PDA

View Full Version : Why is Helen Thomas wrong?



Ken Bora
06-05-2010, 11:04 PM
Why is Helen Thomas wrong?

I wont bother providing a link. We all watch the news. I feel she has a valid point. In my humble understanding of history. She is correct. Granted after WWII the feeling of having a Jewish homeland was very strong after the terrible atrocities of the Nazies. Yet, there were folk already living in Palestine. In hindsight, looking at all that has gone down since. Maybe it was not such a good idea. And why does a religion need a homeland? There are a great many religions and other than then Jewish state, the Mormons in Utah and the Scientologists in Hollywood. What other religion has a homeland? I know a butt load of Catholics and none think Vatican city is a homeland, Vermont is.
The Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses Quakers, Shakers and Seventh Day Adventists do not have a homeland. The Hindu’s homeland is self renewing and the Buddhists Homeland is the next higher plane of existence. If simply having prayed or erecting a temple on a chunk of soil in the past is guaranteed right of a homeland then Man we sure screwed a bunch of Native Americans didn’t we?

Please tell me, Why is Helen Wrong?




.

depittydawg
06-05-2010, 11:22 PM
Why is Helen Thomas wrong?

I wont bother providing a link. We all watch the news. I feel she has a valid point. In my humble understanding of history. She is correct. Granted after WWII the feeling of having a Jewish homeland was very strong after the terrible atrocities of the Nazies. Yet, there were folk already living in Palestine. In hindsight, looking at all that has gone down since. Maybe it was not such a good idea. And why does a religion need a homeland? There are a great many religions and other than then Jewish state, the Mormons in Utah and the Scientologists in Hollywood. What other religion has a homeland? I know a butt load of Catholics and none think Vatican city is a homeland, Vermont is.
The Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses Quakers, Shakers and Seventh Day Adventists do not have a homeland. The Hindu’s homeland is self renewing and the Buddhists Homeland is the next higher plane of existence. If simply having prayed or erecting a temple on a chunk of soil in the past is guaranteed right of a homeland then Man we sure screwed a bunch of Native Americans didn’t we?

Please tell me, Why is Helen Wrong?




.

The Israeli state is a modern oasis in a decadent uncivilized region of the world. The bottom line is that Israel, along with Great Britain are the two most reliable allies America has on the planet. In any conflict, the Israeli military will make quick settlement of the middle east. They are an ally we continue to need. And without us, they don't exist. It's a symbiotic relationship created in heaven. Beyond that, the Palestinians have provoked this entire episode. They get no sympathy from me.

M&K's Retrievers
06-05-2010, 11:38 PM
Americans didn’t we?

Please tell me, Why is Helen Wrong?




.

She probably isn't in theory but the Indians were screwed and so were the Palestinians. How do we undo all that's happened in the past?

Richard Fuquay
06-05-2010, 11:44 PM
I think there is an ethnic component to the homeland issue. I believe the ethnic Jews were indigenous to the Middle East and that is what make them different than most if not all of of the other religions you cite. It seems we tried to undo history with the best intentions but people being what they are it has brought us nothing but trouble.

Blackstone
06-05-2010, 11:44 PM
Ken,

Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. The homeland, right or wrong, was given the Jewish people.

Franco
06-05-2010, 11:53 PM
The Israeli state is a modern oasis in a decadent uncivilized region of the world. The bottom line is that Israel, along with Great Britain are the two most reliable allies America has on the planet. In any conflict, the Israeli military will make quick settlement of the middle east. They are an ally we continue to need. And without us, they don't exist. It's a symbiotic relationship created in heaven. Beyond that, the Palestinians have provoked this entire episode. They get no sympathy from me.

By the time Obama gets through, I'm not so sure they will still consider us an allie.

To answer Ken's question, I'll have to draw from the many conversation I've had with some of my Hebrew friends over the years. First, let me say that I appriciate thier commitment to family, education and the arts.

The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah(Gaza) is their rightful homeland. They've been runoff over the centuries by the Egyptians, Babylonians(Iraq), Persians(Iran), Greeks, Turks and Romans just to name a few.

They spread all across eastern and western Europe where they were not allowed to assimilate and treated as lesser people. That gave birth to the Zionist Revolution in the eraly 1900's. The Brits befriended them in WW1 because they needed thier help in fighting the Ottoman Turks. After WW1, the Brits allowed Jews to migrate back to Israel in greater numbers. After the Nazis tried to exterminate them in Europe during WW2, the Jews needed a safe haven. In 1947, the UN granted them thier homeland.

They have been an invaluable allie since and deserve our protection!

Would you rather that we move them all to Miami, New York and Los Angeles? I would support such a move if we could send the Muslims back to where they came from!

Had Helen Thomas said that about the Mexicans, she would have already been banned from the White House.

M&K's Retrievers
06-06-2010, 12:48 AM
...
Had Helen Thomas said that about the Mexicans, she would have already been banned from the White House.

so true....

subroc
06-06-2010, 08:42 AM
I believe the Abenaki of the Algonquin nation would be happy if you would leave Vernont.

dnf777
06-06-2010, 09:23 AM
Great question Ken. I would indeed seem that our foreign policy towards Israel and the middle east are in direct conflict with that little phrase "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

I don't know how broadly "law" is interpreted when congress passes legislation funding foreign policy that in this case, respects an established religion?

Of note, Jimmy Carter alluded to this very point in his recent book, "Peace, not Apartheid". Please don't take offense, I don't mean to place you in the same camp as President Carter, but it would appear that brilliant minds think alike in this case! ;)

I also happened to notice on a link from another thread, that Dr. Savitch (sp?) is calling for her head.

Franco
06-06-2010, 09:44 AM
Great question Ken. I would indeed seem that our foreign policy towards Israel and the middle east are in direct conflict with that little phrase "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

I don't know how broadly "law" is interpreted when congress passes legislation funding foreign policy that in this case, respects an established religion?

Of note, Jimmy Carter alluded to this very point in his recent book, "Peace, not Apartheid". Please don't take offense, I don't mean to place you in the same camp as President Carter, but it would appear that brilliant minds think alike in this case! ;)

I also happened to notice on a link from another thread, that Dr. Savitch (sp?) is calling for her head.

Israel is not a religious state but, a homeland for a race of people. They too have no state sponsored religion. Within Israel are the various Hebrew sects, a haven for Christian Arabs and peope that don't subscribe to any religion.

dnf777
06-06-2010, 09:53 AM
Israel is not a religious state but, a homeland for a race of people. They too have no state sponsored religion. Within Israel are the various Hebrew sects, a haven for Christian Arabs and peope that don't subscribe to any religion.

I hear you...but when you look at the history of that region, the driving force behind the perpetual unrest, and the reasons for its very conception.......how can anyone say Israel is not a religious state? Technically, it may not be a duck.....but it looks like one, quacks like one, and flies like one.

Ken Bora
06-06-2010, 10:24 AM
Ken,

Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. The homeland, right or wrong, was given the Jewish people.


...by whom?

Gerry Clinchy
06-06-2010, 11:17 AM
I hear you...but when you look at the history of that region, the driving force behind the perpetual unrest, and the reasons for its very conception.......how can anyone say Israel is not a religious state? Technically, it may not be a duck.....but it looks like one, quacks like one, and flies like one.


Would have to agree with Franco on this ... if one's religion is not a criteria for living in Israel or other civil rights, then it happens to be a nation whose residents primarily practice the Jewish religion. Would not the same be true of a Palestinian state in that regard? A nation whose residents are predominantly Muslim.

Has Israel ever stated that it is a matter of policy to call for the eradication of any one of its neighbors? Was persecution of Jews (in Germany or elsewhere) limited to those who practiced the Jewish religion? Or was such persecution based on lineage rather than religious belief?

Hypothetically, if Israel gained control of the Palestinian nation, would they kill all individuals who refused to convert to Judaism?

Goose
06-06-2010, 11:18 AM
Why is Helen Thomas wrong?

I wont bother providing a link. We all watch the news. I feel she has a valid point. In my humble understanding of history. She is correct. Granted after WWII the feeling of having a Jewish homeland was very strong after the terrible atrocities of the Nazies. Yet, there were folk already living in Palestine. In hindsight, looking at all that has gone down since. Maybe it was not such a good idea. And why does a religion need a homeland? There are a great many religions and other than then Jewish state, the Mormons in Utah and the Scientologists in Hollywood. What other religion has a homeland? I know a butt load of Catholics and none think Vatican city is a homeland, Vermont is.
The Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses Quakers, Shakers and Seventh Day Adventists do not have a homeland. The Hindu’s homeland is self renewing and the Buddhists Homeland is the next higher plane of existence. If simply having prayed or erecting a temple on a chunk of soil in the past is guaranteed right of a homeland then Man we sure screwed a bunch of Native Americans didn’t we?

Please tell me, Why is Helen Wrong?




.

