Jets Rookie Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference

[sealadaigh]

Once again, you don't understand the Constitution. NFL teams are private companies. They are free to impose penalties on those who make statements that the team deems to be a poor reflection on the organization. So, if an owner, Jewish or otherwise, decided to cut a player because he advocated the destruction of Israel, they could do so without violating the Constitution.

i understand the constitution well enough to know that the foremost legal scholars and the supreme court often disagree on its interpretation. my understanding of the constitution far exceeds your ability to comprehend what you read.

now go back and read what i said.

you may also point out exactly where oday aboushi advocated the destruction of israel, not that had he done so, firing him for such an action would, in all probability, certainly violate his constitutional rights. you really do have to move away from this "master-slave" relationship you think occurs in the workplace, at least in a "de juris" sense.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. A private employer is not subject to a lawsuit under the free speech provision of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. There are no legal scholars or judges who believe that a private employer can be sued under this provision.

Your understanding of the Constitution is nonexistent. Mine, on the other hand, is based upon a resume that humility prevents me from publishing here. Suffice to say, I know what I'm talking about.

But, hey... don't take my word for it. Go and actually read the First Amendment and see who it is directed to (I'll give you a hint: "______ shall make no law...")

actually, what is nonexistent is your ability to read fairly simple and direct statements without allowing your emotions on the subject or issue dictate your comprehension.

i, on the other hand, freely admit that i am in no position to argue with unfounded opinions on your part and the "illusive resume" that you bring into play when cornered.

kudos, though, on the excellent display of your humility...lol....well, except for the "suffice to say, i know what i am talking about" part. try harder. ya ain't no oscar wilde.

 

[sealadaigh]

because the ideas are seperate does not mean either one is wrong or unconstitutional.

i hear zionists call for the destruction of states all the time, the latest being syria...and then we have the old standby, iran.

also, i am really not seeing anybody calling for the destruction of israel. he mentioned the nakba. the nakba happened.

front page is a conservative, jewish and zionist propaganda paper run by david horowitz. why in the world should i believe what they imply.

Were you under the impression that anyone here is trying to convince YOU of anything?

A private employer can fire workers without giving a reason. I've seen people fired for no reason at all.

yes, but there is a difference between firing a person for no reason and firing a person for the wrong reason.

 

[Coyote]

I think, honestly - you could have chosen a better source to make your point with. The only fact that is accurate is he spoke at the conference - even the accusation that the group itself is extremist is hardly well supported. The intent of the article is clearly defammatory - in fact, did any of them make an attempt to find talk to him? Find out what his views were? What he talked about? No. They wrote up an article full of innuendo and guilt by association. I find that disgusting regardless of who it's directed against.

Sigh.

I feel like I'm teaching a legal seminar today.

For a statement to be defamatory, it must be false.

As you are claiming the article is defamatory, what evidence do you have that it is false? The article cites sources regarding the organizations' publications. Do you have evidence that these sources are incorrect?

Is he a Muslim extremist?

Most of the claims the article makes are not supported by links and the few links it has are of facebook pages that can't be verified.

Seems that you are the one making a presumption of falsity based upon the source of the article.

You yourself have taken that tact with sources - why the sudden shift here?

Certain sources use red-flag language, a conspiracy theory methodology that depends heavily on innuendo and guilt by association and when I see that, I discount it.

Stated another way - because the article is associated with a publication you don't like, your are presuming its guilty of defamation.

Guilt by association.

Ironic, no?

There's a difference between being "associated with" and actively promoting it with a front page link.
As I pointed out, that is not the only reason I take issue with it

 

[sealadaigh]

I see I need to repeat myself: It is absolutely wrong to criticize an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - for supporting the Palestinan people or the establishment of a Palestinian state.

It is absolutely inexcusable for an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - to be participating in activities of a group calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.

I think there is a huge difference: the man is being criticized for the latter activity, not the former. They are two very separate ideas - aren't they?

because the ideas are seperate does not mean either one is wrong or unconstitutional.

i hear zionists call for the destruction of states all the time, the latest being syria...and then we have the old standby, iran.

also, i am really not seeing anybody calling for the destruction of israel. he mentioned the nakba. the nakba happened.

front page is a conservative, jewish and zionist propaganda paper run by david horowitz. why in the world should i believe what they imply.

Were you under the impression that anyone here is trying to convince YOU of anything?

lolol...well, there sure is a lotta histrionic babblin' that seems to be trying to convince somebody of something. perhaps you are just angry because i, among others, don't let you run your and david horowitz's rhetoric and propaganda unanswered.

 

[Hossfly]

Were you under the impression that anyone here is trying to convince YOU of anything?

A private employer can fire workers without giving a reason. I've seen people fired for no reason at all.

yes, but there is a difference between firing a person for no reason and firing a person for the wrong reason.

Wrong reason? I've seen people get fired because the person doing the firing didn't like the color of their mustasche or the part of their hair. Makes no difference one way or the other.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Is he a Muslim extremist?

That's a matter of opinion. Pure opinions are not actionable under the tort of defamation.

You yourself have taken that tact with sources - why the sudden shift here?

No shift at all.

If a source presents an undisputed fact, the source is irrelevant, as credibility is not at issue.
If a source presents a disputed accusation as a fact, the source is relevant, as credibility is at issue.

In this case, the key facts are not in dispute.

There's a difference between being "associated with" and actively promoting it with a front page link.
As I pointed out, that is not the only reason I take issue with it

I'm not promoting the source. I merely re-published the article and raised an issue.

Everyone here is free to form their own opinions.

 

[Coyote]

Is he a Muslim extremist?

That's a matter of opinion. Pure opinions are not actionable under the tort of defamation.

This isn't a court.....just saying

You yourself have taken that tact with sources - why the sudden shift here?

No shift at all.

If a source presents an undisputed fact, the source is irrelevant, as credibility is not at issue.
If a source presents a disputed accusation as a fact, the source is relevant, as credibility is at issue.

In this case, the key facts are not in dispute.

The conclusions drawn by the article ARE in dispute.

There's a difference between being "associated with" and actively promoting it with a front page link.
As I pointed out, that is not the only reason I take issue with it

I'm not promoting the source. I merely re-published the article and raised an issue.

Everyone here is free to form their own opinions.[/QUOTE]

My mistake - I didn't mean you were promoting it - I was misunderstanding. I meant Frontpage was promoting Jihadwatch.

 

[sealadaigh]

A private employer can fire workers without giving a reason. I've seen people fired for no reason at all.

yes, but there is a difference between firing a person for no reason and firing a person for the wrong reason.

Wrong reason? I've seen people get fired because the person doing the firing didn't like the color of their mustasche or the part of their hair. Makes no difference one way or the other.

well, it doesn't surprise me to see you have no problem with people being fired because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, handicap, mustache colour, and hair part. i myself have spent almost my entire life fighting agaisnst such discrimination but carry on...and good luck, troop.

you know what though. when i took that oath to protect and defend the constitution, i was serious. was there somfin in the c-rats they gave to you air-mobile cav fooks that makes you cut and run when the heats on or when god bangs his book in your direction.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

The facts are the facts:

1. Aboushi spoke at the seminar.
2. The organization that put on the seminar has a logo that strongly suggests that it believes that all of Israel should be "Palestine."
3. The organization that put on the seminar has published materials that most would deem to be anti-Semitic.
4. The organization has financial ties to terrorist organizations, including Hamas.
5. The organization honors terrorists in its publications.

From those facts, we are all free to draw whatever conclusion we wish.

Its funny... in 150+ posts on this thread, nobody has asked me what I would do if I owned the Jets.

Here's my answer: I would sit down with Mr. Aboushi and advise him that, as a member of the Jets franchise, his actions reflect on the team. I would state further that players are discouraged from associating with groups that take extreme positions on highly-charged political issues. I would explain that, first and foremost, this is an economic issue for the team. Players should avoid actions that might alienate the fan base or sponsors. If Mr. Aboushi elected to continue associated with organizations like the one that put on the conference, I would consider cutting him from the team.

 

[sealadaigh]

Were you under the impression that anyone here is trying to convince YOU of anything?

lolol...well, there sure is a lotta histrionic babblin' that seems to be trying to convince somebody of something. perhaps you are just angry because i, among others, don't let you run your and david horowitz's rhetoric and propaganda unanswered.

I'm not angry. Are you angry? Maybe your projecting your anger onto me?

lol...angry...no way...it isn't every day i am afforded the opportunity to reducing such an astute constitutional scholar into making pee wee herman type arguments...oh, pardon me. in deference to your legal pretensions, perhaps i should have said "redcuctio ad absurdum".

 

[HistoryBefore67]

lolol...well, there sure is a lotta histrionic babblin' that seems to be trying to convince somebody of something. perhaps you are just angry because i, among others, don't let you run your and david horowitz's rhetoric and propaganda unanswered.

I'm not angry. Are you angry? Maybe your projecting your anger onto me?

lol...angry...no way...it isn't every day i am afforded the opportunity to reducing such an astute constitutional scholar into making pee wee herman type arguments...oh, pardon me. in deference to your legal pretensions, perhaps i should have said "redcuctio ad absurdum".

Pee Wee Herman is way out of your league.

I noticed that you've backed off your arguments about Constitutional violations. I suspect that this means you've Googled enough to realize that you were dead wrong. Shame you're not man enough to admit it.

 

[sealadaigh]

The facts are the facts:

1. Aboushi spoke at the seminar.
2. The organization that put on the seminar has a logo that strongly suggests that it believes that all of Israel should be "Palestine."
3. The organization that put on the seminar has published materials that most would deem to be anti-Semitic.
4. The organization has financial ties to terrorist organizations, including Hamas.
5. The organization honors terrorists in its publications.

From those facts, we are all free to draw whatever conclusion we wish.

Its funny... in 150+ posts on this thread, nobody has asked me what I would do if I owned the Jets.

Here's my answer: I would sit down with Mr. Aboushi and advise him that, as a member of the Jets franchise, his actions reflect on the team. I would state further that players are discouraged from associating with groups that take extreme positions on highly-charged political issues. I would explain that, first and foremost, this is an economic issue for the team. Players should avoid actions that might alienate the fan base or sponsors. If Mr. Aboushi elected to continue associated with organizations like the one that put on the conference, I would consider cutting him from the team.

here is a real fact...

because someone says something is a fact does not make it a fact. other than #1, the others are arguable.

 

[sealadaigh]

I'm not angry. Are you angry? Maybe your projecting your anger onto me?

lol...angry...no way...it isn't every day i am afforded the opportunity to reducing such an astute constitutional scholar into making pee wee herman type arguments...oh, pardon me. in deference to your legal pretensions, perhaps i should have said "redcuctio ad absurdum".

Pee Wee Herman is way out of your league.

I noticed that you've backed off your arguments about Constitutional violations. I suspect that this means you've Googled enough to realize that you were dead wrong. Shame you're not man enough to admit it.

i have backed off on nothing and have no need to google on the matter. i could take a different tack and say that unless it is specifically stated in oday's contract that he must forsake his constitutional right, it is still in effect, but it would be up to you to prove that was a condirtion of his contract.

i am not the one putting forth the pee wee herman arguments. you are way in his league, i imagine. ride 'em. cowgirl...lol.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

The facts are the facts:

1. Aboushi spoke at the seminar.
2. The organization that put on the seminar has a logo that strongly suggests that it believes that all of Israel should be "Palestine."
3. The organization that put on the seminar has published materials that most would deem to be anti-Semitic.
4. The organization has financial ties to terrorist organizations, including Hamas.
5. The organization honors terrorists in its publications.

From those facts, we are all free to draw whatever conclusion we wish.

Its funny... in 150+ posts on this thread, nobody has asked me what I would do if I owned the Jets.

Here's my answer: I would sit down with Mr. Aboushi and advise him that, as a member of the Jets franchise, his actions reflect on the team. I would state further that players are discouraged from associating with groups that take extreme positions on highly-charged political issues. I would explain that, first and foremost, this is an economic issue for the team. Players should avoid actions that might alienate the fan base or sponsors. If Mr. Aboushi elected to continue associated with organizations like the one that put on the conference, I would consider cutting him from the team.

here is a real fact...

because someone says something is a fact does not make it a fact. other than #1, the others are arguable.

Here's a photo of the art projects the kids at the conference were doing. What do you think that's a map of? Is that a two-state solution map?

 

[sealadaigh]

The facts are the facts:

1. Aboushi spoke at the seminar.
2. The organization that put on the seminar has a logo that strongly suggests that it believes that all of Israel should be "Palestine."
3. The organization that put on the seminar has published materials that most would deem to be anti-Semitic.
4. The organization has financial ties to terrorist organizations, including Hamas.
5. The organization honors terrorists in its publications.

From those facts, we are all free to draw whatever conclusion we wish.

Its funny... in 150+ posts on this thread, nobody has asked me what I would do if I owned the Jets.

Here's my answer: I would sit down with Mr. Aboushi and advise him that, as a member of the Jets franchise, his actions reflect on the team. I would state further that players are discouraged from associating with groups that take extreme positions on highly-charged political issues. I would explain that, first and foremost, this is an economic issue for the team. Players should avoid actions that might alienate the fan base or sponsors. If Mr. Aboushi elected to continue associated with organizations like the one that put on the conference, I would consider cutting him from the team.

here is a real fact...

because someone says something is a fact does not make it a fact. other than #1, the others are arguable.

Here's a photo of the art projects the kids at the conference were doing. What do you think that's a map of? Is that a two-state solution map?

i think it is a photo offered by palestinian media watch which makes it suspect.

saying something or anything "strongly suggests" is never a fact, it is an opinion. it may be an accurate opinion but it is nonetheless an opinion...and opinions aren't facts. you have claimed it as a fact.

 

[Dot Com]

NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine

Glad I'm not a Jets fan. I don't think I could pull for a team with someone like this on the roster. I have no problem with people expressing their views, but this crosses the line. And for a player in New York (the city with the largest Jewish population in the US), this guy is making bad choices of who to associate with.

you got a better source? FrontPage? FRONTPAGE?!!!

 

[Bloodrock44]

I'm not angry. Are you angry? Maybe your projecting your anger onto me?

My fault...he's projecting his anger at me onto you. I'll try to watch it.

i am not angry at either one of you.

i expect B4 to indulge in petty little personal arguments when she fails at reason.

i expect you to lie about me because like they say..."and the color, well that speaks for itself."

Whew...you really had me worried. You know I couldn't bare it if you were angry. And you know I would never lie about you. You were just kidding right? How could I lie about my BFF...that's best friend forever in case you're not keeping up with kid speak.

 

[MHunterB]

Righto! Europe is slowly awakening from a coma and it won't be long until they're rootin' 'em out and movin' 'em out.

Naw, the muslim birth rate will soon over take the immigration rate.

And no country is going to expel their natural born citizens. ..

Would you like a list of those nations which have, in the 20th Century?

 

[MHunterB]

here is a real fact...

because someone says something is a fact does not make it a fact. other than #1, the others are arguable.

Here's a photo of the art projects the kids at the conference were doing. What do you think that's a map of? Is that a two-state solution map?

i think it is a photo offered by palestinian media watch which makes it suspect.

saying something or anything "strongly suggests" is never a fact, it is an opinion. it may be an accurate opinion but it is nonetheless an opinion...and opinions aren't facts. you have claimed it as a fact.

Check the logo on the conference page: it's the same, so it's NOT something 'invented' by PMW. It's a fact that the logo is offensive to Israelis.

 

[Trajan]

NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine

Glad I'm not a Jets fan. I don't think I could pull for a team with someone like this on the roster. I have no problem with people expressing their views, but this crosses the line. And for a player in New York (the city with the largest Jewish population in the US), this guy is making bad choices of who to associate with.

A man supports his country. Lots of people do.

Where is the controversy?

what country is that?