[W:168]Cortez releases her communist agenda

[Deuce]

Even the WaPo can't excuse OCastro-Cortez's lying.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...efense-her-falsehoods/?utm_term=.ecc8abd217fc

You elected a guy who lies to you a dozen times every day, don't pretend you ever gave a **** about the truth.

 

[braindrain]

"The Commies are making their move?"

I am having serious doubts about your ability to read or worse ability to understand.

First of all, this article is about a "green world" in which global warming is addressed through using renewable energy. It does state that the Government should be in control of such a venture but then again who else should be in control of it? It goes on to say that such a venture will help to erase poverty by providing jobs. You have any problems with erasing poverty?

By the way, you are also using the wrong words. This is NOT communism. Communism is what is found in Russia and China and is what Trump is pushing. Cortez leans toward socialism but that is a far cry from communism. Learn about these things before you uninformedly opine.

Trying to tell someone that they don't know what communism is while in the same post demonstrating that you don't know what it is either doesn't make you look very smart. Just saying.

 

[veritas1]

You elected a guy who lies to you a dozen times every day, don't pretend you ever gave a **** about the truth.

I care as much about it as the people who support Ocasio-Cortez, Pelosi, Schumer and their ilk. As for Trump, he has either done or attempted to do, most all the things he campaigned on. That, and not the daily nitpicking of the left, is what matters.

 

[Deuce]

I care as much about it as the people who support Ocasio-Cortez, Pelosi, Schumer and their ilk. As for Trump, he has either done or attempted to do, most all the things he campaigned on. That, and not the daily nitpicking of the left, is what matters.

But you're fine nitpicking AOC. Interesting how that works!

 

[eohrnberger]

Warren has been saying stuff about her. Have you missed that?

But yeah...I agree with you that Nancy will eventually tell her to go sit at the children's table while the Democratic adults take care of dinner.

I think Whoopi had it spot on.

Whoopi Goldberg rips Ocasio-Cortez: "Before you start pooping on ...
[url]https://www.salon.com/.../whoopi-goldberg-rips-ocasio-cortez-before-you-start-poopi...[/URL]
1 day ago - "I would encourage you to sit still for a minute and learn the job," Goldberg ... Whoopi Goldberg; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Getty/Monica ...
​

 

[eohrnberger]

She wants to create a committee that answers to no one.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau
In July 2010, Congress passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, during the 111th United States Congress in response to the Late-2000s recession and financial crisis. The agency was originally proposed in 2007 by then Harvard Law School professor and current US senator Elizabeth Warren.
​

Sounds a lot like Warrens CFPB, no funding control from Congress, no oversight, no boundaries, no limits to power (or corruption).

Why is the far left always purporting such foolish ideas?
Such faith in the goodness of government they have?
Government staffed by humans and all their frailties, flaws and foibles?

 

[eohrnberger]

I care as much about it as the people who support Ocasio-Cortez, Pelosi, Schumer and their ilk. As for Trump, he has either done or attempted to do, most all the things he campaigned on. That, and not the daily nitpicking of the left, is what matters.

Quoted for truth!

 

[jnug]

You boys are sure all worked up about this young lady. Fantasize much? You are acting like a bunch of dirty old men!

 

[jonny5]

I, for one, don't particularly care for those folks.

Well theyre the ones who the rank and file give power to, and they dont like the negative association that comes with the socialist label, even if they agree with it.

 

[jonny5]

The government takes my money by force every time I buy gas.

Who are the "others" who get 50% of your money? If it's me on SS and Medicare, thanks. Our military thanks you as well. Why do you think all the developed countries in the world have programs similar to what exists in the US, only more generous ones? Slackers are the price we pay for preventing hunger, just as overly expensive military equipment is the price we pay for having a defense department. That calls for reform ran than abolition of either the welfare state or the military, trying to keep fraud at a minimum, and in my view, creating jobs, even "make work" ones for those on welfare who are able bodied. Check general assistance payments in your area. Would you be better off on that or paying the taxes you do? I am more, not less free because the government pays part of my considerable medical bills with Medicare, and gives me a tax break so that I can itemize the costs of my supplemental insurance. A friend of mine is paralyzed, having been shot by an unknown assailant. Would you or Ayn begrudge what he gets from SS disability?

We are part of a society, from socius in Latin, meaning comrade (gasp!), friend or ally. We took a left turn around Teddy Roosevelt's time, and for better or worse haven't looked back. Just look at GOP efforts to get rid of Obamacare: their rhetoric is *replace*, not just repeal.

