Marjorie Taylor Greene

HughFreakingDillon · September 16

She’s been saying for some time now how she’s tired of working in congress. So leave.

PJ_Soul · September 16

I do agree with her comment about America being too far gone though.

DE4173 · September 16

And her call to release the Epstein files

F Me In The Brain · September 16

And the Jewish Space Lasers.....um, not, that is just another totally crazy thing this woman said.
No credit to crazy and, somehow, influential.

She nuts.

mace1229 · September 16

F Me In The Brain said:

And the Jewish Space Lasers.....um, not, that is just another totally crazy thing this woman said.
No credit to crazy and, somehow, influential.

She nuts.

That comment isn't nearly as nuts as it sounds. To be clear, I think MTG is totally nuts.
But she never said Jewish space lasers. She said the fires were started by "solar space generators" that were partially funded by the Rothschilds. Those generators are actually a thing being studied by several countries, including the US, as a possible source of energy (to what extend and the amount of funding and by who, I have no idea).
Now, there's roughly a 0% chance they started the fires, but I don't think a lot of people realize she never said "Jewish space lasers" that were attributed to her.

DE4173 · September 16

Yeah, you can't be against misinformation if you create it and/or spread it.

🤡

HughFreakingDillon · September 16

DE4173 said:

Yeah, you can't be against misinformation if you create it and/or spread it.

🤡

https://globalnews.ca/news/10339760/marjorie-taylor-greene-bbc-reporter-f-off-jewish-space-lasers/

HughFreakingDillon · September 16

mace1229 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

And the Jewish Space Lasers.....um, not, that is just another totally crazy thing this woman said.
No credit to crazy and, somehow, influential.

She nuts.

That comment isn't nearly as nuts as it sounds. To be clear, I think MTG is totally nuts.
But she never said Jewish space lasers. She said the fires were started by "solar space generators" that were partially funded by the Rothschilds. Those generators are actually a thing being studied by several countries, including the US, as a possible source of energy (to what extend and the amount of funding and by who, I have no idea).
Now, there's roughly a 0% chance they started the fires, but I don't think a lot of people realize she never said "Jewish space lasers" that were attributed to her.

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5021252/uploads/editor/bi/svg674355wkz.png

"...what looked like lasers..."

mace1229 · September 16

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

And the Jewish Space Lasers.....um, not, that is just another totally crazy thing this woman said.
No credit to crazy and, somehow, influential.

She nuts.

That comment isn't nearly as nuts as it sounds. To be clear, I think MTG is totally nuts.
But she never said Jewish space lasers. She said the fires were started by "solar space generators" that were partially funded by the Rothschilds. Those generators are actually a thing being studied by several countries, including the US, as a possible source of energy (to what extend and the amount of funding and by who, I have no idea).
Now, there's roughly a 0% chance they started the fires, but I don't think a lot of people realize she never said "Jewish space lasers" that were attributed to her.

"...what looked like lasers..."

Yes, but she never said "Jewish space lasers" which she has been quoted as saying thousands of times. She never even said "Jewish" or "space laser."
I really don't see how this is different from what I said. I claimed she said that the Rothschilds were funding space solar generators that caused the fires. And that's exactly in there.
I'll admit I didn't remember her using the actual term "lasers", but my point still stands, its inaccurate to quote her as saying "Jewish space lasers."
I'm not arguing that she's not nuts. She is and there's no one on par for her in the Democratic Party. Not trying to argue against any of that.

Lerxst1992 · September 16

josevolution said:

Lerxst1992 said:

josevolution said:

If only we could at least ship her and a few of her cohorts to mars that would make this nation a bit safer! Ok here’s a ? Mr Lexr who is the equivalent of MTG on the Democratic side?

Good for you by discovering my unabated love for her.

I’m asking a ? Not saying you’re in love with her damn dude! Again is there a democrat that can be put side by side with MTG?

Apologies I misunderstood. Dems do it differently, they have litmus or purity tests to make sure we are woke enough.

Halifax2TheMax · September 16

Lerxst1992 said:

josevolution said:

Lerxst1992 said:

josevolution said:

If only we could at least ship her and a few of her cohorts to mars that would make this nation a bit safer! Ok here’s a ? Mr Lexr who is the equivalent of MTG on the Democratic side?

Good for you by discovering my unabated love for her.

I’m asking a ? Not saying you’re in love with her damn dude! Again is there a democrat that can be put side by side with MTG?

Apologies I misunderstood. Dems do it differently, they have litmus or purity tests to make sure we are woke enough.

What does that “purity test” look like? Is it a true/false, multiple choice or essay test? Or something else entirely? Use your own words, not an AI generated word salad of it could be this, it could be that, I think I saw a yellow cat.

Please and thank you.

Bentleyspop · September 16

mace1229 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

And the Jewish Space Lasers.....um, not, that is just another totally crazy thing this woman said.
No credit to crazy and, somehow, influential.

She nuts.

That comment isn't nearly as nuts as it sounds. To be clear, I think MTG is totally nuts.
But she never said Jewish space lasers. She said the fires were started by "solar space generators" that were partially funded by the Rothschilds. Those generators are actually a thing being studied by several countries, including the US, as a possible source of energy (to what extend and the amount of funding and by who, I have no idea).
Now, there's roughly a 0% chance they started the fires, but I don't think a lot of people realize she never said "Jewish space lasers" that were attributed to her.

Anytime someone attributes anything to the "Rothschilds" it is just another anti-semitic trope and conspiracy theory.

HughFreakingDillon · September 16

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

And the Jewish Space Lasers.....um, not, that is just another totally crazy thing this woman said.
No credit to crazy and, somehow, influential.

She nuts.

That comment isn't nearly as nuts as it sounds. To be clear, I think MTG is totally nuts.
But she never said Jewish space lasers. She said the fires were started by "solar space generators" that were partially funded by the Rothschilds. Those generators are actually a thing being studied by several countries, including the US, as a possible source of energy (to what extend and the amount of funding and by who, I have no idea).
Now, there's roughly a 0% chance they started the fires, but I don't think a lot of people realize she never said "Jewish space lasers" that were attributed to her.

"...what looked like lasers..."

Yes, but she never said "Jewish space lasers" which she has been quoted as saying thousands of times. She never even said "Jewish" or "space laser."
I really don't see how this is different from what I said. I claimed she said that the Rothschilds were funding space solar generators that caused the fires. And that's exactly in there.
I'll admit I didn't remember her using the actual term "lasers", but my point still stands, its inaccurate to quote her as saying "Jewish space lasers."
I'm not arguing that she's not nuts. She is and there's no one on par for her in the Democratic Party. Not trying to argue against any of that.

look, I get it. We need to "get it right". The problem is, she's so fucking batshit and stupid that I don't honestly care if people paraphrase her nonsense. That won't lead to any "but I was misquoted" mishaps where she should have been taken seriously.

The trop mentioned above is also true.

And I'll put this link up again: In her last response she says "jewish space lasers".

DE4173 · September 16

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

And the Jewish Space Lasers.....um, not, that is just another totally crazy thing this woman said.
No credit to crazy and, somehow, influential.

She nuts.

That comment isn't nearly as nuts as it sounds. To be clear, I think MTG is totally nuts.
But she never said Jewish space lasers. She said the fires were started by "solar space generators" that were partially funded by the Rothschilds. Those generators are actually a thing being studied by several countries, including the US, as a possible source of energy (to what extend and the amount of funding and by who, I have no idea).
Now, there's roughly a 0% chance they started the fires, but I don't think a lot of people realize she never said "Jewish space lasers" that were attributed to her.

"...what looked like lasers..."

Yes, but she never said "Jewish space lasers" which she has been quoted as saying thousands of times. She never even said "Jewish" or "space laser."
I really don't see how this is different from what I said. I claimed she said that the Rothschilds were funding space solar generators that caused the fires. And that's exactly in there.
I'll admit I didn't remember her using the actual term "lasers", but my point still stands, its inaccurate to quote her as saying "Jewish space lasers."
I'm not arguing that she's not nuts. She is and there's no one on par for her in the Democratic Party. Not trying to argue against any of that.

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

And the Jewish Space Lasers.....um, not, that is just another totally crazy thing this woman said.
No credit to crazy and, somehow, influential.

She nuts.

That comment isn't nearly as nuts as it sounds. To be clear, I think MTG is totally nuts.
But she never said Jewish space lasers. She said the fires were started by "solar space generators" that were partially funded by the Rothschilds. Those generators are actually a thing being studied by several countries, including the US, as a possible source of energy (to what extend and the amount of funding and by who, I have no idea).
Now, there's roughly a 0% chance they started the fires, but I don't think a lot of people realize she never said "Jewish space lasers" that were attributed to her.

"...what looked like lasers..."

Yes, but she never said "Jewish space lasers" which she has been quoted as saying thousands of times. She never even said "Jewish" or "space laser."
I really don't see how this is different from what I said. I claimed she said that the Rothschilds were funding space solar generators that caused the fires. And that's exactly in there.
I'll admit I didn't remember her using the actual term "lasers", but my point still stands, its inaccurate to quote her as saying "Jewish space lasers."
I'm not arguing that she's not nuts. She is and there's no one on par for her in the Democratic Party. Not trying to argue against any of that.

look, I get it. We need to "get it right". The problem is, she's so fucking batshit and stupid that I don't honestly care if people paraphrase her nonsense. That won't lead to any "but I was misquoted" mishaps where she should have been taken seriously.

The trop mentioned above is also true.

And I'll put this link up again: In her last response she says "jewish space lasers".

Thank you for the link.

Emily Maitlis, British journalist: "What about Jewish space lasers? Tell us about Jewish space lasers."

MTG: "No, why don't you go talk about Jewish space lasers and, really, why don't you fuck off? How about that?

Emily Maitlis: "Thank you very much. Thank you."

I hear you. Let it never be said that MTG never said those exact words.

It was in the response to two questions regarding Jewish space lasers, but you provided proof. Thank you.

gimmesometruth27 · September 17

HughFreakingDillon said:

She’s been saying for some time now how she’s tired of working in congress. So leave.

and give up her grift and access to the levers of power? not a chance.

i still believe she was the pipe bomber on 1/5 though.

Lerxst1992 · September 17

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

josevolution said:

Lerxst1992 said:

josevolution said:

If only we could at least ship her and a few of her cohorts to mars that would make this nation a bit safer! Ok here’s a ? Mr Lexr who is the equivalent of MTG on the Democratic side?

Good for you by discovering my unabated love for her.

I’m asking a ? Not saying you’re in love with her damn dude! Again is there a democrat that can be put side by side with MTG?

Apologies I misunderstood. Dems do it differently, they have litmus or purity tests to make sure we are woke enough.

What does that “purity test” look like? Is it a true/false, multiple choice or essay test? Or something else entirely? Use your own words, not an AI generated word salad of it could be this, it could be that, I think I saw a yellow cat.

Please and thank you.

Palestine is currently the high momentum purity test rising fast.

DEI being the old guard by now.

Halifax2TheMax · September 17

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

josevolution said:

Lerxst1992 said:

josevolution said:

If only we could at least ship her and a few of her cohorts to mars that would make this nation a bit safer! Ok here’s a ? Mr Lexr who is the equivalent of MTG on the Democratic side?

Good for you by discovering my unabated love for her.

I’m asking a ? Not saying you’re in love with her damn dude! Again is there a democrat that can be put side by side with MTG?

Apologies I misunderstood. Dems do it differently, they have litmus or purity tests to make sure we are woke enough.

What does that “purity test” look like? Is it a true/false, multiple choice or essay test? Or something else entirely? Use your own words, not an AI generated word salad of it could be this, it could be that, I think I saw a yellow cat.

Please and thank you.

Palestine is currently the high momentum purity test rising fast.

DEI being the old guard by now.

Couldn’t answer without AI. Not surprised.

Lerxst1992 · September 17

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

josevolution said:

Lerxst1992 said:

josevolution said:

If only we could at least ship her and a few of her cohorts to mars that would make this nation a bit safer! Ok here’s a ? Mr Lexr who is the equivalent of MTG on the Democratic side?

Good for you by discovering my unabated love for her.

I’m asking a ? Not saying you’re in love with her damn dude! Again is there a democrat that can be put side by side with MTG?

Apologies I misunderstood. Dems do it differently, they have litmus or purity tests to make sure we are woke enough.

What does that “purity test” look like? Is it a true/false, multiple choice or essay test? Or something else entirely? Use your own words, not an AI generated word salad of it could be this, it could be that, I think I saw a yellow cat.

Please and thank you.

Palestine is currently the high momentum purity test rising fast.

DEI being the old guard by now.

Couldn’t answer without AI. Not surprised.

Not sure if you’re trying to lose to the broken clock today, because that obviously isn’t ai. But since you asked…

” The term "purity test" in politics refers to a rigid standard on a specific issue by which a politician or other public figure is judged, often to ensure ideological alignment with a particular faction or group. In the context of the Democratic Party, particularly the progressive wing, this concept has been used to describe various litmus tests.

Examples of issues that have been described as "purity tests" within the Democratic Party include:

* Healthcare: The debate over "Medicare for All" has been cited as a key purity test. Candidates who do not support a single-payer system are sometimes criticized as being insufficiently progressive or as "shills" for the healthcare industry.

* Corporate and PAC donations: The refusal to accept corporate donations for political campaigns has been framed as a way for candidates to demonstrate their progressive credentials and independence from corporate influence.

* Social and cultural issues: Support for certain social agendas, such as those related to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) or specific stances on issues like Israel-Palestine, including anti-Zionism and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, have been described as purity tests for left-wing movements in the United States.

* Historical conduct: Criticism of public figures for past actions, such as wearing blackface, has been described by some as a form of "purity test" where past behavior is used to judge a person's current standing.

Critics of these "purity tests" argue that they can alienate moderate voters, discourage compromise, and make the party less inclusive. On the other hand, proponents might argue that such tests are necessary to ensure that candidates truly represent the values and goals of their progressive base and are not beholden to special interests.

Lerxst1992 · September 17

And if you thought they glossed over your key purity test I asked for more, just for you. Prove him wrong Mr Clock.

You are right to point out that my previous response could have been more specific. While I did mention the Israel-Palestine issue, "Palestine" is often at the core of the debate, and its inclusion highlights the specific demands of a significant faction within the Democratic Party.

Here is a more detailed look at how the issue of Palestine has been described as a "purity test" for Democrats:

* Support for Palestinian Rights: For many progressives, a politician's stance on Palestinian rights is a litmus test for their commitment to human rights and international law. This includes a candidate's willingness to criticize Israeli government policies, particularly regarding settlements in the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza. A failure to acknowledge Palestinian suffering or to use terms like "occupation" or "apartheid" can be seen as a sign of ideological weakness or being too aligned with the political establishment.

* Recognition of a Palestinian State: A growing number of Democrats, especially on the left, are pushing for the U.S. to formally recognize a Palestinian state. Candidates who do not support this or who maintain the traditional "ironclad" support for Israel are often criticized for being out of step with the party's progressive base. Recent polling has shown a significant shift in sympathies among Democratic voters, with a majority now siding more with Palestinians than Israelis.

* Military Aid to Israel: The debate over unconditional military aid to Israel has become a major point of contention. Progressive groups and activists argue that providing billions of dollars in aid without conditions on how it is used allows Israel to continue policies that they view as harmful to Palestinians. A candidate's willingness to support or oppose a reduction in this aid can be a key test of their progressive credentials.

* The Influence of Lobbying Groups: Organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) are seen by some on the left as exerting too much influence over Democratic politicians. As a result, a candidate's refusal to accept donations from or be associated with such groups is sometimes framed as a "purity test" to demonstrate independence from what is seen as a pro-Israel lobby. Conversely, for pro-Israel groups, a candidate's support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement can be a disqualifying "purity test."

* The Broader Context: The debate over Palestine is often viewed as a microcosm of a larger struggle within the Democratic Party: between the traditional, more centrist leadership that has historically supported a strong alliance with Israel, and a younger, more diverse, and vocal progressive wing that is increasingly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

Halifax2TheMax · September 17

Lerxst1992 said:

And if you thought they glossed over your key purity test I asked for more, just for you. Prove him wrong Mr Clock.

You are right to point out that my previous response could have been more specific. While I did mention the Israel-Palestine issue, "Palestine" is often at the core of the debate, and its inclusion highlights the specific demands of a significant faction within the Democratic Party.
Here is a more detailed look at how the issue of Palestine has been described as a "purity test" for Democrats:
* Support for Palestinian Rights: For many progressives, a politician's stance on Palestinian rights is a litmus test for their commitment to human rights and international law. This includes a candidate's willingness to criticize Israeli government policies, particularly regarding settlements in the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza. A failure to acknowledge Palestinian suffering or to use terms like "occupation" or "apartheid" can be seen as a sign of ideological weakness or being too aligned with the political establishment.
* Recognition of a Palestinian State: A growing number of Democrats, especially on the left, are pushing for the U.S. to formally recognize a Palestinian state. Candidates who do not support this or who maintain the traditional "ironclad" support for Israel are often criticized for being out of step with the party's progressive base. Recent polling has shown a significant shift in sympathies among Democratic voters, with a majority now siding more with Palestinians than Israelis.
* Military Aid to Israel: The debate over unconditional military aid to Israel has become a major point of contention. Progressive groups and activists argue that providing billions of dollars in aid without conditions on how it is used allows Israel to continue policies that they view as harmful to Palestinians. A candidate's willingness to support or oppose a reduction in this aid can be a key test of their progressive credentials.
* The Influence of Lobbying Groups: Organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) are seen by some on the left as exerting too much influence over Democratic politicians. As a result, a candidate's refusal to accept donations from or be associated with such groups is sometimes framed as a "purity test" to demonstrate independence from what is seen as a pro-Israel lobby. Conversely, for pro-Israel groups, a candidate's support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement can be a disqualifying "purity test."
* The Broader Context: The debate over Palestine is often viewed as a microcosm of a larger struggle within the Democratic Party: between the traditional, more centrist leadership that has historically supported a strong alliance with Israel, and a younger, more diverse, and vocal progressive wing that is increasingly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

You referred to AI as a him. Is it white as well? I’m concerned about you.

Marjorie Taylor Greene

Comments

Categories