(02-04-2021 12:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 11:55 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The squad is different because they have way more influence on national policy than one single freshman congressman. The squad is different because they want to enact the crazy stuff they believe in into policy and law. If Greene starts sponsoring legislation to attack the space lasers and gets support for it from party leadership, then she will have become as dangerous as AOC.

The right was up-in-arms over AOC when she was just "one single freshman congresswoman". I remember members of the right condescendingly referring to her as "the bartender" despite those same members representing themselves as champions of the working class.

I guess "the right" did this without my knowledge. I don't think anybody got up in arms about her until the GND. Or maybe the drinking from the toilet incident.

August, 2018... "Why conservatives love to hate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez"

https://www.vox.com/explainers/2018/8/20...8-midterms

Vox, huh. Good to have an unbiased opinion.

But I think this statement holds true whichever way you say it:

"Why conservatives love to hate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez" {the title of your link)

"Why liberals love to hate Rep. Greene"

Either way, nobody gets hated until attention is drawn to them, usually by themselves.

I guess the left view on this is that conservatives are standing outside the Congress and alerting each other with "Look! a Woman of color! Hate her now, we'll find a reason later."

(02-04-2021 02:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess the left view on this is that conservatives are standing outside the Congress and alerting each other with "Look! a Woman of color! Hate her now, we'll find a reason later."

My original comment was because I couldn't figure out why else conservatives would decide to heap their antagonism on 4 specific people in congress, all of whom happened to be women of color. And I don't think it was because people were explicitly racist or sexist. If I believed that, I would have written it explicitly. I'm not exactly on here pulling punches. Plus there are plenty of women of color who were elected in 2018 that neither the media or conservatives have focused on (Hayes, McBath, Underwood, Davids, Small, Escobar).

I was more thinking of someone like my mother-in-law. She is an older white woman who is definitely conservative on most issues and almost always votes for Republicans. She watches some Fox News, but isn't way down the rabbit hole with OAN or Alex Jones. When Obama was first elected, she really did not like Michelle Obama for some reason she couldn't put her finger on, but absolutely loved Michelle Obama by the end of Obama's 2nd term. She isn't a fan of Trump, but also hated Clinton. Yet for some reason she kept complaining about AOC and the squad. I know she doesn't follow the nitty-gritty of the Green New Deal or most legislation in particular.

As I wrote the above, it occurred to me that her dislike of AOC/Squad might have been because of the media she was consuming. So if it wasn't implicit bias (which is what I always suspected with her indescribable dislike of Michelle Obama), then it was because the media she watched told her who the bogeyman (women) was and she developed a distaste for those people. So the related question is - why did the mostly conservative media that she watched decided to focus on AOC/Squad as the face of the democratic party? Why not Connor Lamb, Jared Golden, and Joe Cunningham?

What else binds the 4? Not geography (MA, NY, MI, MN). Not really ideology (looking at a few different ideology scores from 538, heritageaction.com, and voteview). Perhaps because all come from states where the 1st letter starts towards the middle of the alphabet?

I am actually revising my initial assessment and saying that the focus on AOC/Squad was more because conservative media chose to focus on them, rather than just any kind of implicit bias of most conservatives. That makes more sense to me and then we avoid the soul-crushing insult that I have inadvertently heaped on a few of you!

(02-04-2021 02:40 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Ham - that is nice. It was a non-binding resolution, until the rubber starts meeting the road, I don't see what the big deal is about the Green New Deal. Lots of stuff in there that creates jobs. Need lots of people to walk around behind cows to capture their farts in plastic bags!

Not horrible for 'on the fly'.

Have you actually read the GND? Not a synopsis, but the actual resolution?? Honest question, not a gotcha attempt. You may not be aware how many common right/left disagreements are presented in there as facts that we are agreeing to be resolved to address.

The minute you sign on to a resolution that says we have engaged in a 4 decade long crisis of anti-labor policies, any resistance to 'pro' labor policies is now going to be thrown up to you as 'you are a hypocrite because you endorsed the GND resolution but then voted against a tenet of it.'

Its 'the Affordable Care Act' on steroids in my opinion. Not the policy, but the name. If you are against the bill for policy reasons, it is said that you are against Affordable Care because it is in the name. Why are Democrats against 'Making America Great'? That wasn't legislation either. The answer is obvious.... that a) they thought we were great all along of b) they disagree with the tenets that are part of the argument.

I mean if the GND resolution said that GHGs are bad and rising temperatures can cause problems so we need to address them in every way we can... I don't think you'd have a problem... But when you say we need to address racism, wealth inequality and anti-labor legislation in order to keep temperatures from rising, that's an issue.

(02-04-2021 03:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 02:40 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Ham - that is nice. It was a non-binding resolution, until the rubber starts meeting the road, I don't see what the big deal is about the Green New Deal. Lots of stuff in there that creates jobs. Need lots of people to walk around behind cows to capture their farts in plastic bags!

Not horrible for 'on the fly'.

Have you actually read the GND? Not a synopsis, but the actual resolution?? Honest question, not a gotcha attempt. You may not be aware how many common right/left disagreements are presented in there as facts that we are agreeing to be resolved to address.

The minute you sign on to a resolution that says we have engaged in a 4 decade long crisis of anti-labor policies, any resistance to 'pro' labor policies is now going to be thrown up to you as 'you are a hypocrite because you endorsed the GND resolution but then voted against a tenet of it.'

Its 'the Affordable Care Act' on steroids in my opinion. Not the policy, but the name. If you are against the bill for policy reasons, it is said that you are against Affordable Care because it is in the name. Why are Democrats against 'Making America Great'? That wasn't legislation either. The answer is obvious.... that a) they thought we were great all along of b) they disagree with the tenets that are part of the argument.

I mean if the GND resolution said that GHGs are bad and rising temperatures can cause problems so we need to address them in every way we can... I don't think you'd have a problem... But when you say we need to address racism, wealth inequality and anti-labor legislation in order to keep temperatures from rising, that's an issue.

My goodness, how dare you assume that Big hasn't read the GND!

One of the only reasons you must have asked that is because you think Big is stupid!

(BTW - this is definitely a Post #3 type, of mudslinging).

(02-04-2021 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 03:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 02:40 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Ham - that is nice. It was a non-binding resolution, until the rubber starts meeting the road, I don't see what the big deal is about the Green New Deal. Lots of stuff in there that creates jobs. Need lots of people to walk around behind cows to capture their farts in plastic bags!

Not horrible for 'on the fly'.

Have you actually read the GND? Not a synopsis, but the actual resolution?? Honest question, not a gotcha attempt. You may not be aware how many common right/left disagreements are presented in there as facts that we are agreeing to be resolved to address.

The minute you sign on to a resolution that says we have engaged in a 4 decade long crisis of anti-labor policies, any resistance to 'pro' labor policies is now going to be thrown up to you as 'you are a hypocrite because you endorsed the GND resolution but then voted against a tenet of it.'

Its 'the Affordable Care Act' on steroids in my opinion. Not the policy, but the name. If you are against the bill for policy reasons, it is said that you are against Affordable Care because it is in the name. Why are Democrats against 'Making America Great'? That wasn't legislation either. The answer is obvious.... that a) they thought we were great all along of b) they disagree with the tenets that are part of the argument.

I mean if the GND resolution said that GHGs are bad and rising temperatures can cause problems so we need to address them in every way we can... I don't think you'd have a problem... But when you say we need to address racism, wealth inequality and anti-labor legislation in order to keep temperatures from rising, that's an issue.

My goodness, how dare you assume that Big hasn't read the GND!

One of the only reasons you must have asked that is because you think Big is stupid!

(BTW - this is definitely a Post #3 type, of mudslinging).

What a dick you are.

And again with your stupidity. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're a ******* moron.

See the words?? HONEST QUESTION. I have NO IDEA if he's actually read it... and neither do you. I didn't assume that he had read it but didn't understand it.

(02-04-2021 03:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I am actually revising my initial assessment and saying that the focus on AOC/Squad was more because conservative media chose to focus on them, rather than just any kind of implicit bias of most conservatives. That makes more sense to me and then we avoid the soul-crushing insult that I have inadvertently heaped on a few of you!

As I said... there was a 'conservative media' focus on this team of justice democrats from the start and the plans they had to take over the democratic party... and while much of it does seem to be generally true... I am sure that it was presented as a 'socialist takeover' as opposed to a 'nicer' term... They (and particularly she) has been the face of that shift.

(02-04-2021 03:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 02:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess the left view on this is that conservatives are standing outside the Congress and alerting each other with "Look! a Woman of color! Hate her now, we'll find a reason later."

My original comment was because I couldn't figure out why else conservatives would decide to heap their antagonism on 4 specific people in congress, all of whom happened to be women of color. And I don't think it was because people were explicitly racist or sexist. If I believed that, I would have written it explicitly. I'm not exactly on here pulling punches. Plus there are plenty of women of color who were elected in 2018 that neither the media or conservatives have focused on (Hayes, McBath, Underwood, Davids, Small, Escobar).

I was more thinking of someone like my mother-in-law. She is an older white woman who is definitely conservative on most issues and almost always votes for Republicans. She watches some Fox News, but isn't way down the rabbit hole with OAN or Alex Jones. When Obama was first elected, she really did not like Michelle Obama for some reason she couldn't put her finger on, but absolutely loved Michelle Obama by the end of Obama's 2nd term. She isn't a fan of Trump, but also hated Clinton. Yet for some reason she kept complaining about AOC and the squad. I know she doesn't follow the nitty-gritty of the Green New Deal or most legislation in particular.

As I wrote the above, it occurred to me that her dislike of AOC/Squad might have been because of the media she was consuming. So if it wasn't implicit bias (which is what I always suspected with her indescribable dislike of Michelle Obama), then it was because the media she watched told her who the bogeyman (women) was and she developed a distaste for those people. So the related question is - why did the mostly conservative media that she watched decided to focus on AOC/Squad as the face of the democratic party? Why not Connor Lamb, Jared Golden, and Joe Cunningham?

What else binds the 4? Not geography (MA, NY, MI, MN). Not really ideology (looking at a few different ideology scores from 538, heritageaction.com, and voteview). Perhaps because all come from states where the 1st letter starts towards the middle of the alphabet?

I am actually revising my initial assessment and saying that the focus on AOC/Squad was more because conservative media chose to focus on them, rather than just any kind of implicit bias of most conservatives. That makes more sense to me and then we avoid the soul-crushing insult that I have inadvertently heaped on a few of you!

So in your view, the most likely explanation for opposition to the Gang of Four is no longer the individual's racism/sexism, but the racism/sexism of the media that the individual (apparently without much discernment) "consumes". That is almost equally insulting.

It is also equally unsound, as it is still several contrivances beyond Occam's Razor. It might occur to you that opposition to those newly-elected hard-core leftists was chiefly because the non-conservative media was absurdly heaping POSITIVE attention on them (your observation that the media did NOT focus on other newly-elected leftists admits as much), and that it is entirely natural to react negatively to those who seem to be your opponent's poster children.

No one boos the NFL's final-round draft picks, or the other team's bench-warmers. They boo the #1 pick, and the other team's stars -- particularly the other team's new, heavily-hyped, unproven stars who have been positioned as in-your-face spokesmen against opposing teams.

Undoubtedly some media and people chose to focus on them BECAUSE of their race or sex -- but it was not chiefly the conservatives who did so.

Here is the 'link'.... as well as the reason for 'concern' by the right about the GND

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/8/155798...oung-turks

Quote:The Justice Democrats plan to organize in what executive director Saikat Chakrabarti calls a “distributed fashion.” As the director of Organizing Technology for the Sanders campaign, Chakrabarti worked alongside Justice Democrats co-founder Zach Exley and communications director Corbin Trent to create software to organize grassroots support.

Followed by
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/maga...of-change/
Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

So 2015, he's Director of Organizing Technology for Bernie Sanders
2017 he becomes Executive Director of Justice Democrats
2017 he becomes Campaign Manager for AOC, and when she wins, becomes her Chief of Staff

So the high level connection of (especially AOC) to Justice Democrats whom Chakrabarti himself said that the GND was really about restructuring the economy (which is a key right/left point of contention) places her in a different category than most Justice Democrats or 'rogue' Republicans.

Interesting to me... according to WIKI, the NYT wrote an article about S.K. leaving AOCs staff in 2019 suggesting this represented her adopting a more moderate strategy for working with conservatives.

