"SEND HER BACK!" Will they defend this?

Ziggurat said:
Instagram posts can get deleted, so I don't think it's there anymore. Could it have been faked? In principle, yes.

Was it faked? Oddly enough, nobody involved has actually claimed that any of the posts referred to were faked. Also oddly enough, Ilhan won't even tell reporters who her family members actually are.
Click to expand...

And why won’t Obama just show us his birth certificate?
 
Ziggurat said:
Except that Elmi isn't listed on her own immigration documents as being a relative. If, as alleged, she lied about her own family relationships when immigrating to the US, then she could not claim Elmi as her brother without exposing that lie.
Click to expand...
She was 9 years old.

I take it you have seen the relevant documents?
 
It's kind of terrible when the last few pro-GOP posters on this forum out themselves as vile racists like they have in this thread. I exclude RBF in this, but given his views, I don't consider him pro-GOP.

Maybe now is the time to stop communicating with these members? The best way to discuss racism is to talk about it, not with it.
 
uke2se said:
It's kind of terrible when the last few pro-GOP posters on this forum out themselves as vile racists like they have in this thread. I exclude RBF in this, but given his views, I don't consider him pro-GOP.

Maybe now is the time to stop communicating with these members? The best way to discuss racism is to talk about it, not with it.
Click to expand...

The High Priest hath spoken.
 
Cabbage said:
Fine, you despise both; nevertheless, it still seems strange to me that you would persist in trying to fight and change back the Republican party. Honestly, regarding climate change (and I strongly suspect multiple other things), fighting to shift the Democratic Party to move closer to your ideals is probably a much more winnable battle at this point. I'm simply thinking in terms of practicality.

Ever consider that?
Click to expand...
Actually a much more winable fight and much easier, but that is endgame strategy not needed now.

In order to actually solve such a huge complex worldwide problem as AGW, a strong consensus is required. That is absolutely obligate. It can't be some temporary conditional political mood swing. It must be durable no matter what party is in power and yet not susceptible to the same regulatory capture found in other "big government" type solutions to problems.

Otherwise this will absolutely fail and civilization will indeed collapse worldwide as it has regionally so many times in the past. I don't think I need to explain how bad that would be for everyone, rich and poor, Republican and Democrat, even the whole biosphere. It is an unacceptable outcome that must be avoided.

So the real important fight is actually internal to the Republican party. There are actually many conservative groups all through this country that are dedicated to this in their local sphere of influence. But being fiercely independent by their very nature they don't often really join up to make consensus and often go unheard. It could be anything from your local Boy Scout troupe to the 4H members displaying at the State Fair to even a hunters group that has established a game preserve (like my great Grandfather did in North Carolina by donating in the tens of thousands of acres to an eternal trust), to even new groups such as Crunchy Conservatives.

This is the type of Governmental over site I believe is required to actually solve the problem of AGW:

Hunters as conservationists

So lets look at how this works and why it works:
  1. Wildlife is a public resource. In the Unites States, wildlife is considered a public resource, independent of the land or water where wildlife may live. Government at various levels have a role in managing that resource on behalf of all citizens and to ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations.
  2. Markets for game are eliminated Before wildlife protection laws were enacted, commercial operations decimated populations of many species. Making it illegal to buy and sell meat and parts of game and nongame species removed a huge threat to the survival of those species. A market in furbearers continues as a highly regulated activity, often to manage invasive wildlife.
  3. Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as set hunting seasons, bag limits, license requirements, etc.
  4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. Wildlife is a shared resource that must not be wasted. The law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons.
  5. Wildlife species are considered an international resource. Some species, such as migratory birds, cross national boundaries. Treaties such as the Migratory Bird Treaty and CITES recognize a shared responsibility to manage these species across national boundaries.
  6. Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. In order to manage wildlife as a shared resource fairly, objectively, and knowledgeably, decisions must be based on sound science such as annual waterfowl population surveys and the work of professional wildlife biologists.
  7. The democracy of hunting. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership.

