Graham: Dems won't condemn Rep Omar because they're afraid of the radical lefft

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I’m not here to go to bat for the Israeli government, so I think Graham should stfu.

Oh, okay. I'm sure we won't hear from Graham anymore now that you're on the record.

 

[S.J.]

How exactly is it a collective's place to "condemn" what is clearly an individual action?

Do I need to "condemn" David Duke on the basis that I lived in Louisiana?

They didn't condemn the individual, that's the point.

 

[BlackFlag]

Lol a pussy who completely succumbed to the radical elements in his own party now trying to lecture.

Perhaps, but I don't think he's wrong

I’m not here to go to bat for the Israeli government, so I think Graham should stfu.

Your political correctness tells everyone what they need to know about you

Glad to see you still trying, snowflake

Toss another dart, little guy. Maybe that one will make sense

 

[Darkwind]

Graham: Dems Won't Condemn Rep. Omar Because 'They're Afraid of the Radical Left' | Breitbart
In a Wednesday appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) weighed in on Democrat leaders’ reluctance to condemn Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) continued antisemitism.



American went to sleep now it's time to wake the hell up and take our nation back ffrom the demented democratic lefft.
Like we said your all pussies.

Nothing to fear because Omar was criticizing government of Israel, not the jews. See the difference?

If Israel and the government were run by Swedes, Omar wouldn't have a problem with Isreal, see the difference?

 

[BlackFlag]

I’m not here to go to bat for the Israeli government, so I think Graham should stfu.

Oh, okay. I'm sure we won't from Graham anymore now that you're on the record.

Yeah, I bet you “won’t from Graham?”

Nutjob

 

[Pogo]

How exactly is it a collective's place to "condemn" what is clearly an individual action?

Do I need to "condemn" David Duke on the basis that I lived in Louisiana?

They didn't condemn the individual, that's the point.

And???

Why do they "need" to?

Is the individual responsible for the individual's own actions, yes or no?

Does an individual Congresscritter require 'permission' from their political party to make a point? Is that how Lockstepistan works?

 

[busybee01]

Graham: Dems Won't Condemn Rep. Omar Because 'They're Afraid of the Radical Left' | Breitbart
In a Wednesday appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) weighed in on Democrat leaders’ reluctance to condemn Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) continued antisemitism.



Americans went to sleep now it's time to wake the hell up and take our nation back ffrom the demented democratic lefft.
Like we said your all pussies.

Lindsay Graham is a stupid idiot who is running for re-election. The anti-muslim display in West Virginia was disgusting yet Republicans seem to have no problem with that.

We need to take this country back from the white supremacists and neo-nazis that make up the Republican Party. That is the bigger menace.

 

[S.J.]

How exactly is it a collective's place to "condemn" what is clearly an individual action?

Do I need to "condemn" David Duke on the basis that I lived in Louisiana?

They didn't condemn the individual, that's the point.

And???

Why do they "need" to?

Is the individual responsible for the individual's own actions, yes or no?

Does an individual Congresscritter require 'permission' from their political party to make a point?

Not condemning them is tantamount to supporting them.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Graham: Dems Won't Condemn Rep. Omar Because 'They're Afraid of the Radical Left' | Breitbart
In a Wednesday appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) weighed in on Democrat leaders’ reluctance to condemn Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) continued antisemitism.



Americans went to sleep now it's time to wake the hell up and take our nation back ffrom the demented democratic lefft.
Like we said your all pussies.

Lindsay Graham is a stupid idiot who is running for re-election. The anti-muslim display in West Virginia was disgusting yet Republicans seem to have no problem with that.

We need to take this country back from the white supremacists and neo-nazis that make up the Republican Party. That is the bigger menace.

You are invited to take up arms and do just that.

 

[Pogo]

How exactly is it a collective's place to "condemn" what is clearly an individual action?

Do I need to "condemn" David Duke on the basis that I lived in Louisiana?

They didn't condemn the individual, that's the point.

And???

Why do they "need" to?

Is the individual responsible for the individual's own actions, yes or no?

Does an individual Congresscritter require 'permission' from their political party to make a point?

