Steve King: How did white supremacist become offensive?

[fredtoast]

(02-11-2019, 10:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Just to be clear, are you defending Omar's statements about Israel hypnotizing us or corrupting our politicians to their own ends?

I don't know anything about hypnosis, but "yes" I think that AIPAC is a powerful lobby group that attempts to influence politicians to support the interests of Isreal over the best interest of the United states.

How exactly is that racist?

[Dill]

(02-12-2019, 12:23 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill: You are alluding perhaps to the longstanding support for ISIS you have attributed to me?

I've never said you supported ISIS, please find quote.

LOL careful what you wish for.

How about this one from the locked down "Covington High School thread," post # 289

Enjoy your support for ISIS.

Or this one, from the "Trump on Undocumented Immigrants Thread"  #156, in which I refused to call ISIS "animals." A guy who DEFENDS ISIS is supporting them, right?  

You lied about me and you defend ISIS, along with your buddy Fred I might add.
Oh right, I'm the one who defends ISIS.  Seriously, isn't there a thread in which you could be condoning theologically condoned misogyny?

The final comment is sarcastic. Of course YOU are not the one who defends ISIS!  It's the guy you are addressing. And then you add I "could be" condoning misogyny.  

So what happens if I ask you for a quote in which I have stated my support for ISIS or "defended" them? You won't produce one (though you have been asked tobefore). You were just constructing a loose, willful association from my refusal to call all humans "animals."  That's how you put me in the camp of ISIS, misogyny and now antisemitism.

So as someone who does not shy from calling other humans animals, maybe you could move a little more slowly on the antisemitism charges, at least on this thread. When there is nothing to back such charges, they are only ad hominem, willful and rhetorically extreme efforts to smear others, and that's hardly a basis for opposing antisemitism.   Accusing people in this forum of such things only guarantees the thread will move away from the topic and likely get shut down.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2019, 10:54 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL careful what you wish for.

How about this one from the locked down "Covington High School thread," post # 289

Enjoy your support for ISIS.

Or this one, from the "Trump on Undocumented Immigrants Thread"  #156, in which I refused to call ISIS "animals." A guy who DEFENDS ISIS is supporting them, right?  

You lied about me and you defend ISIS, along with your buddy Fred I might add.
Oh right, I'm the one who defends ISIS.  Seriously, isn't there a thread in which you could be condoning theologically condoned misogyny?

The final comment is sarcastic. Of course YOU are not the one who defends ISIS!  It's the guy you are addressing. And then I "could be" condoning misogyny.  

So what happens if I ask you for a quote in which I have stated my support for ISIS or "defended" them? I won't produce one. You were just constructing loose associations from my refusal to call all humans "animals."  That's how you put me in the camp of ISIS and antisemitism.

So as someone who does not shy from calling other humans animals, maybe you could move a little more slowly on the antisemitism charges, at least on this thread. When there is nothing to back such charges, they are only ad hominem, willful and rhetorically extreme efforts to smear others, and that's hardly a basis for opposing antisemitism.   Accusing people in this forum of such things only guarantees the thread will move away from the topic and likely get shut down.

Ahh, you're clearly not aware of the intentional use of exaggeration to make a point.  As for defending them, you do in some respects, but, as you say, that is not the topic of the thread.  As for labeling Omar an antisemite, I'm very comfortable with saying so as I think she has demonstrated, over a period of time, that she is exactly that.  As for calling anyone on this board an antisemite, I have not done so.  Consequently, please cease you, as you say distracting, hyperbole and return to the topic at hand.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2019, 09:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm aware of this, but I think it should be a very strict line. The House leadership can restrict privileges, not put them on the assignments they want, whatever. But there should be a very high bar for the body to undo a democratic process wherein the people elected someone as their representative. I feel the same way about impeachment.

I tend to value the democratic process above many other things as a liberal democracy (I'm using the words in the political science context, y'all, so calm down if you were about to bust a blood vessel) is the foundation of our government. Without it, nothing else works.


This is why I favor a system that allows recall elections. Now, in King's case, this isn't news. He was elected with the voters knowing full well he is a racist asshole, so it probably wouldn't matter.


And if they choose a racist Representative, then they should be seated. Congressional leadership can prevent them from having any sort of real power, but they should still be seated and have their vote to represent their people. We should just recognize that the people that voted for them elected a racist to represent them. I don't think we should be afraid of saying that. If someone is elected that is knowingly racist, then that's on their supporters, but their racist views deserve to be represented (and drowned out) just like anyone else's stupidity.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here.  I'm just of an opinion that a rather firm, and strong, response to this type of racism, enacted in a bipartisan fashion, would be an excellent way of ramping down the rhetoric in DC.

(02-12-2019, 10:07 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I did not see where she used the term "bribery".

Got a link?

Oh, she actually has to use the term bribery for her to be saying Israel bribes our politicians?  I suppose that's on me for forgetting who I was talking to.

(02-12-2019, 10:12 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know anything about hypnosis, but "yes" I think that AIPAC is a powerful lobby group that attempts to influence politicians to support the interests of Isreal over the best interest of the United states.

How exactly is that racist?

Saying AIPAC is a powerful lobbying group is not racist.  

[Belsnickel]

(02-12-2019, 11:03 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree with anything you're saying here.  I'm just of an opinion that a rather firm, and strong, response to this type of racism, enacted in a bipartisan fashion, would be an excellent way of ramping down the rhetoric in DC.

I on't disagree at all. I just think that response needs to be a censure and a stripping of one or more choice roles in the body rather than expulsion.

[GMDino]

Since we're on the topic

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/11/ilhan-omar-israel-lobby-documentary/?fbclid=IwAR1FmStV78qwXmvs7xL7l_dtnOL9DOsDxLLxHWhyhyg5ua7Fd4_qYpAs3sU

Quote:The debate over the influence of pro-Israel groups could be informed by an investigation by Al Jazeera, in which an undercover reporter infiltrated The Israel Project, a Washington-based group, and secretly recorded conversations about political strategy and influence over a six-month period in 2016. That investigation, however, was never aired by the network — suppressed by pressure from the pro-Israel lobby.


In November, Electronic Intifada obtained and published the four-part series, but it did so during the week of the midterm elections, and the documentary did not get a lot of attention then.


In it, leaders of the pro-Israel lobby speak openly about how they use money to influence the political process, in ways so blunt that if the comments were made by critics, they’d be charged with anti-Semitism.  

Quote:“Congressmen and senators don’t do anything unless you pressure them.”

David Ochs, founder of HaLev, which helps send young people to AIPAC’s annual conference, described for the reporter how AIPAC and its donors organize fundraisers outside the official umbrella of the organization, so that the money doesn’t show up on disclosures as coming specifically from AIPAC. He describes one group that organizes fundraisers in both Washington and New York. “This is the biggest ad hoc political group, definitely the wealthiest, in D.C.,” Ochs says, adding that it has no official name, but is clearly tied to AIPAC. “It’s the AIPAC group. It makes a difference, it really, really does. It’s the best bang for your buck and the networking is phenomenal.” (Ochs and AIPAC did not immediately return The Intercept’s requests for comment.)


Without spending money, Ochs argues, the pro-Israel lobby isn’t able to enact its agenda. “Congressmen and senators don’t do anything unless you pressure them. They kick the can down the road, unless you pressure them, and the only way to do that is with money,” he explains. 

He describes a fundraiser for Anthony Brown, a Democrat running for Congress in Maryland, as typical. “So we want the Jewish community to go face to face in this small environment, 50, 30, 40 people, and say this is what’s important to us. We want to make sure that if we give you money that you’re going to enforce the Iran deal. That way, when they need something from him or her, like the Iran deal, they can quickly mobilize and say look we’ll give you 30 grand. They actually impact,” Ochs tells the reporter.




...


In the censored documentary, Ochs went on to describe a fundraiser hosted by Jeff Talpins, a hedge fund giant, as similar, as well. “In New York, with Jeff Talpins, we don’t ask a goddamn thing about the ******* Palestinians. You know why? Cuz it’s a tiny issue. It’s a small, insignificant issue. The big issue is Iran. We want everything focused on Iran,” Ochs says. “What happens is Jeff meets with the congressman in the back room, tells them exactly what his goals are — and by the way, Jeff Talpins is worth $250 million — basically they hand him an envelope with 20 credit cards, and say, You can swipe each of these credit cards for a thousand dollars each.”
Ochs explains that the club in New York required a minimum pledge of $10,000 to join and participate in such events. “It’s a minimum commitment. Some people give a lot more than that.”

AIPAC, on its own website, recruits members to join its “Congressional Club,” and commit to give at least $5,000 per election cycle.


Eric Gallagher, a top official at AIPAC from 2010 to 2015, tells the Al Jazeera reporter that AIPAC gets results. 
“Getting $38 billion in security aid to Israel matters, which is what AIPAC just did,” he notes at one secretly recorded lunch. “Everything AIPAC does is focused on influencing Congress.”


The film, called “The Lobby,” was produced by Al Jazeera’s investigative unit, and features hidden-camera footage obtained by the reporter, who posed as a Jewish pro-Israel activist from Britain who wanted to volunteer with The Israel Project.



Outfitted with a luxury apartment in Dupont Circle, the reporter hosted multiple gatherings and otherwise socialized broadly within the pro-Israel community, winning the confidence of senior officials, who divulged insider details, many of which have been leaked and created international news.



A companion version of the film, which looked at the Israel lobby’s influence in the United Kingdom, did make it to air and was the subject of intense controversy. It exposed a plot by an Israeli embassy official in the UK to “take down” pro-Palestinian Members of Parliament, leading to his resignation.


That film, however, included a snippet of footage from the United States. Officials here quickly realized that they, too, had been infiltrated. In the UK, the Israel lobby lodged an official complaint claiming the series was anti-Semitic, but the UK’s communications agency rejected the claim, finding that “the allegations in the programme were not made on the grounds that any of the particular individuals concerned were Jewish and noted that no claims were made relating to their faith.”


Pro-Israel officials in the United States, rather than file an official complaint, exerted political pressure. A bipartisan group of 19 lawmakers wrote to the Justice Department requesting an investigation into “the full range of activities undertaken by Al Jazeera in the United States,” and suggesting that the organization be made to register as a foreign agent. Ultimately, Qatar bent to the pressure, and killed the documentary.

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2019, 11:03 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, she actually has to use the term bribery for her to be saying Israel bribes our politicians?  I suppose that's on me for forgetting who I was talking to.

Just tell me exactly how you knew she meant "bribery" instead of "lobbying".  That is all I need.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2019, 11:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Just tell me exactly how you knew she meant "bribery" instead of "lobbying".  That is all I need.

It's all about the Benjamins, Fred.

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2019, 12:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's all about the Benjamins, Fred.

Exactly.  That is how lobbyist work.

So where is the reference to "bribery"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2019, 12:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.  That is how lobbyist work.

So where is the reference to "bribery"?

   I think we're done here.

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2019, 12:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:    I think we're done here.

You certainly are.

[BmorePat87]

Essentially what it comes down to is that you are not able to criticize political spending from pro-Israel groups because of centuries old antisemitic tropes. It's safe to say the Jews have had it way worse than the rest of us over that time period. I'm not going to argue with it.

That's just a reality and I want to note that her particular comment under fire was not yet said when I posted this story on Friday. I think she should be able to make policy remarks and criticism on Israel without it being characterized as antisemitic.

I do not think her remarks on lobbying were antisemitic, and the criticism of outside spending is one that has frequently made the rounds with these freshmen for a number of interests, but nonetheless it is something to be aware of, especially since it is used extensively by antisemitics.

Better articulating her thoughts and not giving off the cuff remarks via twitter is a good start.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2019, 12:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Essentially what it comes down to is that you are not able to criticize political spending from pro-Israel groups because of centuries old antisemitic tropes. It's safe to say the Jews have had it way worse than the rest of us over that time period. I'm not going to argue with it.

That's just a reality and I want to note that her particular comment under fire was not yet said when I posted this story on Friday. I think she should be able to make policy remarks and criticism on Israel without it being characterized as antisemitic.

I do not think her remarks on lobbying were antisemitic, and the criticism of outside spending is one that has frequently made the rounds with these freshmen for a number of interests, but nonetheless it is something to be aware of, especially since it is used extensively by antisemitics.

Better articulating her thoughts and not giving off the cuff remarks via twitter is a good start.

Also, it helps to not have a history of making these types of remarks.  Additionally, it helps not to double down when you're making your "apology".  

[Dill]

(02-12-2019, 11:00 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, you're clearly not aware of the intentional use of exaggeration to make a point.  As for defending them, you do in some respects, but, as you say, that is not the topic of the thread.  As for labeling Omar an antisemite, I'm very comfortable with saying so as I think she has demonstrated, over a period of time, that she is exactly that.  As for calling anyone on this board an antisemite, I have not done so.  Consequently, please cease you, as you say distracting, hyperbole and return to the topic at hand.

So you DID say I support ISIS, but it's ok, because I DO defend ISIS "in some respects"?  If I point out the rather vicious ad hominem here (ignoring for a moment the self contradiction), then I must not be aware of "the intentional use of exaggeration." So it's all really just a deficiency on my part if I take offense to being called an ISIS supporter.

(Trump, by the way, is very aware of your "intentional use of exaggeration." He calls it "truthful hyperbole" and it muddies public discourse like no other tactic, in part by "normalizing" ad hominem attacks and in part by fuzzing the boundary between truth and fiction.)

Then after defending your ad hominem "hyperbole," comes the reversal of charges; now you say I should "cease" hyperbole--without establishing that I have used any, or explaining why you get to "exaggerate" and I don't.  

Which leads back to the thread topic: Could Omar also be making use of "intentional use of exaggeration" to make a point?

If so, she doesn't get a pass from you.

Deploying double standards--a license to exaggerate for you but not your opponents--is no way to oppose antisemitism or to contribute to any positive discussion of the phenomenon. 

Close with a question.

(02-12-2019, 11:00 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for labeling Omar an antisemite, I'm very comfortable with saying so as I think she has demonstrated, over a period of time, that she is exactly that.   As for calling anyone on this board an antisemite, I have not done so.  Consequently, please cease you, as you say distracting, hyperbole and return to the topic at hand.

If you say you are "comfortable labeling Omar an antisemite," and tell me that "Based on your posting history you probably agree with everything they've  [she has] said," would not that be calling me, someone on this board, "probably" an antisemite?  If Omar is an antisemite, how could I probably agree with "everything she says" and NOT probably be one myself?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2019, 12:26 PM)Dill Wrote: So you DID say I support ISIS, but it's ok, because I DO defend ISIS "in some respects"?  If I point out the rather vicious ad hominem here (ignoring for a moment the self contradiction), then I must not be aware of "the intentional use of exaggeration." So it's all really just a deficiency on my part if I take offense to being called an ISIS supporter.

(Trump, by the way, is very aware of your "intentional use of exaggeration." He calls it "truthful hyperbole" and it muddies public discourse like no other tactic, in part by "normalizing" ad hominem attacks and in part by fuzzing the boundary between truth and fiction.)

Then after defending your ad hominem "hyperbole," comes the reversal of charges; now you say I should "cease" hyperbole--without establishing that I have used any, or explaining why you get to "exaggerate" and I don't.  

Which leads back to the thread topic: Could Omar also be making use of "intentional use of exaggeration" to make a point?

If so, she doesn't get a pass from you.

Deploying double standards--a license to exaggerate for you but not your opponents--is no way to oppose antisemitism or to contribute to any positive discussion of the phenomenon. 

Close with a question.

If you say you are "comfortable labeling Omar an antisemite," and tell me that "Based on your posting history you probably agree with everything they've  [she has] said," would not that be calling me, someone on this board, "probably" an antisemite?  If Omar is an antisemite, how could I probably agree with "everything she says" and NOT probably be one myself?  

It's all about the Benjamins. 

[Dill]

(02-12-2019, 12:23 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First of all, Vox as source? 

Secondly, it's not their support for BDS(M) that has drawn criticism, it's their use of traditional antisemitic tropes such as "dual loyalty" (interesting coming from someone who wrapped herself in another nation's flag to celebrate being elected to Congress), beguiling the West and using money to bribe the US government.  Next they'll start comparing Jews to rodent or termites (thanks for that one Farrakhan) and you'll still be scratching your head in bewilderment.  

Netflix?

Secondly, it is their support for BDS that has raised all this dust, precisely because Rubio is sponsoring a section in a bill which would punish people and corporations for exercising their free speech in a boycott of Israel.    

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2019, 12:35 PM)Dill Wrote: Netflix?

Secondly, it is their support for BDS that has raised all this dust, precisely because Rubio is sponsoring a section in a bill which would punish people and corporations for exercising their free speech in a boycott of Israel.    

Actually I think what's raised all the dust is the antisemitic tropes Omar deals in.  Interesting that her defense in both instances was along the lines of, "I didn't know that was offensive".  We agree on the Rubio bill, the government should not be in the business of dictating the political expression of individuals or corporations.  Here's the problem the BDS supporters are going to have though; a not insignificant number of people on board with you are doing so because they are antisemetic.  As I've been told many times on this board, if a racist agrees with any of your policies that makes the policy racist.  Problematic, as they say.

[Dill]

(02-12-2019, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually I think what's raised all the dust is the antisemitic tropes Omar deals in.  Interesting that her defense in both instances was along the lines of, "I didn't know that was offensive".  We agree on the Rubio bill, the government should not be in the business of dictating the political expression of individuals or corporations.  Here's the problem the BDS supporters are going to have though; a not insignificant number of people on board with you are doing so because they are antisemetic.  As I've been told many times on this board, if a racist agrees with any of your policies that makes the policy racist.  Problematic, as they say.

Hmmm.  I don't doubt you've been told that agreeing with a racist policy makes you a racist. How could someone say "I agree that blacks are inferior and should not be allowed to vote--but I'm not racist"?

But I've never heard anyone on this board say a policy is racist for no other reason than that a racist agrees with it. Perhaps someone actually has, or perhaps you are inferring that from someone who notes how certain of Trump's policies garner support from racists.

But you are adopting that definition now?  And that's how you conclude "a not insignificant number" oppose the bill (as you do) because they are antisemitic? Just making sure I understand.

[Dill]

(02-12-2019, 11:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://theintercept.com/2019/02/11/ilhan-omar-israel-lobby-documentary/?fbclid=IwAR1FmStV78qwXmvs7xL7l_dtnOL9DOsDxLLxHWhyhyg5ua7Fd4_qYpAs3sU


David Ochs, founder of HaLev, which helps send young people to AIPAC’s annual conference, described for the reporter how AIPAC and its donors organize fundraisers outside the official umbrella of the organization, so that the money doesn’t show up on disclosures as coming specifically from AIPAC. . . .

Without spending money, Ochs argues, the pro-Israel lobby isn’t able to enact its agenda. “Congressmen and senators don’t do anything unless you pressure them. . . .

He describes a fundraiser for Anthony Brown, a Democrat running for Congress in Maryland, as typical. “So we want the Jewish community to go face to face in this small environment, 50, 30, 40 people, and say this is what’s important to us. We want to make sure that if we give you money that you’re going to enforce the Iran deal. That way, when they need something from him or her, like the Iran deal, they can quickly mobilize and say look we’ll give you 30 grand. They actually impact,” Ochs tells the reporter.

Wait a minute. If this guy is Jewish and says pro-Israel lobbying is all about the Benjamins, then he is antisemitic?

I hope that Ochs et al. eventually return calls on this to refute this, if it's not true.  

[BmorePat87]

Trump is calling on her to resign.