You think she has a valid point? Really? So when she says that Jews should get the hell out of Palestine and go back to Poland and Germany you're ok with that? Is that her final solution?

Let me translate what she really wanted to say, "The Jews should get the hell out of Palestine and go back to Auschwitz and Buchenwald." Load 'em up in train cars and ship them out. Just like that. I'm sure the 'folk' in Palestine would be pleased. So would Helen.

To answer your question, Helen is wrong because millions and millions of Jews were exterminated in Poland and Germany...men, women and children and I'm pretty sure they don't want to go back. But that doesn't seem to bother Helen Thomas.

dnf777
06-06-2010, 11:24 AM
Let me translate what she really wanted to say, "The Jews should get the hell out of Palestine and go back to Auschwitz and Buchenwald." Load 'em up in train cars and ship them out. Just like that.

Wow!


Wow!


that's the only word that I can muster after that......WOW!

YardleyLabs
06-06-2010, 12:08 PM
Helen Thomas is wrong because she says that Jews should get out of Palestine, implying that Jewish rights to be there are somehow less strong than those of Arab Muslims. What is the statute of limitations on theft of a country? There is no question that Jews ruled Judea 2700 years ago and that they dominated the population 2000 years ago under Roman rule. There is no question that for the next 1500 years that control shifted back and forth among Jews, Christian and Muslims, and between Romans, Persians, Arabs and Turks. In the 1600's, it finally settled under Turkish rule -- part of the Ottoman Empire. Jews, who had dominated the population were forced into exile, sent or dragged to countries that did not want them in Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the 19th century, the tide began to turn and the children of the diaspora began to return to their ancestral homeland. Wealthy Jewish families from Europe and America led the way, purchasing large blocks of land in what had once been Judea from local landowners. During World War I, Jews generally supported England and its allies in the war against Germany ad the Austro-Hungarian Empire with it allies, including the Ottomans.

As the Ottoman Empire was broken up and distributed among the victors (Syria and Lebanon to France, Palestine to Britain), England promised that it would set aside a portion of what has been Judea for Jewish settlement (the Balfour Declaration). This was not a theft of Arab lands. In fact, at that time Arabs had not ruled in Palestine for hundreds of years. The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, including the allocation of Palestine to Britain with the caveat that it would create a Jewish state, was part of the original League of Nations covenant. Based on this action by the British, Jewish settlements blossomed, not through confiscation of lands, but through purchase. Emerging Arabs countries objected and used the leverage of their oil reserves to influence British policy. Britain held off implementing the Balfour Declaration and began using military force to restrict Jewish immigration.

The situation grew worse. Once again the Arabs supported Germany during World War II while Jewish forces from Palestine fought with the British. Jews fleeing the Holocaust found their ways to Palestine where they were settled on lands purchased by Zionist organizations. After WWII, the British remained sympathetic to the status of Jews in Palestine, but were much more concerned with securing oil rights. However, they were unable to contain the unrest among both Jewish and Arab populations. They announced their intention to give up their middle eastern protectorate. The UN proposed and adopted a two state solution, creating one country under Jewish rule and another under Arab rule. This was accepted by the Jewish Agency, but rejected by the Arabs leaders. The result was the 1948 Arab-Israeli War which was won decisively by Israel. This battle has been re-fought repeatedly through skirmishes and through two additional wars instigated by the surrounding Arab nations.

At what point do we begin with what is, rather than what was or what might have been? For 60 years, Israel has commanded the land of Israel and defended it successfully. Arab claims to historical entitlement to the land date back 600 years and only reflect a small part of the history of control by different parties, In fact, no one has dominated the land continuously for thousands if years -- not since the time of Judea and Jewish rule. It seems to me that historically, no one has a perfect claim, but that Israel has a clear claim for now.

Franco
06-06-2010, 12:12 PM
You think she has a valid point? Really? So when she says that Jews should get the hell out of Palestine and go back to Poland and Germany you're ok with that? Is that her final solution?

Let me translate what she really wanted to say, "The Jews should get the hell out of Palestine and go back to Auschwitz and Buchenwald." Load 'em up in train cars and ship them out. Just like that. I'm sure the 'folk' in Palestine would be pleased. So would Helen.

To answer your question, Helen is wrong because millions and millions of Jews were exterminated in Poland and Germany...men, women and children and I'm pretty sure they don't want to go back. But that doesn't seem to bother Helen Thomas.

No doubt about it. The Jews would have stayed in Europe had they not been treated as less than human. Prior to WW2 when it became clear that they would be persecuted( google Chrystal Night), where was the rest of the world's great religions? Not even the Chrstians stood up for them and Jesus Christ the Prophet was a Jew!

I'm no Jew but, I've have always respected thier attitude towards life.

To let radical Islam dictate our Foreign Policy in the mideast would clearly demonstrate just how far we have fallen as a nation! Yes, the Muslim world has become radicalized over Israel. So, we should let a religion with a 7th century mentallity have thier way? As far as I'm concerned the radical Muslims are half goat anyway.

dback
06-06-2010, 12:21 PM
Helen Thomas is wrong because she says that Jews should get out of Palestine, implying that Jewish rights to be there are somehow less strong than those of Arab Muslims. What is the statute of limitations on theft of a country? There is no question that Jews ruled Judea 2700 years ago and that they dominated the population 2000 years ago under Roman rule. There is no question that for the next 1500 years that control shifted back and forth among Jews, Christian and Muslims, and between Romans, Persians, Arabs and Turks. In the 1600's, it finally settled under Turkish rule -- part of the Ottoman Empire. Jews, who had dominated the population were forced into exile, sent or dragged to countries that did not want them in Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the 19th century, the tide began to turn and the children of the diaspora began to return to their ancestral homeland. Wealthy Jewish families from Europe and America led the way, purchasing large blocks of land in what had once been Judea from local landowners. During World War I, Jews generally supported England and its allies in the war against Germany ad the Austro-Hungarian Empire with it allies, including the Ottomans.

As the Ottoman Empire was broken up and distributed among the victors (Syria and Lebanon to France, Palestine to Britain), England promised that it would set aside a portion of what has been Judea for Jewish settlement (the Balfour Declaration). This was not a theft of Arab lands. In fact, at that time Arabs had not ruled in Palestine for hundreds of years. The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, including the allocation of Palestine to Britain with the caveat that it would create a Jewish state, was part of the original League of Nations covenant. Based on this action by the British, Jewish settlements blossomed, not through confiscation of lands, but through purchase. Emerging Arabs countries objected and used the leverage of their oil reserves to influence British policy. Britain held off implementing the Balfour Declaration and began using military force to restrict Jewish immigration.

The situation grew worse. Once again the Arabs supported Germany during World War II while Jewish forces from Palestine fought with the British. Jews fleeing the Holocaust found their ways to Palestine where they were settled on lands purchased by Zionist organizations. After WWII, the British remained sympathetic to the status of Jews in Palestine, but were much more concerned with securing oil rights. However, they were unable to contain the unrest among both Jewish and Arab populations. They announced their intention to give up their middle eastern protectorate. The UN proposed and adopted a two state solution, creating one country under Jewish rule and another under Arab rule. This was accepted by the Jewish Agency, but rejected by the Arabs leaders. The result was the 1948 Arab-Israeli War which was won decisively by Israel. This battle has been re-fought repeatedly through skirmishes and through two additional wars instigated by the surrounding Arab nations.

At what point do we begin with what is, rather than what was or what might have been? For 60 years, Israel has commanded the land of Israel and defended it successfully. Arab claims to historical entitlement to the land date back 600 years and only reflect a small part of the history of control by different parties, In fact, no one has dominated the land continuously for thousands if years -- not since the time of Judea and Jewish rule. It seems to me that historically, no one has a perfect claim, but that Israel has a clear claim for now.

I'm impressed........and supportive of a comment made by Jeff Goodwin.....will wonders never cease.

BonMallari
06-06-2010, 12:53 PM
Helen Thomas is a prime example of how much the media controls what we see and hear in this country...What she said was foolish,stupid,bigoted, careless and any other adjective you care to use...but the media will not attack one of their own,especially someone who has obviously passed her prime and her objectiveness as a journalist..had a politician said the same idiotic anti Semetic statements the media would be lambasting that person and their political party to a merciless death

M&K's Retrievers
06-06-2010, 01:41 PM
.had a politician said the same idiotic anti Semetic statements the media would be lambasting that person and their political party to a merciless death

I suspect she's a Democrat.

Gerry Clinchy
06-06-2010, 02:34 PM
Thomas has since apologized on her personal Web site:

"I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians," she wrote. "They do not reflect my heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon."

The phrase "practice what you preach" comes to mind.

Blackstone
06-06-2010, 02:50 PM
...by whom?

By the UN. The UN General Assembly adopted UN Resolution (GA 181) on Nov. 29, 1947, largely with the support of the US and the Soviet Union, and in particular, with the personal support of US President Harry S. Truman. Although it should be noted that Truman wrote in his diary, "I think the proper thing to do, and the thing I have been doing, is to do what I think is right and let them all go to hell."

