The right's obsession with AOC

[hollodero]

(04-08-2019, 07:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The crazy thing is that you think posting those quotes proved your point (to include the making it personal); it did not. If only someone like- minded would explain it to you; we could perhaps make progress. But alas they won't; so you'll remain able to lie and troll unencumbered. 

Now the last part was personal, but as I've said: Don't start none, won't be none and lying about the posts of other posters is starting some. 

Yeah but honestly, it's tough to claim "no one told you what to focus on" when you clearly suggested time and again that the ALL CAPS part of AOC's tweet needs to be focused on. 
It's also hard to see the rationale in suggesting that AOC doesn't think human worth needs to be taken seriously. That's just an irrational stance to take, or say a really questionable talking point.

If only you would show any consistency with this logic when it comes to Trump sayings. But as it seems, to prove open-mindedness we're supposed to always believe in the least nefarious explanation when it comes to Trump and in the most nefarious explanation when it's about someone from the other side, like AOC. This looks like a severely biased view and I feel Dino is pretty much right on this one.

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2019, 07:55 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah but honestly, it's tough to claim "no one told you what to focus on" when you clearly suggested time and again that the ALL CAPS part of AOC's tweet needs to be focused on. 
It's also hard to see the rationale in suggesting that AOC doesn't think human worth needs to be taken seriously. That's just an irrational stance to take, or say a really questionable talking point.

If only you would show any consistency with this logic when it comes to Trump sayings. But as it seems, to prove open-mindedness we're supposed to always believe in the least nefarious explanation when it comes to Trump and in the most nefarious explanation when it's about someone from the other side, like AOC. This looks like a severely biased view and I feel Dino is pretty much right on this one.

Apparently I stand corrected and to be honest you're usually my only hope of a like-minded stepping up. 

NOWHERE have I suggested what part of her tweet needs to be focused on. I simply called BS on her point that others "missed the point" of her tweet. You don't put a point in all caps, get called on the ignorance of the point, and then get to claim others "missed the point".

I call out Trump's BS quite frequently. But I understand you're with Dino and his assertion that I said folks MUST focus on that point, was not disingenuous.

Did you pick up why I all capped some words? 

[hollodero]

(04-08-2019, 08:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Apparently I stand corrected and to be honest you're usually my only hope of a like-minded stepping up. 

NOWHERE have I suggested what part of her tweet needs to be focused on. I simply called BS on her point that others "missed the point" of her tweet. You don't put a point in all caps, get called on the ignorance of the point, and then get to claim others "missed the point".

I call out Trump's BS quite frequently. But I understand you're with Dino and his assertion that I said folks MUST focus on that point, was not disingenuous.

I don't know if it was disingenuous. I just found it quite clear what AOC's point was and saw your attempts to claim otherwise that weren't very convincing.
Her point was to relate income to the cost of everyday things (like a LaGuardia croissant, maybe not the best example, but ok). which is a fair comparison to make, whether one agrees with her conclusion or not (that one hour of hard work should buy a person two LaGuardia croissants). Ted Cruz, oh the humanity, claiming she wants "government-mandated free croissants for everyone #socialistlogic" was quite an unfair misrepresentation. To a point where I think to be on his side one has to prejudge her for being her a little.

And yeah I know you call Trump out too at times, but your measure stick seems to be way stricter in this case. I'd bet without proof that if Trump got slammed for something like that, you'd call it TDS and would have a point.

(04-08-2019, 08:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did you pick up why I all capped some words? 

I figured it was to prove she meant something else as Dino claimed she meant. Like that she slammed LaGuardia croissants and hence hates free market prices and whatnot. Which, again, was not her point quite clearly.

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2019, 04:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know if it was disingenuous. I just found it quite clear what AOC's point was and saw your attempts to claim otherwise that weren't very convincing.
Her point was to relate income to the cost of everyday things (like a LaGuardia croissant, maybe not the best example, but ok). which is a fair comparison to make, whether one agrees with her conclusion or not (that one hour of hard work should buy a person two LaGuardia croissants). Ted Cruz, oh the humanity, claiming she wants "government-mandated free croissants for everyone #socialistlogic" was quite an unfair misrepresentation. To a point where I think to be on his side one has to prejudge her for being her a little.

