uncle bernard

“I believe Israel has a right to exist,” he said. “As a Jewish state?” the moderator pressed. “As a state with equal rights,” Mamdani replied. Which part of this do you disagree with?

Much of the song is about how the government unfairly classifies non-terrorists as terrorists. The point is he thinks the charges are corrupt and that they aren't terrorists. See the lyric: "The lists even have month-old babies ID’d as terrorists" This is why it's important we continue to teach courses in the humanities to our students. Being able to read, and not just the literal surface of words, is extremely important.

Let me know when you find an example of him condemning speech somewhere.

The "Holy Land 5" is a group of 5 Palestinian Americans who were arrested and charged for donating to charities the government deemed terrorist-supporting. It was a highly contentious court case, ending in a hung jury in round 1, and then a conviction in round 2. It's considered a landmark case in extension of the US Surveillance State and Patriot Act Post-9/11. It's still a highly contentious case, with lots of accusations of wrong-doing on the side of the government. The "Holy Land 5" refers to five men who were convicted in 2008 for funneling $12.4 million to Hamas, which is designated by the United States as a foreign terrorist organization. The men were leaders of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), which was once the largest Muslim charity in the United States. The convicted individuals are: Shukri Abu Baker Ghassan Elashi Mufid Abdulqader Abdulrahman Odeh Mohammad El-Mezain They were arrested in July 2004 and after a mistrial in 2007, were convicted in 2008 on various charges including conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Their sentences ranged from 15 to 65 years in prison. The case has been controversial. Critics argue that the convictions were based on questionable evidence and procedures, including the use of classified and hearsay evidence, and that the prosecution was politically motivated as part of the "War on Terror". Human Rights Watch has condemned the trial, according to Wikipedia. The defendants maintained that they were providing humanitarian aid to Palestinians on a "need, not creed" basis and were not aware of or supportive of Hamas's activities. However, the U.S. government argued that the HLF and its leaders actively supported Hamas under the guise of charitable giving, and that their actions directly aided the terrorist organization, according to the ADL. The case remains a point of contention, with ongoing debates about the role of charity, political affiliations, and the prosecution of terrorism in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are campaigns advocating for the release of the remaining individuals in prison, while others continue to defend the convictions and the government's efforts to dismantle the network, says Canary Mission.

That would be easy to prove. Can you give an example of him being against free speech? If you can, I will condemn his hypocrisy with you.

Yeah, ethnostates are bad. He's been very clear that he believes in Israel's right to exist as a state with equal rights. Do you disagree with that?

And yet, the socialist is the one who is refusing to do so despite your demands. How does that work?

Wait, are you saying there's a difference between governments and their people? Wouldn't that mean you could criticize the government of Israel without criticizing the Jewish people as a whole? I'm glad you finally figured this out!

Seems far more committed to it than you are considering you want him to denounce a phrase. He's said he doesn't use or agree with the use of the term, but doesn't believe it's the place of the mayor to police speech. Do you think politicians should be policing speech? Please limit your answer to yes or no.

He believes in free speech.

Literally anybody can run for public office. He's a random college student who filled out a form to run. He is far, far, far less significant than Charlie Kirk. My goodness, man. Also, he posted this after the ICE agents were ambushed, so you can relax in your hysterical attempt to hypothetically blame him for that attack.

You are an antisemite.

At every point on this forum, most notably with Hamas, I've always condemned the people you want me to condemn, and it never matters to you. You just pretend I didn't and carry on with your blabbering.

obviously. while we're wasting time, do you condemn pedophilia? your silence on this issue has been deafening.

Yes, that was the purpose of the rhetorical question. It is a terrible thing to do. My point had nothing to do with that and everything to do with Caveira trying imply this guy was a major democratic party figure when in actuality he's a random crank college student running for a city council seat in a random city. I'm not going to pretend there isn't a difference between an *actual* democrat politician saying these things and some random guy. One is far more serious than the other, and that doesn't excuse what this guy said at all. It just means I'm not going to jump on an outrage train about it like Caveira is trying to start. It would not be hard to find examples of random conservatives advocating violence on twitter. I'm not going to pretend the Republican Party has to answer for every one of them. That's ridiculous.

Except you're the one doing that, not me. You've made up a scenario in your head and then gotten mad about it as if it actually happened.

It was a rhetorical question. The purpose was for people to realize that this isn't actually a famous or important person like Caveira implied. I didn't think it would be that hard to get, but my apologies.

Correct, you guys seem to be under the weird assumption that I agree with this guy. I don't. He's crazy and stupid and deserves whatever minor law enforcement visit/punishment he'll receive for that tweet. He's also just a random guy and Caveira trying paint him as a normal, liberal city council candidate was an obvious cheap shot meant to push your guys' outrage buttons.

Sure, but you realize there are millions of people saying insane things every day on social media. Caveira was clearly trying to connect this guy to the Democratic Party. He's just a random a-hole on twitter. The irony here is that the only reason a significant amount of people might see this guy's tweet is because they made it go viral trying to dunk on liberals.

He has less than 500 followers. You guys are a joke. Where were you when a Laura Loomer, someone who has personally met with Trump, implied she wanted to kill every Latino in Ameriica. You didn't seem all that concerned then.

Let me rephrase: should I care about a random city council *candidate* from a random city who is not going to get elected? Googled him. He's a college student who ran in 2021 and got 1% of the vote. This is just a random guy.

Are we supposed to care about a candidate for city council? Do you know how many lunatics run for city council?

Are we supposed to know who that is?

The good news is Jimmy is already used to getting shoved in lockers.

The donors on the list are more important than politicians here. That's the number one reason so many people in both parties have an interest in keeping the list secret. If their donors are publicly on the list, they can't keep taking money. Electioneering is a billion dollar industry in this country. Summer houses in the Hamptons rely on that money flowing. The political class can't afford to lose Les Wexner or Glenn Dubin's money.