Ilhan Omar compares the boycott of Israel to boycott of Nazis and USSR

[Pandaguineapig]

I find it funny the same people who make excuses for, and resist all attempts to sanction Iran, also think Israel should be sanctioned

[Vittorio]

I find it funny the same people who make excuses for, and resist all attempts to sanction Iran, also think Israel should be sanctioned

Quite so. The logical alternative is a consistent anti-nationalism.

[Ilhan Apologist]

I find it funny the same people who make excuses for, and resist all attempts to sanction Iran, also think Israel should be sanctioned

The people of Iran aren't calling for sanctions.

[Ilhan Apologist]

But anyway, did anyone on this thread actually read what she said? She just said that "Americans of conscience have a proud history of participating in boycotts to advocate for human rights abroad including ... boycotting Nazi Germany from March 1933 to October 1941 in response to the dehumanization of the Jewish people in the lead-up to the Holocaust." I don't see what's wrong with this.

Edit: Hang on, the Examiner obviously cut the quote so it looked like that was the only item she listed. Let me find the whole recording.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I had to dig a bit, but I think this is what the right is using as their most-recent excuse to be upset over a dark-skinned female Muslim in Congress this time:

Rep. Ilhan Omar introduces resolution affirming boycotts as protected free speech

Rep. Ilhan Omar drew praise for introducing a resolution on Wednesday affirming the use of boycotts as constitutionally protected free speech and a tactic for effecting social change.

Co-sponsored by Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and John Lewis, D-Ga., HR 496 says that "governments and nongovernmental organizations alike have sought to criminalize, stigmatize, and delegitimize the use of boycotts in an attempt to stifle constitutionally protected political expression."

Lewis' co-sponsorship of the new HR.496, CodePink said in its email, is one "of the most incredible aspects of this resolution." The group noted that he's "a long-time civil rights leader and 32-year-long congressmember known for his strong support for Israel."

As such, the group said, having Lewis as part of the resolution making clear the right to engage in political boycotts "sends a clear and direct statement that the right to boycott must be protected, regardless of one's position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This is a game-changer!"

I'm not sure why the right-wing is so bent out of shape over this - it protects their right to boycott gay wedding-cake bakers, companies that provide reproductive health care to their employees, or anyone who advertises via the arch-traitors at Google. It seems to be a bill that, were it to become law, would level the playing field... oh, yeah, right-wingers hate level playing fields. Nevermind - keep on with your hate for freedom, Republicans. (Or, you know, stop. But I won't be holding my breath.)

[OSR stands with Israel]

The unfortunate reality is that (always invalid) Nazi Germany comparisons are extremely common in American politics. Donald Rumsfeld invoked it to justify war with Iraq, and it is used all the time by politicians and commentators on all sides of the political spectrum. I wish it would end. But since this is Omar, it'll be treated as a bigger scandal than if someone else said it about some other country.

Even comparing Israel to Suddam Hussain Iraq is terrible because Hussain's Iraq was obviously much much worse .

Also : http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/baath.html



And lastly wasn’t the Ba’ath party full name the Arab National Socialist Party , so the comparison did make more sense. The main difference was was Iraq didn’t have the ability in 2003 to be a threat to peace as the Germans did 

Your first point is dead on correct. Sadly, your second one is flat out incorrect. Hussein was an absolute murderous dictator bastard who deserved his grisly end. As did his sons. However, the Socialist part of the Arab National Socialist Party has about as much to do with socialism as the Nazis official party name having the word socialist in it.

I’m not saying it has anything to do with socialism I’m just comparing how similar the name of the Ba’ath party was to the Nazis

Not sure of your point here....?

My point is why the comparison with Suddam Hussein Iraq with Nazi Germany made some sense even if the Bush Admin overstated that comparison by leaving out some key factors of why Iraq in the early 2000s wasn’t equivalent to the Nazis


On the other hand their is no comparison what so ever between Israel and the Nazis and stating so is I would say anti Semitic

[OSR stands with Israel]

But anyway, did anyone on this thread actually read what she said? She just said that "Americans of conscience have a proud history of participating in boycotts to advocate for human rights abroad including ... boycotting Nazi Germany from March 1933 to October 1941 in response to the dehumanization of the Jewish people in the lead-up to the Holocaust." I don't see what's wrong with this.

