over every power plant in America from coal or natural gas to solar/wind while bringing every building in america up to a new stricter code while while bringing up all our infrastructure while converting the population to travel by light rail while cutting emissions from agriculture while (and so on). Then set a 10 year goal to complete it. We could throw the whole GNP at it and it would not be enough to do all those things simultaneously in that time frame...a minor detail to her.

Converting power plants from coal/NG to solar/wind - a good goal and maybe doable in 25-40 years with new technology. To do it in ten while powering the building of rail lines, converting buildings, etc....pipe dream.

Doing one good thing is good. Trying to do 10 good things at once, all of which have a cost to them...chaos.

Gotta go now. have a good day.

(07-15-2019 10:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 09:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 09:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So by saying these women (some of which aren't even immigrants) can come back, his statement is appropriate?

I didn't realize it was so easy to get away with being such a ****** person and saying such ****** things - you can wipe away any the **** by laying down a single flower petal.

Trump was wrong for incorrectly identifying multiple women of color as immigrants. Why did he think AOC was an immigrant? Trump was also wrong to pull out the racist/xenophobic trope of "go back where you came from," and a single throwaway line of "come back" doesn't provide him a get out of jail free card.

You seem to be perfectly willing to say Trump is crass, but why try and defend this statement? It's actually resulted in quite a few Republicans speaking out because of how gross and thoughtless it was.

The only thing you have made crystal clear is that you have zero clue as to a New Yorker taunt: "you think you can do a better job, go there, fix a bad part of the world, come back, and tell us how to do it." Are you *that* naive that you havent ever heard that? Seriously?

Funny thing here, that restructure thing I had to do this weekend: I said the *exact* same thing...... lolololololololololol.

Hey, as for 'quite a few', I was one of them. When you chop, snip, and edit it down to 'go back home Paco', yes it seems that way. But that isnt what was said, was it?

And you all *had* to chop, snip, and edit it down to that, didnt you? Lolz..... this is friggin' hilarious...... Hey, just edit the crap out of anything said to get it to say what you want...... this is absolutely delicious!!!!

Let me get this straight: telling someone who is continuously criticizing to 'hey go back, fix it, come back and do a better job' is *now* racist *and* and ********* thing to say..... this is really funny stuff.

So telling people who were born in America: *EXACT TRUMP QUOTE* "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...6994723841

Actually -- that is *not* the "EXACT TRUMP QUOTE"; you are still doing the "edit, chop", but at least left off the "alter". Perhaps try again with a more complete version. I actually provided one above --- one that isnt chopped to all hell.

And for completeness, the statement should be finished with: 'and come back and tell us how to [fix it]'.

Cmon, stop with the edit, chop, alter. Doesnt do anyone any good in this context.

Quote:Implying that they didn't come from America but they came from a different (probably s...h...) country. These are Americans, correct? Why would they go to a different country? Because their parents were from there? You think that's OK? Just some New Yorker blunt talk?

Bluntly, what Trump said was pretty much: "Y'all came from some bad places. Funny that you are the ones bitching and moaning abut how *bad* the United States is, given the state of where you and/or your ancestors (fairly fresh) came from. Since you all have all the answers on why the United States is sooooooooo bad and y'all have *all* the answers --- there is a great petri dish that y'all can try to fix. Go fix it. Then tell us what those results are"

If the 'squad' had deep roots in Detroit I am absolutely positive he would have described Detroit as such a petri dish to do a beter hob with, along with the shithole intimations that Detroit so easily seems partnered with in these times.

Since the 'squad' were either immigrants (Omar), and two others families were from Palestinian lands and Puerto Rico within one generation, one would hazard a guess that most immigrants (or within one generation) would actually relish America. But lets face it --- Omar, OAC, and Talib are amazing examples of toxic pits of vitriol --- to the extent that their own whacked out party shuns them for it......

Most immigrants I run across, interact with, and work with absolutely love the hell out their new environments; and Trump did a job in showing their complete antithesis to that from the squad.

Considering the squad's impunity with respect to their own toxicity, you know what? Blunt talk in light of that monolith of toxicity I really dont have an issue with. Perhaps you do.

As I noted, that blunt talk put the *entire* Democratic party in alignment with these four horsemen of the toxicolypse; the 'squad' is *now* the standard bearer for the Democratic party. It is really hilarious.

So far in July Trump has forced the Democrats to: a) come out against Fourth of July, b) come out against Betsy Ross, c) come out against the original flag of the nation, and now d) forced them to adopt the toxic four as the people whose values that they are deeply defending. Wow.

I mean, lets go for a clean sweep. Call Francis Scott Key a fascist; or better yet, make sure that apple pie is a symbol of oppression and should be banned. It is amazing what the Orange Monster is making the progressives go on record as being against, and being for. This is absolutely hilarious........

If AOC is a toxic pit of vitriol, what is Trump?

I am on record as him being a toxic tower of vitriol. Your point exactly, that is, beyond a cute repartee?

Quote:I also love all the hate thrown at these women for criticizing portions of America, when Trump ran a campaign that explicitly did the same thing. Why do you think Trump said "again" in his slogan?

Using that logic Reagan ran a campaign of vitriol using the return to the values of the 'city on hill' when faced with the malaise that endemic to the Carter administration, being preceded by the Ford/Nixon.

Good god you are clutching at straws.

Hate to tell you, there are a number of people that do believe the United States entered a similar malaise. Some point to the baby Bush era as that entry; others point to the Obama years. The quagmires of Afghanistan and Iran were direct corollaries to those in SE Asia.

There are *actually* some of us that experienced a hope for an euphoria about the 'goodness and greatness of America' ---- after Carter was gone, after Nixon, during the Iranian hostage crisis, after the Mayaguez incident, and after SE Asia. And within literally two weeks after Reagan took office and his campaign about a return to the shining hill on the city, the US hostages were released, *and* the space shuttle flew for the very first time. And that culminated with the West's victory in the Cold War -- again which President Reagan pulled from a toxic handling under a combination of LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and especially Carter.

