House Votes To Advance Resolution To Censure Rashida Tlaib For Antisemitic Rhetoric

[expos4ever]

You might want to read my post again for comprehension.

Yet again: What, exactly, did Tlaib say that justiifies your claim that she "defended the brutal rapes, murders, be-headings, and kidnapping – including of Americans – by Hamas as justified ‘resistance’ to the ‘apartheid state"

This is your claim - please defend it.

If she said "from the river to the seas", that, obviously, does not support the inference that she defends rapes, murders, beheadings. etc.! After all, one could hold the view that all Israelis need to be deported so that the Palestinians get the land. That is a dumb, hateful idea in my view and it arguably should be censured. But using that phrase does not logically imply support for murder, rape, and beheadings.

If you have actual hard evidence that she said something that supported rape, murder, and beheading, then by all means present it.

 

[Landon Caeli]

For her speech.
The government chastised a member of its own legislative branch for something she said.
Officially.

yes, of course.

 

[HARK!]

If she said "from the river to the seas",

That in conjunction with "the occupation's got to go."

that, obviously, does not support the inference that she defends rapes, murders, beheadings. etc.!

Considering that this comes on the heels of Israel defending itself in the wake of a mass extermination, rapes, etc. what else do you suppose it means?

After all, one could hold the view that all Israelis need to be deported so that the Palestinians get the land. That is a dumb, hateful idea in my view and it arguably should be censured.

Many are calling for the extermination of Israel; and some have recently started to act that out. Is that better?

If you have actual hard evidence that she said something that supported rape, murder, and beheading, then by all means present it.

The fact that the protestors in her video are speaking against Israel, in the wake of the rapes, murders, and beheadings, should be a clue. If that wasn't obvious enough for you, the fact that they are waving the flags of the aggressors should be a clear sign of what she supports.

 

[expos4ever]

Considering that this comes on the heels of Israel defending itself in the wake of a mass extermination, rapes, etc. what else do you suppose it means?

The logic here is flawed. She said what she said, nothing more. You are making all sorts of assumptions that build on what she said and making an entirely speculative inference. You have not countered my argument. Again, even a 14-year old will know that even though "free from the river to the sea" does indeed imply the end of the nation of Israel, it by no means implies support for murder, rape, and beheadings. This is inflammatory, misleading rhetoric on your part.

This needs to stop: In another thread, someone claimed that "members of congress openly support Hamas". I repeatedly asked for names. Response: crickets.

Many are calling for the extermination of Israel; and some have recently started to act that out. Is that better?

Well, this statement is true, but that was not your claim. You have claimed that Tlaib "defends rape, murder, and beheadings". As we have seen, you have given no evidence to support this claim.

The fact that the protestors in her video are speaking against Israel, in the wake of the rapes, murders, and beheadings, should be a clue.

Again, this reasoning is patently false - how can you not see this? First, it is beyond obvious that protesting against the actions of Israel does not remotely imply support the actions of Hamas. Second, you are moving the goalposts: your initial claim was about Tlaib; now, you are talking about the protestors.

If that wasn't obvious enough for you, the fact that they are waving the flags of the aggressors should be a clear sign of what she supports.

Incorrect reasoning, yet again. You made a claim about Tlaib, not the protestors. Readers will, I suggest, see that you have been called on what is almost certainly an incorrect claim and are now trying to divert by focusing on the actions of the protestors.

In summary: we have seen no evidence at all that Tlaib supports rapes, murders, and beheadings.

 

[Derf]

The logic here is flawed. She said what she said, nothing more. You are making all sorts of assumptions that build on what she said and making an entirely speculative inference. You have not countered my argument. Again, even a 14-year old will know that even though "free from the river to the sea" does indeed imply the end of the nation of Israel, it by no means implies support for murder, rape, and beheadings. This is inflammatory, misleading rhetoric on your part.

This needs to stop: In another thread, someone claimed that "members of congress openly support Hamas". I repeatedly asked for names. Response: crickets.

Well, this statement is true, but that was not your claim. You have claimed that Tlaib "defends rape, murder, and beheadings". As we have seen, you have given no evidence to support this claim.

Again, this reasoning is patently false - how can you not see this? First, it is beyond obvious that protesting against the actions of Israel does not remotely imply support the actions of Hamas. Second, you are moving the goalposts: your initial claim was about Tlaib; now, you are talking about the protestors.

Incorrect reasoning, yet again. You made a claim about Tlaib, not the protestors. Readers will, I suggest, see that you have called on what is almost certainly an incorrect claim and are now trying to divert by focusing on the actions of the protestors.

In summary: we have seen no evidence at all that Tlaib supports rapes, murders, and beheadings.

Weve seen no evidence that she doesn't support rapes and beheadings in context.

Here's an excerpt from her response:
“It’s a shame my colleagues are more focused on silencing me than they are on saving lives, as the death toll in Gaza surpasses 10,000. Many of them have shown me that Palestinian lives simply do not matter to them, but I still do not police their rhetoric or actions. Rather than acknowledge the voice and perspective of the only Palestinian American in Congress, my colleagues have resorted to distorting my positions in resolutions filled with obvious lies. I have repeatedly denounced the horrific targeting and killing of civilians by Hamas and the Israeli government, and have mourned the Israeli and Palestinian lives lost."

Even there, she doesn't denounce those things, she merely claims she has done so in the past. I looked for those repeated denouncements. Haven't found them yet. Do you want to have a go? You need more than 1, it has to be prior to her censure, and it should contain the words "rapes" and "beheadings".

 

[expos4ever]

Weve seen no evidence that she doesn't support rapes and beheadings in context.

Come on, surely you know this is incorrect reasoning. Imagine if you were on trial for murder and the prosecuting attorney said we have seen no evidence that you did not commit the murder.

The claim was made that Tlaib supported murders, rapes, and beheadings. It is incumbent upon the claimant to support this assertion; it is most certainly not the responsibility of others like me to demonstrate that she does not support these things.

This abdication of burden of proof strategy is commonly used here in this forum. People make a claim that they cannot support, and they try to weasel out of it but I expecting the challengers to provide proof that the claim is false. This is not how reasonable debate proceeds: it is the claimant who bears the burden of proof. Period.

 

[expos4ever]

Here's an excerpt from her response:
“It’s a shame my colleagues are more focused on silencing me than they are on saving lives, as the death toll in Gaza surpasses 10,000. Many of them have shown me that Palestinian lives simply do not matter to them, but I still do not police their rhetoric or actions. Rather than acknowledge the voice and perspective of the only Palestinian American in Congress, my colleagues have resorted to distorting my positions in resolutions filled with obvious lies. I have repeatedly denounced the horrific targeting and killing of civilians by Hamas and the Israeli government, and have mourned the Israeli and Palestinian lives lost."

Even there, she doesn't denounce those things, she merely claims she has done so in the past. I looked for those repeated denouncements. Haven't found them yet. Do you want to have a go?

Again this is abdication of the burden of proof! It is not up to me to prove that she has denounced these things in the past. I never claimed that she did!

We need to elevate the level of discourse in this forum: when you make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to defend that claim. You cannot demand that people who insist you support your claim go off and provide the evidence for you.

Again: we have seen no evidence that Tlaib supports these atrocities.

Even if she is lying when she claims she condemned these atrocities in the past, that clearly does not imply that she supports them! This is beyond obvious!

 

[Derf]

Again this is abdication of the burden of proof! It is not up to me to prove that she has denounced these things in the past. I never claimed that she did!

We need to elevate the level of discourse in this forum: when you make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to defend that claim. You cannot demand that people who insist you support your claim go off and provide the evidence for you.

Again: we have seen no evidence that Tlaib supports these atrocities.

Even if she is lying when she claims she condemned these atrocities in the past, that clearly does not imply that she supports them! This is beyond obvious!

But you would agree that lying is just as grievous as supporting the rapes and beheadings? Especially as a member of congress who uses her words to justify her positions?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Weve seen no evidence that she doesn't support rapes and beheadings in context.

Here's an excerpt from her response:
“It’s a shame my colleagues are more focused on silencing me than they are on saving lives, as the death toll in Gaza surpasses 10,000. Many of them have shown me that Palestinian lives simply do not matter to them, but I still do not police their rhetoric or actions. Rather than acknowledge the voice and perspective of the only Palestinian American in Congress, my colleagues have resorted to distorting my positions in resolutions filled with obvious lies. I have repeatedly denounced the horrific targeting and killing of civilians by Hamas and the Israeli government, and have mourned the Israeli and Palestinian lives lost."

Even there, she doesn't denounce those things, she merely claims she has done so in the past. I looked for those repeated denouncements. Haven't found them yet. Do you want to have a go? You need more than 1, it has to be prior to her censure, and it should contain the words "rapes" and "beheadings".

I’ve seen no evidence that you don’t support those things either.

Is this the level of grace you normally extend to others?

 

[expos4ever]

But you would agree that lying is just as grievous as supporting the rapes and beheadings? .

Of course I would not agree with this! What kind of nutcase would suggest that lying, which is something almost everyone does from time to time, is on par with supporting rapes and beheadings?

Especially as a member of congress who uses her words to justify her positions?

What, exactly, are you saying here? Again, it appears that someone has been caught in a significant exaggeration. All this dancing and equivocation does not change this.

We have seen no evidence that this Congress person supports the atrocities.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I’ll remind everyone here that flaming public figures like politicians by saying or suggesting, especially without any concrete evidence, that they support atrocities like rape, beheadings, murder and terrorism, is specifically against the forum rules.

Admin Announcement - *** Announcement Concerning American Politics ***

For those who are unaware, FreeinChrist and I are the Advisors over the Discussion & Debate areas. It works out well since I’m more conservative and she is more liberal. It helps us to keep natural biases from creeping in, and helps us to address the issue when folks from both sides accuse staff...

www.christianforums.com

So unless the OP or anyone commenting can find an actual quote of Tlaib saying she supports these things, I think this thread may be breaking the flaming rules.

What say you, @FreeinChrist? Am I off the mark on this one?

 

[Derf]

I’ll remind everyone here that flaming public figures like politicians by saying or suggesting, especially without any concrete evidence, that they support atrocities like rape, beheadings, murder and terrorism, is specifically against the forum rules.

Admin Announcement - *** Announcement Concerning American Politics ***

For those who are unaware, FreeinChrist and I are the Advisors over the Discussion & Debate areas. It works out well since I’m more conservative and she is more liberal. It helps us to keep natural biases from creeping in, and helps us to address the issue when folks from both sides accuse staff...

www.christianforums.com

So unless the OP or anyone commenting can find an actual quote of Tlaib saying she supports these things, I think this thread may be breaking the flaming rules.

What say you, @FreeinChrist? Am I off the mark on this one?

Your point would then be that every congress person who voted to censure Tlaib did so falsely, which is flaming 234 congress persons, right?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Your point would then be that every congress person who voted to censure Tlaib did so falsely, which is flaming 234 congress persons, right?

No it’s not because it wouldn’t be false. It’s also not an attack on any members of Congress to point out people on this site are unfairly attacking a single member of Congress by implying she supports things she never said.

But I don’t know for sure and could certainly be wrong so that’s why I tagged a moderator to check it out.

 

[FreeinChrist]

The site rule is this:

• Offensive derogatory nicknames and egregious inflammatory comments about public figures may be considered goading.

Saying she is supporting those things is edgy per the site rules. A team would decide if it crosses the line.

Best thing to do is have support for one's claims about her, like if she says she supports Hamas and their actions or not and provide the quote.

It is also best to let staff decide by using the report system.

 

[expos4ever]

Your point would then be that every congress person who voted to censure Tlaib did so falsely, which is flaming 234 congress persons, right?

No. I can guarantee you that they did not censure her for "defending murder, rape, and beheading"! Even members of Congress, persons of arguable morals, would surely not formally censure someone or something they did not in fact say.

They censured her for what she actually said. And what she actually said does not necessarily entail support for these atrocities.

It's too bad that posters on this site are not concerned with what was actually said.

 

[RDKirk]

Imagine if Democrats had done this to a GOP congressman over criticism of Ukraine. We’d never hear the end to the cries of political persecution around here.

No, this is a different problem.

And frankly, "freedom of speech" is and should be curtailed when it's government speech. Under the US Constitution, government doesn't have rights, it has powers. That's why soldiers don't wear our uniforms while being involved in politics. This is a line government officials must be very careful in observing, because there are people who will take heart and action on the words of a government official.

 

[RDKirk]

No. I can guarantee you that they did not censure her for "defending murder, rape, and beheading"! Even members of Congress, persons of arguable morals, would surely not formally censure someone or something they did not in fact say.

They censured her for what she actually said. And what she actually said does not necessarily entail support for these atrocities.

It's too bad that posters on this site are not concerned with what was actually said.

I just posted a new thread on that very point.

Funny...some people say, "It's offensive if I say it's offensive because as the offended person, I have the authority to declare what's offensive to me" regardless of that person's actual intentions or even what they actually said. It's about the "feelz," not the words.

But...not when the positions are reversed. So, when Tlaib says something widely known to be offensive to Jews, now we have to consider "what she actually said" and what her actual intentions were.

Interesting how that works.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

No, this is a different problem.

And frankly, "freedom of speech" is and should be curtailed when it's government speech. Under the US Constitution, government doesn't have rights, it has powers. That's why soldiers don't wear our uniforms while being involved in politics. This is a line government officials must be very careful in observing, because there are people who will take heart and action on the words of a government official.

Certainly, as a legislative body they have every right to curtail her speech and punish her for being out of line by their standards. I was focusing more on the hypocrisy I’m seeing around here with some posters cheering on this resolution.