Marjorie Taylor Greene's Defense Of Herself - "I Was Allowed To Believe Things That Weren't True"

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  49 comments

Marjorie Taylor Greene's Defense Of Herself - "I Was Allowed To Believe Things That Weren't True"
Marjorie Taylor Greene went on the House floor today and gave her defense to the charges against her. Her basic defense is that she is a dumbass who believed conspiracy theories because she saw them on the internet.

Marjorie Taylor Greene went on the House floor today and gave her defense to the charges against her. Her basic defense is that she is a dumbass who believed conspiracy theories because she saw them on the internet.  Don't take my word for it. Watch the video of her speech


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



"I Was Allowed To Believe Things That Weren't True"


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

90% of her speech was trying to shift the burden of her behavior onto others, and laying out her political beliefs (anti-abortion, anti-immigrant etc.)  

It is time for someone to be held responsible for this nonsense. If it has to be this ignorant woman, who no more belongs in Congress than any random person pulled off the street, so be it. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
1.1.1  Thomas  replied to  Split Personality @1.1    3 weeks ago

A little humor...

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
2  Thrawn 31    3 weeks ago
Her basic defense is that she is a dumbass who believed conspiracy theories because she saw them on the internet.

Yep, and dumbasses should absolutely not have any real input on anything, especially governing policies. Therefore she's gotta go. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
3  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

What the what is that supposed to mean?  "I was allowed to believe things that weren't true"

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @3    3 weeks ago

it is in the video, thats all i can tell you.   4:00 mark or so. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
3.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago

It was rhetorical but thanks anyway

I don't want to watch a minute of that batshitcrazybitch's insanity

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

I know. I used the spot as a place to tell people where the phrase is in the video.  I should have done that when I seeded the video. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @3    3 weeks ago

She wants to make excuses for herself.  Thats probably why while she is supposedly "apologizing" on the floor of Congress, she is wearing a mask reading "Free Speech". 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @3    3 weeks ago
"I was allowed to believe things that weren't true"

I guess some one force fed her that crap and then held a gun to her head and said "shout it out, bitch!"

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4  Tacos!    3 weeks ago

If we're talking about things she said before she was a member of Congress, I don't think that is the House's business. I hear things about her Twitter or Facebook from two years ago or whatever. I don't think it's appropriate for the House to go disciplining her for things she did or said before she was in Congress.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4    3 weeks ago

She admitted in a speech to Congress today that she was duped into believing ridiculous conspiracy theories. She should resign, although I dont expect that to happen. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    3 weeks ago
She should resign

Why? Because she believed something when she was a private citizen? Did she do something wrong as a member of Congress?

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.1.2  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    3 weeks ago

So now she wants everyone to believe that she was played? Now she is going to say what she believed were conspiracy theories?

She is so full of shit.

Also, if she was duped so easily, not exactly a ringing recommendation for her to hold the job.

I am an idiot that believes any wacky thing on the internet. Let me be your voice in congress...

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.1.3  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

Did you see the vid of her marching down the halls of congress throwing a fit about several members of congress not swearing on a bible? Saying that they were not legally seated for the position just because a bible was not used.

She is a fruitcake.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
Let me be your voice in congress...

Didn't she get 70-something percent of the vote? Sounds like she represents her constituency pretty well. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
She is a fruitcake.

It sounds like it, but I don't know that that's justification for disciplining her a month into her service.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

She has been a member of Congress for about a month. So everything she said before a month ago is irrelevant?  That doesnt even make any sense. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.7  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ender @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
I am an idiot that believes any wacky thing on the internet. Let me be your voice in congress...

Exactly. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
4.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.4    3 weeks ago

They're all obviously nuttier than this fruitcake.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
4.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.6    3 weeks ago
"She has been a member of Congress for about a month. So everything she said before a month ago is irrelevant?  That doesnt even make any sense."

You forgot that that only applies to republicans.

When it's a Democrat, going back 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years is fine and dandy

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.6    3 weeks ago
So everything she said before a month ago is irrelevant?  That doesnt even make any sense. 

So, if any person gets elected to Congress, Congress gets to punish them for everything they ever said or did? Since when? And how broad is this coverage? Has this lady even done anything that's actually a crime? I've seen some pretty obnoxious stuff come out of NT members. I guess no one here should ever run for office.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.9    3 weeks ago
You forgot that that only applies to republicans. When it's a Democrat, going back 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years is fine and dandy

Justice Kavanaugh has entered the chat.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
4.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.11    3 weeks ago

Deflection

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
4.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.11    3 weeks ago

that there is funny!

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.14  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.12    3 weeks ago

If so, then I'm doing you a favor.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.15  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.10    3 weeks ago

In 2019 Greene liked a comment on twitter that said Pelosi should get a bullet in the head. 

I think she needs to prove she deserves better treatment than she is getting now. Someone needs to pay a price for right wing extremism and she finds herself at the head of the line. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.15    3 weeks ago
In 2019 Greene liked a comment on twitter that said Pelosi should get a bullet in the head.

So, it's not a thing I would like, but my impulse - and maybe this is wrong of me - is that I don't tend to hold people as responsible for the things they retweet or like. I think people get caught in a tide of emotion online and so they agree with things that aren't necessarily their own thoughts. It still tells me something negative about her, but I hold the person who initially said it more responsible than her.

Even so, that was 2019. Condemn her for it? Fine, go ahead. But discipline from Congress is not appropriate.

I think she needs to prove she deserves better treatment than she is getting now.

She should be treated like any other brand new member of Congress.

Didn't she disavow the comments today? Wouldn't we want that? I feel like that should be enough, for now. What is the point of getting people to disavow dumb things they said or endorsed once upon a time, if we're still going to punish them for it?

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
4.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.16    3 weeks ago

Her disavowal is mere lip service. . . 

Once upon a time - you are freaking hilarious!

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.18  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.17    3 weeks ago
Her disavowal is mere lip service.

Then you should never ask for it from anyone or claim to be part of the mythical America that forgives. The House at least gave her the chance to speak, so maybe even they are more open-minded than you.

Once upon a time - you are freaking hilarious!

Unrelenting, blind hatred with no room for forgiveness is sad.

Honestly, if that is your attitude, then you should not be forgiving Biden or Clinton for supporting the crime bill in the 90s. You should not forgive Obama or any Democrat that ever hesitated on gay marriage or ever voted for border control or against abortion funding or contrary to any modern Democratic party position.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.19  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.18    3 weeks ago

You are comparing policy decisions to someone spreading violent conspiracy theories , and they are not comparable. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.20  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.19    3 weeks ago

Do you know how politicians on both sides of the spectrum freely tell anyone who will listen that their opponents want to destroy jobs, or the whole country? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.21  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.20    3 weeks ago

[ deleted ]

EtarOxlWgAcp0ZC?format=png&name=small

Alexandra Limon
In an impassioned speech @LeaderHoyer uses this image he says @mtgreenee posted on facebook a few months ago.
It depicts Greene holding an AR15 and says "squad's worst nightmare" it also depicts @AOC @IlhanMN @RepPressley
Hoyer asks, what message is this supposed to send?
 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.22  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.21    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

For the record, I haven't excused anything here. [deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.23  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.22    3 weeks ago

You want to compare Bill Clinton promoting a crime bill to Greene repeatedly making or approving of violent comments toward Democratic politicians. 

To say they are apples and oranges would be a vast understatement.  If you are not saying it to excuse Republicans like Greene then what is the point ? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.24  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.23    3 weeks ago
You want to compare Bill Clinton promoting a crime bill to Greene repeatedly making or approving of violent comments toward Democratic politicians.

I don't think you want me to, but I will. (By the way, I was thinking of Hillary, but it doesn't matter)

So, as I understand it, this Greene chick retweeted or liked some certain obnoxious messages. What has been the impact of that? Factually, we don't know. But let's say it fed, in some way, into the general angst that led to the attack on the Capitol a few weeks back. Some of the results of that were pretty awful. If I were her, I wouldn't want to be associated with that. If she contributed to it, I hope she genuinely regrets it.

Meanwhile, what has been the impact of the crime bill? Many thousands of people of color incarcerated for years? Torn from their families? Lives and livelihoods ruined? Dozens of new ways to get to the death penalty. How many people were killed as a result of that law who otherwise might have lived?

So you can see Greene as worse if you want. You can see my comparison as excuse making if you want. Some people will relentlessly believe whatever fits their political worldview.

Do you know that on his 2008 campaign website, Biden referred to that law as the "Biden Crime Law?" Seriously ! Follow the link. It's right there:

The Biden Crime Law:  Joe Biden wrote the legislation that put 100,000 cops on the streets, built drug courts to improve rehabilitation treatment for non-violent offenders and worked with community groups like the Boys and Girls Clubs and Police Athletic Leagues to keep kids off the streets and out of trouble, reducing crime eight years in a row.

He didn't just retweet someone else's shitty idea to destroy lives. He wrote the mother fucker! And up until day before yesterday (figuratively speaking) he was proud of it! He ran on it.

Should he maybe be impeached for it now?

Biden and Clinton have now both apologized for their support of the law and said it was wrong. And it's all good with you, right?

I don't know if you'll think about any of this, but at least it's out there for others to see.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.25  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.24    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

You wouldnt even be talking about the crime bill today except for the fact you wanted to use it to excuse Greene. 

The two things have nothing to do with each other, but you don't care.   When was the crime bill ? 25 years ago? 

Have you got anything within the past 3 years to defend Greene with ? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
4.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.24    3 weeks ago

All you have is whataboutism, deflection, and denial

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
4.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.18    3 weeks ago

Spin, twist, deny, deflect, whataboutism . . . all you got!

Unrelenting, blind hatred is what the gop/republicans are

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
4.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.22    3 weeks ago
"For the record, I haven't excused anything here. Not that you'd honestly consider that fact."

Of course you have,  not that you'd honestly consider that 'opinion'

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.29  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.25    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

When was the crime bill ? 25 years ago? 

25 years ago didn't matter to the people Biden and Clinton thought they needed to apologize to. Plenty of people in prison got a lot more than 25 years thanks to the Joe Biden Crime Bill.

Have you got anything within the past 3 years to defend Greene with ?

I'm not interested in defending Greene or anything she has said in the past 3 years. I want to know what she has done in the last month since she first joined Congress that warrants the House stripping her of committee assignments.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.30  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.26    3 weeks ago
All you have is whataboutism, deflection, and denial

All you have is whataboutism, deflection, and denial

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.31  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.27    3 weeks ago
Spin, twist, deny, deflect, whataboutism . . . all you got!

Spin, twist, deny, deflect, whataboutism . . . all you got!

Unrelenting, blind hatred is what the gop/republicans are

Doesn't effect me. I'm not a Republican.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
4.1.32  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.28    3 weeks ago
Of course you have,  not that you'd honestly consider that 'opinion'

I might if you could quote me excusing something. I won't hold my breath waiting for that happen, though.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
5  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

Nope, never

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Jim Jordan is up there making a fool out of himself again. 

The Republicans in the House are worthless. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

The Republican speeches at the debate over Marjorie Taylor Greene are just proving how fucking  nuts most of these people are. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @7    3 weeks ago

One of these morons just praised Greene for "fighting socialism" .

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Stenny Hoyer tearing the Republicans a new one. Check out his speech later. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Thrawn 31
Mark in Wyoming
Drakkonis


58 visitors