You cling to the straw 'again' as toxicity; some of us with a tad more context than you saw it a return to the path of America as experienced in the first heady months of 1981.

So, lad, what exactly is *toxic* about 'again' (that is aside from your endless teeth gnashing)? I think American pride and esteem had plummeted within two years of 9/11 as the endless quagmire of a war drug on, NSA tapped the crap out of our phones, in light of the so-called Patriot Act, and the image of a President that was seemingly jumping around in a bouncy house, with a seemingly endless grab of Executive power by that same ad/hd President.

The crash of 2008 immediately followed, with the subsequent further power grab of Executive power in the name of so-called 'social justice', which in my view simply masked the community organizer / President we elected. Coupled with that same President's very dim view of the United States as a whole (i.e. Michelle Obama saying she had never been proud of the United States) from this point of view, the message of returning to a 'Yes, America is GREAT' isnt such a bad message. Considering that arguably happened in the Camelot years and arguably again in the first two years after Reagan lifted the malaise -- again seems appropriate.

So given that context that seemingly are absolutely blind to, what *exactly* is so fundamentally wrong with 'again'?

I mean, lad, sometime you should actually stop and think that the gd fing world doesnt revolve around your point of view and *your* timeline. If you dont think that a good proportion of the country was of the view that a malaise of '68 to '80 had similarly affected the country between 2000 - 2016, then you are amongst the most myopic people I have ever encountered. And I really hate to tell you, for some of us America *was* great, they did great things and had great attitudes. And I wish that we could return to those times where we did feel great about America, *and* being American. Similarly I actually yearn for a return where American manufacturing had the clout that it once had -- yet another target for the word 'again'.

You think a return to that feeling is 'toxic', because I hate to tell you is that is what the message 'again' means. Has Trump delivered? -- not in my book. But kudos for him for the message.

And you are an utter idiot for pointing to the use of that word as 'toxic' given that history that you are apparently clueless about.

Apparently you are such a fanboi of socialism that you equate the criticisms of AOC and her ilk of 'have to grab all the money we can to be fair' to 'wow, it would be *great* to have a respected nation again' as equivalent criticisms. You have every right to subjectively say that those two are equivalent. If they are, I am utterly happy with the very large probability that I will be worm food before people of that viewpoint actually take the levers of power in this country.

If you are unaware of that timeline, I sincerely hope you do a little research before your next straw clutch foray.

(07-16-2019 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Some of the individual proposals are feasible, but not all at once in a 12-year plan. Others just are not feasible at all.

I am going out of town, and cannot take the time to go over each proposal with you. I suggest you read it, and ask yourself HOW these things can all be done at the same time. You're an engineer, tell us HOW. In some cases, Task A needs to be completed before Task B can be started, and some of these tasks will require a lot more than 12 years. And Task C must wait on Task B. And task D is impossible to begin with. And so forth. The GND is why I call her an idealist. She focuses on what she thinks SHOULD be done, with no idea of the cost or logistics of doing it.

I've read it. The reason I was asking is that the Green New Deal doesn't actually propose anything, since it is a resolution that outlines goals that should be attempted to be completed within the next 10 years - a sort of moon shot, if you will. There are many people that actually think it contains concrete proposals and details, which it doesn't (see stop cows from farting).

That's why I agree that she is a starry-eyed idealist. And that is definitely not an issue I have with her. I have no problem with someone goal setting, building a consensus on the goals, and then working through the details of how to achieve them. Almost no big project starts with all of the details worked out - they start with saying I want to do X, Y, and Z, and then figuring out how to make it work.

It's not a long read - if you haven't read it fully, there are probably some parts you agree with: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres1...s109ih.pdf

So we will revamp transportation and infrastructure and every building the US and eliminate pollution from our energy production and revamp agriculture and manufacturing while guaranteeing a job to every person (why would they want or need one, anyway?)while building light rail everywhere and, and and.

Some of these thing are good 50 year projects. Some are feasible if taken alone. But to do it all at once - to go from where we are today to Utopia in 10 years - yes, it is idealistic to the nth degree. Isn't this where a critical eye should be employed?

Her plan sounds more like a 5th grader's plan. All puppies and kitten. Yes, it would be nice is everybody could be nice and eat healthy and smile, and, and, and. If you want to spend your time on working out how to meet these goals, fine. Tell us when you know how to do it, and at a cost that is supportable.

I’m sure the actual New Deal’s goals sounded the same way - think of the fact that the Hoover Dam was designed and built in the 30s. We’ve lost the ability to set ambitious goals on a large scale and attempt to achieve them.

I’d rather our leaders set ambitious goals, attempt to achieve them, and perhaps fall short, then not set goals at all. The entirety of the resolution is not impossible to achieve - so let’s identify key areas we agree need to be addressed, and address them. But there is a ton of misinformation floating around about the GND, and it has become a conservative boogeyman.

The bolded is exactly what Trump is doing, so we are in agreement there.

But your Hoover
Dam analogy falls short. Try building 1,000 Hoover Dams while completely changing over every power plant in America from coal or natural gas to solar/wind while bringing every building in america up to a new stricter code while while bringing up all our infrastructure while converting the population to travel by light rail while cutting emissions from agriculture while (and so on). Then set a 10 year goal to complete it. We could throw the whole GNP at it and it would not be enough to do all those things simultaneously in that time frame...a minor detail to her.

Converting power plants from coal/NG to solar/wind - a good goal and maybe doable in 25-40 years with new technology. To do it in ten while powering the building of rail lines, converting buildings, etc....pipe dream.