The resolution divided the land into two approximately equal portions, creating 2 states, with majority Arabs on one, and majority Jews on the other. However, the lands were divided up using a complicated scheme of irregular, and somewhat illogical, borders. Jerusalem was to be internationalized, and owned by neither side. The intent was to create an economic union between the two states with open borders. As Yardley stated, the Jews accepted the UN decision, but the Arabs rejected it. There were several reasons the Arabs opposed the plan, but one was they felt they were short changed on the land allocation, and would be forced to leave some of the lands they considered to be theirs. Although, there had been a significant influx of Jews to the region, slightly less than half of all land in Palestine was owned by Arabs, slightly less than half was "crown lands" belonging to the state and controlled by the British, and only about 8% was owned by Jews. At the time, there were about 1.2 million Arabs living in Palestine, and about 600,000 Jews, almost all of whom lived in the areas allotted to the Jewish state or in the proposed internationalized zone of Jerusalem. This plan left the relatively large Jewish population of Jerusalem and the surrounding areas of about 100,000 geographically cut off from the rest of the Jewish state, and completely surrounded by Arab lands. Jerusalem was to be separated from the rest of the Jewish state by a relatively large area know as the "Jerusalem Corridor," which was to be allotted to the Palestinian state.

Given the history of hostilities between Arabs and Jews in this region, it doesn’t take a genius to realize this plan had no chance of working. The ensuing antagonism between the two made it impossible for the 2 states to tolerate each other, and the UN, after creating the mess, was unable to enforce the plan. As a result, The Arab League undertook a campaign to rid all Jews from Palestine. The resulting Arab riots of 1947, and massacres by both sides, intensified the hostilities, especially in Jerusalem. In response, the Jewish state implemented "Plan Dalet," a plan that was supposed to have been prepared for the general defense of the Jewish state once the British had left. However, the plan also included provisions for the “temporary” forced evacuation of Arabs from certain strategic areas, including the Jerusalem Corridor. Some point to this as proof Zionist planned to expel Arabs from Jerusalem and its surrounds from the beginning. All of this led up the war of 1948, and Jews proclamation of the independent State of Israel.

I am not saying it was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to so. All I know is it created the mess we are living with today.

huntinman
06-06-2010, 03:21 PM
had a politician said the same idiotic anti Semetic statements the media would be lambasting that person and their political party to a merciless death

Only if that person was a republican...

david gibson
06-06-2010, 05:02 PM
helen thomas is the daughter of lebanese immigrants. even though raised christian, any wonder what side she will take? she is obviously anti isreal, i just cant believe she said it like this.

ken bora, i am surprised and disgusted at the same time. i really took you for a far smarter and more logical man that this post describes. i was wrong.

sending the jews back to europe is like putting toothpaste back in the tube. good luck with that.

and like subroc said:

"I believe the Abenaki of the Algonquin nation would be happy if you would leave Vermont."

so where do we draw the line mr. bora????????????????? hmmmmmm?

depittydawg
06-06-2010, 05:43 PM
I hear you...but when you look at the history of that region, the driving force behind the perpetual unrest, and the reasons for its very conception.......how can anyone say Israel is not a religious state? Technically, it may not be a duck.....but it looks like one, quacks like one, and flies like one.

It is impossible to separate religion from politics in the middle east. This region has been in a religious war for as long as human records have been kept. The only time the bloodshed stops is when an outside force takes over. It will never change.

Ken Bora
06-06-2010, 06:04 PM
ken bora, i am surprised and disgusted at the same time. i really took you for a far smarter and more logical man that this post describes. i was wrong.

Why is a request for knowledge and peoples opinion ever wrong David?
As for the Abinaki wanting me to leave. You both are most certainly correct.
Yet the issue with that argument is I have 1 great-grandmother of Iroquois, the other Huron descent.
Both Enemies of the Abinaki, who were never native to Vermont until the French Settlers killed off the
Native Peoples who were here allowing their “Guides” to take over the lands.
As you can see by this humble example, regions and peoples have ebbed and flowed across the planet as long as there have been people.
Yet I can see no part of the world, other than that pesky east end of the Mediterranean, That such a large chunk of the planet is for a given settlement and such an equally large chunk is against it.

So…………. What would bring peace to that region?




.

subroc
06-06-2010, 06:20 PM
what would bring peace?

I expect if the palestinians stopped blowing $hit up requiring the israelis to respond would be an excellent start.

M&K's Retrievers
06-06-2010, 06:50 PM
Nothing will bring peace over there. If they blow themselves up, the survivors will be throwing rocks at each other.

On another note, Nine Speakers, the agency that represents Helen Thomas dumped her today.

depittydawg
06-06-2010, 07:05 PM
Nothing will bring peace over there. If they blow themselves up, the survivors will be throwing rocks at each other.

On another note, Nine Speakers, the agency that represents Helen Thomas dumped her today.


Not surprised. She blew it big time. But then she is what, about 90 years old? Maybe she should get a little slack.

dnf777
06-06-2010, 07:05 PM
and like subroc said:

"I believe the Abenaki of the Algonquin nation would be happy if you would leave Vermont."




I never even knew he was Jewish!?

http://i982.photobucket.com/albums/ae306/dnf777/obi-wan-kenobi-01-large.jpg

Franco
06-06-2010, 07:08 PM
So…………. What would bring peace to that region?


.

To paraphrase former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir...

"As long as they hate us more than they love thier children, there will be no peace.

david gibson
06-06-2010, 11:29 PM
sorry to strike a nerve ken, but by starting this thread with the question you asked you insinuate that you agree with her. you even said you think she has a valid point. i never pictured you as an anti-semite. you can think how you want.
this has been said by many:

"if arabs lay down their arms there will be peace in the middle east.
if jews lay down their arms there will be no more Israel"

and this:

"there will never be peace until arabs learn to love their children more than they hate jews" - and hence stop sending their 16 yr olds to kill with suicide bombs

why dont you put helen's quote on your syrup bottles and see how well that goes over? i am sure there are a few sultans with plenty of $$ that wont mind paying the shipping to the middle east. love to see how well they keep selling elsewhere though.....

Clint Watts
06-07-2010, 01:03 AM
The Israeli state is a modern oasis in a decadent uncivilized region of the world. The bottom line is that Israel, along with Great Britain are the two most reliable allies America has on the planet. In any conflict, the Israeli military will make quick settlement of the middle east. They are an ally we continue to need. And without us, they don't exist. It's a symbiotic relationship created in heaven. Beyond that, the Palestinians have provoked this entire episode. They get no sympathy from me.

Can't say it any better than this.

Clint Watts
06-07-2010, 01:08 AM
Why is a request for knowledge and peoples opinion ever wrong David?
As for the Abinaki wanting me to leave. You both are most certainly correct.
Yet the issue with that argument is I have 1 great-grandmother of Iroquois, the other Huron descent.
Both Enemies of the Abinaki, who were never native to Vermont until the French Settlers killed off the
Native Peoples who were here allowing their “Guides” to take over the lands.
As you can see by this humble example, regions and peoples have ebbed and flowed across the planet as long as there have been people.
Yet I can see no part of the world, other than that pesky east end of the Mediterranean, That such a large chunk of the planet is for a given settlement and such an equally large chunk is against it.

So…………. What would bring peace to that region?




.


There will not be peace in this region, or in the world, until God establishes his Kingdom on Earth.

Ken Bora
06-07-2010, 02:14 AM
Didn’t strike a nerve at all David. As most always in POTUS I am all about the debate. I truly enjoy the debate more than the topic at times. And I stand by the implied feeling the point, for our sake of discussion. Of Helens is valid. Like back in Debate club. She has stated an opinion that can both be backed and opposed with equal fever. Making it a valid point of discussion. And discussion is what we are all lounging ‘round here for anyway.
As for being anti-Semitic. How can that be, spent a childhood as a Roman Catholic. One often forgotten fact about Jesus, he was Jewish.
But there are times, in the region in question. When I watch the news. I cannot tell who the bad guy is. And I am fairly sure I am not alone.
I have learned so much in this thread, I enjoy learning more about history. I thank you all.
Gosh, ever ponder, if Abraham hadn’t knocked up the maid. The world would be so much more peaceful.





.

depittydawg
06-07-2010, 02:17 AM
Didn’t strike a nerve at all David. As most always in POTUS I am all about the debate. I truly enjoy the debate more than the topic at times. And I stand by the implied feeling the point, for our sake of discussion. Of Helens is valid. Like back in Debate club. She has stated an opinion that can both be backed and opposed with equal fever. Making it a valid point of discussion. And discussion is what we are all lounging ‘round here for anyway.
As for being anti-Semitic. How can that be, spent a childhood as a Roman Catholic. One often forgotten fact about Jesus, he was Jewish.
But there are times, in the region in question. When I watch the news. I cannot tell who the bad guy is. And I am fairly sure I am not alone.
I have learned so much in this thread, I enjoy learning more about history. I thank you all.
Gosh, ever ponder, if Abraham hadn’t knocked up the maid. The world would be so much more peaceful.





.
I find it much more difficult to find the good guys in this region of the world than the bad guys. :confused:

M&K's Retrievers
06-07-2010, 10:42 AM
Helen Thomas is a no show at today's briefing.

ducknwork
06-07-2010, 12:01 PM
Only if that person was a republican...

Or Mel Gibson.

M&K's Retrievers
06-07-2010, 12:36 PM
Helen Thomas announces retirement today.

achiro
06-07-2010, 12:45 PM
http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_22.gif

dnf777
06-07-2010, 03:13 PM
What she said (I finally read the transcripts) was indefensible. Not only WHAT she said, but HOW she said it. If I'm blessed or cursed enough to make it to 90, I hope:
1) I wouldn't say something so stupid
2) If I did, I would have younger friends with big hooks to save me from myself

Like many others I'm sure, I knew very little about this strange, old lady who's been there since Washington was a swamp, but it is a shame to see such a long, and apparently illustrious career end in such a way. She should have had the grace to retire when she was still on top of her game, like Barry Sanders! Now her legacy is that of anti-semite, no matter what else she's accomplished.

Hew
06-07-2010, 06:35 PM
....it is a shame to see such a long, and apparently illustrious career end in such a way. She should have had the grace to retire when she was still on top of her game,....
I'm glad she stuck around to long enough to prove what anyone paying attention already knew....she was a lefty moonbat who for far too long tried to influence America with her leftist swill as a supposedly unbiased journalist and broker of the truth. I was also glad that Walter Cronkite's enormous ego wouldn't allow him to ride off into the sunset with dignity. Instead, he thought everyone gave two shats about his opinion on various issues and he gladly spewed forth a litany of lunacy (the bin Laden/Rove cabal) and crap to the left of Lenin; thus cementing his legacy as yet another leftist who wielded enormous power as he cloaked himself as a supposed unbiased journalist. Lying flim-flam artists; both of them.

dnf777
06-07-2010, 09:47 PM
I'm glad she stuck around to long enough to prove what anyone paying attention already knew....she was a lefty moonbat who for far too long tried to influence America with her leftist swill as a supposedly unbiased journalist and broker of the truth. I was also glad that Walter Cronkite's enormous ego wouldn't allow him to ride off into the sunset with dignity. Instead, he thought everyone gave two shats about his opinion on various issues and he gladly spewed forth a litany of lunacy (the bin Laden/Rove cabal) and crap to the left of Lenin; thus cementing his legacy as yet another leftist who wielded enormous power as he cloaked himself as a supposed unbiased journalist. Lying flim-flam artists; both of them.

So full of nice things to say! Have a good one!

huntinman
06-08-2010, 08:19 AM
So full of nice things to say! Have a good one!

and right on the money...

david gibson
06-08-2010, 08:42 AM
Didn’t strike a nerve at all David. As most always in POTUS I am all about the debate. I truly enjoy the debate more than the topic at times. And I stand by the implied feeling the point, for our sake of discussion. Of Helens is valid. Like back in Debate club. She has stated an opinion that can both be backed and opposed with equal fever. Making it a valid point of discussion. And discussion is what we are all lounging ‘round here for anyway.
As for being anti-Semitic. How can that be, spent a childhood as a Roman Catholic. One often forgotten fact about Jesus, he was Jewish.
But there are times, in the region in question. When I watch the news. I cannot tell who the bad guy is. And I am fairly sure I am not alone.
I have learned so much in this thread, I enjoy learning more about history. I thank you all.
Gosh, ever ponder, if Abraham hadn’t knocked up the maid. The world would be so much more peaceful.





.


just because you are catholic and worship jesus you are automatically immune from anti-semitism? thats like saying rush limbaugh could never be a homophobe because he had elton john perform at his wedding. or - barack obama could never dislike white people since his mother was white.

you agreed with helen thomas, said she was right and had a valid point. sure you like to get a good debate rolling, but you made your ideas clear with that post. maybe the british were wrong to force the palestinians out and create israel also, but its a little too late to say it was a mistake and lets just send everybody home. especially when isreal is the only beacon of civility in that region.

i think you aren't coming completely clean with us here. there is an eerie resemblance here.... ;-)

http://i808.photobucket.com/albums/zz10/surfgeo/kinfolk.jpg?t=1276000607

Ken Bora
06-08-2010, 09:03 AM
Now that is a great photo David!
Back during my explosive training.:cool:


.... you like to get a good debate rolling, but you made your ideas clear with that post. maybe the british were wrong to force the palestinians out and create israel also, but its a little too late to say it was a mistake and lets just send everybody home.....


While definitely too late to send everybody “home” it is never too late to look back at something and learn how it could have been better, if at all. Personally, I cannot understand why they continue with the two state experiment. It seems so much like when our United States were divided with our Blue and Gray armies. If it were one sovereign nation, say “The United Holy Region” (lame I know, spontaneous) Then the Sons of Isaac and the Sons of Ishmael would be fellow citizens under a common government elected by all people in the region. Then they could elect a president all the people could get behind and support, or change at the next election.



.

david gibson
06-08-2010, 09:16 AM
Now that is a great photo David!
Back during my explosive training.:cool:




While definitely too late to send everybody “home” it is never too late to look back at something and learn how it could have been better, if at all. Personally, I cannot understand why they continue with the two state experiment. It seems so much like when our United States were divided with our Blue and Gray armies. If it were one sovereign nation, say “The United Holy Region” (lame I know, spontaneous) Then the Sons of Isaac and the Sons of Ishmael would be fellow citizens under a common government elected by all people in the region. Then they could elect a president all the people could get behind and support, or change at the next election.



.

and you had us all hoodwinked in to thinking that was for "pond leaf removal"

dnf777
06-08-2010, 09:24 AM
just because you are catholic and worship jesus you are automatically immune from anti-semitism?

especially when isreal is the only beacon of civility in that region.

]

I think you're missing the distinction between anti-semitic and anti-Israeli. There are some Jews who don't support the nation-state of Israel, and are happy to live in less dangerous areas. Nothing Ken said would be construed as anti-semetic in my estimation. Questioning the formation of a country is perfectly legitimate.

Only beacon of civility? Just curious...have you ever been to that part of the world?

Ken Bora
06-08-2010, 09:44 AM
Oh David,
as for that worship thing. Might be considered a bit of a slacker on that front. But no fear, as Jesus and I came to a mutual agreement about the time I got my drivers license. We both felt it was better for me to be standing in a trout stream on a Sunday morning, thinking of him.
Instead of sitting in a church, thinking about standing in a trout stream.





.

david gibson
06-08-2010, 09:48 AM
I think you're missing the distinction between anti-semitic and anti-Israeli. There are some Jews who don't support the nation-state of Israel, and are happy to live in less dangerous areas. Nothing Ken said would be construed as anti-semetic in my estimation. Questioning the formation of a country is perfectly legitimate.

Only beacon of civility? Just curious...have you ever been to that part of the world?

oh ok, helen thomas is just anti-Israel, not anti semitic at all. well, that just makes it all peachy now, doesnt it? i didnt realize she was just supporting the jews who dont support the nation of Israel. ken supported it, so therefore - ken is just anti israel.

tell her she can come back from poland and reclaim that daily front row seat of hers. it's still warm! she was just misunderstood and we all should have supported her.

dnf777
06-08-2010, 10:23 AM
oh ok, helen thomas is just anti-Israel, not anti semitic at all. well, that just makes it all peachy now, doesnt it? i didnt realize she was just supporting the jews who dont support the nation of Israel. ken supported it, so therefore - ken is just anti israel.

tell her she can come back from poland and reclaim that daily front row seat of hers. it's still warm! she was just misunderstood and we all should have supported her.


I knew I could count on you to twist words and spew false accusations like a busted BP oil well! I didn't even MENTION Helen in my post, rather it was aimed at your utterly absurd characterization of a fellow RTFer. But that went over your head.

david gibson
06-08-2010, 11:05 AM
I knew I could count on you to twist words and spew false accusations like a busted BP oil well! I didn't even MENTION Helen in my post, rather it was aimed at your utterly absurd characterization of a fellow RTFer. But that went over your head.


oh, ok, so a fellow rtf'er agrees with helen thomas and says she has a valid point, yet she and what she said has no relevance?

dude, just shut up, i have no desire to debate your idiotic logic. i have stuff to do, a dog to train and fish to clean, have at it, its all yours.

