ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 28th August 2019, 07:26 AM   #1
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 31,440
Ilhan Omar fires back after Alabama Republicans call for her expulsion from Congress

Ilhan Omar fires back after Alabama Republicans call for her expulsion from Congress


Quote:
Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is firing back in a public feud with the Alabama Republican Party. Omar called out the state GOP for its support of a Senate candidate that was embroiled in numerous sexual assault allegations, after the state party urged that she be expelled from Congress.


According to AL.com, Alabama Republicans moved to support a resolution calling for the removal of the freshman congresswoman, citing her past controversial statements on the September 11th terrorist attacks, which her supporters said were taken out of context; comments she made on campaign finance that many considered to be anti-Semitic, for which she apologized; and her staunch support of the Palestinian people in the face of the Israeli government.

In their resolution, the party calls for its state's congressional delegation to begin the process of seeking Omar's expulsion from the House.
Rep Omar had to waste her precious time responding to these morons:*

Quote:
Sorry, @ALGOPHQ, but this is a representative democracy.

I was elected with 78% of the vote by the people of Minnesota's 5th District, not the Alabama Republican Party.

If you want to clean up politics, maybe don’t nominate an accused child molester as your Senate candidate?


*Sincere apologies to any morons on this forum.
__________________
"Shemp, you are the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe." - Beady
"I don't want to live in a world without shemp." - Quarky
"Real name? Xavier Jorge Gladdius Horatio McShrimp. No wonder he goes by shemp." - wasapi
"...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, Trump shemp attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 07:35 AM   #2
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,507
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
*Sincere apologies to any morons on this forum.
Promise never to compare me to a Republican again. That is low. Really low!
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 08:14 AM   #3
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 31,440
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Promise never to compare me to a Republican again. That is low. Really low!
Sorry.
__________________
"Shemp, you are the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe." - Beady
"I don't want to live in a world without shemp." - Quarky
"Real name? Xavier Jorge Gladdius Horatio McShrimp. No wonder he goes by shemp." - wasapi
"...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, Trump shemp attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 08:16 AM   #4
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,261
Alabama GOP is pandering to its racist base. Attack the black Muslim woman and the white supremacists will come out to vote.

ETA: Just realized there was a redundant word in the first sentence.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 11:28 AM   #5
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,300
I hereby propose that we replace the term "Yellow Dog Republicans" with "Child Molester Republicans".


If they don't like it, they can stop nominating and voting for them.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 12:17 PM   #6
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,062
As someone who has been known to vote Republican, I now think the GOP deserves to die.
Not the biggest fan of Omar in the world,but if you are looking for someone whose actiona are really UnAmerican, look at Benedict Donald in the White House.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 12:47 PM   #7
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,395
Good on her for cutting to the chase and not couching her response in politically nice terms. She publicly called out the Alabama GOP nominee for what he really is, a sexual predator and child molester - good work Ilhan!
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 28th August 2019 at 12:57 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 03:44 PM   #8
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,759
Ilhan Omar, you say? That name's in the news today:

Quote:
Rep. Ilhan Omar violated campaign finance law by using campaign funds to pursue an affair with married Democratic consultant Tim Mynett, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Wednesday.

Omar’s campaign has disbursed $223,000 to Tim Mynett’s company, E. Street Group, LLC, from August 2018 through June 2019, mostly for fundraising consulting, FEC records show. But on April 1, her campaign began making payments to E. Street Group for “travel expenses.”

Less than a week later, on April 7, Tim Mynett confessed to his wife that he was “romantically involved with and in love with” Omar, according to a divorce filing Tuesday by Dr. Beth Jordan Mynett.
Omar has had quite a tangled love life. She married one guy, then divorced him, then married another guy, then started living with her first husband (she may have never stopped living with him), then started filing joint tax returns with the first husband (although she was still legally married to the second one). Eventually she did divorce the second hubby and remarried the first one, but obviously that marriage would appear to be over.

We'll see if any laws were broken.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 06:03 PM   #9
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,813
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Ilhan Omar, you say? That name's in the news today:



Omar has had quite a tangled love life. She married one guy, then divorced him, then married another guy, then started living with her first husband (she may have never stopped living with him), then started filing joint tax returns with the first husband (although she was still legally married to the second one). Eventually she did divorce the second hubby and remarried the first one, but obviously that marriage would appear to be over.

