• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    141
    ·
    9 months ago

    “Five percent of the population is now dead or wounded. Sixty percent of them are women and children. Some 200,000 housing units have been completely destroyed,” he continued. “Every university in Gaza has been bombed. There is now imminent starvation taking place.”

    “So why you would invite somebody who has done such horrific things to the Palestinian people?” Sanders added. “I think it’s a very bad idea.”

    Thank you Bernie.

  • 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    My country is red when I think it should be green. I’m not happy about it. Sanders always makes the most sense.

    • Nom Nom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      Saying such things makes them call you anti-Semitic. Even though you are supporting Bernie, a jewish man who is also calling for an end to this slaughter.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    Netanyahu hasn’t figured out that the US is a country on the decline yet? He should be asking for support elsewhere.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Which is what? Vote against any bills supporting them? Vote in favor of bills that are against them?

          Because they’re already doing that.

          So what else would you have them do?

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            9 months ago

            Pass legislation to boycott and sanction them. Which they’re NOT doing.

            The vast majority of Democrats are not even doing what little YOU’RE saying they are, instead going all in on the Zionist genocide-denying agenda of Biden and the GOP.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              First of all, Democrats don’t control congress. Expecting them to do the impossible is ludicrous.

              Secondly, we’re talking about these specific Democrats and not all Democrats. Please do not muddy the waters.

              So, again, what should these specific Democrats do?

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                9 months ago

                First of all, Democrats don’t control congress

                The GOP majority is so razor thin that the power of the speaker is pretty much the only difference between the current situation and them being in control. And the speaker’s chair is getting awfully wobbly…

                Secondly, we’re talking about these specific Democrats and not all Democrats. Please do not muddy the waters.

                Ok, that’s fair. My apologies.

                So, again, what should these specific Democrats do?

                Lobby their colleagues in the Senate and the White House for the aforementioned boycott and sanctions, rally their constituency behind the cause, generally do a better job of forcefully repudiating the criminal leader of a fascist apartheid regime currently committing genocide than saying lukewarm stuff like “it’s not a good time right now” and “too divisive”

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Lobby their colleagues in the Senate and the White House for the aforementioned boycott and sanctions, rally their constituency behind the cause,

                  What makes you think they aren’t doing that?

                  generally do a better jobof forcefully repudiating the criminal leader of a fascist apartheid regime currently committing genocide than saying lukewarm stuff like “it’s not a good time right now” and “too divisive”

                  They’re literally doing more than that. RTFA. Hell, read the one sentence quote from the article at the top.

                  So they’re doing what you want and it’s still not good enough.

  • S_204@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    76
    ·
    9 months ago

    Free speech being stifled by the Liberals. They’re more and more like the far right every day.

    • Agrivar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      9 months ago

      Explain to the class how exactly you think the concept of “free speech” applies to the leader of a foreign country looking to butter up our elected officials. He can go on Fox “news” if he wants a willing audience.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      9 months ago

      So you think “free speech” means a foreign leader who is actively committing a genocide must be allowed to speak directly to Congress?

      Do you think Putin should be able to? What about NK or China’s leaders?

      How pissed are you when peaceful protesters are attacked by cops?

      Because that actually is a free speech issue. But no one is entitled to give a speech to Congress.

      • S_204@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        9 months ago

        I think free speech is the ability for an invited speaker to speak freely in front of Congress. An active campaign to prevent that is absolutely stifling Free speech.

        Nowhere am I claiming that they are intending on putting him in jail for what he’s saying. That would be illegal. Stifling or subverting the intention of Congress is definitely stifling free speech.

        • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          9 months ago

          The speaker does not own the house and does not represent the whole of Congress. Opposing the speaker’s wishes is not the same as opposing free speech and an invite to speak is not a subpoena.

          If it was a subpoena to speak before Congress then it would be a violation to oppose under a contempt charge like any American citizen would get, just like the previous administration violated subpoenas that should have resulted in charges except for Senate Republicans who chose not to do their job and enforce the law.

          The speaker can invite whoever they want and the opposition party can try to prevent that within the bounds of the law if they oppose the invitee.

          • S_204@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            9 months ago

            No one says they own it, but they are quite literally the speaker of the House. So when they extend an invitation to someone to speak before the American public and that is undermined then they add us quite literally stifling Free speech.

            • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              No, you are equivocating the house speaker and Congress and they are not the same in who they represent. The house speaker represents the majority party and their constituents. Congress, including all of the representatives and senators from both parties, are there to represent the American people.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      “Freedom of Speech” is not “Freedom to get a free soapbox anywhere you feel like whenever you feel like”.

      In your version, anybody in the World has a right to address Congress whenever they feel like, in which case it should be first come first served and Netanyahu can join the line just everybody else (as giving priority to some would interfere in everybody else’s “Freedom”).

      • S_204@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        9 months ago

        No one is saying free speech is giving the entire world a soapbox wherever they want .

        We’re talking about someone who has been invited by the speaker of the House to speak in front of Congress. This isn’t any random person on a soapbox. This is the speaker of the House of Representatives making an official US government invitation to an ally. Undermining that is absolutely stifling Free speech.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m sorry but Free Speech is exactly about anybody, a.k.a. random, persons having a freedom, and there is no mention about “allies” or any other special groups having any more right to it than anybody else exactly because you can’t have one Freedom for some and a different Freedom for others: Free it’s for everybody, otherwise it’s not Free, it’s Controlled.

          You claim this is a Free Speech matter and then your entire argument is about speech for some people controlled by an invitation of a specifica person, the very opposite of Free.

          As I said, if Congress should be treated as a Free Speech space then ANYBODY has a right to go there and speak (and Netanyahu can join the queue), if only some people are allowed to go there, controlled by an invitation by a specific person, then it’s not Free Speech, it’s about a space with access limited by rules, be it to speak or something else, so it’s about Congressional Rules and your entire “argument” is total bollocks.

          You can’t try and bypass the rules by claiming it’s all about Free Speech at the very same time you want it for just this one person just this one time - that’s just complete total hypocrisy.

          • S_204@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            9 months ago

            Sure, you’ve convinced me, anyone that the speaker of the house thinks deserves that platform should have it then, ally or not.

            That you think limiting the ability of people to speak before Congress, isn’t stifling free speech is beyond absurd.

            • Agrivar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Why don’t you just give Bibi a nice reach-around, and leave the rest of us out of it?

              • S_204@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                I’m hardly concerned with who’s the one giving the speech and entirely concerned with the fact the Democratic party is working overtime to stifle Free speech before the American Congress.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s still not free speech tho.

          But in any case, why does it matter?

          Is Bibi a US citizen?

          • S_204@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            It’s absolutely free speech. I’m not saying someone needs to be arrested for violating a Constitution, but the fact that you’re supporting the subversion of free speech in Congress is absolutely ridiculous.

            It doesn’t matter whether the invited party is a citizen or not. They are invited by the speaker of the House once that platform is extended, It’s what matters…

            • Zyrxil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              You have not explained your reasoning at all on how saying they’re against Netanyahu speaking in front of the House is subversion of free speech and not just those representatives exercising their own freedom of speech. That is exactly what freedom of speech is, the right for everyone in the US to voice their opinions.

              In contrast, there is no right to speak in front of the House, especially not for a foreign politician. The Speaker can invite someone to speak, and if anyone physically interferes with the invitee’s speaking or shouts over them, that would be a violation of House procedures, not any infringement on their freedom of speech. They would not have been silenced or punished. They would not have been gagged (physically or otherwise). They would still be able voice their opinions.

              Actual examples of speech suppression would be searching and questioning pro-Palestinian journalists at the border, and arrests of peaceful non trespassing protestors.

              • S_204@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                The reasoning is abundantly clear. The speaker of the House quite literally by definition is in charge of who speaks before the house. Undermining and subverting the invitation of someone to speak before Congress is absolutely limiting free speech before the American public.

                That you’re trying to make this a legal argument, proves to me that you understand the problem here. I’m not claiming this is a legal issue. This is a moral issue and the Democrats who constantly claim moral superiority have lost credibility with this action. If they have a problem with what a foreign leader has to say then they should take to the floor with a rebuttal. Well, over half of Americans support this particular Ally. American people have jobs that are entirely independent on the support of this. Ally. Throwing a hissy fit and refusing to allow someone of that stature to speak before Congress is a very sad demonstration of weakness.

                Holding people at the border and arresting peaceful protesters are also examples of stifling Free speech. Both can be true regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. It’s wild to me watching liberals turning into the scaredy cats that they claim. The conservatives are with actions like this. Hardly progressive.

                • Zyrxil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  You’re literally claiming things that are not true. Voicing your opinion against a prospective (as in it hasn’t even happened) action by the Speaker of the House is a right afforded to everyone, including representatives. Speaking against something is not perversely somehow suppressing speech. Saying someone is not allowed to speak against something is suppressing of speech.

      • S_204@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        9 months ago

        A congressional campaign to stop an invited speaker from speaking is absolutely stifling free speech.

        • jaspersgroove@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I don’t give a fuck what you have to say and I’m not going to listen to you if you say it, and I’m certainly not going to let you walk into my house and spew your bullshit genocidal lies.

          There, did I stifle your free speech? No, I didn’t.

          It’s no different from what these congresspeople are doing. To say nothing of the fact that Netanyahu isn’t a fucking US citizen so the bill of rights doesn’t apply to him anyway

          • S_204@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yes, you’re exactly proving my point. You’re running away and hiding from people who don’t align with your thinking. That doesn’t help society. It just puts you further and further into your Echo chamber.

            Undermining The US government by scuttling an invited speaker is absolutely stifling Free speech whether you care or not.

            • jaspersgroove@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              9 months ago

              Ah right, because allowing fascists a platform to lie to people has worked out sooooo goddamn well in recent history.

              Keep licking those boots bud.

              • S_204@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                9 months ago

                Because allowing the speaker of the house to platform an ally who the American people are funding is exactly what the American people deserve.

                But instead of having the capacity to listen to a conflicting opinion, people are losing their minds like the choken headed morons they are.

    • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Not wanting people to speak before Congress is STIFLING FREE SPEECH but banning books, drag shows, certain religions in school, protests, pronouns, tribal modifiers and minority hairstyles is NOT!

      • S_204@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Of course they are. Where do you find me saying otherwise?

          • S_204@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            The classic Anti-Semitic Holocaust inversion. LMFAO. You bigots are so predictable, the Elder’s of Zion is about to become a Best Seller again based on your kind.

          • S_204@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            Classic Holocaust inversion Anti semitism. Y’all are just so predictable. Can’t handle reality so you revert to your classic tropes.