quote:

Originally posted by asonie:
If and when Nancy Pelosi rips the microphone away from her a Republican needs to be standing ready to pass her a hot spare.

Yup- she is the republican's secret weapon in the next presidential election.

AOC in regards to mosque shooting:
“What good are your thoughts & prayers when they don’t even keep the pews safe?”

Does she even know that mosques have no pews?

Right. The only pews in mosques are from falafel farts.

^^^

quote:

Ocasio-Cortez’s mom moved to Florida to escape NYC’s property taxes

It would be a fun gotcha to ask her if she voted for her daughter.

Considering, of course that she moved to Florida before that time.

quote:

Originally posted by zoom6zoom:

quote:

Ocasio-Cortez’s mom moved to Florida to escape NYC’s property taxes

It would be a fun gotcha to ask her if she voted for her daughter.

Considering, of course that she moved to Florida before that time.

Did she move before or after the election. Did she vote in person, or by mail, or both.

Nation Unsurprised As Ocasio-Cortez Comes Out Against Thoughts



U.S.—The nation was unsurprised as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez quickly commented on the recent tragedy in New Zealand, coming out against the concept of thoughts, and also prayers.

Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that thoughts and prayers don't do anything, but most people stopped reading after the word "thoughts" and nodded, not being surprised in the slightest that the congresswoman would be opposed to the concept of thinking in general.

"Frankly, I saw this one coming," said one man in New Jersey. "Just didn't strike me as the type who would support thoughts in any tangible sense. I kind of wondered how long it would take for her to make a formal statement against thoughts."

The nation awaits her coming out against numbers.

https://babylonbee.com/news/na...out-against-thoughts

quote:

The nation awaits her coming out against numbers.

And when she does, it won’t be a moment too soon. Numbers are the worst manifestation of all forms of discrimination on the planet. Proof?

For anyone who is employed at a piecework job, numbers tell us how much someone has produced and whether they should be paid more than someone who wasn’t as productive. The same is true of the number of hours we work; more hours, more pay: Discrimination!
Numbers on clocks tell us whether we’re late for work or some other obligation, and how long we have to stay there; we’re driven by lifeless mechanical devices: Discrimination!
Numbers are used to report IQ scores that tell us how smart people are, and since not all people are equally smart: Discrimination!
Numbers tell utility companies and others how much of their product we use and therefore how much we’re expected to pay. The same thing is true of other transactions; numbers show how many Moonpies or Cokes I want to take home, and I’m charged more if I have more: Discrimination!
Numbers are even the reason why I can’t be President; I have to be 35 and I’m only 29: Discrimination!

Now that is funny. Ha !

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:

The funny part is how stupid she is.

Remember: She's just following the script that is continually being written for her by Corbin Trent and Zack Exley.

quote:

In the same interview...

AOC Slams Capitalism As "Irredeemable" System...

Sorry, Sandy, Capitalism Needs No Redemption
By William Sullivan

Addressing an audience at Austin’s South by Southwest conference, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called capitalism an “irredeemable system.”

“Capitalism is the ideology of capital,” she says. “The most important thing is the concentration of capital and to seek and maximize profit.”

One should easily be able to point out the practical failings in such rudimentary arguments for socialism. In fact, it would be incredibly easy to argue, as a recent Vox article does, that nearly every advancement in human well-being has taken place in the short blip of human history since the Industrial Revolution. That article miraculously neglects to mention free markets or capitalism once, but it should be obvious to any reasonable observer what the observed trend means.

The Industrial Revolution did, in fact, lead to the concentration of capital in the hands of some more successful and innovative individuals, which allowed some of them to create large businesses that flourished (and many more that failed), particularly in places like America. The country's framework of laws allowed free markets to exist relatively unimpeded. Without this “ideology of capital,” where the profit motive drove success for many individuals and companies, there would have been no mechanism to create the economies of scale necessary for producers to provide larger quantities of higher quality goods and services. That, in turn, led to the lower prices which made those goods and services more desirable and attainable among more consumers in a competitive marketplace.

The net effect of this economic system has been wealth creation such that the world has never seen, a more robust economic marketplace, and the exponential betterment of human well-being. To grasp this doesn’t require an economics degree, but only the most basic understanding of how the principles of supply and demand guide economic progress in a free market of voluntary, reciprocal exchanges of value.

The question is, why would such a system be in any need of redemption, as Ocasio-Cortez suggests it should be?

Because she and her modern-day socialist cohorts eschew the reality of circumstances which lead to such prosperity in order to present a fantastic vision of a reality that they imagine could exist.

The argument for socialism is a moral one, and predicated upon the fantasy that there could possibly exist an equality of economic outcomes for millions upon millions of people for whom there is, as Thomas Sowell argues in The Quest for Cosmic Justice, a “vast spectrum of other inequalities in intelligence, talent, physical appearance, charm, articulation, etc.”

Ocasio-Cortez argues that these millions upon millions of people interacting with one another via free exchanges of value leads to some individuals becoming more successful than others due to the individual’s desire for “concentration of capital” and a motive for individual “profit.” She’s clear in those terms, but as is required of socialists, particularly those seeking power in America, she’s less clear about the only mechanism which could possibly lead to the equality of economic outcomes that she proclaims is possible.

Economic equality, Sowell continues, “may be achievable only by political measures which require large concentrations of power in a relatively few hands in government.” [Emphasis added]

Millions of individuals’ effort to concentrate capital by engaging in free market exchanges is evil, socialists proclaim, however much wealth is created and however much human beings may broadly benefit in the process. Any effort by government to concentrate the power to control the means of production and to redistribute wealth, on the other hand, is somehow noble.

