Speech is part of most high school curricula but not part of any GED programs I know of. So that explains that gap
I feel we’re not talking enough about the “separate but equal” reference by Lauren Boebert
- Thread starter artradley
- Start date
In a speech where she is lecturing fellow congressman on constitutional law, the idea that she doesn’t even know wtf Separate But Equal means is breathtakingly stupid and ironic.
If she had uttered “Elvis is alive” we would be forgiven for zeroing in on those three words, btw.
I haven't watched the moron BUT in the interest of fairness...Is she possibly referring to US vs. Alverez when the phrase was used to clarify that each branch was separate but equal?
She got her GED at 34 and only did so because she was running for office. I don't think education is very high on her priority list.
I think she wants to slob Jim Crow's nob.
The odds that she has ever heard of that case is almost zero. She was trying to deny a state it’s right to participate in the electoral college, so I can’t imagine how you can make a connection.
She just has no idea what the phrase means, I think it’s that simple.
I am disgusted by all the hatred towards Rep. Boebert in this thread. Aren‘t you people aware it is no longer acceptable to mock the mentally retarded?
Jim - I watched it and I think you are correct. She is referring to separate but equal branches of government. She has been horribly manipulated into believing all of the Q BS and she's a terrible speaker, but my friends on the left are calling out the phrase incorrectly here.
There is no context in her speech where that makes sense. Congress and the state of Arizona are not separate but equal branches of government.
Damn...she’d have been a dynamite representative for the Iowa 4th...made’m all proud! And, probably smells better than Feenstra, too.
Yes there is. She clearly is thinking that the judicial branch over ruled the legislative branch, or something similar to that. I'm not saying she is correct or that the facts support that opinion. She goes on to talk about ignoring laws, etc. That's the context that supports it. Please quit framing it incorrectly, there is plenty else wrong to jump on. Plus, I feel really dirty having to do something that probably looks like I'm defending her.
So if “co-equal” means none of the branches have duties to perform if they disagree with each other, what is the function of government?
What is her grievance? That states can’t abridge voting rules if the legislature decides not to make a decision on them...even in times of an emergency? What methodology does the public have to exercise a constitutional right if one part of the government fails to move to allow all its citizens to exercise that right? How much safety does a citizen have to risk to exercise a basic right? Lord knows there are numerous examples of localalieies making voting as inconvenient as possible..is that to be condoned? Or should voting be made easy, with reasonable safeguards in place?
Again, I'm not arguing that she is correct. I'm arguing that she was using the phrase as it relates to race.
Gotta agree...and this discussion forced my to listen to that tripe so I'm not happy...that she does seem to be referring - awkwardly - to the separate but equal branches of govt. I'm not sure, however, what point she was trying to make with the reference.
AND WHY IS SHE SHOUTING???
Here are just a few examples of the Marxist ideas the dems are embracing, stifling free speech, trying to change election laws to make it less likely they will ever lose again, tax rates so high we work for the goverment and not ourselves, creating "truth" censors to make sure only the "proper" ideas and stories are told. (The Dems version of Pravda) dividing the country into groups to make sure national unity is very difficult to achieve, trying to erase or change history to fit their narrative. Need more? Katie Couric even suggested Repubs needed to be "re-educated" not kidding.
Here's what I found with a quick google:
Marxists believe that if the working class makes itself the ruling class, and destroys the basis for class society (private property, or what Marx called "Bourgeois Property"), there will be a "classless society." In a Marxist society, no social classes are in conflict, and there is no government anymore.
Marxists believe that if the working class makes itself the ruling class, and destroys the basis for class society (private property, or what Marx called "Bourgeois Property"), there will be a "classless society." In a Marxist society, no social classes are in conflict, and there is no government anymore.
The whole no gov't seems like a GOP dream doesn't it?
Jeeeeebus, I am glad you are not mine! How phuquing stupid are you?
Free speech stifled? How so? Please dont try and convince me morons should be able to spit out any bullshit lies on a public forum without consequences.
Voting rules changed? Where? The questions are all in states with Republican legislatures....and all questions were settled by state and federal courts! Tax rates have NEVER EVER been lower, you idiot! QAnon is today’s “truth censors” and they specialize in verifying the unverifiable and spreading disinformation and false information. Katie Couric...hell! I will tell you abbey, if you believe this shit you printed, you need to be “re-educated”...and I AM NOT KIDDING! YOU ARE A FOOL! Thankfully for you, being a fool is not unconstitutional.
You're not real bright or honest. Please for your own safety stay away from sharp objects.
And you Abby are one lyin’ sumbitch. Full of bullshit and disinformation. But again, in America, it isn’t unconstitutional to be such.
These wingnuts use these terms without any idea of their meaning. This includes socialism and communism. Within their circle it works where fools talking to fools is everyone happy.
Most also don't realize that many aspects of our economy actually have socialist underpinnings to them.
Seems like something you would hear on infowars or Tucker Carlson. I hear the democrats also want to ban grits and cornbread! What kind of people would do that?
Gotta love Tuberville saying his Dad fought in WW2 to stop socialism. Nearly identical to Bluto saying did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor... except that was in a comedy movie
And the wisdom of applying a 19th Century philosophy to current socioeconomic situations is __________?
It's simply you have no idea what Marxism is. Either that or you are a radicalized McCarthyist. So you just as well be in the QAnon camp of wierdos. Jeez, fruitcakes everywhere.