We might be better in Ayn Rand's quasi-fascist world, but I suspect she will be looked on as someone who did the impossible, overreacting to Lenin and Stalin.

We are part of a society of LAWS, for the limited purpose of shared defense and security of rights. Anything else requires MY consent. If all of your social programs are so popular, why not make them legal and pass an amendment?

 

[Nickyjo]

We are part of a society of LAWS, for the limited purpose of shared defense and security of rights. Anything else requires MY consent. If all of your social programs are so popular, why not make them legal and pass an amendment?

Medicare is legal. So are social security and other programs. It's up to those who object to them to challenge them in court. Have at it.

 

[Sweden]

The commies are making their move.

https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-radical-mandate-government-con

Here is a nice piece about Miss Ocasio Cortez
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-the-lefts-sarah-palin/

 

[jonny5]

Medicare is legal. So are social security and other programs. It's up to those who object to them to challenge them in court. Have at it.

And that seems logical to you? Do anything you want, and then make ME the citizen have to challenge the federal govt in court? As opposed to following the actual process at it was written and getting the consent of the goverend? That sounds like political expediency, where you get what you want by any means necessary.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

 

[Nickyjo]

And that seems logical to you? Do anything you want, and then make ME the citizen have to challenge the federal govt in court? As opposed to following the actual process at it was written and getting the consent of the goverend? That sounds like political expediency, where you get what you want by any means necessary.

Don’t understand you. Correct me if I am wrong, but the system works like this : we elected FDR and LBJ, and the congresses in session at the time passed SS and Medicare which were signed into law. If we don’t like it, we can repeal and replace, to coin a phrase, by electing people to do so. An alternative is to challenge the laws in court. If declared unconstitutional, THEN we would need to amend the constitution. We don’t have to pass an amendment beforehand for each new law.

 

[jonny5]

Don’t understand you. Correct me if I am wrong, but the system works like this : we elected FDR and LBJ, and the congresses in session at the time passed SS and Medicare which were signed into law. If we don’t like it, we can repeal and replace, to coin a phrase, by electing people to do so. An alternative is to challenge the laws in court. If declared unconstitutional, THEN we would need to amend the constitution. We don’t have to pass an amendment beforehand for each new law.

Yes we do. Thats literally what it says. Congress has the power to do X. All other powers are reserved to the people and the states.

So again, does it seem logical that WE, the simple citizens have to take the govt to court every week? Or that they should just follow the law and stop doing things without the states consent? If govt control of health care is so popular, how hard is it to just pass an amendment saying so? We did one to eliminate slavery, grant voting rights to women, and institute the income tax. Oh, but they can just take over healthcare by simple majority vote of democrats?

 

[Nickyjo]

Yes we do. Thats literally what it says. Congress has the power to do X. All other powers are reserved to the people and the states.

So again, does it seem logical that WE, the simple citizens have to take the govt to court every week? Or that they should just follow the law and stop doing things without the states consent? If govt control of health care is so popular, how hard is it to just pass an amendment saying so? We did one to eliminate slavery, grant voting rights to women, and institute the income tax. Oh, but they can just take over healthcare by simple majority vote of democrats?

The answer to your final question is, "yes they can," just like a majority vote of republicans could repeal SS, Medicare, et al., and just like they took over parts of the banking system, established interstate highways, the FDA, etc.

It is *your* interpretation of things that says what democrats (and republicans) did in establishing those programs is illegal. The rest of us think differently. The way we resolve differences about these things is through the courts or the political process, not by asking jonny5 or Nixkyjo, unless enough of jonny's and Nicky's agree.

 

[jonny5]

The answer to your final question is, "yes they can," just like a majority vote of republicans could repeal SS, Medicare, et al., and just like they took over parts of the banking system, established interstate highways, the FDA, etc.

It is *your* interpretation of things that says what democrats (and republicans) did in establishing those programs is illegal. The rest of us think differently. The way we resolve differences about these things is through the courts or the political process, not by asking jonny5 or Nixkyjo, unless enough of jonny's and Nicky's agree.

We're supposed to resolve it through 3/4 votes of state legislatures agreeing. It says it right there in the rulebook. How does it make sense for me to go to a federal court to challenge the federal govt?

 

[Nickyjo]

We're supposed to resolve it through 3/4 votes of state legislatures agreeing. It says it right there in the rulebook. How does it make sense for me to go to a federal court to challenge the federal govt?

