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.

Ben Shapiro invited her to either or.  And Trevor Noah is?  Lol.  Ur trying too hard.  Still didn't answer how this is sexual harassment.

---

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.

She's an unthinking sloganeer with near perfect identity politics (I don't think she's gay) who capitalized on the left's collective Trump spasm. Nothing more.

---

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.

The Never Trumper Republican pundits supported the tax cut; they didn't argue against it like you. A Republican, even the most left wing version, would never argue in favor of socialism like you do.

You are clearly not a Republican. To claim you are is a lie.

---

                                                                          

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

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.

The Never Trumper Republican pundits supported the tax cut; they didn't argue against it like you. A Republican, even the most left wing version, would never argue in favor of socialism like you do.

You are clearly not a Republican. To claim you are is a lie.

I might actually disagree.  You're right, mikes positions are of or sympathetic to the left.  At the same time when you look at the David Brooks iteration of conservatism/republicanism it's imbued with the same basic premise that the market itself is unjust and that there needs to be government intervention in order to correct for its lack of fairness.  This leads to a derivative of the "better person" fallacy of the left when confronting the empirical failures of said intervention.  If only we had better people running these government bureaucracies then they would actually deliver as promised.  This is especially seductive to professionally educated doctors lawyers engineers etc. As they see themselves as the BETTER PEOPLE.

---

The Never Trumper Republican pundits supported the tax cut; they didn't argue against it like you. A Republican, even the most left wing version, would never argue in favor of socialism like you do.

You are clearly not a Republican. To claim you are is a lie.

I might actually disagree.  You're right, mikes positions are of or sympathetic to the left.  At the same time when you look at the David Brooks iteration of conservatism/republicanism it's imbued with the same basic premise that the market itself is unjust and that there needs to be government intervention in order to correct for its lack of fairness.  This leads to a derivative of the "better person" fallacy of the left when confronting the empirical failures of said intervention.  If only we had better people running these government bureaucracies then they would actually deliver as promised.  This is especially seductive to professionally educated doctors lawyers engineers etc. As they see themselves as the BETTER PEOPLE.

I think you are at least some of the way there.
I would never say that the market itself is unjust. Usually the market works, and when it works, by definition, people are exchanging things they want at prices they think are fair. 
When I think about government intervention, I'm only looking out for cases where the market does not work and can not work. And those cases and only in those cases government regulations or takeovers are necessary.
In my point of view all of the action is in recognizing when the market has failed and coming up with an appropriate intervention. 
Those who are all the way to the left tend to simply look at the rate of profits and say that any business that rakes in huge profits must be charging too much money and must be a case of market failure. 
Real socialists (and it's unclear if AOC is one) will explicitly tell you that profits themselves are evidence of economic inefficiency. 
I think profits are good. I think high profits alone are not evidence of market failure. Other evidence to look at would be lack of competition, lack of innovation or improvements in quality, lack of attention to life safety issues, and whether consumers are coming to the market as free agents who have a very good idea of what they want or as people who feel scared and coerced and don't have good information about what they need. And then the next question to ask is if government intervention can improve that or not.
For instance I would tell you that the government taking over oil companies is not a very good idea. because whether you're looking at Venezuela 1976 or Norway around the same time, those markets hadn't actually failed. Rather the government just saw these huge profits and wanted them for themselves. I've just point out that the takeover in and of itself does not portend catastrophe, if the government hires good people to manage the company.

---

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

I might actually disagree.  You're right, mikes positions are of or sympathetic to the left.  At the same time when you look at the David Brooks iteration of conservatism/republicanism it's imbued with the same basic premise that the market itself is unjust and that there needs to be government intervention in order to correct for its lack of fairness.  This leads to a derivative of the "better person" fallacy of the left when confronting the empirical failures of said intervention.  If only we had better people running these government bureaucracies then they would actually deliver as promised.  This is especially seductive to professionally educated doctors lawyers engineers etc. As they see themselves as the BETTER PEOPLE.