YardleyLabs
06-08-2010, 11:18 AM
A difficulty, is that there are no proponents for a truly secular state in Israel except among the Israeli left. There are proponents of a Jewish state, and proponents of a Muslim state. Around the world, most countries are secular. That is, there is no state sponsored or preferred religion. This is true both in countries with diverse religious populations and in countries with dominant religions. Most Muslim countries are religious, like Iran, and not secular, like Turkey. The two state solution has evolved from an unwillingness of Palestinians to accept a state that is not dominated by Muslims, and by an unwillingness of Israelis to accept a state that is not dominated by Judaism. Unfortunately, you are one or the other, not both. Everything done and everything said in the conflict comes down to this.

The Palestinian demand for "right of return" has nothing to do with property rights. Almost all of the landowners who were displaced in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 are dead today or were previously compensated, and almost none of the properties taken at that time are held by the people that took them. The Palestinian demand is based on the desire is to establish the rights of a large population to return to the nation of Israel in sufficient numbers to dominate the electoral process. Israelis fear, I believe correctly, that in such a situation they will be forced out altogether.

Israel, as a country, was formed on democratic ideals and calls itself a democratic country. However, it has turned itself into an apartheid state. Lands are occupied and controlled by Israel, but the citizens of those lands are not given the rights of Israeli citizenship. Instead, Israeli citizens are being permitted to forcibly displace those people and form settlements, with financial and military support from the government. As those settlements come under attack, the attacks are used to justify displacing still more people and to form more settlements, much as we displaced Indian tribes during the westward expansion of America.

The left in Israel has long recognized that peace could only emerge from a national approach that offered full rights of citizenship to all people living within the borders of Israel. This includes returning Arab lands that were conquered in 1967 and 1973, and dismantling the settlements placed in Arab lands or abandoning those settlers as citizens of what will become an Arab dominated Palestinian state. However, even the left has problems with the notion of giving up Israeli control of the Arab sections of Jerusalem, or even of establishing that segment of Jerusalem as an internationally controlled enclave. While there are segments of the Palestinian movement that are also happy to reach settlement on almost all issues, they too believe that the status of East Jerusalem as capitol of the Palestinian state is non-negotiable.

In the face of the inability of these most moderate groups to reach agreement, the extremists from both sides have held command: Hamas among the Palestinians, and the Likud and right wing parties in Israel. This was not always true, but the last Israeli leader to reach an agreement was assassinated by Israel's own right wing. There is no possibility of settlement at any time in the future without either a rejection (and suppression if needed) of both of these extremes, or a destruction of one side or the other. I do not believe that the US can be a party to the destruction of either side. As a consequence, we need to use our full influence to encourage a rejection of extremists in both Israel and Palestine. Given that the extremists control both Israel and Gaza, this will not be pretty.


I live in perpetual fear that the Christian right will someday succeed in bringing the same destructive split to America.

Ken Bora
06-08-2010, 11:30 AM
oh ok, helen thomas is just anti-Israel, not anti semitic at all. well, that just makes it all peachy now, doesnt it? i didnt realize she was just supporting the jews who dont support the nation of Israel. ken supported it, so therefore - ken is just anti israel.
.

Is simply being an ally of the United States adequate reason to fully support all the actions of any other government?
do you have a list of countries who’s actions I am allowed to question?
By that logic David, by your own questions asked here. You must be anti-United States. Yet we all know your not, right?;-)



.

zeus3925
06-08-2010, 12:04 PM
What amazes me about the right is that they will pontificate at length about the hemorrhage of taxpayer money while supporting Israel continuing to feed at the U.S. trough. They are not the 51st state!

As long as provocative acts like the West Bank settlements continue to happen and our aid continues to proceed unabated, there will be no interest in negotiation for peace. Nor will we have credence as the "good guys" in the Middle East.

Friends don't let friends commit ethenic cleansing.

depittydawg
06-08-2010, 12:12 PM
I'm glad she stuck around to long enough to prove what anyone paying attention already knew....she was a lefty moonbat who for far too long tried to influence America with her leftist swill as a supposedly unbiased journalist and broker of the truth. I was also glad that Walter Cronkite's enormous ego wouldn't allow him to ride off into the sunset with dignity. Instead, he thought everyone gave two shats about his opinion on various issues and he gladly spewed forth a litany of lunacy (the bin Laden/Rove cabal) and crap to the left of Lenin; thus cementing his legacy as yet another leftist who wielded enormous power as he cloaked himself as a supposed unbiased journalist. Lying flim-flam artists; both of them.

What's your beef against Cronkite? The guy is probably the most respected journalist of his generation. No probably about it. He is.

dnf777
06-08-2010, 12:14 PM
oh, ok, so a fellow rtf'er agrees with helen thomas and says she has a valid point, yet she and what she said has no relevance?

dude, just shut up, i have no desire to debate your idiotic logic. i have stuff to do, a dog to train and fish to clean, have at it, its all yours.

Laughing incredulously.
Dude, you need to take a pill.
Make that a couple.
Just pretend your fish are liberals or independents, maybe it will help you relax as you wack their heads off in some perverted way? :confused:

Back to civilized debate regards.....

depittydawg
06-08-2010, 12:20 PM
Is simply being an ally of the United States adequate reason to fully support all the actions of any other government?
do you have a list of countries who’s actions I am allowed to question?
By that logic David, by your own questions asked here. You must be anti-United States. Yet we all know your not, right?;-)



.

Israel is a strong US ally. That said, it is extremely concerning that anyone who dares speak against them in the US is immediately labeled anti-Semite and their careers are over. This is wrong. The bottom line is that Israel is our ally. By far our strongest in the region. On the other hand, what they need from the US right now isn't a strong hand of support, it's a back hand.

Hew
06-08-2010, 01:16 PM
Friends don't let friends commit ethenic cleansing.
Ah yes...Israel, completely surrounded by tens of millions of people who have sworn her destruction and a host of nations who claimed she has no right to exist is the ones committing "ethnic cleansing." That's really insipid.

Hew
06-08-2010, 01:23 PM
What's your beef against Cronkite? The guy is probably the most respected journalist of his generation. No probably about it. He is.
Yeah, if "his generation" is a bunch of liberal flacks who fobbed off their opinions under the guise of "unbiased journalism," then yes, he was widely respected. I'll reserve my respect for those who aren't so freakin' looney that they actually believe Karl Rove and Osama bin Laden conspired to make John Kerry lose his presidential bid.

zeus3925
06-08-2010, 01:33 PM
Ah yes...Israel, completely surrounded by tens of millions of people who have sworn her destruction and a host of nations who claimed she has no right to exist is the ones committing "ethnic cleansing." That's really insipid.

Ethnic cleansing is an abhorrent practice regardless who does it. The ethnic cleansing that Israel has undertaken is far more organized and extensive than anything on the other side. I'll agree Israel is surrounded by millions of pi$$ed off people, but Israel has on the other hand has done much to given rise to that.

dnf777
06-08-2010, 01:51 PM
[QUOTE=Hew;626446]Yeah, if "his generation" is a bunch of liberal flacks who fobbed off their opinions under the guise of "unbiased journalism," then yes, he was widely respected. I'll reserve my respect for those who aren't so freakin' looney that they actually believe Karl Rove and Osama bin Laden conspired to make John Kerry lose his presidential bid.[/QUOTE


That generation of "liberal flacks" was also known as the "Greatest Generation", for such trivial accomplishments as defeating Naziism, recovering from the great depression, and building the infrastructure we have enjoyed during our lives. Sad as it is to watch their numbers dwindle, it may be a blessing that some of them don't have to watch what we've done to the country that they handed down to our stewardship. Bush and Obama both probably spend more in one month than any president spent during their entire terms under that generation!

depittydawg
06-08-2010, 01:59 PM
[QUOTE=Hew;626446]Yeah, if "his generation" is a bunch of liberal flacks who fobbed off their opinions under the guise of "unbiased journalism," then yes, he was widely respected. I'll reserve my respect for those who aren't so freakin' looney that they actually believe Karl Rove and Osama bin Laden conspired to make John Kerry lose his presidential bid.[/QUOTE

Bush and Obama both probably spend more in one month than any president spent during their entire terms under that generation!

"Spend" is correct. One of the biggest differences between the "New Deal" and the "Raw Deal" that replaced it, was the allocation of federal reserves. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK all invested in America with tax dollars. Those investments paid in HUGE dividends. Many are still paying to this day. Starting with LBJ and continuing to the present, our congress and Presidents have made completely irresponsible allocations of federal dollars. Our federal budget has devolved from what was an application or investment in America to little more than a lottery for dollars for out stretched hands, both corporate and private.

Hew
06-08-2010, 02:01 PM
I'll agree Israel is surrounded by millions of pi$$ed off people, but Israel has on the other hand has done much to given rise to that.
Right. Those sneaky Jews. First, 6 million of them managed to kill themselves and make it look like Hitler did it so everyone would feel sorry for them. Then in '48 they tricked everyone of their surrounding neighbors into attacking them with the intention of killing every last woman and child. Then they used that same wilyness to invite Arab invasions in '68 and '73. And now, NOW, they have the temerity to try and prevent thousands more missles from being launched at their schools, hospitals and houses from Palestinian territory?!?

