The Rush to Judge Ilhan Omar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The resolution opposing anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim and other hatred is currently being debated in the House. Check C-SPAN if you are interested.

Yet Omar isn't mentioned by name while a certain Republican from Iowa was named 8 weeks ago in the same resolution... double standard?

Well, to be fair, King actually said what he was criticized for saying. Omar is being criticized for something she didn't say.

How so?

What part do you want clarified? Omar's remarks are available in the first post of this thread. Read those and try to find where she accused Jews of having dual allegiance. She didn't.

why are All her criticisms of Israel and Israeli lobby the same as antisemitic tropes about Jews like Jews control others, Jews own others, etc? I’m jewish, are you? Do you think whites determine what anti black racism is?

Other than her tweet in 2012, none of the statements for which she is being criticized are about Israel. In the most recent case, she is being criticized for something she didn't even say. It is not a question of deciding what is anti-Semitic. Just read what she said and compare to what she is being accused of saying.

That’s your interpretation. Too bad every Democrat Jew doesn’t see it the way you do. Do you think they want this?

DP. I highly doubt you're a Democrat. Don't pretend that you can speak for them. It makes you look desperately manipulative.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The resolution opposing anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim and other hatred is currently being debated in the House. Check C-SPAN if you are interested.

Yet Omar isn't mentioned by name while a certain Republican from Iowa was named 8 weeks ago in the same resolution... double standard?

Well, to be fair, King actually said what he was criticized for saying. Omar is being criticized for something she didn't say.

How so?

What part do you want clarified? Omar's remarks are available in the first post of this thread. Read those and try to find where she accused Jews of having dual allegiance. She didn't.

why are All her criticisms of Israel and Israeli lobby the same as antisemitic tropes about Jews like Jews control others, Jews own others, etc? I’m jewish, are you? Do you think whites determine what anti black racism is?

Other than her tweet in 2012, none of the statements for which she is being criticized are about Israel. In the most recent case, she is being criticized for something she didn't even say. It is not a question of deciding what is anti-Semitic. Just read what she said and compare to what she is being accused of saying.

That’s your interpretation. Too bad every Democrat Jew doesn’t see it the way you do. Do you think they want this?

Just read her words. There is nothing to interpret. It is no accident that her entire sentence is almost never quoted. Indeed, even partial quotes are rare. Most common are paraphrases that are completely different than what she actually said.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The resolution opposing anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim and other hatred is currently being debated in the House. Check C-SPAN if you are interested.

Yet Omar isn't mentioned by name while a certain Republican from Iowa was named 8 weeks ago in the same resolution... double standard?

Well, to be fair, King actually said what he was criticized for saying. Omar is being criticized for something she didn't say.

How so?

What part do you want clarified? Omar's remarks are available in the first post of this thread. Read those and try to find where she accused Jews of having dual allegiance. She didn't.

why are All her criticisms of Israel and Israeli lobby the same as antisemitic tropes about Jews like Jews control others, Jews own others, etc? I’m jewish, are you? Do you think whites determine what anti black racism is?

Other than her tweet in 2012, none of the statements for which she is being criticized are about Israel. In the most recent case, she is being criticized for something she didn't even say. It is not a question of deciding what is anti-Semitic. Just read what she said and compare to what she is being accused of saying.

That’s your interpretation. Too bad every Democrat Jew doesn’t see it the way you do. Do you think they want this?

Just read her words. There is nothing to interpret. It is no accident that her entire sentence is almost never quoted. Indeed, even partial quotes are rare. Most common are paraphrases that are completely different than what she actually said.

so why are Duke and Farrakhan defending her?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The resolution opposing anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim and other hatred is currently being debated in the House. Check C-SPAN if you are interested.

Yet Omar isn't mentioned by name while a certain Republican from Iowa was named 8 weeks ago in the same resolution... double standard?

Well, to be fair, King actually said what he was criticized for saying. Omar is being criticized for something she didn't say.

How so?

What part do you want clarified? Omar's remarks are available in the first post of this thread. Read those and try to find where she accused Jews of having dual allegiance. She didn't.

why are All her criticisms of Israel and Israeli lobby the same as antisemitic tropes about Jews like Jews control others, Jews own others, etc? I’m jewish, are you? Do you think whites determine what anti black racism is?

Other than her tweet in 2012, none of the statements for which she is being criticized are about Israel. In the most recent case, she is being criticized for something she didn't even say. It is not a question of deciding what is anti-Semitic. Just read what she said and compare to what she is being accused of saying.

That’s your interpretation. Too bad every Democrat Jew doesn’t see it the way you do. Do you think they want this?

Just read her words. There is nothing to interpret. It is no accident that her entire sentence is almost never quoted. Indeed, even partial quotes are rare. Most common are paraphrases that are completely different than what she actually said.

so why are Duke and Farrakhan defending her?

I can't speak for them, but they may also be believing the mischaracterizations that are being spread. Is there any reason that you cannot read what she said for yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The resolution opposing anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim and other hatred is currently being debated in the House. Check C-SPAN if you are interested.

Yet Omar isn't mentioned by name while a certain Republican from Iowa was named 8 weeks ago in the same resolution... double standard?

Well, to be fair, King actually said what he was criticized for saying. Omar is being criticized for something she didn't say.

How so?

What part do you want clarified? Omar's remarks are available in the first post of this thread. Read those and try to find where she accused Jews of having dual allegiance. She didn't.

why are All her criticisms of Israel and Israeli lobby the same as antisemitic tropes about Jews like Jews control others, Jews own others, etc? I’m jewish, are you? Do you think whites determine what anti black racism is?

Other than her tweet in 2012, none of the statements for which she is being criticized are about Israel. In the most recent case, she is being criticized for something she didn't even say. It is not a question of deciding what is anti-Semitic. Just read what she said and compare to what she is being accused of saying.

That’s your interpretation. Too bad every Democrat Jew doesn’t see it the way you do. Do you think they want this?

Just read her words. There is nothing to interpret. It is no accident that her entire sentence is almost never quoted. Indeed, even partial quotes are rare. Most common are paraphrases that are completely different than what she actually said.

so why are Duke and Farrakhan defending her?

Because they love triggering snowflakes like you

[Anonymous]

This resolution translates to......."All hate matters."
Just let it die already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This resolution translates to......."All hate matters."
Just let it die already.

Don’t they feel ridiculous? It’s another step into empty symbolism, something I thought the Dems had already over pursued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This resolution translates to......."All hate matters."
Just let it die already.

Yet doesn't address the victim card the Omar and her supporters wanted in the bill. That is why Louie Gohmert and so far two other Reps voted no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The resolution opposing anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim and other hatred is currently being debated in the House. Check C-SPAN if you are interested.

Yet Omar isn't mentioned by name while a certain Republican from Iowa was named 8 weeks ago in the same resolution... double standard?

Well, to be fair, King actually said what he was criticized for saying. Omar is being criticized for something she didn't say.

How so?

What part do you want clarified? Omar's remarks are available in the first post of this thread. Read those and try to find where she accused Jews of having dual allegiance. She didn't.

why are All her criticisms of Israel and Israeli lobby the same as antisemitic tropes about Jews like Jews control others, Jews own others, etc? I’m jewish, are you? Do you think whites determine what anti black racism is?

Other than her tweet in 2012, none of the statements for which she is being criticized are about Israel. In the most recent case, she is being criticized for something she didn't even say. It is not a question of deciding what is anti-Semitic. Just read what she said and compare to what she is being accused of saying.

That’s your interpretation. Too bad every Democrat Jew doesn’t see it the way you do. Do you think they want this?

DP. I highly doubt you're a Democrat. Don't pretend that you can speak for them. It makes you look desperately manipulative.

Excuse me? That's laughable. No, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not suggesting I read their minds and this is how I believe they feel. This is what they said, and the very reason this resolution even came to be.

And Jeff, with your eternal questioning line of, "Is there any reason....?" I did read her words, and I, like many others who are on her side, find them to be offensive. You're wasting your breath defending her. Is there any reason for Jews in her party to perceive her comments to be anti-Semitic when they 100% are not? Is this a good look for the party? You're saying this as if it's a fact. Is it possible you're not in the right position to decide that for them?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Excuse me? That's laughable. No, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not suggesting I read their minds and this is how I believe they feel. This is what they said, and the very reason this resolution even came to be.

And Jeff, with your eternal questioning line of, "Is there any reason....?" I did read her words, and I, like many others who are on her side, find them to be offensive. You're wasting your breath defending her. Is there any reason for Jews in her party to perceive her comments to be anti-Semitic when they 100% are not? Is this a good look for the party? You're saying this as if it's a fact. Is it possible you're not in the right position to decide that for them?

Look, don't play the "only Jews can decide what is anti-Semitic" game. That is very tedious. As I've said earlier, this is not a question of interpretation. This is a simple case of her words not saying what her critics say they say. The only interpretation being done is by those who are spinning her actual words into a complete mischaracterization. Please quote from her talk at Busboys and Poets the words that you find to be offensive. Please show me the words and let's see what they actually say.

BTW, just the other day Rep. Jerry Nadler said that a tweet by Jim Jordan was anti-Semitic. Jordan has not received any significant criticism and none from Republicans. There was a Jewish poster in this forum saying that Nadler didn't count because he was left-wing and a token source. So much for letting Jews decide.

[jsteele]

23 Republicans voted in favor of hate. Stupid Louie Gohmert even gave a floor speech saying the according to the Bible, hate is okay.