Are you saying that every piece of legislation has to be in the form of a constitutional amendment? I don’t understand. I don’t think your theory on the limits of the federal government to do something like Medicare or Social Security has any support. Can you refer me to an argument, say in some law journal, that supports it?

But if Medicare, for example, is unconstitutional, how else other than repeal by congress or challenge in court can we get rid of it?

 

[veritas1]

But you're fine nitpicking AOC. Interesting how that works!

I didn't nitpick her. I pointed out an article from the WaPo which finds her unconvincing and very loose with facts. If you are going to make economic prescriptions for the country, you should know what you're talking about.

 

[calamity]

I didn't nitpick her. I pointed out an article from the WaPo which finds her unconvincing and very loose with facts. If you are going to make economic prescriptions for the country, you should know what you're talking about.

That didn’t stop you from voting for Trump

 

[JC Callender]

From the article:

"Ocasio-Cortez’s plan further claims it will (virtually) eliminate poverty: “The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall recognize that a national, industrial, economic mobilization of this scope and scale is a historic opportunity to virtually eliminate poverty in the United States and to make prosperity, wealth and economic security available to everyone participating in the transformation.”

Didn't she get the memo that LBJ's Great Society already proposed this? Maybe we just need another 40+ years to see if it's going to work.

 

[jonny5]

Are you saying that every piece of legislation has to be in the form of a constitutional amendment? I don’t understand. I don’t think your theory on the limits of the federal government to do something like Medicare or Social Security has any support. Can you refer me to an argument, say in some law journal, that supports it?

But if Medicare, for example, is unconstitutional, how else other than repeal by congress or challenge in court can we get rid of it?

I'm saying exactly what the constitution says. The powers of govt are listed in the constitution. All other powers are reserved to the people. There is no power to pay for healthcare or create a retirement insurance program.

The argument you're making is that govt can do anything it wants, so long as its not specifically forbidden, or the govts courts decides it cant. Which is exactly the opposite of the fundamental design of the federal govt and the constitution. Exactly the opposite of everything the people who wrote it said.

How we get rid of it is irrelevant. Just because you dont get caught speeding, doesnt mean you werent breaking the law. We dont require govts agreement that theyre doing something illegal. They just stop doing it.

 

[Nickyjo]

I'm saying exactly what the constitution says. The powers of govt are listed in the constitution. All other powers are reserved to the people. There is no power to pay for healthcare or create a retirement insurance program.

The argument you're making is that govt can do anything it wants, so long as its not specifically forbidden, or the govts courts decides it cant. Which is exactly the opposite of the fundamental design of the federal govt and the constitution. Exactly the opposite of everything the people who wrote it said.

How we get rid of it is irrelevant. Just because you dont get caught speeding, doesnt mean you werent breaking the law. We dont require govts agreement that theyre doing something illegal. They just stop doing it.

As I said, we the people don't agree with you. Can you find anyone who supports your strange theory. Someone with your view of the constitution would have sued and changed things. The government generally does acknowledge it is doing something illegal if the courts tell it so. The National Recovery Act of FDR was declared unconstitutional and it ended.

Btw, why do you want to end Medicare and Social Security anyway. They do good things. If they were indeed unconstitutional,we would have amended the constitution anyway. But doing so for every function of government is ridiculous. Would you also get rid of interstate highways, the FDA? Do you want to test your own drugs?

"Promote the general welfare" is one of the objectives of the constitution.

 

[jonny5]

As I said, we the people don't agree with you. Can you find anyone who supports your strange theory. Someone with your view of the constitution would have sued and changed things. The government generally does acknowledge it is doing something illegal if the courts tell it so. The National Recovery Act of FDR was declared unconstitutional and it ended.

Btw, why do you want to end Medicare and Social Security anyway. They do good things. If they were indeed unconstitutional,we would have amended the constitution anyway. But doing so for every function of government is ridiculous. Would you also get rid of interstate highways, the FDA? Do you want to test your own drugs?

"Promote the general welfare" is one of the objectives of the constitution.

How do I know the people dont agree with me? When did we vote on it? According to the rules, you need 3/4 of states to agree, not 'we the people'. And you know who supports my theory? The people who wrote it.

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 41

 

[bluesmoke]

AOC Derangement. She is a right winger’s wet dream. And she can dance.

And all you can do is make unfounded claim, which now stands refuted for lack of supporting evidence.