Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a thing.....It makes the most tolerant among us intolerant.......


swordfish

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So says the individual who when proven wrong about Social Security being a government entitlement program (as defined by the U.S. Senate itself, nonetheless) instead dodges, ducks, and spins. 

Says the individual who believes everything the government tells him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Umm, that would be you Gonzo, not I.

And again, nice try at a dodge.

Spin it how you want, I don't care. 

I've been paying for my Social Security through specific payroll deductions for 50 years. It's not an entitlement in my case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TrojanDad said:

LOL....just because one types a lot of words, doesn't always mean they say much.  You picked 2 or 3 examples of people on the left being attacked. I never stated the left has never came under attack.  My comment about cherry picking is that you deliberately delimited the attacks on the right by picking one less than serious case to use in your example.  If you would search a little, you would find more attacks than someone being interrupted while they were at a restaurant.  

As you always say, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the meantime (in the spirit of tolerant vs intolerant) - the mean old Jewish Nazi racist who wore a MAGA hat doesn't think Ms. Mankey should have lost her job.......

https://padailypost.com/2019/04/07/maga-critic-faces-attacks-but-the-hat-wearer-doesnt-think-she-should-have-been-fired/

MAGA critic faces attacks but the hat-wearer doesn’t think she should have been fired

Rebecca-Parker-Mankey-678x381.jpg
 

BY ALLISON LEVITSKY
Daily Post Staff Writer

The Palo Alto man who a woman berated at Starbucks over his Make America Great Again cap said yesterday (April 5) that he doesn’t think she should have lost her job — or suffered death threats and other online attacks — over the assault.

“I don’t believe in death threats or anything like that… I’m against, generally, intimidation and threats,” Victor, 74, told the Post. “I don’t think anybody should lose their job over something like that. You’ve got to make a living.”

The firing and threats weren’t the only life-changing consequences this week for Rebecca Parker Mankey, who also quit the Bayshore Progressive Democrats, a club where she served as co-chair.

Mankey hasn’t returned the Post’s requests for comment.

It all started when Mankey, 46, of Palo Alto, posted on Facebook that she had yelled at Victor about hating “brown people” when she walked in to the California Starbucks on Monday (April 1) and noticed his hat.

Victor is an observant Jew and wears his MAGA cap over a yarmulke.

“He will never forget me and will think seriously about wearing that hat in my town ever again. If you see him in this hat, please confront him,” Mankey wrote on Facebook. “He wouldn’t call the police, so I called him a wimp. He got his stuff together to leave. I followed him to the register while he complained about me.”

Mankey also wrote that she wanted to find out Victor’s name, his wife’s name, where he lives and where his kids go to school, seeming to imply an intent to “dox” or publish his contact information with malicious intent.

On Tuesday (April 2) morning, Trump supporters on Twitter shared the post widely, spurring hundreds of vitriolic online attacks against Mankey and a flood of angry calls to Gryphon Stringed Instruments, where she worked as an accountant and office manager.

Mankey was fired from Gryphon Strings on Tuesday (April 2) and on Wednesday (April 3) quit the Bayshore Progressive Democrats.

“Bayshore Progressive Democrats seeks a world that works for everyone, where all humans have a chance to realize their full potential and to live lives of dignity,” the progressive group posted on Facebook early Thursday morning. “Harassment and abuse are inconsistent with these values, and we reject the use of such tactics in civil society.”

The group had previously denounced the attacks on Mankey, stating on Tuesday night that she and her family had been doxxed, and received several death threats and other threats of injury and harm.

“Parker felt strongly that she wanted to use her privilege as a white woman to stand up for those who are living in fear because of the hateful atmosphere fostered by Trump,” the group wrote. “Unfortunately the manner in which she chose to stand up against a slogan that stands for racism led to an even stronger hateful response that has endangered her and her family.”

Online attacks

Trump supporters on Twitter have called Mankey a “walking shred of human debris,” a “fascist tyrant” and a “toilet brush,” among other attacks.

But Victor said that while he doesn’t agree with attacking or threatening people online, he sees many online attacks — even if they mention violence — as excessive rhetoric akin to dialog in a “cowboy movie” that doesn’t pose a real threat.

“I don’t think, in Palo Alto specifically, Rebecca has much to worry about. We’re not in rural, rural Alabama or something,” Victor said.

Both Mankey and Palo Alto Human Relations Commissioner Steven Lee, who was also harassed online after posting a statement about the incident at Starbucks, have deactivated their social media accounts.

