info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
(OT) Venezuela War
28 views
Skip to first unread message
*skriptis
Jan 31, 2019, 11:44:37β―AM1/31/19
to
It's coming soon, it seems neocons have successfully
persuaded/forced Trump to start a war there, him all of sudden
supporting some oppositional leader and declaring him to be
president of Venezuela.
So, do you like the idea of war there?
If yes, why and if no, why?
For globalists it's a great opportunity to accelerate with the
Kalergi plan.
Analysts predict up up 8 million brown refuges from war-torn
Venezuela needing sanctuary and that will of course, be
USA.
They will form a caravan, and naturally many more will join along
the way. Millions of brown people, browning the America.
When that happens, Trump-style republicans or politicians in
general will never be able to win elections anymore.
It doesn't seem like a smart idea, to be honest.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Sawfish
Jan 31, 2019, 11:51:31β―AM1/31/19
to
Short of legitimate defense, or blatant and unapologetic acquisition,
warfare seem to have little going for it, except possibly to cull off a
surplus of the more aggressive males.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish
warfare seem to have little going for it, except possibly to cull off a
surplus of the more aggressive males.
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish
PeteWasLucky
Jan 31, 2019, 1:06:07β―PM1/31/19
to
> It's coming soon, it seems neocons have successfully
persuaded/forced Trump to start a war there, him all of sudden
supporting some oppositional leader and declaring him to be
president of Venezuela.
They've got lots of oil.
persuaded/forced Trump to start a war there, him all of sudden
supporting some oppositional leader and declaring him to be
president of Venezuela.
StephenJ
Jan 31, 2019, 1:15:19β―PM1/31/19
to
> Analysts predict up up 8 million brown refuges from war-torn
> Venezuela needing sanctuary and that will of course, be
> USA.
on for a long time. That's one possible outcome. Better it be conducted
by a coalition of South American countries, though. They are the
immediate neighbors.
--
before agriculture, food-finding was the only occupation
for humans.
- Alan Weisman
The Iceberg
Jan 31, 2019, 1:16:53β―PM1/31/19
to
Dick Cheyney is now worth $80million!
War creates lots of jobs/money for the neocons!
War creates lots of jobs/money for the neocons!
The Iceberg
Jan 31, 2019, 1:18:02β―PM1/31/19
to
Itβs why nobody in the USA cared one bit about Zimbabwe!
Sawfish
Jan 31, 2019, 1:25:53β―PM1/31/19
to
On 1/31/19 10:16 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
> Dick Cheyney is now worth $80million!
> War creates lots of jobs/money for the neocons!
Here's a thought, and it's not a criticism, Iceman...
> Dick Cheyney is now worth $80million!
> War creates lots of jobs/money for the neocons!
If you think about it, both a foreign war, and public works spending
affect the domestic economy in a similar fashion, in that they create a
demand for goods and services that did not previously exist, or were not
under big demand.
Since you already know that I don't tend to ascribe "right" and "wrong"
to impersonal phenomena like the appropriateness of foreign policy, over
and above its positive or negative quantifiable results, I'm not
snarkily implying that one course is the morally proper one; I don't see
things that way. Implementing one in lieu of the other is quite
different, politically, and this matters somewhat.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Calimero
Jan 31, 2019, 1:38:08β―PM1/31/19
to
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 5:44:37 PM UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
> It's coming soon, it seems neocons have successfully
> persuaded/forced Trump to start a war there, him all of sudden
> supporting some oppositional leader and declaring him to be
> president of Venezuela.
>
> So, do you like the idea of war there?
> If yes, why and if no, why?
> ...
> It's coming soon, it seems neocons have successfully
> persuaded/forced Trump to start a war there, him all of sudden
> supporting some oppositional leader and declaring him to be
> president of Venezuela.
>
> So, do you like the idea of war there?
> If yes, why and if no, why?
It is a good idea.
- The US military gets some necessary practice.
- Democracy and capitalism are restored.
- The Russians lose face since one of their clients will get beaten up.
