Deep state coup attempt

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
i'll start an argument...you keep saying " THAT document and ONLY that document." i think the first draft that contained that language expresses her true intent and attitude. i don't think it was hacked or altered by anyone. i think it was a mistake made by her office, and they didn't change it till they realized it would be unacceptable to the GREAT majority of people reading it. you seem to have gone off the deep end a little about it, and focusing on the "THAT document and ONLY that document" argument...quite often, the first draft of a piece of work contains more truth than any following edited versions.
that being said, it doesn't really do much to change my opinion of AOC, which isn't bad, just think she needs a lot more political experience before she decides to do anything more than she is right now
Click to expand...
Do you really think that Cortez intended and endorsed a policy of "welfare for people who don't want to work" in her first submission to congress? You can spin whatever story you like, I simply don't care about that earlier draft unless Cortez really meant to say that. I also require more than your belief about what happened. We simply don't know. If this, If that, I believe this, I believe that ... I respectfully reject those lines of argument without facts to back them up. .

I'm sticking to what we can verify. The only document that we can say Cortez endorsed is the one submitted to Congress. It does not say "welfare for people unwilling to work". You can believe whatever you like about what happened. It doesn't change the fact that the document submitted to Congress didn't have any language even like "welfare for people who don't want to work". You can believe whatever baseless story you like.

To me, the whole thing stinks of a smear campaign but I'm not willing to go so far as to say I believe so. I do say it's as good an alternative as the one you talk about. Are you willing to say that smears like the one I'm proposing aren't common in DC? I refuse to believe anything on the matter unless it is backed up by verifiable statements of fact.

This is the most recent and complete report that i can find on the matter:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/429282-ocasio-cortez-camp-clarifies-green-new-deal-details-after-faq-sparks-backlash

“There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around. There was also a draft version that got uploaded + taken down. There’s also draft versions floating out there,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Saturday, attaching the proposal she introduced in the House.

The only document that anybody can truly say represents the full text of what Cortez intended to submit to Congress is the one she submitted to Congress. I don't know what to make of the other stuff and so have noted them but can't use them to draw conclusions and won't accept yours because it is baseless. But you believe what you want. That's your right. It's mine to laugh at people like Bugs who I think are being used as tools.
 
Last edited:
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
maybe it was doctored by some outside source. if it's shown that it was, I'll owe you and her both an apology.
if it wasn't, and was later redacted from the original document, my concern is that she would have ever included such a statement to begin with. why would it ever occur to anyone to offer support to people "unwilling to work" ? unable is one thing, no problem with unable...."unwilling to work", in my world, translates as "eager to become a starving homeless person".
honestly, that and her relative political inexperience compared to those she will be facing, is about the only problem i have with her. experience will come after a term or two of service, which i'm sure she will achieve. statements like that one, if she actually made it, concern me.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
maybe it was doctored by some outside source. if it's shown that it was, I'll owe you and her both an apology.
if it wasn't, and was later redacted from the original document, my concern is that she would have ever included such a statement to begin with. why would it ever occur to anyone to offer support to people "unwilling to work" ? unable is one thing, no problem with unable...."unwilling to work", in my world, translates as "eager to become a starving homeless person".
honestly, that and her relative political inexperience compared to those she will be facing, is about the only problem i have with her. experience will come after a term or two of service, which i'm sure she will achieve. statements like that one, if she actually made it, concern me.
Click to expand...
We aren't going to ever know. To me this is all about her character and people's conclusions about what happened are based upon pre-conceived notions about Cortez the person and not what Cortez is actually doing. As such, I think it's only of minor importance. I'm more interested in what Cortez does. The representative from my district, Peter DeFazio has signed on as a co-sponsor, FWIW. DeFazio has always been a good progressive legislator and I'm glad to see that he's behind it.

Speaking of which, have you had a look at what she actually submitted to Congress? It's a non-binding resolution that is a revealing look at the policies Cortez supports. I see a lot of good in those policies and am interested in seeing what comes from it.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
maybe it was doctored by some outside source. if it's shown that it was, I'll owe you and her both an apology.
if it wasn't, and was later redacted from the original document, my concern is that she would have ever included such a statement to begin with. why would it ever occur to anyone to offer support to people "unwilling to work" ? unable is one thing, no problem with unable...."unwilling to work", in my world, translates as "eager to become a starving homeless person".
honestly, that and her relative political inexperience compared to those she will be facing, is about the only problem i have with her. experience will come after a term or two of service, which i'm sure she will achieve. statements like that one, if she actually made it, concern me.
Click to expand...
Unwilling to work might mean some old coal miner who can’t mine anymore due to health issues but is only a few years away from retirement anyway

By the time he retrains for a new career he’s 65

I’m fine with that
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
blaze 57 said:
But its to hang on to the fake Russian collusion narrative for two yrs that Fake News CNN and NBC spouted off 24/7?

Even the senate intelligence committee said NO Russian collusion.

Heck I even blew off that phony Sean Hannity's Fake News and tick tocks about SpyGate.
Click to expand...
What fake collusion?

The fake collusion that manafort will spend life in prison for?

Retard
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
blaze 57 said:
But its to hang on to the fake Russian collusion narrative for two yrs that Fake News CNN and NBC spouted off 24/7?

Even the senate intelligence committee said NO Russian collusion.

Heck I even blew off that phony Sean Hannity's Fake News and tick tocks about SpyGate.
Click to expand...
LOL Fox "News"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/



RIGHT BIAS


These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

  • Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to wording and story selection that favors the right and Mixed factually based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared.


 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
I believe it is a well established fact that the green dream faq was provided to media by AOC chief of staff. Otherwise I don't understand why she admitted to providing it, by mitake.
 
Herb & Suds

Herb & Suds

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
I believe it is a well established fact that the green dream faq was provided to media by AOC chief of staff. Otherwise I don't understand why she admitted to providing it, by mitake.
Click to expand...
And she is still just one freshman congresswoman in a big open tent party ...Nancy Pelosi is in charge and no other ...bring on Trump LOL
 
zeddd

zeddd

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
i'll start an argument...you keep saying " THAT document and ONLY that document." i think the first draft that contained that language expresses her true intent and attitude. i don't think it was hacked or altered by anyone. i think it was a mistake made by her office, and they didn't change it till they realized it would be unacceptable to the GREAT majority of people reading it. you seem to have gone off the deep end a little about it, and focusing on the "THAT document and ONLY that document" argument...quite often, the first draft of a piece of work contains more truth than any following edited versions.
that being said, it doesn't really do much to change my opinion of AOC, which isn't bad, just think she needs a lot more political experience before she decides to do anything more than she is right now
Click to expand...
If the quote was in a document it is relevant for only that document to be quoted, despite your feelings, nothing else is relevant unless in said document.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
I believe it is a well established fact that the green dream faq was provided to media by AOC chief of staff. Otherwise I don't understand why she admitted to providing it, by mitake.
Click to expand...
Hey buggy

Want to take another shot at naming all those non existent open borders dems?

Pathological liar
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
i'm referring to learning to play the game. she's new, the old timers will treat her like a kid, and ignore her, till she learns how to play their game, how to give quid pro quo, and how to take it....once you're an accepted player in the game, thats the time to start changing the rules, not before you ever throw the first die
Click to expand...
I will just say ...I fucking disagree.
Fuck them rules. It should not be a "game " you learn to play. Expose this shit. Don't wait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top