Alexandria Ocasoi-Cortez - Needs her own thread.....

[foxbat]

24 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Depends on the group.  Do you take the "hate group" designation handed out by the SPLC as sacrosanct?  Why or why not?

 

So then you do agree, at a minimum, that some of their groups are hate groups.

I would take their designation for those that I also feel are hate groups for the same reason that you would consider some of them to be.

[swordfish]

4 minutes ago, foxbat said:

So then you do agree, at a minimum, that some of their groups are hate groups.

Absolutely.  Hate does exist.

[Muda69]

Another Dot on the ‘Hate Map’: https://spectator.org/another-dot-on-the-hate-map/

Quote

Citizens of Powder Springs, Georgia, probably have no idea they are a dot on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s annual “Hate Map,” which was published this week and achieved its purpose, i.e., generating scary headlines: “Hate group count hits 20-year high amid rise in white supremacy, report says” (USA Today), “U.S. Hate Groups Rose 30 Percent In Recent Years, Watchdog Group Reports” (NPR), and “Trump ‘fear-mongering’ fuels rise of U.S. hate groups to record: watchdog” (Reuters). The journalists who supply the SPLC with this kind of free publicity seldom if ever bother to dig down into the details of these annual reports, so it’s unlikely that USA Today readers or NPR listeners in Powder Springs (center below) are aware that one of these “hate groups” has made their town a dot on the map.

Located in the prosperous Cobb County suburbs of Atlanta, Powder Springs has more than tripled its population in the 30-odd years since I worked there as a young newspaper reporter. However, I had no idea there was a “hate group” in Powder Springs until I clicked on the SPLC’s latest map and found that the town of 14,000 people is home to American Vision, a small 501(c)3 “Biblical Worldview Ministry” currently led by Dr. Joel McDurmon, author of such books as God Versus Socialism: A Biblical Critique of the New Social Gospel(2009) and Restoring America: One County at a Time (2012). A theologian by training, McDurmon’s views can perhaps be most easily summarized as Calvinist and libertarian, and the question is: Why is this Christian non-profit organization with an office in Powder Springs labeled an “Anti-LGBT Hate Group” by the SPLC?

“Merely because we have always stood by the Bible’s position on homosexuality,” McDurmon told me in a phone interview the day the latest “Hate Map” was published. Of course, there are many thousands of churches with millions of Bible-believing congregants in America that stand by the same position, but the SPLC can’t put every church on its “Hate Map,” so there’s a certain randomness to this designation. A couple of years ago, as part of an effort by the Left to defund conservative organizations, American Vision was denied services by various online payment processing companies citing the SPLC’s “Hate Group” label. As McDurmon explained in an article last fall, “Apparently, such left-leaning companies believe Christians should be forced to bake their homosexual wedding cakes, but they shouldn’t have to serve us.”

This tactic of “financial blacklisting,” as Allum Bokhari of Breitbart News calls it, has been targeted at a broad spectrum of conservative activist groups since President Trump’s election in 2016, and can be devastating in its impact. Fortunately for supporters of American Vision, its online donations page is back in operation and McDurmon says the group has “recovered 80 to 90 percent of our donor base” since it first got blacklisted by companies like Stripe and Amazon.

The increasing absurdity of the SPLC’s “hate group” designation has become obvious to conservatives in recent years. David Horowitz, the former New Left radical-turned-conservative, has called the SPLC “a $400 million dollar hate machine.” Any really serious journalist who bothered to research the SPLC’s operation could easily find articles with headlines like “Seven Reasons to Beware the Southern Poverty Law Center” (Carol Swain, American Thinker) and “The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility” (Marc Thiessen, Washington Post). In case a reporter is too lazy to do his own research, the “SPLC Exposed” website has collected a vast trove of reporting and commentary on the subject.

Nevertheless, the SPLC’s dots-on-a-map motif continues to be parroted by liberal journalists who share the group’s hatred of all things Republican. “The words and imagery coming out of the Trump administration and from Trump himself are heightening these fears,” the SPLC’s Heidi Beirich was quoted by Reuters as telling a conference call of reporters this week. “These images of foreign scary invaders threatening diseases, massive refugee caravans coming from the south. This is fear-mongering.”

