Jump to content

laripu

Member
  • Content Count

    3,974
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by laripu

  1. The nature of a thing is determined by what it does, not by its name. We all know that the National Socialist party of the 30s and 40s in Germany, the Nazis, were not socialists. Despite their name, they acted like and were a right wing fascist dictatorship. This collection of forums isn't a liberal forum, despite the name. Judge by the tiny volume of posts by liberals in LO, compared to the huge volume of trash by those you can't when dignify as conservatives. Comparing volume, this is a "trash liberals" forum. In NHB, the poster "laton", is "WillFranklin" by his own admission and everyone's knowledge. He has been advocating for a final solution, with camps. He hides the obvious meaning behind the chiffon veil of "re-education camps", as though you can't discern his true meaning. ( redacted xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) Them he posts, as "laton" in this Liberals Only room as though he's a liberal, here. So he has now established, for you, this logic: (redacted xxxxxxxx) Do you like that? And in NHB, the people who are generally right wing nuts are occupying the moral high ground. This is not a liberal forum despite the name. This is a forum of mostly right wing fools insulting a few liberals, (redacted xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) This collective website of mostly conservatives, tolerates a (redacted xxxxxxxx) posting in the Liberals Only room. I don't. Goodbye.
  2. Republicans have realized something. Most people don't reason. Most people go with what sounds good. What sounds good to people who don't reason? Whatever you hear touted over and over. It's the basic rationale behind advertising to people who don't think. Most people are only marginally smarter than houseplants and Republicans have "got what plants crave".
  3. Sure. But it's like any other tech that's been overtaken by advances. People still collect LPs, muskets, antique cars, coins stamps, whatever. The worth isn't in what it does, because time measurement had moved on. The worth is partly in the look of it, as decoration, and partly in the nostalgia if people with money. But you can't buy back your childhood.
  4. It's halftime at the Sooperbole, where it's San Francisco Sourdough Loaves against the Kansas City Pulled Porkers. Whichever team moves in a way that most resembles the gyrations of Shakira's butt, wins. Boy, is it ever boring. 😒
  5. Sounds like with some garlic, salt, and cayenne it would be really tasty. I'm led to believe that the draw isn't the fruit. But I'm 63, and my testosterone has become a memory, so ... the fruit is looking awfully good. Here's her video:
  6. Yep. 🥺 But the clever and quiet know what to do, when disruption wreaks hell on the lives of the poor. The clever and quiet know where to seek shelter when the blizzard of change blows cold on grandeur. When extremists at all ends are afraid for their lives, those with middle-class values will continue to thrive. - Ignatz Laripu
  7. Since quoting poets is an acceptable means of communication: "Now you can say that I've grown bitter but of this you may be sure The rich have got their channels in the bedrooms of the poor" - Leonard Cohen.
  8. It doesn't make you a more attractive human being. It makes you a target for cheaters and thieves. It takes a worthy person to discern a worthy person. It only takes users to discern a rich fool. I see from this that the thread was misnamed. It should have been "10 ways to make yourself a more attractive human being to worthy people".
  9. Elly May was a beautiful dog. Gorgeous ears. I'm sure she loved you.
  10. For the sake of the country and the world, I hope that's true.
  11. First, I don't think we need to define it. We can know immorality when we see it. Taking children away form refugee parents and housing them, caged, in camps: I have no quibble with calling that immoral. Secondly, if the left abandons talk of morality, it will only be talked about by the right, and then, what they say about it, goes. I'm not ready to give up that field of battle.
  12. I think you may have misunderstood me. What I meant was that there were two different things going on in the 50s and 60s. One was unions + meaningful taxes (and consequently middle class prosperity) and the other was violent racial discrimination. The MAGA crowd seems to want to return to the discrimination part of the 50s and 60s. They are certainly not clamoring for unions and higher taxes on the ultra rich. But I didn't express it very well. In my defense, I probably wasn't completely awake yet.
  13. NHB is No Holds Barred forum. Very little of merit happens there. It's about people insulting each other. As I recall, they're fond of "shît-stain" as an insult.
  14. Right. So in the coming election, that's the position that must be hung around their necks: that the president is corrupt like a mobster and the Senate Republicans are enablers of that corruption. The election should sweep them out of Congress and Trump out of the White House.
  15. I'm not sure whether this happened, but it would be pretty funny. Story here.
  16. Clearly Unhinged Neo-conservative Tripe. Out of Liberals Only!
