Some Republicans vote against anti-bigotry resolution.

[fredtoast]

(04-30-2019, 06:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  The problem here is that you're not allowing yourself to be spoon fed the pablum that is actually attempting to achieve what it's purporting to mock, a deliberate twisting of events to achieve a partisan agenda. 

Reminds me of when so many twisted her comments about AIPAC using money to influence lawmakers into "She is stereotyping Jews as being obsessed with money".  So many people fall for this ploy that Jewish lobbyists have developed it as a first line of defense.  They constantly use money to influence lawmakers but if anyone dares to comment about them using money to influence lawmakers they scream "Anti-Semite!!"

[GMDino]

So the comic used an exagerration (of something that did indeed happen) about dumb people's reaction to the one sentence in Omar's speech and THAT is the problem with what happened?  Not that it got amplified by the noise machine and the POTUS into something that she never said in the context of the entire speech?

Got it.



https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/04/14/trump-and-omar-where-the-9-11-controversy-came-from.cnn

[*bfine32*]

(04-30-2019, 05:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What they said was that she refused to acknowledge that 9-11 was an act of terrorism by Muslims.

That was a complete lie.  Not the same lie as claiming she thought it was a "good thing", but are we really going to argue about which lie is better?

There are those arguing which lie is better but I'm not sure it's those to which you are referring. Can't we just assert both lies are a bad thing? 

[*bfine32*]

(04-30-2019, 08:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: So the comic used an exagerration (of something that did indeed happen) about dumb people's reaction to the one sentence in Omar's speech and THAT is the problem with what happened?  Not that it got amplified by the noise machine and the POTUS into something that she never said in the context of the entire speech?

Got it.



https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/04/14/trump-and-omar-where-the-9-11-controversy-came-from.cnn

I think the problem is those that perpetuate lies on both sides and think they are justified in their perpetuation. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-30-2019, 07:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Reminds me of when so many twisted her comments about AIPAC using money to influence lawmakers into "She is stereotyping Jews as being obsessed with money".  So many people fall for this ploy that Jewish lobbyists have developed it as a first line of defense.  They constantly use money to influence lawmakers but if anyone dares to comment about them using money to influence lawmakers they scream "Anti-Semite!!"

You'll get no argument from me that certain people use accusations of antisemitism as a cloak to shield Israel from any criticism or scrutiny.  However, in Omar's case her past works against her and I legitimately believe she is antisemitic.  You apparently don't, which you are certainly entitled to do.  None of this makes GM's cartoon any less of a deliberate mischaracterization of those events for obvious partisan purposes.

[BmorePat87]

(04-30-2019, 05:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What they said was that she refused to acknowledge that 9-11 was an act of terrorism by Muslims.

That was a complete lie.  Not the same lie as claiming she thought it was a "good thing", but are we really going to argue about which lie is better?

You spent this entire thread arguing straw men, so I am not surprised you are taking this position. There was genuine criticism voiced over describing of the event as "some people did something" that did not accuse her of refusing to call it terrorism, but rather speaking insensitively about it. 

[BmorePat87]

(04-30-2019, 06:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're being consistent and logical here, which is why you're running into trouble.  The criticism was always about her minimizing the events of 9/11 with her, extremely poor, choice of words.  I don't recall anyone suggesting she thought 9/11 was a good thing.  I'm sure you could find a stray example of this, but, again, I don't recall seeing it.  The problem here is that you're not allowing yourself to be spoon fed the pablum that is actually attempting to achieve what it's purporting to mock, a deliberate twisting of events to achieve a partisan agenda.  Good on you for pointing it out.

I know you're now being called a Republican because your stance on like 3 issues(?) so am I going to be called one too because I said her choice of words was awful and worthy of criticism?

This is exactly what liberals are critical of conservatives for, but here some people are doing it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-01-2019, 10:12 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I know you're now being called a Republican because your stance on like 3 issues(?) so am I going to be called one too because I said her choice of words was awful and worthy of criticism?

This is exactly what liberals are critical of conservatives for, but here some people are doing it.

Oh, it's not just here that this happens.  Ideological purity is now demanded and any deviation gets you branded as the "other".  You'd be shocked, I hope, by the amount of calls for violence I've seen in the HuffPo comments section.  Hollodero disputed my assertion that HuffPo was the left wing version of Breitbart, rightly, at the time, pointing out how toxic the comments section on Breitbart is.  I don't see any difference in the two now.


What I do not understand is why the left has chosen Omar as a flag bearer, even by default.  I think it's pretty clear from her past comments about "white men" (while in the state legislature), her not so thinly veiled antisemitism and her trivialization of 9/11 that this is a toxic person and IMO, a very racist one.  Not the person I'd be defending regardless of how much her politics matched up with mine.

[GMDino]

So the left says there was an overreaction to what Omar said and the right says there was an overreaction to their reaction.

Welcome to politics in America.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-01-2019, 10:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: So the left says there was an overreaction to what Omar said and the right says there was an overreaction to their reaction.

Welcome to politics in America.

Your cartoon did not say that, your cartoon propagated a complete fabrication of the events which led to Bmore calling you out for it.  This is not an overreaction, this is a blatant falsehood you were spreading.  I'd suggest owning the error and moving on instead of obfuscating, but that's just me.

[GMDino]

(05-01-2019, 11:00 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your cartoon did not say that, your cartoon propagated a complete fabrication of the events which led to Bmore calling you out for it.  This is not an overreaction, this is a blatant falsehood you were spreading.  I'd suggest owning the error and moving on instead of obfuscating, but that's just me.

"My" cartoon was as honest as those who propagated the fabrication that Omar was diminishing 9/11 in her speech.  

Not to mention that it WAS a cartoon that used exaggeration to make the point that her one line was taken up by the right as a focal point they could use to discuss whether an Muslim can really be an American.  While diminishing anyone who said it was a poor choice of phrase (in the middle of a speech) and that she was wrong to say that but that she clearly wasn't trying to make people think 9/11 was just a "something".

Had she not been a Muslim (and a Democrat) this wouldn't have made the national news.

I would suggest looking at the attacks on Omar with an open mind.  But that's just me.

But thanks anyway.

"owning your error" That's adorable!

[BmorePat87]

(05-01-2019, 11:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: "My" cartoon was as honest as those who propagated the fabrication that Omar was diminishing 9/11 in her speech.  

Disagree. Saying she diminished 9/11 by referring to it as "some people did something" isn't a fabrication. It's an opinion because on her word choice.

"The UN established the International Criminal Court because some people did something and we realized we needed to hold everyone to higher ethical standards".

I would rightfully expect backlash for how I described the Holocaust.

[GMDino]

(05-01-2019, 11:19 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Disagree. Saying she diminished 9/11 by referring to it as "some people did something" isn't a fabrication. It's an opinion because on her word choice.

"The UN established the International Criminal Court because some people did something and we realized we needed to hold everyone to higher ethical standards".

I would rightfully expect backlash for how I described the Holocaust.

If that was all you said?  Probably.  What is the rest of your speech?

No one said it wasn't a poor choice of phrase/words.  Some others insist it means the Muslim isn't really an American.

[BmorePat87]

(05-01-2019, 11:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: If that was all you said?  Probably.  What is the rest of your speech?

It was a speech on the history of the International Criminal Court

Quote:No one said it wasn't a poor choice of phrase/words.  Some others insist it means the Muslim isn't really an American.

Your initial response to criticism of what she said was to admit you haven't read it yet and just blame the reactions on her being a Democrat. You then defended her as not being wrong and mentioned Donald Trump a few times and brought up that awful and bigoted meme that the person in WV hung up about her.

So you are the one who wouldn't say it was a poor choice of phrase/words and immediately took it to be criticism of her because of her faith in response to my criticism, bfine's criticism, and Dan Crenshaw's criticism. 

[fredtoast]

(05-01-2019, 10:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There was genuine criticism voiced over describing of the event as "some people did something" that did not accuse her of refusing to call it terrorism, but rather speaking insensitively about it. 

Yes. I know. I was just quoting the Post's comments when they ran that cover.

[GMDino]

(05-01-2019, 11:59 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It was a speech on the history of the International Criminal Court




Your initial response to criticism of what she said was to admit you haven't read it yet and just blame the reactions on her being a Democrat. You then defended her as not being wrong and mentioned Donald Trump a few times and brought up that awful and bigoted meme that the person in WV hung up about her.

So you are the one who wouldn't say it was a poor choice of phrase/words and immediately took it to be criticism of her because of her faith in response to my criticism, bfine's criticism, and Dan Crenshaw's criticism. 

That's an interesting rewriting of what I actually wrote.

I did post the image ot DJT...with the caveat that I didn't know what Omar has said in context...and specifically asked if the people so upset would have been upset if she had not been a Democrat.  Specifically because those same people defended DJT when he said "good people on both sides".

That is not comparing what the two people said...it was comparing the people who defended one and attacked the other.

I never defended what she said except to say "in context".  I've said, repeatedly, it was a bad choice of words.

I then showed how as a Muslim she is attacked by the right and tied to 9/11.  That is true.

And I said, multiple times, that it was a poor choice of words and that the right's reaction was over the top.  Including Crenshaw who had zero problem with DJT's video of Omar's words juxtaposed with images of the planes hitting the Twin Towers.

And I maintain that the right has made this a bigger issue than it would have been had she not been a Muslim speaking to other Muslims.  Period.

That does not mean that criticism from you or bfine or Crenshaw, or anyone isn't justified.  I never said that.  I said some of the criticism is as over the top.  Still is.

[BmorePat87]

(05-01-2019, 12:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's an interesting rewriting of what I actually wrote.

I did post the image ot DJT...with the caveat that I didn't know what Omar has said in context...and specifically asked if the people so upset would have been upset if she had not been a Democrat.  Specifically because those same people defended DJT when he said "good people on both sides".

That is not comparing what the two people said...it was comparing the people who defended one and attacked the other.

I never defended what she said except to say "in context".  I've said, repeatedly, it was a bad choice of words.

I then showed how as a Muslim she is attacked by the right and tied to 9/11.  That is true.

And I said, multiple times, that it was a poor choice of words and that the right's reaction was over the top.  Including Crenshaw who had zero problem with DJT's video of Omar's words juxtaposed with images of the planes hitting the Twin Towers.

And I maintain that the right has made this a bigger issue than it would have been had she not been a Muslim speaking to other Muslims.  Period.

That does not mean that criticism from you or bfine or Crenshaw, or anyone isn't justified.  I never said that.  I said some of the criticism is as over the top.  Still is.

Her getting attacked previously for being a Muslim doesn't vindicated deflecting to that in response to criticism from three people who were not doing that. The fact that you can sit here and justify the connection based solely on the one event occurring unconnected to the over is laughable. 

[BmorePat87]

(05-01-2019, 12:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes. I know. I was just quoting the Post's comments when they ran that cover.

Fair enough, that's on me for reading it as just "terrorism".  :andy:

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-01-2019, 11:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: "My" cartoon was as honest as those who propagated the fabrication that Omar was diminishing 9/11 in her speech.

Except she was diminishing 9/11 in her speech.  This may not have been her intent , although I am no longer inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, but it is exactly what she did.  Her choice of words was dismissive of an earth shaking event.  While not on the same tier it is no different than describing the Holocaust as "some people did some things". 

Quote:Not to mention that it WAS a cartoon that used exaggeration to make the point that her one line was taken up by the right as a focal point they could use to discuss whether an Muslim can really be an American.  While diminishing anyone who said it was a poor choice of phrase (in the middle of a speech) and that she was wrong to say that but that she clearly wasn't trying to make people think 9/11 was just a "something".

That's a ton of supposition that isn't at all apparent in the cartoon.  Also, if that was the intent of the cartoon then why did it deliberately misstate the objection to her statement?  Also, saying "the right" used it to question whether a Muslim could really be an American is disingenuous at best.  Very few people, and none of consequence, actually made this argument about Muslims as a group.  Some made the argument about Omar herself, but she is no more all Muslims then any single person is all any group.  Stop trying to conflate legitimate criticism of an increasingly obviously bigoted person with that of attacks on her religion or ethnicity as a whole.

Quote:Had she not been a Muslim (and a Democrat) this wouldn't have made the national news.

I'm calling hardcore bullshit on this statement.

Quote:I would suggest looking at the attacks on Omar with an open mind.  But that's just me.

Why would you assume her critics aren't doing exactly that?  The answer is they don't agree with you, making your statement here sadly ironic.

Quote:But thanks anyway.

You're welcome?

Quote:"owning your error"  That's adorable!

Further proof, if any was needed.

(05-01-2019, 12:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Her getting attacked previously for being a Muslim doesn't vindicated deflecting to that in response to criticism from three people who were not doing that. The fact that you can sit here and justify the connection based solely on the one event occurring unconnected to the over is laughable. 

That's the problem with extremists of both stripes, they cannot differentiate between attacks brought on by radicals who hate person "x" because they are "y" and legitimate criticism of person "x" for something they said or did that were unacceptable.  To them the unwarranted attacks act as a henceforth impenetrable shield from criticism; because they have been unfairly maligned in the past all future criticism is tainted by those attacks.  This is both a childish and dangerous viewpoint.  You can try and reason with him all day, he won't see it.  Like all ideologues he sees things from a rigid framework that allows no deviation.  Also like all ideologues he projects this true assessment of himself onto others, thus, in his mind, instantly negating their criticism of his arguments.