True dat my N***a!!!!!!

HedonistForever's Avatar
LM, let me give you an example of the left's argument which is more often than not "it was taken out of context.

Here is a quote from Ilhan Omar.

We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban,” she wrote on Twitter,
When she was called out by Jewish member's of the Democrat party among others, she said this.

Omar initially responded Wednesday to her critics on Twitter by calling their statement "offensive" and defending her initial remarks, which she said were taken out of context. On Thursday, she responded to the letter by saying, "To be clear: I was in no way equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries with well-established judicial systems."


Then why did you include them in the same sentence?


Maybe Ms. Omar doesn't understand the English language. When you talk about unthinkable atrocities and you list the US, Israel, Hamas and the Taliban, you just made a comparison. You were not taken out of context the old worn out statement that the Democrats love to put out when they get caught saying something so outrageous.

Omar was shocked that member's of the Democrat party would call her out in public before talking with her in public.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/group-house-democrats-condemn-rep-omar-remarks-about-u-s-n1270290

A dozen House Democrats publicly criticized their colleague Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., late Wednesday, accusing her of giving "cover" to terrorist and suggesting her remarks about Hamas and the Taliban reflect a "deep-seated prejudice."

“Equating the United States and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban is as offensive as it is misguided,” the group, led by Rep. Brad Schneider, of Illinois, said in a statement, urging Omar to "clarify" her remarks.

Omar initially responded Wednesday to her critics on Twitter by calling their statement "offensive" and defending her initial remarks, which she said were taken out of context. On Thursday, she responded to the letter by saying, "To be clear: I was in no way equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries with well-established judicial systems."

House leadership, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., then issued a statement saying "drawing false equivalencies between democracies like the U.S. and Israel and groups that engage in terrorism like Hamas and the Taliban foments prejudice and undermines progress toward a future of peace and security for all."

“We welcome the clarification by Congresswoman Omar that there is no moral equivalency between the U.S. and Israel and Hamas and the Taliban,” the statement from leadership said.
Omar's fellow "Squad" members voiced outrage at the Democratic lawmakers who'd criticized her.

"Pretty sick & tired of the constant vilification, intentional mischaracterization, and public targeting of @IlhanMN coming from our caucus. They have no concept for the danger they put her in by skipping private conversations & leaping to fueling targeted news cycles around her," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., tweeted.

Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., wrote, "I'm not surprised when Republicans attack Black women for standing up for human rights. But when it’s Democrats, it’s especially hurtful. We’re your colleagues. Talk to us directly. Enough with the anti-Blackness and Islamophobia."

The statement by the group of lawmakers said that the U.S. and Israel are “imperfect” and are at times deserving of critique, “but false equivalencies give cover to terrorist groups.”

“Ignoring the differences between democracies governed by the rule of law and contemptible organizations that engage in terrorism at best discredits one’s intended argument and at worst reflects deep-seated prejudice,” the group wrote.

There can be no doubt as to Omar's "intended argument" because she has made the same argument previously. She wasn't "taken out of context" but here comes the squad using that same old tired reply.
Now, I'm in no way suggesting that Republicans have never used this tactic, they have but until we as a people are willing to hold both sides to the same standards, we will never solve our problems. Right now, we are talking about this statement. If you want to bring up examples of Republicans using "it was taken out of context", I'd be happy to have that debate. Right now, it's the Democrats who are using the phrase unscrupulously.

The statement by a group of Jewish lawmakers was a rare public display of the long simmering tensions over what some fellow Democrats have argued are anti-Jewish sentiments by Omar. The House previously voted in 2019 to condemn antisemitism in response to statements Omar made, but the resolution did not name her.
HedonistForever's Avatar
And here is the second, tired, old comeback from Democrats. Democrat Cory Bush said this in response to the Omar issue.

Reps. Cori Bush, D-Mo., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., rushed to the defense of Squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., as her comments about Israel and the U.S. create division among House Democrats.


"Stop attacking @IlhanMN. Stop attacking us. I'm not surprised when Republicans attack Black women for standing up for human rights. But when it’s Democrats, it’s especially hurtful. We’re your colleagues. Talk to us directly. Enough with the anti-Blackness and Islamophobia," Bush wrote on Twitter on Thursday.



