Of course you can criticize them… unless your name is Trump. Then you would be called a Nazi.
I think you posted a strawman. A strawman is essentially using sarcasm against one’s own made up statement. It’s really kinda like masturbation…which is of course OK if that’s all you got. (Notice the gratuitous open shirt adolescent chest of the talkative guy in your video.) 
Thank you. I will enjoy the holidays. Inshallah.
@Call_me_Ishmael since you seem to like definitions so much why don’t you use the correct definition of a strawman argument.
A strawman is not what you described. In fact, you constantly deflecting on this thread was closer to being a strawman.
Here’s the definition:
A strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.
That’s what I said, Dude. It’s self made gratification in a debate. Since he could not find gratification in debating me, he decided it was easier to debate himself. And he - as many strawman daddys do - employed sarcasm to animate his strawman son.
He said
“Oh no we can’t criticize ■■■■”
See how that works! 
Then I guess you should go back and tell hobby lobby to start passing out contraception against its religious belief then… The fact of the matter is, the government is treading a very thin line in telling people that they MUST do business with some country even if it is contrary to their own beliefs and desires (if those beliefs and desires align themselves with other international organizations). It can set conditions for federal contracts if it wants but to force private business to do business with another country does indeed stretch into constitutional overreach… Of course their are some people the believe that the federal government is perfectly within its rights to tell you who you must hire by using a twisted version of the commerce clause too…
Little matter of the ‘Pursuit of Happiness’ thing…It’s amazing to me just where our ‘Conservatives’ stand on issues of the constitution.
You just can’t see through the egregious nature of your argument. I am forced by the US Federal government to buy a product that I would otherwise choose not to because if the government can prove that my personal feelings align with the feelings of some other country or foreign agency I am now somehow, by inference, a foreign agent and will be punished accordingly. This has nothing to do with Israel for me, it has to do with the US government telling me who I MUST believe is good or bad and contrary to what you might think, much of the propaganda used to push this bit of law comes from a foreign entity itself and their political organizations in our own country. Interesting that we are allied with a country simply because the US Federal Government demands that we are allied with them… so much for ‘We The People’…
This is why I think that this bill is so wrong. It’s none of the government’s business who or what I boycott and why. That’s my business and my personal decision as a consumer. The fact that a foreign country is using their lobby groups to write laws that will impact US citizens is bullshit. I don’t care what country it is, it’s not right.
Yes this is what the founder’s had in mind. A foreign religious ethno-state imposing their will on the American people.
The neocon combination of enthusiastic support for leftist/ anti-White social issues and open borders, coupled with radical, expansionist ■■■■■■ ethnonationalism, AND globalist interventionism - all in the same (((individuals))) - was always a little too obvious on any close examination.
Very vulnerable to goyim knowing.
So are you ignoring the fact that the government does not care who or what you boycott? “Boycott” has a special meaning in this legislation and it has nothing to do with whether you buy SodaStream or not.
Try reading the bill.
You seem angry. You can’t reason well when you are angry.
Ehh… we have allies. We support allies. Always have. Always will. We especially support democracies.
It was a misrepresentation. As stated repeatedly nothing in this bill prevents anyone from criticizing Israel.
Try reading the bill with someone who can explain the words to you. Nothing in this bill prevents you as an individual from boycotting any company or goods made in any country.
This bill doesn’t force you to buy anything. Try reading it for yourself instead of getting your “information” from ■■■ Hating NeoNazis.
This bill says that if you chose to boycott Israel and its producers and the US government it its infinite ability to invent crimes can tie your boycott to that of a boycott sponsored and advocated by a foreign government then you are guilty of violating this act… So while I not forced to buy anything, should I choose to buy a product that is made in both Israel and Germany and I choose to buy the German products because I am refusing to buy the Israeli produce and the US government takes note… I can be penalized. Some of the more egregious elements of this bill have already been challenged and removed. Try reading it for what it says… and for what we see every day that the US federal government is capable of when they so choose…
No, it says no such thing.
Well then explain to this rather thick mind of mine just what it does say since I seem to have a comprehension block that I am unaware of.
You are free to buy what you want no matter where it is manufactured as long as it’s a legal product.
Then this law is absolutely meaningless and has no affect on business or the private individual of the US what so ever? You are saying that this law they are putting through congress has no consequences on how and who Americans trade with in foreign countries… If you are going to tell me I’m full of crap… something a bit more profound than “You are free to buy what you want no matter where it is manufactured as long as it’s a legal product” is in order…
You claimed
Which is absolutely false. You are free to buy any legal product no matter where it is made.
Read the text of the bill as I said instead of Neo Nazi ■■■ hating propaganda.
There is one version of the bill.
Introduced in Senate (03/23/2017)
115th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 720
To amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to include in the prohibitions on boycotts against allies of the United States boycotts fostered by international governmental organizations against Israel and to direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States to oppose boycotts against Israel, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 23, 2017
Mr. Cardin (for himself and Mr. Portman) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
A BILL
To amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to include in the prohibitions on boycotts against allies of the United States boycotts fostered by international governmental organizations against Israel and to direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States to oppose boycotts against Israel, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Israel Anti-Boycott Act”.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The United Nations Human Rights Council (in this section referred to as the “UNHRC”) has long targeted Israel with systematic, politically motivated, assaults on its legitimacy designed to stigmatize and isolate Israel internationally.