I think you are at least some of the way there.
I would never say that the market itself is unjust. Usually the market works, and when it works, by definition, people are exchanging things they want at prices they think are fair. 
When I think about government intervention, I'm only looking out for cases where the market does not work and can not work. And those cases and only in those cases government regulations or takeovers are necessary.
In my point of view all of the action is in recognizing when the market has failed and coming up with an appropriate intervention. 
Those who are all the way to the left tend to simply look at the rate of profits and say that any business that rakes in huge profits must be charging too much money and must be a case of market failure. 
Real socialists (and it's unclear if AOC is one) will explicitly tell you that profits themselves are evidence of economic inefficiency. 
I think profits are good. I think high profits alone are not evidence of market failure. Other evidence to look at would be lack of competition, lack of innovation or improvements in quality, lack of attention to life safety issues, and whether consumers are coming to the market as free agents who have a very good idea of what they want or as people who feel scared and coerced and don't have good information about what they need. And then the next question to ask is if government intervention can improve that or not.
For instance I would tell you that the government taking over oil companies is not a very good idea. because whether you're looking at Venezuela 1976 or Norway around the same time, those markets hadn't actually failed. Rather the government just saw these huge profits and wanted them for themselves. I've just point out that the takeover in and of itself does not portend catastrophe, if the government hires good people to manage the company.

1.) U could have just said I was right
2.) The state at current is failing at the most basic levels of its enumerated powers, to protect its citizens and their constitutional rights.  The idea that somehow the same state that with three years and 3 billion dollars couldn't put up a functioning website has any capacity to override the ability of a free market to deliver a good or service is more fantasy than philosophy.  A fantasy that could only exist where the overwhelming majority of educators receive their salaries & benefits either directly (public schools) or indirectly (government backed student loans) from the state.

---

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.

But what you are failing to acknowledge is that she is being championed by the national democratic party, not just in her district.  Her ducking scrutiny IMHO is what screams weakness.  I understand your point, but how will she convince the middle and undecided if she only panders to her very narrow base.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

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.

But what you are failing to acknowledge is that she is being championed by the national democratic party, not just in her district.  Her ducking scrutiny IMHO is what screams weakness.  I understand your point, but how will she convince the middle and undecided if she only panders to her very narrow base.

She doesn't have to convince anyone.  It is improbable that a Republican wins this district and I don't think any minor party candidates are there either.

---

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

But what you are failing to acknowledge is that she is being championed by the national democratic party, not just in her district.  Her ducking scrutiny IMHO is what screams weakness.  I understand your point, but how will she convince the middle and undecided if she only panders to her very narrow base.

She doesn't have to convince anyone.  It is improbable that a Republican wins this district and I don't think any minor party candidates are there either.

U still haven't answered the question of how this is sexual harassment.

---

She doesn't have to convince anyone.  It is improbable that a Republican wins this district and I don't think any minor party candidates are there either.

U still haven't answered the question of how this is sexual harassment.

I dont take her comments literally.  They are joke at Ben's expense.  Women will think the joke is funnier than men will think.

---

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

U still haven't answered the question of how this is sexual harassment.

I dont take her comments literally.  They are joke at Ben's expense.  Women will think the joke is funnier than men will think.

C’mon, man. You can’t actually believe that. 

I’ve seen people twist her words to defend her but this is the first I’ve seen that implies she was joking.

---

I dont take her comments literally.  They are joke at Ben's expense.  Women will think the joke is funnier than men will think.

C’mon, man. You can’t actually believe that. 

I’ve seen people twist her words to defend her but this is the first I’ve seen that implies she was joking.

Give him points for creativity.

---

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

U still haven't answered the question of how this is sexual harassment.

I dont take her comments literally.  They are joke at Ben's expense.  Women will think the joke is funnier than men will think.

No no.  When liberals deflect by calling those on the right racist sexist night good time rock and rollers it's not a joke and her defenders took it as a rallying cry.  

