No, no, no...you added your little moral component to them. That's where you get off track. Keep researching, the truth is out there.

Um, I literally just read a dictionary and ran words through Google translate.
My "little moral component" didn't play into it.

So your interpretation, "For me they both imply that no one stops you from doing what is good", wasn't there? Exactly my point; your interpretation, adding a little something extra to the definition to make your case, is fraudulent. You do that with lots of words around here, torturing them to grant you the satisfaction of feeling enlightened. 

---

Begging for a debate is a sure sign that you are losing in politics, sadly.
Perhaps another candidate for US House should step up to the plate.  As a real, live politician, pundits are now beneath her pay grade.

What?  Where on earth do you get these notions?  She has been trotted out by friendly media types and unchallenged by anything she says.  If she were worth her salt she would jump at the chance to prove her ideas and concepts under scrutiny.  Alas she scurries away.

He looked it up in the dictionary.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Um, I literally just read a dictionary and ran words through Google translate.
My "little moral component" didn't play into it.

So your interpretation, "For me they both imply that no one stops you from doing what is good", wasn't there? Exactly my point; your interpretation, adding a little something extra to the definition to make your case, is fraudulent. You do that with lots of words around here, torturing them to grant you the satisfaction of feeling enlightened. 

That was an earlier post.  You called me out for adding something, so, my next post just quoted the dictionary and Google translate.

---

Begging for a debate is a sure sign that you are losing in politics, sadly.
Perhaps another candidate for US House should step up to the plate.  As a real, live politician, pundits are now beneath her pay grade.

Speaking of losing in politics, every single candidate Ocasio-Cortez endorsed in the primaries this week got absolutely blistered. Do you think that is a coincidence?

Unfortunately for her, additional people besides the 15,897 lunatics who voted for her need to be convinced.

Edit: Charlie Kirk just upped the offer to 100K to a charity of her choice. Is charity below her pay grade?

No, charity is not below anyone's pay grade.
If she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to, at any price. Liberty, right? Freedom, right?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Begging for a debate is a sure sign that you are losing in politics, sadly.
Perhaps another candidate for US House should step up to the plate.  As a real, live politician, pundits are now beneath her pay grade.

What?  Where on earth do you get these notions?  She has been trotted out by friendly media types and unchallenged by anything she says.  If she were worth her salt she would jump at the chance to prove her ideas and concepts under scrutiny.  Alas she scurries away.

Nope.  That's not what game theory says.  When you obtain a position of advantage or privilege, such as nomination for a seat in US Congress, you do not allow people who did not obtain such a position share a stage with you or speak to you as a peer unless they are working in your interest. 

If you've actually gotten in the trenches of politics you would know this.  

An incumbent is challenged.  Inevitably the challenger says, we have to do so many debates, and sometimes the incumbent skates with no debates at all.  

How do town hall or city council meetings work? The high status individual up on a stage, allowed to speak for as long as he wants, the frustrated constituent allowed to speak for only a set amount of time, not given an opportunity to properly introduce himself, and usually comes off a bit crazy if they ask a biting or specific question for that reason.  The crowd is all like, "who is this guy?!" When TPUSA begs her for a debate, that's what they look like.  And she loves it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So your interpretation, "For me they both imply that no one stops you from doing what is good", wasn't there? Exactly my point; your interpretation, adding a little something extra to the definition to make your case, is fraudulent. You do that with lots of words around here, torturing them to grant you the satisfaction of feeling enlightened. 

That was an earlier post.  You called me out for adding something, so, my next post just quoted the dictionary and Google translate.

---

Speaking of losing in politics, every single candidate Ocasio-Cortez endorsed in the primaries this week got absolutely blistered. Do you think that is a coincidence?

Unfortunately for her, additional people besides the 15,897 lunatics who voted for her need to be convinced.

Edit: Charlie Kirk just upped the offer to 100K to a charity of her choice. Is charity below her pay grade?