Update: a few votes were changed after the gavel, so I updated the number.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Excuse me? That's laughable. No, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not suggesting I read their minds and this is how I believe they feel. This is what they said, and the very reason this resolution even came to be.

And Jeff, with your eternal questioning line of, "Is there any reason....?" I did read her words, and I, like many others who are on her side, find them to be offensive. You're wasting your breath defending her. Is there any reason for Jews in her party to perceive her comments to be anti-Semitic when they 100% are not? Is this a good look for the party? You're saying this as if it's a fact. Is it possible you're not in the right position to decide that for them?

Look, don't play the "only Jews can decide what is anti-Semitic" game. That is very tedious. As I've said earlier, this is not a question of interpretation. This is a simple case of her words not saying what her critics say they say. The only interpretation being done is by those who are spinning her actual words into a complete mischaracterization. Please quote from her talk at Busboys and Poets the words that you find to be offensive. Please show me the words and let's see what they actually say.

BTW, just the other day Rep. Jerry Nadler said that a tweet by Jim Jordan was anti-Semitic. Jordan has not received any significant criticism and none from Republicans. There was a Jewish poster in this forum saying that Nadler didn't count because he was left-wing and a token source. So much for letting Jews decide.

so do non Muslims get to decide what islamophobia is?

[Anonymous]

steyer isn’t even Jewish. How could what Jordan say be antisemitic? Steyer is Episcopalian

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Excuse me? That's laughable. No, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not suggesting I read their minds and this is how I believe they feel. This is what they said, and the very reason this resolution even came to be.

And Jeff, with your eternal questioning line of, "Is there any reason....?" I did read her words, and I, like many others who are on her side, find them to be offensive. You're wasting your breath defending her. Is there any reason for Jews in her party to perceive her comments to be anti-Semitic when they 100% are not? Is this a good look for the party? You're saying this as if it's a fact. Is it possible you're not in the right position to decide that for them?

Look, don't play the "only Jews can decide what is anti-Semitic" game. That is very tedious. As I've said earlier, this is not a question of interpretation. This is a simple case of her words not saying what her critics say they say. The only interpretation being done is by those who are spinning her actual words into a complete mischaracterization. Please quote from her talk at Busboys and Poets the words that you find to be offensive. Please show me the words and let's see what they actually say.

BTW, just the other day Rep. Jerry Nadler said that a tweet by Jim Jordan was anti-Semitic. Jordan has not received any significant criticism and none from Republicans. There was a Jewish poster in this forum saying that Nadler didn't count because he was left-wing and a token source. So much for letting Jews decide.

so do non Muslims get to decide what islamophobia is?

What a stupid question. I am not Muslim and I am perfectly capable of recognizing Islamophobia when i see it. Certainly we should always value the feelings of others and seek understanding from their perspectives. But, I don't see any reason whatsoever to allow others to completely mischaracterize someone's words.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Excuse me? That's laughable. No, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not suggesting I read their minds and this is how I believe they feel. This is what they said, and the very reason this resolution even came to be.

And Jeff, with your eternal questioning line of, "Is there any reason....?" I did read her words, and I, like many others who are on her side, find them to be offensive. You're wasting your breath defending her. Is there any reason for Jews in her party to perceive her comments to be anti-Semitic when they 100% are not? Is this a good look for the party? You're saying this as if it's a fact. Is it possible you're not in the right position to decide that for them?

Look, don't play the "only Jews can decide what is anti-Semitic" game. That is very tedious. As I've said earlier, this is not a question of interpretation. This is a simple case of her words not saying what her critics say they say. The only interpretation being done is by those who are spinning her actual words into a complete mischaracterization. Please quote from her talk at Busboys and Poets the words that you find to be offensive. Please show me the words and let's see what they actually say.

BTW, just the other day Rep. Jerry Nadler said that a tweet by Jim Jordan was anti-Semitic. Jordan has not received any significant criticism and none from Republicans. There was a Jewish poster in this forum saying that Nadler didn't count because he was left-wing and a token source. So much for letting Jews decide.

All I'm saying is that a WHOLE LOT of Jewish people, for whom having a major disruption in their party is undesirable, are choosing (I suppose) to find her words offensive and anti-Semitic. Is it just more outrage culture? If Democrats are so whipped up by the outrage culture they have created that they can't even step back and interpret benign words the way they were intended, even when it's in their best interest to do so, then that's going to be the death of them. OTOH, if that's not what it is, perhaps you could just say that people feel the way they feel, and that her words aroused some sort of feelings in them that were negative and familiar. And if so, then there's a very good chance that the phrasing or something about her words makes them less innocent than you feel they are. If there are two distinct viewpoints on this within the Democratic party, it is clearly up for interpretation and far from factual.

When a group of Jewish leaders in MN met with her last year to tell her they were upset by things she had said, and the "Jews have hypnotized the world" comment was one among other things she had said, can we accept that their feelings and reasons were legitimate? We do not know what their other examples were.