Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Well, the company you keep...or living in a blue city/state, where income inequality and racial segregation are both highest. Some people don't understand why that is, others see the obvious.
AOC clears up an issue.!!!
- Thread starter cluelusshusbund
- Start date
The concept of a moral or ethical obligation is so alien to you guys it doesn't even register in your awareness.
You have left a central question hanging - here it is again:
Does Yoho need special coddling and protection, or can we let AOC 86 his adolescent ass until he learns not to shit on the rug?
i live in georgia in a predominantly republican area. also the cities with the highest levels of income inequality, of the top ten 9 are in red states.
and most of the top 25 most segregated cities are in red states, tending to be in alabama, georgia, louisiana.
https://www.usatoday.com/picture-ga...egregated-cities-housing-policies/1780223001/
https://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-in-red-vs-blue-states-2015-7
post is funny because you see the "obvious" which is a correlation that fits your biases and others look at the facts. you think you are the later when in all reality your the former. but than again this is unsurprising given your ignorance of racial issues in the country.
Nope.
Yep. Your inability to see past your playground girl germs world is not universal.
Exactly and most obviously in such a career.
Yet another big word you never bothered to look up in the dictionary.
No, it isn't. It's called "fighting words", which the Supreme Court has ruled on, and self defense, which the Court has also ruled on.
It's not a crime to hit someone who starts a fight with you.
Utter idiocy.
Yoho's in the Federal government. And if the rest of the country could persuade his racist, dumbass constituents to quit electing childish men with mommy issues to positions of real power everyone would be better off.
Meanwhile AOC is doing a much better job of being a Congresscritter than Yoho ever has - why not congratulate her for handling the punk so deftly and with so much class?
Last edited:
because that would require having class. and someone who thinks telling a woman she is a fucking bitch clearly doesn't have any.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
because that reverses the intended balance of power
to make her the prey animal to be targeted with prejudice and illogical hate
the intent was to assign her to be a validated victim with no real ability to defend herself
thus enabling the crazy people to target her with sadistic intent that is validated by authority figures
the psychopath is baited to act out sadism to validate rights to exist
its so fucked up
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Yes, blue, Democrat-run cities do exist in red states. Houston, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc.. Cities are managed by their local politicians, not micromanaged by their state.
That you laughably don't realize that only shows that you're projecting your own biased ignorance of the facts.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Maybe you should tell that to Bells or Wegs.
As usual, you're ignorant of US law beyond whatever confirms your bias.
In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and causes unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).
...
In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." In the case, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words.`
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
By all accounts, he only said "fucking bitch" after walking away, not directly to her. And he claims he only said "fucking BS". There's no evidence either way. ...
In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." In the case, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words.`
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
Only if they've hit you or you're reasonable afraid they will. It's call self-defense.
It is a crime to hit someone who has only insulted you. That would make you the aggressor, not the one exercising self-defense.
Yes, authoritarians often don't like the fact that representatives are only beholden to their own constituents. They think it's "utter idiocy" too.
AOC playing the victim is not laudable, except to others with the victim mentality.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
jokamal ...
almost husband and wife appeal
almost husband and wife appeal
that wasn't your argument though. your argument was that the most segregated cities are mainly democratic states. which as i just showed they aren't.
so im ignorant of facts because your lying about your argument. also your confusing correlation with causation. your claiming its that its segregated because its blue when the reverse in most cases is probably true.
so as usual your pushing your own biases and ignorance onto others.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Nah, you're just lying. I said:
"in a blue city/state, where income inequality and racial segregation are both highest"
Maybe you could learn something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_(punctuation)#Disjunction_and_conjunction
No, still your lie.
Wait, so you expect people to believe that cities, where Democrats have held vast majorities for decades, voted in Democrats to ostensibly fix the segregation and income inequality, and continue to vote Democrat despite zero improvement of either? Wow.
No.
Do you expect people to ignore the source of your bullshit deflections, and overlook your continual refusal to address the issues you pretend to be posting about?
As one of the primary authoritarians on this forum, you do seem to suffer from that illusion - even referring to it as a "fact". As it is a product of the standard Republican Party media feed, that seems natural.
Again the obvious observation: Adult Americans are supposed to have learned about the nature and role of elected political representation when they were in high school.
You are also supposed to have learned what "authoritarian" means, and how to reason, and the ethical import of various rhetorical devices (e.g. presenting disparate correlations as matters of cause and effect, especially when mistaken about the correlation) that seek to bypass reason. Are you intentionally denying your possession of that knowledge?
An attempt to establish an illusion in the minds of the intellectually vulnerable by taking advantage of their ignorance.
One key factor of which they display ignorance (illustrated by that quote) is the last few decades of gerrymandering by the Republican Party. Another is the effect of the near-universal framing of such statistical information in the Republican media feed's terms.
(Note the confusion of "city" with "State" - the Republican media framing interchanges all such specifications (neighborhood, city, county, State, region, nation, continent, and all intermediate divisions) on purpose, in order to lie about physical circumstances and the historical record)
(Note the multi-level confusions produced by treating race and income as independent variables).
AOC does not play the victim.
And your attempts to injure her (and her fellow citizens, btw) via lies and slander would not be justified if she did.
Some stuff left hang:
Meanwhile, you have apparently posted a video claim (always videos, with you guys - harder to corner your bs) that AOC is "stupid".
Do you believe that?
There is evidence, from eyewitness accounts and a long history of Yoho comments on stuff, that Yoho is lying about that.
Maybe you should reread what you posted. I don't think you understood my response - I made no allowance for your illiteracy, and replied directly to what you actually posted.
The subject was "fighting words", which you agree the Courts have ruled on - as you document above, they are not free speech.
It's self defense if they have started a fight with you.
Meanwhile, you have apparently posted a video claim (always videos, with you guys - harder to corner your bs) that AOC is "stupid".
Do you believe that?