No, charity is not below anyone's pay grade.
If she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to, at any price. Liberty, right? Freedom, right?

But my point is, she absolutely does have to. She will have to answer some hard questions if she plans to expand her beliefs beyond her district.

---

That was an earlier post.  You called me out for adding something, so, my next post just quoted the dictionary and Google translate.

---

No, charity is not below anyone's pay grade.
If she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to, at any price. Liberty, right? Freedom, right?

But my point is, she absolutely does have to. She will have to answer some hard questions if she plans to expand her beliefs beyond her district.

What are you not getting?! 
Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, and Ben Shapiro don't live in her district!
They are not nominees in other districts. 
She will not see them on the floor of Congress when she gets there.
She owes them nothing.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Socrates threatened the entire Greek polity by just asking questions.
The right to ask questions of anyone is powerful and has never been granted lightly since 400 BC.

If you want the power to ask questions, earn it by becoming her peer. By becoming a respected member of the press. Viral videos of politically themed monologues produced and promoted with dark money from the Koch's and others might get you the right to ask questions of a politician who is running in that right wing circle. It won't get you anywhere with her. All of you would clearly recognize this if the shoe was on the other foot.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Socrates threatened the entire Greek polity by just asking questions.
The right to ask questions of anyone is powerful and has never been granted lightly since 400 BC.

If you want the power to ask questions, earn it by becoming her peer.  By becoming a respected member of the press.  Viral videos of politically themed monologues produced and promoted with dark money from the Koch's and others might get you the right to ask questions of a politician who is running in that right wing circle.  It won't get you anywhere with her.  All of you would clearly recognize this if the shoe was on the other foot.

Lol, we grant it pretty lightly in a free and open society.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Socrates threatened the entire Greek polity by just asking questions.
The right to ask questions of anyone is powerful and has never been granted lightly since 400 BC.

If you want the power to ask questions, earn it by becoming her peer.  By becoming a respected member of the press.  Viral videos of politically themed monologues produced and promoted with dark money from the Koch's and others might get you the right to ask questions of a politician who is running in that right wing circle.  It won't get you anywhere with her.  All of you would clearly recognize this if the shoe was on the other foot.

This only came up because SHE CALLED CONSERVATIVES COWARDS AND SAID THEY WOULDNT DEBATE HER!!!!!!!!!!  So much for brilliant game theory.

She won a primary that no one showed up to and is leading a district that is slightly to the right of cuba.  She's also demonstrated time and time again she doesn't know what she's talking about.  She's shovelling ideas that would potentially tripple (literally) the size of the federal government and My time she's asked about it she spews a talking point.  

If u think a sneak attack primary (where Joe Crowley followed ur advice) and a far left district make cortez more respectable then Shapiro or Owens then that's on u.  It's a shame too because I KNOW the dog ate her math homework!!!!

P.s. the right isn't afraid of her or nipping at her heals while she ascends to another state of bring.  We want her to have as much screen time as possible while the more adults adolescents in the Democratic party freak out about messaging.

---

But my point is, she absolutely does have to. She will have to answer some hard questions if she plans to expand her beliefs beyond her district.

What are you not getting?! 
Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, and Ben Shapiro don't live in her district!
They are not nominees in other districts. 
She will not see them on the floor of Congress when she gets there.
She owes them nothing.

Socrates threatened the entire Greek polity by just asking questions.
The right to ask questions of anyone is powerful and has never been granted lightly since 400 BC.

If you want the power to ask questions, earn it by becoming her peer.  By becoming a respected member of the press.  Viral videos of politically themed monologues produced and promoted with dark money from the Koch's and others might get you the right to ask questions of a politician who is running in that right wing circle.  It won't get you anywhere with her.  All of you would clearly recognize this if the shoe was on the other foot.

So now I have to be a peer or a press member to have the honor of questioning the beliefs of a candidate who won an election 25,000 people voted in?

