[link]       [link]       [link]    Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Quests. | Journs. | Gen. | News | Quiz | Links | TV | Music | Movies | Games | Sports | Sug. | Lit. | Jokes | Artcls. | Newb | O.S.
Marjorie lady

Back to Thread List
Bottom Last Post

21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 11:52:49 AM EST (GMT-5)
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 11:55:16 AM EST (GMT-5)
Sorry if this appears to be spam but I’m just opening up this as a topic of conversation.

Is this a free speech issue?

Is Qanon a reality due to a global media conglomerate?

Are followers of this aware of a narrative or of metaphor?

Is it like Creationism and Revelations as parable or metaphor?

Is narrative ever actually true?
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 12:15:48 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don’t support conspiracy theories or anything.

I’m just curious. I guess we can just condemn it and not talk about it. She used Qanon to get elected probably.

I mean. Bear with me. But the pseudo social gospel of complete cultural reform promised by Democrats is probably as unlikely to happen as eating babies.

Damn America.

I should probably be thankful that I have a job that makes me be able to not think about anything other than my job.

Didn’t Italy elect a p*rnstar one time?
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 4:16:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
it's not a freedom of speech issue, she still has access to any debate on policy, they just said she's not going to be on the committee to shape it.
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 4:34:43 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 2/5/21 - 4:16:12 PM sheady wrote:
it's not a freedom of speech issue, she still has access to any debate on policy, they just said she's not going to be on the committee to shape it.


I think the freedom of speech issue comes from her being 'punished' for statements she made before she was elected.
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 4:36:46 PM EST (GMT-5)
once again...freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from repercussions from that speech. she had every right to say the idiotic things she said...it doesn't mean it won't bite her in the ass later in life.
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 4:40:11 PM EST (GMT-5)
CD - taking it to an extreme like some of you crazy kids like to do...

if I spent years saying that wall street was a figment of your imagination and the rothchild family used it to fund monkey wars in the atlantic ocean...would you then trust me to be your financial advisor and listen to my investment advice?

afterall, I'm not saying that NOW...I mean I believe it, I'm just not saying it.
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 4:52:14 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 2/5/21 - 4:36:46 PM sheady wrote:
once again...freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from repercussions from that speech. she had every right to say the idiotic things she said...it doesn't mean it won't bite her in the ass later in life.


It depends on who is creating the repercussions from that speech- - when government does it, that's an infringement on free speech rights. When you or I do it, it's OK.
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 4:57:46 PM EST (GMT-5)
I disagree, in this case...her employer is making this decision. it's just her employer happens to also be the government...or are you implying that people in government should be exempt from any form of impact to their views, opinions and speech regardless of what it is?
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 4:59:41 PM EST (GMT-5)
In the case of elected officials, isn't she really 'employed' by the people she represents, as opposed to the government?
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 5:01:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
If the voters find her speech objectionable, they are free to not vote for her (or vote for her opponent) in the next election.

...or in some cases, organize a recall effort to have them removed from office.
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 5:06:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
Either way, it is a matter that should be up to the voters- - particularly when it involves statements made before she was elected.

21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 5:22:53 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 2/5/21 - 4:59:41 PM CowDung wrote:
In the case of elected officials, isn't she really 'employed' by the people she represents, as opposed to the government?


No. She’s employed by the government, and members of the House are bound by rules they set.
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 6:00:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 2/5/21 - 4:59:41 PM CowDung wrote:
In the case of elected officials, isn't she really 'employed' by the people she represents, as opposed to the government?
On Friday 2/5/21 - 5:22:53 PM Courtbebe wrote:
No. She’s employed by the government, and members of the House are bound by rules they set.


What rules did she violate?
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 6:02:48 PM EST (GMT-5)
...it seems to me that the actions that prompted this were from before she was a member of the House.
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 6:21:08 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 2/5/21 - 4:59:41 PM CowDung wrote:
In the case of elected officials, isn't she really 'employed' by the people she represents, as opposed to the government?
On Friday 2/5/21 - 5:22:53 PM Courtbebe wrote:
No. She’s employed by the government, and members of the House are bound by rules they set.


she didn't make those statements while she was a member of congress, so i'm not sure if you can retroactively apply the rules like that.
21 days ago - Friday 2/5/21 - 7:41:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 2/5/21 - 4:59:41 PM CowDung wrote:
In the case of elected officials, isn't she really 'employed' by the people she represents, as opposed to the government?
On Friday 2/5/21 - 5:22:53 PM Courtbebe wrote:
No. She’s employed by the government, and members of the House are bound by rules they set.
On Friday 2/5/21 - 6:21:08 PM Inquizitor2 wrote:
she didn't make those statements while she was a member of congress, so i'm not sure if you can retroactively apply the rules like that.


The rule that she has to abide by is the House’s vote to take her committee membership.
20 days ago - Saturday 2/6/21 - 10:47:48 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 2/5/21 - 4:59:41 PM CowDung wrote:
In the case of elected officials, isn't she really 'employed' by the people she represents, as opposed to the government?
On Friday 2/5/21 - 5:22:53 PM Courtbebe wrote:
No. She’s employed by the government, and members of the House are bound by rules they set.
On Friday 2/5/21 - 6:21:08 PM Inquizitor2 wrote:
she didn't make those statements while she was a member of congress, so i'm not sure if you can retroactively apply the rules like that.
On Friday 2/5/21 - 7:41:12 PM Courtbebe wrote:
The rule that she has to abide by is the House’s vote to take her committee membership.


So you are dodging the question about the appropriateness of her being punished for statements that were made before she was elected?
20 days ago - Saturday 2/6/21 - 11:46:47 AM EST (GMT-5)
No.
20 days ago - Saturday 2/6/21 - 12:06:33 PM EST (GMT-5)
I disagree.
19 days ago - Sunday 2/7/21 - 8:06:10 AM EST (GMT-5)
CD is trying to criticise someone for dodging the question,

19 days ago - Sunday 2/7/21 - 11:11:06 AM EST (GMT-5)
That's probably what's happening



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Back to Thread List
Top

 
Edit