"Once again disappointed in my colleagues quicker to condemn @Ilhan than they are to condemn the human rights abuses of the apartheid state of Israel. This statement purposefully distorts her words, stokes anti-Muslim hate toward my sister in service, and is unacceptable," Tlaib wrote on Twitter.



Yeah, now it's because she's Muslim, forgot about that one.



What the same hell does Omar being Black and a female have to do with what she said? Can a Black female say what ever fucked up thing they want and can't be criticized because they are Black and female?


How many times have we heard Democrats say this when they get caught saying outrageous things like this? Stop attacking her because she is Black and female?
Please! Enough with that tired old bullshit!


Aren't you even a little ashamed that the Democrat party harbors these people? And yes, before you bring it up, I think Majorie Taylor Greene should be censured for the stupid crap that comes out of her mouth. Equal consequences, equal justice. Nothing less will do.


And I wonder what Tlaib, who has Palestinian relatives will think about this statement from Omar.



"What’s newsworthy is that she ( Omar ) admits Hamas is guilty of ‘unthinkable atrocities.’

I can just imagine that conversation "OK sister, I was right there with you till that remark", to which Omar said, wait for it, wait for it "I was taken out of context". I would say you can't make this shit up but apparently you can.
bambino's Avatar
HedonistForever's Avatar
Wouldn't anybody ( according to Tlaib ) saying that Hamas committed unthinkable atrocities be considered Islamophobic? So Tlaib just called Omar Islamophobic. Now we are making progress.
rexdutchman's Avatar
Idoicracy
Little Monster's Avatar
Then blame Kamala Harris for bringing it up in the debates and talk about a typical Liberal tactic "taken out of context" is their go to answer on anything they get caught at.


What I find funny is when holier than thou Democrats calling Republicans racist, are caught using racist language. Now that's what I find funny.


If you read my post, I noted that there are many other articles that try to spin what Biden said noting "Kamala never actually called him a racist". True, she just implied he was a racist and she flat out said that Biden voted against busing that little Black girl which turned out to be ME"! Was that taken out of context? Was she implying he was racist for that vote? If not, what was she trying to say?



And why wouldn't a Republican constantly accused of being a racist, bring up Democrats that can easily be accused of racism especially when the Democrat VP of the United States implies that the current President acted in a racist manner? That's a fact and not taken out of context.


If one is going to imply that every member of one political party is a racist, you better make sure your house if free of racist and that sure as hell is not the history of the Democrat party in my life time. And talk about funny, when prominent Democrats talk about their love and admiration for their mentor Robert Byrd, a dues paying member of the KKK. That's always good for a laugh.


I freely admit that racists exist in the Republican party. Would you like to go out on a limb and tell me that racists do not exist in the Democrat party? If so, here is your chance, go for it! Originally Posted by HedonistForever
Are there racists on both sides? Absolutely, once again I agree with you. Was Biden being racist in regards to said quote? No he was not. Who said that every member of the Republican party was racist? But I do find it funny that the right would even be bold enough to bring up the subject of racism. Who did every white nationalist group endorse? Trump. Who did David Duke support? Trump. It was only after Trump got the heat put on him did he pretend to disavow his endorsement.

When the far right white supremacists caused the riot in North Carolina, Trump referred to them as good people. So yeah if the far right was smart they would just go ahead and keep their mouths shut about racism.
will need to correct that later
will have to mention the truth at a later time
Little Monster's Avatar
First learn how to do research
First learn how to make coherent sentences.
lustylad's Avatar
Conservatives hate fact checking cause it exposes their lie and bs. If you would refrain from lying and twisting shit around you wouldn't hate it so much. Originally Posted by Little Monster
What libtards falsely call "fact-checking" is a fraud and you know it. The MSM can't even fact-check its own stories, so why would anyone believe they can fact-check what others say?

My pal Dan Greenfield said everything that needed to be said about it 4 years ago:


THE FACTLESS FACT-CHECKERS

How do you fact check when you don’t know what a fact is?


November 3, 2016

Daniel Greenfield

Once upon a time, fact-checking meant that newspapers, radio stations and television news broadcasts were obligated to check their facts before broadcasting or publishing them. Some newspapers and magazines boasted renowned departments filled with intellectuals whose restless minds roved over each line to ensure that the fewest possible errors would appear under that publication’s masthead.

But fact-checking of the media by itself has declined almost as badly as the Roman Empire. Errors routinely appear under storied mastheads followed by corrections that are published as a janitorial duty. There is very little concern for the facts even among the great names of publishing and broadcasting.

The media has stopped fact-checking itself and it now uses fact-checking largely to refer to a type of opinion journalism in which it “checks the facts” of public figures. The fall of fact-checking within the media has paralleled the rise of fact checking by the media of its political opponents. The media has become factless even as it deploys a term that once meant self-correction to instead correct others.

Fact checks once meant that reporters were expected to be accurate. These days they’re only expected to be politically correct. The media deploys fact checks to check political correctness, not facts. Its fact checks routinely venture into areas that are not only partisan, but subjective matters of opinion.

Consider Politico’s often mocked “fact check” of Donald Trump as to whether ISIS was indeed unbelievably evil. Under a banner headline, “Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths”, it zoomed in on a quote from his Florida rally.

“We’re presiding over something that the world has not seen. The level of evil is unbelievable," Trump had said.

Politico swooped in to correct the candidate with its fact check. “Judging one ‘level of evil’ against another is subjective, but other groups in recent history have without any question engaged in as widespread killing of civilians as ISIS.”

There were no facts being checked here because Politico doesn’t seem to know what a fact even is.

The only information conveyed by this “fact check” is that Politico, like the rest of the media, does not like Donald Trump and would find a way to argue with him if he said that the sky was blue.

In the Daily Show media culture where overt bias and trolling are virtues, fact-checking is just another snotty variety of editorializing that attempts to compensate for perceptions of bias not with higher ethical and factual standards, but by rebranding its editorials as fact checks to gain credibility.

The ISIS evil “fact check” of Trump came from the same media outlet whose White House reporter decided that the Wisconsin flag, which carries the date 1848 to mark the state’s admission to the Union, was “a flag for the local union, Wisconsin 1848”. Politico ran an entire story asserting that Obama was flying a labor flag to oppose Governor Walker because its reporter couldn’t process basic history.

This is what happens when media outlets think that fact-checking is something that they do to Republicans rather than to themselves.

Fact-checking was one of those dinosaurs of journalism, like objectivity, which is viewed as largely irrelevant in a media culture whose Edward R. Murrow is Jon Stewart. Today’s millennial journalists spend most of their time exchanging sarcastic quips with their peers on Twitter, aspire to found their own Vox sites and write viral blog posts that seek a new angle on a trending left-wing narrative.

Fact checks often function as narrative defenses and meme attacks. That’s why the Washington Post decided to “fact check” a Saturday Night Live gag about Obama’s illegal alien amnesty. It’s not that anyone imagines that Saturday Night Live is in the business of producing facts that need checking. The Post was just worried that one of its jokes would go viral and hurt Obama and his agenda.

It’s the same reason that the paper “fact checked” a 13-year-old boy who claimed he was blocked by Obama on Twitter. This isn’t about the facts. It’s paranoia about social media narratives going viral.

This is more understandable if you stop thinking of the media in the old-fashioned sense as a series of papers, radio and television stations and start thinking of it as a massive machine that advocates for left-wing policies using its massive infrastructure and wealth to monopolize internet narratives.

Media outlets trade on their history, but they don’t resemble their past selves in any meaningful way.

The New Yorker once boasted a fact-checking department that was famous for its range, its depth and its resourcefulness in running down even the most obscure facts. But what use is such a thing at David Remnick’s New Yorker whose big draw comes from Andy Borowitz’s insipid near parodies? The New Republic went from respected liberal publication to another snarky and shrill social justice blog. CBS News cited a psychic site to explain that a fly landed on Hillary’s face to help her cope with stress.

This isn’t material that exists in the same realm as facts. It’s snarky contempt alternating with lowest common denominator propaganda. Left-wing journalism, like most left-wing culture, is totalitarian anti-intellectualism masquerading as enlightened intellectualism. The Soviet Union was quite fond of culture. It just hated the creative process that produced it because it was independent of Communist ideology. The left loves journalism; it just hates the objectivity that validates journalism as more than propaganda.

It’s this perverse anti-intellectualism that turned fact-checking from self-discipline to attack ad. Once journalism became pure left-wing advocacy, it also became inherently correct by virtue of being left-wing and was not in need of having its facts checked. When fact checks stopped being something that journalists did to themselves, first facts and then fact checks became meaningless. Unable to even recognize a fact, media fact checkers just wrote editorials which spiced their left-wing attacks on Republicans liberally with cargo cult invocations to “fact” as if it were some deity.

The average media fact check is a masterpiece of unintentional comedy for thinking adults.

At the Washington Post, Michelle Yee “fact checks” Donald Trump’s comment that Hillary’s email scandal is bigger than Watergate and concludes that since Watergate led to Nixon’s resignation and Hillary’s email scandal has yet to lead to any convictions, it can’t be bigger than Watergate. Since the scandal has yet to be resolved, a fact check of it could only take place in the future.

CNN featured Toronto Star “fact checker” Daniel Dale who claimed that Trump said 35 lies in one day.

The list of “lies” included deeming Trump’s statement that Hillary would raise taxes false because her plan only taxes the rich, asserting that there is no such thing as a “phony poll” and denying that Hillary Clinton had received debate questions. Some of these “lies” are themselves lies. Others, like Yee, show an inability to even understand what a fact is and what can and can’t be deemed false.

Just how degraded fact checking had become was made manifest when Hillary Clinton pleaded at the debate, “Please, fact checkers, get to work.” Her campaign site touted its own “fact checking” which was mostly indistinguishable from the media’s fact checking. That was a commentary on the transformation of the media into a left-wing politician’s spin center.

Nearly every media outlet now boasts a fact check blog or headlines touting fact checks. But the biggest fact checking department of the media, rather than by the media, isn’t in the United States, but in Germany. In America, fact checking has become a type of partisan attack launched by media outlets at their political opponents. It’s bigger than ever and also more worthless than ever because it is factless.

And those who do it often not only don’t know the facts, but don’t even know what a fact is.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2646...iel-greenfield
lustylad's Avatar
When the far right white supremacists caused the riot in North Carolina, Trump referred to them as good people. Originally Posted by Little Monster
Are you referring to Charlottesville? That's in Virginia, not NC.

And no, trump never referred to "far right white supremacists" as good people. Immediately after saying there were good people on both sides at Charlottesville, he added:

"I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally."

Look it up. Even your trusted fact-checkers will tell you what you posted is a lie.
Little Monster's Avatar
What libtards falsely call "fact-checking" is a fraud and you know it. The MSM can't even fact-check its own stories, so why would anyone believe they can fact-check what others say?

My pal Dan Greenfield said everything that needed to be said about it 4 years ago:


THE FACTLESS FACT-CHECKERS

How do you fact check when you don’t know what a fact is?


November 3, 2016

Daniel Greenfield

Once upon a time, fact-checking meant that newspapers, radio stations and television news broadcasts were obligated to check their facts before broadcasting or publishing them. Some newspapers and magazines boasted renowned departments filled with intellectuals whose restless minds roved over each line to ensure that the fewest possible errors would appear under that publication’s masthead.

But fact-checking of the media by itself has declined almost as badly as the Roman Empire. Errors routinely appear under storied mastheads followed by corrections that are published as a janitorial duty. There is very little concern for the facts even among the great names of publishing and broadcasting.

The media has stopped fact-checking itself and it now uses fact-checking largely to refer to a type of opinion journalism in which it “checks the facts” of public figures. The fall of fact-checking within the media has paralleled the rise of fact checking by the media of its political opponents. The media has become factless even as it deploys a term that once meant self-correction to instead correct others.

Fact checks once meant that reporters were expected to be accurate. These days they’re only expected to be politically correct. The media deploys fact checks to check political correctness, not facts. Its fact checks routinely venture into areas that are not only partisan, but subjective matters of opinion.

Consider Politico’s often mocked “fact check” of Donald Trump as to whether ISIS was indeed unbelievably evil. Under a banner headline, “Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths”, it zoomed in on a quote from his Florida rally.

“We’re presiding over something that the world has not seen. The level of evil is unbelievable," Trump had said.

Politico swooped in to correct the candidate with its fact check. “Judging one ‘level of evil’ against another is subjective, but other groups in recent history have without any question engaged in as widespread killing of civilians as ISIS.”

There were no facts being checked here because Politico doesn’t seem to know what a fact even is.

The only information conveyed by this “fact check” is that Politico, like the rest of the media, does not like Donald Trump and would find a way to argue with him if he said that the sky was blue.

In the Daily Show media culture where overt bias and trolling are virtues, fact-checking is just another snotty variety of editorializing that attempts to compensate for perceptions of bias not with higher ethical and factual standards, but by rebranding its editorials as fact checks to gain credibility.

The ISIS evil “fact check” of Trump came from the same media outlet whose White House reporter decided that the Wisconsin flag, which carries the date 1848 to mark the state’s admission to the Union, was “a flag for the local union, Wisconsin 1848”. Politico ran an entire story asserting that Obama was flying a labor flag to oppose Governor Walker because its reporter couldn’t process basic history.

This is what happens when media outlets think that fact-checking is something that they do to Republicans rather than to themselves.

Fact-checking was one of those dinosaurs of journalism, like objectivity, which is viewed as largely irrelevant in a media culture whose Edward R. Murrow is Jon Stewart. Today’s millennial journalists spend most of their time exchanging sarcastic quips with their peers on Twitter, aspire to found their own Vox sites and write viral blog posts that seek a new angle on a trending left-wing narrative.

Fact checks often function as narrative defenses and meme attacks. That’s why the Washington Post decided to “fact check” a Saturday Night Live gag about Obama’s illegal alien amnesty. It’s not that anyone imagines that Saturday Night Live is in the business of producing facts that need checking. The Post was just worried that one of its jokes would go viral and hurt Obama and his agenda.

It’s the same reason that the paper “fact checked” a 13-year-old boy who claimed he was blocked by Obama on Twitter. This isn’t about the facts. It’s paranoia about social media narratives going viral.

This is more understandable if you stop thinking of the media in the old-fashioned sense as a series of papers, radio and television stations and start thinking of it as a massive machine that advocates for left-wing policies using its massive infrastructure and wealth to monopolize internet narratives.

Media outlets trade on their history, but they don’t resemble their past selves in any meaningful way.

The New Yorker once boasted a fact-checking department that was famous for its range, its depth and its resourcefulness in running down even the most obscure facts. But what use is such a thing at David Remnick’s New Yorker whose big draw comes from Andy Borowitz’s insipid near parodies? The New Republic went from respected liberal publication to another snarky and shrill social justice blog. CBS News cited a psychic site to explain that a fly landed on Hillary’s face to help her cope with stress.

This isn’t material that exists in the same realm as facts. It’s snarky contempt alternating with lowest common denominator propaganda. Left-wing journalism, like most left-wing culture, is totalitarian anti-intellectualism masquerading as enlightened intellectualism. The Soviet Union was quite fond of culture. It just hated the creative process that produced it because it was independent of Communist ideology. The left loves journalism; it just hates the objectivity that validates journalism as more than propaganda.

It’s this perverse anti-intellectualism that turned fact-checking from self-discipline to attack ad. Once journalism became pure left-wing advocacy, it also became inherently correct by virtue of being left-wing and was not in need of having its facts checked. When fact checks stopped being something that journalists did to themselves, first facts and then fact checks became meaningless. Unable to even recognize a fact, media fact checkers just wrote editorials which spiced their left-wing attacks on Republicans liberally with cargo cult invocations to “fact” as if it were some deity.

The average media fact check is a masterpiece of unintentional comedy for thinking adults.

At the Washington Post, Michelle Yee “fact checks” Donald Trump’s comment that Hillary’s email scandal is bigger than Watergate and concludes that since Watergate led to Nixon’s resignation and Hillary’s email scandal has yet to lead to any convictions, it can’t be bigger than Watergate. Since the scandal has yet to be resolved, a fact check of it could only take place in the future.

CNN featured Toronto Star “fact checker” Daniel Dale who claimed that Trump said 35 lies in one day.

The list of “lies” included deeming Trump’s statement that Hillary would raise taxes false because her plan only taxes the rich, asserting that there is no such thing as a “phony poll” and denying that Hillary Clinton had received debate questions. Some of these “lies” are themselves lies. Others, like Yee, show an inability to even understand what a fact is and what can and can’t be deemed false.

Just how degraded fact checking had become was made manifest when Hillary Clinton pleaded at the debate, “Please, fact checkers, get to work.” Her campaign site touted its own “fact checking” which was mostly indistinguishable from the media’s fact checking. That was a commentary on the transformation of the media into a left-wing politician’s spin center.

Nearly every media outlet now boasts a fact check blog or headlines touting fact checks. But the biggest fact checking department of the media, rather than by the media, isn’t in the United States, but in Germany. In America, fact checking has become a type of partisan attack launched by media outlets at their political opponents. It’s bigger than ever and also more worthless than ever because it is factless.

And those who do it often not only don’t know the facts, but don’t even know what a fact is.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2646...iel-greenfield Originally Posted by lustylad

Invocative Opportunism - a common disease in which a commentator dismisses a mainstream institution as a hive of corrupt and pockmarked liberalism when the conclusions are inconvenient, and an authority worth citing when the conclusions are convenient.

Conservatives hate fact checkers because they expose their lies and hypocrisy.

Funny how you would talk about someone not knowing what facts really are, what was that term one of Trump's Bimbos by the name of Kellyanne Conway used "Alternative Facts"

Little Monster's Avatar
LM, let me give you an example of the left's argument which is more often than not "it was taken out of context.

Here is a quote from Ilhan Omar.

When she was called out by Jewish member's of the Democrat party among others, she said this.



Then why did you include them in the same sentence?


Maybe Ms. Omar doesn't understand the English language. When you talk about unthinkable atrocities and you list the US, Israel, Hamas and the Taliban, you just made a comparison. You were not taken out of context the old worn out statement that the Democrats love to put out when they get caught saying something so outrageous.

Omar was shocked that member's of the Democrat party would call her out in public before talking with her in public.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/group-house-democrats-condemn-rep-omar-remarks-about-u-s-n1270290

A dozen House Democrats publicly criticized their colleague Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., late Wednesday, accusing her of giving "cover" to terrorist and suggesting her remarks about Hamas and the Taliban reflect a "deep-seated prejudice."

“Equating the United States and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban is as offensive as it is misguided,” the group, led by Rep. Brad Schneider, of Illinois, said in a statement, urging Omar to "clarify" her remarks.

Omar initially responded Wednesday to her critics on Twitter by calling their statement "offensive" and defending her initial remarks, which she said were taken out of context. On Thursday, she responded to the letter by saying, "To be clear: I was in no way equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries with well-established judicial systems."

House leadership, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., then issued a statement saying "drawing false equivalencies between democracies like the U.S. and Israel and groups that engage in terrorism like Hamas and the Taliban foments prejudice and undermines progress toward a future of peace and security for all."

“We welcome the clarification by Congresswoman Omar that there is no moral equivalency between the U.S. and Israel and Hamas and the Taliban,” the statement from leadership said.
Omar's fellow "Squad" members voiced outrage at the Democratic lawmakers who'd criticized her.

"Pretty sick & tired of the constant vilification, intentional mischaracterization, and public targeting of @IlhanMN coming from our caucus. They have no concept for the danger they put her in by skipping private conversations & leaping to fueling targeted news cycles around her," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., tweeted.

Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., wrote, "I'm not surprised when Republicans attack Black women for standing up for human rights. But when it’s Democrats, it’s especially hurtful. We’re your colleagues. Talk to us directly. Enough with the anti-Blackness and Islamophobia."

The statement by the group of lawmakers said that the U.S. and Israel are “imperfect” and are at times deserving of critique, “but false equivalencies give cover to terrorist groups.”

“Ignoring the differences between democracies governed by the rule of law and contemptible organizations that engage in terrorism at best discredits one’s intended argument and at worst reflects deep-seated prejudice,” the group wrote.

There can be no doubt as to Omar's "intended argument" because she has made the same argument previously. She wasn't "taken out of context" but here comes the squad using that same old tired reply.
Now, I'm in no way suggesting that Republicans have never used this tactic, they have but until we as a people are willing to hold both sides to the same standards, we will never solve our problems. Right now, we are talking about this statement. If you want to bring up examples of Republicans using "it was taken out of context", I'd be happy to have that debate. Right now, it's the Democrats who are using the phrase unscrupulously.

