Jump to content
politics

Fox News guest: AOC does the 'Latina thing'


Morphine Prince

Featured Posts

The Carpenters

Am I the only one that thinks it’s really disrespectful that people call her AOC? Like I’m not outraged about it or anything but I just think it’s not cool. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply
JustAnother
10 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

I am Latino myself, I know these things. 

I meant white non-Latino Americans associate Spanish with brown Latinos. 

I will add anglicize to my dictionary though cause it does convey what I meant better 

Sorry, your post just seemed very focused on the idea that Hispanic/Latino was a non-white thing. Glad I could help you with the anglicized word though :vegas: Also shoutout to my paternal side for not changing their name to some basic English last name like Smith when they moved over kskskks

Link to post
Share on other sites

JustAnother
3 minutes ago, SAGA said:

Am I the only one that thinks it’s really disrespectful that people call her AOC? Like I’m not outraged about it or anything but I just think it’s not cool. 

We all call John F. Kennedy JFK, does that offend you too kskskks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morphine Prince
2 minutes ago, JustAnother said:

Sorry, your post just seemed very focused on the idea that Hispanic/Latino was a non-white thing. Glad I could help you with the anglicized word though :vegas: Also shoutout to my paternal side for not changing their name to some basic English last name like Smith when they moved over kskskks

It was focused on the fact many white Americans associate Spanish as a non-white thing and how it’s tied to xenophobia. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morphine Prince
7 minutes ago, SAGA said:

Am I the only one that thinks it’s really disrespectful that people call her AOC? Like I’m not outraged about it or anything but I just think it’s not cool. 

It’s just shorter and actually like a brand for her now. 

I’m sure it will even come in handy in her future political endeavors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Carpenters
5 minutes ago, JustAnother said:

We all call John F. Kennedy JFK, does that offend you too kskskks. 

 

1 minute ago, Morphine Prince said:

It’s just shorter and actually like a brand for her now. 

I’m sure it will even come in handy in her future political endeavors. 

Not offended lol. Just my opinion that it comes off pointed the way people say it. Hope it works for her :spin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Carpenters
7 minutes ago, JustAnother said:

We all call John F. Kennedy JFK, does that offend you too kskskks. 

Also the kennedys are a dynasty. His name is shortened for a reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morphine Prince
1 minute ago, SAGA said:

Also the kennedys are a dynasty. His name is shortened for a reason.

FDR comes to mind too

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Carpenters
4 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

FDR comes to mind too

 

2 minutes ago, JustAnother said:

LG too

 lady gaga troll GIF

Don’t forget Madge lol :huntyga:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whispering
57 minutes ago, Economy said:

First of all Canada is still the 12th or 13th largest military spender in the world the military is not that tiny. 

 

But this is kind of besides the point completely

 

I was talking about how much the US spends on military and the impact it has on its available finances...

 

The reasons for the gap is kind of besides the point

Which wouldn’t hold off or threaten Russia. 

Well, it’s really not. With added responsibilities come added costs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Economy
4 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Which wouldn’t hold off or threaten Russia. 

Well, it’s really not. With added responsibilities come added costs. 

It is tho :rip:

 

We were literally discussing what programs the US could afford to pay for and when the person brought Canada to compare I said the circumstances were different including military spending

 

Whether or not the US should or shouldn't spend that money money on it wasn't really the issue at hand we were discussing

 

The point is the US has that cost which diminishes available funds for other stuff.

 

What ur discussing here is a totally different discussion. But if we're gonna go there, the US doesn't need to spend 5X the amount as the second largest military budget (China)

 

The $700 Billion military spending could easily be cut in half and the US would still have the largest military more than enough to defend itself

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whispering
1 minute ago, Economy said:

It is tho :rip:

 

We were literally discussing what programs the US could afford to pay for and when the person brought Canada to compare I said the circumstances were different including military spending

 

Whether or not the US should or shouldn't spend that money money on it wasn't really the issue at hand we were discussing

 

The point is the US has that cost which diminishes available funds for other stuff.

 

What ur discussing here is a totally different discussion

The US would have a lower deficit, if they decreased military spending. Those dollars wouldn’t automatically be leftover dollars. 

Insurance for all will come with higher taxes for everyone, like other countries pay. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morphine Prince
2 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Insurance for all will come with higher taxes for everyone, like other countries pay. 

Which is why these programs will be tough to achieve because Americans don’t trust the government and their horrible spending tendencies. 

And overall US culture which isn’t focused on community. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Economy
13 minutes ago, Whispering said:

The US would have a lower deficit, if they decreased military spending. Those dollars wouldn’t automatically be leftover dollars. 

Insurance for all will come with higher taxes for everyone, like other countries pay. 

I still think it's a better system tho. More taxes and less insurance premiums. Either way it has to be payed for but I think it would end up being cheaper

 

With a single tax payer system you remove the profit margins for hospitals and you remove the cost of health insurance companies which have to pay their workers and facilities plus a profit margin there as well. That's 2 profit margins that add to cost (the healthcare providers themselves, plus the insurance companies that overall must collect more in premiums than they spend in order to make money)

 

While the private sector tends to be more efficient than the government at keeping costs down... I don't think it applies to healthcare

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...