Now of course energy and agricultural certainly are different than the above in the industrialized models we have today, but they were not always like this. There was a time when it really was each small farmers "back 40" that was allowed to go to woods and set aside for hunting, and/or acorn finishing the hogs once a year, that in aggregate with the few more prosperous ones like my Great Grand Daddy Thelly actually derived from rural agriculture to begin with. They were the generators of energy with the mill ponds as the responsible parties to be good stewards of the land. Mistakes made sure, but there really isn't anyone more knowledgeable about the land than someone who is out on the land on a daily basis.

Now we can take portions of that list above and expand it to include energy and agriculture again. Modernize the technology, but keep the conservative principles and dynamic that were so successful they became THE model for conservation to the world.

This will indeed reverse AGW and solve the vast majority of energy production, food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’. But the dynamic must become the primary platform of both parties for this to happen. Once that happens then the two sides can come together and work out the compromises needed to make sure neither side alone can wreck it the next election cycle. It must become as sacrosanct the constitution.

It can be done. Profound social change can happen. Even though racism still exists, I don't see anyone really advocating a return to government sanctioned slavery. It's outlawed everywhere in the world but maybe Saudi Arabia and North Korea? Not sure. But certainly in the civilized world it would be impossible to bring slavery back because neither side would accept it. This is the type of consensus we must have to solve AGW IMHO. It must be inherently so durable that no one would even consider challenging it. You don't get that sort change by simply flipping to the other side of the aisle every time the going gets a little tough.:boxedin: It needs to be so strong part of society that anyone arguing against it is immediately disdained as a whackjob delusional equivalent of a flat Earther.
 
Last edited:
Baylor said:
The High Priest hath spoken.
Click to expand...

*shrug* this was the inevitable end result of asinine arguments like "But democrats are the real racists, they keep blacks on their plantation with welfare money." and "Racism is so overused, it doesn't even mean anything anymore, liberals just use it when they're losing an argument." that republicans have peddled for the past 40+ years. No shock that you end up with people who simply can't recognize outright white supremacism unless there's a terrorist involved - and sometimes not even then.

Republicans were given plenty of warning ever since Barry Goldwater ran for president, they arrogantly ignored every warning sign, and now they're surprised to discover that they represent white supremacy, and that's about it. I feel bad for guys like Weld who actually did try to push back and stick to principles.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
Maybe now is the time to stop communicating with these members? The best way to discuss racism is to talk about it, not with it.
Click to expand...

Remember back when skepticism was all about inviting kooky people to prove their outlandish claims in public? The idea was to open minds, IIRC.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Actually a much more winable fight and much easier, but that is endgame strategy not needed now.

In order to actually solve such a huge complex worldwide problem as AGW, a strong consensus is required. That is absolutely obligate. It can't be some temporary conditional political mood swing. It must be durable no matter what party is in power and yet not susceptible to the same regulatory capture found in other "big government" type solutions to problems.

Otherwise this will absolutely fail and civilization will indeed collapse worldwide as it has regionally so many times in the past. I don't think I need to explain how bad that would be for everyone, rich and poor, Republican and Democrat, even the whole biosphere. It is an unacceptable outcome that must be avoided.

So the real important fight is actually internal to the Republican party. There are actually many conservative groups all through this country that are dedicated to this in their local sphere of influence. But being fiercely independent by their very nature they don't often really join up to make consensus and often go unheard. It could be anything from your local Boy Scout troupe to the 4H members displaying at the State Fair to even a hunters group that has established a game preserve (like my great Grandfather did in North Carolina by donating in the tens of thousands of acres to an eternal trust), to even new groups such as Crunchy Conservatives.

