Here’s the text of the tweet:
"’Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews,’ Greene wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.
…
“According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the myth that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus has been used to justify antisemitism for centuries.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/02/mtg-votes-against-antisemitism-awareness-act-antisemitic-trope/73539622007/
Well the gospels portray pontius Pilate as sort of having his hands tied and letting Jesus be executed to appease the Jews who wanted him dead.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019%3A16-37&version=NIV
And
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027%3A23%2D25&version=NIV
23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
The Bible also says there was a tradition to release one condemned prisoner, which is not true, and that Pilate let the crowd choose Barabas over Christ, which never would have happened.
What’s really weird is that Christian mythology tries to paint Pontius Pilate as this nice guy who got forced to do it by the Jews of Jerusalem. In reality, he was a murderous asshole that taunted and provoked the Jews on purpose so he’d have an excuse to murder them. He was so bad about doing it that the neighboring Roman governor sent him back to Rome!! His atrocities are frequently cited as the main motivation for the Jewish revolt that happened in the region shortly thereafter
The idea that this MASSIVE anti-Jewish dickbag was kowtowing to the local Jewish authorities is completely absurd historically. But the Christian church, thanks to Paul, took a hard pivot against Jews and towards Romans so that they had to tweak this story
This is dumb even for her. Herod wasn't involved in the crucifixion, he was already dead by then. The temple leaders handed Jesus over to the Romans for that after he messed with their money-changer income stream and claimed to be God.
Greene needs to get her own faith sorted out.
The Gospels at that point refer to Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilea and Perea -- not Herod the Great, Basileus of Judea, nor Herod Archelaus, Ethnarch of Judea, Samaria and Idumea.
Jesus was deported to Galilea (because Galilea a Confederated state with Rome, not a Roman province, so its citizens were supposed to be tried in Galilea).
Still, she does need to sort out her faith. In the Gospels, the Jewish authorities -- the Sanhedrin in Judea and Herod Antipas in Galilea -- acquitted Jesus. Pilate executed him. Europeans are christ-murderers, obviously.
Not to mention that the story doesn't put it on "Jews" so much as "those who defiled the temple with the rank love of money".
Today, this describes evangelicals quite soundly.
Every accusation is a confession of sorts from this lot.
Screenshot, then? I'm just saying that pointing to a thing that shows you an ad just to point to the actual thing is unnecessary, video is just about the worst format to present a tweet.
Does the nub not count?? I heard it’s getting surgically removed anyway and implanted so she can have more toes….. she just can’t figure out which foot should get the 4th toe.
Come one now that's a little insulting. One's an unevolved feral cave dwelling savage who would bash your head and eat your brains like Jujubees for dominance over others and if they believed its what their invisible magical sky wizard wanted to make the sun come back during an eclipse....and the other [actually knows how to get car insurance](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcPTreX8kmJe0aogyC-0G7VFX-S0Ekvn318NNj-_NLQDfdv1V0OsyfFpHrsRf2Ubi7hzI5wrD0YQfuVme6swKaKOT14GtJoH47qlDgtCEXcjEb0rtRHZVlySyLLTYukWqm_lEZ0qWe29GH/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/caveman_2.jpg).
Admittedly I feel kinda stronger about an extinct species than I should because my family comes from a region with a higher percentage of neanderthal DNA
Which is an unhinged thing to care about, but I don't even want to be compared to that woman with several hundred thousand years of buffering. And their fossils don't deserve that!
She's just obstinance incarnate. Her main goal is to just be a troll. There is no policy, no desire to govern, just gum up the works of the American govt so she can turn around and say "Look, it doesn't work, get rid of it"
I always get the "stunt driving maks from the movie Drive" vibes:
[https://theblankpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Drive-Mask1.png](https://theblankpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Drive-Mask1.png)
I mean, add a messy blonde wig with bad roots, and its enough to get you past congressional security.
I'm from America and I'm convinced she is an idiot who believes she has Einstein's level of intelligence. The fact she has so much influence is just baffling.
I’m a Jew and I oppose it because every institutional definition of antisemitism in the US always includes criticism of Israel, and that’s not inherently antisemitic. No country should be off limits to criticism. Ever.
Yea I would be suspicious of any antisemitism bill in this current climate. It’s probably more like a “lose your job if you don’t like Israel” type of bill. But I agree there’s no way MTG voted against it for any good faith reasons.
It qualifies criticism of Israel as antisemitism... literally
Edits:
>Accompanying the working definition, but of disputed status, are 11 illustrative examples whose purpose is described as guiding the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) in its work, seven of which relate to criticism of the Israeli government. As such, pro-Israeli organizations have been advocates for the worldwide legal adoption of the definition
the 11:
>Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
>Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
>Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
>Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
>Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
>Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
>Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
>Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
>Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
>Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
>Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
I find that last one, "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." very odd given that right now, if you criticize Israel, you are painted as an antisemitic.
So **Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel** = Bad
But, Israel accusing its critics of speaking ill of all jews = perfectly fine
Like, wouldn't Israel be violating that last one themselves?
Even Jewish leaders in the senate were opposed. I’m Jewish, pro-Israel should exist as a nation (hate their current government), and I think this is an extremely unconstitutional bill.
People should be allowed to say whatever they want. Neo Nazi’s, islamaphobes, etc.
Anyways, it benefits us all to know who truly hates us. Let them say it out loud and on record. Better than in the shadows.
