This new batch of Dems are certainly doing everything they can to sink their party.

That's an understatement

This crosses a threshold for me. The moment someone brings Nazi's into the conversation it's kaput. 

Verstehen Sie?

Both parties have some real winners in them and they stay for really way too long. It's not just the Dems. I mean how long did the Republican's put up with Steve King? Here is a history of his remarks that went unpunished:

nytimes

I don't recall you posting any articles about Rep. King with KKK references. Am I wrong?

Now I will say that I am disgusted by Ms. Omar's comments and I do feel she should be stripped of her committee standing. And there needs to be a firm condemnation by the Dems for her remarks, and not allow her to give these BS apologies endlessly.  But I don't see how their behavior with Ms. Omar is any different than the Repubs reaction to Mr. King, who comments went on for decades. 

I guess you have to be partisan. 

This crosses a threshold for me. The moment someone brings Nazi's into the conversation it's kaput. 

Surely you're not advocating that we break Godwin's Law?

Surely you're not advocating that we break  Godwin's Law?

Yeah kind of... but ya know Krish, when one side of your family was murdered by Nazis, one really wants to see Nazis. Right now, I see an antisemite and Omar is an antisemite. 

Unless she changes her way of speaking she will not last long. There are always a few new ones on both sides that think they have the new power to say whatever they want. But, they will soon find out, like many others have, on BOTH sides, that there are limitations to what they can say as members of Congress now. 

Rand Paul was one that comes to mind.

Just my 2 cents and realize I am probably preaching to the choir by responding to you.

Nonetheless, there are appropriate applications of the examples of such villains from history to indicate the dangers of following paths that may be known to some but either forgotten or never learned by others.

This applies to both extremes of the Left/Right political spectrum.

Hiding from history does little to stop repetition of bad history.

I tend to point out the obvious parallels when they are obvious. (Brought to you from the department of redundancy department).

Okay, that is my 2 cents worth and I'm sticking to.

Nonetheless, there are appropriate applications of the examples of such villains from history to indicate the dangers of following paths that may be known to some but either forgotten or never learned by others.

Given the sorry state of our public education system, in many cases its probably the latter.

( wonder how many Americans aalive today actually knew what Hitler did? Or Stalin?)

I think over time, some things in history become presented in general terms. The impact on the world by some people becomes sanitized.

I had one history who covered the chapters and talking points.

I had another who lived the the history she taught.

My best and favorite history teacher was my Latin instructor. For example, for him, Caesar was not some words to translate, decline or conjugate.

Caesar was a first hand, politically slanted accounting of history, deceptions, hunger for power and ruthless determination.

Are teachers allows to teach like that anymore?

Unfortunately I see partisan blindness from people my age. They should know better and I wager they do. Ideology may be the rafter in their eyes blinding them.

?

Louie Gohmert?

She's averaging about a slur a week since she's been in office.

I agree Sean. If I had my way, she would be out of office, but I don't get a say in that. 

Thread 5 was removed since all of the comments from the members were off topic. [ph]

Two things:

1.     How is antisemitism defined?

2.     What exactly was the vile and disgusting comment? I seem to not be able to find it.

1.     How is antisemitism defined?

That is a point of some contention.

Ok, so we don't really know then. Shouldn't one know how a charge is defined before leveling it?  I truly do not understand this except in the light of not being able to dispute an argument so just call it something racist or anti whatever.

Shouldn't one know how a charge is defined before leveling it?

IMO, yes.

in the light of not being able to dispute an argument so just call it something racist or anti whatever.

That is frequently my read on it.

[deleted]

[deleted]

1.  Okay, Steve, just read the definition at this link:

This definition has been adopted by most civilized nations, including the USA.

You will note the particular clause:

"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."

2.   “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” meaning Israel. (Omar)

Former Maine governor praises the Electoral College for keeping white people in power

nydailynews

In the middle of the on going finger pointing by white folks as to which party is more racists this little tidbit hit the news. 

It does bring out a thought , when you scrape the damn Religion off of it, is how many foreign countries have LOBBYISTS in the U.S.?  Exactly how much money are they passing out and what and how much influence are they buying?