Edit: Hang on, the Examiner obviously cut the quote so it looked like that was the only item she listed. Let me find the whole recording.

Using the Nazis as an an example in this case is beyond terrible.

[Ilhan Apologist]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

I just don't see what's wrong with her listing these. She just listed all the major boycotts of countries that were engaging in human rights abuses.

[brucejoel99]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

[T'Chenka]

She isn't all wrong on this. We give way too much to Israel, and it feels more and more like the government is just sucking up to them when it comes to middle eastern policy. Not to mention massive human rights violations and obvious signs of autocracy. Her standing up to the establishment on this issue is probably the only thing I admire about her, but comparing it to Nazi Germany and the USSR is a mistake.

Jesus Christ, I agree with Grassr00ts.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The unfortunate reality is that (always invalid) Nazi Germany comparisons are extremely common in American politics. Donald Rumsfeld invoked it to justify war with Iraq, and it is used all the time by politicians and commentators on all sides of the political spectrum. I wish it would end. But since this is Omar, it'll be treated as a bigger scandal than if someone else said it about some other country.

Even comparing Israel to Suddam Hussain Iraq is terrible because Hussain's Iraq was obviously much much worse .

Also : http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/baath.html



And lastly wasn’t the Ba’ath party full name the Arab National Socialist Party , so the comparison did make more sense. The main difference was was Iraq didn’t have the ability in 2003 to be a threat to peace as the Germans did 

Your first point is dead on correct. Sadly, your second one is flat out incorrect. Hussein was an absolute murderous dictator bastard who deserved his grisly end. As did his sons. However, the Socialist part of the Arab National Socialist Party has about as much to do with socialism as the Nazis official party name having the word socialist in it.

I’m not saying it has anything to do with socialism I’m just comparing how similar the name of the Ba’ath party was to the Nazis

Not sure of your point here....?

My point is why the comparison with Suddam Hussein Iraq with Nazi Germany made some sense even if the Bush Admin overstated that comparison by leaving out some key factors of why Iraq in the early 2000s wasn’t equivalent to the Nazis


On the other hand their is no comparison what so ever between Israel and the Nazis and stating so is I would say anti Semitic

You're getting played by the news you're reading.

Here's how FOX News presented it:

“Americans of conscience have a proud history of participating in boycotts to advocate for human rights abroad including ... boycotting Nazi Germany from March 1933 to October 1941 in response to the dehumanization of the Jewish people in the lead-up to the Holocaust,” Omar said in the resolution introduced Tuesday.

Here's is the resolution's full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text

116th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 496

Affirming that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 16, 2019
Ms. Omar (for herself, Ms. Tlaib, and Mr. Lewis) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


Affirming that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Whereas boycotts have been effectively used in the United States by advocates for equal rights since the Boston Tea Party and include boycotts led by civil rights activists during the 1950s and 1960s in order to advocate for racial equality, such as the Montgomery bus boycott, and promote workers’ rights, such as the United Farm Workers-led boycott of table grapes;

Whereas Americans of conscience have a proud history of participating in boycotts to advocate for human rights abroad, including—

(1) attempting to slow Japanese aggression in the Pacific by boycotting Imperial Japan in 1937 and 1938;

(2) boycotting Nazi Germany from March 1933 to October 1941 in response to the dehumanization of the Jewish people in the lead-up to the Holocaust;

(3) the United States Olympic Committee boycotting the 1980 summer Olympics in Moscow in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the preceding year; and

(4) leading the campaign in the 1980s to boycott South African goods in opposition to apartheid in that country;

Whereas the Supreme Court, in the 1966 case Rosenblatt v. Baer, held that the First Amendment to the Constitution ensures that “[c]riticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion”;

Whereas the Supreme Court held in the 1982 case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware that “[t]he right of the States to regulate economic activity could not justify a complete prohibition against a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott … .”;

Whereas the Supreme Court has recognized various activities as “expressive conduct” warranting constitutional protection, such as flag burning, wearing black armbands, silent sit-ins, and creating and designing custom wedding cakes; and

Whereas despite this tradition, governments and nongovernmental organizations alike have sought to criminalize, stigmatize, and delegitimize the use of boycotts in an attempt to stifle constitutionally protected political expression: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) affirms that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2) opposes unconstitutional legislative efforts to limit the use of boycotts to further civil rights at home and abroad; and

(3) urges Congress, States, and civil rights leaders from all communities to endeavor to preserve the freedom of advocacy for all by opposing antiboycott resolutions and legislation.

I'm not going to snark. Just read it and then look back at the Fox News article and then read the resolution again.

[Pandaguineapig]

The unfortunate reality is that (always invalid) Nazi Germany comparisons are extremely common in American politics. Donald Rumsfeld invoked it to justify war with Iraq, and it is used all the time by politicians and commentators on all sides of the political spectrum. I wish it would end. But since this is Omar, it'll be treated as a bigger scandal than if someone else said it about some other country.

Even comparing Israel to Suddam Hussain Iraq is terrible because Hussain's Iraq was obviously much much worse .

Also : http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/baath.html



And lastly wasn’t the Ba’ath party full name the Arab National Socialist Party , so the comparison did make more sense. The main difference was was Iraq didn’t have the ability in 2003 to be a threat to peace as the Germans did 

Your first point is dead on correct. Sadly, your second one is flat out incorrect. Hussein was an absolute murderous dictator bastard who deserved his grisly end. As did his sons. However, the Socialist part of the Arab National Socialist Party has about as much to do with socialism as the Nazis official party name having the word socialist in it.

I’m not saying it has anything to do with socialism I’m just comparing how similar the name of the Ba’ath party was to the Nazis

Not sure of your point here....?

My point is why the comparison with Suddam Hussein Iraq with Nazi Germany made some sense even if the Bush Admin overstated that comparison by leaving out some key factors of why Iraq in the early 2000s wasn’t equivalent to the Nazis


On the other hand their is no comparison what so ever between Israel and the Nazis and stating so is I would say anti Semitic

You're getting played by the news you're reading.

Here's how FOX News presented it:

“Americans of conscience have a proud history of participating in boycotts to advocate for human rights abroad including ... boycotting Nazi Germany from March 1933 to October 1941 in response to the dehumanization of the Jewish people in the lead-up to the Holocaust,” Omar said in the resolution introduced Tuesday.

Here's is the resolution's full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text

116th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 496

Affirming that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 16, 2019
Ms. Omar (for herself, Ms. Tlaib, and Mr. Lewis) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


Affirming that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Whereas boycotts have been effectively used in the United States by advocates for equal rights since the Boston Tea Party and include boycotts led by civil rights activists during the 1950s and 1960s in order to advocate for racial equality, such as the Montgomery bus boycott, and promote workers’ rights, such as the United Farm Workers-led boycott of table grapes;

Whereas Americans of conscience have a proud history of participating in boycotts to advocate for human rights abroad, including—

(1) attempting to slow Japanese aggression in the Pacific by boycotting Imperial Japan in 1937 and 1938;

(2) boycotting Nazi Germany from March 1933 to October 1941 in response to the dehumanization of the Jewish people in the lead-up to the Holocaust;

(3) the United States Olympic Committee boycotting the 1980 summer Olympics in Moscow in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the preceding year; and

(4) leading the campaign in the 1980s to boycott South African goods in opposition to apartheid in that country;

Whereas the Supreme Court, in the 1966 case Rosenblatt v. Baer, held that the First Amendment to the Constitution ensures that “[c]riticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion”;

Whereas the Supreme Court held in the 1982 case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware that “[t]he right of the States to regulate economic activity could not justify a complete prohibition against a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott … .”;

Whereas the Supreme Court has recognized various activities as “expressive conduct” warranting constitutional protection, such as flag burning, wearing black armbands, silent sit-ins, and creating and designing custom wedding cakes; and

Whereas despite this tradition, governments and nongovernmental organizations alike have sought to criminalize, stigmatize, and delegitimize the use of boycotts in an attempt to stifle constitutionally protected political expression: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) affirms that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2) opposes unconstitutional legislative efforts to limit the use of boycotts to further civil rights at home and abroad; and

(3) urges Congress, States, and civil rights leaders from all communities to endeavor to preserve the freedom of advocacy for all by opposing antiboycott resolutions and legislation.