But what does the latter imply?

The greatest impulse of socialists tends to be the equitable “redistribution” of wealth. In America, there are constitutional constraints prohibiting the government seizure of an individual’s existing wealth, but socialists of the past have already secured the mechanism for attempts to establish an equitable distribution of individuals’ income. We call that mechanism a progressive tax code.

This is generally problematic, not only because an equality of incomes is impossible in a free market due to the “vast spectrum” of inequalities which would naturally determine varying levels of success, but because “income cannot be redistributed because it was not distributed in the first place,” Sowell writes. “It was paid for services rendered and how much is paid is determined jointly by those individuals rendering the service and those to whom it is rendered.”

In other words, to “redistribute” income such that there is an equality of economic outcomes requires the destruction of the system of voluntary free market exchanges required to generate wealth in the first place.

Centralizing the “power” to redistribute income, and thereby cauterizing the wealth creation that the individuals in a free market can achieve, creates disastrous outcomes. Sowell writes:

To allow any governmental authority to determine how much money individuals shall be permitted to receive from other individuals produces not only a distortion of the economic processes by undermining incentive for efficiency, it is more fundamentally a monumental concentration of political power which reduces everyone to the level of a client of politicians. Even aside from what this means for freedom and human dignity, it makes virtually inevitable a constant and bitter struggle among all segments of the society for the favor of those who wield this massive power to determine each person’s economic well-being. It is a formula for economic, political, and social disaster. Such power has, in a number of countries, led to a nomenklatura whose personal privileges have been a mockery of the very ideals of equality that led to such a concentration of power in pursuit of a mirage.

Given all of this, we should be inclined to ask -- which of these two competing systems of economic arrangement actually requires some sort of redemption?

On the one hand, the system of free market exchanges which could lead to the “concentration of capital” among individuals while they seek “profit” has led to the greatest advancement of human well-being in the history of mankind. On the other, the very opposite principle, i.e., the concentration of government power to coercively chase some utopian vision of equality in economic outcomes, has unquestionably led to over 100 million deaths in the twentieth century alone, and all at the hands of socialist dictatorships which used this same indictment of the evils of capitalism as their guiding principle.

Capitalism, and the reciprocal free market activity that the term represents, is in no need of redemption. Socialism, however, is a cancerous ideology which has proven both practically and morally destructive, time and time again.

How can it possibly be that Ocasio-Cortez and company are able to allege, uncontested by a fawning media, that the principles of capitalism, and not socialism, should be the principles that are on trial in America’s debate over its future?


Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...n.html#ixzz5id16XGgE

How? Because she is stupid, uneducated, and consumed with her own importance. That's how.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:

The funny part is how stupid she is.

Remember: She's just following the script that is continually being written for her by Corbin Trent and Zack Exley.

I didn't catch the whole story, but Fox News said this morning that Justice Democrats are cutting ties with AOC over some of her nefarious financial dealings. We'll see how serious they were about this, or if they are just burrowing further underground to hide her finances.

Doesn't Congress have a child care room? Can we move her office there?

The sad irony is that there are congressman & women who are doing real work on the real issues of this country and this moron is getting all of the attention.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:

The sad irony is that there are congressman & women who are doing real work on the real issues of this country and this moron is getting all of the attention.

That's a good thing for our side. I hope she keeps talking and the cameras keep rolling.

I enjoy reading history, mainly about the founding fathers but I am not well versed in more recent history, such as when Joe McCarthy was running wild.

Can anyone tell me what ended his rain of terror? It seems that during one of these hearings the person who is being asked the question needs to say what everyone else in the room is thinking "That was a stupid question and you have a room temperature IQ. It reminds me of the emperior with no clothes.

JIm

quote:

Originally posted by Pal:
Can anyone tell me what ended his rain of terror?

People got tired of his shit:



The irony is that if Joseph McCarthy had avoided the hyperbole and the displays of fanaticism, he was right- there were Communists in American government at that time, but his bullshit obscured the truth. Joseph McCarthy was self-defeating.

quote:

Joseph McCarthy was self-defeating.

And AOC may be as well... but education has been "dumbed down" if a woman like her can get an economics degree from BU:

Ignoring Socialism’s Countless Corpses

By Mackubin Owens | March 20th, 2019

An old joke goes like this:
Q. What did socialists use before candles? A. Electricity.

I’m sure the people of Venezuela aren’t laughing. But as the people of this once-prosperous country scrounge for food in trash bags and go without electricity and running water, some in our own country seriously sing the praises of socialism. Allegedly well-educated individuals remain on the socialism bandwagon even as Venezuela circles the drain.

What accounts for this phenomenon? Why is socialism so popular with young people? Why did they rally to Bernie Sanders in 2016?

Why do they lionize Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Party’s shiny new thing? AOC, as the press has dubbed her, graduated cum laude from Boston University with a degree in economics and international relations. I taught for a while at Boston University in the 1990s and got to know the late John Silber, BU’s president, who turned the school into an excellent institution. He must be spinning in his grave.

How could someone graduate from a well-respected university and be as ignorant of basic economics as this woman?

To answer this question, it is useful to look to the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, who in the early 20th century stressed the importance of “cultural hegemony” as the means of establishing the conditions for a Marxist revolution.

https://www.amgreatness.com/20...s-countless-corpses/

Socialism is popular because it offers the promise of stuff without having to work hard for it.