And yeah I know you call Trump out too at times, but your measure stick seems to be way stricter in this case. I'd bet without proof that if Trump got slammed for something like that, you'd call it TDS and would have a point.



I figured it was to prove she meant something else as Dino claimed she meant. Like that she slammed LaGuardia croissants and hence hates free market prices and whatnot. Which, again, was not her point quite clearly.

You're kinda LOSING me here; was the point the price of the croissant or not?


Nah, the all caps is to have the reader pay particular attention (aka FOCUS) on that part of the message. Perhaps you guys do it different down under.  

Here's a quick exercise (no need to answer just you and anyone else that wants to participate may). Read Cruz's response to her and tell me what you focus on the most. 

And with all that said: I have never told anyone what they should only focus on. But it's trivial at this point. You can just roll with me asserting what someone else meant.

[hollodero]

(04-09-2019, 06:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You're kinda LOSING me here; was the point the price of the croissant or not?

Well, I tried to explain it, maybe in a bad way. But to me it was quite clear from first reading what her point was. Her point was that an hour of work should be valued accordingly - so that it buys you two croissants for your kids at the airport. That was her example for that, could as well have used anything else really (like a day of hard work should buy you a Bengals ticket or whatever). It was an argument about minimum wage, not about the price of the croissant. 
And Cruz got that point just wrong, deliberately probably. But the reaction of #freestuff#socialism#leftiststupidity (paraphrasing) was just a miss. #minimumwageisevil would have responded to her point.

[BmorePat87]

(04-09-2019, 04:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know if it was disingenuous. I just found it quite clear what AOC's point was and saw your attempts to claim otherwise that weren't very convincing.
Her point was to relate income to the cost of everyday things (like a LaGuardia croissant, maybe not the best example, but ok). which is a fair comparison to make, whether one agrees with her conclusion or not (that one hour of hard work should buy a person two LaGuardia croissants). Ted Cruz, oh the humanity, claiming she wants "government-mandated free croissants for everyone #socialistlogic" was quite an unfair misrepresentation. To a point where I think to be on his side one has to prejudge her for being her a little.

And yeah I know you call Trump out too at times, but your measure stick seems to be way stricter in this case. I'd bet without proof that if Trump got slammed for something like that, you'd call it TDS and would have a point.



I figured it was to prove she meant something else as Dino claimed she meant. Like that she slammed LaGuardia croissants and hence hates free market prices and whatnot. Which, again, was not her point quite clearly.

I disagree with this take. I saw it as her making a point regarding how we value things in our economy. Many are willing to value a pastry at an airport at $7 but many are unwillingly to value anyone's hour of labor at $15. We don't question the $7 croissant. We all recognize that it's value is tied to the restricted nature of an airport and we accept it. I see her as challenging us to accept that everyone's hour of work should at least be worth $15.

I don't think the use of the croissant makes it's a particularly good comparison, but she clearly was not complaining about croissants being too expensive or asking for free croissants as the spineless senator from Texas suggested she was. 

[*michaelsean*]

(04-10-2019, 01:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I disagree with this take. I saw it as her making a point regarding how we value things in our economy. Many are willing to value a pastry at an airport at $7 but many are unwillingly to value anyone's hour of labor at $15. We don't question the $7 croissant. We all recognize that it's value is tied to the restricted nature of an airport and we accept it. I see her as challenging us to accept that everyone's hour of work should at least be worth $15.

I don't think the use of the croissant makes it's a particularly good comparison, but she clearly was not complaining about croissants being too expensive or asking for free croissants as the spineless senator from Texas suggested she was. 

Who doesn't question the $7.00 croissant?  I could win the lottery and I'm still not giving you $7.00 for a croissant.

[*bfine32*]

(04-10-2019, 01:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I disagree with this take. I saw it as her making a point regarding how we value things in our economy. Many are willing to value a pastry at an airport at $7 but many are unwillingly to value anyone's hour of labor at $15. We don't question the $7 croissant. We all recognize that it's value is tied to the restricted nature of an airport and we accept it. I see her as challenging us to accept that everyone's hour of work should at least be worth $15.

I don't think the use of the croissant makes it's a particularly good comparison, but she clearly was not complaining about croissants being too expensive or asking for free croissants as the spineless senator from Texas suggested she was. 

Ted Cruz was my 16th choice of the 17 GOP candidates in 2016. WTS, I have 0 issue with him calling her out on a silly tweet. Hell, I think even Pelosci is growing tired of it.

My take is she was charged $7 for a croissant and this shocked her. So much so that she had to put it in all CAPS in a tweet. When she gets called out on the silliness of her tweet, it quickly becomes: "Don't take me so seriously" and in the same thought "I'm talking about human dignity".

It was a stupid tweet and she got called on it. I thought we liked that sort of thing around here.

[BmorePat87]

(04-10-2019, 01:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Who doesn't question the $7.00 croissant?  I could win the lottery and I'm still not giving you $7.00 for a croissant.

I didn't say we'd pay it, I said we don't question it. We know why it has been set at $7.00. Same with a ball game or amusement park. Competition is limited or non existent, so supply is low and demand is high. They can gouge us because there is no other option. 

[BmorePat87]

(04-10-2019, 01:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ted Cruz was my 16th choice of the 17 GOP candidates in 2016. WTS, I have 0 issue with him calling her out on a silly tweet. Hell, I think even Pelosci is growing tired of it.

My take is she was charged $7 for a croissant and this shocked her. So much so that she had to put it in all CAPS in a tweet. When she gets called out on the silliness of her tweet, it quickly becomes: "Don't take me so seriously" and in the same thought "I'm talking about human dignity".

It was a stupid tweet and she got called on it. I thought we liked that sort of thing around here.

I don't have an issue with him arguing a straw man on twitter either. When you lick the boots of the guy who called your wife ugly and your dad a traitorous murderer, there's little you can do to further embarrass yourself. 

I think simply dismissing it as her upset with the price of croissants is way off base, but I don't care enough to try to change anyone's mind beyond my first response. If we're more concerned with the way the message was presented than actually addressing the message itself, we're not actually going to have a dialogue.

It is good to note that people will respond more vigorously to bad comparisons on twitter than out right lies on twitter. 

[GMDino]

(04-10-2019, 01:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ted Cruz was my 16th choice of the 17 GOP candidates in 2016. WTS, I have 0 issue with him calling her out on a silly tweet. Hell, I think even Pelosci is growing tired of it.

My take is she was charged $7 for a croissant and this shocked her. So much so that she had to put it in all CAPS in a tweet. When she gets called out on the silliness of her tweet, it quickly becomes: "Don't take me so seriously" and in the same thought "I'm talking about human dignity".

It was a stupid tweet and she got called on it. I thought we liked that sort of thing around here.

Yes, discussing human value for their work is "silly".

Nothing serious like windmill cancer.  

[GMDino]

(04-10-2019, 01:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't have an issue with him arguing a straw man on twitter either. When you lick the boots of the guy who called your wife ugly and your dad a traitorous murderer, there's little you can do to further embarrass yourself. 

I think simply dismissing it as her upset with the price of croissants is way off base, but I don't care enough to try to change anyone's mind beyond my first response. If we're more concerned with the way the message was presented than actually addressing the message itself, we're not actually going to have a dialogue.

It is good to note that people will respond more vigorously to bad comparisons on twitter than out right lies on twitter. 

Yeah Cruz is trying so hard to get DJT to like him he's making a (bigger) fool of himself.  And she called him out on it.  Shame that there are those who would rather do the same foolishness and claim she (her tweet) is "silly".

[BmorePat87]

(04-10-2019, 02:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah Cruz is trying so hard to get DJT to like him he's making a (bigger) fool of himself.  And she called him out on it.  Shame that there are those who would rather do the same foolishness and claim she (her tweet) is "silly".

I don't think the comparison in her tweet was particularly effective, but I could see that she wasn't focused on lowering the price, so I found his response to be far sillier since he focused on a non existing argument. 

He could have responded with "And if the cashier at the airport cafe is making $15 an hour, expect that croissant to cost $10". 

[GMDino]

(04-10-2019, 02:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think the comparison in her tweet was particularly effective, but I could see that she wasn't focused on lowering the price, so I found his response to be far sillier since he focused on a non existing argument. 

He could have responded with "And if the cashier at the airport cafe is making $15 an hour, expect that croissant to cost $10". 

At least that would have acknowledged the point of her tweet.  But it's hard to do that when the airport cafe cashier is probably making minimum wage. 

[hollodero]

(04-10-2019, 01:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I disagree with this take. I saw it as her making a point regarding how we value things in our economy.

Well, that's not so different from my take, is it. In any case, it was not about free croissants.

[*bfine32*]

(04-10-2019, 01:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, discussing human value for their work is "silly".

Nothing serious like windmill cancer.  

Trolling aside. AOC was the one that said don't take it seriously. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-10-2019, 01:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't have an issue with him arguing a straw man on twitter either. When you lick the boots of the guy who called your wife ugly and your dad a traitorous murderer, there's little you can do to further embarrass yourself. 

I think simply dismissing it as her upset with the price of croissants is way off base, but I don't care enough to try to change anyone's mind beyond my first response. If we're more concerned with the way the message was presented than actually addressing the message itself, we're not actually going to have a dialogue.

It is good to note that people will respond more vigorously to bad comparisons on twitter than out right lies on twitter. 

I feel ya. A recent thread about Biden's groping comes to mind. 

[GMDino]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lynne-patton-hud-hatch-act_n_5ceb7136e4b0512156f46dae

Quote:Trump HUD Official: ‘I Honestly Don’t Care’ If I’m Breaking Federal Law

Lynne Patton said she may have violated the Hatch Act, then called anyone mad about it a “liberal snowflake.”

Lynne Patton, a regional administrator for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, wrote last week that she may have broken a federal law meant to prevent officials from politicizing their government positions, but said that even if that were the case, she “honestly” didn’t care.

“Just retweeted this amazing tweet from both of my Twitter accounts — professional and personal,” Patton wrote on Facebook last week, pointing to a message that championed her boss, HUD Secretary Ben Carson, but was critical of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “It may be a Hatch Act violation. It may not be.”


“Either way,” she continued, “I honestly don’t care anymore.”


The 1939 Hatch Act prohibits officials working in the executive branch from using their “official authority for political purposes” and is meant to prevent “federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity,” according to the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Many members within the Trump administration have run afoul of the law before, and last November, six White House officials were reprimanded for using their social media accounts in violation of the Hatch Act.


Patton, who is paid an annual salary of $161,900, according to 2017 figures, is tasked with overseeing one of HUD’s largest regions with a budget in the billions of dollars. But when someone pointed out her potential lawbreaking, Patton doubled down on Sunday evening, mocking those critical of her as “lazy internet parrots” and “liberal snowflakes” on her personal Twitter account.
[/url]

Quote:
 Lynne Patton

@LynnePatton



Replying to @Avi_Bueno and 6 others

Um, no, I just stopped caring once people started calling renowned neurosurgeons morons simply due to partisan politics. They, you & everyone lost all credibility - and it finally needed to be said, regardless of time of day or twitter account. #SorryNotSorry

[url=https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1132798630736220163]57
8:00 PM - May 26, 2019

CREW has singled out Patton for violating the Hatch Act before, including an instance in April when the official displayed Trump campaign material in her government office. The group notes that Patton is currently under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel for using her official Twitter account for partisan activity.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Normal people don't expect to get 2 for 1 hours worth of work at the Airport. Why? Cause you have to pay airport taxes on anything you get inside an airport. Dang, stop at store along the way and bring your own!! Then you can get 2+ for 1 hours worth of work.

Common sense is becoming extinct.

[BmorePat87]

(05-28-2019, 02:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lynne-patton-hud-hatch-act_n_5ceb7136e4b0512156f46dae

This is the lady that was an event planner before running HUD for New York with absolutely no housing experience, right?

Sounds about right. Only the best.