Speech is part of most high school curricula but not part of any GED programs I know of. So that explains that gapThe gentlewoman from Colorado is a terrible public speaker. She would be well served to take a class or two.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Speech is part of most high school curricula but not part of any GED programs I know of. So that explains that gapThe gentlewoman from Colorado is a terrible public speaker. She would be well served to take a class or two.
Wow, you and others on the left picks out 3 words in her speech that you found offensive. You're like race baiting blood hounds looking for any scent you can tie to racism. Okay, what about the rest of her speech? Do you believe election or any other laws for that matter should be ignored?
Lastly, don't talk to us about being uneducated, the left is proposing Marxist ideals even though they have been proven to be evil and complete failures for the past 100 years. Who refuses to learn from history?
The gentlewoman from Colorado is a terrible public speaker. She would be well served to take a class or two.
She also tells awful jokes.
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?
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?
I thought it was ok to do so? Dammit...I am confused!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.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?
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.
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.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.
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?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.
Crickets.Oh, please. Educate us on these Marxist ideals. You shitheads keep pouring out these buzzword descriptors. Now, tell us; what are these Marxist ideals you keep ragging about.
If you can't, then STFU.
Again, I'm not arguing that she is correct. I'm arguing that she was using the phrase as it relates to race.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?
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.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.
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.abby...the "racebaiting" done here was by Bobert...and the the election laws that were disregarded were done so mostly by GOP state legislatures, not Dems. Lastly, the "uneducated" here are you and yours....WHAT are the Dems advocating that are "Marxist" ideas? Just because that is the word you uneducated choose to use to describe them, does NOT mean they are so.
The whole no gov't seems like a GOP dream doesn't it?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.
Jeeeeebus, I am glad you are not mine! How phuquing stupid are you?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 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.
You're not real bright or honest. Please for your own safety stay away from sharp objects.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.
Give the dems time, I'm sure disagreeing with them will be unconstitutional soon.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.
And you Abby are one lyin’ sumbitch. Full of bullshit and disinformation. But again, in America, it isn’t unconstitutional to be such.You're not real bright or honest. Please for your own safety stay away from sharp objects.
Crickets.
No surprise.
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.
ESPECIALLY “socialism” and “communism”...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.
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.
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?
Give the dems time, I'm sure disagreeing with them will be unconstitutional soon.
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 movieI brought this up on 1/6 or 1/7, but it was lost in the firestorm. She was just saying random s***. As I have posted about Tommy Tuberville, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, I cannot wait for them to appear in committee. Mitch and Kevin will do everything they can to hide them, but I want them front and center to show moderate Republicans and independents what's at stake in 2022 and 2024.
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.