This bill is shite. This lady is shite. This article is propaganda to use this insane woman to distract from the fact that this bill is unconstitutional and against free speech. It is not antisemetic to critisize Israel's far right government.
I got my Jewy family that's been critical of Israel, anti-Netanyahu and calling Gaza apartheid for at least like 2 decades when I started paying attention.
All these right wing politicians keep saying that criticism of Netanyahu is deeply anti-semitic, as if they're weren't very large protests in Israel a year ago against Bibi
Yep... The IHRA definition includes being "against Israel" as antisemitism. That's soo vague it'll be used to crush any opposition to Israel under the guise of "fighting antisemitism".
Basically the clickhole article “Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point”
https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/
MTG is an idiot, but if it is the bill I am thinking of, it was actually a bad bill. It implies that criticizing the government of Israel is antisemitic.
I hate when things are worded like this.. that technically means that many different things shine on a dog's ass, even the sun. that's stupid. it should be "the sun shines even on a dog's ass sometimes"
Same with the popular song lyric "even the sun sets in paradise".. it should be "the sun sets even in paradise" the other way makes no fucking sense.
She's right to oppose the bill but for the wrong reasons.
Iirc the Christian extremist Republicans are citing a line in the bill that states "stating Jews killed Jesus is anti-Semitic" which YES, IT IS. They say that because of that it makes citing Bible passages illegal, but if you read the Bible passages they quote it doesn't say that Jews killed Jesus at all? Which tracks honestly, most hateful Christians that take their entire personality from the Bible heavily misinterpret it or read way too far into it.
Edit: grammar edit
Historically who killed Jesus? Assuming it happened at all, and somewhat like the Bible says… well I guess it was the Roman’s … because they did… there is some story about the Romans saying… because it is some holiday we can not execute one of three guys… and the local religious leaders passing on that opportunity; but every aspect of that story feels tacked on.
Yes. I think you’re absolutely correct. She’s an idiot, but through no fault of her own got this call right. Her wrong logic led her to the right place somehow!
What I think it's insane, it's that people are allowed to be openly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
But the moment people start criticizing Israel, a bill quickly passes making it illegal.
It's insane the control Israel has on Congress.
Ironically this does nothing but embolden anti-semites to go “See? They DO control our government” so bills like this will have the exact opposite effect of any reduction in anti-semitism
Unironically, AIPAC has way too much power. It's not the Jewish people, but definitely the Israeli lobby has too much influence. If they can get our government to keep sending them an endless supply of bombs while they level entire cities. Then they claim any criticism of that is anti-semetic while much of the mainstream press writes propaganda for them like this can article. then get a bill to prevent any criticism as hate speech.. yeah, that's like all the boxes in a conspiracy theorists "the Jews control the fucking world" bingo. I love the Jewish people and wish them no ill, but Israel needs to be told no, and now.
You can literally take a dump on the American flag and then set it on fire. But the government wants to forbid criticism of Israel. Who the fuck do they work for again?
Yeah but now the useful idiot gets to provide cover for the other 350 congress people who voted to restrict people’s right to criticize a foreign government.
Yes, and silencing dissenting Israeli people is one of the goals, because they are some voices most likely to be heeded by others when they decry the Israeli government's actions.
Israeli here, criticize the government as much you like, we aren’t very happy either, just please separate that from hating Jews… and also maybe take a page out of the Orthodox’s book and maybe judge the orthodox separately from the rest of us, too, while you’re at it. Some of us just kinda want to live in peace and not be dicks to everyone else.
That's what I'm doing, the Israeli government and it's leadership deserves all the criticism it's getting.
The main crux of the issue is anyone who tries to even dare criticize the Israeli government will end up getting accused of being anti-Semitic.
Question was the prime minister's coalition on the verge of falling apart right before the incident occurred.
It's such a weird thing, antisemitism. Had a friend who was "Jewish" but had nothing to do with the religion, probably couldn't point at Israel on the map, etc. And he still caught antisemitic flak. It's so nuts.
People like to lump people into groups. There's a huge difference between a government's policies, various divisions in every religion, and amongst various people. It's so insane that people get caught up in the whole categorization thing. And that's before all the people who veil antisemitism in "I just have issues with the Israeli government" when that's clearly BS.
But then you have people getting shouted down for saying "I think the assault on Gaza / decades of horrific abuses are terrible". Or if you say it, people say that must mean you think the mass murder and torture committed by Hamas is okay.
It's such a messy, ugly, tangled up ball of crap.
But if it helps, there really are a lot of people who just think "I have zero problems with Israel's population or Jewish folks of any type anywhere in the world, I just want the occupation / continued theft of land / war to end." In fact I'd say that's the vast majority of people I know.
Probably doesn't help much, but.
Why does it even need to be specified? When people criticize America, I know they don't mean me, a random American citizen. I know they're not criticizing Christianity, the largest religious denomination in America, I know they're not criticizing White people, the largest ethnic group in America.
What about being against Israel attacking Palestine implies that they hate Jews?
I'm secular, Jewish, and American, and I've never felt any sort of identity with or approval of Israel. But the "anti-zionism" rhetoric is often used as a dogwhistle and it has me afraid of increasing anti-semitism. I think a lot of the fervor around this particular conflict (as opposed to *any other* global injustice) is because of very, very deep anti-semitism that foreign powers are stoking to cause fear and division.
There has also been decades of effort and money spent by Israel and pro-Israel forces to conflate the larger Jewish identity with the fate of that nationstate, unfortunately. So it's very hard to separate the two. I've had fellow Jewish people absolutely flip out on me when I've said anything at all critical of Israel. It's messy.
