Are you the PSD Dr. Phil? Sluggo was the one who belittle his post with his zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz remark
Printable View
Are you the PSD Dr. Phil? Sluggo was the one who belittle his post with his zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz remark
Were you following this at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
Sluggo misrepresented what AOC was saying. Crovash clearly pointed that out. Sluggo responded by ignoring reality and everything just said to run with the same ridiculous lies/misrepresentation about AOC again. Crovash then notes he clearly isn't listening to what AOC said again as it is misrepresented and sluggo responds with zzzzzzzzzz. The question you are telling him to answer is a misrepresentation of what was actually said/irrelevent in any way.
Okay. I didn't go that far back I guess. Still, I'd rather a repetitive answer over an insult. But I understand Sluggo Sloggoing getting that response.Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
I have no idea what "insult" you mean? Was it really anything different than anyone else posts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
Also if the entire issue is Sluggo choosing to be ignorant on this/posting in that way doesn't what he described actually fit what happened? He ignored reality and what was said to misrepresent AOC and when confronted he ignored that (put his head in the sand). I think it is pathetic when people ignore what is actually happening to call someone else out without actual context.
Scoots to the rescue!Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
This is what SHE SAID.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
This is a pattern of an attitude towards women and the dehumanization of others.
This was taken from a transcript of her speech.
All I asked was to explain this "attitude." Since I don't think she would take my call and you seem to agree with what she said, I thought you ight be willing to explain what this "attitude" is.
Either you can explain what this "attitude" is or you can't (or won't). Can anyone else explain this "attitude?"
And I agreed that it was a good speech ad that Yoho was wrong.
Whwere, in thos portion of the thread, did I bring up……the same ridiculous lies/misrepresentation about AOC again???Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
Well let's just take this as the point the conversation that conversation can end. Whatever conceptions occured before I think you have made yourself clear here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
I do think there is an attitude towards women. Again, as you stated language matters. Culturally there is no problem referring to any woman, and especially any woman who stands up for what she believes or what she wants as a dog. We have a word for this when men do it... assertive.
The pattern is established by all of the examples she gave prior to that statement.
If you listened to the entire speech carefully there would have been no question what she said, what she used as evidence, and what she meant.
I sure as hell don’t need to paraphrase it for you.
So you don't know what this attitude is???Quote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
Where you talk about it being the general approach of men. She gave examples of multiple men doing it very clearly and going over clearly what yoho did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
She gave examples of just a general violent/dehumanizing culture. She went over other politicians using "dehumanizing" language towards others (including woman).
If you listened to what she said it was not how you portrayed it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's a tough world out there. Politics, like many things, are not all huggy feely. They probably cuss and insult each other all the time. Are we supposed to treat women differently??? When people like Tlaib refer to the POTUS as an MFer, doesn't that bring women to the same level as the men??? (Did she ever apologize?…I may have missed that.)Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
There are 500+ congressionals plus several thousand staffers. I'm saure things get pretty colorful from time to time.
It's a tough world out there. Politics, like many things, are not all huggy feely. Congressionals probably cuss and insult each other all the time. Are we supposed to treat women differently??? When people like Tlaib refer to the POTUS as an MFer, doesn't that bring women to the same level as the men??? (Did she ever apologize?…I may have missed that.)Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
There are 500+ congressionals plus several thousand staffers. I'm sure things get pretty colorful from time to time.
Some people murder others. Doesn't mean murder is acceptable. I agree it probably does happen tons with people like yoho or a potus like trump it probably happens way way way more often than it should given what they do on camera let alone off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
What yoho did should be called out, of course you are more focused on aoc and defending him with "others do it too".
You rant non stop when Omar or aoc or tlaib say anything you don't like just like this post and multiple others now bringing this same instance up. If that's bad and worth doing then why do you have different standards when yoho/trump or others say bad things?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bolded 1…stupid point. Actually ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
Bolded 2…totally agree
Bolded 3…completely wrong, I'm not defending him. AOC used the term "attitude towards women" and I was wondering what she meant by that. In congress (or anywhere) is there an attitude toward women and a different attitude toward men? Is that what we want? If so, does that make female congressionals more powerful than males because we have to treat them differently. I thought they wanted to be treated equally.
Bolded 4…Can you read???? I clearly said That Yoho (who I was happily unaware even existed two weeks ago) was wrong and rude. I have also criticized Trump ad infinitum (that means a lot) for his stupid and childish tweets.
To recap the main points………
I said Yoho was wrong, I said AOC gave a good speech as rebuttal. I asked for clarification on "attitude."
What's the big deal here really??