- Trump will rise in the polls.
Max
*skriptis
Jan 31, 2019, 1:41:23β―PM1/31/19
to
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
But these modern wars don't benefit the people that much. If at all.
E.g. when Britain conquered Indus the wealth they plundered helped
build Britain for the better.
So in a way, it was a good war for the Britain and bad for the
Indus. Zero sum game, win - loss.
But this war in Venezuela, it doesn't seem the ordinary white
Americans will profit from it. E.g. will they get free
healthcare? No. Brown Venezuelans will of course, get hurt,
killed and displaced.
It's a loss - loss.
Someone else is profiting. Individuals. And I oppose wars that
don't directly benefit the people.
If Trump said we'll go there, take all of their oil, harvest their
females, who are very successful in various beauty pageants, and
enslave their males...
Now that would be a positive approach to war.
But we'll go there, destroy their country to reinstate "democracy,
kill thousands, and create refugee crisis which USA will have to
take care of...
Now that's stupid.
Just my thoughts.
E.g. when Britain conquered Indus the wealth they plundered helped
build Britain for the better.
So in a way, it was a good war for the Britain and bad for the
Indus. Zero sum game, win - loss.
But this war in Venezuela, it doesn't seem the ordinary white
Americans will profit from it. E.g. will they get free
healthcare? No. Brown Venezuelans will of course, get hurt,
killed and displaced.
It's a loss - loss.
Someone else is profiting. Individuals. And I oppose wars that
don't directly benefit the people.
If Trump said we'll go there, take all of their oil, harvest their
females, who are very successful in various beauty pageants, and
enslave their males...
Now that would be a positive approach to war.
But we'll go there, destroy their country to reinstate "democracy,
kill thousands, and create refugee crisis which USA will have to
take care of...
Now that's stupid.
Just my thoughts.
Sawfish
Jan 31, 2019, 1:43:18β―PM1/31/19
to
On 1/31/19 10:18 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
> Itβs why nobody in the USA cared one bit about Zimbabwe!
Hard for me to imagine anyone other Zimbabweans caring much, one way or
> Itβs why nobody in the USA cared one bit about Zimbabwe!
the other.
*skriptis
Jan 31, 2019, 2:12:38β―PM1/31/19
to
StephenJ <sjo...@cox.com> Wrote in message:
You mean the plan should be to draw them into it, in order to
force them to share the refugee burden later?
Well, it's a smart move.
But as much as smart it may be from a practical perspective,
minimizing the brown influx for USA, it doesn't make the whole
thing a wee bit legal.
One aggressor, or five aggressors, it changes nothing from a legal
point if view.
Venezuela is a sovereign country, UN member and only UN security
council can make decisions of perhaps stripping Venezuelan
government of legality.
Venezuela also hasn't attacked any country.
And even these so called protests, this guy Maduro won election
last year, and the other guy who now hopes to be the usurper came
out of nowhere.
He wasn't even running against Maduro, so that one could say he
was robbed of victory.
In the greatest democracy, Hillary robbed Sanders of nomination,
so I'm pretty sure Venezuelan democracy has many flaws, but so
what? It is for them, it's their country. They might be flawed
democracy, but they're a democracy.
There are many countries, that aren't even nominally democracies.
E.g. Saudi Arabia or China. So the whole "we should invade
non-democracies" line is a bit unconvincing.
As for your hopes of war bringing quick end to Venezuelan agony,
I'm not so sure about it.
The current government has been in power for 2 decades now (couple
of years longer than Merkel in Germany) and they enjoy great
support.
They have opponents, as the country is polarized, but they have
huge support as well.
An ideal prerequisite for a bloody civil war once foreign meddling
begins.
As for Venezuelan agony, we have to be sincere and admit that US
sanctions and US desire to punish their socialist government in
the past 2 decades was a main contributing factor to their
current agony.
Socialism might be bad, but it's not that bad that you'll end up
without toilet paper. US sanctions will help there.
We know that the globalist and neocons have their agenda (global
rule and Kalergi) plan, but they're marketing their war effort by
saying democracy and capitalism should be restored here.
Well, that's what shows you neocons are just a bunch of
warmongering former liberals who don't actually believe in
natural superiority of capitalism and feel the need to impose
that stuff.
True conservatives and believers in superiority of both capitalism
and democracy, such as Ron Paul said US should have traded with
Venezuela, not sanctioned them.
The example and natural flow would do its own...
>
>> Analysts predict up up 8 million brown refuges from war-torn
>> Venezuela needing sanctuary and that will of course, be
>> USA.
>
> A war might bring a quick end to Venezuela's agony, which has been going
> on for a long time. That's one possible outcome. Better it be conducted
> by a coalition of South American countries, though. They are the
> immediate neighbors.
Coalition of South American countries?
>> Analysts predict up up 8 million brown refuges from war-torn
>> Venezuela needing sanctuary and that will of course, be
>> USA.
>
> A war might bring a quick end to Venezuela's agony, which has been going
> on for a long time. That's one possible outcome. Better it be conducted
> by a coalition of South American countries, though. They are the
> immediate neighbors.
You mean the plan should be to draw them into it, in order to
force them to share the refugee burden later?
Well, it's a smart move.
But as much as smart it may be from a practical perspective,
minimizing the brown influx for USA, it doesn't make the whole
thing a wee bit legal.
One aggressor, or five aggressors, it changes nothing from a legal
point if view.
Venezuela is a sovereign country, UN member and only UN security
council can make decisions of perhaps stripping Venezuelan
government of legality.
Venezuela also hasn't attacked any country.
And even these so called protests, this guy Maduro won election
last year, and the other guy who now hopes to be the usurper came
out of nowhere.
He wasn't even running against Maduro, so that one could say he
was robbed of victory.
In the greatest democracy, Hillary robbed Sanders of nomination,
so I'm pretty sure Venezuelan democracy has many flaws, but so
what? It is for them, it's their country. They might be flawed
democracy, but they're a democracy.
There are many countries, that aren't even nominally democracies.
E.g. Saudi Arabia or China. So the whole "we should invade
non-democracies" line is a bit unconvincing.
As for your hopes of war bringing quick end to Venezuelan agony,
I'm not so sure about it.
The current government has been in power for 2 decades now (couple
of years longer than Merkel in Germany) and they enjoy great
support.
They have opponents, as the country is polarized, but they have
huge support as well.
An ideal prerequisite for a bloody civil war once foreign meddling
begins.
As for Venezuelan agony, we have to be sincere and admit that US
sanctions and US desire to punish their socialist government in
the past 2 decades was a main contributing factor to their
current agony.
Socialism might be bad, but it's not that bad that you'll end up
without toilet paper. US sanctions will help there.
We know that the globalist and neocons have their agenda (global
rule and Kalergi) plan, but they're marketing their war effort by
saying democracy and capitalism should be restored here.
Well, that's what shows you neocons are just a bunch of
warmongering former liberals who don't actually believe in
natural superiority of capitalism and feel the need to impose
that stuff.
True conservatives and believers in superiority of both capitalism
and democracy, such as Ron Paul said US should have traded with
Venezuela, not sanctioned them.
The example and natural flow would do its own...
Sawfish
Jan 31, 2019, 2:15:09β―PM1/31/19
to
the US, the individual benefits to the degree they can align themselves
with the same interests as those in power.
In the event of a war that the powerful have instigated, I could, if I
wanted, participate a bit in the rewards by buying stock in Northrup
Grumman, for example.
In the 80s, I had direct employment in defense SW.
So those opportunities exist.
A thing to bear in mind about the US at this point, and for quite a long
time, is that no policy of any kind benefits anyone other than targeted
segments, Perhaps in an ethnically homogeneous nation, tat *might* be
possible, but not here, really, so far as I can see.
So the challenge to the individual is to correctly guess what segments
will be benefited from current policy, and see if you can position your
interests in such a way to share any rewards.
