AOC facing expulsion from Congress, and revocation of national security clearance.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I merely pointed out one small third-grade error on your part as a courtesy to you. You could have thanked me.

Why did you pivot entirely away from, and thus totally ignore, the part of my post that caused you to panic and to flee to the hills?

It's funny that you think you are so well versed in grammar and yet you still get so much wrong.
Is it because of your failure to understand the first law of thermodynamics?

 

[Into the Night]

You are being dishonest in your question by using the word "supporting,"

No. I'm not. That is what she is doing, supporting criminal activity.

as though you can shoehorn any protected speech into the "aiding and abetting" pigeon hole.

Supporting criminal activity is not free speech.

I would fire your question back at you: What information are you claiming is illegal under the 1st Amendment?

There is no information. It is subverting immigration law and supporting criminal activity. The 1st amendment does not even apply here.

Of course the issue you raise was resolved long ago by the publishing of the Anarchist Cookbook.

Supporting criminal activity is not publishing any book.

All the books content, how to build explosives, making and using moletov cocktails, fashioning lock picks, improvising firearms, sabotage strategies, etc. have been upheld as protected speech.

Pivot fallacy. I am not discussing any book. BTW, if you DID follow the recipes in that book, you WILL damage yourself, quite possibly fatally. You will also be violating federal and state law to do it.

Bottom Line: You may not like it, but as long as Alé Cortez is only explaining how to do something and providing information, it's protected free speech under the 1st Amendment.

There is nothing that protects supporting criminal activity.

 

[Into the Night]

It's funny that you think you are so well versed in grammar and yet you still get so much wrong.
Is it because of your failure to understand the first law of thermodynamics?

He understands the 1st law of thermodynamics. It is YOU that ignores this theory of science.

 

[AProudLefty]

Well then, I guess you have absolutely nothing to worry about then...


I am so glad that's settled.

MAGAts are the ones worried.

 

[Into the Night]

MAGAts are the ones worried.

MAGA isn't a person, Sybil.

 

[AProudLefty]

MAGA isn't a person, Sybil.

No shit, Sherlock?

 

[Into the Night]

No shit, Sherlock?

Denying your own posts never works, Sybil.

 

[AProudLefty]

Denying your own posts never works, Sybil.

Denial of logic doesn't work.

 

[Into the Night]

Denial of logic doesn't work.

Random phrase. No apparent coherency.

 

[Althea]

Posting something you don’t know is true or not is a sure sign of ignorance.

I don't watch vids. I'm sure there's no text to whatever the claims are.

 

[Althea]

AOC is on the run, and that is a good thang!

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5051451-ocasio-cortez-house-defeat-future/

God is merciful. Karma is good

You wet yourself over this?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is facing an uncertain future after a pivotal setback this week, when she lost her race to lead Democrats on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee

The head of the minority representation on a committee that essentially leaves them impotent anyway?

 

[Althea]

AOC, in my view, may very well be the most predominant patriot remaining in this dismantled, devastated nation.

We have 77+ million people in America
who don't, by any standard, deserve to share in the planet's oxygen supply,
and wouldn't be if it were my call--no hyperbole--
so I'll not disparage a genuinely good person when I run across one.

AOC unseated a long time extremely progressive man who had a history of voting in exactly the same manner as AOC has every single time. Ten years worth.

She certainly didn't beat him on policy, or because he wasn't loved in his district. It was a primary that had a great ground game against a veteran who didn't really have a serious challenger. Or so he thought.

What you didn't get with Crowley, was fodder for opposition soundbites re. 'defund the police'.

For all of her quality work on her committee assignments, she went through the puberty phase in Congress by flapping her immature mouth. Having AOC is a liability compared to Crowley. She inspires the youth vote, which happens to have gotten trump elected...twice.

 

[IBDaMann]

No. I'm not.

Yes, you are being totally dishonest. You are framing your argument as though it is an accepted fact by using the clause "supporting criminal activity" to imply aiding and abetting crimes, which would be illegal. Nothing that is completely legal and protected under the 1st Amendment is criminal. Reword your question. Until then, my question to you is what information/data are you claiming is illegal under the 1st Amendment? You tell me that and I'll tell you how the 1st Amendment supports crime.

That is what she is doing, supporting criminal activity.

She is not aiding and abetting. Her information is protected speech. Period. Full stop.

Supporting criminal activity is not free speech.

Hence the error in your logic.

There is no information.

It's all information. You are running yourself into a brick wall. The 1st Amendment entirely protects Alé's free expression of information to whomever she wishes.

There can be only one question: Did Alé sign a non-disclosure agreement? No? Well, then she can say whatever she wishes to whomever she wishes.

The solution in this case is for DHS and ICE to practice good OPSEC and make sure nobody knows their plans and operations.

It is subverting immigration law

Nope. It is subverting deportation operations. Only Congress can alter/modify/abolish/subvert immigration law.

The 1st amendment does not even apply here.

The 1st Amendment always applies and, in this case, is the final word. All of Alé's expression is protected speech and that's as far as it will go. If you are expecting it to go beyond that, prepare to be heavily disappointed. Somebody might try to censure Alé, but that will be rather inconsequential.

Pivot fallacy. I am not discussing any book.

Of course not. The Anarchist's Cookbook falsifies your argument. You haven't ever read it, have you? It is a manual/handbook on how to break the law. It provides information just as Alé is doing. It's all protected speech.

BTW, if you DID follow the recipes in that book, you WILL damage yourself,

Not "will", but "very possibly can." Many resistance groups have relied upon that book religiously without problem. The book and its author have been investigated, ergo this entire issue has already been investigated thoroughly. It hasn't been tried in SCOTUS because nobody will waste the time going to SCOTUS just to lose handily.

You will also be violating federal and state law to do it.

... but the book itself, and the information it contains, is entirely legal.

There is nothing that protects supporting criminal activity.

There is no such thing as information that is somehow not protected under the 1st Amendment. This one's a non-starter.

 

[AProudLefty]

Yes, you are being totally dishonest. You are framing your argument as though it is an accepted fact by using the clause "supporting criminal activity" to imply aiding and abetting crimes, which would be illegal. Nothing that is completely legal and protected under the 1st Amendment is criminal. Reword your question. Until then, my question to you is what information/data are you claiming is illegal under the 1st Amendment? You tell me that and I'll tell you how the 1st Amendment supports crime.


She is not aiding and abetting. Her information is protected speech. Period. Full stop.


Hence the error in your logic.


It's all information. You are running yourself into a brick wall. The 1st Amendment entirely protects Alé's free expression of information to whomever she wishes.

There can be only one question: Did Alé sign a non-disclosure agreement? No? Well, then she can say whatever she wishes to whomever she wishes.

The solution in this case is for DHS and ICE to practice good OPSEC and make sure nobody knows their plans and operations.


Nope. It is subverting deportation operations. Only Congress can alter/modify/abolish/subvert immigration law.


The 1st Amendment always applies and, in this case, is the final word. All of Alé's expression is protected speech and that's as far as it will go. If you are expecting it to go beyond that, prepare to be heavily disappointed. Somebody might try to censure Alé, but that will be rather inconsequential.


Of course not. The Anarchist's Cookbook falsifies your argument. You haven't ever read it, have you? It is a manual/handbook on how to break the law. It provides information just as Alé is doing. It's all protected speech.


Not "will", but "very possibly can." Many resistance groups have relied upon that book religiously without problem. The book and its author have been investigated, ergo this entire issue has already been investigated thoroughly. It hasn't been tried in SCOTUS because nobody will waste the time going to SCOTUS just to lose handily.


... but the book itself, and the information it contains, is entirely legal.


There is no such thing as information that is somehow not protected under the 1st Amendment. This one's a non-starter.

Wow you are being a voice of reason and correct this time! Congratulations!

 

[IBDaMann]

Wow you are being a voice of reason and correct this time! Congratulations!

Yep. I'm still batting 1.000

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, you are being totally dishonest. You are framing your argument as though it is an accepted fact by using the clause "supporting criminal activity" to imply aiding and abetting crimes,

She is aiding and abetting crimes. Yes. It's illegal.

which would be illegal. Nothing that is completely legal and protected under the 1st Amendment is criminal. Reword your question. Until then, my question to you is what information/data are you claiming is illegal under the 1st Amendment? You tell me that and I'll tell you how the 1st Amendment supports crime.

1st amendment is not involved.

She is not aiding and abetting. Her information is protected speech. Period. Full stop.

She is aiding and abetting.

Hence the error in your logic.

There isn't one. You can't blame your fallacies on me or anybody else.

It's all information.

No, it isn't.

You are running yourself into a brick wall.

Cliche fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.

The 1st Amendment entirely protects Alé's free expression of information to whomever she wishes.

It is not just information. The 1st amendment isn't involved.

There can be only one question: Did Alé sign a non-disclosure agreement? No? Well, then she can say whatever she wishes to whomever she wishes.

Supporting criminal activity is not protected by any part of the Constitution.

The solution in this case is for DHS and ICE to practice good OPSEC and make sure nobody knows their plans and operations.

Hence the initiative to remove her from any security clearances.

Nope. It is subverting deportation operations.

That is a criminal activity.

Only Congress can alter/modify/abolish/subvert immigration law.

WRONG. The President can modify some aspects of immigration law. BOTH must conform to the Constitution of the United States.

The 1st Amendment always applies

The 1st amendment isn't even involved here. It only applies to Congress.

and, in this case, is the final word.

The 1st amendment isn't even involved.

All of Alé's expression is protected speech and that's as far as it will go.

Criminal activity and aiding and abetting criminal activity is NOT protected by any part of the Constitution.

If you are expecting it to go beyond that, prepare to be heavily disappointed. Somebody might try to censure Alé, but that will be rather inconsequential.

Oh? Censorship is real, IBD. So is losing a security clearance.

Of course not. The Anarchist's Cookbook falsifies your argument.

Aiding and abetting criminal activity is not a book, even is some States ban it.

You haven't ever read it, have you?

I have a copy. It's legal to have a copy in Washington State.

It is a manual/handbook on how to break the law.

No, it isn't. It's a book describing some rather dubious recipes and procedures for making some improvised weapons. Following them will very likely result in your death or dismemberment. If you are licensed to manufacture explosives (as I am), you will already see this. If you manufacture ANY of these items without being properly licensed, you are breaking both State and federal law.

It provides information just as Alé is doing. It's all protected speech.

It is not protected speech. It is banned by some States. The federal government cannot ban it. The 1st amendment ONLY applies to the federal government.

Not "will", but "very possibly can." Many resistance groups have relied upon that book religiously without problem.

Who? Following these recipes is extremely dangerous.

The book and its author have been investigated, ergo this entire issue has already been investigated thoroughly.

Now you're just making shit up.

It hasn't been tried in SCOTUS because nobody will waste the time going to SCOTUS just to lose handily.

SCOTUS has no authority to change the constitution of any State.

... but the book itself, and the information it contains, is entirely legal.

In most States, yes. In some States, no.

There is no such thing as information that is somehow not protected under the 1st Amendment. This one's a non-starter.

There certainly is. The 1st amendment does not apply to States. It only applies to the federal government.

The 1st amendment isn't even involved with what AOC has been doing.

 

[Into the Night]

Yep. I'm still batting 1.000

Assumption of victory fallacy.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

AOC unseated a long time extremely progressive man who had a history of voting in exactly the same manner as AOC has every single time. Ten years worth.

She certainly didn't beat him on policy, or because he wasn't loved in his district. It was a primary that had a great ground game against a veteran who didn't really have a serious challenger. Or so he thought.

What you didn't get with Crowley, was fodder for opposition soundbites re. 'defund the police'.

For all of her quality work on her committee assignments, she went through the puberty phase in Congress by flapping her immature mouth. Having AOC is a liability compared to Crowley. She inspires the youth vote, which happens to have gotten trump elected...twice.

While you make valid points, my support and respect for the young woman remains firm.

This is what I know for certain,
even as almost nobody else ever brings up the thought.

Americans in general and lukewarm liberals in particular
are sadly too timid to understand
how there are no moderate solutions to hugely immoderate problems.

Americans are now polarized far beyond the tipping point.
Progressive Americans are NEVER going to have a tolerable government with this nation remaining in its
current, unified configuration.

Being this unsatisfied brings consequences.
I hope to be still living to see the explosion and thus see my view proven,
even though the experience will be horrific.

I don't merely disagree with 77 million+ trumpanzees.
I quite literally bear seething hatred for them.
I am certain that they've all devolved to sub-human mutant status.

They are no longer merely the opposition.
They are now the mortal enemy.

If America makes no serious attempt to give up its current configuration
and try to partition in a way to accommodate its totally incompatible current citizenry,
we will completely bypass third world status
and quickly evolve into a fourth world, apocalyptic dystopia.

I think we're getting uncomfortably close to that RIGHT NOW.
We're a putridly smelling dumpster fire under the pigfucker,
and it gets worse every day.

As for those responsible for the pigfucking orangutan being elected twice,
if they could only be stacked in a bonfire and doused with gasoline,
I would ecstatically light the match.
No hyperbole. I couldn't speak more literally.

 

[Althea]

While you make valid points, my support and respect for the young woman remains firm.

This is what I know for certain,
even as almost nobody else ever brings up the thought.

Americans in general and lukewarm liberals in particular
are sadly too timid to understand
how there are no moderate solutions to hugely immoderate problems.

Americans are now polarized far beyond the tipping point.
Progressive Americans are NEVER going to have a tolerable government with this nation remaining in its
current, unified configuration.

Being this unsatisfied brings consequences.
I hope to be still living to see the explosion and thus see my view proven,
even though the experience will be horrific.

I don't merely disagree with 77 million+ trumpanzees.
I quite literally bear seething hatred for them.
I am certain that they've all devolved to sub-human mutant status.

They are no longer merely the opposition.
They are now the mortal enemy.

If America makes no serious attempt to give up its current configuration
and try to partition in a way to accommodate its totally incompatible current citizenry,
we will completely bypass third world status
and quickly evolve into a fourth world, apocalyptic dystopia.

I think we're getting uncomfortably close to that RIGHT NOW.
We're a putridly smelling dumpster fire under the pigfucker,
and it gets worse every day.

As for those responsible for the pigfucking orangutan being elected twice,
if they could only be stacked in a bonfire and doused with gasoline,
I would ecstatically light the match.
No hyperbole. I couldn't speak more literally.

Again...the 'Squad' was instrumental in getting trump elected. Twice. This time around it was rhetoric re. Netanyahu's war crimes, and how Biden was to blame. Last time it was Bernie Bots who were butt hurt over the curmudgeon not getting the nod.

There is absolutely nothing that will stop the scenario you describe above. People should have thought about that before they simply could not pull the lever for a vagina.

Fuck everyone.

 

[IBDaMann]

She is aiding and abetting crimes. Yes. It's illegal.

So you are openly declaring that you do not understand that protected speech is never illegal. This should explain why your argument will never gain traction.

1st amendment is not involved.

Frankly, this is very unlike you to so quickly strip away inalienable rights. Fortunately for all Americans who enjoy their 1st Amendment protections, this issue will not go your way.

ICE and DHS are just going to have to practice good OPSEC.

She is aiding and abetting.

Nope. She is engaging in free expression. See the 1st Amendment.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

In this case, it is not a fallacy to declare victory. By when do you imagine that I will have been shown to be incorrect?

It is not just information. The 1st amendment isn't involved.

It's information. The 1st Amendment protects it all ... and you know this. You EVADE my question about what information you claim is not protected under the 1st Amendment. We don't need to rake you over the coals any further if you wish to drop this point.

Supporting criminal activity is not protected by any part of the Constitution.

... and free expression that is protected under the 1st Amendment is not "supporting criminal activity".

Hence the initiative to remove her from any security clearances.

That's not a result of her having done anything illegal. It's the result of her violating her oath of office.

WRONG. The President can modify some aspects of immigration law.

Nope. The President can only modify regulations, not any law.