Isn't defending this stuff exhausting?

---

Socrates threatened the entire Greek polity by just asking questions.
The right to ask questions of anyone is powerful and has never been granted lightly since 400 BC.

If you want the power to ask questions, earn it by becoming her peer.  By becoming a respected member of the press.  Viral videos of politically themed monologues produced and promoted with dark money from the Koch's and others might get you the right to ask questions of a politician who is running in that right wing circle.  It won't get you anywhere with her.  All of you would clearly recognize this if the shoe was on the other foot.

This only came up because SHE CALLED CONSERVATIVES COWARDS AND SAID THEY WOULDNT DEBATE HER!!!!!!!!!!  So much for brilliant game theory.

She won a primary that no one showed up to and is leading a district that is slightly to the right of cuba.  She's also demonstrated time and time again she doesn't know what she's talking about.  She's shovelling ideas that would potentially tripple (literally) the size of the federal government and My time she's asked about it she spews a talking point.  

If u think a sneak attack primary (where Joe Crowley followed ur advice) and a far left district make cortez more respectable then Shapiro or Owens then that's on u.  It's a shame too because I KNOW the dog ate her math homework!!!!

P.s. the right isn't afraid of her or nipping at her heals while she ascends to another state of bring.  We want her to have as much screen time as possible while the more adults adolescents in the Democratic party freak out about messaging.

I'm not saying she's right.
I'm saying that she's playing the game the way that anyone else would in her shoes.
At the end of the day, it's her name on this ballot.
Ben Shapiro's is not.
Candace Owens' is not.
Charles Kirk's is not.
The only debate opportunities she should be considering are from others running for her seat or people already in Congress.
Ben Shapiro should stick with debating liberal pundits.  He does it well.
Candace Owens and Charles Kirk's are monologue artists, from what I can tell.
This is like UCF demanding to play Bama.  And I'm a big UCF fan. But at least UCF and Bama play the same sport by the same rules.  Alexandra knocked on doors in Brooklyn and got tens of thousands of votes.  These other people are playing nationally on social media.  They are playing a different game.  Alexandra has even less obligation to join them.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This only came up because SHE CALLED CONSERVATIVES COWARDS AND SAID THEY WOULDNT DEBATE HER!!!!!!!!!!  So much for brilliant game theory.

She won a primary that no one showed up to and is leading a district that is slightly to the right of cuba.  She's also demonstrated time and time again she doesn't know what she's talking about.  She's shovelling ideas that would potentially tripple (literally) the size of the federal government and My time she's asked about it she spews a talking point.  

If u think a sneak attack primary (where Joe Crowley followed ur advice) and a far left district make cortez more respectable then Shapiro or Owens then that's on u.  It's a shame too because I KNOW the dog ate her math homework!!!!

P.s. the right isn't afraid of her or nipping at her heals while she ascends to another state of bring.  We want her to have as much screen time as possible while the more adults adolescents in the Democratic party freak out about messaging.

I'm not saying she's right.
I'm saying that she's playing the game the way that anyone else would in her shoes.
At the end of the day, it's her name on this ballot.
Ben Shapiro's is not.
Candace Owens' is not.
Charles Kirk's is not.
The only debate opportunities she should be considering are from others running for her seat or people already in Congress.
Ben Shapiro should stick with debating liberal pundits.  He does it well.
Candace Owens and Charles Kirk's are monologue artists, from what I can tell.
This is like UCF demanding to play Bama.  And I'm a big UCF fan. But at least UCF and Bama play the same sport by the same rules.  Alexandra knocked on doors in Brooklyn and got tens of thousands of votes.  These other people are playing nationally on social media.  They are playing a different game.  Alexandra has even less obligation to join them.

She's not Bama.  She's a mid major coach declining an interview.  The coach of i don't know state doesn't have to answer a media question when his team punches it's ticket to the dance, but that doesn't mean they are a threat to win the dance.  This is a woman that's toxic to her own party that were mocking not someone whose a credible threat to be a future speaker.