I do find it interesting how the so called "never trumpets" will bend over backwards to excuse the behavior of those on the left, including the biggotted harassment of black women at brunch, but anything Trump says means we throw down our core principled and cede generational power to the statists.

---

I dont take her comments literally.  They are joke at Ben's expense.  Women will think the joke is funnier than men will think.

No no.  When liberals deflect by calling those on the right racist sexist night good time rock and rollers it's not a joke and her defenders took it as a rallying cry.  

I do find it interesting how the so called "never trumpets" will bend over backwards to excuse the behavior of those on the left, including the biggotted harassment of black women at brunch, but anything Trump says means we throw down our core principled and cede generational power to the statists.

People who agree with AOC definitely were cheered by her insult directed to Ben Shapiro.  No different than when one of the wrestlers on WWE cracks a good insult in the leadup to the match. Just because it's not literally true doesn't mean it can't be insulting and funny.
Most young women have been stalked on social media at some point with varying levels of creepiness.  I don't think anybody thinks AOC actually feels creeped out or unsafe about Shapiro, but, it was an opportunity to make a joke that most women can relate to.

---

I dont take her comments literally.  They are joke at Ben's expense.  Women will think the joke is funnier than men will think.

No no.  When liberals deflect by calling those on the right racist sexist night good time rock and rollers it's not a joke and her defenders took it as a rallying cry.  

I do find it interesting how the so called "never trumpets" will bend over backwards to excuse the behavior of those on the left, including the biggotted harassment of black women at brunch, but anything Trump says means we throw down our core principled and cede generational power to the statists.

I expect my pundits to hurl (and receive) gratuitous insults and my presidents to behave with decorum and magnamity.

Call me old fashioned.

---

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

No no.  When liberals deflect by calling those on the right racist sexist night good time rock and rollers it's not a joke and her defenders took it as a rallying cry.  

I do find it interesting how the so called "never trumpets" will bend over backwards to excuse the behavior of those on the left, including the biggotted harassment of black women at brunch, but anything Trump says means we throw down our core principled and cede generational power to the statists.

People who agree with AOC definitely were cheered by her insult directed to Ben Shapiro.  No different than when one of the wrestlers on WWE cracks a good insult in the leadup to the match. Just because it's not literally true doesn't mean it can't be insulting and funny.
Most young women have been stalked on social media at some point with varying levels of creepiness.  I don't think anybody thinks AOC actually feels creeped out or unsafe about Shapiro, but, it was an opportunity to make a joke that most women can relate to.

---

No no.  When liberals deflect by calling those on the right racist sexist night good time rock and rollers it's not a joke and her defenders took it as a rallying cry.  

I do find it interesting how the so called "never trumpets" will bend over backwards to excuse the behavior of those on the left, including the biggotted harassment of black women at brunch, but anything Trump says means we throw down our core principled and cede generational power to the statists.

I expect my pundits to hurl (and receive) gratuitous insults and my presidents to behave with decorum and magnamity.

Call me old fashioned.

Except when they're liberals.  When they're liberals it's not that they are hurling insults they're making jokes people can relate to.  We have to understand what they're saying no matter how much it actually contradicts everything feminism actually stands for or how it's obviously covering an overwhelming lack of substance.  We have to UNDERSTAND!

---

No no.  When liberals deflect by calling those on the right racist sexist night good time rock and rollers it's not a joke and her defenders took it as a rallying cry.  

I do find it interesting how the so called "never trumpets" will bend over backwards to excuse the behavior of those on the left, including the biggotted harassment of black women at brunch, but anything Trump says means we throw down our core principled and cede generational power to the statists.

People who agree with AOC definitely were cheered by her insult directed to Ben Shapiro.  No different than when one of the wrestlers on WWE cracks a good insult in the leadup to the match. Just because it's not literally true doesn't mean it can't be insulting and funny.
Most young women have been stalked on social media at some point with varying levels of creepiness.  I don't think anybody thinks AOC actually feels creeped out or unsafe about Shapiro, but, it was an opportunity to make a joke that most women can relate to.