Not condemning them is tantamount to supporting them. Is that how Lockstepistan works?

Oh IS IT now. Again, this is Borgian thinking. You actually think the collective is responsible for the individual. Bull Shit.

Answer the goddam question. IS or IS NOT an individual responsible for his/her own actions?

If Willie Sutton robs the bank and gets away, do we go arrest his mother? Or tell her we won't lock her up if she "condemns" him?

Y'all PC-bots are a trip and a half. Never once stopping to think "hey wait, why are we doing this?".

 

[S.J.]

Oh IS IT now. Again, this is Borgian thinking. You actually think the collective is responsible for the individual. Bull Shit.

Quote where I said that.

Answer the goddam question. IS or IS NOT an individual responsible for his/her own actions?

Yes, and if her party does not agree with her comments they should condemn them.

If Willie Sutton robs the bank and gets away, do we go arrest his mother? Or tell her we won't lock her up if she "condemns" him?

Now you're going from stupid to ridiculous. How is that in any way imaginable an accurate comparison?

 

[Pogo]

Oh IS IT now. Again, this is Borgian thinking. You actually think the collective is responsible for the individual. Bull Shit.

Quote where I said that.

The memory is the second thing to go, but as you wish.

Not condemning them is tantamount to supporting them.

Anything else?

Answer the goddam question. IS or IS NOT an individual responsible for his/her own actions?

Yes, and if her party does not agree with her comments they should condemn them.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works huh.

So we've circled right back to the original question --- IF the individual (not the collective) is responsible for the actions of the individual, then what responsibility does the collective HAVE?

You don't seem to have an answer for that. Not that anyone else does either, but you bit on it.

If Willie Sutton robs the bank and gets away, do we go arrest his mother? Or tell her we won't lock her up if she "condemns" him?

Now you're going from stupid to ridiculous. How is that in any way imaginable an accurate comparison?

The question remains untouched. Apparently it's untouchable.

We can analogise all day though. If Rump were to, say, shove a Prime Minister, walk in front of the Queen, declare skinheads to be "very fine people", refuse to acknowledge intelligence of Russian election meddling, diss veterans, Muslims, Hispanics and women, call African nations "shithole countries", pay off a porn star to keep quiet while the election was going on, put his son-in-law into a security clearance flagged by every known vetting body, flagrantly violate the Title of Nobilty clause, make baseless "wire tapppppping" accusations against a former POTUS, spell his own (third) wife's name wrong, or paint his own face orange, just to pick some crazy shit that would never happen, shall we expect the Republican party to "condemn" all of that?

And if the Party does not, shall we then conclude that Republicans as a whole regularly shove Prime Ministers, walk in front of Queens, declare skinheads to be "very fine people", refuse to acknowledge intelligence of Russian election meddling, diss veterans, Muslims, Hispanics and women, call African nations "shithole countries", pay off porn stars to keep quiet while elections are going on, put family members into security clearances flagged by every known vetting body, flagrantly violate the Title of Nobilty clause, make baseless "wire tapppppping" accusations against former POTUSes, spell their own spouses names wrong and paint their own faces orange?

Composition Fallacy. Where it leads.

The irony here is that y'all Rumpbots keep droning on and on and on and on about drooling after Rump for his aversion to PC, and here's the same crowd crowing for the virtues of PC.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The leftists on this board are massively ignorant individuals who are only capable of regurgitating the nonsense they have been fed. This whole business of the Islamist bitch only criticizing government actions is one of them.

What she did involved delegitimazion coupled with every imaginable antisemitic canard imaginable.

In order to persecute Jews, antisemites whip up resentment based upon the notion that Jews are unduly powerful, manipulative and conniving .This is EXACTLY what the Islamist bitch did. Referring to the collective Jew as expressed by the nation state that affords them self determination makes no difference when the message is so profoundly antisemitic.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Graham: Dems Won't Condemn Rep. Omar Because 'They're Afraid of the Radical Left' | Breitbart
In a Wednesday appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) weighed in on Democrat leaders’ reluctance to condemn Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) continued antisemitism.