I'm not saying that I particularly *like* this, skript, but it has
worked well for me for the last 30 or so years, once I got it thru my
head that the US was not like Sesame Street or Mr. Rodgers' Neighborhood.
>
>
> If Trump said we'll go there, take all of their oil, harvest their
> females, who are very successful in various beauty pageants, and
> enslave their males...
>
> Now that would be a positive approach to war.
>
>
> But we'll go there, destroy their country to reinstate "democracy,
> kill thousands, and create refugee crisis which USA will have to
> take care of...
>
> Now that's stupid.
>
> Just my thoughts.
Sawfish
Jan 31, 2019, 2:35:56β―PM1/31/19
to
On 1/31/19 11:12 AM, *skriptis wrote:
> StephenJ <sjo...@cox.com> Wrote in message:
>>> Analysts predict up up 8 million brown refuges from war-torn
>>> Venezuela needing sanctuary and that will of course, be
>>> USA.
>> A war might bring a quick end to Venezuela's agony, which has been going
>> on for a long time. That's one possible outcome. Better it be conducted
>> by a coalition of South American countries, though. They are the
>> immediate neighbors.
>
> Coalition of South American countries?
>
> You mean the plan should be to draw them into it, in order to
> force them to share the refugee burden later?
>
> Well, it's a smart move.
>
> But as much as smart it may be from a practical perspective,
> minimizing the brown influx for USA, it doesn't make the whole
> thing a wee bit legal.
Not to be glib, but I've never considered "war" and "legal" to be
> StephenJ <sjo...@cox.com> Wrote in message:
>>> Analysts predict up up 8 million brown refuges from war-torn
>>> Venezuela needing sanctuary and that will of course, be
>>> USA.
>> A war might bring a quick end to Venezuela's agony, which has been going
>> on for a long time. That's one possible outcome. Better it be conducted
>> by a coalition of South American countries, though. They are the
>> immediate neighbors.
>
> Coalition of South American countries?
>
> You mean the plan should be to draw them into it, in order to
> force them to share the refugee burden later?
>
> Well, it's a smart move.
>
> But as much as smart it may be from a practical perspective,
> minimizing the brown influx for USA, it doesn't make the whole
> thing a wee bit legal.
compatible. I supposed that limited wars are constrained in some sense,
but total war seems like the absence of law--its suspension as a social
control.
>
>
> One aggressor, or five aggressors, it changes nothing from a legal
> point if view.
>
> Venezuela is a sovereign country, UN member and only UN security
> council can make decisions of perhaps stripping Venezuelan
> government of legality.
>
> Venezuela also hasn't attacked any country.
>
> And even these so called protests, this guy Maduro won election
> last year, and the other guy who now hopes to be the usurper came
> out of nowhere.
>
> He wasn't even running against Maduro, so that one could say he
> was robbed of victory.
>
>
> In the greatest democracy, Hillary robbed Sanders of nomination,
> so I'm pretty sure Venezuelan democracy has many flaws, but so
> what? It is for them, it's their country. They might be flawed
> democracy, but they're a democracy.
>
> There are many countries, that aren't even nominally democracies.
>
> E.g. Saudi Arabia or China. So the whole "we should invade
> non-democracies" line is a bit unconvincing.
Slightly divergent, what makes one a rube is highly dependent on the
provocation. E.g., everyone after Pearl Harbor was a rube, and pretty
much the same after 9/11.
>
>
>
> As for your hopes of war bringing quick end to Venezuelan agony,
> I'm not so sure about it.
>
> The current government has been in power for 2 decades now (couple
> of years longer than Merkel in Germany) and they enjoy great
> support.
>
> They have opponents, as the country is polarized, but they have
> huge support as well.
>
> An ideal prerequisite for a bloody civil war once foreign meddling
> begins.
>
>
> As for Venezuelan agony, we have to be sincere and admit that US
> sanctions and US desire to punish their socialist government in
> the past 2 decades was a main contributing factor to their
> current agony.