Lee declined to comment on the record about the online harassment.

Reporter receives threat

And this reporter received a threatening Facebook message yesterday from an Ohio man who seemed to have confused the name on the story’s byline with Mankey.

“Hello Allison. I saw you were in the news for attacking an elderly man at Starbucks,” read the message from John Mcnamara. “Just wanted to let you know that you are the true Nazi and a worthless human being.”

Mcnamara went on to say that he had “banned” this reporter — seemingly by mistake in an attempt to ban Mankey — from the Starbucks that he runs in Dayton, Ohio.

“I would like you to know that your pic is up and you are banned for life from my businesses,” Mcnamara wrote. “I know you may never visit Dayton but it’s a small step my Hispanic wife and I can take to stand up to bullies like you.”

Mcnamara said that he and his wife bought MAGA hats yesterday (April 5) to support free speech.

Then, in an apparent nod to Mankey’s attempt to find identifying information about Victor, Mcnamara gave his home address in Uniontown, Ohio, outside of Akron.

“My kids are out of school so you don’t need to know where they go,” Mcnamara wrote. “But you are more than welcome to send (Black Lives Matter), (Council on American-Islamic Relations), socialist Democrats or any other racist group you want after me for owning it.”

Mcnamara then warned that Ohio residents “enjoy” their Second Amendment rights and that he has pistols, AR-15s, shotguns and an MP5 submachine gun at home, “all legal.”

Victor, meanwhile, said he hadn’t received any serious threats. When he went back to Starbucks on Thursday — without his MAGA hat — a woman approached him and introduced herself as a progressive, but told him that she agreed with his “side of the story.”

The closest thing to a threat came when a man named Alex told KCBS off-screen that after hearing the story, he went to Starbucks on Thursday hoping to confront Victor about his hat.

“Stay out of my town, you MAGA hat-wearing people,” Alex told KCBS in a story aired yesterday.The basis of what he’s doing is so incredibly hateful and evil that it needs to be called out.”

Other than that, Victor said it’s been “all quiet on the Palo Alto front.”

Mayor’s reaction

Mayor Eric Filseth yesterday condemned Mankey’s confrontation with Victor, but said it “remains to be seen” whether the City Council will make a statement about the issue on Monday.

“The intolerant behavior exhibited is not consistent with our values here in Palo Alto,” Filseth told the Post. “The City Council is going to review it and decide what course of action makes sense.”

 

It appears to SF (IMHO) the term "Make America Great Again" has become the new slogan of "Free Speech" instead of "A slogan that stands for Racism"......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Really dumb comment or a deliberate comment to spin....I don't know of another person on GID that challenges the gov't more than Muda.

Hahaha. Except when it fits his agenda. As he now supposedly opposes many government functions he has utilized and benefited from in his lifetime. I have a word for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, swordfish said:

 

It appears to SF (IMHO) the term "Make America Great Again" has become the new slogan of "Free Speech" instead of "A slogan that stands for Racism"......

 

IMHO ... it reminds me of the the re-branding of the Confederate statues and the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Spin it how you want, I don't care. 

I've been paying for my Social Security through specific payroll deductions for 50 years. It's not an entitlement in my case. 

So you are saying that you will receive an amount of Social Security benefits only equal to what you originally paid in via compulsory payroll deductions, perhaps with a small bit on interest?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

Quote

The Urban Institute, a non-partisan research institute in Washington, produces statistics on this topic annually. Institute researchers figured out what people turning 65 in various years have already "paid in" to the system and what can expect to "take out" after they reach age 65. (See our charts below)

Because marital status and family income can significantly affect both the amount paid in and the amount paid out, the institute offers its calculation for various types of family units. To make the final amounts comparable to what might have been done with the tax money had it been invested privately, the institute adjusted all dollar figures at 2 percentage points above the rate of inflation. (The authors note that different assumptions for long-term returns on investment would change the results.)

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals’ working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.

Government entitlement program.  End of story.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Hahaha. Except when it fits his agenda. As he now supposedly opposes many government functions he has utilized and benefited from in his lifetime. I have a word for that.

Go ahead, gonzo, man up and throw out the word.  We all know it is going to be 'hypocrite'.  My response:  I may fight against these government "functions" you love so much,  but as long as I am forced by law to participate in them I will utilize the "benefits", even though I fervently believe most if not all of these "benefits" are not legitimate functions of the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, swordfish said:

????

Take a look at the "coincidences" attached to Confederate statue building/placement and look at the narrative about it today.  Similarly, the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.  What it starts out as and what it becomes based on framing tends to be altered for acceptability later on.  It is a direct reflection that Churchill was incorrect when he stated that, "History is written by the victors."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, foxbat said:

Take a look at the "coincidences" attached to Confederate statue building/placement and look at the narrative about it today.  Similarly, the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.  What it starts out as and what it becomes based on framing tends to be altered for acceptability later on.  It is a direct reflection that Churchill was incorrect when he stated that, "History is written by the victors."

The South won the waiting game in regard to the North tiring of the efforts of Reconstruction, and in that respect the South was the ultimate "victor" when it came to reframing a war over slavery into a war supposedly over the great "lost cause" of defending "States Rights". 

Sort of like how the Taliban will eventually win the waiting game in Afghanistan and one day write the "history" of the defeat of the American Infidel Crusaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A red hat with the words "Make America Great Again" is symbolic of all things evil or on the wrong side of American history........Really guys........

And the Confederate Army is comparable to the Taliban.......

And an elderly Jewish guy being bullied because he had that hat on his head brings all this back to the forefront.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, swordfish said:

A red hat with the words "Make America Great Again" is symbolic of all things evil or on the wrong side of American history........Really guys........

And the Confederate Army is comparable to the Taliban.......

And an elderly Jewish guy being bullied because he had that hat on his head brings all this back to the forefront.....

Apparently "they" are playing the waiting game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

A red hat with the words "Make America Great Again" is symbolic of all things evil or on the wrong side of American history........Really guys........

And the Confederate Army is comparable to the Taliban.......

And an elderly Jewish guy being bullied because he had that hat on his head brings all this back to the forefront.....

It wasn't the hat that I was referring to, but instead the narrative/opinion that you put out there ...

 

18 hours ago, swordfish said:

It appears to SF (IMHO) the term "Make America Great Again" has become the new slogan of "Free Speech" instead of "A slogan that stands for Racism"......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, foxbat said:

It wasn't the hat that I was referring to, but instead the narrative/opinion that you put out there ...

 

 

Which in turn tells me that you and W82  think "Make America Great Again" was/is indeed originally racist .......

26 minutes ago, foxbat said:

It appears to SF (IMHO) the term "Make America Great Again" has become the new slogan of "Free Speech" instead of "A slogan that stands for Racism"......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Which in turn tells me that you and W82  think "Make America Great Again" was/is indeed originally racist .......

 

No, which originally tells me that "Make America Great Again" had nothing to do with free speech, but now it's apparently going to.  Again, a rebranding of something that caught flak and going to have a different light shone upon it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Just not when it was originally used by a Gov from Arkansas.......somehow it all changed.  Wonder what the state flag of Arkansas looked like during his regime?

 

Wrong. Was originally used by Carter, then Reagan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

I could see you going undetected at this event....may actually fit in nicely and enjoy yourself.......word to the wise...you may want to remove your glasses first......

Gonzo the Fighter.JPG

Have seen Hank twice. Walked out the first time sound was so bad. Second time circa ‘97 he changed words to songs and never actually finished a complete song. He won’t steal my hard earned money again.

And sorry, wrong again, I don’t wear glasses. Just because you do doesn’t mean everyone does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Just not when it was originally used by a Gov from Arkansas.......somehow it all changed.  Wonder what the state flag of Arkansas looked like during his regime?

 

Except that the discussion I was having with @swordfish is tied to the current President's MAGA and the issue tied to its stated rebranding in a post.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

well thank you.....I'll take your word for it.  An angelic beautiful slogan that used to bring smiles to faces, now seems to "trigger" some people big time.  Maybe it's as you've alluded...it's all in the color.  

Is this less triggering?:

 

mockup-86e74729_large.jpg?v=1502355862

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, foxbat said:

No, which originally tells me that "Make America Great Again" had nothing to do with free speech, but now it's apparently going to.  Again, a rebranding of something that caught flak and going to have a different light shone upon it.

Why did it catch flak?  Because people who voted for the current President wore the hat, or the t-shirt, or put the bumper sticker on the SUV which offended someone.  The same people offended by that are mostly the same people that have one of these on their cars:  Image result for coexist sticker  But who can't seem to tolerate other's views or "coexist"........

Image may contain: 1 person

Edited by swordfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Why did it catch flak?

 

It caught flak early on because it was launched with talk of exclusion and general attacks FROM the candidate himself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...