Americans went to sleep now it's time to wake the hell up and take our nation back ffrom the demented democratic lefft.
Like we said your all pussies.

/——/ imagine democRATs had to pass a bill defining hate as bad.

 

[Rocko]

Graham: Dems Won't Condemn Rep. Omar Because 'They're Afraid of the Radical Left' | Breitbart
In a Wednesday appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) weighed in on Democrat leaders’ reluctance to condemn Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) continued antisemitism.



American went to sleep now it's time to wake the hell up and take our nation back ffrom the demented democratic lefft.
Like we said your all pussies.

Nothing to fear because Omar was criticizing government of Israel, not the jews. See the difference?

Actually she didn’t criticize the Israeli government. Do you homework when you post on these boards

 

[S.J.]

Oh IS IT now. Again, this is Borgian thinking. You actually think the collective is responsible for the individual. Bull Shit.

Quote where I said that.

The memory is the second thing to go, but as you wish.

Not condemning them is tantamount to supporting them.

Anything else?

Answer the goddam question. IS or IS NOT an individual responsible for his/her own actions?

Yes, and if her party does not agree with her comments they should condemn them.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works huh.

So we've circled right back to the original question --- IF the individual (not the collective) is responsible for the actions of the individual, then what responsibility does the collective HAVE?

You don't seem to have an answer for that. Not that anyone else does either, but you bit on it.

If Willie Sutton robs the bank and gets away, do we go arrest his mother? Or tell her we won't lock her up if she "condemns" him?

Now you're going from stupid to ridiculous. How is that in any way imaginable an accurate comparison?

The question remains untouched. Apparently it's untouchable.

We can analogise all day though. If Rump were to, say, shove a Prime Minister, walk in front of the Queen, declare skinheads to be "very fine people", refuse to acknowledge intelligence of Russian election meddling, diss veterans, Muslims, Hispanics and women, call African nations "shithole countries", pay off a porn star to keep quiet while the election was going on, put his son-in-law into a security clearance flagged by every known vetting body, flagrantly violate the Title of Nobilty clause, make baseless "wire tapppppping" accusations against a former POTUS, spell his own (third) wife's name wrong, or paint his own face orange, just to pick some crazy shit that would never happen, shall we expect the Republican party to "condemn" all of that?

And if the Party does not, shall we then conclude that Republicans as a whole regularly shove Prime Ministers, walk in front of Queens, declare skinheads to be "very fine people", refuse to acknowledge intelligence of Russian election meddling, diss veterans, Muslims, Hispanics and women, call African nations "shithole countries", pay off porn stars to keep quiet while elections are going on, put family members into security clearances flagged by every known vetting body, flagrantly violate the Title of Nobilty clause, make baseless "wire tapppppping" accusations against former POTUSes, spell their own spouses names wrong and paint their own faces orange?

Composition Fallacy. Where it leads.

The irony here is that y'all Rumpbots keep droning on and on and on and on about drooling after Rump for his aversion to PC, and here's the same crowd crowing for the virtues of PC.

All that rambling and not one thing you spewed makes sense. Can't tell if your gibberish is drug induced or if you were always on the edge of insanity and Trump just nudged you over but either way, you are certifiable. I hope someone is keeping an eye on you.

 

[Pogo]

Oh IS IT now. Again, this is Borgian thinking. You actually think the collective is responsible for the individual. Bull Shit.

Quote where I said that.

The memory is the second thing to go, but as you wish.

Not condemning them is tantamount to supporting them.

Anything else?

Answer the goddam question. IS or IS NOT an individual responsible for his/her own actions?

Yes, and if her party does not agree with her comments they should condemn them.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works huh.

So we've circled right back to the original question --- IF the individual (not the collective) is responsible for the actions of the individual, then what responsibility does the collective HAVE?

You don't seem to have an answer for that. Not that anyone else does either, but you bit on it.

If Willie Sutton robs the bank and gets away, do we go arrest his mother? Or tell her we won't lock her up if she "condemns" him?

Now you're going from stupid to ridiculous. How is that in any way imaginable an accurate comparison?