Ur right.  She has no upside to the interviews or discussions because she's the front runner for the general but it lends credibility to turning point and the like when the candidate herself claims a.) That the right is AFRAID to debate her and b.) That a media figure is "cancelling" (pejorative implying sexism) by extending an invitation that he acknowledges she is under no obligation to accept.

---

https://www.lp.org/

I'm a Libertarian although a lot of Libertarians I know and have read about and heard about are for open borders and free migration.
And I can't get behind that.
But just about everything else I'm in full agreement with.

The only version of that that I've considered is one where the immigrants (and their children) can't receive benefits, have to pay taxes, and neither them nor their children will be citizens unless through application. 

I'm still not a fan but that's the only way I'd considered it personally.

Begging for a debate is a sure sign that you are losing in politics, sadly.
Perhaps another candidate for US House should step up to the plate.  As a real, live politician, pundits are now beneath her pay grade.

1. She said conservatives wont debate her about issues
2. A conservative asked to debate her about issues
3. She deflected and said a virgin-until-marriage orthodox Jew was catcalling and felt entitled

She's absurd and I'm not even sure how you can defend the hypocrisy here. Shapiro merely asked for a debate, and people like you are saying that he's acting entitled her attention. Let's be real here... she's too scared to debate him. She can barely get through friendly interviews. Shapiro is a neocon, and I don't agree with many of the things he says, but he'd take her to the shed and she knows it. You can pretend it's about something else but it isn't.

---

I'm a Libertarian although a lot of Libertarians I know and have read about and heard about are for open borders and free migration.
And I can't get behind that.
But just about everything else I'm in full agreement with.

The only version of that that I've considered is one where the immigrants (and their children) can't receive benefits, have to pay taxes, and neither them nor their children will be citizens unless through application. 

I'm still not a fan but that's the only way I'd considered it personally.

I think that a lot of the voices wanting punish illegal immigrants are the same voices that hire them and don't want to do e-Verify. Obviously e-Verify is an imposition on the liberty of employers to hire whomever they want. It's not a purely libertarian idea. Ideally, in my opinion, we would make it easier for people with skills that employers want to come and stay permanently if things work out. But they should be doing it above board so that everyone knows the right amount of taxes was collected. And no one gets benefits until they become a citizen.
I think a lot of the reason we don't want surges of immigrants is because increasing the supply of labor depresses wages, but I think that effect is stronger for temporary immigrants and weaker for ones that want to stay. The temporary stuff is what I'd like to see them do less of. There are a lot of H1-B people working with computers on Jacksonville's southside and I don't think them coming and going without laying down roots, getting married, and buying houses does anyone any good.
I'd also want the children of immigrants to not be citizens unless they specifically apply to be citizens, but that might require amending the constitution. Maybe it'd be as simple as saying, citizenship alone isn't enough for a kid to qualify for welfare; one parent has to be a citizen too. But that sounds mean.

Begging for a debate is a sure sign that you are losing in politics, sadly.
Perhaps another candidate for US House should step up to the plate.  As a real, live politician, pundits are now beneath her pay grade.

1. She said conservatives wont debate her about issues
2. A conservative asked to debate her about issues
3. She deflected and said a virgin-until-marriage orthodox Jew was catcalling and felt entitled

She's absurd and I'm not even sure how you can defend the hypocrisy here. Shapiro merely asked for a debate, and people like you are saying that he's acting entitled her attention. Let's be real here... she's too scared to debate him. She can barely get through friendly interviews. Shapiro is a neocon, and I don't agree with many of the things he says, but he'd take her to the shed and she knows it. You can pretend it's about something else but it isn't.

