And evidently she hypothesizes that we should not have children. What a lunatic, How much hate do people have to have in their lives to vote for this loon.

quote:

Originally posted by redstone:
And evidently she hypothesizes that we should not have children. What a lunatic, How much hate do people have to have in their lives to vote for this loon.

I can't decide if her "no more children" suggestion is because she thinks it is a bad idea to bring children into the World when it is in such danger, or if having children increases the population of the Earth and itself causes problems.

flashguy

I agree, she' shouldn't have children...

From the Babylon Bee:

Nation Breathes Sigh Of Relief As Ocasio-Cortez Comes Out Against Having Children
February 25th, 2019

U.S.—The nation breathed a collective sigh of relief Monday while watching footage in which Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared to come out against the concept of reproducing.

Stating they realized that we really dodged a bullet this time, citizens all over the country expressed their sudden sense of comfort and serenity at the fact that Ocasio-Cortez would probably never have children. Fear and trepidation had swept the nation upon the realization that Ocasio-Cortez likely possessed the capability to reproduce actual human children, whom she would then ingrain with her values and politics for their entire childhoods before they would go on to have political careers of their own.

"This is a huge burden off my chest," said Lyle Billings of Lawrence, Kansas. "I suddenly realized that there could be two, three, or even four little Ocasio-Cortezes running around one day. So I totally support the congresswoman's position against having children. It's really what's best for the nation as a whole."

While the nation is typically baffled at Ocasio-Cortez's positions, her bold stand against having children has become her most popular policy position yet, garnering a 97% approval rating.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by redstone:
And evidently she hypothesizes that we should not have children. What a lunatic, How much hate do people have to have in their lives to vote for this loon.

I can't decide if her "no more children" suggestion is because she thinks it is a bad idea to bring children into the World when it is in such danger, or if having children increases the population of the Earth and itself causes problems.

flashguy

Does it really matter? She (a politician) shouldn't be weighing in on what I choose to do personally. Period.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by redstone:
And evidently she hypothesizes that we should not have children. What a lunatic, How much hate do people have to have in their lives to vote for this loon.

I can't decide if her "no more children" suggestion is because she thinks it is a bad idea to bring children into the World when it is in such danger, or if having children increases the population of the Earth and itself causes problems.

flashguy

Does it really matter? She (a politician) shouldn't be weighing in on what I choose to do personally. Period.

No, it doesn't matter. Just a matter of curiosity on my part. Could be both. (And I agree it's best if she does not have and raise children . . . .)

flashguy

https://theconservativetreehou...show-up/#more-160478

Democrat House Oversight Subcommittee Schedules Hearing on Climate Change, Democrats Don’t Show Up…

Democrats, led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Green New Deal, have been claiming the world will end in twelve years if Climate Change is not addressed.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi created a House subcommittee dedicated to selling the need for the Green New Deal. To reinforce the urgency, the new House Oversight Subcommittee scheduled a hearing with the intent to target climate change deniers

The hearing was today

With only two democrats showing up for the hearing; and highlighting the fraud that surrounds the entire premise of the effort; and with four sub-committee republicans who did show up, outnumbering the Democrat majority; ranking minority member Louie Gohmert made a motion to adjourn .

The adjournment motion passed 4 votes to 2 and the hearing was adjourned.


xxxxxxxxxxxx


CNN: Republicans force climate-related hearing to adjourn after only 2 House Democrats show up

It was an act of mercy. If there was a quorum the Repubs should've voted a fun bill out of committee - like rolling back fuel efficiency requirements or something.

Payments to Ocasio-Cortez boyfriend spur FEC complaint from Republican group



https://www.foxnews.com/politi...d-spur-fec-complaint

We all have that inner voice that we hear in our head. Sometimes it's helping us figure out right from wrong and sometimes it's just there entertaining us when we are by ourselves.

When I see pictures of this woman all I can think of is how her inner voice sounds. I don't think it's an actual voice. I think it's just that squeaky sound you hear when a hamster is running on the exercise wheel for 23 hours a day and the other hour is filled with kibble crunching and water gurgling sounds.

It has to be that way considering some of the things that's come out of her mouth.

quote:

Payments to Ocasio-Cortez boyfriend spur FEC complaint from Republican group

Not all that different than what sanders did with his wife's ghost media company selling all of his ads during the campaign bringing in millions in commissions all paid for by campaign funding.

Another day, another Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez delusional rant.

https://www.washingtontimes.co...t-rant-nothing-dece/

This one, this time, comes in response to a Fox News discussion about the congresswoman’s decision to pay a minimum of $52,000 for her office staffers.

The flip side of that decision, as noted by one Fox News host over the weekend, is that she’ll have to cap her other office workers’ salaries well below the Capitol Hill top-pay average of $154,000, at about $80,000 — a sort of redistribution of wealth that was labeled, by Fox’s Pete Hegseth, as “socialism and communism on display.”

And in stark political views: He’s right.

Socialists take from the rich to give to the poor. They redistribute based on their personal ideas of fairness. That, in effect, is what Ocasio-Cortez is doing with her office staffing policy.

Ocasio-Cortez, on the other hand, has a right to distribute her office staffer funds as she sees fit. Lawmakers are given a set pot of money to pay for their staff; it’s up to each lawmaker to decide how to pay the individual salaries of office workers.

Either way: it’s all taxpayer dollars we’re talking here.

It’s not as if Ocasio-Cortez is dipping into her own pocket, paying her staff from hard-earned private sector monies.

But she had to weigh in on the Fox debate, regardless.

In a tweet, she wrote: “The GOP is so disconnected from the basic idea that people should be paid enough to live that Fox actually thinks me paying a living wage in my office is ‘communism.’ So the next time GOP screams ‘socialist,’ know that’s their go-to attack for any common-sense, humane policy.”

Lies.

And Ocasio-Cortez knows it.

Nobody on Fox expressed any issue with paying office staffers a living wage. Hegseth did not slam Ocasio-Cortez’s payment of a living wage as communism — rather, he pointed out the redistribution of wealth and the lowering of the top earners to meet the perceived needs of the low earners as unAmerican in bent.

And so it is.

Free people in general and conservatives in specific tend to think that hard work should be rewarded, and that the harder the work, the more important the work, the higher the reward. In a capitalistic society, such as ours, salaries are typically reflections of both hard work and demand, as determined by the free market.

That’s why, say, a doctor makes more than a trash collector. It takes more study, more effort, more expensive schooling to become a doctor than a trash collector; conversely, it’s more difficult to replace retiring doctors than trash collectors. The pool of talent is significantly smaller for doctors.

Socialists, however, believe in the principle of Government Knows Best — that government, more than the free market, more than society at-large, can best determine what’s fair, what’s equitable, what’s one person’s true value to a community versus another person’s true value. And those leftist so-called true values are often affixed by emotionally driven arguments based on social justice perceptions.

In Ocasio-Cortez’s mind, it’s fair to lower the salaries of the top earners in her office to provide for the others — even if the top earners have more experience, have more talent, have more to offer.

In a free person’s mind, however, it’s fair to adjust the salary levels based on talent and skill levels — and to use higher salaries as incentives for the lower earners to work harder, to one day reach the level of becoming worthy of a higher paycheck.

These are two decidedly different ways of looking at things.

Only one is the American way.

That Ocasio-Cortez thinks it’s her view that’s American is just one more deception she’s guilty of peddling.

Well, I do have to say that she actually puts our money where her mouth is.

Wonder what those whose salaries are cut will have to say about it.

quote:

Well, I do have to say that she actually puts our money where her mouth is.

As I understand it, she’s spending the same amount of our money, but distributing it in a more “fair” (to a GDC) manner.

quote:

Originally posted by arfmel:

quote:

Well, I do have to say that she actually puts our money where her mouth is.

As I understand it, she’s spending the same amount of our money, but distributing it in a more “fair” (to a GDC) manner.

That is correct, it is a finite pot of money. In order to pay her lowest level staffers $52K, she has to pay her highest level staffers about half of what their counterparts earn in other Congressional offices. Her Chief of Staff is wealthy, so he doesn't care, but it doesn't change the fact that she is distorting the free market for labor and essentially redistributing his money to others whose labor is worth less than what they are being paid for it. If the whole staff is ok with that plan, then more power to them. She is free to divvy up her salary allocation as she sees fit, but anyone on her team who is not a true believe will not put up with the situation for very long and will seek jobs that reflect their true worth and AOC will be left with a bottom heavy staff of people who are overpaid.

And don't forget her Chief of Staff doesn't have to disclose anything else he makes because he's being paid under $127,000. So any special bribes, vacations, or other "contributions" he gets that would normally be disclosed doesn't have to be.

quote:

she’ll have to cap her other office workers’ salaries well below the Capitol Hill top-pay average of $154,000, at about $80,000

Definitely get the best people possible at 1/2 the pay. It's a nice experiment. Let's see how well it works in her own backyard.

quote:

Originally posted by arfmel:

quote:

Well, I do have to say that she actually puts our money where her mouth is.

As I understand it, she’s spending the same amount of our money, but distributing it in a more “fair” (to a GDC) manner.

Well, unless she is paying them out of her pocket, it is all our money. Called taxes.

Agreed.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
Well, I do have to say that she actually puts our money where her mouth is.

Hmmm, did she cut her own salary? Yeah, thought so. She's really getting this commie thing down perfectly.