|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the continuing oppression of Palestinians? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the continuing oppression of Palestinian women and children?
If NY Democrat Senators Schumer and Gillibrand get their way, this pledge will be the new mandate for the nation. They are currently co-sponsoring the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720) that seeks to criminally outlaw support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel. This law would take away American’s free speech and First Amendment rights by introducing draconian penalties of million dollar fines and twenty years in jail. Ironic that Democrats howl in protest about Russia hacking our elections, all the while they enthusiastically take a page out of the oppressive Russian manual that criminalizes free speech. As an Independent, I don’t care how many mentally-impaired orangutans run against the Democrats in future elections, I will never support or vote for Democrats and their anti-American subversion.
quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
This law would take away American’s free speech and First Amendment rights by introducing draconian penalties of million dollar fines and twenty years in jail. Quite frankly, the law this Bill tries to enact are unconstitutional on their face. I'm not allowed to tell folks that I'm not buying product X, Y, and Z, and why? Really?It will be interesting to see if any Democrats line up behind this bill. I don’t care how many mentally-impaired orangutans run against the Democrats in future elections, I will never support or vote for Democrats and their anti-American subversion. Yeah, dronestar. As if... Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If NY Democrat Senators Schumer and Gillibrand get their way, this pledge will be the new mandate for the nation. They are currently co-sponsoring the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720) that seeks to criminally outlaw support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel. This law would take away American’s free speech and First Amendment rights by introducing draconian penalties of million dollar fines and twenty years in jail. So that's not true, do you even care?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
catI writes: So that's not true, . . . Okay, against my better judgement, I'll bite . . . From the two links I provided, what is not true? Be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It is not a new mandate - the law already exists.
It, itself, doesn't seek to criminally outlaw support for the boycott - it reaffirms already existing criminality. It doesn't introduce penalties - those already exist too. There is nothing new in this bill - it just extends current legislation. ABE:
From the two links I provided, what is not true? I didn't read your links, I read the actual bill. Edited by New Cat's Eye, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
catsI writes: It is not a new mandate - the law already exists. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720) already exists as a law?
catsI writes: It, itself, doesn't seek to criminally outlaw support for the boycott - it reaffirms already existing criminality. Well, that was clarifying! If you are just going to be obtuse, why are you even bothering? Please describe what the existing criminality is of supporting a boycott. Why would it need to be reaffirmed? Please be specific.
catsI writes: There is nothing new in this bill - it just extends current legislation. Do you know what a contradiction is?
catsI writes: I didn't read your links, I read the actual bill. Read it, maybe. Now show that you've fully comprehended it. Please be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Here is a link to the legislation itself:
S. 720: Israel Anti-Boycott Act That page also has a link to the text of the bill.Patriotism is the excuse that countries give to themselves for their failures. — Stephen Marche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720) already exists as a law? What it mandates is not new, it amends pre-existing legislation.
Please describe what the existing criminality is of supporting a boycott. It was previously against the law for a company (i.e. a "person") to support the Israeli boycott sponsored by the Arab League. This bill strikes, inserts, and amends previously existing legislation. It is not wholly new legislation.
Why would it need to be reaffirmed? Please be specific. The Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed in 2001. How about you support your claims? Quote the bill and show us: the new mandatethe criminal outlawing the introduction of penalties Here's a link to the text of the bill: Text - S.720 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Israel Anti-Boycott Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress Quote it and prove your point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Please point to where there is any reference to oppressing Palestinians in the legislation.
You really need to stop telling fibs before none of the other children want to play with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
catsI writes: What it mandates is not new, it amends pre-existing legislation. catsI writes: The Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed in 2001. Okay, so your main point is that the newly sponsored bill, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), would be a law based on The Export Administration Act of 1979 which lapsed in 2001. Seems like a rather trivia point to make in view of my larger argument. Does your main point supposed to contest my main argument that the bill is anti-free speech and anti-American?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
jar writes: You really need to stop telling fibs before none of the other children want to play with you. " . . . none of the other children . . . " You got that right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
thank you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Okay, so your main point is that the newly sponsored bill, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), would be a law based on The Export Administration Act of 1979 which lapsed in 2001. Actually, my main point is that your OP is full of bullshit and spin. Now, support your claims with quotes from the text of the bill.
Does your main point supposed to contest my main argument that the bill is anti-free speech and anti-American? Yes, your conclusion is based on erroneous premises.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
catsI writes: Yes, your conclusion is based on erroneous premises. Actually, the ONLY "eroneous premises" (funny that you made the word plural) you listed was that I did not mention the long-ago history of the new bill. I am unsure how browbeating this trivial point has proved that I made a faulty conclusion. I'll ask again: Does your only point suppose to contest my main argument that the bill is anti-free speech and anti-American? Help me understand your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
These are the claims in your OP that are false:
"this pledge will be the new mandate for the nation" - Nope, it's not new."seeks to criminally outlaw support" - it does not, it references a pre-existing law that already outlawed that. "introducing draconian penalties" - it doesn't do that either, the penalties are also from pre-existing law. "This law would take away American’s free speech and First Amendment rights" - assuming that the ramifications do count as having rights removed (an assumption that needs support), those rights were already removed before this law so it cannot be the one that takes them away. Your 0 for 4. Are you going to support your claims by quoting the text of the bill or not?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024