The Marjorie Taylor Greene thread.

[Steve]

I am not getting your meaning with "suppression" and "freedom from interference".
care to elaborate?

Neither does Greene and her supporters. That really is the issue.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am not getting your meaning with "suppression" and "freedom from interference".
care to elaborate?

Equal rights regardless of gender, creed or political affiliation. You may have heard about it.

Hans

 

[Distracted1]

Simply wrong. Support for her daughter did not start with that public statement, time, and place.

You know this how?

 

[Steve]

You know this how?

Exactly the same way you know that her support for her daughter did start with that public statement, time, and place.

 

[Distracted1]

Exactly the same way you know that her support for her daughter did start with that public statement, time, and place.

great. you have answered both of our questions

 

[Dr. Keith]

If you fly a flag that supports MIA and fallen vets because a relative of yours died as a soldier and they put up a sign that says "He's not a war hero. I like people who didn't get captured." then I would not find that as a response in kind, no matter what is said via twitter.

Nor would I.
Of course, if I publicly proclaimed before I hung that flag that I was doing so in an attempt to "trigger" someone, it would be.

No, that is exactly what I meant in the highlighted. It is not a response in kind. It is taking it to the next level, it is an escalation. That is why one has garnered condemnation and the former has not.

 

[Steve]

great. you have answered both of our questions

I do not seem to have asked a question related to this.

 

[Distracted1]

No, that is exactly what I meant in the highlighted. It is not a response in kind. It is taking it to the next level, it is an escalation. That is why one has garnered condemnation and the former has not.

I see.
Please provide an example of a response that Ms. Greene could have made that would meet the criteria of being "in Kind"- as you seem to define it.

 

[Steve]

I see.
Please provide an example of a response that Ms. Greene could have made that would meet the criteria of being "in Kind"- as you seem to define it.

I doubt that there is any response Greene could possibly come up with that would have avoided blatantly displaying her bigotry, given that that was the sole purpose of her response.

She could have responded in a manner that showed she agreed that bigotry toward transgendered persons is both unacceptable and contrary to the principles stated in the US constitution that she has sworn to uphold and defend. But dear, dear Marjorie could never even grasp that concept.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I doubt that there is any response Greene could possibly come up with that would have avoided blatantly displaying her bigotry, given that that was the sole purpose of her response.

She could have responded in a manner that showed she agreed that bigotry toward transgendered persons is both unacceptable and contrary to the principles stated in the US constitution that she has sworn to uphold and defend. But dear, dear Marjorie could never even grasp that concept.

Thanks for saving me the typing.

 

[Distracted1]

Thanks for saving me the typing.

"I cannot" is not much to type.

 

[Dr. Keith]

"I cannot" is not much to type.

More accurately: I don't think that she is capable of doing so. Or at least, she has not shown that capability to this point in her political career.

I can translate other complicated points as you need in the future, but there may be a fee.

 

[Distracted1]

More accurately: I don't think that she is capable of doing so. Or at least, she has not shown that capability to this point in her political career.

I can translate other complicated points as you need in the future, but there may be a fee.

I did not ask her to do anything.

I asked you to provide an example of responding "in kind"- based upon your assertion that what was done was not such a response.
Everything since has been evasion.

 

[Steve]

I did not ask her to do anything.
I asked you to provide an example of responding "in kind"- based upon your assertion that what was done was not such a response.
Everything since has been evasion.

Did someone claim that you did?

Talk about evasion. Let's ignore the semantics and cut to the chase. Do you personally think that Greene's stated and written position on transgendered persons is:
a. acceptable?
b. supportable?

and:

Would you change either of those opinions if Greene has stated her position outright rather than in response to another person's actions?

I'll go first. I think her position is totally unacceptable, and totally unsupportable. My opinion would not change regardless of the circumstances under which she states her position.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I did not ask her to do anything.

I asked you to provide an example of responding "in kind"- based upon your assertion that what was done was not such a response.
Everything since has been evasion.

You simply aren't getting the point: a response in kind is possible, but I don't think she is capable of it.

I would respond in kind by posting a rainbow flag, because I have LGBTQ loved ones I care about.

I could post a BLM flag because I have been inspired by what their movement has done in a short time.

I could post a vet flag because I have loved ones who are vets who I think do not get treated as well as they should.

Or is your contention that I need to find a response in kind that fits with MTG's message of bigotry and exclusion? Sorry, not happening.

 

[Distracted1]

Did someone claim that you did?

Talk about evasion. Let's ignore the semantics and cut to the chase. Do you personally think that Greene's stated and written position on transgendered persons is:
a. acceptable?
b. supportable?

and:

Would you change either of those opinions if Greene has stated her position outright rather than in response to another person's actions?

I'll go first. I think her position is totally unacceptable, and totally unsupportable. My opinion would not change regardless of the circumstances under which she states her position.

By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

It's completely refuted by actual facts. There aren't even strictly two sexes in humans.

That wasn't the entirety of her sign though, she added something like "trust the science" (from memory).

 

[wareyin]

By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

For someone who is putting so much effort into defending Greene's position, you seem remarkably ignorant of that position. She's done more than just put up a sign that gets the science wrong.

 

[Distracted1]

It's completely refuted by actual facts. There aren't even strictly two sexes in humans.

That wasn't the entirety of her sign though, she added something like "trust the science" (from memory).

LOL. you do you.
There is a whole thread devoted to it, which already has substantial spread, so I will forgo discussing it further here.

 

[Dr. Keith]

By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

Is there a reason you are not being honest about what the sign said?