Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


Girth
-1
#1711
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

The misogynists on here are so afraid of her and a teenage girl that you have to wonder about their "latency" issues.

That's rich, coming from someone so obsessed with a fellow forum member that he spends the time to review all of my posts just to down-vote them, regardless of content.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
+1
#1712
Quote: Originally Posted by Girth View Post

That's rich, coming from someone so obsessed with a fellow forum member that he spends the time to review all of my posts just to down-vote them, regardless of content.

Fortunately, I'm on "Ignore" so our newest pernicious troll won't have to read what I think of that lowest form of trash.

"Move on, Troll!"

There's a good arsehole.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#1713
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Accuses Congress Members Of Blindly Funnelling Money To ICE So It Could Set Up 'Fake Universities To Trap Students'

Quote:

As the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency faced fresh scrutiny on Wednesday over a sting that saw hundreds of foreign students arrested after being lured to apply for a fake university, New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez struck out at lawmakers for continuing to fund the embattled agency.
On Wednesday, The Detroit Free Press reported that 90 more students had been arrested in ICE's controversial immigration bust, bringing the total number of detainees to as many as 250 foreign students. The majority are believed to have come from India.
The revelation comes months after the outlet first reported in January that hundreds of foreign students had been arrested after enrolling at the "University of Farmington," a made-up Michigan college created by the Department of Homeland Security.
While ICE faced widespread condemnation over the new report, Ocasio-Cortez suggested that lawmakers should accept some of the blame for funnelling funding into the agency with little oversight.
"Earlier this year, Congress rushed to approve BILLIONS more $ for ICE + CBP," Ocasio-Cortez said, implicating the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency as well.

"I saw members voting YES w/o even a summary of the bill. Nobody cared then how we'd pay for it," she said. "Now ICE is setting up fake universities to trap students."
"Yet, we were called radical for opposing it," Ocasio-Cortez said.
"I see decisions made every day that cost the American public billions of dollars a year for bogus reasons and nobody asks how we pay for it," the New York representative said.
"None of the politicians who brand themselves 'fiscally responsible' ever raise concern about rushing to shower ICE & CBP w/ $billions with 0 guardrails or oversight," she asserted. Further, Ocasio-Cortez said: "None of them ask about how we pay for corrupt contracts or mass incarceration. Ask yourself why that is."
"Look out for those in politics who like to label themselves 'fiscally responsible,' yet only seem to care about the price of justice–not the cost of oppression," the self-proclaimed Democratic socialist said. "Everything has a price. And an unjust society is far costlier than one that invests in & values all people."
Since early on in her grassroots campaign, Ocasio-Cortez has been calling for ICE to be abolished.
Over the past year and a half, those calls have only grown, particularly in the wake of the Trump administration's widely condemned "zero tolerance" family separation policy.

 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#1714
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasts Trump administration for cuts to food stamps, sharing that her family 'might've just starved' without them

Quote:

Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York slammed the Trump administration on Thursday over new changes to the food stamps program that will cause nearly 700,000 people to lose access to the welfare program.
The Trump administration on Wednesday finalized a rule, which would tighten work requirements for able-bodied adults enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). According to The Department of Agriculture, this would leave up to 688,000 people without food stamps as a result of the change.
Ocasio-Cortez hit back at the Trump administration on Twitter over the new rule, explaining that her family once relied on the program when her father died.
"My family relied on food stamps (EBT) when my dad died at 48," she wrote, referring to the acronym for the electronic benefits transfer which is provided each month through a debit-like card.
"I was a student," she continued. "If this happened then, we might've just starved."
"Now, many people will," she said. "It's shameful how the GOP works overtime to create freebies for the rich while dissolving lifelines of those who need it most."
The new rule closes "a loophole in current law, which gives states the flexibility to waive certain asset and income limits for individuals who are receiving both SNAP and other welfare benefits," NPR reported.
Some college students who benefit from SNAP worry that new work requirements would make juggling work and education virtually impossible. Carlina, a 35-year-old full-time San Jose State, told San Jose Inside that trying to balance a part-time job with enough hours to qualify for food stamps while also devoting time to her studies will only become harder under the new requirements.
"It's really hard to get out of that hole when you have to be in the hole to get help to begin with," she said.
Officials argued that the policy change would save the government over $5 billion over five years, and was not a necessity for certain groups as the US labor market thrives. (For perspective, the Trump administration is spending $16 billion bailing out farmers hit by the US-China trade war.)
"We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand," said USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue. "This rule lays the groundwork for the expectation that able-bodied Americans re-enter the workforce where there are currently more job openings than people to fill them."
Changes to the program would also deliver a blow to retailers like Walmart, Target, Kroger, and dollar stores that depend on billions of dollars in food-stamp spending every year.
The USDA said that Americans redeemed about $61 billion in SNAP benefits last year, more than half of that total having been spent at larger stores like Walmart and Target.

 
Walter
+1
#1715
McEnany Buries AOC After She Falsely Pulls the Race Card
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...-card-n2570271

Cortez is a stoopid broad.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#1716

Trump hates this picture...
Share it far and wide.
 
Walter
+1
#1717
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post


Trump hates this picture...
Share it far and wide.

He told you that.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+1
#1718
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

He told you that.

 
Walter
#1719
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Perfect description of a prog.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#1720
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Perfect description of a prog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WNO7PVr_N4
 
Tecumsehsbones
#1721
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasts Trump administration for cuts to food stamps, sharing that her family 'might've just starved' without them

Would you say, as a general principle, that the government of a modern, developed country has an obligation to ensure that each of its people can get 2000 calories per day of a balanced diet?
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+1
#1722
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Would you say, as a general principle, that the government of a modern, developed country has an obligation to ensure that each of its people can get 2000 calories per day of a balanced diet?

No . Do they have to force feed ?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#1723
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

No . Do they have to force feed ?

Not asking you, thanks.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+1
#1724
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Not asking you, thanks.

So I responded to you thanks . Is it the governments responsibility to force feed their population to ensure proper nutrition ?
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#1725
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Would you say, as a general principle, that the government of a modern, developed country has an obligation to ensure that each of its people can get 2000 calories per day of a balanced diet?

Short term hand up, not a sustained handout. Do you think Gov. should be stepping in to guarantee you have enough to eat? How far do you think they should have the right to govern your diet in such a program?
 
Hoid
#1726
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Would you say, as a general principle, that the government of a modern, developed country has an obligation to ensure that each of its people can get 2000 calories per day of a balanced diet?

It would result in major gains in health and education and economic productivity.

Can't have that.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#1727
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Short term hand up, not a sustained handout. Do you think Gov. should be stepping in to guarantee you have enough to eat? How far do you think they should have the right to govern your diet in such a program?

Good questions.

Yes, I think the government should provide such a diet to people who, temporarily or permanently, cannot provide it for themselves. Not as a matter of rights, in the legal sense, but as a matter of policy. I think that the government in such a case should have the authority to dictate what you eat (at least insofar as the government is providing the food or the means to acquire the food). I think the government should also provide shelter to those in need.

I know you didn't ask, but I also think the government should have the authority to require an individual to work in order to receive these benefits, provided that it can provide the individual with work to do that is within the individual's abilities and not excessively hazardous.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#1728
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Good questions.

Yes, I think the government should provide such a diet to people who, temporarily or permanently, cannot provide it for themselves. Not as a matter of rights, in the legal sense, but as a matter of policy. I think that the government in such a case should have the authority to dictate what you eat (at least insofar as the government is providing the food or the means to acquire the food). I think the government should also provide shelter to those in need.

I know you didn't ask, but I also think the government should have the authority to require an individual to work in order to receive these benefits, provided that it can provide the individual with work to do that is within the individual's abilities and not excessively hazardous.

We had a premier in Ontario, Mike Harris, some years ago who introduced something like that and called it workfare...
Liberals didn't like that in southern Ontario, because Conservatives lost the next election while Harris, still won his own riding
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#1729
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Good questions.
Yes, I think the government should provide such a diet to people who, temporarily or permanently, cannot provide it for themselves. Not as a matter of rights, in the legal sense, but as a matter of policy. I think that the government in such a case should have the authority to dictate what you eat (at least insofar as the government is providing the food or the means to acquire the food). I think the government should also provide shelter to those in need.
I know you didn't ask, but I also think the government should have the authority to require an individual to work in order to receive these benefits, provided that it can provide the individual with work to do that is within the individual's abilities and not excessively hazardous.

Did or does your food stamps require you buy certain food categories within them? Wasn't/isn't there issues of selling some of the stamps for cash?

I totally agree with your last paragraph, and advocated for that here too.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+3
#1730
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

We had a premier in Ontario, Mike Harris, some years ago who introduced something like that and called it workfare...
Liberals didn't like that in southern Ontario, because Conservatives lost the next election while Harris, still won his own riding

Hell, McFlinty even went so far to suggest it was unconstitutional to force able bodied people to work for their money. Can you imagine, having to actually earn your money? That's just leftist sacrilege.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#1731
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Did or does your food stamps require you buy certain food categories within them?

I'm not fully versed on the rules, but I am aware that there are some foodstuffs that cannot be bought with SNAP. I believe the restrictions are expressed primarily in what you cannot buy with SNAP, rather than requirements of what you can or must buy.

Quote:

Wasn't/isn't there issues of selling some of the stamps for cash?

Yep. So what? If you restrict yourself to only using commodities that have never been black-marketed, you're gonna look about medium stupid running around your hometown naked with a sharp stick in your hand. Fraud is fraud. Black marketing is black marketing. They're crimes. Last I checked, we had a very large, very complicated government system set up specifically to deal with crimes.

Quote:

I totally agree with your last paragraph, and advocated for that here too.

What can I say? I'm just a merciless Indian Savage (speaking of running around naked with a sharp stick!), but our basic rule was "everybody works, everybody eats." I understand that a developed modern country is a lot more complex than a North American Indian band, but I don't see why that principle can't still apply.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#1732
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Hell, McFlinty even went so far to suggest it was unconstitutional to force able bodied people to work for their money. Can you imagine, having to actually earn your money? That's just leftist sacrilege.

It is unConstitutional. Thirteenth Amendment. You cannot be forced to work. And your society cannot be forced to give you money.

If it was up to me, I'd set up a three-tier welfare system. Tier One, the nicest, is for people who cannot work. Tier Two is for those who participate in "workfare" programmes. It's not as nice as Tier One, but it recognizes and rewards the fact that you're working, while at the same time hopefully motivating you to get out of the system entirely. Tier Three is for those who refuse to work. The system keeps them alive, but not much more. About the same standard of living as the county jail or boot camp.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+1
#1733
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I'm not fully versed on the rules, but I am aware that there are some foodstuffs that cannot be bought with SNAP. I believe the restrictions are expressed primarily in what you cannot buy with SNAP, rather than requirements of what you can or must buy.


Yep. So what? If you restrict yourself to only using commodities that have never been black-marketed, you're gonna look about medium stupid running around your hometown naked with a sharp stick in your hand. Fraud is fraud. Black marketing is black marketing. They're crimes. Last I checked, we had a very large, very complicated government system set up specifically to deal with crimes.


What can I say? I'm just a merciless Indian Savage (speaking of running around naked with a sharp stick!), but our basic rule was "everybody works, everybody eats." I understand that a developed modern country is a lot more complex than a North American Indian band, but I don't see why that principle can't still apply.

Because you "merciless Indian Savages" were just a bunch o' commies.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+1
#1734
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

It is unConstitutional. Thirteenth Amendment. You cannot be forced to work. And your society cannot be forced to give you money.

And yet your society has been forced to give other people money for decades now. Isn't that kind'a what SNAP does?

As for "you cannot be forced to work", I think that has more to do with slavery than actually being expected to earn your govt handouts if you're capable.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#1735
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

And yet your society has been forced to give other people money for decades now. Isn't that kind'a what SNAP does?

No, my society has chosen, through its duly elected legislators, to provide support for the poor.

I know you consider this a terrible thing, but the simple fact is that every society in history has done so. It's hardly a brand-spanking new "liberal" idea.
Quote:

As for "you cannot be forced to work", I think that has more to do with slavery than actually being expected to earn your govt handouts if you're capable.

Here's the text.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+2
#1736
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

No, my society has chosen, through its duly elected legislators, to provide support for the poor.

I know you consider this a terrible thing, but the simple fact is that every society in history has done so. It's hardly a brand-spanking new "liberal" idea.

So why did you even mention it when we were discussing the constitutionality of making able people earn their "free money". And in history, that help was often provisional on the recipient doing his part. In the book of Leviticus for example, farmers were expected to leave the corners of the farm fields unharvested so that the poor could have access to food. But they STILL had to work to actually harvest the food. The farmer's didn't simply reserve the corners for the poor, harvested them separately and then distributed the food among the poor. Giving able people freebies for nothing doesn't lift them up, it actually keeps them down.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Here's the text.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

None of which prohibits making able people actually earn their govt handouts. Earning your money is neither slavery nor indentured servitude, it's called self-respect, pride, whatever.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#1737
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

So why did you even mention it when we were discussing the constitutionality of making able people earn their "free money". And in history, that help was often provisional on the recipient doing his part. In the book of Leviticus for example, farmers were expected to leave the corners of the farm fields unharvested so that the poor could have access to food. But they STILL had to work to actually harvest the food. The farmer's didn't simply reserve the corners for the poor, harvested them separately and then distributed the food among the poor. Giving able people freebies for nothing doesn't lift them up, it actually keeps them down.
None of which prohibits making able people actually earn their govt handouts. Earning your money is neither slavery nor indentured servitude, it's called self-respect, pride, whatever.

All right, all right. Sorry for making a small play on words with regard to what it obviously a deeply painful and emotional issue to you.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+1
#1738
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

All right, all right. Sorry for making a small play on words with regard to what it obviously a deeply painful and emotional issue to you.

Is that your cute way of saying you're wrong?
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
-1
#1739
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Earning your money is neither slavery nor indentured servitude, it's called self-respect, pride, whatever.

Most people in a capitalist system are slaves to debt.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#1740
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Is that your cute way of saying you're wrong?

No, it's an apology.

Go read Leviticus or something. You'll feel better.
 

Similar Threads

18
9
Man robs same Alexandria bank five times
by Tecumsehsbones | Sep 9th, 2013