The Palestinian should count their lucky stars that the Israelis haven't bulldozed everyone of them into the sea.

Bayou Magic
06-08-2010, 02:15 PM
Ethnic cleansing is an abhorrent practice regardless who does it. The ethnic cleansing that Israel has undertaken is far more organized and extensive than anything on the other side. I'll agree Israel is surrounded by millions of pi$$ed off people, but Israel has on the other hand has done much to given rise to that.


A...I live in perpetual fear that the Christian right will someday succeed in bringing the same destructive split to America.

Statements like these indicate the vast difference between the opposing points of views. Reconcilliation is highly unlikely. I believe it is not possible, and that sooner or later, this country will transform. To blame the 'Christian right' for the deep division in this country while ignoring the intolerance and hatred condoned by the left is typical of the left and totally predictable.

"The ethnic cleansing that Israel has undertaken..." Islamic states pray everyday for the destruction of Israel and all Jews. That quote could have easily come from Iran's propaganda machine. You can't be serious (but I fear that you are).

fp

zeus3925
06-08-2010, 02:29 PM
Right. Those sneaky Jews. First, 6 million of them managed to kill themselves and make it look like Hitler did it so everyone would feel sorry for them. Then in '48 they tricked everyone of their surrounding neighbors into attacking them with the intention of killing every last woman and child. Then they used that same wilyness to invite Arab invasions in '68 and '73. And now, NOW, they have the temerity to try and prevent thousands more missles from being launched at their schools, hospitals and houses from Palestinian territory?!?

The Palestinian should count their lucky stars that the Israelis haven't bulldozed everyone of them into the sea.

Hew, that is out of bounds. I thank you not to twist words so. No where do I denigrate anyone of Jewish extraction. As a group of people, they have been unfairly hounded and persecuted for too long. I do not at all subscribe to Helen Thomas's view, either.

My criticism of the actions of the Isaeli government does not translate into anti-Semetism. My point is past maltreatment of Jewish nation does not justify the actions of the present Isaeli state.

When incursions of Palestinian enclaves occurs it is often rocks and slingshots against Israeli missles, helicopters, jet aircraft and armor. The casualty figures bear this out. You hear much about Israeli casualties but have you taken time to compare them to casualties on the other side?

Cody Covey
06-08-2010, 02:37 PM
don't bring a knife to a gun fight comes to mind...

depittydawg
06-08-2010, 02:40 PM
To blame the 'Christian right' for the deep division in this country while ignoring the intolerance and hatred condoned by the left is typical of the left and totally predictable.

fp[/QUOTE]

I guess I'm not seeing what you're referring in to here. What "intolerance and hatred"?

Franco
06-08-2010, 02:44 PM
The Palestinians have broken EVERY agreement they have made with Israel.

Israel just gave them some of the land back from the 73 war. Remember that, when Egypt and Syria attacked on Yom Kippur(sp).

I don't blame the Israelis for taking some of that land back.

Lets face it, Israel is the only country with big enough balls to take on Iran's nuke program. Certainly not the feeble B. Hussein O, who sat in Rev Wright's "God Damn America" church for 20 years!

ducknwork
06-08-2010, 02:45 PM
To blame the 'Christian right' for the deep division in this country while ignoring the intolerance and hatred condoned by the left is typical of the left and totally predictable.

fp

I guess I'm not seeing what you're referring in to here. What "intolerance and hatred"?[/QUOTE]

How many times have you seen the anti-Christians try to remove anything resembling God or religion from anywhere within eyesight or earshot of them, therefore taking away the Christians' right to practice their faith? I guess you just don't notice the bashing that Christians take daily in the name of 'freedom of religion'. Remember it's not 'freedom from religion'...

Hew
06-08-2010, 02:49 PM
Hew, that is out of bounds. I thank you not to twist words so. No where do I denigrate anyone of Jewish extraction. As a group of people, they have been unfairly hounded and persecuted for too long. I do not at all subscribe to Helen Thomas's view, either.

My criticism of the actions of the Isaeli government does not translate into anti-Semetism. My point is past maltreatment of Jewish nation does not justify the actions of the present Isaeli state.

When incursions of Palestinian enclaves occurs it is often rocks and slingshots against Israeli missles, helicopters, jet aircraft and armor. The casualty figures bear this out. You hear much about Israeli casualties but have you taken time to compare them to casualties on the other side?
You misunderstand. Your previous point, in a nutshell, was that Israel brings it on themselves for their actions. My point is that the Arabs have been wanting to kill every last Jew in Israel since 1948 not because of anything that Israel did but because they're Jews. And you want to claim it is the Israelis that are ethnically cleansing?!? Gentile, please. :rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
06-08-2010, 02:54 PM
The Palestinians have broken EVERY agreement they have made with Israel.

Israel just gave them some of the land back from the 73 war. Remember that, when Egypt and Syria attacked on Yom Kippur(sp).

I don't blame the Israelis for taking some of that land back.

Lets face it, Israel is the only country with big enough balls to take on Iran's nuke program. Certainly not the feeble B. Hussein O, who sat in Rev Wright's "God Damn America" church for 20 years!
Unlike most on this forum, I actually had friends fighting in the Israeli army during the 1973 war and had the "privilege" of being on the receiving end of Syrian artillery fired out of the Golan Heights ten years before the Yom Kippur War started. However, to be accurate, it should be noted that Israel engaged in a preemptive strike on Egypt before it was attacked.


Statements like these indicate the vast difference between the opposing points of views. Reconcilliation is highly unlikely. I believe it is not possible, and that sooner or later, this country will transform. To blame the 'Christian right' for the deep division in this country while ignoring the intolerance and hatred condoned by the left is typical of the left and totally predictable.

"The ethnic cleansing that Israel has undertaken..." Islamic states pray everyday for the destruction of Israel and all Jews. That quote could have easily come from Iran's propaganda machine. You can't be serious (but I fear that you are).

fp

Please don't associate me with any comments on ethnic cleansing, since I do not believe that has happened. However, my comments on the Christian Right refer directly to anyone who wants to see this country define itself as a Christian nation. I believe that there are few things more dangerous (or anti-American) than governments that define themselves in religious terms. I don't care at all what the religion is. I don't consider that statement to be hate speech and I don't believe you will find any instances where I have engaged in hate speech concerning religion or religious beliefs.

depittydawg
06-08-2010, 03:08 PM
I guess I'm not seeing what you're referring in to here. What "intolerance and hatred"?

How many times have you seen the anti-Christians try to remove anything resembling God or religion from anywhere within eyesight or earshot of them, therefore taking away the Christians' right to practice their faith? I guess you just don't notice the bashing that Christians take daily in the name of 'freedom of religion'. Remember it's not 'freedom from religion'...[/QUOTE]

As a Christian, I have to disagree. No one is trying to stop the practice of Christianity in America. I've never seen or heard of anyone being persecuted for practicing Christianity.
Consider on the other hand, that many are persecuted every day, especially in the public arena, for either not practicing Christianity, or for the method they chose to practice it. Look at all the nonsense that Obama has been through because his former pastor turned out to be a lunatic. Now, I would say that is close to persecution. A blatant attempt at smear by political rivals for ones practice of Christianity.

zeus3925
06-08-2010, 03:11 PM
You misunderstand. Your previous point, in a nutshell, was that Israel brings it on themselves for their actions. My point is that the Arabs have been wanting to kill every last Jew in Israel since 1948 not because of anything that Israel did but because they're Jews. And you want to claim it is the Israelis that are ethnically cleansing?!? Gentile, please. :rolleyes:

My point is Israel does nothing to change the course of the sordid history nor do they wish too. Why am I slamming the Israeli government? Because they would have the world believe they are innocent and do nothing wrong--which is pure propaganda. Do the Palestinians do some happy horse manure? You betcha.

The situation is another "brilliant" legacy of British foreign policy. If either side wants to keep the conflict going they can do it on Westminister's dime, not mine. As soon as we cut aid to both sides the better.

Franco
06-08-2010, 03:19 PM
Now, I would say that is close to persecution. A blatant attempt at smear by political rivals for ones practice of Christianity.



I doubt Rev Wright represents one of the Christian sects and preached the gospel on Sundays. Many of the inner-city black churches are more political than gospel. They use their church tax shelter to spew thier political doctrine. I'd bet that Rev Wright is more of a Muslim along with his good buddy, Louis Farakken.

Cody Covey
06-08-2010, 03:44 PM
My point is Israel does nothing to change the course of the sordid history nor do they wish too. Why am I slamming the Israeli government? Because they would have the world believe they are innocent and do nothing wrong--which is pure propaganda. Do the Palestinians do some happy horse manure? You betcha.