The question remains untouched. Apparently it's untouchable.

We can analogise all day though. If Rump were to, say, shove a Prime Minister, walk in front of the Queen, declare skinheads to be "very fine people", refuse to acknowledge intelligence of Russian election meddling, diss veterans, Muslims, Hispanics and women, call African nations "shithole countries", pay off a porn star to keep quiet while the election was going on, put his son-in-law into a security clearance flagged by every known vetting body, flagrantly violate the Title of Nobilty clause, make baseless "wire tapppppping" accusations against a former POTUS, spell his own (third) wife's name wrong, or paint his own face orange, just to pick some crazy shit that would never happen, shall we expect the Republican party to "condemn" all of that?

And if the Party does not, shall we then conclude that Republicans as a whole regularly shove Prime Ministers, walk in front of Queens, declare skinheads to be "very fine people", refuse to acknowledge intelligence of Russian election meddling, diss veterans, Muslims, Hispanics and women, call African nations "shithole countries", pay off porn stars to keep quiet while elections are going on, put family members into security clearances flagged by every known vetting body, flagrantly violate the Title of Nobilty clause, make baseless "wire tapppppping" accusations against former POTUSes, spell their own spouses names wrong and paint their own faces orange?

Composition Fallacy. Where it leads.

The irony here is that y'all Rumpbots keep droning on and on and on and on about drooling after Rump for his aversion to PC, and here's the same crowd crowing for the virtues of PC.

All that rambling and not one thing you spewed makes sense. Can't tell if your gibberish is drug induced or if you were always on the edge of insanity and Trump just nudged you over but either way, you are certifiable. I hope someone is keeping an eye on you.

Translation --- you still can't answer the question.

Which I knew before I even started. That's why I put it out there. Thank you for playing the part of Straight Man.

 

[S.J.]

Oh IS IT now. Again, this is Borgian thinking. You actually think the collective is responsible for the individual. Bull Shit.

Quote where I said that.

The memory is the second thing to go, but as you wish.

Not condemning them is tantamount to supporting them.

Anything else?

Answer the goddam question. IS or IS NOT an individual responsible for his/her own actions?

Yes, and if her party does not agree with her comments they should condemn them.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works huh.

So we've circled right back to the original question --- IF the individual (not the collective) is responsible for the actions of the individual, then what responsibility does the collective HAVE?

You don't seem to have an answer for that. Not that anyone else does either, but you bit on it.

If Willie Sutton robs the bank and gets away, do we go arrest his mother? Or tell her we won't lock her up if she "condemns" him?

Now you're going from stupid to ridiculous. How is that in any way imaginable an accurate comparison?

The question remains untouched. Apparently it's untouchable.

We can analogise all day though. If Rump were to, say, shove a Prime Minister, walk in front of the Queen, declare skinheads to be "very fine people", refuse to acknowledge intelligence of Russian election meddling, diss veterans, Muslims, Hispanics and women, call African nations "shithole countries", pay off a porn star to keep quiet while the election was going on, put his son-in-law into a security clearance flagged by every known vetting body, flagrantly violate the Title of Nobilty clause, make baseless "wire tapppppping" accusations against a former POTUS, spell his own (third) wife's name wrong, or paint his own face orange, just to pick some crazy shit that would never happen, shall we expect the Republican party to "condemn" all of that?

And if the Party does not, shall we then conclude that Republicans as a whole regularly shove Prime Ministers, walk in front of Queens, declare skinheads to be "very fine people", refuse to acknowledge intelligence of Russian election meddling, diss veterans, Muslims, Hispanics and women, call African nations "shithole countries", pay off porn stars to keep quiet while elections are going on, put family members into security clearances flagged by every known vetting body, flagrantly violate the Title of Nobilty clause, make baseless "wire tapppppping" accusations against former POTUSes, spell their own spouses names wrong and paint their own faces orange?

Composition Fallacy. Where it leads.

The irony here is that y'all Rumpbots keep droning on and on and on and on about drooling after Rump for his aversion to PC, and here's the same crowd crowing for the virtues of PC.

