Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Brilliantly Exposes Culture of Corruption.

[_subgenius]

Meanwhile, “Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...”, said the subject’s signature.

Lol.

"seek" being the operative word...but your learning disability be damned, explain the contradiction if one exists.

[_subgenius]

You confuse ‘freedom and liberty’ with the actions committed in its name. Other posters are not experiencing your handicap.

Except for everyone involved in the OP. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is literally confusing the actions of a "bad guy" with "because campaign money"....as if the elimination of the latter will eliminate the former....confused indeed.

[_subgenius]

Your argument is one for protecting so-called freedom to behave in an unethical manner with no specific argument as to what is actually at risk If the US were to remodel it's representative democracy so that the representatives are more beholden to the people instead of the special interests who fund their campaigns and line their pockets.

Its like you type the word "representative" but don't follow its meaning.
Perhaps this is a special interest group that should be dissolved due to its....due to its....special interest.
Clearly Planned Parenthood needs to stop funding "bad guys":
Planned Parenthood: Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the organization’s 501(c)(4)...

or is this part where you tell us how the lobbyists and special interest groups that agree with your politics are "good guys"...all others by necessity are "bad guys".

Your argument is to bellow out "Freeeeddddooooom!" and assume nothing else need be said.

Again. "Conservatives."

Nope.
My argument is that the OP and its cited content are bad arguments, nonsense, and base emotional appeals.

[_canpakes]

You confuse ‘freedom and liberty’ with the actions committed in its name. Other posters are not experiencing your handicap.

Except for everyone involved in the OP.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is literally confusing the actions of a "bad guy" with "because campaign money"....as if the elimination of the latter will eliminate the former....confused indeed.

You are indeed confused. You need to watch more carefully.

[_canpakes]

... (insert random mention of Planned Parenthood, because butthurt) ...
My argument is that the OP and its cited content are bad arguments, nonsense, and base emotional appeals.

Your argument is simply an assertion without any basis, which makes it fit your characterization perfectly, much like your other arguments regarding Planned Parenthood, gays, the Holocaust, and rainbows.

This is your one consistency. It’s a start, anyway.

[_subgenius]

My point is that freedom and liberty are vulnerable to exploitation and this vulnerability does not justify their elimination.

Can I interest you in the US Constitution? You should really read it - it could change your life!

It has and does....which is why the OP is ridiculous.

In that document you will find that the Founding Fathers, who were of course writing at the dictation of Jesus Christ™, made provision for the Legislature to have the power to make weird things called 'laws'. Many of these 'laws' are, you will find, expressly designed to eliminate the freedom to do certain things. On the whole, the Legislature makes 'laws' when it thinks that the harm done to others by some individuals exploiting their freedom and liberty is great enough to justify eliminating that freedom.

Who'da thunk it? You learn something new every day on this board.

weird, its like you have never received an education on American civics, basic reasoning, or even ethics.

But you hit an interesting target even though your aim was elsewhere:

"On the whole, the Legislature makes 'laws' when it thinks that the harm done to others by some individuals exploiting their freedom and liberty is great enough to justify eliminating that freedom."

In the OP, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez narrates an imaginary and exaggerated negative consequence of a cursory circumstance and omits any mention of how that same circumstance creates positive consequences....depends on your perspective of course.

But hey, forget about the notion that her "bad guy" got elected to begin with and just blame it on the "special interests" that you don't agree with...because your scheme of special interests only exploit "good guys".

[_subgenius]

Your Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's argument is simply an assertion without any basis, which makes it fit your her characterization perfectly, ...

FIFY
You nailed it!

[_canpakes]

In the OP, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez narrates an imaginary and exaggerated negative consequence of a cursory circumstance and omits any mention of how that same circumstance creates positive consequences.

You’re free to present an alternate example to prove whatever you think that your point is, but your failure to do so - or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s choice not to do so - doesn’t invalidate her point or argument.

[_canpakes]

Your Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's argument is simply an assertion without any basis, which makes it fit your her characterization perfectly, ...

FIFY
You nailed it!

And you’ve simultaneously denied your own argument. Lol, indeed. ; )

[_canpakes]

This is a window into subs’s inconsistent and confused mind:

But hey, forget about the notion that her "bad guy" got elected to begin with and just blame it on the "special interests" that you don't agree with...because your scheme of special interests only exploit "good guys".

Because if someone is elected, then they either aren’t capable of any bad action, or can be excused of it after the fact.

Unexpectedly, this only applies to politicians that he likes. ; )