Here is what I said in post 6... 342 posts ago...
This is not my position.... but this is what I've heard... 'The squad' is part of a movement called 'justice democrats'. At one point there was a vlogger who was putting forth an idea that this group was out there targeting specific members/districts in an effort to 'take over' the democratic party with 'tainted money' and force many republicans out... and that (iirc) one of the leaders (the main leader?) had some sort of close connection to AOC. (boyfriend?). This gave her a lot of attention from both sides... especially relative to her position.

I do not believe her race ever had anything to do with the opposition... but I do seem to recall that 'recruiting minorities, especially women' was allegedly part of the strategy the vlogger was trying to expose... because being a minority woman would provide some protection from policy attacks by being able to characterize them as rooted in misogyny, mansplaining or racism.

SK was the 'close connection' I recalled.

(02-04-2021 03:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 02:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess the left view on this is that conservatives are standing outside the Congress and alerting each other with "Look! a Woman of color! Hate her now, we'll find a reason later."

My original comment was because I couldn't figure out why else conservatives would decide to heap their antagonism on 4 specific people in congress, all of whom happened to be women of color. And I don't think it was because people were explicitly racist or sexist. If I believed that, I would have written it explicitly. I'm not exactly on here pulling punches. Plus there are plenty of women of color who were elected in 2018 that neither the media or conservatives have focused on (Hayes, McBath, Underwood, Davids, Small, Escobar).

I was more thinking of someone like my mother-in-law. She is an older white woman who is definitely conservative on most issues and almost always votes for Republicans. She watches some Fox News, but isn't way down the rabbit hole with OAN or Alex Jones. When Obama was first elected, she really did not like Michelle Obama for some reason she couldn't put her finger on, but absolutely loved Michelle Obama by the end of Obama's 2nd term. She isn't a fan of Trump, but also hated Clinton. Yet for some reason she kept complaining about AOC and the squad. I know she doesn't follow the nitty-gritty of the Green New Deal or most legislation in particular.

As I wrote the above, it occurred to me that her dislike of AOC/Squad might have been because of the media she was consuming. So if it wasn't implicit bias (which is what I always suspected with her indescribable dislike of Michelle Obama), then it was because the media she watched told her who the bogeyman (women) was and she developed a distaste for those people. So the related question is - why did the mostly conservative media that she watched decided to focus on AOC/Squad as the face of the democratic party? Why not Connor Lamb, Jared Golden, and Joe Cunningham?

What else binds the 4? Not geography (MA, NY, MI, MN). Not really ideology (looking at a few different ideology scores from 538, heritageaction.com, and voteview). Perhaps because all come from states where the 1st letter starts towards the middle of the alphabet?

I am actually revising my initial assessment and saying that the focus on AOC/Squad was more because conservative media chose to focus on them, rather than just any kind of implicit bias of most conservatives. That makes more sense to me and then we avoid the soul-crushing insult that I have inadvertently heaped on a few of you!

Well, first, note that AOC and I share ethnicity, so the idea that her ethnicity would make me feel anything but pride is ridiculous.

The first thing that binds them together is the identity they have chosen and embraced - "The Squad". It was not conservatives who lumped them together - it was them. Fox news didn't say to them to all stand there together so we can get a picture.

The squad

"Ocasio-Cortez coined the "Squad" name in an Instagram post a week after the 2018 election."

"The New York Times considers the Squad to be sui generis, not fitting neatly into the usual types of congressional groups: the gang (a bipartisan group focused on particular legislation) or the caucus (a pressure group based on special interests). It notes that the term, with a militaristic connotation, conveys values of self-defense, allegiance, and having "something important to protect".[10] The moniker has been used pejoratively by some Republicans, but the four women use the term self-referentially to express solidarity among themselves and with supporters.[9] For example, the Justice Democrats tweeted a quote from Pressley saying: "We are more than four people... Our squad includes any person committed to creating a more equitable and just world."

I guess that means I am a member, too.

(02-04-2021 04:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 03:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 02:40 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Ham - that is nice. It was a non-binding resolution, until the rubber starts meeting the road, I don't see what the big deal is about the Green New Deal. Lots of stuff in there that creates jobs. Need lots of people to walk around behind cows to capture their farts in plastic bags!

Not horrible for 'on the fly'.

Have you actually read the GND? Not a synopsis, but the actual resolution?? Honest question, not a gotcha attempt. You may not be aware how many common right/left disagreements are presented in there as facts that we are agreeing to be resolved to address.

