Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Opinions requested by an antipodean

0 helpful
95 replies

by jardinier

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

If it is not yet official, can we start with the assumption that Hillary will run with Obama. If they win government, how do you think this will affect America?

Incidentally the third (but far from insignificant) member of the COW will start withdrawing its troops from Iraq. I am not sure of the schedule but our PM Kevin Rudd has declared that they have done all they can do.

A Labor PM would never have sent Australian troops to Iraq in the first place.

Do you think a Democrat Government in the USA would have instigated the invasion?

Several questions, lots of opinions sought.

95 replies

by delbertpgh

I think Obama would be crazy to take Hillary on as VP. She is no team player, and she is a Democratic party loyalist only so long as the party is behind her. She'll divide the party, the campaign, and the government, so long as she is number 2. The idea of her as V.P. only has legs in so far as so many of her supporters are crazy mad in love with her, are heartbroken at their avatar's loss, and need something to stop hating the man (the underqualified black man) who beat her. Actually, a couple months to cool off should fix that. So long as Hill doesn't keep stirring up the hate, that is.

I can't see anybody, Republican or Democrat, so deluded as the Bush team was that they could take over Iraq and run it with no problems. Just about anyone would see a war as a gamble, everyone knew there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and there were certainly less risky ways of dealing with the WMD threat (which turned out to be an international hallucination) than invading the place with a land army.

George W. Bush has a unique combination of personality traits and beliefs that led him to foist this disaster on us, in the faith that it was a good idea:
1) GWB believed in action, not reflection
2) GWB has a leadership style that holds an executive should not know too much, but should trust his subordinates to place the best choices before him, from which he will make the final decision
3) GWB put complete faith in neo-con ideologues, who wrote the articles and did the research he was too bored personally to attend to, and whose conclusions aligned with his overall world view
4) GWB believed the world was ripe for change and that the U.S. had spent a decade losing its way, and that a bold executive could implement change that would remake the world in our favor for the next fifty years
5) GWB hated restraints upon his freedom of action, which would limit Presidential effectiveness
6) GWB believed the country was suffering under unnecessary self-imposed restraints and delusions, which must be ignored if fundamental security, and beyond that, national greatness, were to be achieved
7) GWB takes trust and obedience as necessary principles in all his staff

For average Americans, the time was right for a President who didn't act like he knew any more about running the country than they did, but had the general ideas that they seemed to agree with. He was the kind of guy you could shoot the bull with over the barbeque, and have the feeling he was all right. Given the magic of 9/11, GWB's illusions, proclivities, support network, and tendency to wall himself off from any form of reflection, criticism, or restraint, brought forth the conditions of a perfect storm, and gave us Iraq.

by nicknielsen

[i]For average Americans, the time was right for a President who didn't act like he knew any more about running the country than they did, but had the general ideas that they seemed to agree with. He was the kind of guy you could shoot the bull with over the barbeque, and have the feeling he was all right.[/i]

So we elected a C student who didn't show up for his flight physical.

by jdclyde

If she isn't given the VP slot, what do you think the odds are she won't just walk away from this?

I don't think Obama is going to have a lot of choice, and based upon the sound clips this morning of him talking about her favorably, I do think this "unholy alliance" will happen, now. I wouldn't have believed it two months ago.

by delbertpgh

Hillary can't run without the Democratic party. She's not a Ron Paul, or a Bob Barr, or a Ralph Nader who runs for principle in the face of sure defeat. She runs to win. As an independent she would be at best a Ross Perot. Nope, she's interested in real power, and will only take real chances for it.

Obama has to kiss up to Hillary, to unify the party for the election. He can't brush off all those women and Royal Crown-drinking white men who backed her. I think he'd be crazy to take her on as VP, with her hillbilly husband talking like he was President again and presenting a new embarassment every month. Very few of her most ardent supporters would go for McCain, though, so he's got her feminist backers, once he says the right things and they cool off.

I don't believe that taking one of the most hated women in America onto his ticket would win Obama net votes. Plus, she's a tiger, and he couldn't turn his back on her, or ever be weak around her. It would be a bad administration, when the V.P. was waiting for an opportunity to devour the President. He'd better pick somebody he can trust.

by highlander718

Olala?it?s seems to me that somebody else needs to cool off and that the same somebody hates Clinton at least at the same level he pretends others hate Obama.
Relax man ..

by nicknielsen

Hillary wants to be President, she's not stupid, and she knows history. Since Martin Van Buren in 1836, only one sitting VP has been elected President (the id10t-in-chief's father), and only one other has been elected on his own (Richard Nixon).

The situation you describe will remain hypothetical. The office of Vice-President of the United States is a rapid trip to obscurity, foreign funerals, and knowing your best chance of becoming President is the death of your running mate.

This blog post outlines all the reasons it won't happen. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/06/why-veep-is-a-t.html

by j-mart

This being politics and politicians will all sell their soul for even a sniff of power, though only a very tiny possibility, in the world of politics nothing can be totaly discounted. Politicians, constantly in their quest for power, re-invent themselves in denial of their past selves, if they see it as an oportunity. She may be hoping Obama may get "run over by a bus or somthing" and she will get the job by default.

by tonythetiger

[i]and knowing your best chance of becoming President is the death of your running mate.[/i]

I believe she's evil enough to have thought of that, and he's evil enough to know that she's thought of that, which is why he won't pick her!

by danlm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[i]Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.[/i]

I couldn't stand Kerry, I flat out hate Gore.

Hell Gore wasnt that smart either. Again...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18
[i]Gore arrived at Harvard with an impressive 1355 SAT score, 625 verbal and 730 math, compared with Bush's 1206 total from 566 verbal and 640 math. In his sophomore year at Harvard, Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale. That was the year Gore's classmates remember him spending a notable amount of time in the Dunster House basement lounge shooting pool, watching television, eating hamburgers and occasionally smoking marijuana. His grades temporarily reflected his mildly experimental mood, and alarmed his parents. He received one D, one C-minus, two C's, two C-pluses and one B-minus, an effort that placed him in the lower fifth of the class for the second year in a row. [/i]

Better yet, the ahole that push's his global warming crusade because he sucks at politics. Also sucked at science.
[i]For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.[/i]

So debb... I find it strange that you critize George Bush for lack luster grades but do not do the same for the other 2 candidates he ran against.

And no, I won't vote for Oboma.... Even though my oppinion has changed about him for the better. I wanted Hillary...

Dan

by jck

He would have been failed out...but...have you ever heard of Prescott Bush?

Wonder how he got to stay in? Can you say...endowment? building with grandpa's name on it? lol

I find most of the ninnies on Capital Hill are about as smart as the german shepherd i had as a kid...maybe not even that smart.

At least Gore tries to do something for the world to better it.

Bush has just been padding the pockets of his administration's buddies while the rest of the country suffers and falls into an economic cesspool.

by jdclyde

Gore isn't padding his own pockets by buying and selling carbon credits?

He is in this for himself. If he was for "the movement" he wouldn't need to have intentionally distored things in his slide show.

by danlm

You will find a slander of bush's intelligence. I brought up the 2 candidates that ran against him. I was specific and on topic with regard to their intelligence with references to their scores that are used to gauge that intelligence.

What I did jck was do a comparison and ask specifically which dumb yuck she voted for.

I also find it interesting you didn't address that Gore at one point had lower scores in his class's then Bush EVER had in his. But, your not slamming bush. Thats right.

[Boat load of edits] Nothing removed, just furthing the thought process here.

So jck, I'll ask you the very same question I asked delbert. Which dumb yuk did you vote for?

[final edit] Just because I made an assumption about delbert and them being female. I shouldn't have done that. Sorry... I can't remember to be honest, and that is sad. I read their posts all the time.

by delbertpgh

I'm sure you know and I know plenty of smart people who have dumb ideas. Being smart doesn't save you from thinking stupid, and being slow doesn't mean you're never right. I believe GWB is more in the first category. You have incorrectly interpreted what I wrote about GWB; I never said he was actually dumb, but was (remember the ads for Beatlemania, the Broadway show?) an incredible simulation. Having a 120 I.Q. puts him in the top 5% of the population, as far as raw, underutilized intelligence goes. I don't think anybody could accuse him of being politically dumb; he's crafty, he's great on interpersonal relations; he knows that business. Governance is another issue. He never ran a successful business, and he's a bust at running the country.

He couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag, not if you wrote "Iraq" on the inside of it. That's his problem, and now it's our problem.

by maxwell edison

[i]Having a 120 I.Q. puts him in the top 5% of the population, as far as raw, underutilized intelligence goes. I don't think anybody could accuse him of being politically dumb; he's crafty, he's great on interpersonal relations; he knows that business. Governance is another issue. He never ran a successful business, and he's a bust at running the country.[/i]

George W. Bush?
Bill Clinton?
John Kerry?
Ted Kennedy?
Barack Obama?
???????????

by jdclyde

I think we will not see the mass turn out we did last time. A lot of people from both sides are just going to sit it out.

by jck

is no longer and elected representative who is supposed to represent the best interests of the people of this country.

Bush is.

by jdclyde

You are.

And what does trying to be cute about his grades have to do with todays handling of "the best interests of the people of this country."? nothing.

It was just another childish slam against Bush for the sake of slamming Bush, not talking about his policies or how they get implemented. right? right.

Anywho, he is going to be gone and the poor bush haters will have to find a new Republican to direct their hate towards.

by jck

DanLM brought up:

SAT Scores
Intelligence
school performance

So...I was following up on his post. Not just bashing Bush for the hell of it.

Thanks again.

by john.a.wills

The most obvious U.S.-internal consequence of the Iraq war has been the shrinking of the pro-Palestine movement: people are now discussing the Iraq war instead of Zionism. So it's a reasonable guess that the Iraq war was started at Zionist behest, and the leadership of both major parties is obedient to Zionist whims. I have on my website www.mindspring.com/~johnawills an essay, written before the Iraq war started, about the pro-Palestine movement. What might have been now has been deferred by several years.

by jamesrl

There are Jewish groups in Canada and the US who feel the same thing - are they anti-semitic?

James

by boxfiddler Hot topic

what you are trying to say with that first sentence. How does the discussion of the Iraq war instead of Zionism effect the pro-Palestine movement such that it is shrinking? Huh?

by john.a.wills

I saw the beginning of the pro-Palestine movement on the streets. Now all the demonstrations are about the Iraq war. The "Free Palestine" demonstrations might eventually have led to the U.S. ceasing its pro-Zionism. After all, the Vietnam War demonstrations eventually led to the U.S. abandoning its pro-democracy effort in SVN. This time the demonstrators would not have had to lie: Zionism really is evil. So the Zionists, who are largely supported in the upper echelons of U.S. power (both parties), found a convenient distraction.

by jdclyde

that your rantings must have been as stupid as your post here, and so it was removed. Good call on their part.

Yeah, the Amercian population is all part of the zionist conspiracy, and we are all out to get the palestine people?

Are you dumb or just stupid?

If you want to see what is hurting the Palestine people now, look to the radical groups that are busy killing over there, and hint, it isn't the Jews doing it either.

by tonythetiger

[i]And what does trying to be cute about his grades have to do with todays handling of "the best interests of the people of this country."?[/i]

on 'intellect' to distract their intention of trying to avoid any real work.

by notsochiguy

= Hillary becoming president within 2 years; I have no doubt.

Actually, Obama might be wise to offer her the Secretary of State position, if anything. It seems to be a more important position in the grand scheme of things (would feed her ego...and faced with the threat of having her visit their country, and unleashing her husband upon their fair maidens, I'm sure some opposing nations would immediately kowtow to the US' demands), and undercutting Obama wouldn't yield a tangible gain (except in 2012, maybe) to her or her supporters.

by nicknielsen

[i]And what does trying to be cute about his grades have to do with todays handling of "the best interests of the people of this country."?[/i]

It demonstrates a continued history of poor performance.

And I don't "hate" Bush; I don't know the man. I do, however, greatly detest both the manner and direction in which he has led the United States, neither of which has demonstrated "the best interests of the people of this country."

by maxwell edison

Regardless of who wins the general election in November, either McCain or Obama, the war efforts will continue as already executed. There might be a few insignificant differences, but for the most part, we'll stay the course. Things will settle down, as they have been doing for some time now, and there will be a reduction in the numbers, but American troops will be in Iraq for a long time. I don't care what Obama has been saying or what he will say. If he's elected, it will be the mother of all flip-flops.

by delbertpgh

Obabma's no fool. He has not announced a plan to gas up all the humvees in Iraq and run for the borders on inauguration day. Clinton similarly hedged anything she said about getting out.

However, I hope that whoever gets in, when they see an opportunity to get out, takes it. Getting out will be a staged process, but will begin with withdrawals from the most contentious areas, and not rushing back in when things get dicey. These people may have a full civil war soon, but I believe they are more likely to do it if we're hanging around than if we're largely out of the action.

They have no WMDs; they have a government; they are initiating reconciliation between Muslim sects; Al-Qaeda In Iraq is largely out of business. How perfect does it have to get before we can begin to pull back? This place is never going to turn into Indianapolis in the Summer, you know.

by maxwell edison

January 5, 2008

In an interview with Chicago radio broadcaster, Roland Martin:

Question:

If you are elected what is the very first thing that you focus on as Commander in Chief of this country?

Barack Obama: Well, we will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will give them a new assignment and that is to bring our troops home in a careful, responsible way, but to end this occupation in Iraq. I will call in my Secretary of State and initiate the diplomacy that's needed to make sure that exit is accompanied by negotiations between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Yea, right. He'll do no such thing. We'll have troops in Iraq for 20 years.

by notsochiguy

If Obama and Hillary are the candidates on the Dem side, who does McCain tab for his VP candidate?

I still think Condy Rice would make for the most 'interesting' choice, if only because McCain effectively undercuts any advantages demographic wise. Plus, the VP debates would be exceptionally more contentious than the presidential ones (those, I'm afraid, are going to be pretty boring, relatively speaking).

African-American, male, female, old, Caucasian, white collar, blue collar, friendly, cantankerous, we got it all...why go anywhere else?? (I hereby give my permission to the RNC to use that as an official campaign slogan)

:)

by nicknielsen

"I've been spitting mad for almost eight years."

This is a slander? You're funny...not funny ha ha, funny strange.

If you mean the post before that, it mentions facts in public record and does not address intelligence at all.

For me, the answer to your question is none of them; the major parties have not fielded a qualified (as far as I'm concerned) candidate since I started voting. I vote responsibly by writing in.

Powell for President.

by delbertpgh

1. I voted for Gore, then for Kerry. I was not pleased with either of them, but I thought they were both improvements on GWB, and would have made better Presidents. I still think so.

2. Neil, I am confused... I've been mad for eight years because my country has been led by a divisively partisan, inept, and deluded amateur who has pretended to be President.

3. Dan, note that I never called him dumb, or referred to his college/high school/SAT scores. He's as good as dumb, but he's not the real thing. Most genuinely dumb men would probably not have trusted their judgement to take us into a crazy, risky adventure like war against a country of 30 million 5000 miles away. So maybe he's worse than dumb. But not unintelligent. I never slandered his intelligence, and do not now.

4. You notice that Kerry never made anything about Bush's college GPA, or suggested that Bush's Yale transcripts be released. Thas was probably because Kerry's own GPA at Yale was lower.

5. Lastly, where do you get the idea that "Delbert" is a female name? It's a klunker that was passed from my grandfather to my father to me. I suppose you could name a girl "Delberta" if you wanted to cruelly but passively torture her for her whole life. But I defy you to find any woman on this planet named Delbert who hasn't had a sex change. Come to think of it, I defy you to find anyone who would change her sex just so she could be named Delbert. Yeesh.

by locrian_lyric

And yes, there are some people of Jewish ancestry who are anti-semetic. One of them had a funny litlle mustache.

by john.a.wills

Hitler was a theoretical anti-Semite, and he (erroneously) thought that the Rabbinical Jews of Europe were Semites, and so poisonous to European culture. He and his cronies considered a number of ways of cleansing Europe of this alleged pest, including link-ups with the Zionists (who also, though for a different reason, wanted the Jews out of Europe); these link-ups (cf. Dawid Yisraeli: HaRaich haGermaniya veErezt-Yisrael) having failed in their intent, he decided on mass murder. Meanwhile, David Ben-Gurion, a practical anti-Semite, was preparing for the Nakba under Plans Aleph through Daleth (cf. Ilan Papp?: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine).

by $$$$$$$$$$

I have only a vague intuition of what you mean by "Zionists", "Rabbinical Jews" and "Nakba". I only learned the latter word around the 60th anniversary of the event that term describes. So for now, I can't say much except that I'm interested in the side of the story my TV & newspapers haven't been telling me, which you seem to be telling. The British government, or some interests within it, seem to have made some very cynical estimates after WW2, the effects of which are still having de-stabilizing effects on the region, and via petroleum, the entire world.

I've recently discovered that the death count is much more lopsided than I had believed. I knew that Israel's weapons were technologically more advanced, but "somehow" I'd gotten the impression that they were so rarely used that Israeli civilians died only slightly less frequently per annum than Palestinians. However, when searching for documentation of the facts, I find a vast disparity, which I've cited elsewhere.

I have not, in the past, agreed with much that you say, but I support your right to say it and on this topic I suspect you're mostly correct as well.

by jamesrl

I think you should apologize. Thats beyond the pale.

There are many religious practising Jews who are ant-zionist. Some actively support the palestinians, some just oppose the state of Isreal. Some are from the ultra Orthodox, others are very liberal.

They exist in America, Britain, many places.

As for Hitler, I don't know that its a proven fact, and I don't think it matters. I was not refering to him, I was referring to obersevent, religious Jews who oppose the state of Isreal.

Of course there are many more Jews who are not Anti-zionist, but who oppose the policies of the government of Isreal, towards the paelstinians.

But is there only black and white in your world?

James

by locrian_lyric

What I am saying is that the term "Zionist" is often used by those who hate jews (including self-hating Jews) who want to mask their anti-Jewish sentiment.

Other than a few blatant neonazi groups, and groups like the nation of islam, very few people will come right out with their hatred.

the term "Zionist" is a prejorative term, it is anti-jewish and used by anti-jewish groups to say "We don't hate jews, we just hate zionists".

Then ask them how they define 'zionist'.

by locrian_lyric

You are correct about one thing.

My world is black and white.

If I see gray, I know that I am not seeking the proper granularity.

It is part of being Aspie, and a part that serves me well.

If you don't see things in black and white, perhaps you need to delve more into the details.

by danlm

And I am sorry about that. I wasn't trying to be funny with that at all. I just for some reason thought that.

Dan

by danlm

in this paragraph.
[i]For average Americans, the time was right for a President who didn't act like he knew any more about running the country than they did, but had the general ideas that they seemed to agree with. He was the kind of guy you could shoot the bull with over the barbeque, and have the feeling he was all right. Given the magic of 9/11, GWB's illusions, proclivities, support network, and tendency to wall himself off from any form of reflection, criticism, or restraint, brought forth the conditions of a perfect storm, and gave us Iraq. [/i]

But, quite obviously I didn't.

I appoligise.

I didn't post that to flame, I posted that because I truely thought I read you addressing his grades in context of the full paragraph. And I thought it should be addressed.

Dan

by delbertpgh

I know people have tried to make an issue out of GWB's mediocre grades in college. It never seemed like a real issue to me. It was always clear he was just more interested in screwing around as a college kid, rather than studying. Lots did. I had the same average.

by danlm

Truthfully, I think I'm starting to have real issues reading. I have 20/200 vision with my glass's on. I can't see close up with them, so I read with my glass's off.

I've found me making more and more of these stupid mistakes here. Missing things in a post I'm reading. Thinking I seen something.

I don't drink, I don't do drugs. I don't stay up late. I just had my glass's replaced, but I'm wondering if its time I started moving away from posting because I'm just not seeing everything.

No, it's not a whine. I could care less if people don't like me. I could care less if people don't agree with me. But it bugs the crap out of me that I am making statements lately on things I completely missed or missread. Rushed because of work??? Bad eye site? Hopefully, I'm not so pig headed in my oppinion that I don't read everything.

Again delbert, I'm sorry for seeing something that wasn't there.

Dan

by j-mart

With the rapid industrialisation of China and India what is left has to go further. The US does not want to be far from the control of so much oil. If tomorow all the factions made peace and started getting long towards rebuilding Iraq, the US would still drag it's heels leaving. The thought of Iraq being in charge of it's oil resources being too much for some.

by nicknielsen

From what I know, they all qualify. Although, given the context, I believe the subject is the current occupant of the White House.

by danlm

man, you are so far left that I bet the waves of the pacific lap at your feet every step you take a step.

I don't care of the Zionists are evil. IT IS A FACT, that isreal is sournded by nations that want it destroyed. It doesn't seem to matter to you that many other jewish faith make up that nation.

When I read your facts, which very well may be true about a fraction of isreal's population. All I see is YOU wanting us to stop supporting isreal and you appear quite frankly to not care if that nation is destoryed or not.

So, step in the water and wash to your palestine friends. Because you quite obviously are no friend of Isreal or anything that it stands for with regard to the Jewish people.

Hows this. In that you seem to say die to the nation of isreal. How about I say it to all the far left liberals like you. f.o.a.d.

Christ, you don't even want the goverment of the US to be pro democracy? What next, we goose step to left wingers? We goose step to the ahole pink brigade? We goose step to what ever cause you do support that has no balls and no idea what really goes on in the world. Who haven't a fkn cluse how many jewish people died when they wern't strong?

I don't think your a bigot. I just think your one stupid mtf'r.

Dan

by jdclyde

at least he and his cultish fellows will be to busy crying in the streets, so we don't have to worry about an uprising. Wring your hands for the poor victims of "Zionism".

Do you light a candle every year, to show your disappointment that Hitler missed so many?

by john.a.wills

I know that many Israeli citizens are not Rabbinical Jews. Of these "nons", about 5,000,000 are being kept in disenfranchised exile and subjected to sporadic terror raids because of their ethnicity and religion. It is a FACT that several Arab states have offered the Israeli state full recognition on condition only that there be peace, i.e. that the exiles be allowed home and that their property be restored to them. I note, as you mention democracy, that the return of the exiles, or at least their enfranchisement, is a precondition for the Israeli state to be democratic.

by danlm

1). Iran - [i]It is a FACT that several Arab states have offered the Israeli state full recognition on condition only that there be peace[/i]
2). Syria - [i]It is a FACT that several Arab states have offered the Israeli state full recognition on condition only that there be peace[/i]
3). ALL factions of Lebonan - [i]It is a FACT that several Arab states have offered the Israeli state full recognition on condition only that there be peace[/i]
5). Saudia Arabia - [i]It is a FACT that several Arab states have offered the Israeli state full recognition on condition only that there be peace[/i]
6). Iraq - Current goverment and all its factions that make it up. [i]It is a FACT that several Arab states have offered the Israeli state full recognition on condition only that there be peace[/i]

Iran is looking to go nucular, you can start there.
Syria had a suspected nucular site destroyed, that would be a good second link to provide.
Iraq under Sadam had a nucular site destroyed. That would be a good third link.

So John, show everyone the links to back up your comments. And no, I'm not looking. You made the statement. Prove it. Otherwise you have not a leg to stand on with your comments and you look very racist in your remarks. I still think stupid moron, not racisit. But I'll let others make their own decesions.

What nations John. Any with a standing army such as what I listed?
Dan
[edited to add] John, sence I'm sooooooooo uniformed... Please provide links underneath each nation I listed so that everyone can be sure which nation you are talking about.

by danlm

I found reference to Iran, but they never presented it to Isreal they tried presenting it to the US. They wanted peace with the US, not isreal. They were willing to reconize Isreal if......... The us did certain things... Hmmmm, who is it they wanted peace with? Why did they want peace? Sure wasn't because they had a change of heart about the Isreals.

I found reference to Saudia Arabia, that one I almost beleive. But it was in reference to a conversation with a reporter. That is NOT a direct dialog with Isreal.

I also found reference to the ministers of Jordon(which they have a good treaty with) and Egypt(origional peace treaty) showing up for with olive branch in hand. That was in 2007... The people of Isreal(read people John, not Zionists) have trouble trusting what was presented.

In reference to Saudia Arabia. They wanted Isreal to withrawl from the occupied terrorities. Guess what John, I wouldn't either after I was attacked by mutiple nations. It's called a security buffer. I do think I would want one to. Sorry, you want peace at all cost... Isreal wants peace with guarentee's and security. Thus, they made treaties with Egypt and Jordon. Other then Saudia Arbia John, the rest of the nations are rabbid... Their leaders have stated mutiple times they want Isreal destroyed... I wouldn't trust them either. Not till further concrete efforts were put into affect by the nations that were in the past(read history john???) agressive to the point of attacking Isreal mutiple times.

You haven't got squat John. What you have is rose colored glass's

By your own words, you are intolerent of the Zionist political movement. Which brings into question many things which follow.

And John,
if you took the time, you would know that the zionist's are a major reason that isreal is a state now. Do you wish to deprive the jewish people a state of their own John?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html
[i]
A Definition of Zionism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term ?Zionism? was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum. [/i]

Read the bible John? Even if you don't, do you understand that there is a great deal of world history in it? That Isreal was a state in the middle east in the beginning? That the zionist's wished for the return of that state? And they got it back by how many Jewish people being slaughtered? You do beleive that now don't you John... That there were millions of Jewsish individuals that died in the Gas Chamber... Think they paid enough of a price yet to have their own nation?

You have a problem with that John??? That they have a nation of Jewish religion? Is that what you hold against the zionists? That they reached their goal?

You john, I do beleive are misguided. Ill informed. And completely without a clue.

Dan

[edited to add] By the definotion of a zionist that I provided. You seem to have issues with all forms of Jewish sects John. Read all factions of the Jewish religion joined that political movement. Gee, I wonder if you talk about political parties in the US you don't like the same way. Or do you only reserve that type of judgement for people of other cultures.

by j-mart

Be open minded enough to see things as much of the rest of the world sees things, but once South Africa had a policy not much different from the policy that the state of Israel is founded and run on, Apathied. In South Africa it was based on race in Israel it is based on religon. For most of the western governments this policy was totaly unaceptable and rightly so.

The mistake made in the creation of Israel in 1948 is one problem that will only be solved by Israel giving the same rights to the Palistinian people as they have given to Jewish people. This land has been inhabited by both Jews and non-Jews for thousands of years.

When the Brittish occupied Palistine after the defeat of the Otterman Empire, with assistance from the French and the USA, they alowed religeos nutters, in this case Christians, to allow mumbo-jumbo to get in the way of seting up a balanced country for the people who were living there at the time, a mixture of Jewish, Arab and Palistinians who were not obsested with killing each other, geting on with their lives with no need for conflict. The Brittish Prime Minister at the time, Loyd-George had been brainwashed in Sunday School as a child with all this bibical rubish about "Zion" that he with the aid the French and US, had the brain dead notion to have a "Zionist State" with all the Jewish people who by now had spread all over the world to "come home". There at the time were many Jews and Palistinans and Arabs happily living there, and to make room for the new Jewish Imigrants throwing the Palistinians off the lands they have had for hundereds of years was the option taken, sometimes by what some would call genicide. An independent, democraticly governed state run by the population of people who were living there at the time, with equal rights for the Jews, Palistinians and Arabs would have been the beter option.

If we take the argument that some use, this land is the ancient Jewish homeland, they should have it back, doen not have much revelence in this modern world, the Jews, according to the old testiment took it from the Palistinians, at various times these lands have been part of the Babalonian, Persian and Roman empires. Using this "homelands" argument. appling it universaly without the "selective morality" that us westerners sometimes have, we had beter give the US and Canada back to the Native Americans, New Zealand Back to the Maori, Austraila, back to the Aboriginals, I don't know how we would sort out Europe as they have all moved around fought wars and conquered each other for thousands of years so it may be impossible to work out where they all belong.

by tonythetiger

More a dig on (most of?) the politicians who think they know what's good for us better than we do. It is the root of most of the world's problems.

by jdclyde

but not everything is a "shade of grey" either.

People "settle" for grey a lot though.

by jck

dunno your particular case.

but if you haven't already and it might help...look at bitoric lenses. that's what i had to get. they couldn't correct my vision anymore with glasses.

hope you can get things improved.

by jamesrl

In modern usage it may be most often used as a pejorative, but it certainly was NOT 100 years ago.

Many Jews 100 years ago were Zionists, as were many English Protestents who were supporting the movement to creating an Isreal, as early as the 1830s.

As for the anti-zionist Jews, thats pretty judgemental of you. Some Orthodox Jews believe that the Messiah must appear before Isreal can really come again, so they are "anti-zionist" against the current state of Israel.

There were also communist/socialist Jews who opposed the creation of the state of Israel(as well as pro Zionist Marxists).

James

by jck

well...that sounds good...i like it on steak or salad or pizza or a huge mound of spaghetti... *drools* :D

by boxfiddler Hot topic

With the exception of sweet and luscious desserts, cooking without garlic is not cooking! Great health bennies, too.
:D

by jamesrl

Why I might think that when I say in my Title:
Antizionist does not equal anti-semetic, and your reply is:
Thats what all anti-semetics say.

So I still say if you were unclear, thats your fault, but your words would lead me and many others to believe you thought I was anti-semetic which I of course would object to in the strongest terms.

I'm not anti-zionist either, I believe in the need of the state, but I don't think the palestinian issue is black and white either.

I think is simplistic to think all things are black and white.

James

by jamesrl

Why I might think that when I say in my Title:
Antizionist does not equal anti-semetic, and your reply is:
Thats what all anti-semetics say.

So I still say if you were unclear, thats your fault, but your words would lead me and many others to believe you thought I was anti-semetic which I of course would object to in the strongest terms.

I'm not anti-zionist either, I believe in the need of the state, but I don't think the palestinian issue is black and white either.

I think is simplistic to think all things are black and white.

James

by locrian_lyric

The clinical term is 'rigid thinking' :)

There are times when I frustrate myself, but there are other times when it comes in handy.

I do agree with you.

If you're seeing too much gray, you're standing too far away from the details.

by locrian_lyric

But I mean what I said.

If I thought you were anti-semitic, I'd say it outright.

I don't imply things, my mind doesn't work that way.

You are also correct in your history of the term.

I'm sorry I upset you, that was not my intent.

by john.a.wills

The Zionists have often influenced U.S. policy (failure to accede to the International Criminal Court, a U.S. idea; withdrawing the General Assembly resolution demanding that all political prisoners be freed; rejecting the Habitat Conference's condemnation of ethnic-based settlement policies), and the Iraq war is a fairly obvious example, once you look at it honestly; the Iran war looks as though it might be next, with the same purpose.

As for Goebbels, was he not at one time in favor of Zionism, a way to make Europe Jew-clean?

by locrian_lyric

Or do you hold to the premise that the only good jew is a dead one.

Let me ask you a question, Adolf.

Are you as upset over the creation of an Islamic state from a non-islamic state as you are to the jews having a scrap of land to call their own?

by $$$$$$$$$$

What do you understand it to mean?

[edit: nobody else seems to want to clarify what they have been implying, so I looked it up. "Blood libel" is a lie about others' practice of ritual human sacrifice, often accompanied by lies of their cannibalism. The "modern" string of such accusations against Jews seems to have started in 1144 AD. In today's terms, this type of story is "played out."]

You also use the phrase "Jew-clean" without "quotes," as if you share Goebbels' opinions on Semites. No? Then, please explain this apparently deliberate affront. Not Jewish myself, but it looks like your intent is to provoke.

[edit: Which claim of willis' does Locrian_Lyric consider a "blood libel"? Is it somewhere on willis' home page?]

by $$$$$$$$$$

[i]I found reference to Iran, but they never presented it to Isreal they tried presenting it to the US. They wanted peace with the US, not isreal. They were willing to reconize Isreal if......... The us did certain things... Hmmmm, who is it they wanted peace with? Why did they want peace? Sure wasn't because they had a change of heart about the Isreals.

I found reference to Saudia Arabia, that one I almost beleive. But it was in reference to a conversation with a reporter. That is NOT a direct dialog with Isreal.

I also found reference to the ministers of Jordon(which they have a good treaty with) and Egypt(origional peace treaty) showing up for with olive branch in hand. That was in 2007... The people of Isreal(read people John, not Zionists) have trouble trusting what was presented.

In reference to Saudia Arabia. They wanted Isreal to withrawl from the occupied terrorities. Guess what John, I wouldn't either after I was attacked by mutiple nations. It's called a security buffer. I do think I would want one to. Sorry, you want peace at all cost... Isreal wants peace with guarentee's and security. Thus, they made treaties with Egypt and Jordon. Other then Saudia Arbia John, the rest of the nations are rabbid... [b][u]Their[/u] leaders[/b][/i]
... are not the Palestinian people.

Those leaders, and their rabid mouthing-off, are not a valid excuse for bombing the Palestinian civilians.
http://www.btselem.org/english/press_releases/20071231.asp

by boxfiddler Hot topic

A more realistic way to phrase it? A is not non-A.

The phrase 'thinking in black and white' obscures reality, allowing relativist notions of 'gray' into the picture.

Or so I think. ;)

etu

by jdclyde

when it is a case of right and wrong, and can not be compromised.

Other times, it is not as critical, and a compromise can be reached.

Despite pacifists saying otherwise at the time, stopping Hitler was not up for debate.

by $$$$$$$$$$

[i]A more realistic way to phrase it? A is not non-A.

The phrase 'thinking in black and white' obscures reality, allowing relativist notions of 'gray' into the picture.[/i]

Valid differences of opinions and purely personal decisions are easily portrayed as commingling with authentic moral questions, by mangling questions of "right and wrong" with the silly analogy "black and white" which is silly regardless of whether invoked to emphasize or to minimize the importance of complexity.

I'm also in agreement on resolving apparently complex questions by careful consideration of every constituent part. No comment on any diagnosed conditions mentioned elsewhere in this thread is intended.

by santeewelding

Before a pedant jumps on you.

Unless an intentional double positive, which opens a door into ultimate things.

by $$$$$$$$$$

[i]If it is not yet official, can we start with the assumption that Hillary will run with Obama.[/i]

"You're likable enough, Hillary."

I really do not think they would be a good team. Still slightly better than McCain + anybody, but not as good as Obama + ... somebody better suited to his style of management.

by john.a.wills

I do not think there should be any ecclesial states with significant territory (a few Vatican-style microstates might be good, but that is a different matter). Israel is a people which does not count itself among the nations (Nm 23:9): Israel is a church (qahal). A national home for Israel is therefore an oxymoron. No-one is so foolish as to call for a Presbyterian national home. However, my point was a reply to Julian's question about whether a Democrat president would have started the Iraq war. Both McCain and Obama seem fairly willing to start the Iran war.

by john.a.wills

and I am getting no answer.
Thank you for the informative link; I had been aware of the story, of course, but I have never spread it. You will not find it on my website www.mindspring.com/~johnawills, which you are welcome to search.
I think you are making too much fuss about a matter of facultative punctutation.
P.S. The Rabbinical Jews of eastern and central Europe are not Semitic: they can trace their faith to the conversion of the Khazars about 700 CE. More details may be found in Koestler: The Thirteenth Tribe. They are Turkic, Germanic, Ural-Altaic and Slavic.

This discussion is closed to new replies.