@no1marauder saidSo perhaps you now understand why *people with means* erect big walls around their homes laden with potential booty.
"Comfort and security" are why people banded into societies in the first place, so it should be the minimal goal of any human society.
Ya think?
@no1marauder saidNot visiting the link(s), as i am only interested in what the poster thinks.
Seems like Portland is doing OK. https://datausa.io/profile/geo/portland-or/
California too. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/INC110219
And this poster is thinking, saying what?!? Portland and California doing OK?!?? Doing what OK?
@no1marauder saidMarauder, everyone is good with all that societies bring. Cool, no argument.
"Comfort and security" are why people banded into societies in the first place, so it should be the minimal goal of any human society.
But you and AOC et al want to change the society, where I and We enjoy comfort and security, into some sort of concept which we will not recognize.
After Mussolini and Hitler took over their societies, what did they call that which used to be a ‘society’ in their countries? When you and AOC get through with this, it definitely will not be a society with which we are familiar.. I can’t believe you don’t get it. I am about to think everything you spew out is putting everyone on.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidWell, we know they are doing Ok at losing residents. You know, the truly WOKE ones.
Not visiting the link(s), as i am only interested in what the poster thinks.
And this poster is thinking, saying what?!? Portland and California doing OK?!?? Doing what OK?
5 Counties in Oregon looking at succeeding and joining Idaho? Uh huh. That says a lot
@earl-of-trumps saidIt doesn't really say anything but that the people there are badly out of touch with the other residents of the State.
Well, we know they are doing Ok at losing residents. You know, the truly WOKE ones.
5 Counties in Oregon looking at succeeding and joining Idaho? Uh huh. That says a lot
But in the spirit of bipartisanship, I'll offer you a deal in the name of democracy; those counties can join Idaho, IF Puerto Rico and the District of Colombia are admitted as States as their people wish.
Fair enough?
@averagejoe1 saidDo you think people in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany had "comfort and security"?
Marauder, everyone is good with all that societies bring. Cool, no argument.
But you and AOC et al want to change the society, where I and We enjoy comfort and security, into some sort of concept which we will not recognize.
After Mussolini and Hitler took over their societies, what did they call that which used to be a ‘society’ in their countries? When you an ...[text shortened]... can’t believe you don’t get it. I am about to think everything you spew out is putting everyone on.
A society isn't about just YOU, AJ. I really that you think as long as the elite have a comfortable life all well's; after all, they work soooooooooooooooooo hard according to you. But as I already pointed out, there are many things the US does a poor job providing, most of which would encourage work and productivity at fairly little real cost to the economy.
@no1marauder saidNot... even... close.
It doesn't really say anything but that the people there are badly out of touch with the other residents of the State.
But in the spirit of bipartisanship, I'll offer you a deal in the name of democracy; those counties can join Idaho, IF Puerto Rico and the District of Colombia are admitted as States as their people wish.
Fair enough?
The citizens of PR can want statehood, but it is not their call. And I suppose, too, it is Idaho's call. That's fair.
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidGee, what ever happened to the ode to "democracy" you played in your reply to SH?
Not... even... close.
The citizens of PR can want statehood, but it is not their call. And I suppose, too, it is Idaho's call. That's fair.
For decades both parties had planks in their national platforms endorsing PR statehood if and when the People of PR requested it (which they have done both by referendum and by resolutions of their legislature). But now right wingers have decided these 3 million US citizens should have no say in the national government purely because they fear they won't vote the way you wish.
I'd like to hear a cogent defense of that decision to deprive these citizens of such a basic right for such a frivolous reason.
@no1marauder saidI would like to hear some facts to backup this BS you are spewing.
Gee, what ever happened to the ode to "democracy" you played in your reply to SH?
For decades both parties had planks in their national platforms endorsing PR statehood if and when the People of PR requested it (which they have done both by referendum and by resolutions of their legislature). But now right wingers have decided these 3 million US citizens should have n ...[text shortened]... efense of that decision to deprive these citizens of such a basic right for such a frivolous reason.
@mott-the-hoople saidStraight from the elephant's mouth:
I would like to hear some facts to backup this BS you are spewing.
"The Republican Party Platform statements on Puerto Rico:
2012:
“We support the right of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state if they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a State, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S government.”
2016:
“We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state. We further recognize the historic significance of the 2012 local referendum in which a 54 percent majority voted to end Puerto Rico’s current status as a U.S. territory, and 61 percent chose statehood over options for sovereign nationhood. We support the federally sponsored political status referendum authorized and funded by an Act of Congress in 2014 to ascertain the aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico. Once the 2012 local vote for statehood is ratified, Congress should approve an enabling act with terms for Puerto Rico’s future admission as the 51st state of the Union.”
https://www.pr51st.com/republican-party-platform-puerto-rico/
However, the Republican Party has traditionally supported statehood for Puerto Rico. For example, this is the statement on the Island from the 1944 Republican Party platform:
Puerto Rico
Statehood is a logical aspiration of the people of Puerto Rico who were made citizens of the United States by Congress in 1917; legislation affecting Puerto Rico, in so far as feasible, should be in harmony with the realization of that aspiration.
In 1968, the Republican Party platform said, “We will support the efforts of the Puerto Rican people to achieve statehood when they freely request such status by a general election.”
The 2000 Republican Party Platform was similar to the current platform, though it naturally did not mention the 21st century plebiscites:
We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a State, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the United States government."
https://www.puertoricoreport.com/u-s-party-platforms-and-puerto-rico/#.YMFHr_lKiM8
@no1marauder saidIt's really very simple. Our democracy will settle the issue. Democracy.
Gee, what ever happened to the ode to "democracy" you played in your reply to SH?
For decades both parties had planks in their national platforms endorsing PR statehood if and when the People of PR requested it (which they have done both by referendum and by resolutions of their legislature). But now right wingers have decided these 3 million US citizens should have n ...[text shortened]... efense of that decision to deprive these citizens of such a basic right for such a frivolous reason.
@no1marauder
you certainly made your point of prior congresses being in favor of PR statehood.
Ok, so now you have the POTUS and congress all wrapped up in your democrat fingers. DO IT, and quit'ya'bitchin'
@earl-of-trumps saidThe point was the Republican national party supported it. Now it opposes it for fear how the People of PR would vote (maybe; the non-voting representative in the House is a Republican, so perhaps it's just out and out racism).
@no1marauder
you certainly made your point of prior congresses being in favor of PR statehood.
Ok, so now you have the POTUS and congress all wrapped up in your democrat fingers. DO IT, and quit'ya'bitchin'
Prediction: The House will pass a statehood bill.
The Republicans will successfully filibuster it.
@no1marauder saidI would be fine, if it were the result of a course of practical and expedient processes where it is called for for 'fair ' reasons. But this scenario hardly fits that requirement, does it? And isn't it coincidental that it is being pushed AT THE SAME TIME as adding more justices. It all stinks, and you, and I, and everyone on this forum know what it is all about. The reasons, Marauder. Sewing up a few more million votes for handouts. What in the hell is it about handouts, anyway? I dont remember this type of foolishness in years past, what changed?
It doesn't really say anything but that the people there are badly out of touch with the other residents of the State.
But in the spirit of bipartisanship, I'll offer you a deal in the name of democracy; those counties can join Idaho, IF Puerto Rico and the District of Colombia are admitted as States as their people wish.
Fair enough?
Funny that y'all, esp Suzianne, rave that we want power......look again. If you are building forces with DC, PRico and the courts, seems to me that you are the ones seeking power.
@no1marauder saidIn the early 1900's, before dictators, I would say they were comfortable and secure. Growing flowers, milking goats. Interacting with no bombs overhead, you get what I mean.
Do you think people in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany had "comfort and security"?
A society isn't about just YOU, AJ. I really that you think as long as the elite have a comfortable life all well's; after all, they work soooooooooooooooooo hard according to you. But as I already pointed out, there are many things the US does a poor job providing, most of which would encourage work and productivity at fairly little real cost to the economy.
So THEN is when FACIST ITALY AND NAZI GERMANY changed their societies. Downer. Hard to be comfortable with the stench of rotting jews in your homeland, esp if you WERE a jew. No comfort, no security, Marauder.
Didn't get the relevance of your second paragraph. It is as if you think that the USA does not do a perfect job of providing. Yeah, you are definitely right there. What do you suggest? (remember, your answer has to include 100% participation, or it won't work.)
Be honest, are you putting us on?