  17. And that's the historical evidence. At the same time, there was widespread racist discrimination, that too often went as far as murder. It's taxes and unions on one side, racism and discrimination on the other. Why does the MAGA crowd choose the evil alternative?
  18. High progressive tax rates are very important, necessary, and difficult to sell politically. If a genius candidate could ever manage do that, that would be a great thing indeed. We could fund all important causes like MFA, free (or nearly free) university for all worthy students, infrastructure repair, lifetime care for disabled vets, serious drug rehab for addicts instead of prison, mental health care for people rather than allowing them to become homeless. And still have enough for a zero deficit and even pay down the debt. This is an incredibly rich country. What the stupid right doesn't understand is that this kind of investment would, in time, actually make it richer, and with less suffering.
  19. It's this true, even if it feels true? I Googled "left wing billionaires". A right wing website said that beside George Soros: "Five top donors – Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Pierre Omidyar, Tom Steyer and George Soros’s own son, Jonathan – are major funders of the left. Together, they have contributed at least $2.7 billion since 2000 to groups pushing abortion, gun control, climate change alarmism and liberal candidates." Add the following, taken from this page: - Laurene Powell Jobs (widow of Steve Jobs) gives millions to mostly Democratic causes. - James Simons and his wife Marilyn gave millions to Democratic causes, directly to Dems in tight races, such as Senate candidates Maggie Hassan (N.H.) and Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), and Clinton. That's nine I've found in two minutes, without breaking a sweat. 😉 I'm counting Gates and two Soroses. (Sori? Sorosauruses? ... Sorry.) I'd bet you could also get pot-smoker Elon Musk on board if you tried. Unfortunately, the biggest donor by far is Sheldon Adelson, who donates exclusively to the right.
  20. ... coupled with a relentless use of insult, is the means of contention of 14-year-olds and the Trump base, including Trump himself. Shame works against it, but for that you need dirt on the opponent, and nowadays it must be video. I don't engage with that kind of thing, but ... If a Trump videotape showing urolagnia ever became public, that might do it, preferably if made public by a foreign country like the UK.
  21. Retiring GOP operative Mac Stipanovich says Trump ‘sensed the rot’ in Republican party and took control of it: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-mac-stipanovich-republican-20191224-tz7bjps56jazbcwb3ficlnacqa-story.html?fbclid=IwAR1GQKiMpOCXdYBmSKqd_l6tw7agoEaRXl7Wr0RTJQonbQ--F2l7wV8jZn0
  22. Sure. The courts could rule that the maximum contribution to a candidate would be $100 it $1000 or $10,000 per person. Then the rich could still buy themselves another dozen TV channels and web sites registered in Kamchatka, East Timor or Brunei, beyond US law. It's not free speech, you're right. It's expensive speech and they can easily afford it. Their hold over candidates will have to be a bit more subtle, but they'll still have the same influence. Since it's expensive speech, either the left needs it's own rich benefactors to propagate a competing message, or millions of people like us will have to fund it ourselves. If we wait for a better Supreme Court ruling, it'll never come. By the time the left organizes enough to combat Citizens United, the right will have bought their way to 6 Alito clones, a Kavanaugh, a Thomas and a drooling DNA-experiment multiplex of Ayn Rand, Michelle Bachmann and Ann Coulter. And the latter will be as dumb as nine chickens, but to the right of Phyllis Schlafly. Yes, that's a sick joke. That's the wrong question. The right question is whether it's possible to change the current SCOTUS interpretation of the law. I doubt it will be for a long time. We have to deal with the situation as it is now, rather than merely live in hope for a better future. If we have no wins by other means, we will lose altogether. We can't limit right wing money. To counter it, we need left wing money. @Bill Gates, are you listening?
  23. Freedom of speech is so important that it derails most campaign finance reform. Freedom of association, via the first amendment right to assemble, guarantees that PACs can exist and spend money. I think the best we can do is to pass laws that make any political donations public information, easily accessible via the internet, organized by doner, by beneficiary, and by intermediary (like e.g. PAC). I would certainly like to see the idea that corporations are people should defeated. If so, they'll easily get around it by funding PACs or some other way. One way or another, there United States is ruled by money. Which country isn't, when you dig deep enough? What is needed is to convince the people with money that the greatest good for the people in the country is in their best interest.
  24. Yes. She'll have "patient refused treatment" or some blurb like that. Doctors sometimes think a reasonable question is a threat.
  25. I'm curious. Why do you think I'm supporting Trump? I'm on record in this forum as a liberal, currently in favor of a Warren/Buttigieg ticket. annLee, where are you writing from? Are you in China?
×
×
  • Create New...