I'll take your word for it that "she said conservatives won't debate her about issues".  I hadn't heard that.  I don't know if she meant pundits or other candidates.  I don't know if she meant that she specifically should be in the debate or that someone should debate in her place.  But suppose she meant pundits and that she would personally debate them.  Fine.  It was a stupid thing for her to say in that case, because there's no way that she ever intended to stage a debate between herself and any pundit.  No candidate would.  It's equally stupid for them to call her out on it, and her replying with the sexual harassment angle was well-deserved.  Worst case, her mouth wrote a check she had no intent of cashing.  She might be guilty of braggadocio, but not cowardice or stupidity, not for this anyways.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This only came up because SHE CALLED CONSERVATIVES COWARDS AND SAID THEY WOULDNT DEBATE HER!!!!!!!!!!  So much for brilliant game theory.

She won a primary that no one showed up to and is leading a district that is slightly to the right of cuba.  She's also demonstrated time and time again she doesn't know what she's talking about.  She's shovelling ideas that would potentially tripple (literally) the size of the federal government and My time she's asked about it she spews a talking point.  

If u think a sneak attack primary (where Joe Crowley followed ur advice) and a far left district make cortez more respectable then Shapiro or Owens then that's on u.  It's a shame too because I KNOW the dog ate her math homework!!!!

P.s. the right isn't afraid of her or nipping at her heals while she ascends to another state of bring.  We want her to have as much screen time as possible while the more adults adolescents in the Democratic party freak out about messaging.

This is like UCF demanding to play Bama.  And I'm a big UCF fan. 

Like you are a Republican? Funny how you have never argued with the Left on this board.

UCF was undefeated and beat the team that beat both Bama and Georgia, the two teams that played in the National Championship game. UCF has every right to claim the National Championship, and Bama should be honored to play them.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

This is like UCF demanding to play Bama.  And I'm a big UCF fan. 

Like you are a Republican? Funny how you have never argued with the Left on this board.

UCF was undefeated and beat the team that beat both Bama and Georgia, the two teams that played in the National Championship game. UCF has every right to claim the National Championship, and Bama should be honored to play them.

Just noticed that? He reeks of gaslighter.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The only version of that that I've considered is one where the immigrants (and their children) can't receive benefits, have to pay taxes, and neither them nor their children will be citizens unless through application. 

I'm still not a fan but that's the only way I'd considered it personally.

I think that a lot of the voices wanting  punish illegal immigrants are the same voices that hire them and don't want to do e-Verify.  Obviously e-Verify is an imposition on the liberty of employers to hire whomever they want. It's not a purely libertarian idea.  Ideally, in my opinion, we would make it easier for people with skills that employers want to come and stay permanently if things work out.  But they should be doing it above board so that everyone knows the right amount of taxes was collected.  And no one gets benefits until they become a citizen.  
I think a lot of the reason we don't want surges of immigrants is because increasing the supply of labor depresses wages, but I think that effect is stronger for temporary immigrants and weaker for ones that want to stay.  The temporary stuff is what I'd like to see them do less of.  There are a lot of H1-B people working with computers on Jacksonville's southside and I don't think them coming and going without laying down roots, getting married, and buying houses does anyone any good.
I'd also want the children of immigrants to not be citizens unless they specifically apply to be citizens, but that might require amending the constitution.  Maybe it'd be as simple as saying, citizenship alone isn't enough for a kid to qualify for welfare; one parent has to be a citizen too.  But that sounds mean.

1. She said conservatives wont debate her about issues
2. A conservative asked to debate her about issues
3. She deflected and said a virgin-until-marriage orthodox Jew was catcalling and felt entitled

She's absurd and I'm not even sure how you can defend the hypocrisy here. Shapiro merely asked for a debate, and people like you are saying that he's acting entitled her attention. Let's be real here... she's too scared to debate him. She can barely get through friendly interviews. Shapiro is a neocon, and I don't agree with many of the things he says, but he'd take her to the shed and she knows it. You can pretend it's about something else but it isn't.

I'll take your word for it that "she said conservatives won't debate her about issues".  I hadn't heard that.  I don't know if she meant pundits or other candidates.  I don't know if she meant that she specifically should be in the debate or that someone should debate in her place.  But suppose she meant pundits and that she would personally debate them.  Fine.  It was a stupid thing for her to say in that case, because there's no way that she ever intended to stage a debate between herself and any pundit.  No candidate would.  It's equally stupid for them to call her out on it, and her replying with the sexual harassment angle was well-deserved.  Worst case, her mouth wrote a check she had no intent of cashing.  She might be guilty of braggadocio, but not cowardice or stupidity, not for this anyways.

The sexual harassment angle was deserved?  

And candidates give interviews all the time, which was part of Shapiro invitation.

---

This is like UCF demanding to play Bama.  And I'm a big UCF fan. 

Like you are a Republican? Funny how you have never argued with the Left on this board.

UCF was undefeated and beat the team that beat both Bama and Georgia, the two teams that played in the National Championship game. UCF has every right to claim the National Championship, and Bama should be honored to play them.

We just haven't brought up the right topics.
Whenever one of the rare left wingers comes here and says something ridiculous, you guys usually pile on enough.
If you want shorthand, I'm basically a never Trumper who is getting more frustrated with more and more of the party getting quieter and quieter about the shananigans.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Like you are a Republican? Funny how you have never argued with the Left on this board.

UCF was undefeated and beat the team that beat both Bama and Georgia, the two teams that played in the National Championship game. UCF has every right to claim the National Championship, and Bama should be honored to play them.

We just haven't brought up the right topics.
Whenever one of the rare left wingers comes here and says something ridiculous, you guys usually pile on enough.
If you want shorthand, I'm basically a never Trumper who is getting more frustrated with more and more of the party getting quieter and quieter about the shananigans.

I knew it.

---

I think that a lot of the voices wanting  punish illegal immigrants are the same voices that hire them and don't want to do e-Verify.  Obviously e-Verify is an imposition on the liberty of employers to hire whomever they want. It's not a purely libertarian idea.  Ideally, in my opinion, we would make it easier for people with skills that employers want to come and stay permanently if things work out.  But they should be doing it above board so that everyone knows the right amount of taxes was collected.  And no one gets benefits until they become a citizen.  
I think a lot of the reason we don't want surges of immigrants is because increasing the supply of labor depresses wages, but I think that effect is stronger for temporary immigrants and weaker for ones that want to stay.  The temporary stuff is what I'd like to see them do less of.  There are a lot of H1-B people working with computers on Jacksonville's southside and I don't think them coming and going without laying down roots, getting married, and buying houses does anyone any good.
I'd also want the children of immigrants to not be citizens unless they specifically apply to be citizens, but that might require amending the constitution.  Maybe it'd be as simple as saying, citizenship alone isn't enough for a kid to qualify for welfare; one parent has to be a citizen too.  But that sounds mean.

I'll take your word for it that "she said conservatives won't debate her about issues".  I hadn't heard that.  I don't know if she meant pundits or other candidates.  I don't know if she meant that she specifically should be in the debate or that someone should debate in her place.  But suppose she meant pundits and that she would personally debate them.  Fine.  It was a stupid thing for her to say in that case, because there's no way that she ever intended to stage a debate between herself and any pundit.  No candidate would.  It's equally stupid for them to call her out on it, and her replying with the sexual harassment angle was well-deserved.  Worst case, her mouth wrote a check she had no intent of cashing.  She might be guilty of braggadocio, but not cowardice or stupidity, not for this anyways.

The sexual harassment angle was deserved?  

And candidates give interviews all the time, which was part of Shapiro invitation.

An interview is not a debate and a pundit is not a journalist.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

IMO she is dumb as a box of rocks. She should go far in the Democrat party. She is Bernie without the white male baggage.

---