Apparently, none of those reporters bothered to ask if the SPLC is itself engaged in “fear-mongering,” nor question whether residents of Powder Springs have any reason to fear the presence of a Calvinist theologian in their tranquil suburban community. McDurmon says it’s “ridiculous” to lump American Vision in with violent groups like the Klan, and of course none of his group’s supporters have perpetrated “hate crimes” against homosexuals or anyone else for that matter. McDurmon says of the SPLC’s methods that “they stretch the definition” of hate for the most obvious of reasons: “They do this to scare people to raise money.”

Whether through laziness or sympathy for the SPLC’s left-wing agenda, few journalists ever carefully scrutinize the list of U.S. “hate groups” that are allegedly now at an all-time high. For example, among the 17 “Anti-Immigrant Hate Groups” on the SPLC’s map are Pro English — because it’s “hate” to encourage Americans to learn the English language, apparently — and Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC), whose president William Gheen has emphatically denounced the SPLC’s label. While “no evidence exists that anyone in our organization has ever engaged in racism, hate, or violence against minorities,” Gheen wrote in a 2014 letter to the SPLC, the “hate group” listing was “directly encouraging people to threaten violence against me and my family.”

The 100 “Anti-Muslim Hate Groups” listed by the SPLC include Jihad Watch— a blog run by Robert Spencer, author of a number of books on Islamic terrorism — as well as 47 separate listings for local affiliates of ACT for America, a group headed by Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese immigrant and author of the 2006 bestseller Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America. Whatever one thinks of Ms. Gabriel or her group, what purpose is served by depicting ACT for America not as one “hate group,” but 47? Obviously, the SPLC does this to pad its numbers — to inflate the “hate,” so to speak — and any intelligent person must doubt whether any actual menace to Muslims is posed by Ms. Gabriel’s admirers in towns like Oostburg, Wisconsin, or Cape Cod, Massachusetts, each of which has a dot on the SPLC’s map.

Becoming a dot on that map can be dangerous, as when a deranged gun-wielding homosexual named Floyd Lee Corkins attacked the D.C.-based Family Research Council (FRC) in 2012. The SPLC labels the FRC as an “anti-LGBT hate group,” and Corkins told police that this label inspired his terrorist attack. McDurmon acknowledges this danger: “There’s a lot of violent unstable people on the Left.” On the other hand, Cobb County is still a pretty conservative place, so it’s unlikely American Vision could become a target of left-wing violence.

Targets on the map are beginning to fight back against the SPLC’s smears in court (see “Lawsuit Challenges SPLC’s ‘Hate’ Label,” Feb. 8), but don’t expect American Vision to join the list of plaintiffs. McDurmon says that such litigation would be contrary to his political and religious convictions: “I don’t believe in making people slaves to the government.” Wow, what an extremist opinion! With a few more dots on the map like that, Americans might start believing they have a right to “the blessings of liberty,” as some old white guys once said.

 

[BARRYOSAMA]

42 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Another Dot on the ‘Hate Map’: https://spectator.org/another-dot-on-the-hate-map/

 

The Bible tells us to kill the gays.  If this group follows the Bible with regards to homosexuality as they say they do....they are pretty hateful.

Thanks for sharing this article that shows the SPLC is looking out for those who have been terrorized by folks that try to hide their hatred behind the Bible.

[Muda69]

3 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

The Bible tells us to kill the gays.  If this group follows the Bible with regards to homosexuality as they say they do....they are pretty hateful.

Thanks for sharing this article that shows the SPLC is looking out for those who have been terrorized by folks that try to hide their hatred behind the Bible.

[BARRYOSAMA]

Not a stretch at all.  You highlighted the fact that this church advocates for the Biblical treatment of gays (death).  Thanks again.

[Muda69]

56 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Not a stretch at all.  You highlighted the fact that this church advocates for the Biblical treatment of gays (death).  Thanks again.

Hmm, NightHawk.    American Vision, the organization in question, is not a church. They seem more like an organization that champions the turning of American into a de-facto Christian theocracy.   But perusing their website at https://americanvision.org  I see nothing where they advocate for the killing of homosexuals.  If you find such evidence please share it with us.

Now if we do want to include traditional churches that also claim they 100% follow the teachings found in the Christian Holy Bible,  and therefore according to you must also be advocates for the killing of homosexuals, should these following churches make the SPLC list as "hate groups"?

The Church of Jesus Christ

Argos United Methodist Church

Parkside Community Church

Cornerstone Church

Gilead Church

Walnut Church of the Brethren

[Irishman]

Wait a minute...Muda, of ALL peopl in the history of this forum, including the various reboots, is now defending fundamentalist Christian groups? Well that is weird. 

[Muda69]

8 hours ago, Irishman said:

Wait a minute...Muda, of ALL peopl in the history of this forum, including the various reboots, is now defending fundamentalist Christian groups? Well that is weird. 

In a way yes.  If it serves to expose the SPLC's agenda of wrongfully labeling organizations as 'hate groups' in order to stay relevant and keep the donations flowing.  

Do I advocate that anyone should join a fundamentalist Christian group?  No, but to each his own.

 

[Muda69]

On 2/20/2019 at 5:30 PM, BARRYOSAMA said:

Unfortunately, way too many in the comment section, don't seem to think so.

https://www.al.com/news/2019/02/alabama-press-group-censures-goodloe-sutton-over-kkk-editorial-suspends-democrat-reporter.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/23/media/alabama-newspaper-klan/index.html
 

Quote

An African-American woman is now the publisher and editor of the Alabama newspaper that recently urged the Ku Klux Klan to "night ride again," the paper said.

Elecia R. Dexter, a "strategic leader with expertise in human resources, operations and change management," took up the positions Thursday, the weekly Democrat-Reporter of Linden said in a press release.

 

Dexter replaces Goodloe Sutton, the newspaper's owner who penned a staggering editorial with the headline "The Klan Needs to Ride Again" in the paper's February 14 edition.

 

Sutton still owns the newspaper, Dexter told CNN.

...

 

[BARRYOSAMA]

On 2/22/2019 at 5:22 PM, Muda69 said:

Hmm, NightHawk.    American Vision, the organization in question, is not a church. They seem more like an organization that champions the turning of American into a de-facto Christian theocracy.   But perusing their website at https://americanvision.org  I see nothing where they advocate for the killing of homosexuals.  If you find such evidence please share it with us.

Now if we do want to include traditional churches that also claim they 100% follow the teachings found in the Christian Holy Bible,  and therefore according to you must also be advocates for the killing of homosexuals, should these following churches make the SPLC list as "hate groups"?

The Church of Jesus Christ

Argos United Methodist Church

Parkside Community Church

Cornerstone Church

Gilead Church

Walnut Church of the Brethren

Yes.  Anyone that wishes to say gays should be killed for being gay(the Bible says so) should be labeled a hate group.  What say you?

[Muda69]

12 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Yes.  Anyone that wishes to say gays should be killed for being gay(the Bible says so) should be labeled a hate group.  What say you?

Wishes to say or actually says it?  Those are two different things.

 

[Impartial_Observer]

I'm left scratching my head with this discussion. One the one hand bashing Christians has pretty much become sport in this country. While the the bible may or may not offer death for the sin of homosexuality, I'm not aware of any instances in recent history where Christians are killing gays for being gay. On the other hand, we're suppose to embrace Islam as a "peaceful" religion, and celebrate diversity, and all the current PC culture. Yet there are any number of incidences in recent history where Muslims have killed people for being gay. 

[gonzoron]

34 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I'm left scratching my head with this discussion. One the one hand bashing Christians has pretty much become sport in this country. While the the bible may or may not offer death for the sin of homosexuality, I'm not aware of any instances in recent history where Christians are killing gays for being gay. On the other hand, we're suppose to embrace Islam as a "peaceful" religion, and celebrate diversity, and all the current PC culture. Yet there are any number of incidences in recent history where Muslims have killed people for being gay. 

Scratching my head as to how it got incorporated into the AOC thread. And doesn't seem to be a discussion, either. Two guys "answering" questions without answering, but asking a different question.

[swordfish]

On 2/22/2019 at 3:56 PM, BARRYOSAMA said:

The Bible tells us to kill the gays.  If this group follows the Bible with regards to homosexuality as they say they do....they are pretty hateful.

Thanks for sharing this article that shows the SPLC is looking out for those who have been terrorized by folks that try to hide their hatred behind the Bible.

FYI - this is why I avoid discussions relative to scripture with atheists and non-believers.....Before you want to debate that "the bible tells us to kill gays" - UNDERSTAND the difference between the OLD testament and the NEW testament.....

HATE the SIN, but LOVE the SINNER......

13 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Yes.  Anyone that wishes to say gays should be killed for being gay(the Bible says so) should be labeled a hate group.  What say you?

So ANY Muslim church must be a "hate group"?  I would suggest not anymore than a Christian church.....

Look, the SPLC needs to grow the list of hate groups to support itself.......just that simple.

37 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Scratching my head as to how it got incorporated into the AOC thread. And doesn't seem to be a discussion, either. Two guys "answering" questions without answering, but asking a different question.

Consider the source......Muda and Barry.......

[gonzoron]

4 hours ago, swordfish said:

HATE the SIN, but LOVE the SINNER

Sounds great on paper.

[swordfish]

54 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Sounds great on paper.

Isn't that how you live your life?

[gonzoron]

38 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Isn't that how you live your life?

On paper??? No

Hating sin, loving the sinner? No

[swordfish]

https://www.hannity.com/media-room/aoc-explodes-cortez-says-she-doesnt-care-anymore-screams-im-the-boss-on-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR22eSdlmCfe8m_0kJbi1Lc9UMdNrZP2evd69LiPv7vo3empE05MFoLGYl8

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continued to deflect criticism of her ‘Green New Deal’ over the weekend; repeatedly yelling “I’m the boss” when it comes to climate-change policy and future legislation.

“You know what? I don’t care anymore. Again, I’m at least trying and they’re not. The power is in the person who’s trying regardless of the success. If you’re trying you’ve got all the power,”

“I just introduced ‘Green New Deal’ two weeks ago and it’s creating all of this conversation. Why? Because no one else has even tried… You try, you do it. Because you’re not. Until you do it, I’m the boss. How about that?” she yelled.

So, she's the boss....

 

[BARRYOSAMA]

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

https://www.hannity.com/media-room/aoc-explodes-cortez-says-she-doesnt-care-anymore-screams-im-the-boss-on-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR22eSdlmCfe8m_0kJbi1Lc9UMdNrZP2evd69LiPv7vo3empE05MFoLGYl8

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continued to deflect criticism of her ‘Green New Deal’ over the weekend; repeatedly yelling “I’m the boss” when it comes to climate-change policy and future legislation.

“You know what? I don’t care anymore. Again, I’m at least trying and they’re not. The power is in the person who’s trying regardless of the success. If you’re trying you’ve got all the power,”

“I just introduced ‘Green New Deal’ two weeks ago and it’s creating all of this conversation. Why? Because no one else has even tried… You try, you do it. Because you’re not. Until you do it, I’m the boss. How about that?” she yelled.

So, she's the boss....

 

You sure seem to snap to attention whenever she is mentioned.

[Muda69]

I guess "The Boss" has a realistic and workable plan to pay for a complete remodeling of the American Economy, aka 'The Green New Deal'?.  Only going to cost $90 Trillion dollars.

Study: Green New Deal Could Cost More Than $90 Trillion

Whether its supporters care is another question.: http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/25/study-green-new-deal-could-cost-more-tha

Quote

The Green New Deal—a brainchild of progressive Democrats, particularly Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.)—has been controversial since it was released earlier this month. Several Democratic presidential candidates endorsed it, while others have noted that it's not realistic and would be fiscally impossible.

How much would it cost? At least $50 trillion and possibly in excess of $90 trillion, according to a report released today by the American Action Forum (AAF).

The AAF, a center-right think tank that focuses on economic issues, projected costs for six aspects of the Green New Deal: reworking the electricity grid in an environmentally friendly manner, revamping the nation's transportation network to reduce transmissions, and its guarantees of well-paying jobs, universal health care, affordable housing, and food security for each person in the U.S.

First, the power grid. One of the Green New Deal's goals is to meet "100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources" in the next 10 years. Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in this area would cost at least $5.4 trillion by 2029, the AAF says—not including another $387 billion per year for things like operations and maintenance.

Why so much? The study explains:

We assume that states without nuclear moratoriums build approximately 50 percent of their needed capacity with nuclear power, and cover the remaining 50 percent with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal electricity, and battery storage. States with nuclear moratoriums are assumed to replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, and storage. This approach raises issues in dispatching electricity, because one needs to cover the difference between available nuclear and peak capacity with both solar and wind resources. Most renewable resources are non-dispatchable, and must be supplemented by storage and other available assets.

This estimate is not an outlier. As Reason's Ron Bailey has noted, a similar plan outlined in 2015 would have cost roughly $7 trillion, while a previous version of that proposal might have cost up to $13 trillion.

For comparison, the electric industry pulled in roughly $390 billion in revenue in 2017, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Around 59 percent of that was accounted for by "generation" costs. Assuming that $230 billion rose to the aforementioned $387 billion, then subtracting $70.5 billion in annual "avoided fuel costs" from the net difference, total electricity costs would go up by 22 percent for consumers, the AAF says. Residential customers, who paid an average of $111.67 per month in 2017, would pay an average of about $300 more per year for electricity. This does not include the trillions it would cost to achieve a completely clean power grid in the first place.

