Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: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.

Oh, just stop it. They did NOT vote in favor of hate.
They voted against a worthless resolution. It may well have said... Just be kind. THAT, they would have voted for.

I'm sure both Farrakhan and David Duke approve of these Republicans' votes, as well as Louie Gohmert's anti-Semitic comment on TV that even Fox news apolpgized for.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-business-apologizes-for-louie-gohmert-spreading-anti-semitic-george-soros-conspiracy

FYI, all 23, including King, voted yes on H.R. 41 in January which "rejects White nationalism and White supremacy as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States."

So did Omar. So did nearly everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The inane bill passed. What a sad farce and needless rebuke of a representative’s right to express her views on important matters. A shameful episode.

It's not a rebuke of Omar, or her name would have been stated. But shameful, yes, as it is a waste of time. This is not what people are looking for their representatives to spend their time doing. "Be kind." Okay, got it. Now get some shit done.

The bill only exists because of a fake controversy over her remarks about the lobby and the willingness of Congress to do it's bidding. It's a shameful episode.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: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.

Oh, just stop it. They did NOT vote in favor of hate.
They voted against a worthless resolution. It may well have said... Just be kind. THAT, they would have voted for.

I'm sure both Farrakhan and David Duke approve of these Republicans' votes, as well as Louie Gohmert's anti-Semitic comment on TV that even Fox news apolpgized for.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-business-apologizes-for-louie-gohmert-spreading-anti-semitic-george-soros-conspiracy

FYI, all 23, including King, voted yes on H.R. 41 in January which "rejects White nationalism and White supremacy as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States."

Engel's statement was full of pain.
It's worth watching.

Anonymous wrote:The inane bill passed. What a sad farce and needless rebuke of a representative’s right to express her views on important matters. A shameful episode.

It's not a rebuke of Omar, or her name would have been stated. But shameful, yes, as it is a waste of time. This is not what people are looking for their representatives to spend their time doing. "Be kind." Okay, got it. Now get some shit done.

The inane bill passed. What a sad farce and needless rebuke of a representative’s right to express her views on important matters. A shameful episode.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: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.

Oh, just stop it. They did NOT vote in favor of hate.
They voted against a worthless resolution. It may well have said... Just be kind. THAT, they would have voted for.

I'm sure both Farrakhan and David Duke approve of these Republicans' votes, as well as Louie Gohmert's anti-Semitic comment on TV that even Fox news apolpgized for.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-business-apologizes-for-louie-gohmert-spreading-anti-semitic-george-soros-conspiracy

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

His father is Jewish. He's not a practicing Jew.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN's Manu Raju asks Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "Do you think that congresswoman Omar was unfairly singled out?"

Ocasio-Cortez: "You know I think that uh...I think that...you know I, I think that, that, uh, things came down on her a little too hard."

She's better at tweeting than talking.

Preparation is her savior.

jsteele wrote: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.

Oh, just stop it. They did NOT vote in favor of hate.
They voted against a worthless resolution. It may well have said... Just be kind. THAT, they would have voted for.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: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.

Fascinating -- that's exactly how Trump supporters defend him.

I have never heard Trump supporters defend him like that. But I do read his words, don't you? I think that when he says, "there are good people on both sides" of a hate rally, no interpretation is needed.

Anonymous wrote:[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.

Interesting that you misquote her 2012 tweet. In that tweet, she said that Israel had hypnotized the world, not the Jews. She later said that she didn't understand how that would be understood and apologized. But what we are discussing now, and what she was just criticized for on the floor of the US House of Representatives was her talk at Busboys and Poets. I can offer a couple of different possible explanations for the criticism. I don't know which, if any, are correct:

1) The first reports of her talk wildly mischaracterized her words. That established a narrative that has been difficult to push back. I also think that once many had reacted to the initial reports, they for whatever reason were reluctant to admit they were wrong.

2) It may be that the attacks on her have less to do with anti-Semitism and more to do with squashing any criticism of Israel and its supporters.

3) Omar's use of the word "allegiance" was unfortunate and contributed to the mischaracterization of her remarks. Had she said "support" instead, things might be different. It's possible that that single word is enough for some of her critics to basically declare "end of story" and not really concern themselves with her fuller statement.

4) Some may feel that while her words are not explicitly anti-Semitic, her intent (which assume to divine) was anti-Semitic.

5) I think that the attention paid to her 2012 tweet (for which she apologized) and her comment about the Benjamins, plus her religion, created a preconceived notion that she is anti-Semitic. This made it easy for people to assume the worst about her Busboys and Poets remarks and allowed easy acceptance of the initial mischaracterizations.

6) Lastly, the media played a significant role in broadcasting the mischaracterization of her remarks. Even now the Washington Post has an article that falsely describes what she said. I have written to the journalist and hopefully he will correct it.

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.

Fascinating -- that's exactly how Trump supporters defend him.

jsteele wrote:

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

Steyer has Jewish roots.

It's quite possible that Jordan did not know that or did not even think about it. After all, what's the first thing people think about when they think of Steyer? For me, it is that he is an extremely wealthy man who is spending his money on environmental issues and anti-Trump.

I never even thought about what his roots were.

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

Steyer has Jewish roots.