Doing one good thing is good. Trying to do 10 good things at once, all of which have a cost to them...chaos.

Gotta go now. have a good day.

Power companies are currently scrapping future coal plants because the cost of clean energy generating systems are becoming cheaper to construct and operate. So I don’t think a time frame shorter than 20-45 years is undoable.

Again, it’s an outline - if your biggest criticism is there are too many goals, I don’t think that’s so awful.

lad,

It hit squarely hit me in the last twenty minutes during some pro bono work on the difference between 'make america great again' and the message of the squad.

Making America great again is a positive reinforcement -- lets all get to a place that we can be proud of this country; we have been there before.

Rep Ilhan Omar direct quote:

“I believe as an immigrant I probably love this country more than anyone that is naturally born & because I am ashamed of it continuing to live in its hypocrisy.”

In a single quote she claims to love this country *more* than I do, *and* she states she's ashamed of it ------

This is the literal message of wife abuser to his victim: "I only hit you because I love you, and you’ve let me down so badly."

(07-16-2019 09:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 09:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The only thing you have made crystal clear is that you have zero clue as to a New Yorker taunt: "you think you can do a better job, go there, fix a bad part of the world, come back, and tell us how to do it." Are you *that* naive that you havent ever heard that? Seriously?

Funny thing here, that restructure thing I had to do this weekend: I said the *exact* same thing...... lolololololololololol.

Hey, as for 'quite a few', I was one of them. When you chop, snip, and edit it down to 'go back home Paco', yes it seems that way. But that isnt what was said, was it?

And you all *had* to chop, snip, and edit it down to that, didnt you? Lolz..... this is friggin' hilarious...... Hey, just edit the crap out of anything said to get it to say what you want...... this is absolutely delicious!!!!

Let me get this straight: telling someone who is continuously criticizing to 'hey go back, fix it, come back and do a better job' is *now* racist *and* and ********* thing to say..... this is really funny stuff.

So telling people who were born in America: *EXACT TRUMP QUOTE* "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...6994723841

Actually -- that is *not* the "EXACT TRUMP QUOTE"; you are still doing the "edit, chop", but at least left off the "alter". Perhaps try again with a more complete version. I actually provided one above --- one that isnt chopped to all hell.

And for completeness, the statement should be finished with: 'and come back and tell us how to [fix it]'.

Cmon, stop with the edit, chop, alter. Doesnt do anyone any good in this context.

Quote:Implying that they didn't come from America but they came from a different (probably s...h...) country. These are Americans, correct? Why would they go to a different country? Because their parents were from there? You think that's OK? Just some New Yorker blunt talk?

Bluntly, what Trump said was pretty much: "Y'all came from some bad places. Funny that you are the ones bitching and moaning abut how *bad* the United States is, given the state of where you and/or your ancestors (fairly fresh) came from. Since you all have all the answers on why the United States is sooooooooo bad and y'all have *all* the answers --- there is a great petri dish that y'all can try to fix. Go fix it. Then tell us what those results are"

If the 'squad' had deep roots in Detroit I am absolutely positive he would have described Detroit as such a petri dish to do a beter hob with, along with the shithole intimations that Detroit so easily seems partnered with in these times.

Since the 'squad' were either immigrants (Omar), and two others families were from Palestinian lands and Puerto Rico within one generation, one would hazard a guess that most immigrants (or within one generation) would actually relish America. But lets face it --- Omar, OAC, and Talib are amazing examples of toxic pits of vitriol --- to the extent that their own whacked out party shuns them for it......

Most immigrants I run across, interact with, and work with absolutely love the hell out their new environments; and Trump did a job in showing their complete antithesis to that from the squad.

Considering the squad's impunity with respect to their own toxicity, you know what? Blunt talk in light of that monolith of toxicity I really dont have an issue with. Perhaps you do.

As I noted, that blunt talk put the *entire* Democratic party in alignment with these four horsemen of the toxicolypse; the 'squad' is *now* the standard bearer for the Democratic party. It is really hilarious.

So far in July Trump has forced the Democrats to: a) come out against Fourth of July, b) come out against Betsy Ross, c) come out against the original flag of the nation, and now d) forced them to adopt the toxic four as the people whose values that they are deeply defending. Wow.

I mean, lets go for a clean sweep. Call Francis Scott Key a fascist; or better yet, make sure that apple pie is a symbol of oppression and should be banned. It is amazing what the Orange Monster is making the progressives go on record as being against, and being for. This is absolutely hilarious........

If AOC is a toxic pit of vitriol, what is Trump?

I am on record as him being a toxic tower of vitriol. Your point exactly, that is, beyond a cute repartee?

Quote:I also love all the hate thrown at these women for criticizing portions of America, when Trump ran a campaign that explicitly did the same thing. Why do you think Trump said "again" in his slogan?

Using that logic Reagan ran a campaign of vitriol using the return to the values of the 'city on hill' when faced with the malaise that endemic to the Carter administration, being preceded by the Ford/Nixon.

Good god you are clutching at straws.

Hate to tell you, there are a number of people that do believe the United States entered a similar malaise. Some point to the baby Bush era as that entry; others point to the Obama years. The quagmires of Afghanistan and Iran were direct corollaries to those in SE Asia.

There are *actually* some of us that experienced a hope for an euphoria about the 'goodness and greatness of America' ---- after Carter was gone, after Nixon, during the Iranian hostage crisis, after the Mayaguez incident, and after SE Asia. And within literally two weeks after Reagan took office and his campaign about a return to the shining hill on the city, the US hostages were released, *and* the space shuttle flew for the very first time. And that culminated with the West's victory in the Cold War -- again which President Reagan pulled from a toxic handling under a combination of LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and especially Carter.

You cling to the straw 'again' as toxicity; some of us with a tad more context than you saw it a return to the path of America as experienced in the first heady months of 1981.

