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.