US government vs. "antisemitism"

Snowball said:
Yes I surely did. Disciminating against Jews is already illegal. This bill is about what it says.
Click to expand...

Yep. The bill expands on the definition of what "discriminating against Jews" is and outsources that to a private entity.
 
PAF said:
Calling [MENTION=2727]devil21[/MENTION]
Click to expand...

Too easy. Honestly? Considering the knowledge I've dropped here over the years I'm growing weary of repeating myself.

It's all commercial contract law now. ALL CAPS NAMES engaging in commerce.
 
Invisible Man said:
What does this bill actually accomplish that in any way keeps facts and history away from learners?
Click to expand...

Seriously, if you can't read all those bullet points and think about some instances where it causes the understanding of history, current events, economics, and many other fields to be hampered by thought police, and research police, I can't help you. What I can tell you is that the author of the working definition has been a vocal critic of attempts to codify it as law, because he himself, Kenneth Stern, is a defender of free speech, dialogue and research.
 
Snowball said:
Seriously, if you can't read all those bullet points and think about some instances where it causes the understanding of history, current events, economics, and many other fields to be hampered by thought police, and research police, I can't help you. What I can tell you is that the author of the working definition has been a vocal critic of attempts to codify it as law, because he himself, Kenneth Stern, is a defender of free speech, dialogue and research.
Click to expand...

I read your bullet points. But none of them answer my question.

I'm not sure if you understood the question at all. Or if you understood the meaning of your own words when you claimed, "It is all about changing history and facts, and keeping them away from learners."

I don't understand how it's even logically possible for a legislative act to change facts.

Are you under the impression that if Congress passes a law that defines a word a certain way that somehow this limits what facts are discoverable by people who do research?
 
Last edited:
Administrations come and administrations go, but these things proceed seamlessly along, step by step.
 
Anti Federalist said:
Yes, that has already been mentioned.

This act codifies it into law.
Click to expand...

I bet you must have been really upset with Trump when he did that. He didn't even wait for Congress to codify it into law. He just dictated it to be so by his own fiat.

I bet there are some fiery threads in the forum from 2019 with comments from you rhetorically ripping Trump a new sphincter for that.

*does search of forum*

Whoops. Nope. I was wrong. You were all for it. Your exact words were, "I happen to agree. Good for him."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...sm-of-Israel&p=6899701&viewfull=1#post6899701
 
Last edited:
Invisible Man said:
I bet you must have been really upset with Trump when he did that. He didn't even wait for Congress to codify it into law. He just dictated it to be so by his own fiat.

I bet there are some fiery threads in the forum from 2019 with comments from you rhetorically ripping Trump a new sphincter for that.

*does search of forum*

Whoops. Nope. I was wrong. You were all for it. Your exact words were, "I happen to agree. Good for him."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...sm-of-Israel&p=6899701&viewfull=1#post6899701
Click to expand...

Whoa...good shooting there Tex, you got me!

Anti Federalist said:
They (colleges and their students) have no absolute right to my extorted tax dollars.

Fuck them, bunch of Marxist pricks the whole lot of them.

You want to hang Moshe and Stein in effigy, be my guest.

All Trump is saying here is that you're not gonna do it with taxpayer funds.

I happen to agree.

Good for him.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference to me between cutting off federal funding, which these institutions should not be getting, and turning something into law which can carry criminal penalties.

So I stand by what I posted.

But hey, think whatever you like, I lose, you win, you're the winner.

 
[
Anti Federalist said:
Whoa...good shooting there Tex, you got me!



There's a big difference to me between cutting off federal funding, which these institutions should not be getting, and turning something into law which can carry criminal penalties.

So I stand by what I posted.

But hey, think whatever you like, I lose, you win, you're the winner.
Click to expand...


Earlier in this thread you wrote:
Anti Federalist said:
@jmdrake already mentioned what is different and dangerous about this new act.

That is uses the definition of what will be a prohibited act on a loosely defined, fungible and rapidly changing set of examples promulgated by a Jewish political pressure group.
Click to expand...

And I challenged you to show me what "prohibited acts" you were talking about from the text of the bill.

You then wrote:

Anti Federalist said:
In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) on the basis of race, color, or national origin, based on an individual’s actual or perceived shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics, the Department of Education shall take into consideration the definition of antisemitism as part of the Department’s assessment of whether the practice was motivated by antisemitic intent.
Click to expand...
Look, I know this is convoluted and confusing.

The CFRs are like that, believe me, I've spent the last 25 years of my life wading through as part of my job.

Here's what's going on:

Jews, petrified at the Marxist golem they themselves created now running amok on colleges all across the country, prompted them to pressure congress "to act".

They cooked up this bill to add new and ever expanding additions to the CRA based on the definitions provided by a Jewish political pressure group.

The enforcement "teeth" is the force of law written into the CRA.

The DOE is hereby directed to use those definitions that the IHRA comes up with as prima facie evidence of anti-semitism in any investigation of violations of the CRA.

If you cannot see what is wrong with that picture, I can't say any more.
Click to expand...

The very words that you quoted from the Antisemitism Awareness Act as proof that it prohibited certain acts come almost word for word from Trumps Executive Order. His EO didn't merely refer to the Dept. of Educatiion, but said, "all executive departments and agencies (agencies) charged with enforcing Title VI."

So, when Trump issued an EO that said the same thing this act says, somehow it accomplished nothing other than defunding certain schools. But when this act says it, somehow the same words refer to prohibiting certain acts?

The only difference is that one time it was Trump and the other time it wasn't.
 
Invisible Man said:
[



Earlier in this thread you wrote:


And I challenged you to show me what "prohibited acts" you were talking about from the text of the bill.

You then wrote:



The very words that you quoted from the Antisemitism Awareness Act as proof that it prohibited certain acts come almost word for word from Trumps Executive Order. His EO didn't merely refer to the Dept. of Educatiion, but said, "[FONT=&]all executive departments and agencies (agencies) charged with enforcing Title VI."

So, when Trump issued an EO that said the same thing this act says, somehow it accomplished nothing other than defunding certain schools. But when this act says it, somehow the same words refer to prohibiting certain acts?

The only difference is that one time it was Trump and the other time it wasn't.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

OK, you've convinced everyone. Government is just doing something good and benign here, and we should all just move on.
 
Brian4Liberty said:
OK, you've convinced everyone. Government is just doing something good and benign here, and we should all just move on.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that either.

But we should be accurate when it comes to matters of fact.

And we shouldn't have a double standard where the exact same words only mean defunding education when they're in a Trump EO but mean banning free speech when they're in a law passed by Congress.
 
Last edited:
Invisible Man said:
And we shouldn't have a double standard where the exact same words only mean defunding education when they're in a Trump EO but mean banning free speech when they're in a law passed by Congress.
Click to expand...

Under one a college would lose Title X funding, which it should not be getting in the first place.

Under the other, you, personally, could be held criminally liable for violating the CRA.
 
Invisible Man said:
I read your bullet points. But none of them answer my question.

I'm not sure if you understood the question at all. Or if you understood the meaning of your own words when you claimed, "It is all about changing history and facts, and keeping them away from learners."

I don't understand how it's even logically possible for a legislative act to change facts.

Are you under the impression that if Congress passes a law that defines a word a certain way that somehow this limits what facts are discoverable by people who do research?
Click to expand...

You really don't know what you're talking about. They are not "my bullet points". They are what is to be prohibited in education.
The sad fact is, most of it already is, silently and surreptitiously prohibited. I just don't think you have the capacity to understand, or at least that's the way you're behaving, and I'm not going to respond to trolling, it's a waste of time.
 
Snowball said:
You really don't know what you're talking about. They are not "my bullet points". They are what is to be prohibited in education.
The sad fact is, most of it already is, silently and surreptitiously prohibited. I just don't think you have the capacity to understand, or at least that's the way you're behaving, and I'm not going to respond to trolling, it's a waste of time.
Click to expand...

The simple thing would have been simply to answer the question I asked. Your waste of time on unrelated side discussions is on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Trump threatens to strip Harvard of $3B in grants and give money to trade schools
Replies
2
Views
54
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
New York State Sends Police Chiefs to Israel for 'Counterterrorism' Training
Replies
5
Views
123
acptulsa
acptulsa
Occam's Banana
Uniparty bill would create "antisemitism monitors" at colleges
Replies
17
Views
1K
jmdrake
jmdrake
PAF
Billionaire Bill Ackman’s Plan to ‘Educate’ America’s Next Elite
Replies
3
Views
79
unknown
unknown
PAF
Trump Forces Declare War on Harvard
2 3
Replies
45
Views
391
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top