Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the continuing oppression of Palestinians?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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 replied

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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 replied

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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:
Text - S.720 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Israel Anti-Boycott Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
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 replied

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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 replied

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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 replied

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 68 (815955)
07-26-2017 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by caffeine
07-26-2017 4:01 PM


And, of course, no one's going to be asked to take this pledge, because that was clearly hyperbole.
Clearly, but still retarded.
Since you're all being frustratingly obtuse and refusing to actually explain anything in detail I actually went and read the bill, as it's not long.
Dro has already proven himself to me to not waste my time on. Hyperbole is about all he's got. But I'm glad you read the bill, that makes two of us that I know of.
I'm spending this time because I respect you - and I appreciate the conversation.
Dro admits in Message 18 that he "won't presume to interpret/define the legal definitions". So he's basically useless. Unless you like fatuous hyperbole?
Look, he's resorted to quoting other peoples' opinions on the matter in lieu of providing his own opinions backed up by quotes from the actual bill.
If you want to get into it, I'm down. But I'm not gonna waste my time on Dro.
It does seek to extend the scope of the previous act.
Sure. So as I said: this isn't new.
It proposes that people
By "persons" they mean companies, not individual citizens. But yeah, the wording sucks.
should be prevented not only from doing things 'with intent to comply with, further, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by a foreign country' but also form 'request(ing) to impose any boycott by a foreign country' against a US ally. (the amendment if passed makes the already clunky legal language a mess - but that's another thing).
Basically: "Don't officially boycott our allies". I agree.
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?
The problem is companies essentially going: "We're against our Jewish ally, and with the Arab League." How's that for hyperbole?
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
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?
I think it means that the feds don't want companies jumping on a "boycott-the-jews" bandwagon because Israel, is, actually our ally. And the Arab League is not.
I don't see what right the government has to prevent a private business or individual from refusing to do business with foreign companies.
Do they have the right to tax that business?
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.
Sure, the wording sucks. But your interpretation doesn't fit the intent, as I understand it.
It's not about individual citizens "calling" for a boycott, it's about companies officially participating in a boycott against one of our allies. Especially because the boycott in question spawned from a group that is against us.
That's how I'm interpreting it. No hyperbole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by caffeine, posted 07-26-2017 4:01 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Riggamortis, posted 07-27-2017 6:23 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 68 (815956)
07-26-2017 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by dronestar
07-26-2017 3:41 PM


Re: Nope, CatsI is wrong Xs four
Here is all the words that you wrote to me that were not quotations:
Why siotenly:
Nope, you are wrong, It may be based on old policies, but it is new because specifically: :
Nope, you are wrong, see above quotes.
Nope, you are wrong, see above quotes.
You are wrong. Specifically, the draconian penalties would make a dramatic difference and impact on violating the First Amendment:
More related quotes:
The instant replay referees have reviewed the tape, the score has been corrected: Dronestar 4, CatsI 0.
I don't care about your stupid quotes on other peoples' opinions on this matter. Tell me what you think, no bullshit, or have a nice day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 3:41 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by dronestar, posted 07-27-2017 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 68 (815996)
07-27-2017 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by dronestar
07-27-2017 12:41 PM


The big picture you've painted is a false narrative.
Let me know if you ever want to get around to discussing the bill in question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by dronestar, posted 07-27-2017 12:41 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024