They're giving the Dems a taste of their own medicine after what they did to MTG and Gosar. It's the only way they have any hope of deterring similar abuses in the future, although the Dems aren't ones to learn lessons from consequences.
Omar the brother lover is an outspoken supporter of terrorists organizations and nations including isis because she's Muslim and they are too. She should not be on the committee or in office. The Israel angle makes it seem like you think she should be on the committee.
Case in point, Iran is deemed the biggest "state-sponsor of terrorism" when there's no any basis for it. You've actually had a journo ask those who've claimed as much, and per usual, zero evidence was provided. They've done the same with Syria, and they are trying to do the same with Russia ("terrorist regime"). It's no different than when there are complaints about "human rights," "corruption," etc; these words can only be understood in relation to power.
This is a fair point. The complaints of states about these matters cannot be taken seriously. But it does not follow from that, that there is no such thing as terrorism or corruption.
It is something you can argue about. Suppose
Is invasion of Iraq "in pursuit of political aims"?
It wasn't unlawful.
And lastly, when did the distinction between a civilian and a soldier originate? Were people who, when their countries were conquered in history and they got enslaved, considered "civilians"?
Suppose such categories are modern inventions. Is it bad that these distinctions are made, or not?
From my knowledge of it, it's an entirely modern distinction originating from enlightenment and liberalism, one which I don't consider meaningful, as most people get to experience the policies of the ruling class, which in their nature are far more violent, far more harmful to existence of my people, than any actions deemed "terrorism" by the same ruling class.
You could argue that ruling class policies are worse for the people than terrorism. It does not necessitate you to proclaim that terrorism does not exist, that it is a meme, or that its definition is wholly arbitrary.
Fyi, this wasn't considered terrorism.
Is that black and white photo supposed to mean something, because I don't recognize a thing.
Who decides what invasion is and isn't unlawful? Who makes such law on which it's decided in the first place?
Invasions are, by definition, not unlawful, since there is no international law (what is called international law is not actually law), there being no sovereign to enforce any such law.
it's more of a point that the same designation could very well apply to the said ruling class in the first place.
They are state actors, so no. They always make sure to exclude themselves.
It's "desegregation" that occurred at gunpoint.
Alternative view: it's government ensuring that people can attend school safely regardless of their color. If only it continued ensuring that, and you may not have cited desegregation as such a bad thing.
They all are. The unfortunate thing is that she was less of a POS than most of her Dem colleagues: calling into question Ukraine nonsense and defending people who were harassed for donating to the truckers.
She's also insufferable and demonstrably incompetent.
They just needed a reason that's nicer for the headlines, so they ran with that one.
They're giving the Dems a taste of their own medicine after what they did to MTG and Gosar. It's the only way they have any hope of deterring similar abuses in the future, although the Dems aren't ones to learn lessons from consequences.
Omar the brother lover is an outspoken supporter of terrorists organizations and nations including isis because she's Muslim and they are too. She should not be on the committee or in office. The Israel angle makes it seem like you think she should be on the committee.
Yes, I agree. Of the Dems out there, she's probably the most independent-thinking.
That said, "terrorism" is not a meme, especially not for Israel.
This is a fair point. The complaints of states about these matters cannot be taken seriously. But it does not follow from that, that there is no such thing as terrorism or corruption.
It is something you can argue about. Suppose
It wasn't unlawful.
Suppose such categories are modern inventions. Is it bad that these distinctions are made, or not?
You could argue that ruling class policies are worse for the people than terrorism. It does not necessitate you to proclaim that terrorism does not exist, that it is a meme, or that its definition is wholly arbitrary.
Is that black and white photo supposed to mean something, because I don't recognize a thing.
Invasions are, by definition, not unlawful, since there is no international law (what is called international law is not actually law), there being no sovereign to enforce any such law.
They are state actors, so no. They always make sure to exclude themselves.
Alternative view: it's government ensuring that people can attend school safely regardless of their color. If only it continued ensuring that, and you may not have cited desegregation as such a bad thing.
On one hand funny, on the other hand it really shows the two parties really are the "Weaken America" party and the "Owned By Israel" party.
Any lip service they give toward support avererage Americans is duplicitous cynical pandering.
foreigners have no place in government
no.
She's a US citizen, but she's no American.
European ancestry. Imported shitskins aren't "american" just like they aren't "french"
Catholics were a part of the first 13 colonies see Maryland.
If the Muslims are American than they are American. If they are foreign they aren't American. An American can convert to Islam.
Civnats will always lose
I can't say I'm sad about that. She was such pos
They all are. The unfortunate thing is that she was less of a POS than most of her Dem colleagues: calling into question Ukraine nonsense and defending people who were harassed for donating to the truckers.
So actually the reason as if so that's pathetic or just the excuse because they couldn't stand her?
I think it's at least partly to drive home the foolishness of the DNC's previous stance on committees by making them suffer the same treatment.