Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When did he defend Farrakhan and what exactly did he say in regards to defending him?
On the Wikipedia page for Ellison, the "Issues and Controversies" section has a specific entry regarding Louis Farrahkan and history with the Nation of Islam. The entry cites sources from CNN, The Washington Post, and MinnesotaDaily. See citations 108-112 in the references section.
In summary, Ellison did, in fact, have ties with Nation of Islam, and did indeed defend Farrakhan, and other openly anti-Semitic figures per cited sources above.
If the Dems want to run with that it's their choice .
He's also a socialist and that won't make America Great .
Socialism is a failed policy .
Socialism isn't a policy, it's an economic theory. One that exists in many countries through various political parties and movements. To say it's a failed policy demonstrates a lack of understanding on what socialism actually is.
I did my homework . Ellison defended a known leader of a hate organization .
A guy that doesn't just hate Jews but whites too and others .
Should of disqualified him .
Do some research on Farrakhan and get back to me .
You posted a link of the person whom he defended showing their views but did not actually post anything on Ellison's defense of this person. I posted a link addressing that issue where he very clearly shows regret for his mistake and explains why he made that choice in his past. You didn't respond. Why's that? Is it because you don't value debate?
Become thoughtful and get back to me. If you refuse to, never speak to me again. Ideally, you just wont' speak to anyone at all. Someone who refuses to think or be open minded is of no value to anyone, at least not in what they say.
I guess this is leftist privilege. If a conservative had 1 percent of the association with the KKK that Ellison had with Farrakhan, the media and leftist chorus would be continually screaming to high heaven about it. But It's ok when it's one of yours though. Hypocrisy, don't you think?
Yes I do think. A conservative who was once a member of the KKK but then renounces that should be forgiven, just as a liberal should. But at least this means we both think the OP is just blowing hot air, correct?
I think where a lot of confusion comes in is in conflating support for Israel with attitudes towards Jews. Historically we have had a lot of anti-Semitism in this country, coming most viciously from KKK, etc but also in milder form from conservatives (like Nixon, as was previously mentioned).
On the other hand, knee-jerk support for the state of Israel has been a mainstay of conservatives, especially evangelicals. As the only democracy in the Middle East, it is natural that we should ally with Israel, but some take that to an extreme where Israel can do no wrong vis a vis its Arab neighbors. Even most American Jews don't agree with that policy.
So when Ellison says we shouldn't just automatically support the Israeli government, or the fanatics who keep building in the West Bank, but also take into account the needs of the Arabs in the region, that in no way should be interpreted as being anti-Semitic. It is really two completely different things.
Regarding the ADL, Noam Chomsky accuses them of "having lost entirely its focus on civil rights issues in order to become solely an advocate for Israeli policy".(Wikipedia)
I think where a lot of confusion comes in is in conflating support for Israel with attitudes towards Jews. Historically we have had a lot of anti-Semitism in this country, coming most viciously from KKK, etc but also in milder form from conservatives (like Nixon, as was previously mentioned).
On the other hand, knee-jerk support for the state of Israel has been a mainstay of conservatives, especially evangelicals. As the only democracy in the Middle East, it is natural that we should ally with Israel, but some take that to an extreme where Israel can do no wrong vis a vis its Arab neighbors. Even most American Jews don't agree with that policy.
So when Ellison says we shouldn't just automatically support the Israeli government, or the fanatics who keep building in the West Bank, but also take into account the needs of the Arabs in the region, that in no way should be interpreted as being anti-Semitic. It is really two completely different things.
Regarding the ADL, Noam Chomsky accuses them of "having lost entirely its focus on civil rights issues in order to become solely an advocate for Israeli policy".(Wikipedia)
Frankly, from what I've seen, labeling Ellison as anti-Israel is entirely dishonest. I'm no expert on Ellison's policy and if anyone can find links (meaning I have to be careful who I ask; most of the links I've dealt with on this thread have been worthless) proving me wrong, by all means, but most of what I've seen would be described as being more agnostic than anything. He's voiced support for the Israel government, praising their democracy and economy, but has also said they need to work harder at achieving peace. As far as I can tell, the only people who can honestly have a problem with that, are those that feel Israel needs to dominate the region and get the Muslims out so that Jesus will come back. And people who base their political ideology off of mythology are, in a word, stupid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