The statement by a group of Jewish lawmakers was a rare public display of the long simmering tensions over what some fellow Democrats have argued are anti-Jewish sentiments by Omar. The House previously voted in 2019 to condemn antisemitism in response to statements Omar made, but the resolution did not name her. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

What Omar ACTUALLY said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...y-said/619196/

"Omar wasn’t supplying a list of all the bad actors in the world, or ranking the worst of them. She was arguing that the parties listed have something in common: They’ve all committed acts of violence during conflicts that exceed or violate international standards of just war. The crimes of the U.S. aren’t of the same magnitude as those of the Taliban. But what does that matter to the victims of American forces—or the victims of Israeli forces, or those of Hamas, or of Afghan national forces, or of the Taliban? It was on behalf of those people—the victims of wartime atrocities—that Omar posed her questions, and the only equivalence stipulated was theirs: an equality of pain, a likeness of suffering.

Even Omar’s Republican critics should have the capacity to understand what Omar was saying, in part because Trump at times was willing to recognize that the U.S. isn’t blameless on the world stage. When, during a 2017 interview with Bill O’Reilly, he was confronted with his overt support for Russian President Vladimir Putin, for instance, Trump put up a disarmingly frank retort: Sure, he seemed to submit, Putin is a killer. But “there are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?”
I say the n-word all the time, so I don't care if ding dong says it, even with a hard R.

The only gay thing is that the media will ignore it, because they've politicized racism, the corona virus, vaccines, global warming, etc.

That way, any info that comes out about those subjects is filtered, censored or misconstrued, because it is connected to a god damn political party.

That's called SCIENCE> Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDong
No, it's called Bullshit, and that's what Liberals are all about. That's why they are failures as a Political Party and it doesn't matter if they win. They are uninspiring and good for nothing other than creating new problems.
Little Monster's Avatar
No, it's called Bullshit, and that's what Liberals are all about. That's why they are failures as a Political Party and it doesn't matter if they win. They are uninspiring and good for nothing other than creating new problems. Originally Posted by Levianon17
We're pretty good at cleaning up your messes...
HedonistForever's Avatar
Are there racists on both sides? Absolutely, once again I agree with you. Was Biden being racist in regards to said quote? No he was not.



Here are Biden's exact words, My children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle.’



Then-Sen. Biden was speaking in a 1977 congressional hearing on busing schoolchildren and opposed federally mandated busing. (His "racial jungle" comment is on page 251 of the hearing transcript.)


That's not racist? Saying that if we bused Black children into White schools, they would be in a racial jungle?



So educate me. In what context was that said? Please don't quote anybody else. Tell me in your own words why it is not racist because you just said it wasn't.


Who said that every member of the Republican party was racist?



https://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-opi-donald-trump-racism-dog-whistles-democrats-republicans-20190815-swpjtxdadjapbgxufrpvmixfs4-story.html



Why 90% of Democrats think Trump is racist

an emerging theme among many liberals follows this reasoning: “Trump is a racist. If you still support him, so are you.”


So the answer to your question "many Liberals think all Republicans are racist.


https://www.axios.com/poll-democrats-and-republicans-hate-each-other-racist-ignorant-evil-99ae7afc-5a51-42be-8ee2-3959e43ce320.html


Exclusive poll: Most Democrats see Republicans as racist.


61% of Democrats see Republicans as "racist




But I do find it funny that the right would even be bold enough to bring up the subject of racism.



I thought it was bold of Kamala Harris to imply that Biden was a racist for opposing busing that little Black girl, who was her! Kamala Harris is the one who brought Joe Biden into the conversation about racism.


Who did every white nationalist group endorse? Trump. Who did David Duke support? Trump. It was only after Trump got the heat put on him did he pretend to disavow his endorsement.

When the far right white supremacists caused the riot in North Carolina, Trump referred to them as good people.




Again, is it ignorance or hubris that keeps you repeating something that is not true? Trump was talking about the "two sides" of people who were arguing over tearing down those statues. He was trying to be diplomatic in recognizing the passion of both peoples with regard to the statues, not the White Supremacists.



So yeah if the far right was smart they would just go ahead and keep their mouths shut about racism. Originally Posted by Little Monster

Merely following up on VP Harris's comments or isn't that allowed?