The minute you sign on to a resolution that says we have engaged in a 4 decade long crisis of anti-labor policies, any resistance to 'pro' labor policies is now going to be thrown up to you as 'you are a hypocrite because you endorsed the GND resolution but then voted against a tenet of it.'

Its 'the Affordable Care Act' on steroids in my opinion. Not the policy, but the name. If you are against the bill for policy reasons, it is said that you are against Affordable Care because it is in the name. Why are Democrats against 'Making America Great'? That wasn't legislation either. The answer is obvious.... that a) they thought we were great all along of b) they disagree with the tenets that are part of the argument.

I mean if the GND resolution said that GHGs are bad and rising temperatures can cause problems so we need to address them in every way we can... I don't think you'd have a problem... But when you say we need to address racism, wealth inequality and anti-labor legislation in order to keep temperatures from rising, that's an issue.

My goodness, how dare you assume that Big hasn't read the GND!

One of the only reasons you must have asked that is because you think Big is stupid!

(BTW - this is definitely a Post #3 type, of mudslinging).

What a dick you are.

And again with your stupidity. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're a ******* moron.

See the words?? HONEST QUESTION. I have NO IDEA if he's actually read it... and neither do you. I didn't assume that he had read it but didn't understand it.

Yup - dumb ol' me.

(02-04-2021 05:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 03:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 02:40 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Ham - that is nice. It was a non-binding resolution, until the rubber starts meeting the road, I don't see what the big deal is about the Green New Deal. Lots of stuff in there that creates jobs. Need lots of people to walk around behind cows to capture their farts in plastic bags!

Not horrible for 'on the fly'.

Have you actually read the GND? Not a synopsis, but the actual resolution?? Honest question, not a gotcha attempt. You may not be aware how many common right/left disagreements are presented in there as facts that we are agreeing to be resolved to address.

The minute you sign on to a resolution that says we have engaged in a 4 decade long crisis of anti-labor policies, any resistance to 'pro' labor policies is now going to be thrown up to you as 'you are a hypocrite because you endorsed the GND resolution but then voted against a tenet of it.'

Its 'the Affordable Care Act' on steroids in my opinion. Not the policy, but the name. If you are against the bill for policy reasons, it is said that you are against Affordable Care because it is in the name. Why are Democrats against 'Making America Great'? That wasn't legislation either. The answer is obvious.... that a) they thought we were great all along of b) they disagree with the tenets that are part of the argument.

I mean if the GND resolution said that GHGs are bad and rising temperatures can cause problems so we need to address them in every way we can... I don't think you'd have a problem... But when you say we need to address racism, wealth inequality and anti-labor legislation in order to keep temperatures from rising, that's an issue.

My goodness, how dare you assume that Big hasn't read the GND!

One of the only reasons you must have asked that is because you think Big is stupid!

(BTW - this is definitely a Post #3 type, of mudslinging).

What a dick you are.

And again with your stupidity. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're a ******* moron.

See the words?? HONEST QUESTION. I have NO IDEA if he's actually read it... and neither do you. I didn't assume that he had read it but didn't understand it.

Yup - dumb ol' me.

From Twitter...


The House voted 230-199 to remove Greene from her committe assignments:
R's - 11 yea and 199 nay
D's - 219 yea and 0 nay

"House Republicans opted not to punish the Georgia lawmaker during a closed-door caucus meeting on Wednesday"

(02-04-2021 05:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "The New York Times considers the Squad to be sui generis, not fitting neatly into the usual types of congressional groups: the gang (a bipartisan group focused on particular legislation) or the caucus (a pressure group based on special interests).

It is funny (though not humorous) that the NYT does not consider them a pressure group based on special interests.

George - you have met me. I think you know I am not prancing around here trying to insult anyone. I have said multiple times that I don’t follow the squad and am honestly flummoxed as to why so much attention was heaped on them (mostly negative). I am not invested in my initial supposition that some implicit bias may have been a factor. I really don’t know much about the 4 and really don’t care all that much about them either (no more or less than any other random democratic congressperson). Honestly, I am happier being wrong. Sorry for any insult to all y’all.

Ham - before posting on the GND I read about 60% of the resolution and skimmed other parts. I get what you are saying and agree there was stuff in their dealing with various other inequities. I read it as “when trying to solve climate change / global warming, we need to improve (and certainly not make worse) all these other problems.” But again, the whole thing is so vague that I just can’t make myself care too much. You seem to care a lot more about it (negatively). If that works for you, no skin off my back. Same to OO. Again, I just don’t get why a non-binding resolution that isn’t very close to becoming law makes a bunch of people on the right get their knickers in a wad about AOC when: (1) a bunch of non-squad Dems signed on as well and (2) it is not close to becoming law (and isn’t specific enough to become a law). I can understand conservatives not liking the GND, but I can’t understand them going to the mattresses against AOC because of it. But I am fine with my ignorance on conservatives’ motivations in this area, because again, I just don’t care much about the squad.

(02-04-2021 02:40 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Ham - that is nice. It was a non-binding resolution, until the rubber starts meeting the road, I don't see what the big deal is about the Green New Deal. Lots of stuff in there that creates jobs. Need lots of people to walk around behind cows to capture their farts in plastic bags!

So, nothing to see here until it starts to become a law? I'd rather nip it in the bud before it even threatens to get there. A non-binding resolution means that it has already gotten too far.

Actually, what I'd really like would be for republicans to come up with sensible policies and push them as alternatives. That doesn't look like something that is going to happen, unfortunately, so to me it will remain stupid party versus evil party.

I would have voted for a more sensible republican over Greene, Boebert, or Cawthorne if I were voting in those primaries. In a hypothetical general election, I would vote for Greene, Boebert, or Cawthorne over AOC, Tlaib, Omar, or Pressley.

(02-05-2021 12:27 AM)mrbig Wrote:  George - you have met me. I think you know I am not prancing around here trying to insult anyone.

Agreed -- I know you didn't meant to.

(02-05-2021 12:27 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I have said multiple times that I don’t follow the squad and am honestly flummoxed as to why so much attention was heaped on them (mostly negative).

The bolded phrase may be the crux of the dispute. I don't think the attention on them was MOSTLY negative. Quite the opposite: the attention -- which they largely sought for themselves -- seemed mostly fawning and adoring, which of course was guaranteed to encourage negative attention in response.

It really doesn't seem any more complicated than that, which is why the supposition that there must be some more sinister explanation struck me as silly.

(02-05-2021 12:27 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I have said multiple times that I don’t follow the squad and am honestly flummoxed as to why so much attention was heaped on them (mostly negative). I am not invested in my initial supposition that some implicit bias may have been a factor.

I am biased very strongly against socialism and communism, perhaps from a military career spent fighting those ideologies, and the four are way, way too close to those ideologies for my comfort. You can split hairs over whether they are truly communist or not, but regardless they are far too close for me. I vote on issues, and they are on the wrong side of almost every issue for my taste.

For the record I am equally opposed to fascism, and any other form of totalitarian government. I am at the other end of the spectrum from communism, socialism, and fascism. I call it classical liberalism, some call it libertarianism. Some falsely call it anarchy, but anarchy is a totally different beast.

(02-05-2021 08:03 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 12:27 AM)mrbig Wrote:  George - you have met me. I think you know I am not prancing around here trying to insult anyone.

Agreed -- I know you didn't meant to.

(02-05-2021 12:27 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I have said multiple times that I don’t follow the squad and am honestly flummoxed as to why so much attention was heaped on them (mostly negative).

The bolded phrase may be the crux of the dispute. I don't think the attention on them was MOSTLY negative. Quite the opposite: the attention -- which they largely sought for themselves -- seemed mostly fawning and adoring, which of course was guaranteed to encourage negative attention in response.

It really doesn't seem any more complicated than that, which is why the supposition that there must be some more sinister explanation struck me as silly.

when the Squad Leader, AOC, introduced the GND, it was widely mocked by Reps and Dems alike. Pelosi called it the "Green Dream". Then politically, it became something the Dems paid attention to, incorporating parts of it into Biden's platform. This is why I fear the squad way more than Greene - not only are they a larger bloc, (and growing), they actually have political power to influence the shape of legislation. Greene, standing alone, has none other than one vote in 435.

I, OTOH, wonder what the problem is with Greene et al. (Still know nothing of the other two). what measures were they likely to get their party to support that make you worry about the future of the USA?

(02-04-2021 08:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 05:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 03:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not horrible for 'on the fly'.

Have you actually read the GND? Not a synopsis, but the actual resolution?? Honest question, not a gotcha attempt. You may not be aware how many common right/left disagreements are presented in there as facts that we are agreeing to be resolved to address.

The minute you sign on to a resolution that says we have engaged in a 4 decade long crisis of anti-labor policies, any resistance to 'pro' labor policies is now going to be thrown up to you as 'you are a hypocrite because you endorsed the GND resolution but then voted against a tenet of it.'

Its 'the Affordable Care Act' on steroids in my opinion. Not the policy, but the name. If you are against the bill for policy reasons, it is said that you are against Affordable Care because it is in the name. Why are Democrats against 'Making America Great'? That wasn't legislation either. The answer is obvious.... that a) they thought we were great all along of b) they disagree with the tenets that are part of the argument.

I mean if the GND resolution said that GHGs are bad and rising temperatures can cause problems so we need to address them in every way we can... I don't think you'd have a problem... But when you say we need to address racism, wealth inequality and anti-labor legislation in order to keep temperatures from rising, that's an issue.

My goodness, how dare you assume that Big hasn't read the GND!

One of the only reasons you must have asked that is because you think Big is stupid!

(BTW - this is definitely a Post #3 type, of mudslinging).

What a dick you are.

And again with your stupidity. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're a ******* moron.

See the words?? HONEST QUESTION. I have NO IDEA if he's actually read it... and neither do you. I didn't assume that he had read it but didn't understand it.

Yup - dumb ol' me.

From Twitter...


The House voted 230-199 to remove Greene from her committe assignments:
R's - 11 yea and 199 nay
D's - 219 yea and 0 nay

"House Republicans opted not to punish the Georgia lawmaker during a closed-door caucus meeting on Wednesday"

I guess we know what democrats mean by "unity" It means standing together as a unified bloc to punish selected Republicans for wrongthink.

I see we also know now what they mean by bipartisanship - it means any Republicans they can get to vote with the bloc.

I fail to see the danger that Greene presents to the country, deluded or not. Why is it important that she be excluded from committees? What danger did we just save the country from? We certainly already have plenty of delusional people serving.

(02-05-2021 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I, OTOH, wonder what the problem is with Greene et al. (Still know nothing of the other two). what measures were they likely to get their party to support that make you worry about the future of the USA?

It should have been pretty clear throughout this thread that the reason I am concerned about Greene (and to a lesser extent Boebert and Cawthorne) is not about policy. Whether through self-promotion or something else, they have become lightning rods.

Greene has literally (not figuratively) supported executing people she is now co-workers with. She has publicly talked about how she wants to be able to bring a handgun onto the House floor (when she can already bring one into the Capital building and her office space).

Would you feel comfortable or safe working with someone who has publically supported executing you and wants to carry a weapon in your workplace? How many workplaces in the USA would allow that kind of individual back to work, regardless of 2nd amendment rights? It is just a crazy situation.

(02-05-2021 11:35 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I, OTOH, wonder what the problem is with Greene et al. (Still know nothing of the other two). what measures were they likely to get their party to support that make you worry about the future of the USA?

It should have been pretty clear throughout this thread that the reason I am concerned about Greene (and to a lesser extent Boebert and Cawthorne) is not about policy. Whether through self-promotion or something else, they have become lightning rods.

Greene has literally (not figuratively) supported executing people she is now co-workers with. She has publicly talked about how she wants to be able to bring a handgun onto the House floor (when she can already bring one into the Capital building and her office space).

Would you feel comfortable or safe working with someone who has publically supported executing you and wants to carry a weapon in your workplace? How many workplaces in the USA would allow that kind of individual back to work, regardless of 2nd amendment rights? It is just a crazy situation.

Just points out how powerless she is - is there any possibility of her getting the rules changed to allow a handgun? It doesn't matter to me if she advocates armor clad desks if it is just a pipe dream.

As for the support of killing people, it would depend on if I took her words to be literal or figurative. Foe example, one Democrat said Republicans wanted people to die, and another talked of pushing Granny off a cliff. Did we take it literally?

One phrase popular in these rural areas is that someone "is not worth killing". I guess you would say I should feel safe if that person was talking of me.

I think Bush's complaints/fears are hyped.