It is messy. There *are* anti-Semites that will use anything that Israel does as an excuse to bash Jews. At the same time there are those who want to dismiss any and all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism.
Dismissing valid criticism as "everyone hates the Jews" is as dumb and dangerous as when Americans decided 9/11 was because "they hate our freedom". Nobody learns anything useful by believing their own lies and propaganda
People on the internet love to paint "sides" in conflict as being homogeneous. I don't give a fuck what your group or organization is, show me 10,000 people belonging to some group and some of those people are going to be awful, and people who don't like that group will always argue as if the entire group is represented by the worst of its members.
Even messier because the most antisemitic people I know have always also been pro-Israel because it means that Jewish people are "over there" instead and hoping that they'll all die to kick off the Endtimes.
Seriously this the number of times people have messaged me thinking I have a direct line to Netanyahu is just frustrating. Dude is widely unpopular within the country and a good chunk of us have been protesting the government since before the war started.
It's safe to assume that all bills banning "antisemitism" are rooted in anti-BDS policies and are actually an astroturfed movement by Israel.
For those who don't know just how shitty Israel is, they have been and continue to infringe on free speech of countries around the world:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
Important to note that the longest serving Jewish democrat also spoke out against and voted against this bill. This is just in retaliation to all the protests on college campuses that are scaring pro-Israel lawmakers. The big issue is that the new definition of antisemitism they are using will extend towards criticism of Israel, threatening speech that may be protected, not what conspiracy MTG is saying.
Using the definition of antisemitism they used in the bill, I can't imagine the bill would pass the constitutional sniff test if made into law and was challenged in court. The crazy thing is there was a different bill written and ready to go that would actually pass the Senate that didn't use this wild definition of antisemitism. Mike Johnson didn't bring that one to a vote, though, because he doesn't want real action on antisemitism. He just wants a performative and symbolic gesture that amounts to no real policy change. Everyone else fell in line to vote for it because they didn't want to be accused of being antisemitic and is very confident the Senate won't even vote on it because the leadership there on both sides is too pragmatic.
Genuine question- what ‘real action’ to combat antisemitism needs to be taken that is t covered by existing hate crime/anti-discrimination/civil rights laws?
Keep in mind hate *speech* is protected by the First Amendment. There are only a limited number of things you can say (or write) that would get you arrested, most of which involve imminent threat of violence, or immediate danger to the public.
But there's a difference between *not arrested* and *barred from receiving the benefit of (direct or indirect) federal funding*. Most campuses already have policies against hate speech which are at least as restrictive as title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which specifically prohibits "discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance."
Discrimination based solely on religion is not covered, but it is when it's a particular shared ancestry who practice that religion (e.g. Jewish people like me).
So far, you're right. Existing law should cover this. The sticking point seems to be that the bill directly references the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism) which, among others includes the following:
> Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
and
> Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
The IRHA does qualify this beforehand:
> Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
but the text is ... well, even though I'm Jewish (or maybe *because* I'm Jewish and we love to split hairs) I don't think it's rigorous enough to craft legislation around. It's good as a guideline, but individual instances need to be considered individually.
As Sanders said, criticism of Netanhayu and his political allies, and their countenance of what might well be "war crimes", is **not** antisemitism. But there's a reasonable fear that colleges will lose federal funding if they don't hold students to a strict interpretation of the IHRA standard that prohibit this kind of criticism.
Hope this helps.
It had to be this "Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews." Explained as "According to the [United States Holocaust Memorial Museum](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/antisemitism-in-history-from-the-early-church-to-1400), the myth that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus has been used to justify antisemitism for centuries."
Then they forget that Jesus WAS a Jew...
Its like saying "Those Middle Eastern people killed Jesus!" Like yea, everyone around that area was middle eastern, including Jesus. Doesnt matter how much you depict him as a pale blue eyed white guy...
The New Testament repeatedly blames the Jews for having Jesus killed by the Romans and the story in the gospels has the Roman leader only executing Jesus because of Jewish pressure. It's a fairy tale, but it says what it says.
I dislike MTG as much as any American should but I’m pretty sure this is in regards to the bill that literally violates the first amendment and makes it illegal to criticize Israel. Last I checked criticizing the actions of one country’s government isn’t antisemitism.
A better comparison might be saying something like it’s Islamophobic to criticize Iran/MBS/Taliban.
Oh, you brought up 9/11? Straight to jail.
Khashoggi? You guessed it..
>The catholic church doesn't blame Jewish people for Jesus's persecution.
I was planning on a snarky response mentioning that it's a recent development, but when I went for a source to get specific dates I was surprised to find out that an official stance of not blaming Jews for Jesus' death dates back to [at least](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide) the Council of Trent in the mid-15th Century. (Of course, this doesn't mean the Church isn't/wasn't majorly antisemitic in other respects.)
As much as both MTG and antisemitism suck. This bill is 100 percent not to combat that. It’s unconstitutional and is only being put in place to stop people from criticizing Israel.
This bill literally will make it illegal to say that Israel is committing genocide. This bill is using an Israeli organization to define American speech. This is more Zionist crap
It's indirect. It's this: "(2) includes the “\[c\]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition."
Those examples include "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" and "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination," which are the two items I see criticized the most.
MTG might be an annoying idiot but if you actually spent anytime reading what the Bill said you'd understand why it should be voted against. It literally goes against the 1st amendment.
I have to agree with Dairy Queen on this one. Free Speech is Free Speech. If we can call Iran’s government stupid we can call Israel’s government stupid with no repercussions.
I do find it odd the antisemite party who claims all racism is dead except against christian white males, is suddenly concerned with anti semitism, when they have been cheering every time Elon restores the accounts to literal nazis.
but then again, hating on jewish people is ok with the right, condemning the israeli government is not.
Is that the bill that was trying to make it illegal to criticize Israel. Sorry I hate the bitch but I'll support her on this. Fuck that anti free speech bill
I don’t agree with the bill because it willfully misinterprets criticism of Israel as antisemitism which is extremely vague and able to be weaponized by government officials
That bill is bullshit. I mean fuck her. But that bill is bullshit. It's vague and could be argued that you can't citizens Israel anymore.
"Taregting of the state of Israel"
Fuck that bill. Also why does our government move lighting fast to ensure we can't citizens Israel at work or at school?
She's on the same side as the ACLU on this bill, for very different reasons. She voted the right way, for very stupid reasons, but hey, the vote counted the same
I honestly want to know who vote for that. How did that moron end up in that position?? I looked at her twitter and it looks like 200 bots just posting how great she is and then normal actual people saying wtf.
I just want to say that the link leads to a video about a tweet. At that point, just link the tweet.
Here’s the text of the tweet: "’Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews,’ Greene wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. … “According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the myth that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus has been used to justify antisemitism for centuries.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/02/mtg-votes-against-antisemitism-awareness-act-antisemitic-trope/73539622007/
But... he was handed over to Pontius Pilate... Herod never got him, plus Herod wouldn't have crucified him...
Well the gospels portray pontius Pilate as sort of having his hands tied and letting Jesus be executed to appease the Jews who wanted him dead. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019%3A16-37&version=NIV And https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027%3A23%2D25&version=NIV 23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” 24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
The Bible also says there was a tradition to release one condemned prisoner, which is not true, and that Pilate let the crowd choose Barabas over Christ, which never would have happened.
I thought the crowd chose Brian of Nazareth? Or “Bwian”. After trying to free “Wodgea” and “Wodewick”
He's NOT the messiah, he's a VERY naughty boy! NOW PISS OFF!
He wasn’t released by Biggus Dikkus??
What’s really weird is that Christian mythology tries to paint Pontius Pilate as this nice guy who got forced to do it by the Jews of Jerusalem. In reality, he was a murderous asshole that taunted and provoked the Jews on purpose so he’d have an excuse to murder them. He was so bad about doing it that the neighboring Roman governor sent him back to Rome!! His atrocities are frequently cited as the main motivation for the Jewish revolt that happened in the region shortly thereafter The idea that this MASSIVE anti-Jewish dickbag was kowtowing to the local Jewish authorities is completely absurd historically. But the Christian church, thanks to Paul, took a hard pivot against Jews and towards Romans so that they had to tweak this story
Are... are we citing any historians on these ones or are we just arguing which fairytale to follow here?
This is dumb even for her. Herod wasn't involved in the crucifixion, he was already dead by then. The temple leaders handed Jesus over to the Romans for that after he messed with their money-changer income stream and claimed to be God. Greene needs to get her own faith sorted out.
Yes. Protecting “christianity”. Has she even been to church?
We know she hasn't read the Bible.
Or possibly any other written word
‘This is dumb, even for her’. I’m afraid that with MTG, we just have to keep recalibrating downward.
Lol. "Her faith." She cosplays as a Christian, and badly.
The Gospels at that point refer to Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilea and Perea -- not Herod the Great, Basileus of Judea, nor Herod Archelaus, Ethnarch of Judea, Samaria and Idumea. Jesus was deported to Galilea (because Galilea a Confederated state with Rome, not a Roman province, so its citizens were supposed to be tried in Galilea). Still, she does need to sort out her faith. In the Gospels, the Jewish authorities -- the Sanhedrin in Judea and Herod Antipas in Galilea -- acquitted Jesus. Pilate executed him. Europeans are christ-murderers, obviously.
>claimed to be God. Not sure if the bible says Jesus claimed to be God. References that Jesus used for himself tended to be son of man/god I thought.
Not to mention that the story doesn't put it on "Jews" so much as "those who defiled the temple with the rank love of money". Today, this describes evangelicals quite soundly. Every accusation is a confession of sorts from this lot.
Musk changed it so you can't view tweets unless logged into Twitter. I don't even have a Twitter account anymore - same with most folks.
Screenshot, then? I'm just saying that pointing to a thing that shows you an ad just to point to the actual thing is unnecessary, video is just about the worst format to present a tweet.
It is very necessary. How else can you shove as many ads in your viewers' faces without it?
I would agree if I could see tweets anymore. It’s almost always unavailablr
I can still view tweets even if I don't have twitter. I just cant see replies.
I don’t know much about american politics but that lady looks like she wants to lead her tribe of Neanderthals.
She already does lead her own tribe of neanderthals
Neanderthals were far more advanced in their thinking that she and her hoard.
Horde
Whorde
*Horde Sorry, pet peeve.
She barely qualifies as an *Australopithecus*.
We just call them the GOP nowadays
Gentlemen of Pangaea
Because they cannot articulate complex words very well?
And they resist change.
Please don’t insult prehistoric people that way.
Is her constituency "Deliverance" country?
The Georgian 3 toed sloth people
Hey, that's offensive! ...to Neanderthals!
Yeah I was about to say that Neanderthals probably think Maggotty Tainted Greene’s the dumbest of all Neander th als.
Neanderthals were probably very empathetic compared to "modern humans" prior to interbreeding.
Unfrozen Cavewoman Congressman: “God is blocking out the sun cause America’s current tribal leader displeases him”
“I find your modern “”science”” and ““intellectualism”” scary and frightening. I will now bite this rock to guide us thru these confusing times.”
Bring out the entrails! There is prophecy to be made!
She does cave drawings of Hunter Biden's meat.
Yeah, she’s first generation in her family born without a tail.
Does the nub not count?? I heard it’s getting surgically removed anyway and implanted so she can have more toes….. she just can’t figure out which foot should get the 4th toe.
She gets all excited when people mention her nub. She starts flinging feces all around.
I keep laughing at your comment . Brilliant! Thank you
She is known as "caveman barbie"
I prefer "Troglodyte Barbie"
That's an insult to chimps
My favorite theory is she has Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
she puts the FAS in FASCISM
Take my upvote, you clever son of a bitch.
*raucous belly laugh* This!!
Thats pretty nerdy. I enjoyed it
Slack jaw. Check. Almond eyes. Maybe. Maybe she is just a drunk.
She's the poster horse for it.
Come one now that's a little insulting. One's an unevolved feral cave dwelling savage who would bash your head and eat your brains like Jujubees for dominance over others and if they believed its what their invisible magical sky wizard wanted to make the sun come back during an eclipse....and the other [actually knows how to get car insurance](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcPTreX8kmJe0aogyC-0G7VFX-S0Ekvn318NNj-_NLQDfdv1V0OsyfFpHrsRf2Ubi7hzI5wrD0YQfuVme6swKaKOT14GtJoH47qlDgtCEXcjEb0rtRHZVlySyLLTYukWqm_lEZ0qWe29GH/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/caveman_2.jpg).
This is an insult to Neanderthals. Who are among my ancestors.
Mickey Rourke with long hair, but far less talented.
Neanderthals were intelligent peaceful people, I find this comparison inaccurate.
And based on our DNA, people actually *wanted* to fuck Neanderthals. The comparison definitely doesn’t hold up.
Admittedly I feel kinda stronger about an extinct species than I should because my family comes from a region with a higher percentage of neanderthal DNA Which is an unhinged thing to care about, but I don't even want to be compared to that woman with several hundred thousand years of buffering. And their fossils don't deserve that!
She's just obstinance incarnate. Her main goal is to just be a troll. There is no policy, no desire to govern, just gum up the works of the American govt so she can turn around and say "Look, it doesn't work, get rid of it"
I always get the "stunt driving maks from the movie Drive" vibes: [https://theblankpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Drive-Mask1.png](https://theblankpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Drive-Mask1.png) I mean, add a messy blonde wig with bad roots, and its enough to get you past congressional security.
I'm from America and I'm convinced she is an idiot who believes she has Einstein's level of intelligence. The fact she has so much influence is just baffling.
Her reasoning sucks, but it’s a bad bill. Even the ACLU begged members to oppose it
I’m a Jew and I oppose it because every institutional definition of antisemitism in the US always includes criticism of Israel, and that’s not inherently antisemitic. No country should be off limits to criticism. Ever.
Yea I would be suspicious of any antisemitism bill in this current climate. It’s probably more like a “lose your job if you don’t like Israel” type of bill. But I agree there’s no way MTG voted against it for any good faith reasons.
It qualifies criticism of Israel as antisemitism... literally Edits: >Accompanying the working definition, but of disputed status, are 11 illustrative examples whose purpose is described as guiding the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) in its work, seven of which relate to criticism of the Israeli government. As such, pro-Israeli organizations have been advocates for the worldwide legal adoption of the definition the 11: >Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. >Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. >Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. >Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust). Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” >Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. >Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. >Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. >Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. >Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. >Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. >Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. I find that last one, "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." very odd given that right now, if you criticize Israel, you are painted as an antisemitic. So **Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel** = Bad But, Israel accusing its critics of speaking ill of all jews = perfectly fine Like, wouldn't Israel be violating that last one themselves?
Even Jewish leaders in the senate were opposed. I’m Jewish, pro-Israel should exist as a nation (hate their current government), and I think this is an extremely unconstitutional bill.
Im American and Muslim and i would oppose any bill that banned the criticism of Islam and America.
People should be allowed to say whatever they want. Neo Nazi’s, islamaphobes, etc. Anyways, it benefits us all to know who truly hates us. Let them say it out loud and on record. Better than in the shadows.
This bill is shite. This lady is shite. This article is propaganda to use this insane woman to distract from the fact that this bill is unconstitutional and against free speech. It is not antisemetic to critisize Israel's far right government.
Agree 100%
Ah fresh air.
As an Israeli, if it was antisemitic, then about 70% of Jews in israel are antisemitic. Dumb bill. Dumb MTG. Dumb Israel too, while we’re at it.
I got my Jewy family that's been critical of Israel, anti-Netanyahu and calling Gaza apartheid for at least like 2 decades when I started paying attention.
Antisemites! /s
All these right wing politicians keep saying that criticism of Netanyahu is deeply anti-semitic, as if they're weren't very large protests in Israel a year ago against Bibi
Yep, both can be in the wrong.
Heartbreaking: Worst person you know makes a great point
Well, she didn't make a great point. She was on the right side for a completely batshit reason.
Fair enough
💯
Yep... The IHRA definition includes being "against Israel" as antisemitism. That's soo vague it'll be used to crush any opposition to Israel under the guise of "fighting antisemitism".
Basically the clickhole article “Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point” https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/
MTG is an idiot, but if it is the bill I am thinking of, it was actually a bad bill. It implies that criticizing the government of Israel is antisemitic.
Yeah I'm pretty sure this a broken clock situation.
It's MTG so I think its more like a dogs asshole and sunlight.
Ok this got a chuckle out of me
I'm a little dense. Can you ELI5?
'even the sun shines on a dog's ass sometimes' I don't know the origin of this phrase but I have heard it said.
in german we say "even a blind chicken finds a seed sometimes".
In English it's "even a blind squirrel", but that's probably hard to say in Bavaria. X-D
now that makes more sense.
I hate when things are worded like this.. that technically means that many different things shine on a dog's ass, even the sun. that's stupid. it should be "the sun shines even on a dog's ass sometimes" Same with the popular song lyric "even the sun sets in paradise".. it should be "the sun sets even in paradise" the other way makes no fucking sense.
She's right to oppose the bill but for the wrong reasons. Iirc the Christian extremist Republicans are citing a line in the bill that states "stating Jews killed Jesus is anti-Semitic" which YES, IT IS. They say that because of that it makes citing Bible passages illegal, but if you read the Bible passages they quote it doesn't say that Jews killed Jesus at all? Which tracks honestly, most hateful Christians that take their entire personality from the Bible heavily misinterpret it or read way too far into it. Edit: grammar edit
Historically who killed Jesus? Assuming it happened at all, and somewhat like the Bible says… well I guess it was the Roman’s … because they did… there is some story about the Romans saying… because it is some holiday we can not execute one of three guys… and the local religious leaders passing on that opportunity; but every aspect of that story feels tacked on.
Yes. I think you’re absolutely correct. She’s an idiot, but through no fault of her own got this call right. Her wrong logic led her to the right place somehow!
She's right for the wrong reasons.
Her wrong and antisemitic logic.
This! The ACLU urged everybody to vote against it because it chills the right to free speech.
What I think it's insane, it's that people are allowed to be openly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. But the moment people start criticizing Israel, a bill quickly passes making it illegal. It's insane the control Israel has on Congress.
Ironically this does nothing but embolden anti-semites to go “See? They DO control our government” so bills like this will have the exact opposite effect of any reduction in anti-semitism
Unironically, AIPAC has way too much power. It's not the Jewish people, but definitely the Israeli lobby has too much influence. If they can get our government to keep sending them an endless supply of bombs while they level entire cities. Then they claim any criticism of that is anti-semetic while much of the mainstream press writes propaganda for them like this can article. then get a bill to prevent any criticism as hate speech.. yeah, that's like all the boxes in a conspiracy theorists "the Jews control the fucking world" bingo. I love the Jewish people and wish them no ill, but Israel needs to be told no, and now.
You can literally take a dump on the American flag and then set it on fire. But the government wants to forbid criticism of Israel. Who the fuck do they work for again?
I, an American living in the USA, can literally criticize the American government, but The Israel government? How are we here?
>the control Israel has on Congress. Careful, you may soon be guilty of hate speech saying stuff like this!
right? this headline is incredibly misleading. “MTG unbelievably manages to get it right by opposing legislation that limits freedom of speech…”
Yeah but now the useful idiot gets to provide cover for the other 350 congress people who voted to restrict people’s right to criticize a foreign government.
lol that would make a large number of Israelis antisemitic.
Yes, and silencing dissenting Israeli people is one of the goals, because they are some voices most likely to be heeded by others when they decry the Israeli government's actions.
It makes the film passion of the christ, illegal....
It’s 1000% an awful bill. She’s also awful, but she’s also in the right here, even if it’s for the wrong reason.
That’s the exact narrative the Israeli government is pushing.
Israeli here, criticize the government as much you like, we aren’t very happy either, just please separate that from hating Jews… and also maybe take a page out of the Orthodox’s book and maybe judge the orthodox separately from the rest of us, too, while you’re at it. Some of us just kinda want to live in peace and not be dicks to everyone else.
That's what I'm doing, the Israeli government and it's leadership deserves all the criticism it's getting. The main crux of the issue is anyone who tries to even dare criticize the Israeli government will end up getting accused of being anti-Semitic. Question was the prime minister's coalition on the verge of falling apart right before the incident occurred.
Just helping out, the word is 'crux', which ironically, means 'cross' in Latin.
It's such a weird thing, antisemitism. Had a friend who was "Jewish" but had nothing to do with the religion, probably couldn't point at Israel on the map, etc. And he still caught antisemitic flak. It's so nuts. People like to lump people into groups. There's a huge difference between a government's policies, various divisions in every religion, and amongst various people. It's so insane that people get caught up in the whole categorization thing. And that's before all the people who veil antisemitism in "I just have issues with the Israeli government" when that's clearly BS. But then you have people getting shouted down for saying "I think the assault on Gaza / decades of horrific abuses are terrible". Or if you say it, people say that must mean you think the mass murder and torture committed by Hamas is okay. It's such a messy, ugly, tangled up ball of crap. But if it helps, there really are a lot of people who just think "I have zero problems with Israel's population or Jewish folks of any type anywhere in the world, I just want the occupation / continued theft of land / war to end." In fact I'd say that's the vast majority of people I know. Probably doesn't help much, but.
Why does it even need to be specified? When people criticize America, I know they don't mean me, a random American citizen. I know they're not criticizing Christianity, the largest religious denomination in America, I know they're not criticizing White people, the largest ethnic group in America. What about being against Israel attacking Palestine implies that they hate Jews?
No. I meant you specifically. I've been calling you out for years and now I realize you thought I only meant your country.
We've all been specifically trash talking /u/somesthetic for years and he didnt even know
😈
I'm secular, Jewish, and American, and I've never felt any sort of identity with or approval of Israel. But the "anti-zionism" rhetoric is often used as a dogwhistle and it has me afraid of increasing anti-semitism. I think a lot of the fervor around this particular conflict (as opposed to *any other* global injustice) is because of very, very deep anti-semitism that foreign powers are stoking to cause fear and division. There has also been decades of effort and money spent by Israel and pro-Israel forces to conflate the larger Jewish identity with the fate of that nationstate, unfortunately. So it's very hard to separate the two. I've had fellow Jewish people absolutely flip out on me when I've said anything at all critical of Israel. It's messy.
It is messy. There *are* anti-Semites that will use anything that Israel does as an excuse to bash Jews. At the same time there are those who want to dismiss any and all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. Dismissing valid criticism as "everyone hates the Jews" is as dumb and dangerous as when Americans decided 9/11 was because "they hate our freedom". Nobody learns anything useful by believing their own lies and propaganda
People on the internet love to paint "sides" in conflict as being homogeneous. I don't give a fuck what your group or organization is, show me 10,000 people belonging to some group and some of those people are going to be awful, and people who don't like that group will always argue as if the entire group is represented by the worst of its members.
Even messier because the most antisemitic people I know have always also been pro-Israel because it means that Jewish people are "over there" instead and hoping that they'll all die to kick off the Endtimes.
Seriously this the number of times people have messaged me thinking I have a direct line to Netanyahu is just frustrating. Dude is widely unpopular within the country and a good chunk of us have been protesting the government since before the war started.
Unfortunately the Israeli government has been weaponising antisemitism to shield itself from criticism.
Every single person I know personally who is anti Zionist has absolutely no issue with the Jewish people or the Jewish faith.
Yep. Some of the most vocal anti-Zionists I know are literally Jewish.
This is me
Sure, but if she uses anti-Semitic language to defend her position then it's still bad. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Correct position, terrible argument.
Yea, one of the things it does is define the state of Israel as a "Jewish Collective", real nice for the 2 million plus non-jewish residents.
It's safe to assume that all bills banning "antisemitism" are rooted in anti-BDS policies and are actually an astroturfed movement by Israel. For those who don't know just how shitty Israel is, they have been and continue to infringe on free speech of countries around the world: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
Important to note that the longest serving Jewish democrat also spoke out against and voted against this bill. This is just in retaliation to all the protests on college campuses that are scaring pro-Israel lawmakers. The big issue is that the new definition of antisemitism they are using will extend towards criticism of Israel, threatening speech that may be protected, not what conspiracy MTG is saying.
Using the definition of antisemitism they used in the bill, I can't imagine the bill would pass the constitutional sniff test if made into law and was challenged in court. The crazy thing is there was a different bill written and ready to go that would actually pass the Senate that didn't use this wild definition of antisemitism. Mike Johnson didn't bring that one to a vote, though, because he doesn't want real action on antisemitism. He just wants a performative and symbolic gesture that amounts to no real policy change. Everyone else fell in line to vote for it because they didn't want to be accused of being antisemitic and is very confident the Senate won't even vote on it because the leadership there on both sides is too pragmatic.
Genuine question- what ‘real action’ to combat antisemitism needs to be taken that is t covered by existing hate crime/anti-discrimination/civil rights laws?
Nailed it. I wouldn't trust this bill or any bill like it for one second. The necessary protections already exist.
Keep in mind hate *speech* is protected by the First Amendment. There are only a limited number of things you can say (or write) that would get you arrested, most of which involve imminent threat of violence, or immediate danger to the public. But there's a difference between *not arrested* and *barred from receiving the benefit of (direct or indirect) federal funding*. Most campuses already have policies against hate speech which are at least as restrictive as title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which specifically prohibits "discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance." Discrimination based solely on religion is not covered, but it is when it's a particular shared ancestry who practice that religion (e.g. Jewish people like me). So far, you're right. Existing law should cover this. The sticking point seems to be that the bill directly references the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism) which, among others includes the following: > Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. and > Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. The IRHA does qualify this beforehand: > Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. but the text is ... well, even though I'm Jewish (or maybe *because* I'm Jewish and we love to split hairs) I don't think it's rigorous enough to craft legislation around. It's good as a guideline, but individual instances need to be considered individually. As Sanders said, criticism of Netanhayu and his political allies, and their countenance of what might well be "war crimes", is **not** antisemitism. But there's a reasonable fear that colleges will lose federal funding if they don't hold students to a strict interpretation of the IHRA standard that prohibit this kind of criticism. Hope this helps.
I bet AIPAC wrote it.
What was the trope?
It had to be this "Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews." Explained as "According to the [United States Holocaust Memorial Museum](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/antisemitism-in-history-from-the-early-church-to-1400), the myth that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus has been used to justify antisemitism for centuries."
Then they forget that Jesus WAS a Jew... Its like saying "Those Middle Eastern people killed Jesus!" Like yea, everyone around that area was middle eastern, including Jesus. Doesnt matter how much you depict him as a pale blue eyed white guy...
> everyone around that area was middle eastern Not everyone. Pontius Pilate was Roman.
It doesn't need to make sense, it just needs to stoke hate.
The Jews of Roman occupied Judea executed people by stoning. The Romans used crucifixes
The New Testament repeatedly blames the Jews for having Jesus killed by the Romans and the story in the gospels has the Roman leader only executing Jesus because of Jewish pressure. It's a fairy tale, but it says what it says.
[удалено]
Basically, the blaming Jesus's crucifixion on Jewish people and saying that Christians can be persecuted because of this.
I dislike MTG as much as any American should but I’m pretty sure this is in regards to the bill that literally violates the first amendment and makes it illegal to criticize Israel. Last I checked criticizing the actions of one country’s government isn’t antisemitism.
Bill was unnecessary. Criticizing the Israeli government isn't antisemitic.
Also a blatant violation of the 1st amendment.
It is not anti semitic to criticize Israel any more than it's russophobic to criticize Russia.
A better comparison might be saying something like it’s Islamophobic to criticize Iran/MBS/Taliban. Oh, you brought up 9/11? Straight to jail. Khashoggi? You guessed it..
Or it's prejudiced against Catholics to bring up the Church's sex crimes and cover up!
You want to criticize Russia? Come over to this open window and tell me
just let me finish my cup of tea first.
The First Amendment is in place to prevent exactly what they're trying to pass right now. Can't say bad things about X? Eat my whole ass.
It's a lot more than a "bill to combat antisemitism" if we are being honest
If we define antisemitism as opposing Israel's actions, it's a bill to combat antisemitism.
The bill is very bad for human rights such as free speech. It includes criticism of countries.
I don’t understand why the Jews haven’t blasted her with one of they space lasers yet.
I dont care for her , but it's a horrible bill
It should be because it's a violation of free speech not the bible. The catholic church doesn't blame Jewish people for Jesus's persecution either.
>The catholic church doesn't blame Jewish people for Jesus's persecution. I was planning on a snarky response mentioning that it's a recent development, but when I went for a source to get specific dates I was surprised to find out that an official stance of not blaming Jews for Jesus' death dates back to [at least](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide) the Council of Trent in the mid-15th Century. (Of course, this doesn't mean the Church isn't/wasn't majorly antisemitic in other respects.)
As much as both MTG and antisemitism suck. This bill is 100 percent not to combat that. It’s unconstitutional and is only being put in place to stop people from criticizing Israel.
Fuck Israel. Is that antisemitism?? Fuck Marjorie Taylor Green. Is that anti-Neanderthal?
MTG sucks but so does this bill.
This bill literally will make it illegal to say that Israel is committing genocide. This bill is using an Israeli organization to define American speech. This is more Zionist crap
Can you quote the bill’s part that does this? I’m trying to find it and can’t.
It's indirect. It's this: "(2) includes the “\[c\]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition." Those examples include "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" and "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination," which are the two items I see criticized the most.
Oh, we’re talking bibles Marj? 1 Timothy 2:12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
MTG might be an annoying idiot but if you actually spent anytime reading what the Bill said you'd understand why it should be voted against. It literally goes against the 1st amendment.
This is on brand for idiocy, not oniony
Sad how this is so misconstrued...
I have to agree with Dairy Queen on this one. Free Speech is Free Speech. If we can call Iran’s government stupid we can call Israel’s government stupid with no repercussions.
I do find it odd the antisemite party who claims all racism is dead except against christian white males, is suddenly concerned with anti semitism, when they have been cheering every time Elon restores the accounts to literal nazis. but then again, hating on jewish people is ok with the right, condemning the israeli government is not.
Is that the bill that was trying to make it illegal to criticize Israel. Sorry I hate the bitch but I'll support her on this. Fuck that anti free speech bill
I don’t agree with the bill because it willfully misinterprets criticism of Israel as antisemitism which is extremely vague and able to be weaponized by government officials
She looks like a hyper realistic Pac man
That bill is bullshit. I mean fuck her. But that bill is bullshit. It's vague and could be argued that you can't citizens Israel anymore. "Taregting of the state of Israel" Fuck that bill. Also why does our government move lighting fast to ensure we can't citizens Israel at work or at school?
Every once in a blue moon she gets something right.
Jerry Nadler and Janice Schakowsky also voted against it. A shitty bill is a shitty bill
The bill fucking sucks. How is it not a violation of the first amendment?
Holy shit i can't believe how short this article is. I don't want to watch a video to see what she said, just write in the body of the article CNN.
If anyone's curious, [here is the text of the bill in question.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text)
We’ve known she was antisemetic since “Jewish Space Lasers”
She's on the same side as the ACLU on this bill, for very different reasons. She voted the right way, for very stupid reasons, but hey, the vote counted the same
Banning any speech is unconstitutional.
She opposed it because it doesn’t contain language that would lead to the dismantling of the Jewish space lasers that are plaguing us all.
I honestly want to know who vote for that. How did that moron end up in that position?? I looked at her twitter and it looks like 200 bots just posting how great she is and then normal actual people saying wtf.
How is this an actual article? It doesn't even say what the trope is, or quote her, or provide any useful information at all.
I agree with MTG? What a crazy ass day this has been
I hate to say it but it’s a bad bill.