Correct. She is being removed from committees for things she said prior to becoming a Congresswomen. She should be judged in Congress for things she does and says in Congress. Welcome to supporting cancel culture.
No, she's being removed for things she said before AND after she became a Congresswomen. You realize she didn't just stop saying shitty things once she was sworn in, right? Don't be so eager with the Gotcha! on the "cancel culture" stuff. However, what she did prior to being a Congresswomen has no relevance whatsoever? During her campaign? There's no line?
1) That goes back to my first question. What has she said since being sworn in that warrants being thrown off Committees. 2) There is a line. If she crossed it was determined by the voters in her jurisdiction. They apparently feel she did not cross it.
You said that she is being removed for things she said before and after becoming a Congresswoman. What has she said since being sworn in that you feel warrants the removal from Committees?
No, you definitely meant consequences. Cancel culture isn’t a real thing. It’s what people cry, so they can blame others because somebody, or themselves, had to face the consequences for their shitty behavior. Or, more succinctly - play shitty games, win shitty prizes.
It's a continuum of items, an accumulation of conspiracy theories, threats and outright lies which even got McConnell to denounce her, which is what creates the need to remove her. I mean, look, we could run down the hole of her statements timing (And, yes, I could note her lies regarding the election, among a couple of other items), but I'm more astounded that you would think previous statements like school shootings are hoaxes wouldn't preclude her from being on the education committee merely because she said them prior to becoming a House representative. If she had been on a committee regarding diversity and it had been revealed she advocated the idea in a tweet that Zionists were encouraging Muslims to emigrate to Europe in order to miscegenate with white people or a host of other anti-Muslim tropes, which she did, I would find it hard to justify not removing her simply because of timing. She's not entitled to those spots, in any way. If she's put on these committees by previous advocacies or interests, should not those motivators be considered?
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.
I didn't miss anything, you haven't explained why BDS means the end of the only Jewish state on earth. Unless you are saying that Israel cannot exist, without human rights violations. I do need you to explain how the boycott means the end of Israel, and not, hopefully, just the end of human rights violations. Google can't explain that. I'm not talking to Nancy Pelosi, and I doubt she could explain it, either. So, here we go again, how does BDS mean that Israel must cease to exist?
If the people you wanted to do it, didn't do it... but someone did do it, and you don't like it... then you didn't really want it done. You're just bullshiting. No, I said Greene should be removed, and then based on her response, determine whether she should be reinstated. Omar has already moved into the "reinstatement" zone, through apology. So removing her is just for spite, not to actually achieve something. I don't believe Greene was removed for spite. She so far hasn't apologized. Yes, it does matter. Certain people have more weight, and that weight changes things.
You are a teacher; would you support the following scenario. You are teaching. A School Official comes into your classroom and says we are relieving you of all teaching duties. There is a chair in the Hall. You will now only be Hall Monitor. Uni - But why? School Official - Well it has come to our attention that before you became a teacher that you said x, y, and z. Some find those words objectionable therefore you cannot teach. Uni -But wait; I should be judged by my teaching ability not something I said that some might find objectionable before then. School Official - Your performance as a teacher does not matter. Uni - You are right. Where is that chair again?
Yes, this happens all the time, in all walks of life. There is no loss of pay. No loss of livelihood. But you've got it flipped. She still gets to teach (ie: make laws). Uni has just lost the ability to coach women's basketball, because last year, before becoming coach, he said he liked to look in the girls locker room and see naked teenagers. And then you're like "But he should only be judged by how good a basketball coach he is, not that he likes to skeeve on teenagers!" But you wouldn't say that... would you?
If x, y and z was about how, say, I hate kids and wish I could put a bullet in a few of them or something, then, yes, I would say it's relevant. It's also something, not those specific words, which has happened to people.