All that rambling and not one thing you spewed makes sense. Can't tell if your gibberish is drug induced or if you were always on the edge of insanity and Trump just nudged you over but either way, you are certifiable. I hope someone is keeping an eye on you.

Translation --- you still can't answer the question.

Which I knew before I even started. That's why I put it out there. Thank you for playing the part of Straight Man.

The only thing you put out there was a whole lot of gibberish to muddy the waters, hoping no one would notice how full of shit you are. Guess what? They noticed.

 

[Pogo]

Oh IS IT now. Again, this is Borgian thinking. You actually think the collective is responsible for the individual. Bull Shit.

Quote where I said that.

The memory is the second thing to go, but as you wish.

Not condemning them is tantamount to supporting them.

Anything else?

Answer the goddam question. IS or IS NOT an individual responsible for his/her own actions?

Yes, and if her party does not agree with her comments they should condemn them.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works huh.

So we've circled right back to the original question --- IF the individual (not the collective) is responsible for the actions of the individual, then what responsibility does the collective HAVE?

You don't seem to have an answer for that. Not that anyone else does either, but you bit on it.

If Willie Sutton robs the bank and gets away, do we go arrest his mother? Or tell her we won't lock her up if she "condemns" him?

Now you're going from stupid to ridiculous. How is that in any way imaginable an accurate comparison?

The question remains untouched. Apparently it's untouchable.

We can analogise all day though. If Rump were to, say, shove a Prime Minister, walk in front of the Queen, declare skinheads to be "very fine people", refuse to acknowledge intelligence of Russian election meddling, diss veterans, Muslims, Hispanics and women, call African nations "shithole countries", pay off a porn star to keep quiet while the election was going on, put his son-in-law into a security clearance flagged by every known vetting body, flagrantly violate the Title of Nobilty clause, make baseless "wire tapppppping" accusations against a former POTUS, spell his own (third) wife's name wrong, or paint his own face orange, just to pick some crazy shit that would never happen, shall we expect the Republican party to "condemn" all of that?

And if the Party does not, shall we then conclude that Republicans as a whole regularly shove Prime Ministers, walk in front of Queens, declare skinheads to be "very fine people", refuse to acknowledge intelligence of Russian election meddling, diss veterans, Muslims, Hispanics and women, call African nations "shithole countries", pay off porn stars to keep quiet while elections are going on, put family members into security clearances flagged by every known vetting body, flagrantly violate the Title of Nobilty clause, make baseless "wire tapppppping" accusations against former POTUSes, spell their own spouses names wrong and paint their own faces orange?

Composition Fallacy. Where it leads.

The irony here is that y'all Rumpbots keep droning on and on and on and on about drooling after Rump for his aversion to PC, and here's the same crowd crowing for the virtues of PC.

All that rambling and not one thing you spewed makes sense. Can't tell if your gibberish is drug induced or if you were always on the edge of insanity and Trump just nudged you over but either way, you are certifiable. I hope someone is keeping an eye on you.

Translation --- you still can't answer the question.

Which I knew before I even started. That's why I put it out there. Thank you for playing the part of Straight Man.

The only thing you put out there was a whole lot of gibberish to muddy the waters, hoping no one would notice how full of shit you are. Guess what? They noticed.

If this all whizzed by too fast for you here's what I did.

I read the title and immediately saw a false premise. That being, that "dems" for reasons as yet unexplained, need to "condemn" a Congresscritter. Even though "dems" is a collective and the Congresscritter is an individual.

So I demanded to know on what basis a collective is responsible for an individual.

Most of the class could see it was an unanswerable question, thereby proving the premise false. You didn't.

Again, thanks for playin'. Between the two of us we done stated the obvious.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I dont follow this subject all that much due to the lying cowardly misdirection by anti-Semites and the overly sensitive feelings of many Jews when it comes to Isreal, but it does seem to be the approach of choice among anti-semites to disguise their Jew Hate for mere opposition to Isreal for one thing or another.

That does not mean everyone who criticized Isreal is necessarily anti Semitic, but I think that would be by far the odds on favorite.