How'd that get missed in the Constitution?

Also maybe they shouldn't  have a Jewish member of Congress do the jump-on, it's sorta looks like "don't knock MY Religion, babe. We have a good thing going, don't mess it up!"

Hit pieces like this is Religion with a political mask. Although she's quite correct about foreign lobbyists, she could have picked a better example, and there is really no reason to get that worked up over it.

Oh she has for years and it's just coming to a head NOW?

Let's see, the big anti-Semitic statement in both cases, is she said Israel is using lobbyists to sway U.S. politics in their favor, and the U.S. seems to agree.  Let's see, there IS a Israeli lobbyist group, and it does operate at state AND federal level. And WHY? to influence the U.S. and State Governments. So do a lot of countries and most major businesses and I don't like any of it. Since those are facts and not particularly incrementing, nor is the fact they get influence, I don't see the insult, except for who said it. 

Not countries. Not big business. Not religion. Some of the things I don't want in the Government.

I could understand some grumbling like mine, "coulda maybe picked a different example" but I'm not sure if it rated a full blowback quite that hard and heavy, and a demand of a apology seems extra heavy handed. It could have been one of those times when people just rolled their eyes and walked off, that seems to happen often enough. But NOW, it's a major thing.

I'm not anti-Semitic, I don't disagree with that Religion any more then any other one, and I'm supportive of Israel most of the time. But my support isn't a blanket approval for everything they might do.

nbcnews  

Oh, and save the "jooz" stuff for somebody that will be impressed with it.

It's 'k, I know you were just a little overheated.

Obviously I had second thoughts about being really nasty about it.

AIPAC is not a foreign lobbying organization. It is an organization of AMERICANS who lobby the American government to maintain its alliance with and support for Israel - it does not get financial support from Israel. However, I do wonder how much foreign financial support the "Big Oil" lobby gets from the Arab oil producing nations - could it be as much as or more than Saudi Arabia finances American universities.

Are you of the opinion that since it was a Jewish member of Congress who was critical of Omar's antisemitic statement that Jewish American lawmakers owe their loyalty to Israel rather than America he was telling her to keep her mouth shut because she may be screwing up the "good thing" that Jewish lawmakers have going?  It "sorta looks like" you think that's true, and you even stated that Omar was correct in her accusation (your words - "she's quite correct about foreign lobbyists") keeping in mind that you agree with her that AIPAC is a foreign lobbyist.

Well said. Most of their critics, including the antisemitic freshman, have no idea of what AIPAC actually does.

Having a catfight like that on the House floor doesn't do either one of them any good. Most people would want the middle east problems to stay in the middle east, not dragged out on the House floor. Most people can blame her, but some would blame him and that might hurt his re-election. To get a reaction like that, you'd have thought she said "time for another holocaust."

Anyway, the "good deal" (partly in jest because I didn't want to waste time with quotes) I mentioned was that right now, nobody has any problem with Jewish politicians, but a couple more catfights and that could change.

It's not accusation, but for somebody who puts state over Religion, he seems terrible sensitive about his Religion, a problem most Religious people seem to share. As a Politician he should have thicker skin about it and not blow up like that. He could have taken her to a office and chewed on her as long as she would stand it if he wanted to be helpful, or he could have gotten on twitter where he'd have to think a bit while typing, but instead he had a meltdown. Pure politics, but not a good show.

Can "someone of faith" leave his sensitive faith out of their decisions? In the U.S. some politicians are very proud of the depths of their faith, (including the Vice President) and push "morality" laws and have rather plainly hinted that it's god over everything.

AIPAC may be U.S. but Israel can donate to them, because if they did it directly to politicians it would be illegal. Some Pacs (I have no idea about AIPAC) go to great lengths to shield their donors.

Speaking of donors, EXXONMOBILE threw around $920,000 at politicians, officially, but I don't think anybody believes that is all the money they threw. Another one of them lobbyist loopholes I'd like to see hammered shut, hard.

A well-reasoned reply. Thank you nightwalker.