Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Incredulity 11,541]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Those polls will tell you that the socialist programs in America are by far the most popular.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

Keep telling yourself next time will be different.

 

Maybe spend your next summer break reading up on what happens to academics under socialism.  

The clock is ticking.

[David Dennison 18,646]

Just now, Incredulity said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

Keep telling yourself next time will be different.

Maybe spend your next summer break reading up on what happens to academics under socialism.  

The clock is ticking.

That's a great analogy. There was a lot of democracy going on in the Soviet Union around that time.

We should all be worried.

[Incredulity 11,541]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's a great analogy. There was a lot of democracy going on in the Soviet Union around that time.

We should all be worried.

So you agree, socialism doesn’t work.

[David Dennison 18,646]

Just now, Incredulity said:

So you agree, socialism doesn’t work.

No. I don't agree. There are plenty of examples of socialism working. 

[Incredulity 11,541]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

No. I don't agree. There are plenty of examples of socialism working. 

So what should we be worried about then?

[EMAWesome 101]

49 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You need to ask yourself why democratic socialism is so attractive to so many people in a nation where capitalism is allegedly working well.

Because so many people, especially young people, in this country are morons and gullible morons at that.

[David Dennison 18,646]

Just now, EMAWesome said:

Because so many people, especially young people, in this country are morons and gullible morons at that.

I would say the exact same thing about people who support Donald Trump.

[Lurch 5,921]

Yeah, quick directors cut to the olds wearing red caps while glued to FauxNews, please.

[Incredulity 11,541]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No. I don't agree. There are plenty of examples of socialism working. 

 

15 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

So what should we be worried about then?

Interesting..... no answer.

 

predictable

[tx 3 putt 76,294]

40 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

So you agree, socialism doesn’t work.

works pretty well in some places :

• Denmark
• Finland
• Netherlands
• Canada
• Sweden
• Norway
• Ireland
• New Zealand
• Belgium

 

[Dahobbs 17,420]

30 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Because so many people, especially young people, in this country are morons and gullible morons at that.

And your posting here is some sort of performance art meant to demonstrate this point. Yes, that is a statement, not a question.

[TwiceHorn 31,240]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I QUOTED THE WRONG POST, BUT IN RESPONSE TO 7062

I don't disagree that we have too gotdamn many laws.  But this would not appear to be one of those cases.  First, the census is a Constitutional imperative of the Congress (Art. 1, s. 2), so it's not subject to federalism concerns.  Second, the law in question was super easy to find.  It's in Title 14 US Code, which deals with the census.  Then it's section 141.

So, she appeared to know more about the census statutes than anyone else in that room, including the dumb motherfucker in charge of the census (but he's rich so he must be smart!).  Good for her.

Speaking of that dumb corrupt motherfucker Wilbur Ross, somehow Trump stumbled on a fantastic Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property/Director of the USPTO.  No idea how that happened, but I'm glad it did.  Obama's second appointee was a google hack and was terrible, but his first one was pretty good.

Also, I think this exchange is demonstrative of the degree to which Congress has abdicated its responsibility to agencies.  Granted, the census shouldn't require much oversight, but the fact that a freshman rep, a month or two into the job, is the only one that knows the reporting requirements, is very telling.

[Incredulity 11,541]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

works pretty well in some places :

• Denmark
• Finland
• Netherlands
• Canada
• Sweden
• Norway
• Ireland
• New Zealand
• Belgium

 

Catastrophically stupid.

[Incredulity 11,541]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Also, I think this exchange is demonstrative of the degree to which Congress has abdicated its responsibility to agencies.  Granted, the census shouldn't require much oversight, but the fact that a freshman rep, a month or two into the job, is the only one that knows the reporting requirements, is very telling.

She doesn’t “know” it.  She was fed it, on a bet no one else did.

Thats the problem.

[Dahobbs 17,420]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

She doesn’t “know” it.  She was fed it, on a bet no one else did.

Thats the problem.

How the fuck is that the problem? Oh no, the freshman rep may have employed some competent people (unlike the fuck actually in charge of the census). The horror. Seriously, what an absurdly misogynistic post. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31,240]

Can we stop arguing about "socialism" and "capitalism", for fucks sake.  Until someone starts advocating government ownership of the means of production, we're talking about policies that lie somewhere on a spectrum between unfettered, free-market capitalism, which doesn't exist and hasn't existed in the US, ever, and pure socialism, which doesn't exist anywhere anyone wants to live.

Calling one or the other "socialism" or "capitalism" is meaningless drivel designed to polarize and trying to argue it pro or con as one or the other is even worse.