The situation is another "brilliant" legacy of British foreign policy. If either side wants to keep the conflict going they can do it on Westminister's dime, not mine. As soon as we cut aid to both sides the better.So do you believe also that we should give back the southwest to Mexico? I mean at least in this case it was theirs first. Not like in Israel where the arabs concurred the area to take the land then get pissed and start throw rocks when they lose the land the same way they got it.

Koolaid
06-08-2010, 03:56 PM
So do you believe also that we should give back the southwest to Mexico? I mean at least in this case it was theirs first. Not like in Israel where the arabs concurred the area to take the land then get pissed and start throw rocks when they lose the land the same way they got it.

You may want to read more of the topic than just that post. I don't think anyone on here has said give Israel back to the Arabs. It's a foolish proposition.

Bayou Magic
06-08-2010, 03:57 PM
Unlike most on this forum, I actually had friends fighting in the Israeli army during the 1973 war and had the "privilege" of being on the receiving end of Syrian artillery fired out of the Golan Heights ten years before the Yom Kippur War started. However, to be accurate, it should be noted that Israel engaged in a preemptive strike on Egypt before it was attacked.



Please don't associate me with any comments on ethnic cleansing, since I do not believe that has happened. However, my comments on the Christian Right refer directly to anyone who wants to see this country define itself as a Christian nation. I believe that there are few things more dangerous (or anti-American) than governments that define themselves in religious terms. I don't care at all what the religion is. I don't consider that statement to be hate speech and I don't believe you will find any instances where I have engaged in hate speech concerning religion or religious beliefs.

The ethnic cleansing quote was rightly attributed to zeus3925 (and you know it). My reference to leftist hate was not directed at you personally (and you know that, too). The hate exhibited by the left is hardly hidden.

Ya'll have a nice day. Discussions here have become quite tiresome. Time for me to start thinking of what's really important, like enjoying my first National Am that's just around the corner!

fp

zeus3925
06-08-2010, 04:12 PM
So do you believe also that we should give back the southwest to Mexico? I mean at least in this case it was theirs first. Not like in Israel where the arabs concurred the area to take the land then get pissed and start throw rocks when they lose the land the same way they got it.

I am not sure the analogy of the southwest fits. The issue is more like the Plains Indians laying claim to the Black Hills.

Nor is your history correct. The Turks controlled much of tle Arab world including Palestine for centuries until the end of World War I. The Arabs, which were under Ottoman (Turkish) rule, had been there centuries before the Ottoman empire collapsed after the first world war. The area fell under British mandate until they vacated it in 1947. No conquest by Arabs involved. But since they had been there for centuries they see the land being occupied by new comers.

I am not calling for the Israelis to fold up and go home. But, I do not see a reason to support intransigence with our taxpayer's money.

depittydawg
06-08-2010, 04:23 PM
The ethnic cleansing quote was rightly attributed to zeus3925 (and you know it). My reference to leftist hate was not directed at you personally (and you know that, too). The hate exhibited by the left is hardly hidden.

Ya'll have a nice day. Discussions here have become quite tiresome. Time for me to start thinking of what's really important, like enjoying my first National Am that's just around the corner!

fp

Another obscure reference to "leftist hate" without a reference. Again, I ask, show me a reference to 'hatred' exhibited by mainstream left groups. Now had you said, "right wing hate groups", well there is never a shortage of those. And they are booming since a black man was elected President of the United States.
Right Wing examples: KKK, Skinheads, Oath Seekers, John Birch Society (off the top of my head), For a good assessment of what is happening, push the play button and listen.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-report-number-of-patriot-groups-militias-surges-by-244-in-past-year
So now, perhaps someone can't give me an example of "left wing" hate groups of the same nature as these.

Hoosier
06-08-2010, 04:44 PM
http://www.jewlicious.com/2010/06/get-the-hell-out-of-my-face/comment-page-1/#comment-1519283

Cody Covey
06-08-2010, 04:45 PM
I am not sure the analogy of the southwest fits. The issue is more like the Plains Indians laying claim to the Black Hills.

Nor is your history correct. The Turks controlled much of tle Arab world including Palestine for centuries until the end of World War I. The Arabs, which were under Ottoman (Turkish) rule, had been there centuries before the Ottoman empire collapsed after the first world war. The area fell under British mandate until they vacated it in 1947. No conquest by Arabs involved. But since they had been there for centuries they see the land being occupied by new comers.

I am not calling for the Israelis to fold up and go home. But, I do not see a reason to support intransigence with our taxpayer's money.Yes but the Israelis occupied it for many more centuries before they ever did. Just because you used to live there doesn't make it your land especially when you have lost multiple wars for the region. It's the exacct same as the southwest a war was fought for the region one side lost. now people are calling for compromise even though Israel has given up a bunch of THEIR land already. Much more than I believe they should've done. Let the palestinian's throw their rocks and instigate the missiles being launched back...

YardleyLabs
06-08-2010, 04:48 PM
I am not sure the analogy of the southwest fits. The issue is more like the Plains Indians laying claim to the Black Hills.

Nor is your history correct. The Turks controlled much of tle Arab world including Palestine for centuries until the end of World War I. The Arabs, which were under Ottoman (Turkish) rule, had been there centuries before the Ottoman empire collapsed after the first world war. The area fell under British mandate until they vacated it in 1947. No conquest by Arabs involved. But since they had been there for centuries they see the land being occupied by new comers.

I am not calling for the Israelis to fold up and go home. But, I do not see a reason to support intransigence with our taxpayer's money.
Yet, the Hebrews were there throughout the period prior to Arab rule, under Arab rule, and under Turkish rule. They were subject to repeated attacks and were forced to emigrate to other countries to save their lives. Does that mean that those that left involuntarily lost their status in the region? If so, then how do Palestinians retain their status after leaving in 1948? As I asked early on in this thread, what is the statute of limitations? The Turks lost the area following World War I, when it was placed under British rule by the Treaty of Versailles with the understanding that a portion would be set aside for return of the Jewish populations expelled by the Turks. Was that less valid than the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or should those lands now be returned to Austria?

It took losses in three successive wars -- World War I, World War II, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War -- for Arabs to finally lose control of lands that they had not controlled for 400 years. How can you now consider their claims superior to those of the victors? In 1947 and 1948, there was only one group that was seeking ethnic cleansing, and that was the Arab nations. They rejected the two state solution adopted by the UN (which assumed responsibility for partitioning the Ottoman Empire into the countries that now make up the Middle East) and sought to obliterate the Jewish population of Palestine and make the Mediterranean run red with their blood (a quote from a classmate of mine who happened to be part of the Kuwaiti ruling family and hoped to lead the charge that would drive Zionists into the sea.). I am not a supporter of Israel's current policies, but I do understand them.

Helen Thomas spoke of the Jews in Israel as European imports. However, 89% of the Israeli population was born in Israel. How are they imports? That is comparable to the percentage of America's population born in America. Are we imports?

Cody Covey
06-08-2010, 04:48 PM
Another obscure reference to "leftist hate" without a reference. Again, I ask, show me a reference to 'hatred' exhibited by mainstream left groups. Now had you said, "right wing hate groups", well there is never a shortage of those. And they are booming since a black man was elected President of the United States.
Right Wing examples: KKK, Skinheads, Oath Seekers, John Birch Society (off the top of my head), For a good assessment of what is happening, push the play button and listen.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-report-number-of-patriot-groups-militias-surges-by-244-in-past-year
So now, perhaps someone can't give me an example of "left wing" hate groups of the same nature as these.

What makes those a "right wing organization" Considering the KKK was started by democrats and democrats still are in those organizations I don't really see it as a right wing organization so much as a hate organization.

Ask Bobby Byrd regards...

road kill
06-08-2010, 04:57 PM
Another obscure reference to "leftist hate" without a reference. Again, I ask, show me a reference to 'hatred' exhibited by mainstream left groups. Now had you said, "right wing hate groups", well there is never a shortage of those. And they are booming since a black man was elected President of the United States.
Right Wing examples: KKK, Skinheads, Oath Seekers, John Birch Society (off the top of my head), For a good assessment of what is happening, push the play button and listen.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-report-number-of-patriot-groups-militias-surges-by-244-in-past-year
So now, perhaps someone can't give me an example of "left wing" hate groups of the same nature as these.

Main stream media = left wing hate group! :D



rk

zeus3925
06-08-2010, 05:40 PM
Yes but the Israelis occupied it for many more centuries before they ever did. Just because you used to live there doesn't make it your land especially when you have lost multiple wars for the region.
Think about what you just said!

Cody Covey
06-08-2010, 05:53 PM
yeah we are not talking about personal property in America we are talking about a country, that won 3 wars 60+ years ago for the land that they owned before the then "occupiers" as Helen so eloquently put. Like it or not countries are won and lost in war. And the palestinian's lost. Get over it or don't be angry when people die in your feeble attempts to gain land...