So, lad, what exactly is *toxic* about 'again' (that is aside from your endless teeth gnashing)? I think American pride and esteem had plummeted within two years of 9/11 as the endless quagmire of a war drug on, NSA tapped the crap out of our phones, in light of the so-called Patriot Act, and the image of a President that was seemingly jumping around in a bouncy house, with a seemingly endless grab of Executive power by that same ad/hd President.

The crash of 2008 immediately followed, with the subsequent further power grab of Executive power in the name of so-called 'social justice', which in my view simply masked the community organizer / President we elected. Coupled with that same President's very dim view of the United States as a whole (i.e. Michelle Obama saying she had never been proud of the United States) from this point of view, the message of returning to a 'Yes, America is GREAT' isnt such a bad message. Considering that arguably happened in the Camelot years and arguably again in the first two years after Reagan lifted the malaise -- again seems appropriate.

So given that context that seemingly are absolutely blind to, what *exactly* is so fundamentally wrong with 'again'?

I mean, lad, sometime you should actually stop and think that the gd fing world doesnt revolve around your point of view and *your* timeline. If you dont think that a good proportion of the country was of the view that a malaise of '68 to '80 had similarly affected the country between 2000 - 2016, then you are amongst the most myopic people I have ever encountered. And I really hate to tell you, for some of us America *was* great, they did great things and had great attitudes. And I wish that we could return to those times where we did feel great about America, *and* being American. Similarly I actually yearn for a return where American manufacturing had the clout that it once had -- yet another target for the word 'again'.

You think a return to that feeling is 'toxic', because I hate to tell you is that is what the message 'again' means. Has Trump delivered? -- not in my book. But kudos for him for the message.

And you are an utter idiot for pointing to the use of that word as 'toxic' given that history that you are apparently clueless about.

Apparently you are such a fanboi of socialism that you equate the criticisms of AOC and her ilk of 'have to grab all the money we can to be fair' to 'wow, it would be *great* to have a respected nation again' as equivalent criticisms. You have every right to subjectively say that those two are equivalent. If they are, I am utterly happy with the very large probability that I will be worm food before people of that viewpoint actually take the levers of power in this country.

If you are unaware of that timeline, I sincerely hope you do a little research before your next straw clutch foray.

Yes, the idiot here isn’t the one who has to rely on childish name calling. Grow up.

edit: even funnier is that your reading comprehension is so poor that you thought my second paragraph was immediately and directly connected to the first. My second paragraph had nothing to do with Trump's language or toxicity - it was everything about his message that criticized America. You can try and rationalize why Trump's criticism of America, and wanting to make it great again (therefore, directly stating it isn't currently) and how Omar's is different, but they really aren't any different. I think both are equally valid and have no issue with Trump suggesting America has issues to fix. I have a problem with people thinking Omar can't do the same thing.

One of my favorite quotes regarding American progress and continuing to form a more perfect union comes from James Baldwin:

Quote: I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/ro...7Kz#page=2

(07-16-2019 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 09:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  So telling people who were born in America: *EXACT TRUMP QUOTE* "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...6994723841

Actually -- that is *not* the "EXACT TRUMP QUOTE"; you are still doing the "edit, chop", but at least left off the "alter". Perhaps try again with a more complete version. I actually provided one above --- one that isnt chopped to all hell.

And for completeness, the statement should be finished with: 'and come back and tell us how to [fix it]'.

Cmon, stop with the edit, chop, alter. Doesnt do anyone any good in this context.

Quote:Implying that they didn't come from America but they came from a different (probably s...h...) country. These are Americans, correct? Why would they go to a different country? Because their parents were from there? You think that's OK? Just some New Yorker blunt talk?

Bluntly, what Trump said was pretty much: "Y'all came from some bad places. Funny that you are the ones bitching and moaning abut how *bad* the United States is, given the state of where you and/or your ancestors (fairly fresh) came from. Since you all have all the answers on why the United States is sooooooooo bad and y'all have *all* the answers --- there is a great petri dish that y'all can try to fix. Go fix it. Then tell us what those results are"

If the 'squad' had deep roots in Detroit I am absolutely positive he would have described Detroit as such a petri dish to do a beter hob with, along with the shithole intimations that Detroit so easily seems partnered with in these times.

Since the 'squad' were either immigrants (Omar), and two others families were from Palestinian lands and Puerto Rico within one generation, one would hazard a guess that most immigrants (or within one generation) would actually relish America. But lets face it --- Omar, OAC, and Talib are amazing examples of toxic pits of vitriol --- to the extent that their own whacked out party shuns them for it......

Most immigrants I run across, interact with, and work with absolutely love the hell out their new environments; and Trump did a job in showing their complete antithesis to that from the squad.

Considering the squad's impunity with respect to their own toxicity, you know what? Blunt talk in light of that monolith of toxicity I really dont have an issue with. Perhaps you do.

As I noted, that blunt talk put the *entire* Democratic party in alignment with these four horsemen of the toxicolypse; the 'squad' is *now* the standard bearer for the Democratic party. It is really hilarious.

So far in July Trump has forced the Democrats to: a) come out against Fourth of July, b) come out against Betsy Ross, c) come out against the original flag of the nation, and now d) forced them to adopt the toxic four as the people whose values that they are deeply defending. Wow.

I mean, lets go for a clean sweep. Call Francis Scott Key a fascist; or better yet, make sure that apple pie is a symbol of oppression and should be banned. It is amazing what the Orange Monster is making the progressives go on record as being against, and being for. This is absolutely hilarious........

If AOC is a toxic pit of vitriol, what is Trump?

I am on record as him being a toxic tower of vitriol. Your point exactly, that is, beyond a cute repartee?

Quote:I also love all the hate thrown at these women for criticizing portions of America, when Trump ran a campaign that explicitly did the same thing. Why do you think Trump said "again" in his slogan?

Using that logic Reagan ran a campaign of vitriol using the return to the values of the 'city on hill' when faced with the malaise that endemic to the Carter administration, being preceded by the Ford/Nixon.

Good god you are clutching at straws.

Hate to tell you, there are a number of people that do believe the United States entered a similar malaise. Some point to the baby Bush era as that entry; others point to the Obama years. The quagmires of Afghanistan and Iran were direct corollaries to those in SE Asia.

There are *actually* some of us that experienced a hope for an euphoria about the 'goodness and greatness of America' ---- after Carter was gone, after Nixon, during the Iranian hostage crisis, after the Mayaguez incident, and after SE Asia. And within literally two weeks after Reagan took office and his campaign about a return to the shining hill on the city, the US hostages were released, *and* the space shuttle flew for the very first time. And that culminated with the West's victory in the Cold War -- again which President Reagan pulled from a toxic handling under a combination of LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and especially Carter.

You cling to the straw 'again' as toxicity; some of us with a tad more context than you saw it a return to the path of America as experienced in the first heady months of 1981.

So, lad, what exactly is *toxic* about 'again' (that is aside from your endless teeth gnashing)? I think American pride and esteem had plummeted within two years of 9/11 as the endless quagmire of a war drug on, NSA tapped the crap out of our phones, in light of the so-called Patriot Act, and the image of a President that was seemingly jumping around in a bouncy house, with a seemingly endless grab of Executive power by that same ad/hd President.

The crash of 2008 immediately followed, with the subsequent further power grab of Executive power in the name of so-called 'social justice', which in my view simply masked the community organizer / President we elected. Coupled with that same President's very dim view of the United States as a whole (i.e. Michelle Obama saying she had never been proud of the United States) from this point of view, the message of returning to a 'Yes, America is GREAT' isnt such a bad message. Considering that arguably happened in the Camelot years and arguably again in the first two years after Reagan lifted the malaise -- again seems appropriate.

So given that context that seemingly are absolutely blind to, what *exactly* is so fundamentally wrong with 'again'?

I mean, lad, sometime you should actually stop and think that the gd fing world doesnt revolve around your point of view and *your* timeline. If you dont think that a good proportion of the country was of the view that a malaise of '68 to '80 had similarly affected the country between 2000 - 2016, then you are amongst the most myopic people I have ever encountered. And I really hate to tell you, for some of us America *was* great, they did great things and had great attitudes. And I wish that we could return to those times where we did feel great about America, *and* being American. Similarly I actually yearn for a return where American manufacturing had the clout that it once had -- yet another target for the word 'again'.

You think a return to that feeling is 'toxic', because I hate to tell you is that is what the message 'again' means. Has Trump delivered? -- not in my book. But kudos for him for the message.

And you are an utter idiot for pointing to the use of that word as 'toxic' given that history that you are apparently clueless about.

Apparently you are such a fanboi of socialism that you equate the criticisms of AOC and her ilk of 'have to grab all the money we can to be fair' to 'wow, it would be *great* to have a respected nation again' as equivalent criticisms. You have every right to subjectively say that those two are equivalent. If they are, I am utterly happy with the very large probability that I will be worm food before people of that viewpoint actually take the levers of power in this country.

If you are unaware of that timeline, I sincerely hope you do a little research before your next straw clutch foray.

Yes, the idiot here isn’t the one who has to rely on childish name calling. Grow up.

edit: even funnier is that your reading comprehension is so poor that you thought my second paragraph was immediately and directly connected to the first. My second paragraph had nothing to do with Trump's language or toxicity - it was everything about his message that criticized America. You can try and rationalize why Trump's criticism of America, and wanting to make it great again (therefore, directly stating it isn't currently) and how Omar's is different, but they really aren't any different. I think both are equally valid and have no issue with Trump suggesting America has issues to fix. I have a problem with people thinking Omar can't do the same thing.

One of my favorite quotes regarding American progress and continuing to form a more perfect union comes from James Baldwin:

Quote: I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.

I guess you are one of the few short-busers in the world that seemingly think a short, pithy criticism of 'again' directly relates to the constant toxicity of the 'squad'. Got it. 'Again' is the exact same message as 'The United States is akin to Nazi Germany in running concentration camps'. Quite the insight there, son. Oh, and I forgot the rest of the comments, I am sure you can use a search engine and find far more than that from the four.

Are you so invested in these pillars that you cant even note that?

And to be blunt, had you bothered with any semblance of reading comprehension my statement of history for you was describing the 'message' that you had a diaper-level hissy fit about.

Had you any 'reading comprehension' you would have noted that the history lesson that you dont seeming have any backing of kind of sets the stage for the 'again' comment. And 'again', the term 'again' is far from the constant toxic flow of bile from these four.

I have zero issue with 'criticism' (the message that you are now waving your cute little mini fingers about...). I have zero issue with any criticism.

There is a huge difference in the 'message' of 'again' stacked up to the 'message' four horsemen of the toxicopolypse on display, funnily enough of a difference that their own left knee twitchers have taken notice. I guess you missed that lil ol issue --- bummer.

I do have an issue with the constant exhibition of toxic anti-Americanism these four darlings of modern progressivism that you seemingly adore put out.

Good god, then you make some pendantic bounce between 'toxicity' and message -- good lord. But par for the course for you.

I guess the explanation of the *message* of 'again' was too nuanced for you, much like the half day it took you to come down off your puerile and ignorant soapbox stance on the 3/5.

If you are too invested in your stance to see that the 'message' is integerally intertwined with the mode of delivery in this case, good for you. I guess you have found your brand new irridescent pendantic bug to play with now. Good job, son. You must be ecstatic. I guess with kids your age I should give you a 'winner's' medal for that new irridescent bug you found and are so proud of.

So keep up that good job of running around from pendantic bouncy house to pendantic bouncy house clutching at the little dirt clods you 'found' in between them. Get back with us when you find a 'nuance' that is actually worth something.

As for your 'reading comprehension' pipsqueak ---- coffee4 as you so often do in such a cute, smug, and condescending manner...

(07-17-2019 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually -- that is *not* the "EXACT TRUMP QUOTE"; you are still doing the "edit, chop", but at least left off the "alter". Perhaps try again with a more complete version. I actually provided one above --- one that isnt chopped to all hell.

And for completeness, the statement should be finished with: 'and come back and tell us how to [fix it]'.

Cmon, stop with the edit, chop, alter. Doesnt do anyone any good in this context.


Bluntly, what Trump said was pretty much: "Y'all came from some bad places. Funny that you are the ones bitching and moaning abut how *bad* the United States is, given the state of where you and/or your ancestors (fairly fresh) came from. Since you all have all the answers on why the United States is sooooooooo bad and y'all have *all* the answers --- there is a great petri dish that y'all can try to fix. Go fix it. Then tell us what those results are"

If the 'squad' had deep roots in Detroit I am absolutely positive he would have described Detroit as such a petri dish to do a beter hob with, along with the shithole intimations that Detroit so easily seems partnered with in these times.

Since the 'squad' were either immigrants (Omar), and two others families were from Palestinian lands and Puerto Rico within one generation, one would hazard a guess that most immigrants (or within one generation) would actually relish America. But lets face it --- Omar, OAC, and Talib are amazing examples of toxic pits of vitriol --- to the extent that their own whacked out party shuns them for it......

Most immigrants I run across, interact with, and work with absolutely love the hell out their new environments; and Trump did a job in showing their complete antithesis to that from the squad.

Considering the squad's impunity with respect to their own toxicity, you know what? Blunt talk in light of that monolith of toxicity I really dont have an issue with. Perhaps you do.

As I noted, that blunt talk put the *entire* Democratic party in alignment with these four horsemen of the toxicolypse; the 'squad' is *now* the standard bearer for the Democratic party. It is really hilarious.

So far in July Trump has forced the Democrats to: a) come out against Fourth of July, b) come out against Betsy Ross, c) come out against the original flag of the nation, and now d) forced them to adopt the toxic four as the people whose values that they are deeply defending. Wow.

I mean, lets go for a clean sweep. Call Francis Scott Key a fascist; or better yet, make sure that apple pie is a symbol of oppression and should be banned. It is amazing what the Orange Monster is making the progressives go on record as being against, and being for. This is absolutely hilarious........

If AOC is a toxic pit of vitriol, what is Trump?

I am on record as him being a toxic tower of vitriol. Your point exactly, that is, beyond a cute repartee?

Quote:I also love all the hate thrown at these women for criticizing portions of America, when Trump ran a campaign that explicitly did the same thing. Why do you think Trump said "again" in his slogan?

Using that logic Reagan ran a campaign of vitriol using the return to the values of the 'city on hill' when faced with the malaise that endemic to the Carter administration, being preceded by the Ford/Nixon.

Good god you are clutching at straws.

Hate to tell you, there are a number of people that do believe the United States entered a similar malaise. Some point to the baby Bush era as that entry; others point to the Obama years. The quagmires of Afghanistan and Iran were direct corollaries to those in SE Asia.

There are *actually* some of us that experienced a hope for an euphoria about the 'goodness and greatness of America' ---- after Carter was gone, after Nixon, during the Iranian hostage crisis, after the Mayaguez incident, and after SE Asia. And within literally two weeks after Reagan took office and his campaign about a return to the shining hill on the city, the US hostages were released, *and* the space shuttle flew for the very first time. And that culminated with the West's victory in the Cold War -- again which President Reagan pulled from a toxic handling under a combination of LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and especially Carter.

You cling to the straw 'again' as toxicity; some of us with a tad more context than you saw it a return to the path of America as experienced in the first heady months of 1981.

So, lad, what exactly is *toxic* about 'again' (that is aside from your endless teeth gnashing)? I think American pride and esteem had plummeted within two years of 9/11 as the endless quagmire of a war drug on, NSA tapped the crap out of our phones, in light of the so-called Patriot Act, and the image of a President that was seemingly jumping around in a bouncy house, with a seemingly endless grab of Executive power by that same ad/hd President.

The crash of 2008 immediately followed, with the subsequent further power grab of Executive power in the name of so-called 'social justice', which in my view simply masked the community organizer / President we elected. Coupled with that same President's very dim view of the United States as a whole (i.e. Michelle Obama saying she had never been proud of the United States) from this point of view, the message of returning to a 'Yes, America is GREAT' isnt such a bad message. Considering that arguably happened in the Camelot years and arguably again in the first two years after Reagan lifted the malaise -- again seems appropriate.

So given that context that seemingly are absolutely blind to, what *exactly* is so fundamentally wrong with 'again'?

I mean, lad, sometime you should actually stop and think that the gd fing world doesnt revolve around your point of view and *your* timeline. If you dont think that a good proportion of the country was of the view that a malaise of '68 to '80 had similarly affected the country between 2000 - 2016, then you are amongst the most myopic people I have ever encountered. And I really hate to tell you, for some of us America *was* great, they did great things and had great attitudes. And I wish that we could return to those times where we did feel great about America, *and* being American. Similarly I actually yearn for a return where American manufacturing had the clout that it once had -- yet another target for the word 'again'.

You think a return to that feeling is 'toxic', because I hate to tell you is that is what the message 'again' means. Has Trump delivered? -- not in my book. But kudos for him for the message.

And you are an utter idiot for pointing to the use of that word as 'toxic' given that history that you are apparently clueless about.

Apparently you are such a fanboi of socialism that you equate the criticisms of AOC and her ilk of 'have to grab all the money we can to be fair' to 'wow, it would be *great* to have a respected nation again' as equivalent criticisms. You have every right to subjectively say that those two are equivalent. If they are, I am utterly happy with the very large probability that I will be worm food before people of that viewpoint actually take the levers of power in this country.

If you are unaware of that timeline, I sincerely hope you do a little research before your next straw clutch foray.

Yes, the idiot here isn’t the one who has to rely on childish name calling. Grow up.

edit: even funnier is that your reading comprehension is so poor that you thought my second paragraph was immediately and directly connected to the first. My second paragraph had nothing to do with Trump's language or toxicity - it was everything about his message that criticized America. You can try and rationalize why Trump's criticism of America, and wanting to make it great again (therefore, directly stating it isn't currently) and how Omar's is different, but they really aren't any different. I think both are equally valid and have no issue with Trump suggesting America has issues to fix. I have a problem with people thinking Omar can't do the same thing.

One of my favorite quotes regarding American progress and continuing to form a more perfect union comes from James Baldwin:

Quote: I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.

I guess you are one of the few short-busers in the world that seemingly think a criticism of 'again' directly relates to the constant toxicity of the 'squad'. Got it.

Are you so invested in these pillars that you cant even note that?

And to be blunt, had you bothered with any semblance of reading comprehension my statement of history for you was describing the object of of his oh-so-bad message of 'again' that you had a diaper hissy fit about.

Had you any 'reading comprehension' you would have noted that the history lesson that you dont seeming have any backing of kind of sets the stage for the 'again' comment. And 'again', the term 'again' is far from the constant toxic flow of bile from these four. That is is described your so-called 'terrible' message; i.e. the word message that you so furiously dance your patented lad world irish jig on.

**** off you little twerp, all you can do is run around from pendantic bouncy house to pendantic bouncy house clutching at the little dirt clods you 'found' in between them. Get back with us when you find a 'nuance' that is actually worth something.

What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

You misunderstood my comment, and it wasn't because what I wrote was too complicated. Let my "retarded" self spell it out for you.

Point 1) Trump has a history of using toxic language - either by pulling a Tanq move and making fun of someone's disabilities, making fun of someone's appearances, calling a political opponent nasty, etc.

Point 2) It is ironic that people are criticizing these women for criticizing America, because Trump's entire campaign was based on criticizing America. This has nothing to do with his toxicity or vitriol, but rather that his campaign was based on a criticism of America and that it was no longer great.

The reason I have to run around the pedantic bouncy house is because you intentionally misconstrue every single thing I say, so I'm forced to come back and break down my points for you.

Lenin and Marx were starry eyed idealists, who envisioned a world in which everybody had what they needed and worked tirelessly with others to make sure others had what they needed.

There are miles and miles of hard work between idealism and realism. Saying "Give the girl a chance" is not enough.

(07-17-2019 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If AOC is a toxic pit of vitriol, what is Trump?

I am on record as him being a toxic tower of vitriol. Your point exactly, that is, beyond a cute repartee?

Quote:I also love all the hate thrown at these women for criticizing portions of America, when Trump ran a campaign that explicitly did the same thing. Why do you think Trump said "again" in his slogan?

Using that logic Reagan ran a campaign of vitriol using the return to the values of the 'city on hill' when faced with the malaise that endemic to the Carter administration, being preceded by the Ford/Nixon.

Good god you are clutching at straws.

Hate to tell you, there are a number of people that do believe the United States entered a similar malaise. Some point to the baby Bush era as that entry; others point to the Obama years. The quagmires of Afghanistan and Iran were direct corollaries to those in SE Asia.

There are *actually* some of us that experienced a hope for an euphoria about the 'goodness and greatness of America' ---- after Carter was gone, after Nixon, during the Iranian hostage crisis, after the Mayaguez incident, and after SE Asia. And within literally two weeks after Reagan took office and his campaign about a return to the shining hill on the city, the US hostages were released, *and* the space shuttle flew for the very first time. And that culminated with the West's victory in the Cold War -- again which President Reagan pulled from a toxic handling under a combination of LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and especially Carter.

You cling to the straw 'again' as toxicity; some of us with a tad more context than you saw it a return to the path of America as experienced in the first heady months of 1981.

So, lad, what exactly is *toxic* about 'again' (that is aside from your endless teeth gnashing)? I think American pride and esteem had plummeted within two years of 9/11 as the endless quagmire of a war drug on, NSA tapped the crap out of our phones, in light of the so-called Patriot Act, and the image of a President that was seemingly jumping around in a bouncy house, with a seemingly endless grab of Executive power by that same ad/hd President.

The crash of 2008 immediately followed, with the subsequent further power grab of Executive power in the name of so-called 'social justice', which in my view simply masked the community organizer / President we elected. Coupled with that same President's very dim view of the United States as a whole (i.e. Michelle Obama saying she had never been proud of the United States) from this point of view, the message of returning to a 'Yes, America is GREAT' isnt such a bad message. Considering that arguably happened in the Camelot years and arguably again in the first two years after Reagan lifted the malaise -- again seems appropriate.

So given that context that seemingly are absolutely blind to, what *exactly* is so fundamentally wrong with 'again'?

I mean, lad, sometime you should actually stop and think that the gd fing world doesnt revolve around your point of view and *your* timeline. If you dont think that a good proportion of the country was of the view that a malaise of '68 to '80 had similarly affected the country between 2000 - 2016, then you are amongst the most myopic people I have ever encountered. And I really hate to tell you, for some of us America *was* great, they did great things and had great attitudes. And I wish that we could return to those times where we did feel great about America, *and* being American. Similarly I actually yearn for a return where American manufacturing had the clout that it once had -- yet another target for the word 'again'.