AOC promotes socialistic policies, not socialism, as far as I can tell.  Bernie same.  Maybe y'all are privy to some agenda I'm not.  The GOP, to the extent it promotes anything other than soundbites, promotes capitalistic policies that are just a masque for selling out to big business interests that give them money (a lot of Dems are guilty of this too, of course).

/end rant

 

[Incredulity 11,541]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

How the fuck is that the problem? Oh no, the freshman rep may have employed some competent people, unlike the fuck actually in charge of the census. Seriously, what an absurdly misogynistic post. 

It’s got nothing to do with her, her capabilities, or gender.

Its got to do with the fact there is so much crap in the federal code anyone can play gotcha.

 

Ooohhhhh, you don’t know CFR 318.65 21a 5r.  It’s illegal to allow you fish to swim without proper federally regulated flotation devices.

[Incredulity 11,541]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Can we stop arguing about "socialism" and "capitalism", for fucks sake.  Until someone starts advocating government ownership of the means of production, we're talking about policies that lie somewhere on a spectrum between unfettered, free-market capitalism, which doesn't exist and hasn't existed in the US, ever, and pure socialism, which doesn't exist anywhere anyone wants to live.

Calling one or the other "socialism" or "capitalism" is meaningless drivel designed to polarize and trying to argue it pro or con as one or the other is even worse.

AOC promotes socialistic policies, not socialism, as far as I can tell.  Bernie same.  Maybe y'all are privy to some agenda I'm not.  The GOP, to the extent it promotes anything other than soundbites, promotes capitalistic policies that are just a masque for selling out to big business interests that give them money (a lot of Dems are guilty of this too, of course).

/end rant

 

 

Bring Back 70s Bernie!



 

Oh, hai.

 

[TwiceHorn 31,240]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 

Bring Back 70s Bernie!



 

Oh, hai.

 

Ok, he was a socialist! 👹  Probably still is, but realizes he can't get very far on that, because then all this poisonous rhetoric might be on point.

[UpperWestside 6,126]

19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

How the fuck is that the problem? Oh no, the freshman rep may have employed some competent people (unlike the fuck actually in charge of the census). The horror. Seriously, what an absurdly misogynistic post. 

What a time to be alive right now. It's kind of fun seeing women taking charge of our government.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,545]

14 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

She doesn’t “know” it.  She was fed it, on a bet no one else did.

Thats the problem.

At first the problem was AOC was monumentally stupid. Now it's she has retained info given to her by someone else.

[hayden_horn 11,360]

Just now, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

At first the problem was AOC was monumentally stupid. Now it's she has retained info given to her by someone else.

Not only that, but used that information effectively to show that the guy who SHOULD know the info (or i guess, be "fed" the info) has no clue what is going on. 

[Incredulity 11,541]

1 minute ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

At first the problem was AOC was monumentally stupid. Now it's she has retained info given to her by someone else.

Read it again, and the follow up.

 

of course that doesn’t fit the narrative so carry on

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,545]

I understand your stance in your recent posts, still hilarious in the broader context of conservatives flinging such a range of criticisms at her that they end up almost contradictory.

 

Reminds me of Obama's pastor hates America AND he's Muslim. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[Dahobbs 17,420]

27 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

It’s got nothing to do with her, her capabilities, or gender.

Its got to do with the fact there is so much crap in the federal code anyone can play gotcha.

 

Ooohhhhh, you don’t know CFR 318.65 21a 5r.  It’s illegal to allow you fish to swim without proper federally regulated flotation devices.

Hahahaha, such bullshit. You're telling me the multitude of posts by you and others calling her an idiot and moron and your post assuming the only way she could know a code provision was by being supplied it by some third party, arent at all driven by the fact that she is a young woman? It is blindingly obvious that is exactly what animates you and it is fucking pathetic. 

[Incredulity 11,541]

4 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I understand your stance in your recent posts, still hilarious in the broader context of conservatives flinging such a range of criticisms at her that they end up almost contradictory.

 

Reminds me of Obama's pastor hates America AND he's Muslim. 

Then don’t quote me in an effort to ascribe to me a position that I haven’t promoted, or advance your agenda.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,545]

On 3/12/2019 at 8:17 PM, Incredulity said:

That is a Shelia Jackson Lee, shit the bed, type performance. Undeniable.

Is this better?

[Incredulity 11,541]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Hahahaha, such bullshit. You're telling me the multitude of posts by you and others calling her an idiot and moron and your post assuming the only way she could know a code provision was by being supplied it by some third party, arent at all driven by the fact that she is a young woman? It is blindingly obvious that is exactly what animates you and it is fucking pathetic. 

Read my posts again.

Maybe she is a legal savant. I doubt it.

Again, I respect her passion and effort. I fully disagree with her perspectives.  Her position and questions to WF CEO were unbelievably stupid. Calling that for what it is isn’t misogyny.

[wildcat09 29,213]

1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

Because so many people, especially young people, in this country are morons and gullible morons at that.

A guy who thinks circumstantial evidence is inadmissible in court should probably not be calling other people morons.

[Dahobbs 17,420]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Read my posts again.

Maybe she is a legal savant. I doubt it.

Again, I respect her passion and effort. I fully disagree with her perspectives.  Her position and questions to WF CEO were unbelievably stupid. Calling that for what it is isn’t misogyny.

I read then again and my disgust for you was reinforced. Nice attempt to change the subject though. 

[Incredulity 11,541]

3 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Is this better?

Better than what?

The proposition that a lender is culpable for the activity of a legal business’ legal activity is catastrophically stupid.  If she thinkes a pipeline shouldn’t be legal, then pass a law saying so.  Legislating through political pressure on a lender is a really bad idea.

 

[Dahobbs 17,420]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Better than what?

The proposition that a lender is culpable for the activity of a legal business’ legal activity is catastrophically stupid.  If she thinkes a pipeline shouldn’t be legal, then pass a law saying so.  Legislating through political pressure on a lender is a really bad idea.

 

Why is it a terrible idea to discuss? If a lender knowingly funds terrorist activities, we hold them accountable. Why is discussing similar liability for civil projects completely forbidden? Do I think 100% liability is a good idea? No. Some portion of liability? It could work. It at least deserves consideration even if ultimately rejected. 

[Incredulity 11,541]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Why is it a terrible idea to discuss? If a lender knowingly funds terrorist activities, we hold them accountable. Why is discussing similar liability for civil projects completely forbidden? Do I think 100% liability is a good idea? No. Some portion of liability? It could work. It at least deserves consideration even if ultimately rejected. 

Because terrorism is illegal.

funding legal activities is completely different than funding illegal activities.

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,545]

Hahaha!!!!

 

Are you reading your own posts?

 

Whether or not you agree with the division of liability as is or perhaps think it should be divided differently between lender, borrower, and taxpayer, you just claimed, for some weird reason, that you never held the stance that AOC was monumentally stupid. I thought maybe I had conflated you with some other posters and only had to go back, I think, a couple of pages to see you doing exactly what I described and what you took offense to.

[Dahobbs 17,420]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Because terrorism is illegal.

funding legal activities is completely different than funding illegal activities.

 

Yes, I understand it is currently different under our laws. My point is that the line of distinction is arbitrary. We could change the rule on civil liability. Some statutes do just that for specific purposes. We have shifted the rules plenty over the year and we could do so here. It isn't absurd to discuss whether we should. 

[David Dennison 18,646]

8 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Because terrorism is illegal.

funding legal activities is completely different than funding illegal activities.

Iran-Contra says what?

[TwiceHorn 31,240]

Haha I just saw a photo of her on TV with a big ash cross from last week.  Ya girl is a practicing catlick.

[Incredulity 11,541]

29 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Iran-Contra says what?

What in the fuck does a loan to a legal pipeline operator or prison operator have to do with Iran-Contra?

There were banks and money involved in both?

 

 Well holy shit, I had a mortgage with WF 20 years ago.  Where do I report for re-education?  

Edited March 15, 2019 by Incredulity
Do/does

[Incredulity 11,541]

30 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Hahaha!!!!

 

Are you reading your own posts?

 

Whether or not you agree with the division of liability as is or perhaps think it should be divided differently between lender, borrower, and taxpayer, you just claimed, for some weird reason, that you never held the stance that AOC was monumentally stupid. I thought maybe I had conflated you with some other posters and only had to go back, I think, a couple of pages to see you doing exactly what I described and what you took offense to.

The “division of liability” is only the basis of our economic system. NBD.  

SMH.  Fuck.

[TwiceHorn 31,240]

42 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, I understand it is currently different under our laws. My point is that the line of distinction is arbitrary. We could change the rule on civil liability. Some statutes do just that for specific purposes. We have shifted the rules plenty over the year and we could do so here. It isn't absurd to discuss whether we should. 

I think it would be preferable to directly regulate things rather than impose some kind of common law liability where none has previously existed, that usually leads to unintended consequences.

If we don't like pipelines, or private prisons, ban em, regulate them to the nines, don't push some liability on lenders to try to bleed em dry.

[Dahobbs 17,420]

10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The “division of liability” is only the basis of our economic system. NBD.  

SMH.  Fuck.

What? Having a system of liability is part of our economic system, but certainly not the basis for it. And where that liability falls is relatively unimportant from an economic perspective, so long as it falls somewhere predictably.

[Incredulity 11,541]

44 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, I understand it is currently different under our laws. My point is that the line of distinction is arbitrary. We could change the rule on civil liability. Some statutes do just that for specific purposes. We have shifted the rules plenty over the year and we could do so here. It isn't absurd to discuss whether we should. 

The line of distinction isn’t arbitrary.  It’s based on facilitating the flow of capital.

The thing that lets you buy fresh strawberries in February.

[Incredulity 11,541]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

What? Having a system of liability is part of our economic system, but certainly not the basis for it. And where that liability falls is relatively unimportant from an economic perspective, so long as it falls somewhere predictably.

Holy shit.  You believe that?

the fuck do you think a corporation is for?

 

[Dahobbs 17,420]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think it would be preferable to directly regulate things rather than impose some kind of common law liability where none has previously existed, that usually leads to unintended consequences.

If we don't like pipelines, or private prisons, ban em, regulate them to the nines, don't push some liability on lenders to try to bleed em dry.

It isn't about not liking them, it is about ensuring that all externalities are accounted for when evaluating their benefit. We impose liability as one tool to bring those externalities within the economic system. Doing so on just the pipeline operator is one way to do that, but if our experience teaches us that it is insufficient for some reason (e.g., lack of operator resources to cover the liability), then extending liability to another entity in the transaction may improve the situation. We do the same thing for instance under consumer protection statutes where all businesses in the chain (manafucturer, distributer, and retailer) can all have liability for a faulty product. It ensures that some entity is available to the consumer. The businesses in the chain then have a separate set of rules that determines liability amongst each other. 

[Dahobbs 17,420]

9 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Holy shit.  You believe that?

the fuck do you think a corporation is for?

 

What? It is the Coase theorem. And a corporation is a legal fiction. It is not a requirement or "basis of our economic system." It is just a tool we implemented in part to facilitate economic activity. 

[Brisketexan 104,537]

Can we stop arguing about "socialism" and "capitalism", for fucks sake.  Until someone starts advocating government ownership of the means of production, we're talking about policies that lie somewhere on a spectrum between unfettered, free-market capitalism, which doesn't exist and hasn't existed in the US, ever, and pure socialism, which doesn't exist anywhere anyone wants to live.
Calling one or the other "socialism" or "capitalism" is meaningless drivel designed to polarize and trying to argue it pro or con as one or the other is even worse.
AOC promotes socialistic policies, not socialism, as far as I can tell.  Bernie same.  Maybe y'all are privy to some agenda I'm not.  The GOP, to the extent it promotes anything other than soundbites, promotes capitalistic policies that are just a masque for selling out to big business interests that give them money (a lot of Dems are guilty of this too, of course).
/end rant
 

Spot on....and utterly wasted typing. Folks want to indulge in fantasies and labels, not analysis of actual policies and their multi-level impacts.

In summary, you talk like a fag and your shit’s all retarded. Capitalism rules, socialism drools!

[EuroHorn 3,204]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Can we stop arguing about "socialism" and "capitalism", for fucks sake.  Until someone starts advocating government ownership of the means of production, we're talking about policies that lie somewhere on a spectrum between unfettered, free-market capitalism, which doesn't exist and hasn't existed in the US, ever, and pure socialism, which doesn't exist anywhere anyone wants to live.

Calling one or the other "socialism" or "capitalism" is meaningless drivel designed to polarize and trying to argue it pro or con as one or the other is even worse.

AOC promotes socialistic policies, not socialism, as far as I can tell.  Bernie same.  Maybe y'all are privy to some agenda I'm not.  The GOP, to the extent it promotes anything other than soundbites, promotes capitalistic policies that are just a masque for selling out to big business interests that give them money (a lot of Dems are guilty of this too, of course).

/end rant

 

Well she is a proponent of taxing corporations at 90%. Who owns a corporation if it’s taxed at 90%?

[elfenix 34,169]

The line of distinction isn’t arbitrary.  It’s based on facilitating the flow of capital.
The thing that lets you buy fresh strawberries in February.

"fresh"

February strawberries suck.

Oh and that's the free flow of goods, which != free flow of capital.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

"fresh"

February strawberries suck.

Oh and that's the free flow of goods, which != free flow of capital.

Actually, global shipment of out of season produce is a heavy contributor to global warming.  We should all be eating as local and as seasonal as possible.  We also shouldn't be drinking water that is bottled on an island on the other side of the planet when we have perfectly good tap water here.

[Incredulity 11,541]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Actually, global shipment of out of season produce is a heavy contributor to global warming.  We should all be eating as local and as seasonal as possible.  We also shouldn't be drinking water that is bottled on an island on the other side of the planet when we have perfectly good tap water here.

Got it.  I live in a mud hut.  You fly in a private jet.

Please sir, I want some more.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Incredulity