Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8802 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-19-2017 12:46 PM
321 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, dwise1, Modulous (AdminModulous), Phat (AdminPhat), xongsmith (6 members, 315 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,666 Year: 27,272/21,208 Month: 1,185/1,714 Week: 28/365 Day: 28/40 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the continuing oppression of Palestinians?
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 1 of 68 (815869)
07-25-2017 5:00 PM


“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:
Criminalizing Critics of Israel
https://zcomm.org/...article/criminalizing-critics-of-israel

quote:
Criminally Outlawing Support for Boycott
43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats
234 co-sponsors: 63 Democrats and 174 Republicans.

https://zcomm.org/...riminally-outlawing-support-for-boycott

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2017 5:53 PM dronestar has not yet responded
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 9:39 AM dronestar has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10059
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2 of 68 (815870)
07-25-2017 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dronestar
07-25-2017 5:00 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dronestar, posted 07-25-2017 5:00 PM dronestar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ramoss, posted 07-31-2017 6:27 PM NoNukes has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 3 of 68 (815906)
07-26-2017 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dronestar
07-25-2017 5:00 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dronestar, posted 07-25-2017 5:00 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 9:57 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 4 of 68 (815908)
07-26-2017 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2017 9:39 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 9:39 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 10:09 AM dronestar has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 5 of 68 (815910)
07-26-2017 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by dronestar
07-26-2017 9:57 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 9:57 AM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 10:35 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 6 of 68 (815913)
07-26-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2017 10:09 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 10:09 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 11:00 AM dronestar has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6397
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 7 of 68 (815914)
07-26-2017 10:53 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 12:25 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 8 of 68 (815915)
07-26-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by dronestar
07-26-2017 10:35 AM


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 mandate
the criminal outlawing
the introduction of penalties

Here's a link to the text of the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/...th-congress/senate-bill/720/text

Quote it and prove your point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 10:35 AM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29608
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 9 of 68 (815920)
07-26-2017 11:33 AM


Yet another totally dishonest thread. Sheesh.
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.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 12:20 PM jar has not yet responded

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 10 of 68 (815923)
07-26-2017 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2017 11:00 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 11:00 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 12:34 PM dronestar has responded

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 11 of 68 (815925)
07-26-2017 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
07-26-2017 11:33 AM


Re: Yet another totally dishonest thread. Sheesh.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 07-26-2017 11:33 AM jar has not yet responded

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 12 of 68 (815926)
07-26-2017 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Chiroptera
07-26-2017 10:53 AM


thank you
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 07-26-2017 10:53 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 13 of 68 (815927)
07-26-2017 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by dronestar
07-26-2017 12:16 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 12:16 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 12:51 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 14 of 68 (815928)
07-26-2017 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2017 12:34 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 12:34 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 12:58 PM dronestar has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 15 of 68 (815930)
07-26-2017 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by dronestar
07-26-2017 12:51 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 12:51 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 17 by caffeine, posted 07-26-2017 4:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017