>
> Socialism might be bad, but it's not that bad that you'll end up
> without toilet paper.
> US sanctions will help there.
>
>
>
> We know that the globalist and neocons have their agenda (global
> rule and Kalergi) plan, but they're marketing their war effort by
> saying democracy and capitalism should be restored here.
For the rubes...
>
>
>
> We know that the globalist and neocons have their agenda (global
> rule and Kalergi) plan, but they're marketing their war effort by
> saying democracy and capitalism should be restored here.
>
>
> Well, that's what shows you neocons are just a bunch of
> warmongering former liberals who don't actually believe in
> natural superiority of capitalism and feel the need to impose
> that stuff.
>
>
> True conservatives and believers in superiority of both capitalism
> and democracy, such as Ron Paul said US should have traded with
> Venezuela, not sanctioned them.
>
> The example and natural flow would do its own...
potential donors benefit directly, therefore worthless as a policy
suggestion... ;-)
StephenJ
Jan 31, 2019, 3:25:26β―PM1/31/19
to
>On 1/31/2019 1:12 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>
> As for Venezuelan agony, we have to be sincere and admit that US
> sanctions and US desire to punish their socialist government in
> the past 2 decades was a main contributing factor to their
> current agony.
LMAO!
>
> As for Venezuelan agony, we have to be sincere and admit that US
> sanctions and US desire to punish their socialist government in
> the past 2 decades was a main contributing factor to their
> current agony.
USA has bought enormous quantities of Venezuelan oil during the past 9
years of economic collapse. Obama imposed sanctions on PDVSA in 2011,
but those were so light they couldn't have caused any impact on country
GDP, and the USA continued to buy huge amounts of oil.
And yet poverty and hunger have assumed epic proportions in VZ during
that time, a time of chavezista rule.
It's cold-war throwback Marxist whining to blame USA for catastrophic
failures of their own policies.
*skriptis
Jan 31, 2019, 3:44:53β―PM1/31/19
to
StephenJ <sjo...@cox.com> Wrote in message:
> >On 1/31/2019 1:12 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>
>>
>> As for Venezuelan agony, we have to be sincere and admit that US
>> sanctions and US desire to punish their socialist government in
>> the past 2 decades was a main contributing factor to their
>> current agony.
>
> LMAO!
>
> USA has bought enormous quantities of Venezuelan oil during the past 9
> years of economic collapse. Obama imposed sanctions on PDVSA in 2011,
> but those were so light they couldn't have caused any impact on country
> GDP, and the USA continued to buy huge amounts of oil.
>
> And yet poverty and hunger have assumed epic proportions in VZ during
> that time, a time of chavezista rule.
>
> It's cold-war throwback Marxist whining to blame USA for catastrophic
> failures of their own policies.
You don't have to laugh, you know I'm right. More precisely, you
>
>>
>> As for Venezuelan agony, we have to be sincere and admit that US
>> sanctions and US desire to punish their socialist government in
>> the past 2 decades was a main contributing factor to their
>> current agony.
>
> LMAO!
>
> USA has bought enormous quantities of Venezuelan oil during the past 9
> years of economic collapse. Obama imposed sanctions on PDVSA in 2011,
> but those were so light they couldn't have caused any impact on country
> GDP, and the USA continued to buy huge amounts of oil.
>
> And yet poverty and hunger have assumed epic proportions in VZ during
> that time, a time of chavezista rule.
>
> It's cold-war throwback Marxist whining to blame USA for catastrophic
> failures of their own policies.
know what I wanted to say.
Of course it's a country in mess, but US under Obama buying their
oil was kinda geopolitical (high oil prices everywhere) and also
humanitarian thing, not a proof of America treating Venezuela
normally, like any other country.
For some reason, US elites are obsessed with proving/showing how
socialist governments are so shitty, so they definitely had
motives to undermine the regime there, to make it harder for them
so that the people would overthrow them.
Did that with Cuba. Why else half century of sanctions there? Was
Castro a threat to America?
