|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
quote: quote: _______________________________________________________
catsI writes: Are you going to support your claims by quoting the text of the bill or not? Why siotenly:
Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720) To amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to include in the prohibitions on boycotts against allies of the United States boycotts fostered by international governmental organizations against Israel and to direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States to oppose boycotts against Israel, and for other purposes. Text of S. 720 (115th): Israel Anti-Boycott Act (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us quote: catsI writes: 1. "this pledge will be the new mandate for the nation" - Nope, it's not new. Nope, you are wrong, It may be based on old policies, but it is new because specifically: :
quote: quote: catsI writes: 2. "seeks to criminally outlaw support" - it does not, it references a pre-existing law that already outlawed that. Nope, you are wrong, see above quotes.
catsI writes: 3. "introducing draconian penalties" - it doesn't do that either, the penalties are also from pre-existing law. Nope, you are wrong, see above quotes.
catsI writes: 4. "This law would take away American’s free speech and First Amendment rights" - assuming that the ramifications do count as . . . You are wrong. Specifically, the draconian penalties would make a dramatic difference and impact on violating the First Amendment:
quote: _______________________________________________________ More related quotes:
quote: quote: quote:_______________________________________________________ The instant replay referees have reviewed the tape, the score has been corrected: Dronestar 4, CatsI 0. _______________________________________________________
quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Hi Caff,
I presume you posted just after my last lengthy and informative post.
caff writes: And, of course, no one's going to be asked to take this pledge, because that was clearly hyperbole. Yes, CatsI and I are specifically arguing about the word "new" in the hyperbolic pledge.
caff writes: But I am a little confused here; and think I may be misunderstanding something about US law here. What do "activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States" actually refer to? Does this actually cover someone who runs a business headquartered in America doing their normal business; or does it mean something to do with government employees? If the former, then the law strikes me as unjust. I don't see what right the government has to prevent a private business or individual from refusing to do business with foreign companies. Even less just would be to make it an fineable offense to request a boycott; as the new bill seems to propose. Prohibiting someone from proposing a policy is indefensible. I presume CatsI, when realizing he has lost the argument will then try to desperately interpret the law, using his vast imaginary law degrees, to his liking. I am not an international lawyer, so I, like some others, won't presume to interpret/define the legal definitions of free speech violations . . .
quote: Above all, I think it helps to carefully consider the source of the words to this new bill: AIPAC. If you think Israel's continued oppression and low-level genocide of Palestinians and the further stealing of Palestinian land is a good thing, a model of stablizing actions in the middle east, I guess you'll find the new bill very agreeable. Zcomm » Criminalizing Critics of Israel Edited by dronestar, : typos, grrr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
catsI writes: I don't care about your stupid quotes on other peoples' opinions on this matter. Yes, that was purposeful. Since you previously stated:
catsI writes: your OP is full of bullshit and spin. . . . I’d thought I'd go with non-personal evidence. However, you again had criticism. It seems you are desperate that I severely limit my evidence to sock-puppets and Cuneiform tablets? Maybe then, by applying fanatical restrictions to my posts, our debates could be more competitive for you? Well, hope springs eternal.
catsI writes: I don't care about your stupid quotes on other peoples' opinions on this matter. But you are again wrong, not everything was from personal opinions in Message 16. For example the main item, the first paragraph of the post, the very reason for my thread, was a fact from the UN:
quote: From a UN report: https://unsco.unmissions.org/...ars_later_-_11_july_2017.pdf
catsI writes: Dro admits in Message 18 that he "won't presume to interpret/define the legal definitions". So he's basically useless. Yeah, I've noted the more deeply one militantly delves into the legal aspects; searching for the "precise" definition of a word, postulating an "unclear term," claiming an "ancient" precedent, the more one hopes to remove oneself from the spirit of the letter/the big picture/the main argument. Someone on the forum had a great quip when people desperately do this in their arguments, a pity I don’t remember the exact quote. Religious literalists use this technique with the Bible when they blindly and militantly follow a throwaway line of text and then go on to dismiss the entirety of the overall message of god. And black-hearted people choose to hide under their preferred legal definition of words to continue harming/oppressing/obfuscating/marginalizing/justifying inaction. The US did this to Rwanda in April 1994 when the African nation suffered atrocities. While genocide continued, the US gathered and discussed, on the sideline, whether or not the exact legal term "genocide" was appropriate. President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide, a million people were murdered, but buried the information in definitions to justify his inaction. And this is exactly what you are doing CatsI. You are already aware of my body of work of evidence on the forum. I can even show you additional facts from the UN, Human Rights groups, and Health Organizations. I can list opinions of Palestinians who are currently living the hell of Israel's cruel oppression. I can show you photos of dead Palestinian children without limbs. The facts are that Israel oppressively controls the water, food, employment, electricity, movement, and health care of Palestinians. Israel has murdered hundred times more innocent Palestinian civilians (collective punishment is a war crime) than Islamic terrorists have murdered in Israel. Israel even made studies to find out what minimal food sustenance is needed to prevent mass starvation to make sure their genocide is kept under the world's radar. I am sure you, like Bill Clinton's Rwanda fiasco, are aware of some of this, even if not in detail.
catsI writes: I mean, if I wanted to pull a Dro, I'd be talking about how much his OP was fostered by his raging antisemitism... but I won't stoop to his level Yeah, when Crashfrog was desperately losing a debate, he would also make/insinuate pathetic personal attacks. For example, when Crashfrog was losing a battle about President Obama's harmful actions, he desperately called me a bigot. CatsI, you are exactly like Crashfrog. Your unwarranted personal attack diminishes yourself, your parents, and the forum (especially when others choose to stay silent). And it is that inappropriate remark that I would like to similarly finish my post with. There is an ongoing attack on innocent women and children in the world. The US government is enabling the attack with military weapons, military assistance, and foreign contributions. The US government would extend a law with draconian penalties to prevent its own population from interfering, and allowing the genocide to continue. Evil flourishes when good people do nothing. Forum, what side are you on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Hi Faith,
Although I disagree with your overall stance, that was a very nicely worded post. It contained a respectful tone toward my viewpoint, the self-admitted humility of not knowing all aspects, humble requests for more information, and the uncowering strength of your personal convictions. Sheesh, I'd forgotten I was on the EvC forum. Seriously, good job.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024