We'll see if any laws were broken.
I've seen reports of rumors but no evidence that Omar and Mynett are having an affair. It may be true, it may not be true.

But if true, then Omar and Trump will have something in common. Maybe they can bond over their shared penchant for adulterous affairs and campaign finance violations.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 06:45 PM   #10
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,757
Not sure whether to start a new thread about this, but since it's already being discussed here, here is the story. While salacious, it appears to be legit:

Ilhan Omar stole my husband, DC mom claims in divorce papers (NY Post)

I'm not sure about the Daily Caller angle that this is a violation of campaign finance law, however. But it would seem to appear that two people who were both married to other people at the time were having an affair. And he was working for her, and probably still is working for her.

Quote:
“The parties physically separated on or about April 7, 2019, when Defendant told Plaintiff that he was romantically involved with and in love with another woman, Ilhan Omar,” the court papers say.

“Defendant met Rep. Omar while working for her,’’ the document states. “Although devastated by the betrayal and deceit that preceded his abrupt declaration, Plaintiff told Defendant that she loved him, and was willing to fight for the marriage.

“Defendant, however, told her that was not an option for him’’ and moved out the next day, the papers say.

“It is clear to Plaintiff that her marriage to Defendant is over and that there is no hope of reconciliation,’’ according to the filing.
Quote:
The 37-year-old congresswoman and mom of three paid Tim Mynett and his E. Street Group approximately $230,000 through her campaign since 2018 for fundraising consulting, digital communications, internet advertising and travel expenses.

Omar was spotted enjoying time with Tim Mynett at a California restaurant in March.

Beth Mynett is seeking primary physical custody of her and her husband’s son in part because of Tim Mynett’s “extensive travel” with Omar — which isn’t exactly part of his job description, the document says.

“Defendant’s more recent travel and long work hours now appear to be more related to his affair with Rep. Omar than with his actual work commitments,” the court papers state.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 06:56 PM   #11
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,813
It's being discussed in the generic Trump thread.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 09:25 PM   #12
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,395
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Ilhan Omar, you say? That name's in the news today:

Omar has had quite a tangled love life. She married one guy, then divorced him, then married another guy, then started living with her first husband (she may have never stopped living with him), then started filing joint tax returns with the first husband (although she was still legally married to the second one). Eventually she did divorce the second hubby and remarried the first one, but obviously that marriage would appear to be over.


I see no reason why someone's MARITAL affairs are public business and of any political import.

On the other hand, multiple accusations of rape and sexual abuse over a few decades.......? Yeah, the Reptards just wanna look the other way!
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 28th August 2019 at 09:31 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 05:06 AM   #13
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,423
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
Ilhan Omar fires back after Alabama Republicans call for her expulsion from Congress




Rep Omar had to waste her precious time responding to these morons:*





*Sincere apologies to any morons on this forum.
waste of time. That is what elections are for. If the voters want her that is their choice unless she really does something illegal.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 07:17 AM   #14
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,593
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
waste of time. That is what elections are for. If the voters want her that is their choice unless she really does something illegal.

No. This is the era of Trump. That sort of thing no longer matters.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 12:33 PM   #15
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,423
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
No. This is the era of Trump. That sort of thing no longer matters.
That didn't start in the "Age of Trump".
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 12:38 PM   #16
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,593
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
That didn't start in the "Age of Trump".

Please note that I never said it did.

It is, however, most definitely more frequent these days.

I do, however, find it curious that you say it didn't matter before Trump while at the same time you are the one that said it does matter ("unless she really does something illegal") in the case of Ilhan Omar.

Does it matter or not? Make up your mind already, bro.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 12:58 PM   #17
rockinkt
Graduate Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Please note that I never said it did.

It is, however, most definitely more frequent these days.

I do, however, find it curious that you say it didn't matter before Trump while at the same time you are the one that said it does matter ("unless she really does something illegal") in the case of Ilhan Omar.

Does it matter or not? Make up your mind already, bro.
Cite please. I'll accept any detailed analysis going back 100 years.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt

Last edited by rockinkt; 29th August 2019 at 12:59 PM. Reason: change 200 years to 100 years
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 01:02 PM   #18
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,593
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Cite please. I'll accept any detailed analysis going back 100 years.
I'll accept that I am wrong if you can provide a cite for a US president perjuring himself while in office with no consequences at all (not even a diminishment of his support, and yes, an impeachment without conviction is a consequence).
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 04:40 PM   #19
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,062
Maybe the GOP should clean up it's own house before accusing anybody else of Anti Semitism:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...-anti-semitic/
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 05:26 PM   #20
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,616
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I'll accept that I am wrong if you can provide a cite for a US president perjuring himself while in office with no consequences at all (not even a diminishment of his support, and yes, an impeachment without conviction is a consequence).

The poster asked for evidence that there are more laws broken now than before the "era of Trump" and you changed that into "perjury without consequences".

The poster you quoted didn't say it "didn't matter before Trump" either.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 05:46 PM   #21
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,593
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
The poster asked for evidence that there are more laws broken now than before the "era of Trump" and you changed that into "perjury without consequences".
Honestly, whether you believe it or not, when I was writing that original post I was debating between "more frequent" and "more conspicuous", the point being that it's currently around a peak of some form or another. I think both are true, but I will admit I do not believe I can prove either: I wouldn't know where to begin to find data for the former, and it's hard to even have an objective metric for the latter. I consider this much like the frequently made claim that Trump has lied more than any other president, which I think is rather obvious but have seen at least a couple of resident Trump supporters question. On either issue I have no interest in a back and forth quibble fest with anyone over what constitutes a lie or a crime such as perjury in any sort of attempt to establish the truthiness or falsiness of the claim. If you don't believe it (any of the previous claims in this paragraph), I can accept that. I'm quite used to conservatives refusing to believe facts and reality; I've come to expect it.

Quote:
The poster you quoted didn't say it "didn't matter before Trump" either.
I disagree, as far as intended meaning goes (he didn't say it verbatim, of course). The quote was, 'That didn't start in the "Age of Trump",' which has two interpretations:

1. It started before Trump (ie, it doesn't matter during the Trump era but then again, it didn't matter before, either).

or

2. It never started at all.

Please note that he/she didn't explicitly question that it doesn't matter in the Trump era. From context the most reasonable interpretation is 1: It doesn't matter in the Trump era but that started before Trump.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 07:22 PM   #22
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,757
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Maybe the GOP should clean up it's own house before accusing anybody else of Anti Semitism:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...-anti-semitic/
Yeah, there's stuff on both sides. You might want to read this though, because it sort of flew under the radar during the recent controversy about whether Omar and Tlaib would be allowed to visit Israel:

Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib Partnered with Vicious Anti-Semites to Plan Their Trip to Israel

How anti-Semitic? Well, here's a sample:
Quote:
The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there is nothing at all wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asian women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and character — except that the character of the White race is suspect because of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by Whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible.

We must oppose the further spreading of this poison among our people, and we must break the power of those who are spreading it. It would be intolerable for such power to be in the hands of any alien minority, with values and interests different from our own. But to permit the Jews, with their 3,000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many White Americans today are so filled with a sense of racial guilt and self-hatred that they actively seek the death of their own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish media control.


Do Omar and Tlaib hold these views? No, I can't imagine they do. However, instead of going to Israel as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation, they chose instead to have their trip planned by a group that published the above on their website.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 07:25 PM   #23
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,261
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Ilhan Omar, you say? That name's in the news today:



Omar has had quite a tangled love life. She married one guy, then divorced him, then married another guy, then started living with her first husband (she may have never stopped living with him), then started filing joint tax returns with the first husband (although she was still legally married to the second one). Eventually she did divorce the second hubby and remarried the first one, but obviously that marriage would appear to be over.

We'll see if any laws were broken.
White Supremacy News isn't renowned for publishing honest articles. Try again.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 09:09 PM   #24
ArchSas
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Yeah, there's stuff on both sides. You might want to read this though, because it sort of flew under the radar during the recent controversy about whether Omar and Tlaib would be allowed to visit Israel:

Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib Partnered with Vicious Anti-Semites to Plan Their Trip to Israel

How anti-Semitic? Well, here's a sample:


Do Omar and Tlaib hold these views? No, I can't imagine they do. However, instead of going to Israel as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation, they chose instead to have their trip planned by a group that published the above on their website.
I see a pretty big difference between that video and Omar and Talib working with Miftah. Miftah has released some pretty damning statements in the past, but, as far as I can tell, they try really hard to give themselves the appearance of a fairly reasonable Palestinian rights organization. I just spent 5-10 minutes on their website, and I didn't find anything like you quoted. It's all information about how they stand for a "sovereign, independent, democratic, tolerant and inclusive Palestinian state" and other kinds of language you see on a lot of sites for NGOs and other organizations. I can easily see how the congresswomen might have assumed they were working with a mainstream organization that doesn't hold any obvious antisemitic views; it's not like they were planning with an organization that advertises that kind of thing publicly (at least not now, I can only comment on how Miftah presents itself now). Clearly they made a mistake in choosing that particular organization to work with; I could easily see it being the kind of thing someone on staff didn't check into enough. Sometimes it can be really hard to make sure a person or organization has never done something objectionable (for example, a person donating to the salvation army without realizing their history of homophobia), and it's the kind of mistake organizations make all the time. They probably thought they were just working with a human rights organization. That's certainly a different scenario than producing a video filled with obvious antisemitic fear mongering and stereotypes. Or Donald Trump tweeting imagery directly drawn from white nationalist sources seemingly without any thought or checking.

Hopefully obvious disclaimers: I have no idea what the two congresswomen were actually thinking when they planned this, so the above is speculation. But it's also a scenario I can see easily happening, and it's not uncommon. Also, I don't support any of what Miftah has said, I'm just commenting on how they present themselves in public, at least upfront. Again, their website doesn't obviously contain anything radical or antisemitic that I could find with the kind of looking I would expect an intern or staff member to do; they should have done a lot more googling. I don't support any organization that makes statements like that, and the congresswomen made a serious mistake by attempting to work with them. But it's a mistake I can see as understandable. Either way there's (hopefully) an obvious difference between producing that kind of material directly and not doing enough background research on an organization that tries to appear reasonable.

Last edited by ArchSas; 29th August 2019 at 09:35 PM.
ArchSas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 11:07 AM   #25
rockinkt
Graduate Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Honestly, whether you believe it or not, when I was writing that original post I was debating between "more frequent" and "more conspicuous", the point being that it's currently around a peak of some form or another. I think both are true, but I will admit I do not believe I can prove either: I wouldn't know where to begin to find data for the former, and it's hard to even have an objective metric for the latter. I consider this much like the frequently made claim that Trump has lied more than any other president, which I think is rather obvious but have seen at least a couple of resident Trump supporters question. On either issue I have no interest in a back and forth quibble fest with anyone over what constitutes a lie or a crime such as perjury in any sort of attempt to establish the truthiness or falsiness of the claim. If you don't believe it (any of the previous claims in this paragraph), I can accept that. I'm quite used to conservatives refusing to believe facts and reality; I've come to expect it.





I disagree, as far as intended meaning goes (he didn't say it verbatim, of course). The quote was, 'That didn't start in the "Age of Trump",' which has two interpretations:

1. It started before Trump (ie, it doesn't matter during the Trump era but then again, it didn't matter before, either).

or

2. It never started at all.

Please note that he/she didn't explicitly question that it doesn't matter in the Trump era. From context the most reasonable interpretation is 1: It doesn't matter in the Trump era but that started before Trump.
Wow! You made an assertion and I asked for a cite. I didn't ask you to try and explain away the fact you made a bold assertion without any evidence to back it up. I also did not ask for any comparison to any specific party or president.

I am not a Trump supporter. The man is a dangerous fool and an embarrassment to the United States. Besides - I am a Canadian living in Canada and not a member of nor do I identify with any any political party.
I am, however, a person who is posting on a sceptic's board and looking to engage in conversation/debate with someone who is also a sceptic and doesn't run around making statements that are proof that Confirmation Bias is a real thing.
I also wonder at your claimed ability to read my mind and also glean my
political views.

Here is the question again: Cite please. I'll accept any detailed analysis going back 100 years.

Easy question. No hidden meanings. Please respond with just what I asked for or admit that you are giving your personal opinion without any facts to back it up.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt

Last edited by rockinkt; 31st August 2019 at 11:10 AM.
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 12:01 PM   #26
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,161
Originally Posted by ArchSas View Post
I see a pretty big difference between that video and Omar and Talib working with Miftah. Miftah has released some pretty damning statements in the past, but, as far as I can tell, they try really hard to give themselves the appearance of a fairly reasonable Palestinian rights organization. I just spent 5-10 minutes on their website, and I didn't find anything like you quoted. It's all information about how they stand for a "sovereign, independent, democratic, tolerant and inclusive Palestinian state" and other kinds of language you see on a lot of sites for NGOs and other organizations. I can easily see how the congresswomen might have assumed they were working with a mainstream organization that doesn't hold any obvious antisemitic views; it's not like they were planning with an organization that advertises that kind of thing publicly (at least not now, I can only comment on how Miftah presents itself now). Clearly they made a mistake in choosing that particular organization to work with; I could easily see it being the kind of thing someone on staff didn't check into enough. Sometimes it can be really hard to make sure a person or organization has never done something objectionable (for example, a person donating to the salvation army without realizing their history of homophobia), and it's the kind of mistake organizations make all the time. They probably thought they were just working with a human rights organization. That's certainly a different scenario than producing a video filled with obvious antisemitic fear mongering and stereotypes. Or Donald Trump tweeting imagery directly drawn from white nationalist sources seemingly without any thought or checking.

Hopefully obvious disclaimers: I have no idea what the two congresswomen were actually thinking when they planned this, so the above is speculation. But it's also a scenario I can see easily happening, and it's not uncommon. Also, I don't support any of what Miftah has said, I'm just commenting on how they present themselves in public, at least upfront. Again, their website doesn't obviously contain anything radical or antisemitic that I could find with the kind of looking I would expect an intern or staff member to do; they should have done a lot more googling. I don't support any organization that makes statements like that, and the congresswomen made a serious mistake by attempting to work with them. But it's a mistake I can see as understandable. Either way there's (hopefully) an obvious difference between producing that kind of material directly and not doing enough background research on an organization that tries to appear reasonable.
You’ve made the mistake of granting legitimacy to an argument premised on accepting a biased screed from the National Review at face value.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 12:28 PM   #27
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,928
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Ilhan Omar, you say? That name's in the news today:
Wow.
Come back when there's some actual evidence of wrongdoing, not just claims by a right-wing lobby organisation funded by Scaife.

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Omar has had quite a tangled love life. <snip>
So what? Other than double standards and attempted mus slinging what's the deal? Has she ever molested any under-age child? Grouped any unwilling person?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 12:30 PM   #28
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,516
Her reply amounts to whataboutism.

Quote:
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument
With some Argumentum ad populum tossed in.

I get disliking republicans, but she is committing some logical fallacies.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 12:32 PM   #29
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,928
Originally Posted by ArchSas View Post
I see a pretty big difference between that video and Omar and Talib working with Miftah. Miftah has released some pretty damning statements in the past, but, as far as I can tell, they try really hard to give themselves the appearance of a fairly reasonable Palestinian rights organization. I just spent 5-10 minutes on their website, and I didn't find anything like you quoted.
The quote is from National Vanguard, a purely USAian, white supremacist, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, white nationalist, neo-Nazi group.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 01:03 PM   #30
ArchSas
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
The quote is from National Vanguard, a purely USAian, white supremacist, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, white nationalist, neo-Nazi group.
The NR article makes the clarification, and I was aware. I just posting in acknowledgement that Miftah did publish the statement somewhere (apparently on its website years ago), and that it does look bad without context of Miftah being a human rights organization and not the hate group the NR tries to portray them as. Even though they did post the statement, they issued an apology for doing so and said it was the fault of a junior employee that was acting inappropriately. Which, of course, the NR seriously downplayed. I probably should have been more clear that the statement doesn't seem to be something Miftah actually endorses (or ever did, when I wrote the post, I didn't feel like looking into their past and was trying to cover my ass in case they had a history of making antisemitic comments - after more research now, I can see they don't, and think the congresswomen didn't make a mistake at all), and that the only people bringing it up are bad actors from the right being dishonest to dig up dirt.

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
You’ve made the mistake of granting legitimacy to an argument premised on accepting a biased screed from the National Review at face value.
Probably. I already know to treat anything they publish with heavy skepticism, but I was attempting to address the "both sides are antisemites, see? It's the same thing" argument with something a little more substantive than pointing out the flaws of the source. Engaging with things like that is always murky and yeah, I probably wasn't clear enough and could have done better with a few things. Either way, sometimes it's hard to let something like that go unchallenged.

Last edited by ArchSas; 31st August 2019 at 01:12 PM.
ArchSas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 01:06 PM   #31
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,286
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Her reply amounts to whataboutism.
No, it does not.



Quote:
With some Argumentum ad populum tossed in.
LOL

Dude, please.

Quote:
I get disliking republicans, but she is committing some logical fallacies.
According to your own definition even; she has already refuted the given reasons at the times of their occurrence so there's no need to repeat it here. Also she's rightfully pointing out they're overstepping their bounds in trying to influence another states' electoral process while saying that they're responsible for a far more egregious violator. You know, something they had direct control over.

I get it; it's incredibly popular round here to try and call out fallacies left and right but it almost inevitably, ironically, ends up being a case of the fallacy fallacy (or argument to logic).
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 01:11 PM   #32
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,516
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
No, it does not.




LOL

Dude, please.


According to your own definition even; she has already refuted the given reasons at the times of their occurrence so there's no need to repeat it here. Also she's rightfully pointing out they're overstepping their bounds in trying to influence another states' electoral process while saying that they're responsible for a far more egregious violator. You know, something they had direct control over.

I get it; it's incredibly popular round here to try and call out fallacies left and right but it almost inevitably, ironically, ends up being a case of the fallacy fallacy (or argument to logic).
She did not refute their claim. Instead, she accuses her opponents of hypocrisy. That is whataboutism.

ETA: for discussion of the merits of their claim, it is fundamentally irrelevant that they are hypocrites.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 31st August 2019 at 01:15 PM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 01:22 PM   #33
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,813
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
She did not refute their claim. Instead, she accuses her opponents of hypocrisy. That is whataboutism.

ETA: for discussion of the merits of their claim, it is fundamentally irrelevant that they are hypocrites.
She has refuted them before and/or apologized for certain comments as Norseman has already stated*. How many times does she need to do so? Every time some idiot repeats her comments out of context as they did with the "somebody did something" comment?

*"she has already refuted the given reasons at the times of their occurrence so there's no need to repeat it here."
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 01:30 PM   #34
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,516
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
She has refuted them before and/or apologized for certain comments as Norseman has already stated*. How many times does she need to do so? Every time some idiot repeats her comments out of context as they did with the "somebody did something" comment?

*"she has already refuted the given reasons at the times of their occurrence so there's no need to repeat it here."
First, I never said she needs to not commit logical fallacies. I don't have a moral or ethical component attached to fallacies.

Second, I cannot recall reading anything on logical fallacies that grants a "commented before to different people" exception.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 01:56 PM   #35
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,286
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
She did not refute their claim. Instead, she accuses her opponents of hypocrisy. That is whataboutism.

ETA: for discussion of the merits of their claim, it is fundamentally irrelevant that they are hypocrites.
Yes that's true to an extent, but she has pointed out that their claims are baseless as I've said and Stacyhs has kindly reinforced; the refutations happened at the time of the incidents.

Again, it isn't whataboutism when stating factually that this state Republican group has literally no say in how she's elected; they are trying to pressure their own representatives into doing what they wish (by telling their reps to file a motion to kick her out of Congress) which is overstepping their bounds.

It is also a fact that this group supported their own representative who happens to be a scumbag who was charged with child molestation which is again, something they directly can, and did, affect.

I also notice you disregarded the rest of my post which pointed out that your very usage of two fallacies, in this instance, is itself a fallacy; EVEN IF she committed those fallacies, she still can be correct in her conclusions. This is something of which we should all be more wary as we discuss things here.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book

Last edited by The Norseman; 31st August 2019 at 01:57 PM.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 02:01 PM   #36
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,813
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
She did not refute their claim. Instead, she accuses her opponents of hypocrisy. That is whataboutism.

ETA: for discussion of the merits of their claim, it is fundamentally irrelevant that they are hypocrites.
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
First, I never said she needs to not commit logical fallacies. I don't have a moral or ethical component attached to fallacies.

Second, I cannot recall reading anything on logical fallacies that grants a "commented before to different people" exception.
And I never said you said "she needs to not commit logical fallacies." You said "she did not refute their claim" and Norseman and I both said she has. Which she has.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 02:55 PM   #37
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,516
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post

I also notice you disregarded the rest of my post which pointed out that your very usage of two fallacies, in this instance, is itself a fallacy; EVEN IF she committed those fallacies, she still can be correct in her conclusions. This is something of which we should all be more wary as we discuss things here.
While interesting, I'm indifferent if we should or shouldn't do that.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 02:57 PM   #38
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,516
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
And I never said you said "she needs to not commit logical fallacies." You said "she did not refute their claim" and Norseman and I both said she has. Which she has.
I cannot find a previously refuted component to logical fallacies. If you have one, please share.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 05:05 PM   #39
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,813
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I cannot find a previously refuted component to logical fallacies. If you have one, please share.
Nuh uh....not going down the Bobbing rabbit hole with you.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2019, 04:45 AM   #40
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,593
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Wow! You made an assertion and I asked for a cite. I didn't ask you to try and explain away the fact you made a bold assertion without any evidence to back it up. I also did not ask for any comparison to any specific party or president.

Easy there big fella! What the hell; despite my admission that I can't prove the claim I will continue to engage with you. As I previously stated, I would like to amend my claim to "more conspicuous" instead of "more frequent" (though I continue to believe both to be true). "Conspicuous" here meaning (in part) the power of the position of the person in question (ie, the presidency vs mayor of Turkey Lick, KY), hence my counter question: Can you provide a cite of a US president perjuring himself while in office with no consequences at all? I'm not aware of that ever happening, how would you expect me to cite that it never happened? I've looked, I didn't find it, therefore I believe it's never happened before. (Incidentally, that would not only make my claim of "more conspicuous" true, it would also imply "more frequent" is true as well!) Same for other presidential, consequence-free, crimes: I've looked. I found none. Just like with Sasquatch: I can't prove he doesn't exist. I've looked. I found none. If you disagree, perhaps you can find proof. I couldn't, and that's the best cite I can give for non-existence.

Feel free to look for consequence free crimes at congressional levels, too. I looked. I found none. I don't think it's possible to prove or cite that such events don't exist (there's always the counter argument that one simply didn't look hard enough). My claim is I looked and found none, and that's absolutely true. The onus is now on you to demonstrate I am wrong (if you can).

And where did you come up with the 100 year time frame? If, as you acknowledge, it is my claim, you don't get to set the terms of my claim. That's my prerogative. I said it was more frequent/conspicuous. I could be correct even if it was more frequent/conspicuous 100 years ago--That's not mutually exclusive with either frequency or conspicuity increasing now.

Quote:
I am not a Trump supporter. The man is a dangerous fool and an embarrassment to the United States. Besides - I am a Canadian living in Canada and not a member of nor do I identify with any any political party.
I am, however, a person who is posting on a sceptic's board and looking to engage in conversation/debate with someone who is also a sceptic and doesn't run around making statements that are proof that Confirmation Bias is a real thing.
I also wonder at your claimed ability to read my mind and also glean my
political views.

You know, speaking of Confirmation Bias and uncited claims, I also wonder why you even think I claimed an ability to read your mind or glean your political views. I did not. I invite you to quote me where I made any such claim (even vaguely). You will fail.

(By the way, I was only joking about the looking for Sasquatch part; merely trying to make a point).
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.