Some Republicans vote against anti-bigotry resolution.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-18-2019, 11:40 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: This was, essentially, the exact same thing that the House did in regards to Steve King after he asked what was so bad about White Supremacy.

The resolution did not name King, but generally condemned white nationalism.

Only one person voted against it (it wasn't King). A democrat named Bobby Rush from Illinois. He wanted a formal censure of King, so he voted against this as a way of saying it wasn't harsh enough.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-king/u-s-house-including-steve-king-votes-to-condemn-his-racist-statements-idUSKCN1P92RB

Careful my friend, you're ruining the narrative of some here that the GOP members who voted against this resolution were doing so because they love them some bigotry.

Quote:Of course, this is all political theater, as no one would openly say "nah, I think white nationalism or antisemitism is totally cool" even if they, for whatever reason, did not believe what they were saying.

Precisely.  I baffles me that this even has to be explained.

Quote:So, the people voting against these resolutions were doing so in protest to the severity of the resolution rather than the resolution itself.

Once again, 100% correct.

Quote:I do think Republicans are less concerned with being accused of being racist though, as that is not one of their main talking points (and some would argue being accused of being racist only makes them more popular with their "anti-PC" supporters), so more Republicans were willing to protest vote this one, whereas only 1 democrat was willing to protest vote the King resolution.
Being labeled a racist as a Democrat is a bit more dangerous.

This is largely due to the fact that the far left casually hurls accusations of racism with disturbing frequency and regularity.  The word has almost totally lost its impact, if it hasn't done so entirely.

[CJD]

(03-18-2019, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Careful my friend, you're ruining the narrative of some here that the GOP members who voted against this resolution were doing so because they love them some bigotry.




Precisely.  I baffles me that this even has to be explained.




Once again, 100% correct.



This is largely due to the fact that the far left casually hurls accusations of racism with disturbing frequency and regularity.  The word has almost totally lost its impact, if it hasn't done so entirely.

I will amend one thing I said. The King resolution did actually name him, as it said "Whereas, on January 10, 2019, Representative Steve King was quoted as asking, White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization—how did that language become offensive?;" at the beginning.


So it's a little different, as I don't believe this resolution named Omar at all.


That said, I think the principle is the same. The person who voted against that resolution did not do so as a way of saying "I actually like White Nationalism" just like I see no reason why we should believe the Republicans who voted against this resolution would say otherwise.


Unless someone can produce a quote where one the Republicans said "I voted against this because I am 100% in favor of talking shit about Jews" I don't know why we'd use this as a way of accusing Republicans of being racist or antisemitic. 


There are other, much more concrete ways of accusing Republicans of being Racist. Such as literal quotes from Steve King.

[*bfine32*]

Omar describes 3,000ish Americans dying in a terrorist attack as : "some people did something" during CAIR event

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/10/omar-criticized-dan-crenshaw-unbelievable-9-11-description/3424054002/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatodaycomwashington-topstories

The new Dems are becoming their own party's worst enemies and Trump's biggest allies.

[*bfine32*]

As the shoe goes to the other foot:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-york-post-cover-featuring-ilhan-omar-quote-infuriates-democratic-colleagues/ar-BBVQX2O?ocid=spartanntp

Quote:Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar's fellow freshman lawmakers are coming to the Minnesota congresswoman's defense Thursday after remarks she made referencing 9/11 as "some people did something" were criticized in a New York Post cover that featured the Twin Towers.

FWIW, I heard Hitler did something too.

[GMDino]

(04-10-2019, 08:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Omar describes 3,000ish Americans dying in a terrorist attack as : "some people did something" during CAIR event

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/10/omar-criticized-dan-crenshaw-unbelievable-9-11-description/3424054002/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatodaycomwashington-topstories

The new Dems are becoming their own party's worst enemies and Trump's biggest allies.

(04-12-2019, 09:14 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As the shoe goes to the other foot:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-york-post-cover-featuring-ilhan-omar-quote-infuriates-democratic-colleagues/ar-BBVQX2O?ocid=spartanntp


FWIW, I heard Hitler did something too.

Note: I am not defend what she said because I didn't hear it yet.  I'm just wondering if the "shoe" was a right one if it would be a big deal to some people.

[*bfine32*]

(04-12-2019, 09:19 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Note: I am not defend what she said because I didn't hear it yet.  I'm just wondering if the "shoe" was a right one if it would be a big deal to some people.

EXACTLY!! Thanks for the assist.

[jj22]

Republicans wanted Omar named but not Trump. So not naming anyone was a good compromise.

Given Trump has tweeted and retweeted far more anti Semitism remarks.

Let's review before Americans (too late) hold the Democrat more accountable (to higher standards).

https://forward.com/schmooze/351765/think-trumps-debate-dog-whistle-went-unheard-check-out-10-debate-tweets/

https://forward.com/fast-forward/380942/trump-retweets-meme-from-anti-semitic-twitter-user/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/us/politics/trump-omar-anti-semitism.html

https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-backers-hurl-anti-semitic-tweets-at-ny-times-editor/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/12/trump-gop-are-accused-anti-semitism-double-standard-after-piling-ilhan-omar/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5cce9cc0f52f

[GMDino]

(04-12-2019, 09:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: EXACTLY!! Thanks for the assist.

So you meant to compare everyone of Muslim faith to Nazis?

[*bfine32*]

(04-12-2019, 10:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: So you meant to compare everyone of Muslim faith to Nazis?

Go color in your book

[GMDino]

(04-12-2019, 10:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Go color in your book

Harsh.  And childish.  You could just explain your thought process.

[BmorePat87]

Her response that there needs to be an official condemnation of Dan Crenshaw's tweet is ***** stupid. Him calling out her stupid ass comment isn't going to cause her to get more death threats.

[BmorePat87]

(04-12-2019, 09:19 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Note: I am not defend what she said because I didn't hear it yet.  I'm just wondering if the "shoe" was a right one if it would be a big deal to some people.

This shit gets less effective if we're not capable of calling out a Democrat's terrible statement too. 

"Muslim Americans saw their rights abused because of the terrible atrocities committed by a minority of radical terrorists". 

[GMDino]

(04-12-2019, 10:37 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Her response that there needs to be an official condemnation of Dan Crenshaw's tweet is ***** stupid. Him calling out her stupid ass comment isn't going to cause her to get more death threats.

Are we sure about that?

Seems more than a few of these recent right wing terrorists were citing elected officials.

Maybe everyone could calm down and quit saying the other side needs to be silent and just be silent and do their jobs.

[GMDino]

(04-12-2019, 10:41 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This shit gets less effective if we're not capable of calling out a Democrat's terrible statement too. 

"Muslim Americans saw their rights abused because of the terrible atrocities committed by a minority of radical terrorists". 

Is that a wrong statement?  Didn't they become the new boogie man for politicians to make "real" americans afraid?  

Didn't we elect a POTUS based on him wanting to limit all Muslims from entering the country as part of his policies?

In general I've seen some good Muslim, I haven't seen a good Nazi.

[BmorePat87]

(04-12-2019, 10:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: Are we sure about that?

Seems more than a few of these recent right wing terrorists were citing elected officials.

Maybe everyone could calm down and quit saying the other side needs to be silent and just be silent and do their jobs.

He didn't call her terrorist, anti-American, or any other slur. He condemned what she said.

“First Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as ‘some people who did something'. Unbelievable.”

As someone who lost his full vision in the war that stemmed from that event, I do not think he needs to be silent when someone trivializes the event. 

If some lunatic on the right wants to use that as justification, they never needed the justification. 

[BmorePat87]

(04-12-2019, 10:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: Is that a wrong statement?  Didn't they become the new boogie man for politicians to make "real" americans afraid?  

Didn't we elect a POTUS based on him wanting to limit all Muslims from entering the country as part of his policies?

In general I've seen some good Muslim, I haven't seen a good Nazi.

By deflecting to Trump without condemning her, you make it clear that you do not actually care about upholding the standards you want want the right to uphold. 

Be the change you want to see. "I have no problem condemning this kind of speech. It's ridiculous for someone to seemingly trivialize a tragedy like this. I hope that this feeling is bipartisan and we will see the same reactions from both sides of the aisle". 

[GMDino]

(04-12-2019, 10:54 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He didn't call her terrorist, anti-American, or any other slur. He condemned what she said.

“First Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as ‘some people who did something'. Unbelievable.”

As someone who lost his full vision in the war that stemmed from that event, I do not think he needs to be silent when someone trivializes the event. 

If some lunatic on the right wants to use that as justification, they never needed the justification. 

He doesn't "have to be silent".  

The second part you quoted makes it clear that her poor choice of words was explained.

I don't have an issue with either statement.  Hers or his.

[GMDino]

(04-12-2019, 10:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: By deflecting to Trump without condemning her, you make it clear that you do not actually care about upholding the standards you want want the right to uphold. 

Be the change you want to see. "I have no problem condemning this kind of speech. It's ridiculous for someone to seemingly trivialize a tragedy like this. I hope that this feeling is bipartisan and we will see the same reactions from both sides of the aisle". 

Why would I condemn a true statement?

All Muslims got lumped in with the terrorists.  Did that not happen in large swaths of America (and this board)?

Again if its all Muslims vs all Nazis I'll guess that there are fewer "good" people on the Nazi side and that side shouldn't be defended.  Ever.

[BmorePat87]

(04-12-2019, 10:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: Why would I condemn a true statement?

All Muslims got lumped in with the terrorists.  Did that not happen in large swaths of America (and this board)?

Because describing the murder of 3,000 people as "some people did something" is a condemnable statement from a member of Congress, even if they were attempting to make a point about civil liberties. 

Quote:Again if its all Muslims vs all Nazis I'll guess that there are fewer "good" people on the Nazi side and that side shouldn't be defended.  Ever.

You really have missed the entire point. Break the wheel, don't just keep rolling it back and forth with the other side.  

[GMDino]

(04-12-2019, 11:04 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because describing the murder of 3,000 people as "some people did something" is a condemnable statement from a member of Congress, even if they were attempting to make a point about civil liberties. 

Agreed. (And did above.) But the rest of the quote you posted (I still haven't watched the video) clarified.

So we're back to arguing how the message was presented (croissants vs labor for example). I agree that's a bad way to say what she apparently meant. No problem calling that part out.

(04-12-2019, 11:04 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You really have missed the entire point. Break the wheel, don't just keep rolling it back and forth with the other side.  

I posted DJT's statement because the post that I replied to about Omar actually made a Hitler reference in relation to her statement. That's hyperbole. And I used DJT becuase he was defending a group of White Supremisct Nazi's that just had just marched with torches chanting against Jews and then one ran over and killed someone.

Maybe my anti-nazi stance is too strong?

Can I not say one of her statements was wrong, the other was correct and that if someone has a problem with one part that they should at least acknowledge the second part?

If DJT had clarified that he meant "good people on both sides of the argument to keep or get rid of the statues" just not the nazis that got the headlines I'd have still condemned his dumb answer but understood at least he corrected it.

To use Trump as another example he gets a ton of mulligans when people "clarify" what he "meant". Omar did it herself. So she rightfully gets called out for an awful statement but then she explained it. We all carry on then.

But to you point about "the other side" she is used to detract by the other side. And her BEING Muslim just plays into what she said has happened.

This poster is in your Capitol on a booth sponsored by @WVGOP “When someone shows you who they are, believe them” pic.twitter.com/4k566ztHWo

— (((Mike Pushkin))) (@pushkinforhouse) March 1, 2019

It's not that I have "no problem" with what she said. I just looked at everything she said. (As presented to me. I will have to watch that later since it caused such an uproar.)