Galt's Gulch

Was this valid questioning or just an attack?

Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 5 years, 10 months ago to Politics
44 comments | Share | Flag

Seems, based on her obvious religious persuasion that she isn't one to be asking questions about human rights.
Let the debating begin.
SOURCE URL: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6001790078001/#sp=show-clips

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 10 months ago
    Like most "questioning" by politicians (and all court lawyers, too), there is much pontificating prior to the eventual question ... and no opportunity to reject the premise.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago
      That too. Yet people are forced to answer questions preceded with false premises all the time.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago
        Ayn Rand always answered questions in full context, refusing to accept false premises. A question based on a false premise is an invalid question and should not be answered otherwise. If someone tries to force you, then state the principle explicitly.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by BCRinFremont 5 years, 10 months ago
          “...a question based on a false premise...” Excellent comment. When asked to answer “yes” or “no” to the classic question, “Do you still beat your wife?” or the more salient, “Do you still copulate with porcine partners?”, the correct response is to question the premise, even if it is true.... Yes, after much soul searching, I went there....
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago
            If the premise is true then it isn't an invalid question. If it isn't then don't just "question" it, reject the whole package.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago
              I can see a whole lot severe contempt of court decrees if enough people started doing this. Punishment to put fear in people that may even think of doing this.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago
                In the context of a court you can provide a full answer exposing the fallacy. Forced "confessions" with honest answers not permitted would be a different level than what we have now.

                The current discussion here is about political manipulation for which one should reject the tactics with explanation, not just "question" the premise. The circus atmosphere manipulations often prevent full honest rebuttal, but you can usually at least start by rejecting the premises in refusing to sanction the misrepresentation. Don't waffle by only "questioning" it, then losing the ability to explain further in the kangaroo proceedings.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by BCRinFremont 5 years, 10 months ago
    I wonder if she swore in on a Koran when she pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ jdg 5 years, 10 months ago
      She did. And I'm sure that taqiyya applies.

      Congress could regain some needed credibility by expelling her now.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago
        If you mean that she lied in her oath of office, how does that differentiate her from most of the rest of them?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ jdg 5 years, 10 months ago
          She had a specific plan to deceive the people who elected her. This would be harder to prove, if true, on most other members of Congress, even those like Chuck Schumer who have expressed contempt for the Constitution.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago
            Most of them know they are lying and they aren't about to throw someone out for that, especially a politically correct religious Muslem treated as a "protected class". She would have to do something very specific that makes them politically squirm before they would do anything at all, let alone throw her out.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Eyecu2 5 years, 10 months ago
    I watched this yesterday. The feeling that I got from the questioning was that there was no good answer to her questions and she intentionally asked them in this manner in order to try to humiliate him. I think that he show incredible restraint by not verbally lashing out at his antagonist.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 5 years, 10 months ago
      It was, absolutely, an attack. She never really asked a question, so much as make a statement, to which he was never given the chance to respond to.
      The chairman of that circus should be boiled in oil for letting her continue with her tirade.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 5 years, 10 months ago
    Hello RMP,
    What a detestable, despicable display of unwarranted derision by a degenerate demagogue! The people of Minnesota should be reigning in this rabid beast.

    Radio Randy was right. The Chairman that silently presided over that 3rd degree abuse should be reprimanded. The "congresswoman" should be removed from office.

    If I were Mr. Abrams, I would have given her a piece of my mind so she had something to take up some of the vacuum between her ears, then I would have walked out.

    Is this the future? a new Moorish invasion here in America?
    This is how a great nation is destroyed from within... People invite in and vote their culture's demise...
    Galt! what is wrong with people?

    Regards,
    OA
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 5 years, 10 months ago
    She attacked him with subject matter it appeared she wasn't familiar with before reading it out loud in front of the cameras.

    No one can blame the Somalian community for coming out for her in droves. In their own country they wouldn't be able to vote. This was an exciting and privileged time for them. That's what makes her behavior so far so disappointing.
    This isn't about being a Muslim or anti-Semitic; this is about lacking the experience in tone and action to be a responsible representative to her constituents.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 5 years, 10 months ago
    I've seen a snippet of this on the news, but it's nice to see a bit more. Thanks, rockymountainpirate, for putting this up.

    This imbecile (Omar) is so full of herself and her "seat of power over others" that she couldn't hide the smirk as she pontificated (if such a word applies to a Muslim) her nonsense. She couldn't even read the script from her imam handlers. She started off by addressing Abrams as "Mr. Adams", so she can't even read his name correctly and stuttered through the rest as if she were just catching on to the English language. One word comes to mind every time I see or hear her: taqiyya.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 5 years, 10 months ago
    It would appear to me that Representative Omar does not realize she is a member of the United States House of Representatives. She is destructive, argumentative, and rude. Why doesn't she do the job she was elected to do?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years, 10 months ago
      She is a programed muslim to the core, with all the stupidity that comes from it.
      She is a radical muslim, idiotic barker wearing femininist, marxist barbarian with no conscience, no introspection and no intellect what so ever.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by term2 5 years, 10 months ago
        I don’t want to live around Muslims
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago
          Not all Muslims are like that. But I’ll tell you one thing, a lot more Muslims are like that than Christians are like that.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by term2 5 years, 10 months ago
            Islam is a very controlling and intolerant religion- even to the point of killing non believers. Not to say that religion in general isn’t controlling and intolerant- but not to that extent (at least in modern times)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by exceller 5 years, 10 months ago
              Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult.

              In its fullest form it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

              Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the others.

              Islamization begins when there are sufficient number of Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

              When politically correct, tolerant and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

              Here is how it works:

              As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part regarded as a peace loving minority.

              When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. See France.

              Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprising and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons.

              After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-triggering rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.

              This goes on to 80%, when nations can expect daily intimidation, State run ethnic cleansing, beheadings, stoning, and genocide as these nations drive out the infidels.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 5 years, 10 months ago
    How did Minnesotans vote for this hate mongering turp? AOC and her are the voice of the extreme leftist democrats that NP seems reluctant to rein in. I believe that the Dimms aim in this Congress is to create as much distruptoin as possible. So, very little will get done. It almost time for a revolution.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by exceller 5 years, 10 months ago
    This woman is a colossal disgrace not only for the House but as a human being.

    She quickly adopted Harris's arrogant questioning "style". Asking loaded questions and demanding a Yes or No reply is manipulative with the only goal to trap the victim.

    For her outsized arrogance she is an analphabet. She can't even read from a printed text.

    Minn can surely be proud of their selection as their rep!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 10 months ago
    The Congersswoman's own experience with human rights are irrelevant; it's tu quoque. Her ethnic background is even doubly irrelevant because all the matters in the individual.

    There must be rules for that type of hearing about whether Congresswomen can make non-question statements, ask questions with complicated premises, and ask absurd questions like if they think massacres are great.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo