HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I am not pro or anti Isra...

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 03:48 PM

 

I am not pro or anti Israel...but

Last edited Wed Jul 19, 2017, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)

How can a law banning joining a boycott against Israel be legal?
Wouldn't that infringe upon the 1st Amendment?


Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: anyone guilty of violating its prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000, and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.



https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

69 replies, 7976 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply I am not pro or anti Israel...but (Original post)
freddyvh Jul 2017 OP
sinkingfeeling Jul 2017 #1
defacto7 Jul 2017 #2
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #13
defacto7 Jul 2017 #16
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #22
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #3
freddyvh Jul 2017 #6
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #8
tammywammy Jul 2017 #10
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #11
tammywammy Jul 2017 #15
atreides1 Jul 2017 #58
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #61
Crunchy Frog Jul 2017 #38
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #41
Iggo Jul 2017 #4
Bradical79 Jul 2017 #5
freddyvh Jul 2017 #7
uriel1972 Jul 2017 #9
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #12
uriel1972 Jul 2017 #18
JI7 Jul 2017 #20
uriel1972 Jul 2017 #21
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #23
tammywammy Jul 2017 #14
JI7 Jul 2017 #17
HarmonyRockets Jul 2017 #19
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #24
HarmonyRockets Jul 2017 #25
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #27
Post removed Jul 2017 #68
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #69
DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2017 #26
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #28
nikibatts Jul 2017 #30
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #31
LanternWaste Jul 2017 #57
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #60
McCamy Taylor Jul 2017 #34
La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2017 #29
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #32
La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2017 #37
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #40
La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2017 #45
grossproffit Jul 2017 #49
La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2017 #52
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #65
La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2017 #66
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #67
grossproffit Jul 2017 #47
La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2017 #50
grossproffit Jul 2017 #54
La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2017 #56
McCamy Taylor Jul 2017 #33
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #36
McCamy Taylor Jul 2017 #35
Crunchy Frog Jul 2017 #39
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #42
DemocraticWing Jul 2017 #43
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #44
Post removed Jul 2017 #48
DemocraticWing Jul 2017 #59
EllieBC Jul 2017 #64
grossproffit Jul 2017 #46
no_hypocrisy Jul 2017 #51
grossproffit Jul 2017 #53
no_hypocrisy Jul 2017 #55
Duppers Jul 2017 #62
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #63

Response to freddyvh (Original post)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 03:53 PM

1. I truly believe democracy is on the wane world wide. I was so hopeful

that the Arab Spring would open up more personal freedom. Now the opposite is happening. Look at Turkey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 04:36 PM

2. I don't think certain western powers wanted an Arab Spring.

I think it got in the way of the plan which was to continue escalating war.. any middle eastern war.
Without the dictators there would be democracy. If democracy were to happen peace would break out. Peace doesn't make for centralized power and money western oligarchs want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:32 PM

13. I think that's a vast oversimplification, if not a total misrepresentation of what happened.

Unfortunately, the Arab Spring largely ate itself.

I think you have a lot of crazy fucking people all over this planet- many of them driven by fucked up, outdated religious beliefs- who absolutely do NOT want democracy, nor do they want individual citizens to be free to make their own decisions.



In our country, they're called "Religious Right Republicans"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 01:13 AM

16. It very well may be oversimplified...

but I also agree with eveything you wrote. In addition there are western infuences who do not want democracy either there or here for that matter. I can think of plenty of reasons why that also include those you mentioned.
Nice to hear from you again Warren D.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 02:42 AM

22. You, too



my feeling around the Arab Spring has, sadly, been kind of how I felt with Tienanmen Square and later with the evolution of post-Communist Russia into a crony criminal kleptocracy.

Missed opportunities. Big ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Original post)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 04:51 PM

3. Glenn Greenwald, huh?

For some reason I doubt this bill does anything like what he claims it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 06:00 PM

6. here is the text of the law

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1697/text

and here are the penalties

(c) Violations Of Section 8(a).—Section 11 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4610) (as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)) is amended—

section 50 of the US code

§1705. Penalties
(a) Unlawful acts
It shall be unlawful for a person to violate, attempt to violate, conspire to violate, or cause a violation of any license, order, regulation, or prohibition issued under this chapter.
(b) Civil penalty
A civil penalty may be imposed on any person who commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) in an amount not to exceed the greater of-
(1) $250,000; or
(2) an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.
(c) Criminal penalty
A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of, an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 07:03 PM

8. fine, those are the penalties. And what specifically constitutes an unlawful act under section 8(a)?

I strongly doubt that if you're a company that chooses not to do business with, say, Israel, that's going to apply.

If you're a company that gets big US Government contracts and you're publicly broadcasting about being on Team BDS, different story maybe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:23 PM

10. Anti-boycott legislation isn't about companies that personally boycott Israel.

It's about other countries that boycott Israel. If you do business with a country that boycotts Israel they may ask you to agree to not to business with Israel. That's what is what companies can't comply with.

No one has to do business with Israel. The reasoning is that the US government makes foreign policy and the boycott language/request is an attempt to use US businesses as leverage to change US policy.

It should be noted that anti-boycott language applies to any country that the US government doesn't have a boycott against, not just Israel. A business can't agree to a Chinese request to boycott Taiwan.

Under current law a business cannot agree to a boycott that is not aligned with US policy, even if they don't do business with that country anyway, and also must report such requests.

I work for a company that sells and exports items to many countries that boycott Israel. Every employee as part of our annual compliance training includes export training covering anti-boycott laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #10)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:29 PM

11. Thanks. It seems I was right about Greenwald misrepresenting this legislation, then.

Sure sounds that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:38 PM

15. My post was about the current anti-boycott laws.

I admit to not reading the current proposed language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 10:30 AM

58. Here you go.

Section 8A
(A) Refusing, or requiring any other person to refuse, to do
business with or in the boycotted country, with any business
concern organized under the laws of the boycotted country,
with any national or resident of the boycotted country, or with
any other person, pursuant to an agreement with, a requirement
of, or a request from or on behalf of the boycotting country.
The mere absence of a business relationship with or in the
boycotted country with any business concern organized under
the laws of the boycotted country, with any national or resident
of the boycotted country, or with any other person, does
not indicate the existence of the intent required to establish a
violation of regulations issued to carry out this subparagraph.


—Except as provided
in subsection (b) of this section, whoever knowingly violates
VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:58 Dec 14, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 9001 Sfmt 9001 F:COMPEAA79TEAAO1.BEL HOLCPC
December 14, 2015
F:COMPEAA79THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979.XML

As Amended Through P.L. 108-458, Enacted December 17, 2004
Sec. 11 EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979 58
or conspires to or attempts to violate any provision of this Act or
any regulation, order, or license issued thereunder shall be fined
not more than five times the value of the exports involved or
$50,000, whichever is greater, or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
(b) WILLFUL VIOLATIONS.—(1) Whoever willfully violates or
conspires to or attempts to violate any provision of this Act or any
regulation, order, or license issued thereunder, with knowledge
that the exports involved will be used for the benefit of, or that the
destination or intended destination of the goods or technology involved
is, any controlled country or any country to which exports
are controlled for foreign policy purposes—
(A) except in the case of an individual, shall be fined not
more than five times the value of the exports involved or
$1,000,000, whichever is greater; and
(B) in the case of an individual, shall be fined not more
than $250,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(2) Any person who is issued a validated license under this Act
for the export of any good or technology to a controlled country and
who, with knowledge that such a good or technology is being used
by such controlled country for military or intelligence gathering
purposes contrary to the conditions under which the license was
issued, willfully fails to report such use of the Secretary of Defense—

Section 11
(A) except in the case of an individual, shall be fined not
more than five times the value of the exports involved or
$1,000,000, whichever is greater; and
(B) in the case of an individual, shall be fined not more
than $250,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(3) Any person who possesses any goods or technology—
(A) with the intent to export such goods or technology in
violation of an export control imposed under section 5 or 6 of
this Act or any regulation, order, or license issued with respect
to such control, or
(B) knowing or having reason to believe that the goods or
technology would be so exported,
shall, in the case of a violation of an export control imposed under
section 5 (or any regulation, order, or license issued with respect
to such control), be subject to the penalties set forth in paragraph
(1) of this subsection and shall, in the case of a violation of an export
control imposed under section 6 (or any regulation, order, or
license issued with respect to such control), be subject to the penalties
set forth in subsection (a).
(4) Any person who takes any action with the intent to evade
the provisions of this act or any regulation, order, or license issued
under this Act shall be subject to the penalties set forth in subsection
(a), except that in the case of an evasion of an export control
imposed under section 5 or 6 of this act (or any regulation,
order, or license issued with respect to such control), such person
shall be subject to the penalties set forth in paragraph (1) of this
subsection.
(5) Nothing in this subsection or subsection (a) shall limit the
power of the Secretary to define by regulations violations under
this Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #58)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 05:53 PM

61. An actual answer

thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 10:26 PM

38. I don't trust Greenwald either, but the ACLU is another matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crunchy Frog (Reply #38)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 11:31 PM

41. Hmmm.

I usually agree with the ACLU, but I also usually agree with Sen. Wyden, who is generally trustworthy on 1st and 4th Amendment matters.

Hmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Original post)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 05:34 PM

4. You mean How can it be legal, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Original post)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 05:49 PM

5. It already is in cases

 

https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac

This is basically an extension/strengthening of current law introduced back in March. The Israel boycott laws were passed in the '70s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #5)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 06:05 PM

7. after reading your link

 

i understand part of the law.

such as "Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality."

but if i decide to personally or have my business not do business with an Israeli company or their government, I could be prosecuted under this law.

why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 07:09 PM

9. Claim it is a business decision...

That could fly.. we all know how much they love business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #9)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:29 PM

12. How much who loves business?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 02:09 AM

18. I am very sorry I didn't even think about that...

I meant the GOP people who administrate such a law... I meant that when the law comes knocking, this is what you tell them rather than say it was a stand against something or the other. In no way did I intend to tap into a stereotype. I should have thought better and communicated better.
Sorry again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 02:20 AM

20. but what does the GOP have to do with this ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 02:42 AM

21. Aren't they the people who enforce things these days?

If not my mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 02:45 AM

23. Got it. FWIW, I wasn't making any assumptions, just looking for clarification.

It was kind of an open-ended statement. No worries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #9)

Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:34 PM

14. Please see post 10.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 01:19 AM

17. "we all know how much they love business."

huh ? who are you referring to here ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Original post)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 02:15 AM

19. 14 Democrats

 

Here are the 14 democrats that are co-sponsoring this bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720/cosponsors?q=%7B%22party%22%3A%22Democratic%22%7D

This is disturbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 02:46 AM

24. What, specifically, is disturbing about it?

Personally, I trust Ron Wyden's judgment far more than I do Glenn Greenwald's.

Don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #24)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 05:17 PM

25. This isn't about Glenn Greenwald one way or the other

 

I don't care who the author of the article is. I don't really care about the article period. What I care about is that free speech thing.

Do you care about it at all? Maybe you're on the wrong board?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #25)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 06:43 PM

27. Oh, yeah, I'm totally against free speech. You've got my number right there.



I'm "on the wrong board" for agreeing with Ron Wyden?


Actually, you should educate yourself as to what the law- really, this is a modification of existing law, not a new law, anyway- actually does, and does not do. There is plenty of information right here, in this very thread.

It has zip diddly shit to do with "free speech".

And Greenwald is relevant because he's pushing a false narrative of what this thing does, and people who like to opine on certain geopolitical and other situations while only having a fingernail's worth of actual understanding of them (cough) will eat it up because it scratches the bellies of their preconceived biases.... without bothering to do further research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #27)


Response to Post removed (Reply #68)

Mon Jul 24, 2017, 06:49 PM

69. So by extrapolation, how would you characterize Senator Ron Wyden, co-sponsor of this legislation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #24)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 05:40 PM

26. As I understand the law it prohibits corporations from blackballing Israel.

This has always been government policy. It doesn't prohibit criticism of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #26)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 06:44 PM

28. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #26)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 06:45 PM

30. Although Israel blackballs many companies in many countries. You just don't know it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikibatts (Reply #30)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 06:53 PM

31. So I take it you disagree with Senators Wyden, Gillibrand, Schumer, etc then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #31)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 10:24 AM

57. You appear confused by posters simply unwilling to choose A or B

 

You appear confused by posters simply unwilling to choose A or B simply because sacred cows do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #57)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 05:52 PM

60. Wow.

What a brilliantly condensed piece of gibberish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #26)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 07:19 PM

34. Who is blackballing Israel? You can hurt them more by naming them than by fining them.

Since America is basically pro-Israel. A fine is just money. Bad publicity is a lot more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Original post)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 06:45 PM

29. it's def not legal, i think it plays well in NY so they are trying it on for size

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #29)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 06:57 PM

32. "it plays well in NY"

please, elaborate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #32)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 09:18 PM

37. They are both from the state of new York

 

Where a large proportion of Dems support Israel ?

What did you think I meant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #37)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 11:29 PM

40. Most Democrats support Israel nationwide.

It is not a regional thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #40)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 08:13 AM

45. I bet if you polled it would be higher here

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #45)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 09:51 AM

49. Why would that be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grossproffit (Reply #49)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 09:55 AM

52. A large Jewish population and people who are allies to the principles of liberal democracy

 

That Israel embodies more so than its neighboring states. Also a lot of us would rather visit Tel Aviv than Tehran. That has a lot to do with how people feel about countries overall. It's why we are sadder when Paris has a terrorist attack vs Nairobi.