(2) The UNHRC maintains a permanent agenda item known as “Item 7” to ensure that Israel will be criticized at every gathering of the UNHRC.
(3) At its 31st session on March 24, 2016, the UNHRC targeted Israel with a commercial boycott, calling for the establishment of a database, such as a “blacklist”, of companies that operate, or have business relations with entities that operate, beyond Israel’s 1949 Armistice lines, including East Jerusalem.
(4) At its 32nd session in March 2017, the UNHRC is considering a resolution pursuant to agenda item 7 to withhold assistance from and prevent trade with “territories occupied since 1967”, including East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, stating that businesses that engage in economic activity in those areas could face civil or criminal legal action.
(5) For a half century, Congress has combated anti-Israel boycotts and other discriminatory activity under the Export Administration Act of 1979 (as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), under part VI of title X of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94–455; 90 Stat. 1649) (commonly referred to as the “Ribicoff Amendment”), in free trade agreements with Bahrain and Oman, and in Saudi Arabia’s accession negotiations to the World Trade Organization.
(6) The recent action of the UNHRC is reminiscent of the Arab League Boycott, which also called for the establishment of a “blacklist” and promoted a primary, as well as a secondary and tertiary, boycott against Israel, targeting United States and other companies that trade or invest with or in Israel, designed to harm Israel, any business operating in, or doing business with, Israel, or companies that do business with companies operating in Israel.
(7) Congress recently passed anti-boycott, divestment, and sanctions measures in the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) and section 909 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. 4452), which establish, among other things—
(A) the opposition of the United States to actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel;
(B) requirements that the United States utilize trade negotiations to combat state-led or international governmental organization-led actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel; and
(C) reporting requirements regarding the actions of foreign countries or international organizations that establish barriers to trade or investment for United States companies in or with Israel.
SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
Congress—
(1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure their own companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel, and calls for the creation of a “blacklist” of companies that either operate, or have business relations with entities that operate, beyond Israel’s 1949 Armistice lines, including East Jerusalem;
(2) views such policies as actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel; and
(3) in order to counter the effects of actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel, encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–296; 128 Stat. 4075) through enhanced, governmentwide, coordinated United States-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas such as with respect to energy, water, agriculture, alternative fuel technology, civilian space technology, and security.
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO FOREIGN BOYCOTTS UNDER EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979.
(a) Declaration Of Policy.—Section 3(5) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4602(5)) (as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)) is amended—
(1) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
“(A) to oppose—
“(i) restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by foreign countries, or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by foreign countries, against other countries friendly to the United States or against any United States person; and
“(ii) restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against Israel or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by any international governmental organization against Israel;”; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking “which have the effect” and all the follows and inserting the following: “which have the effect of furthering or supporting—
“(i) restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any foreign country, or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by any foreign country, against a country friendly to the United States or against any United States person; and
“(ii) restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against Israel or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by any international governmental organization against Israel; and”.
(b) Foreign Boycotts.—Section 8 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4607) (as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)(1)—
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)—
(i) by inserting “, or request to impose any boycott by a foreign country,” after “a foreign country”;
(ii) by inserting “, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against Israel or request to impose any boycott by any international governmental organization against Israel” after “pursuant to United States law or regulation”;
(B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting “or international governmental organization (as the case may be)” after “of the boycotting country”; and
(C) in subparagraph (D)—
(i) by inserting “, or requesting the furnishing of information,” after “Furnishing information”; and
(ii) by inserting “or with the international governmental organization (as the case may be)” after “in the boycotting country”; and
(2) in subsection (c)—
(A) by inserting “, or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by foreign countries,” after “foreign countries”; and
(B) by inserting “or restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against Israel or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by any international governmental organization against Israel” before the period at the end.
(c) Violations Of Section 8(a).—Section 11 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4610) (as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting “or (j)” after “subsection (b)”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(j) Violations Of Section 8(a).—Whoever knowingly violates or conspires to or attempts to violate any provision of section 8(a) or any regulation, order, or license issued thereunder shall be fined in accordance with section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705).”.
(d) Definition Of International Governmental Organization.—Section 16 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4618) (as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs (8) and (9), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
“(7) the term ‘international governmental organization’ includes the United Nations and the European Union;”.
(e) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and apply with respect to actions described in section 8(a) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)) taken or knowingly agreed to be taken on or after such date of enactment.
(f) Implementation.—The President shall implement the amendments made by this section by exercising the authorities of the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
SEC. 5. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL UNDER EXPORT-IMPORT BANK ACT OF 1945.
Section 2(b)(1)(B) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635(b)(1)(B)) is amended in the sixth sentence by inserting after “child labor),” the following: “or opposing policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel,”.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.—In this Act:
(1) ACTIONS TO BOYCOTT, DIVEST FROM, OR SANCTION ISRAEL.—The term “actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel” has the meaning given that term in section 102(b)(20)(B) of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. 4201(b)(20)(B)).
(2) INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.—The term “international governmental organization” includes the United Nations and the European Union.
(3) POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.—The term “politically motivated” means actions to impede or constrain commerce with Israel that are intended to coerce political action from or impose policy positions on Israel.
(b) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the established policy of the United States or to establish new United States policy concerning final status issues associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict, including border delineation, that can only be resolved through direct negotiations between the parties.