I'm not going to snark. Just read it and then look back at the Fox News article and then read the resolution again.

Ghost of Ruin is more than happy to work for anti-Semitic policies as long as it it is in the name of #resisting Trump

[T'Chenka]

The unfortunate reality is that (always invalid) Nazi Germany comparisons are extremely common in American politics. Donald Rumsfeld invoked it to justify war with Iraq, and it is used all the time by politicians and commentators on all sides of the political spectrum. I wish it would end. But since this is Omar, it'll be treated as a bigger scandal than if someone else said it about some other country.

Even comparing Israel to Suddam Hussain Iraq is terrible because Hussain's Iraq was obviously much much worse .

Also : http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/baath.html



And lastly wasn’t the Ba’ath party full name the Arab National Socialist Party , so the comparison did make more sense. The main difference was was Iraq didn’t have the ability in 2003 to be a threat to peace as the Germans did 

Your first point is dead on correct. Sadly, your second one is flat out incorrect. Hussein was an absolute murderous dictator bastard who deserved his grisly end. As did his sons. However, the Socialist part of the Arab National Socialist Party has about as much to do with socialism as the Nazis official party name having the word socialist in it.

I’m not saying it has anything to do with socialism I’m just comparing how similar the name of the Ba’ath party was to the Nazis

Not sure of your point here....?

My point is why the comparison with Suddam Hussein Iraq with Nazi Germany made some sense even if the Bush Admin overstated that comparison by leaving out some key factors of why Iraq in the early 2000s wasn’t equivalent to the Nazis


On the other hand their is no comparison what so ever between Israel and the Nazis and stating so is I would say anti Semitic

You're getting played by the news you're reading.

Here's how FOX News presented it:

“Americans of conscience have a proud history of participating in boycotts to advocate for human rights abroad including ... boycotting Nazi Germany from March 1933 to October 1941 in response to the dehumanization of the Jewish people in the lead-up to the Holocaust,” Omar said in the resolution introduced Tuesday.

Here's is the resolution's full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text

116th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 496

Affirming that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 16, 2019
Ms. Omar (for herself, Ms. Tlaib, and Mr. Lewis) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


Affirming that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Whereas boycotts have been effectively used in the United States by advocates for equal rights since the Boston Tea Party and include boycotts led by civil rights activists during the 1950s and 1960s in order to advocate for racial equality, such as the Montgomery bus boycott, and promote workers’ rights, such as the United Farm Workers-led boycott of table grapes;

Whereas Americans of conscience have a proud history of participating in boycotts to advocate for human rights abroad, including—

(1) attempting to slow Japanese aggression in the Pacific by boycotting Imperial Japan in 1937 and 1938;

(2) boycotting Nazi Germany from March 1933 to October 1941 in response to the dehumanization of the Jewish people in the lead-up to the Holocaust;

(3) the United States Olympic Committee boycotting the 1980 summer Olympics in Moscow in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the preceding year; and

(4) leading the campaign in the 1980s to boycott South African goods in opposition to apartheid in that country;

Whereas the Supreme Court, in the 1966 case Rosenblatt v. Baer, held that the First Amendment to the Constitution ensures that “[c]riticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion”;

Whereas the Supreme Court held in the 1982 case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware that “[t]he right of the States to regulate economic activity could not justify a complete prohibition against a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott … .”;

Whereas the Supreme Court has recognized various activities as “expressive conduct” warranting constitutional protection, such as flag burning, wearing black armbands, silent sit-ins, and creating and designing custom wedding cakes; and

Whereas despite this tradition, governments and nongovernmental organizations alike have sought to criminalize, stigmatize, and delegitimize the use of boycotts in an attempt to stifle constitutionally protected political expression: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) affirms that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2) opposes unconstitutional legislative efforts to limit the use of boycotts to further civil rights at home and abroad; and

(3) urges Congress, States, and civil rights leaders from all communities to endeavor to preserve the freedom of advocacy for all by opposing antiboycott resolutions and legislation.

I'm not going to snark. Just read it and then look back at the Fox News article and then read the resolution again.

Ghost of Ruin is more than happy to work for anti-Semitic policies as long as it it is in the name of #resisting Trump

Boycotting Netanyahu's far right administration and their war crimes isn't anti-jewish you maroon.

[OSR stands with Israel]

That Omar quote is terrible as well or just beyond idiotic.

[Ilhan Apologist]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Yeah, thanks for breaking it down. Obviously the hyperpartisans are going to throw everything they can at her, but it disappoints me that people like Badger are falling for it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The people who are advocating BDS seem to think Israel is comparable to the Nazis, and viewpoint is what matters more than reality in terms of 1st Amendment protections.   Still, the messaging is not the greatest.

[Pyro]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Thank you.

[Badger]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Yeah, thanks for breaking it down. Obviously the hyperpartisans are going to throw everything they can at her, but it disappoints me that people like Badger are falling for it.

Fell for it. Past tense. I stand corrected. It was still tone deaf to a degree, but nowhere near the bullsh**t slant that Fox News in The Examiner Twisted it out of context to

[OSR stands with Israel]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Yeah, thanks for breaking it down. Obviously the hyperpartisans are going to throw everything they can at her, but it disappoints me that people like Badger are falling for it.

Fell for it. Past tense. I stand corrected. It was still tone deaf to a degree, but nowhere near the bullsh**t slant that Fox News in The Examiner Twisted it out of context to

Look at the quote posted earlier, she said it . It wasnt taken out of context , they provided the quote in the article and using that example is still terrible and anti semitic. Or Omar is extremely idiotic(Which she probably is because she did sign a pledge from TYT along with all the Justice Democrats)

[Badger]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Yeah, thanks for breaking it down. Obviously the hyperpartisans are going to throw everything they can at her, but it disappoints me that people like Badger are falling for it.

Fell for it. Past tense. I stand corrected. It was still tone deaf to a degree, but nowhere near the bullsh**t slant that Fox News in The Examiner Twisted it out of context to

Look at the quote posted earlier, she said it . It wasnt taken out of context , they provided the quote in the article and using that example is still terrible and anti semitic. Or Omar is extremely idiotic(Which she probably is because she did sign a pledge from TYT along with all the Justice Democrats)

Yeah, I'm not going to outright defend her. She needs to go.

Fortunately, she has next to no influence with the Democratic party as a whole. Wouldn't you agree?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Yeah, thanks for breaking it down. Obviously the hyperpartisans are going to throw everything they can at her, but it disappoints me that people like Badger are falling for it.

Fell for it. Past tense. I stand corrected. It was still tone deaf to a degree, but nowhere near the bullsh**t slant that Fox News in The Examiner Twisted it out of context to

Look at the quote posted earlier, she said it . It wasnt taken out of context , they provided the quote in the article and using that example is still terrible and anti semitic. Or Omar is extremely idiotic(Which she probably is because she did sign a pledge from TYT along with all the Justice Democrats)

Yeah, I'm not going to outright defend her. She needs to go.

Fortunately, she has next to no influence with the Democratic party as a whole. Wouldn't you agree?

Its not her its the Justice Dems as well and most of Omar's talking points come from TYT which unfortunatley now is gaining influence.

[Badger]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Yeah, thanks for breaking it down. Obviously the hyperpartisans are going to throw everything they can at her, but it disappoints me that people like Badger are falling for it.

Fell for it. Past tense. I stand corrected. It was still tone deaf to a degree, but nowhere near the bullsh**t slant that Fox News in The Examiner Twisted it out of context to

Look at the quote posted earlier, she said it . It wasnt taken out of context , they provided the quote in the article and using that example is still terrible and anti semitic. Or Omar is extremely idiotic(Which she probably is because she did sign a pledge from TYT along with all the Justice Democrats)

Yeah, I'm not going to outright defend her. She needs to go.

Fortunately, she has next to no influence with the Democratic party as a whole. Wouldn't you agree?

Its not her its the Justice Dems as well and most of Omar's talking points come from TYT which unfortunatley now is gaining influence.

How many of the other Justice Dems, other than Talib who likewise needs to go, have been making the same sort of anti-Semitic comments. You keep yammering on about Jeremy corbyn because you literally run out of Democrats to blame Beyond those two ( albeit justifiably)

If you held the Republican party based on literally dozens of anti-Semitic and racist comments throughout the party, over association with alt right Holocaust deniers through the Bannon and Mueller wing of the White House, and the leader of the party itself who the rank-and-file Embrace wholeheartedly as being an unabashed racist, you would have become an independent long ago.

Again, I know it's tough. You are a principal conservative who actually believes in the Laffer Curve. Does it is hard for you to accept that the party you so adamantly support, I hate to say it man, literally hates you and your family's guts. Again, they may at least outwardly say you were one of the good ones when they hear about what a conservative you and yours are, but it doesn't mean they would lose any sleep if you were all deported tomorrow. What's more, they would be categorically opposed even your closest route is from India coming here to join this country like you and your immediate family did.

I know that's hard, and you've made a commendable step unlike the vast majority of other Republicans in refusing to vote for Trump. It's despicable the way that so many people in your party have decided that given the choice of an outright Unapologetic virulent racist, they'll gladly choose him over, God forbid, a Democrat. You won't, and that demonstrates your character. That said, you can't absolve the Republican Party for Trump. Not all Republicans are represented by Trump, with a vast majority are, and almost all of the rest, present company excepted, gladly excuse such racism and anti-immigrant hysteria as long as they get their tax cuts and conservative judges. My point is don't make yourself look silly by trying to create an equal parallel we're literally none exists.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Yeah, thanks for breaking it down. Obviously the hyperpartisans are going to throw everything they can at her, but it disappoints me that people like Badger are falling for it.

Fell for it. Past tense. I stand corrected. It was still tone deaf to a degree, but nowhere near the bullsh**t slant that Fox News in The Examiner Twisted it out of context to

Look at the quote posted earlier, she said it . It wasnt taken out of context , they provided the quote in the article and using that example is still terrible and anti semitic. Or Omar is extremely idiotic(Which she probably is because she did sign a pledge from TYT along with all the Justice Democrats)

Yeah, I'm not going to outright defend her. She needs to go.

Fortunately, she has next to no influence with the Democratic party as a whole. Wouldn't you agree?

Its not her its the Justice Dems as well and most of Omar's talking points come from TYT which unfortunatley now is gaining influence.

How many of the other Justice Dems, other than Talib who likewise needs to go, have been making the same sort of anti-Semitic comments. You keep yammering on about Jeremy corbyn because you literally run out of Democrats to blame Beyond those two ( albeit justifiably)

If you held the Republican party based on literally dozens of anti-Semitic and racist comments throughout the party, over association with alt right Holocaust deniers through the Bannon and Mueller wing of the White House, and the leader of the party itself who the rank-and-file Embrace wholeheartedly as being an unabashed racist, you would have become an independent long ago.

Again, I know it's tough. You are a principal conservative who actually believes in the Laffer Curve. Does it is hard for you to accept that the party you so adamantly support, I hate to say it man, literally hates you and your family's guts. Again, they may at least outwardly say you were one of the good ones when they hear about what a conservative you and yours are, but it doesn't mean they would lose any sleep if you were all deported tomorrow. What's more, they would be categorically opposed even your closest route is from India coming here to join this country like you and your immediate family did.

I know that's hard, and you've made a commendable step unlike the vast majority of other Republicans in refusing to vote for Trump. It's despicable the way that so many people in your party have decided that given the choice of an outright Unapologetic virulent racist, they'll gladly choose him over, God forbid, a Democrat. You won't, and that demonstrates your character. That said, you can't absolve the Republican Party for Trump. Not all Republicans are represented by Trump, with a vast majority are, and almost all of the rest, present company excepted, gladly excuse such racism and anti-immigrant hysteria as long as they get their tax cuts and conservative judges. My point is don't make yourself look silly by trying to create an equal parallel we're literally none exists.

71% of Republicans voted to make it easier for Indian Immigrants to get green cards. So your point is straight up WRONG.

[JA]

#IStandWithIlhan

[Ilhan Apologist]

Badger, why do you want Tlaib to be primaried now? Omar has said some tone-deaf things, but Tlaib hasn't even done that.