---

No no.  When liberals deflect by calling those on the right racist sexist night good time rock and rollers it's not a joke and her defenders took it as a rallying cry.  

I do find it interesting how the so called "never trumpets" will bend over backwards to excuse the behavior of those on the left, including the biggotted harassment of black women at brunch, but anything Trump says means we throw down our core principled and cede generational power to the statists.

I expect my pundits to hurl (and receive) gratuitous insults and my presidents to behave with decorum and magnamity.

Call me old fashioned.

The gymnastics that you do to legitimize what the left does while claiming to be a republican is amazing.  Even if you claimed to be a centrist and dropped the premise that you are a republican, your creativity to defend the far left's every action is unparalleled.  ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!  Every time a minority whether it be by gender, race or sexual orientation is challenged on ideals let me repeat that ON IDEALS and claims racism, sexism or a phobia you cannot excuse it or laugh it off as a joke.  Such a cowardly response (by her) and yet you defend it.  Pathetic!

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

People who agree with AOC definitely were cheered by her insult directed to Ben Shapiro.  No different than when one of the wrestlers on WWE cracks a good insult in the leadup to the match. Just because it's not literally true doesn't mean it can't be insulting and funny.
Most young women have been stalked on social media at some point with varying levels of creepiness.  I don't think anybody thinks AOC actually feels creeped out or unsafe about Shapiro, but, it was an opportunity to make a joke that most women can relate to.

---

I expect my pundits to hurl (and receive) gratuitous insults and my presidents to behave with decorum and magnamity.

Call me old fashioned.

Except when they're liberals.  When they're liberals it's not that they are hurling insults they're making jokes people can relate to.  We have to understand what they're saying no matter how much it actually contradicts everything feminism actually stands for or how it's obviously covering an overwhelming lack of substance.  We have to UNDERSTAND!

Not really.  There is a line.  "Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers" is clearly beyond the line, and "I don't owe you attention just for offering me money" is not.  If your personal line has these things in reverse, you are blinded by either partisanship or racism.

---

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

Except when they're liberals.  When they're liberals it's not that they are hurling insults they're making jokes people can relate to.  We have to understand what they're saying no matter how much it actually contradicts everything feminism actually stands for or how it's obviously covering an overwhelming lack of substance.  We have to UNDERSTAND!

Not really.  There is a line.  "Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers" is clearly beyond the line, and "I don't owe you attention just for offering me money" is not.  If your personal line has these things in reverse, you are blinded by either partisanship or racism.

And once again your repeating a left wing lie shows that your claim to be a Republican is a lie.

---

                                                                          

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

Except when they're liberals.  When they're liberals it's not that they are hurling insults they're making jokes people can relate to.  We have to understand what they're saying no matter how much it actually contradicts everything feminism actually stands for or how it's obviously covering an overwhelming lack of substance.  We have to UNDERSTAND!

Not really.  There is a line.  "Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers" is clearly beyond the line, and "I don't owe you attention just for offering me money" is not.  If your personal line has these things in reverse, you are blinded by either partisanship or racism.

You realize u had to lie about her response just to make the logic work right?  

#NEVERCONTEXT

by the way, was she a stalker when she was barging into Crowley headquarters demanding answers?  

#HYPOCRITE
#MOTHERSSENDUNACCOMPANIEDMINORDAUGHTERSWITHBIRTHCONTROLANTICIPATINGTHEYWILLBERAPED
#OPIODCRISIS
#GORSUCH
#4.1
#SUPPLYSIDE

---

Not really.  There is a line.  "Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers" is clearly beyond the line, and "I don't owe you attention just for offering me money" is not.  If your personal line has these things in reverse, you are blinded by either partisanship or racism.

And once again your repeating a left wing lie shows that your claim to be a Republican is a lie.

Help me out.  Which part was a lie? What is the truth?

---

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