This is the type of Governmental over site I believe is required to actually solve the problem of AGW:

Hunters as conservationists

So lets look at how this works and why it works:
  1. Wildlife is a public resource. In the Unites States, wildlife is considered a public resource, independent of the land or water where wildlife may live. Government at various levels have a role in managing that resource on behalf of all citizens and to ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations.
  2. Markets for game are eliminated Before wildlife protection laws were enacted, commercial operations decimated populations of many species. Making it illegal to buy and sell meat and parts of game and nongame species removed a huge threat to the survival of those species. A market in furbearers continues as a highly regulated activity, often to manage invasive wildlife.
  3. Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as set hunting seasons, bag limits, license requirements, etc.
  4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. Wildlife is a shared resource that must not be wasted. The law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons.
  5. Wildlife species are considered an international resource. Some species, such as migratory birds, cross national boundaries. Treaties such as the Migratory Bird Treaty and CITES recognize a shared responsibility to manage these species across national boundaries.
  6. Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. In order to manage wildlife as a shared resource fairly, objectively, and knowledgeably, decisions must be based on sound science such as annual waterfowl population surveys and the work of professional wildlife biologists.
  7. The democracy of hunting. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership.

Now of course energy and agricultural certainly are different than the above in the industrialized models we have today, but they were not always like this. There was a time when it really was each small farmers "back 40" that was allowed to go to woods and set aside for hunting, and/or acorn finishing the hogs once a year, that in aggregate with the few more prosperous ones like my Great Grand Daddy Thelly actually derived from rural agriculture to begin with. They were the generators of energy with the mill ponds as the responsible parties to be good stewards of the land. Mistakes made sure, but there really isn't anyone more knowledgeable about the land than someone who is out on the land on a daily basis.

Now we can take portions of that list above and expand it to include energy and agriculture again. Modernize the technology, but keep the conservative principles and dynamic that were so successful they became THE model for conservation to the world.

This will indeed reverse AGW and solve the vast majority of energy production, food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’. But the dynamic must become the primary platform of both parties for this to happen. Once that happens then the two sides can come together and work out the compromises needed to make sure neither side alone can wreck it the next election cycle. It must become as sacrosanct the constitution.

It can be done. Profound social change can happen. Even though racism still exists, I don't see anyone really advocating a return to government sanctioned slavery. It's outlawed everywhere in the world but maybe Saudi Arabia and North Korea? Not sure. But certainly in the civilized world it would be impossible to bring slavery back because neither side would accept it. This is the type of consensus we must have to solve AGW IMHO. It must be inherently so durable that no one would even consider challenging it. You don't get that sort change by simply flipping to the other side of the aisle every time the going gets a little tough.:boxedin: It needs to be so strong part of society that anyone arguing against it is immediately disdained as a whackjob delusional equivalent of a flat Earther.
Click to expand...

Actually, despite my mentioning climate change specifically, I was thinking of more general politics (climate change was merely a tossed in example); however, thanks for your response!
 
Ziggurat said:
Instagram posts can get deleted, so I don't think it's there anymore. Could it have been faked? In principle, yes.

Was it faked? Oddly enough, nobody involved has actually claimed that any of the posts referred to were faked. Also oddly enough, Ilhan won't even tell reporters who her family members actually are.
Click to expand...


So which person involved corroborated the posts ?
 
uke2se said:
It's kind of terrible when the last few pro-GOP posters on this forum out themselves as vile racists like they have in this thread. I exclude RBF in this, but given his views, I don't consider him pro-GOP.
Click to expand...

Whatever the reason, RBF has adopted an absurd definition of racism that right-wing propaganda has been pushing since the Civil Rights movement -- one that says that the activists are the real racists -- and the absurd theory that the best way to deal with racism is to ignore it. At best, he represents the faction of the right who may not be racist per se but just don't care because it's someone else's problem.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
So which person involved corroborated the posts ?
Click to expand...

I had thought it was mentioned earlier that Ilhan wouldn't confirm, deny, or speak about it anymore. So wouldn't the fact she hasn't spoken about this kind of fit the mold? Why should she? Sounds like it's been addressed enough times.
 
I will note that I have heard people talking about a post which shows the fact that our own poster Ziggurat is actually Omar's brother. He's been asked to address this post and has not denied the accusation or provided anyone here with a list of his family.

If such refusal to engage with an accusation is damning, which some posters here seem to feel in ilhan Omar's case, then we have reason to be quite concerned.
 
Recent Scientific American article: The Truth about Anti-White Discrimination

Scientific American said:
Many white Americans feel that discrimination against whites is on the rise. Experiments suggests otherwise

...
Consider an experiment by sociologist Devah Pager, who sent pairs of experimenters—one black and one white—to apply for 340 job ads in New York City. She gave them resumes doctored to have identical qualifications. She gave them scripts so that the applicants said the same things when handing in their applications. She even dressed them alike. She found that black applicants got half the call backs that white applicants got with the same qualifications.

This study inspired experiments in lots of areas of life. One study, for example, responded to more than 14,000 online apartment rental adds but varied whether the name attached to the email implied a white applicant (e.g., Allison Bauer) or a black applicant (e.g., Ebony Washington). The black applicants were twenty-six percent less likely to be told that the apartment was available.

These kinds of experiments are not ambiguous like statistics on disparities are. There were no differences in merit. Race was the cause. Real employers and landlords discriminated against blacks and in favor of whites, by a large margin.

This kind of direct evidence of discrimination against minorities have been found in other arenas. Professors are more likely to ignore emails from students of color. Airbnb hosts are more likely to tell black renters that the listing has already been taken. Pager and her colleagues published a meta-analysis incorporating every field experiment on hiring since the first ones were carried out in the 1980’s. Across two dozen studies, black applicants were called back 36 percent less than whites with the same qualifications. Not a single study found a reliable anti-white bias. Most sobering of all, the rate of discrimination is the same today as in the 1980’s.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
Actually a much more winable fight and much easier, but that is endgame strategy not needed now.
Click to expand...
Why, because we have so much time before it is needed?

Red Baron Farms said:
In order to actually solve such a huge complex worldwide problem as AGW, a strong consensus is required.
Click to expand...
Difficult when some are so into denial that AGW is even a thing.

Red Baron Farms said:
This is the type of Governmental over site I believe is required to actually solve the problem of AGW:
Click to expand...
What problem? No matter how much you want a bottoms-up solution, it won't get anywhere without buy-in that it is a problem.

Red Baron Farms said:
Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. In order to manage wildlife as a shared resource fairly, objectively, and knowledgeably, decisions must be based on sound science such as annual waterfowl population surveys and the work of professional wildlife biologists.
Click to expand...
Oh, those fancy-shmancy "scientists." What do they know? /sarcasm

Red Baron Farms said:
It needs to be so strong part of society that anyone arguing against it is immediately disdained as a whackjob delusional equivalent of a flat Earther.
Click to expand...
Despite your optimistic blueprint I don't share your assessment that there is plenty of time to reach this consensus you cherish.

Yeah, I hope I'm wrong. But I don't see how you get there without any give so far on the part of people who hate science and accept as an article of faith that the short-term profits of monoculture trump stewardship.

This is not the thread for that discussion. But I am interested in how to bring about this global epiphany you believe is, or least can be, right around the corner, without any top-down influence.

What would we call the split thread?

"Toward a new paradigm: Widespread support for permaculture can solve AGW in one generation," maybe. "How a literal grassroots movement can reverse catastrophic climate change."

I'm really interested on how you can boil your position down to 20 words or so. It must be simple to reach simpletons. Not farmers; the GOP.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Meanwhile, Omar's potential GOP challenger has legal complications of her own.

Pro-Trump Republican aiming to unseat Ilhan Omar charged with felony theft



She's apparently using the "I have PTSD" defense. Also some Q-anon stuff.

This is all a giant "whataboutheremails."
Click to expand...


She's doing it wrong. Shoplifting a few grand from Target (even if it is an upscale store by the standards of Trump supporters) isn't going to get her any respect from the GOP.

She needs to be scamming tax dollars from FEMA and other government agencies in the seven and eight figure range with connivance from White House cronies to do that.

Remember the Republican Motto. "Steal a few grand? That's a crime. Steal a few million? That's business."

And whining about her mental health isn't going to help, either. Republicans have no empathy or sympathy for the mentally ill. It's a character defect. (Unlike, say, hypocrisy.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom