Post Right Wing looniness here

Seattle Husker said:
This dude is like him and has more power. He used to be smart. Now he's caught up in trying to be Donald Trump to get the attention of the base.

Click to expand...


The exact opposite. He's no longer Bombastic Ted. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat right now

That phrase was sung at LOUD volumes at football games the past month.... my man TC is simply connected to the common man. Don't hate
 
Last edited:
Another crazy state...Idaho. Every time the Governor leaves the state the Lt. Governor starts calling herself Acting Governor and issuing Executive Orders to do things contrary to the Governors orders.



upload_2021-10-6_12-38-58.png
 
Seattle Husker said:
Arizona is crazy. "Anti-mask education grants"...

Treasury says Arizona can't use federal COVID-19 aid for anti-mask education grants
Click to expand...
As usual, the left spins this to a narrative that is contrary to reality.

Funding districts with no mask mandate is hardly 'anti mask education,' no matter how much the left tries to twist and make up crap...

"stop allotting federal pandemic funding toward grants for school systems in the state that do not have mask mandates" is what your own article described.

A linked article indicated that "In order for school districts to qualify for the grants, which total about $163 million, they must reopen schools for in-person learning and adhere to "all state laws,"
 
mb227 said:
A linked article indicated that "In order for school districts to qualify for the grants, which total about $163 million, they must reopen schools for in-person learning and adhere to "all state laws,"
Click to expand...

Ahhh...but "all state laws" means the law that Ducey signed that forbids mask mandates by schools, a law that hasn't held up anywhere it's been challenged in courts. A law that says "no masks mandates allowed" is not anti-mask?

The nuts and bolts of this is that he refused to give these funds targeted at supporting schools being open to any school that felt one measure should be following CDC guidelines. That's nuts.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Ahhh...but "all state laws" means the law that Ducey signed that forbids mask mandates by schools, a law that hasn't held up anywhere it's been challenged in courts. A law that says "no masks mandates allowed" is not anti-mask?

The nuts and bolts of this is that he refused to give these funds targeted at supporting schools being open to any school that felt one measure should be following CDC guidelines. That's nuts.
Click to expand...
The funds were NOT being given for the purpose of saying masks were bad. Yet that is how all of the libtiles want to spin it.

This is a case of the feds AGAIN intervening in how a State engages in its Constitutionally-protected right to do business. Masks are stupid and AZ is fortunate enough (as are Texas and Florida and a host of other States) to have leadership that recognizes that it is not the place of the State to mandate the useless face diapers. If parents want to make Little Susie wear one, then so be it...

It is truly sad that you and others like you don't see the creeping tyranny vis-a-vis the turning up of the heat of the pot of water. You are scared to actually make decisions for yourself and it seems to offend you that some States DO want to make decisions on their own, free from Soros-pulled strings. And yeah, when you pull the thread far enough, it DOES come back to that *******.
 
mb227 said:
The funds were NOT being given for the purpose of saying masks were bad.
Click to expand...

The funds were being given to help schools protect staff and students from Covid. The state chose to take a major tool in that protection away. The Feds are simply saying you can't use our money to work against our recommendations.

mb227 said:
Yet that is how all of the libtiles want to spin it.
Click to expand...

I'm always impressed that a 13yr old girl accomplished so much. Kudos to you. If you're not actually 13yrs old I'd encourage you to act your age.
 
Last edited:
mb227 said:
The funds were NOT being given for the purpose of saying masks were bad. Yet that is how all of the libtiles want to spin it.

This is a case of the feds AGAIN intervening in how a State engages in its Constitutionally-protected right to do business. Masks are stupid and AZ is fortunate enough (as are Texas and Florida and a host of other States) to have leadership that recognizes that it is not the place of the State to mandate the useless face diapers. If parents want to make Little Susie wear one, then so be it...

It is truly sad that you and others like you don't see the creeping tyranny vis-a-vis the turning up of the heat of the pot of water. You are scared to actually make decisions for yourself and it seems to offend you that some States DO want to make decisions on their own, free from Soros-pulled strings. And yeah, when you pull the thread far enough, it DOES come back to that *******.
Click to expand...
It is so odd this is the hill to die on.

Soros. Lol
 
py1pfbzhgvs71.jpg


I don't get the fascination with Christopher Columbus. There is ample evidence that other explorers had reached North America long before Columbus. Leif Ericksson established a settlement in what is now Canada ~500yrs before Columbus landed in the Caribbean. Did the Chinese first discover America? Maybe the Welsh? St. Brendan maybe? We for sure know it wasn't Columbus. Not sure he deserves much more mention in the history books than nearly any other world explorer of his time and like all they should be put in proper historical context.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
I don't get the fascination with Christopher Columbus. There is ample evidence that other explorers had reached North America long before Columbus. Leif Ericksson established a settlement in what is now Canada ~500yrs before Columbus landed in the Caribbean. Did the Chinese first discover America? Maybe the Welsh? St. Brendan maybe? We for sure know it wasn't Columbus. Not sure he deserves much more mention in the history books than nearly any other world explorer of his time and like all they should be put in proper historical context.
Click to expand...
I would turn this question around. Why do some have such a keen desire to tear down CC and the story of America's discovery? There is one day a year where his name even comes up. I would suggest it is not about being factually accurate, it has more to do with tearing down the accepted pillars of America's foundational understanding of itself. There is a segment of our society that really yearns to paint America as an inherently evil institution. In their mind America was born of sin and as a result is sinful and decadent at its core. This effort to tear down CC is just another piece of that effort.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
I would turn this question around. Why do some have such a keen desire to tear down CC and the story of America's discovery? There is one day a year where his name even comes up. I would suggest it is not about being factually accurate, it has more to do with tearing down the accepted pillars of America's foundational understanding of itself. There is a segment of our society that really yearns to paint America as an inherently evil institution. In their mind America was born of sin and as a result is sinful and decadent at its core. This effort to tear down CC is just another piece of that effort.
Click to expand...

It was a move in the late-19th / early 20th century to change the CC narrative to one of more reverence. Again, during his time he was stripped of all titles and most of his $$ because of how he was treating the indigenous people of Hispanolia. The Catholic Church pushed for the shift in the view of history, ostensibly to push a pro-Italian agenda to help a segment of immigrants that were being discriminated against at the time.

What you are seeing now is a bit of a reset of history. We know what those who grew up in the 50's - 80's were taught a bit of fiction (or OMMISSION) regarding CC, not too different than the Confederate narrative where the South fought a war simply trying to "save their culture".

Shouldn't we try to put history in it's proper context? If that means we no longer revere Southern Generals who fought for slavery or CC who stumbled onto a Caribbean island but died a disgraced governor that's simply correcting a wrong.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It was a move in the late-19th / early 20th century to change the CC narrative to one of more reverence. Again, during his time he was stripped of all titles and most of his $$ because of how he was treating the indigenous people of Hispanolia. The Catholic Church pushed for the shift in the view of history, ostensibly to push a pro-Italian agenda to help a segment of immigrants that were being discriminated against at the time.

What you are seeing now is a bit of a reset of history. We know what those who grew up in the 50's - 80's were taught a bit of fiction (or OMMISSION) regarding CC, not too different than the Confederate narrative where the South fought a war simply trying to "save their culture".

Shouldn't we try to put history in it's proper context? If that means we no longer revere Southern Generals who fought for slavery or CC who stumbled onto a Caribbean island but died a disgraced governor that's simply correcting a wrong.
Click to expand...
but there is tremendous passion from some corners to "simply correct a wrong". which is why is would suggest it is not to "simply correct a wrong". Very few in this country really care about accuracy in History, unless it is to be used as a lever to make a point today. Downgrading CC is to imply a very different narrative of America. I don't dispute that the Civil War was fought about slavery and its implications on Southern economics. I don't dispute that there is evidence others beat CC to America. I'm just pointing out that this exercise is not the fact finding mission you are positing. It is an effort to paint our country with a different origin story and the point of that different origin story is for Some groups to use it as a cudgel for greater power and influence. In essence, it is to reset the baseline to "sinful beginning requires reparations now." I don't hear anyone lobbying to rename CC to Lief Erickson day. It is almost always Indigenous Peoples day or something to that effect.

although not on the same scale, there is an effort to rebrand G. Floyd and wipe his Houston record clean. That is the lefts effort to wipe away facts. Can't let the face of the movement be a criminal so let's wash it out with a new lie.
 
BrntO you’ve just stated what gets me about all the Floyd idolizing. The actual character of the man has to be ignored completely and that is deplorable, imo.
 
As a part native sooner I think reverence for Columbus is stupid. Honor Erickson or someone who actually came here. Don't honor the guy stripped of his honor during his life for crimes against humanity that happens to roughly fall in the direction of my family tree. Hell, honor the Pilgrams who actually moved here.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
but there is tremendous passion from some corners to "simply correct a wrong". which is why is would suggest it is not to "simply correct a wrong". Very few in this country really care about accuracy in History, unless it is to be used as a lever to make a point today. Downgrading CC is to imply a very different narrative of America. I don't dispute that the Civil War was fought about slavery and its implications on Southern economics. I don't dispute that there is evidence others beat CC to America. I'm just pointing out that this exercise is not the fact finding mission you are positing. It is an effort to paint our country with a different origin story and the point of that different origin story is for Some groups to use it as a cudgel for greater power and influence. In essence, it is to reset the baseline to "sinful beginning requires reparations now." I don't hear anyone lobbying to rename CC to Lief Erickson day. It is almost always Indigenous Peoples day or something to that effect.

although not on the same scale, there is an effort to rebrand G. Floyd and wipe his Houston record clean. That is the lefts effort to wipe away facts. Can't let the face of the movement be a criminal so let's wash it out with a new lie.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming that often ulterior motives aren't at play. Our origin story is complicated at best. I don't see the benefit of telling false stories just to make people feel better about their ancestry. CC should be in the history books. He was a seminal Western explorer but also how he ended up. Not sure what you learned in history but when I was in primary/secondary school CC was a very positive figure. Cortez was given the full context and other non-Anglo explorers were viewed in full context. The move now simply adds that same context on CC that was stripped from our history books by people that also had ulterior motives. Put it all out there and let the reader make a decision for themselves. Let the reader know that Robert E. Lee defended AA's while also owning slaves. He may not have been as bad as the massive plantation owners but he was still in "the club".

We shouldn't white wash history in hopes of creating heroes. History should be laid out in full context, always. There are bonified heroes in our history and elevating people who have a mixed past should be beneath those.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
I'm not claiming that often ulterior motives aren't at play. Our origin story is complicated at best. I don't see the benefit of telling false stories just to make people feel better about their ancestry. CC should be in the history books. He was a seminal Western explorer but also how he ended up. Not sure what you learned in history but when I was in primary/secondary school CC was a very positive figure. Cortez was given the full context and other non-Anglo explorers were viewed in full context. The move now simply adds that same context on CC that was stripped from our history books by people that also had ulterior motives. Put it all out there and let the reader make a decision for themselves. Let the reader know that Robert E. Lee defended AA's while also owning slaves. He may not have been as bad as the massive plantation owners but he was still in "the club".

We shouldn't white wash history in hopes of creating heroes. History should be laid out in full context, always. There are bonified heroes in our history and elevating people who have a mixed past should be beneath those.
Click to expand...

I was educated in Florida (K - 6) and Laredo (7 -12).

I have no positive feelings about the arrival of white marauders from EUROPE landing on these shores. They were the keepers of white privilege. The same EUROPEANS that are looked up to by today's Liberals.

My children are aware of the problems from way back when. But they are stressed about the failure of their parents marriage, their rigorous schooling and the cost of living.

Liberals want to pile on them and make them feel as if they are oppressors.

THEY'RE NOT.

Liberals are. LIBERALS. Not Democrats. LIBERALS.
 
bystander said:
Liberals want to pile on them and make them feel as if they are oppressors.
Click to expand...

You'll have to help me on how you landed here from a question on Christopher Columbus as a hero or not. I was talking ONLY about historical perspective, not whether he's an example of white oppression that continues to this day.
 
Last edited:
bystander said:
I was educated in Florida (K - 6) and Laredo (7 -12).

I have no positive feelings about the arrival of white marauders from EUROPE landing on these shores. They were the keepers of white privilege. The same EUROPEANS that are looked up to by today's Liberals.

My children are aware of the problems from way back when. But they are stressed about the failure of their parents marriage, their rigorous schooling and the cost of living.

Liberals want to pile on them and make them feel as if they are oppressors.

THEY'RE NOT.

Liberals are. LIBERALS. Not Democrats. LIBERALS.
Click to expand...
My man, you've got it bad. You took a post about white marauders and turned it into a screed against liberals.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I don't get the fascination with Christopher Columbus. There is ample evidence that other explorers had reached North America long before Columbus. Leif Ericksson established a settlement in what is now Canada ~500yrs before Columbus landed in the Caribbean. Did the Chinese first discover America? Maybe the Welsh? St. Brendan maybe? We for sure know it wasn't Columbus. Not sure he deserves much more mention in the history books than nearly any other world explorer of his time and like all they should be put in proper historical context.
Click to expand...

Kicking off the transatlantic Age of Discovery is pretty noteworthy and worth celebrating. No explorer has spurred that level of exploration is why Columbus is honored more than any other. Ever seen replica Columbus ships? They are tiny! It is heroic to both agree and to successfully sail one as far west as it takes to find land (oh, and back).

Seattle Husker said:
It was a move in the late-19th / early 20th century to change the CC narrative to one of more reverence. Again, during his time he was stripped of all titles and most of his $$ because of how he was treating the indigenous people of Hispanolia. The Catholic Church pushed for the shift in the view of history, ostensibly to push a pro-Italian agenda to help a segment of immigrants that were being discriminated against at the time.
Click to expand...

The first Columbus Day celebration recorded in the United States was in New York on October 12th, 1792. This was due to the desire to have something other than Britain be the national origin story in the US. Early Americans could have selected something else to celebrate so if it wasn't reverence in 1792 through late-19th / early 20th century, what was it?

OUBubba said:
As a part native sooner I think reverence for Columbus is stupid. Honor Erickson or someone who actually came here. Don't honor the guy stripped of his honor during his life for crimes against humanity that happens to roughly fall in the direction of my family tree. Hell, honor the Pilgrams who actually moved here.
Click to expand...

Columbus came 'here' assuming here means the North American continent with your Leif Erikson comment. NA officially extends south through Panama, and Columbus' fourth voyage hit present day Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. It's disingenuous (and copied frequently by liberal authors) to claim Central America is not part of North America. One can stupidly do the same against Erickson. He didn't arrive here because America means present day United States.

Then for proper historical context, some Spaniards in the New World were annoyed with Columbus since they didn't find the vast riches they thought they would. How much of that complaint led to his arrest versus disgust with his treatment Hispaniola natives we'll never know. What we do know is that the Spanish king pardoned him, and his heirs were successful in arbitration to get annual payments as promised to Columbus prior to his voyages and the title of Admiral of the Indies in perpetuity to the line of Columbus, among other things. It's certainly not everyone alive during his time thought he was terrible.
 


A. I will defer from that calendar.
B. Can the gun gimmick go the way of all things?
C. I love the three beer bottles at the end. Red meat for the rubes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top