And meddlings like those always by definition help the failing
regimes, as they get excuses for their own shortcomings.
Let them eat their own shit, or let them prosper if they'll able
to prosper with socialism, but let them.
StephenJ
Jan 31, 2019, 3:57:19β―PM1/31/19
to
On 1/31/2019 2:44 PM, *skriptis wrote:
> StephenJ <sjo...@cox.com> Wrote in message:
>> >On 1/31/2019 1:12 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As for Venezuelan agony, we have to be sincere and admit that US
>>> sanctions and US desire to punish their socialist government in
>>> the past 2 decades was a main contributing factor to their
>>> current agony.
>>
>> LMAO!
>>
>> USA has bought enormous quantities of Venezuelan oil during the past 9
>> years of economic collapse. Obama imposed sanctions on PDVSA in 2011,
>> but those were so light they couldn't have caused any impact on country
>> GDP, and the USA continued to buy huge amounts of oil.
>>
>> And yet poverty and hunger have assumed epic proportions in VZ during
>> that time, a time of chavezista rule.
>>
>> It's cold-war throwback Marxist whining to blame USA for catastrophic
>> failures of their own policies.
>
>
> You don't have to laugh, you know I'm right.
πππ
> StephenJ <sjo...@cox.com> Wrote in message:
>> >On 1/31/2019 1:12 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As for Venezuelan agony, we have to be sincere and admit that US
>>> sanctions and US desire to punish their socialist government in
>>> the past 2 decades was a main contributing factor to their
>>> current agony.
>>
>> LMAO!
>>
>> USA has bought enormous quantities of Venezuelan oil during the past 9
>> years of economic collapse. Obama imposed sanctions on PDVSA in 2011,
>> but those were so light they couldn't have caused any impact on country
>> GDP, and the USA continued to buy huge amounts of oil.
>>
>> And yet poverty and hunger have assumed epic proportions in VZ during
>> that time, a time of chavezista rule.
>>
>> It's cold-war throwback Marxist whining to blame USA for catastrophic
>> failures of their own policies.
>
>
> You don't have to laugh, you know I'm right.
*skriptis
Jan 31, 2019, 4:08:36β―PM1/31/19
to
StephenJ <sjo...@cox.com> Wrote in message:
> On 1/31/2019 2:44 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>> StephenJ <sjo...@cox.com> Wrote in message:
>>> >On 1/31/2019 1:12 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for Venezuelan agony, we have to be sincere and admit that US
>>>> sanctions and US desire to punish their socialist government in
>>>> the past 2 decades was a main contributing factor to their
>>>> current agony.
>>>
>>> LMAO!
>>>
>>> USA has bought enormous quantities of Venezuelan oil during the past 9
>>> years of economic collapse. Obama imposed sanctions on PDVSA in 2011,
>>> but those were so light they couldn't have caused any impact on country
>>> GDP, and the USA continued to buy huge amounts of oil.
>>>
>>> And yet poverty and hunger have assumed epic proportions in VZ during
>>> that time, a time of chavezista rule.
>>>
>>> It's cold-war throwback Marxist whining to blame USA for catastrophic
>>> failures of their own policies.
>>
>>
>> You don't have to laugh, you know I'm right.
>
> πππ
Don't forget what Sawfish told us. The native population don't
> On 1/31/2019 2:44 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>> StephenJ <sjo...@cox.com> Wrote in message:
>>> >On 1/31/2019 1:12 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for Venezuelan agony, we have to be sincere and admit that US
>>>> sanctions and US desire to punish their socialist government in
>>>> the past 2 decades was a main contributing factor to their
>>>> current agony.
>>>
>>> LMAO!
>>>
>>> USA has bought enormous quantities of Venezuelan oil during the past 9
>>> years of economic collapse. Obama imposed sanctions on PDVSA in 2011,
>>> but those were so light they couldn't have caused any impact on country
>>> GDP, and the USA continued to buy huge amounts of oil.