You think a return to that feeling is 'toxic', because I hate to tell you is that is what the message 'again' means. Has Trump delivered? -- not in my book. But kudos for him for the message.

And you are an utter idiot for pointing to the use of that word as 'toxic' given that history that you are apparently clueless about.

Apparently you are such a fanboi of socialism that you equate the criticisms of AOC and her ilk of 'have to grab all the money we can to be fair' to 'wow, it would be *great* to have a respected nation again' as equivalent criticisms. You have every right to subjectively say that those two are equivalent. If they are, I am utterly happy with the very large probability that I will be worm food before people of that viewpoint actually take the levers of power in this country.

If you are unaware of that timeline, I sincerely hope you do a little research before your next straw clutch foray.

Yes, the idiot here isn’t the one who has to rely on childish name calling. Grow up.

edit: even funnier is that your reading comprehension is so poor that you thought my second paragraph was immediately and directly connected to the first. My second paragraph had nothing to do with Trump's language or toxicity - it was everything about his message that criticized America. You can try and rationalize why Trump's criticism of America, and wanting to make it great again (therefore, directly stating it isn't currently) and how Omar's is different, but they really aren't any different. I think both are equally valid and have no issue with Trump suggesting America has issues to fix. I have a problem with people thinking Omar can't do the same thing.

One of my favorite quotes regarding American progress and continuing to form a more perfect union comes from James Baldwin:

Quote: I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.

I guess you are one of the few short-busers in the world that seemingly think a criticism of 'again' directly relates to the constant toxicity of the 'squad'. Got it.

Are you so invested in these pillars that you cant even note that?

And to be blunt, had you bothered with any semblance of reading comprehension my statement of history for you was describing the object of of his oh-so-bad message of 'again' that you had a diaper hissy fit about.

Had you any 'reading comprehension' you would have noted that the history lesson that you dont seeming have any backing of kind of sets the stage for the 'again' comment. And 'again', the term 'again' is far from the constant toxic flow of bile from these four. That is is described your so-called 'terrible' message; i.e. the word message that you so furiously dance your patented lad world irish jig on.

**** off you little twerp, all you can do is run around from pendantic bouncy house to pendantic bouncy house clutching at the little dirt clods you 'found' in between them. Get back with us when you find a 'nuance' that is actually worth something.

What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

You misunderstood my comment, and it wasn't because what I wrote was too complicated. Let my "retarded" self spell it out for you.

Point 1) Trump has a history of using toxic language - either by pulling a Tanq move and making fun of someone's disabilities, making fun of someone's appearances, calling a political opponent nasty, etc.

Point 2) It is ironic that people are criticizing these women for criticizing America, because Trump's entire campaign was based on criticizing America. This has nothing to do with his toxicity or vitriol, but rather that his campaign was based on a criticism of America and that it was no longer great.

The reason I have to run around the pedantic bouncy house is because you intentionally misconstrue every single thing I say, so I'm forced to come back and break down my points for you.

As I noted earlier, the specific term 'again' has the exact same impact and message in your world and view as directly stating the US is a nation of concentration camps. Got it. That is some amazing insight there lad.

Go run around and find some more irridescent shiny bugs to play with and play with.

Funny you claim as 1) above the toxicity, but you only use the word 'again' in your description. Perhaps my reading comprehension missed all your other examples you provided there. Hmmmm..... I still only see the word 'again' as the sole specific point that put out there. Nice pivot there, all the while squawking on *my* reading comprehension.. Or dont you see that? lolz.

As for 2), as I noted in an edit to my comment apparently just as you responded, I have zero issue with criticism. I do have an issue with toxic criticism. And, I do have an issue with what seems to be an undecidely anti-American version of toxic criticism emanating from here: the message that Omar put out yesterday was the precise message a spouse abuser gives.

And when you decide to mix the anti-american with a good helping of not being able to respond to a question of whether one would denounce the ICE occupiers this last weekend, I think that is a very large departure from you specific example of 'again'.

Their message and their delivery are inexerably linked -- that is the 'message' for all your bounces.

Trump's criticisms, while criticisms, are that we can achieve the largess and greatness, as opposed to the FU that the squad messages the United States for its shortcomings.

Look up Reverend Wright for a similar delivery of a message.

Edited to add:
And yes, I did use that word 'retard.' Then I thought better of it and changed it. Amongst a number of items. FU for your snide comment in the rep ding; at least I recognized it and changed it on my own volition, you fing twerp (which was another comment I had edited out on my volition at that time, but seemingly that edit out 'crossed' with your response. I will reinstate that one here in its full glory here). Apparently that I actually thought it too incendiary and exed it out on my own volition got your diapers in a wad according to your comment there. Cute. Getting maddy poo at someone voluntarily and of their own volition removing a charged comment isnt the smartest thing in the world to throw a hissy fit over, son.

You want to get charged over the use of it -- fine. Mea culpa. But throwing a snot nosed squeal of anger that it and being equally enraged that the person removed it on their volition prior to your teeth gnashing is dumb as fing doornails. Think about it.

(07-16-2019 12:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats are good at identifying places to spend money. They are not so good at figuring out where the money comes from. You either tax it or borrow it or print it. None of those have ever worked particularly well, certainly not on the scale that the GND requires.

In theory, theory works well in practice. In practice, it doesn't.

Both parties are great at spending money, they just choose to spend it on different things. Fiscal conservatives are an endangered species among the two major parties

(07-17-2019 10:06 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 12:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats are good at identifying places to spend money. They are not so good at figuring out where the money comes from. You either tax it or borrow it or print it. None of those have ever worked particularly well, certainly not on the scale that the GND requires.

In theory, theory works well in practice. In practice, it doesn't.

Both parties are great at spending money, they just choose to spend it on different things. Fiscal conservatives are an endangered species among the two major parties

Especially endangered in the DEmocrats.