I know you guys think you are going to trip me up in some anti Semitic statement, but you are not as smart as you think you are

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #52)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 11:39 PM

65. to be fair, nobody's THAT smart.

I mean, come on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #65)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 11:42 PM

66. Doesn't stop you from trying though.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #66)

Sat Jul 22, 2017, 12:05 AM

67. If I was as smart as I think I am

I would probably have better hobbies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #29)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 09:45 AM

47. Are you a constitutional lawyer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grossproffit (Reply #47)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 09:51 AM

50. No, but I understand the first amendment just fine

 

and the ACLU hires constitutional lawyers who also think this is illegal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #50)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 10:08 AM

54. The ACLU also supports Linda Sarsour. I don't have much faith in them any longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grossproffit (Reply #54)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 10:24 AM

56. just because they dont support your political views, does not negate their understanding of law

 

which was your question to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Original post)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 07:17 PM

33. It's sound and fury, signifying nothing. Something for the ACLU to do if they get bored.

Gotta love Congress. Making more work for news reporters and lawyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #33)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 07:22 PM

36. It might relate to the ACLU if the law actually did what Greenwald is claiming.

In reality, though, it's a modification to existing, well-established law. And doesn't infringe upon 1st Amendment rights whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Original post)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 07:20 PM

35. Oh, and who let a thread on Israel out of the Israel forum?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #35)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 10:31 PM

39. This is a thread about proposed American legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Original post)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 11:34 PM

42. It is refreshing to see such concern for the 1st Amendment, here.

Have to remember that the next time there's a thread about "blasphemous" cartoons or sex scenes on HBO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Original post)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 11:34 PM

43. They are going to use this to throw BDS activists in jail.

Just watch. This country loves locking up leftists.

Get your passports, folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocraticWing (Reply #43)

Thu Jul 20, 2017, 11:37 PM

44. 14 Democratic Senators co-sponsored, incl. Wyden, Schumer, and Gillibrand

This legislation doesnt do what the hyperbolic claims say it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocraticWing (Reply #43)


Response to Post removed (Reply #48)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 01:31 PM

59. Why are you posting hate group propaganda on DU?

This video was made by the "Americans for Peace and Tolerance," which has repeatedly been labeled an Islamophobic hate group by both Muslims and Jewish organizations that oppose racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocraticWing (Reply #43)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 10:55 PM

64. As someone Jewish

I always have my passport ready. I don't trust the right or the left anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Original post)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 09:43 AM

46. Good. Anti-Zionism is the new face of antisemitism. Actually, it's not new.

Criticizing a countries government is one thing, calling for the destruction of a country is another.

In America, we criticize our government all the time, but no one calls for the destruction of America.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Original post)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 09:55 AM

51. AND . . . in addition to incarceratin and a big financial penalty, as a felon you

PERMANENTLY LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE!!!

Paging Kris Kobach . . . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #51)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 10:05 AM

53. This isn't true. Once your probation ends you are able to reregister to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grossproffit (Reply #53)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 10:09 AM

55. Possibly. The exception is a conviction of treason.

My question is would this conviction be treason to this country or to Israel?


http://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/special-circumstances/voting-as-an-ex-offender/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freddyvh (Original post)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 07:46 PM

62. This is ridiculous! Can we then make it illegal to

boycott Indonesia too? Say they were killing whales as Japan does? Since that country has the highest population of Muslims (209.1 million), could that not be construed as religious discrimination?

Some countries have some horrible policies. Without boycotts how can we oppose those policies as private citizens and businesses?

Citizens should be able to boycott policies not based on racism or religious discrimination. And this should be applicable to Israeli *policies*. Left leaning J Street has opinions on this as they oppose many of Israel's rightwing policies.












Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duppers (Reply #62)

Fri Jul 21, 2017, 09:43 PM

63. J street doesn't support BDS.

http://jstreet.org/policy/boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-bds/#.WXKtkemQyUk

J Street advocates for a two-state solution and a secure, Jewish, and democratic future for Israel. The Global BDS Movement does not support the two-state solution, recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state, or distinguish between opposition to the existence of Israel itself and opposition to the occupation of the territory beyond the Green Line. Further, some of the Movement’s supporters and leaders have trafficked in unacceptable anti-Semitic rhetoric. The Movement is not a friend to Israel, nor does its agenda, in our opinion, advance the long-term interests of either the Israeli or Palestinian people.



BDS is advocating for the total destruction of Israel, full stop.

It's not just about the territories or the occupation. As far as BDS is concerned, all of Israel is "occupied".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread