SOCIALIST SECRETS: Ocasio-Cortez BANS PRESS, REPORTERS from Speaking Events
"According to the local Queens Chronicle, the liberal candidate and self-described Democratic Socialist barred journalists from covering the event because her campaign didn’t want to make locals “feel uncomfortable.”
Her organization is quoted in the article saying
"
“We wanted to help create a space where community members felt comfortable and open to express themselves without the distraction of cameras and press. These were the first set of events where the press has been excluded,” said her campaign spokesperson. “This is an outlier and will not be the norm. We’re still adjusting our logistics to fit Alexandria’s national profile.” "
When President Trump withheld permission for one reported to attend the MSM went ballistic. So far as I can tell they haven't commented on this action. Where is the oputrage for this violation of Freedom of the Pressw???
Her organization is quoted in the article saying
"
“We wanted to help create a space where community members felt comfortable and open to express themselves without the distraction of cameras and press. These were the first set of events where the press has been excluded,” said her campaign spokesperson. “This is an outlier and will not be the norm. We’re still adjusting our logistics to fit Alexandria’s national profile.” "
When President Trump withheld permission for one reported to attend the MSM went ballistic. So far as I can tell they haven't commented on this action. Where is the oputrage for this violation of Freedom of the Pressw???
Her poor little mind is a mess,
When asked if she could see,
Beyond the woods for the tree,
She said,"You're causing too much duress."
Building on your work, I offer the following variant, which scans adequately. It also hints at Socialism unable to understand Individuality. The syllable counts are closer to symmetry: 10,10, 8, 9, 9.
Alex Occasional-Cortex bans press,
Her poor little airhead mind in a mess.
Asked why it is she cannot see,
That each part of the woods is a tree,
She whines, "Thought gives me mental distress."
"Poor little airhead" doesn't scan. I sent a limerick
But you must remember that limericks must be spoken. If you'll speak mine and then yours well.....
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, sound is in the ear of the speaker
Here is one by Ogden Nash
ARTHUR
There was a man from Calcutta
Who coated his tonsils with butta,
Which converted his snore'
From a thunderous roar,
To a soft, oleaginous mutta..
But then, there are so many wonderful five liners that it's not worth bothering about,
unless you want to see how many we can make up on the same subject.
The following limerick, in which none of the lines rhyme, is attributed to W. S. Gilbert:
There was an old man of St. Bees,
Who was stung in the arm by a wasp.
When asked, "Does it hurt?"
He replied, “No it doesn’t—
I’m so glad that it wasn’t a hornet.”
Who was never stung by his bees,
He took care of them neatly,
So they treated him sweetly,
They kept their hives in his trees.
And guess who wants to be one of those Orwellian Animal Farm more than equal elite betters who gets to control everyone else?
And why am I suddenly thinking of Kim Jong-un, the only fat man I've seen in starving North Korea, whose soldiers raid peasant farms for food and who I've read lives in the lap of luxury and smokes ritzy cigarettes that sell for about $75 a pack?
I am amazed at his ability to get to the core of things and enunciate it on air, yet sometimes he is just plain wrong. Aren't we all, I suppose.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he is calling out her hypocrisy rather than negating her prerogative to meet without the press around.
When they unite they won't hypocrites anymore.
- The corporate-owned press are the enemy. Their ties to military and gov't are why when some issue comes up they call in experts from academia or the military industry instead of average people telling you in plain English who the bad guys are.
- People buying foreign goods is steal jobs from Americans.
- If a religion has any extremists or involves any weird stories condoning slavery or murdering children, gov't needs to evaluate all denominations' merits and support the good ones and oppose the evil ones.
- The problems of good middle-class people, i.e. almost everyone not making trouble for the politician in question, are caused by somebody else. We just to have to nail down to what extent the cause of foreigners, billionaires, and other groups that the vast majority don't consider themselves part of.
- It's fine to borrow hundreds of billions a year or event a trillion, if it's spent on good causes.
- A lot of our problems come from successful people putting their needs before the needs of hardworking Americans. The good religions teach selflessness.
- We can debate on to what extent US should be the police force for the world, but we can all agree we can never spend enough money on the military.
- The Fed raises rates in response to workers' feeling too secure and asking for raises. That's obviously for the benefit of the banking and business elite and not ordinary citizens. The financial sector is a parasite on people doing actual work.
Someone with Reagan's or Clinton's public speaking ability could pull off ending this "terrible decisive atmosphere". I don't know if that nightmare scenario will happen.
How do you define these things you mention?
Which are a bad guy?
What is evil?
Which are good middle class and which are not?
What is a good cause?
Will you be the judge of these things? A committee? What if I disagree and start a Galt's Gulch - will you put me/us in prison?
This is what led to the "what is "is"" extreme and what the left is pushing as the guiding "principle" so that they can define and rule.
The posting before mine by Circuit Guy had a number of statements with evaluative terms, such as, "It's fine to borrow hundreds of billions a year or even a trillion, if it's spent on good causes". I asked for clarification, "What is a good cause?" and who decides?
The other questions were also a challenge for clarification of what seemed to be ambiguous statements.
Also, Circuit Guy's comment was in response to a posting by mminnck agreeing that Hannity may have been indicating that Ocasio is being a hypocrite rather than that she shouldn't have the Right to meet with people in private if she wants to. Circuit Guy's comments make no sense in that context, thus my, "Hunh??"
They certainly won't define those things. The charismatic politician instead leaves it open for listeners to fill in the blanks.
BTW, I meant this devisive atmosphere, not decisive, although you probably already guessed my mistake.
Even a moron deserves the right to communicate with her supporters in private if she so chooses.
It would be funny if they did demand ID and yet no ID to vote for her.
They just haven't figured out they're the same yet. If President Trump finds the right person to pass the baton to, someone who can sell it in more friendly Orwellian way than Trump, we're in big trouble. My greatest concern for America is that all the people who are comfortable with gov't force and borrowing $1 trillion /yr but don't "feel comfortable with the distraction of cameras and the press" will realize they're almost exactly the same. They want to "help create spaces where community members feel comfortable and open with the distraction of the press". I feel less comfortable with that than with President Trump's clownish reality TV act, and that's saying something.
It's not hard to see Ocasio-Cortez obviously banned the press to protect her illegal and likely criminal element of her constituents from being photographed in public.
BIG difference, indeed!
Big difference? They're distinguishable. If they figure it out I'll feel bad about having been open about it. The world is much better with them mindlessing yelling at each other and engaging in the occasional street brawl.