>>>
>>> And yet poverty and hunger have assumed epic proportions in VZ during
>>> that time, a time of chavezista rule.
>>>
>>> It's cold-war throwback Marxist whining to blame USA for catastrophic
>>> failures of their own policies.
>>
>>
>> You don't have to laugh, you know I'm right.
>
> πππ
benefit from wars anymore.
If civil war erupts there, America will gain literary nothing,
other then couple of million brown refugees, people who are
sympathetic to socialist ideas, and who enabled Chavez in their
country.
You like that?
It means more Ocasio Cortez voters.
π
Sawfish
Jan 31, 2019, 4:50:46β―PM1/31/19
to
quite the fox, isn't she?
...and you know, the way things are now in the good ol' US of A, that
gives her all the qualification needed for higher office.
Lest anyone thinks I'm partisan, being photogenic also came into play
for Palin.
MTV started this trend 40 years ago, fellow-sufferers. Sorry shit, huh?
Calimero
Jan 31, 2019, 5:39:49β―PM1/31/19
to
Max
Sawfish
Jan 31, 2019, 5:45:37β―PM1/31/19
to
In this sense, Max...
"
3.
INFORMALβ’NORTH
AMERICAN
a sexually
attractive woman."
Does it make better sense now?
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sawfish: A totally unreconstructed elasmobranch. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Calimero
Jan 31, 2019, 5:56:32β―PM1/31/19
to
Max
*skriptis
Jan 31, 2019, 6:44:40β―PM1/31/19
to
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
what are political implications and for how long, considering
she's already 29. Some photos too.
It's worth reading, imo.
https://dailystormer.name/alexandria-breaks-record-for-most-watche
d-c-span-video/
soccerfan777
Jan 31, 2019, 7:18:47β―PM1/31/19
to
Alexandria is smart but not attractive. RST got it backwards.
Sawfish
Jan 31, 2019, 7:44:40β―PM1/31/19
to
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wha's yo name, fool?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Iceberg
Jan 31, 2019, 7:52:47β―PM1/31/19
to
Is that like how Bouchard is smart but not attractive?
Lolol
Lolol
Sawfish
Jan 31, 2019, 7:57:12β―PM1/31/19
to
article, skriptis. What's going to matter--and it'll matter for a long
time--is that those in the progressive camp see her as a glamorous
figure, like Joan Baez, like any photogenic Hollywood firebrand who
mouthes the happy horseshit that you can have more than you currently
have and not do anything more taxing than voting for her or others who
she approves of.
..and, the evil bourgeoisie, whom you so envy, will also get their
comeuppance.
It's Evita PerΓ³n all over again, Che in skirts.
I'm NOT saying to compare them to really beautiful people; compare them
to others in the same avocation. Other leadership figures, in this case.
That's what the mid/left of the American voting population will do,
skritpis. That's how I'd bet.
soccerfan777
Jan 31, 2019, 8:07:52β―PM1/31/19
to
Bouchard is neither smart nor attractive. Rectangular face...not my type
*skriptis
Jan 31, 2019, 9:47:04β―PM1/31/19
to
soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
www.talkingbaws.com/2014/11/gif-eugenie-bouchard-gives-grigor-dimi
trov-the-look-every-male-sports-fan-wishes-they-could-get/
Mmm
> Bouchard is neither smart nor attractive. Rectangular face...not my type
She possess the x factor.
www.talkingbaws.com/2014/11/gif-eugenie-bouchard-gives-grigor-dimi
trov-the-look-every-male-sports-fan-wishes-they-could-get/
Mmm
soccerfan777
Jan 31, 2019, 9:59:05β―PM1/31/19
to
Sorry she looks like batman in drag for me.
*skriptis
Feb 1, 2019, 4:32:20β―AM2/1/19
to
soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Sorry she looks like batman in drag for me.
>
She's the epitome of hot blonde bimbo.
>
Gotta love her while she's still in her early 20s.
The Iceberg
Feb 1, 2019, 6:58:22β―AM2/1/19
to
0 new messages