The Green New Deal also proposes "overhauling transportation systems...to eliminate pollution and 19 greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible." The AAF's estimate of the cost for this proposal assumes that high-speed trains would replace air travel. While this is not specifically noted in the Green New Deal itself, an overview of the resolution that was apparently published by mistake did include the goal of "build[ing] out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary."

Doing so would cost between $1.3 trillion and $2.7 trillion, the AAF estimates. The lower figure can be reached by multiplying the 2018 proposed capital cost per mile of California's since-toned-down high-speed rail system ($129.8 million) by 8,263 miles, which is the difference between the number of miles covered by transit rail and by airports in the U.S., as of 2013. Then add on another $166.9 billion for the trains themselves, which in California would have cost about $71.2 million. The higher figure, meanwhile, "assumes replacing all [19,453] air route miles without using existing track," the report says. (There are other reasons why replacing air travel with high-speed rail doesn't make sense, which I outlined here.)

The Green New Deal's jobs guarantee would also cost a considerable amount. The AAF based its estimates here on a 2018 report from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which found that reaching full employment would involve putting roughly 10.7 million unemployed or underemployed people to work. Assuming the average annual cost per job (including an average wage of $32,500) would be $56,000, this would cost a total of $543 billion.

The AFF updated some of those numbers with 2019 data, and found that a federal jobs guarantee would cost $547 billion in 2019, and $6.762 trillion from 2020 to 2019. Both of those numbers would rise if, with a guaranteed job waiting for them, many of those who aren't currently looking for work decide to join the labor force.

Of course, there are also plenty of workers who earn less than $32,500 per year (or $625 each week) who would naturally want to switch jobs in order to make more. Including them "would increase the cost to $3.8 trillion in 2019, $44.6 trillion between 2020 and 2029," the AAF says.

The report also estimates that providing universal health care "will cost roughly $36 trillion between 2020 and 2029." The AAF simply built off a 2016 estimate of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I–Vt.) Medicare for All Plan, which the Center for Health and Economy said would cost $34.67 trillion over 10 years. It's likely an accurate projection, roughly in line with a July 2018 Mercatus Center report, which said Medicare for All would cost the federal government more than $32 trillion over 10 years.

Whether those in favor of the plan care about the cost is another question. Asked on CNN yesterday about the Green New Deal's massive price tag, particularly for Medicare for All, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) suggested that "it's not about a cost."

The fifth aspect of the Green New Deal that AFF addresses is its guarantee of "affordable, safe, and adequate housing." Simply housing the homeless could cost under $12 billion, AFF estimates, citing Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data. But the Green New Deal also calls for "upgrading all existing buildings in the 19 United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification." This could cost trillions, as AFF explains:

A 2012 HUD study evaluated the costs involved in having affordable housing meet the "National Green Building Standard." The results varied across a series of case studies and efficiency levels. Assuming the highest level ("Emerald") is a reasonable proxy for a GND rubric, upfront improvement costs ranged from $13,257 to $34,422 per unit. Applying such costs to simply the 5 million currently available HUD-subsidized housing units yields a cost range of between $66.5 billion to $172.8 billion. Applying such costs to all housing units—since the resolution calls for upgrading "all existing buildings"—yields a potential cost of $1.6 trillion to nearly $4.2 trillion.

Finally, the AAF calculated how much it would cost to ensure that all Americans have food security. Since 2011, the federal government's Healthy Food Financing Initiative has secured about $245 million in taxpayer money. Assuming, based off data from a Pennsylvania food access initiative, that it would cost $75 to improve food access for the 23.5 million people who needed it as of 2009, the AAF said such a program would cost $1.76 billion. Since taxpayers have already put in $245 million, we're left with a remainder of roughly $1.5 billion. "This increased access to fresh food, in conjunction with the income guarantees provided elsewhere in the GND, should meet the plan's goal of food security for all Americans," the AAF says.

....

 

[gonzoron]

Roll back the Trump “tax cuts” and it’s paid for.

[swordfish]

15 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

You sure seem to snap to attention whenever she is mentioned.

"The Boss" speaketh.....

[Muda69]

6 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Roll back the Trump “tax cuts” and it’s paid for.

That's a joke, right?

 

[DanteEstonia]

On 2/26/2019 at 5:44 AM, Muda69 said:

That's a joke, right?

 

No.