Bayou Magic
06-08-2010, 05:57 PM
Another obscure reference to "leftist hate" without a reference. Again, I ask, show me a reference to 'hatred' exhibited by mainstream left groups. Now had you said, "right wing hate groups", well there is never a shortage of those. And they are booming since a black man was elected President of the United States.
Right Wing examples: KKK, Skinheads, Oath Seekers, John Birch Society (off the top of my head), For a good assessment of what is happening, push the play button and listen.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-report-number-of-patriot-groups-militias-surges-by-244-in-past-year
So now, perhaps someone can't give me an example of "left wing" hate groups of the same nature as these.

One of the most hate-filled statements that I can remember comes from that obscure organization known as the Democratic Party. Does Howard Dean, the former Chairman of the Democratic Party ring a bell? When successfully vying for the Democratic National Chairman, what did he say about Republicans?

Is that mainstream enough?

fp

Franco
06-08-2010, 06:05 PM
Right Wing examples: KKK, Skinheads, Oath Seekers, John Birch Society



Why are they labeled Right Wing? I don't remember the SDS, Minutemen, Black Panthers etc. being labeled Left Wing.

It is the media that wants to make non-Liberals look bad!

YardleyLabs
06-08-2010, 06:05 PM
Think about what you just said!
The point is that both sides have the same historical claims. What makes one set of claims superior to the others? All that we are left with is the current condition and the process that brought us here. Palestinian Arabs have no better historic claim than Israeli Jews. Israeli Jews have the claim of current possession, a lawful turnover from the most recent colonial rulers of the many that controlled Palestine since it was first conquered by the Romans, and the right of territory won in war with an aggressor that first rejected any peaceful solution. There have been no extended periods of time when national borders were stable and control rested in the same people over time. Only a small part of our country has been "American" for more than 200 years, and we last redefined our borders in 1959. None of the countries that now make up the Middle East was a country 100 years ago with similar borders. None of Eastern Europe today is the same as the Eastern Europe of 100 years ago. Virtually none of the countries of Africa or Asia are the same now as they were 100 years ago. Where is the line between legitimate and illegitimate claims?

YardleyLabs
06-08-2010, 06:07 PM
Why are they labeled Right Wing? I don't remember the SDS, Minutemen, Black Panthers etc. being labeled Left Wing.

It is the media that wants to make non-Liberals look bad!
You have got to be kidding. They were all labeled left wing and deemed to be a logical extension of liberalism. Personally, I viewed them all as fascist, with more in common with Franco's Spain than with LBJ's Great Society.

depittydawg
06-08-2010, 06:11 PM
One of the most hate-filled statements that I can remember comes from that obscure organization known as the Democratic Party. Does Howard Dean, the former Chairman of the Democratic Party ring a bell? When successfully vying for the Democratic National Chairman, what did he say about Republicans?

Is that mainstream enough?

fp

No, but it does prove you're out there in the bleaches. The Democratic Party is a Hate Group... Is that the best you can do?

depittydawg
06-08-2010, 06:15 PM
Why are they labeled Right Wing? I don't remember the SDS, Minutemen, Black Panthers etc. being labeled Left Wing.

It is the media that wants to make non-Liberals look bad!

I seem to remember all of them being labeled as left wing radical and / or revolutionary organizations. Along with a few others. Which they were. But they don't exist today do they? Radicalism today comes from the right, not the left. Why is that so hard to accept? Radials are always wrong. Doesn't matter which side of the fence graze from.

Cody Covey
06-08-2010, 07:02 PM
I seem to remember all of them being labeled as left wing radical and / or revolutionary organizations. Along with a few others. Which they were. But they don't exist today do they? Radicalism today comes from the right, not the left. Why is that so hard to accept? Radials are always wrong. Doesn't matter which side of the fence graze from.

Doesn't exist today says who?
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:IOS2zWN0_lgKBM:http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/black-panthers.jpg

david gibson
06-08-2010, 07:07 PM
Doesn't exist today says who?
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:IOS2zWN0_lgKBM:http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/black-panthers.jpg

oh cody dont you know they already have an explanation for "that" incident?

it was totally innocent! there were no whites to vote at that precinct, so it was ok to have these guys there. they only brandished their arms when bad right wing reporter-type people tried to enter. there is no proof they ever scared a white person away, so they are cool!!

(puke)

YardleyLabs
06-08-2010, 07:08 PM
Doesn't exist today says who?
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:IOS2zWN0_lgKBM:http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/black-panthers.jpg
Do a little more research on the history of that photo and you will realize that it has been posted on right wing blogs more often than there are member of the Panthers. The individual pictured, who represented almost the entire Philadelphia membership of the Panthers was expelled and the Philadelphia chapter terminated immediately after this event, where nothing really happened beyond the photo op.

Franco
06-08-2010, 07:18 PM
Radicalism today comes from the right, not the left. Why is that so hard to accept?



More radical groups still on the left.

The name escapes me of the Hispanic radical group, I think it starts with a Z.
The new Black Panthers
The ACORN subsideraries
Green Peace
PITA
Democrats

to name a few;-)

BonMallari
06-08-2010, 07:24 PM
More radical groups still on the left.

The name escapes me of the Hispanic radical group, I think it starts with a Z.
The new Black Panthers
The ACORN subsideraries
Green Peace
PITA
Democrats

to name a few;-)

I think you mean La Raza....and I agree PETA is a PITA :p:p

Cody Covey
06-08-2010, 10:22 PM
Do a little more research on the history of that photo and you will realize that it has been posted on right wing blogs more often than there are member of the Panthers. The individual pictured, who represented almost the entire Philadelphia membership of the Panthers was expelled and the Philadelphia chapter terminated immediately after this event, where nothing really happened beyond the photo op.So the group does not exist as claimed?

YardleyLabs
06-08-2010, 10:53 PM
So the group does not exist as claimed?
The Black Panthers exist on life support and do not represent a threat to anyone. The Philadelphia"chapter, at the time of that photo had a reported two members. The only "crime" committed by the guy in the photo was carrying a police night stick that was not concealed. Not clear it was even a crime and he was released without charges. The other guy who was with him did nothing. There was no evidence whatsoever that they did anything to intimidate any voters. Standing outside a polling station and being ugly are not yet crimes, or i would not be permitted to vote at all. I dealt with the Panthers -- specifically Bill Kunstler, their attorney -- in the 1970's and even by then the organization was far from intimidating. As it happened, I was someone they wanted to intimidate. By the 70's those guys who had been so prominent were married, had kids, and were used to a regular paycheck. Of the dozen or so guys that I had "reassigned" to my staff as leaders in the Young Lords (the Hispanic sister organization), and the FALN (Puerto Rican Liberation movement that had occupied the Statue of Liberty), one went on to remain a terrorist threat. He helped an incompetent bomber to escape from a prison medical ward and was then never heard from again. The other "ring leaders" all ended up in jobs as drug addiction counselors where they performed quite well.

david gibson
06-08-2010, 11:44 PM
The Black Panthers exist on life support and do not represent a threat to anyone. The Philadelphia"chapter, at the time of that photo had a reported two members. The only "crime" committed by the guy in the photo was carrying a police night stick that was not concealed. Not clear it was even a crime and he was released without charges. The other guy who was with him did nothing. There was no evidence whatsoever that they did anything to intimidate any voters. Standing outside a polling station and being ugly are not yet crimes, or i would not be permitted to vote at all. I dealt with the Panthers -- specifically Bill Kunstler, their attorney -- in the 1970's and even by then the organization was far from intimidating. As it happened, I was someone they wanted to intimidate. By the 70's those guys who had been so prominent were married, had kids, and were used to a regular paycheck. Of the dozen or so guys that I had "reassigned" to my staff as leaders in the Young Lords (the Hispanic sister organization), and the FALN (Puerto Rican Liberation movement that had occupied the Statue of Liberty), one went on to remain a terrorist threat. He helped an incompetent bomber to escape from a prison medical ward and was then never heard from again. The other "ring leaders" all ended up in jobs as drug addiction counselors where they performed quite well.

the difference is doing this at a polling place is a different level of "crime".

typical liberal whitewash of an incident where if it had been a lone klansman in an opposite situation you would have a different story.

i thought zerO said to quit making excuses??

huntinman
06-09-2010, 09:55 AM
The Black Panthers exist on life support and do not represent a threat to anyone.

Funny...that's the same thing Bambi said about Iran, North Korea etc... Remember? "Theyr'e just tiny countries...they can't hurt anyone" What a dolt.

dnf777
06-09-2010, 09:59 AM
Funny...that's the same thing Bambi said about Iran, North Korea etc... Remember? "Theyr'e just tiny countries...they can't hurt anyone" What a dolt.

Unless he said that in jest, need to see a reference on that one!

huntinman
06-09-2010, 10:33 AM
Unless he said that in jest, need to see a reference on that one!

Enjoy your boy at his finest!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB_DFfIolOE

dnf777
06-09-2010, 11:08 AM
Enjoy your boy at his finest!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB_DFfIolOE

sorry, those are highly edited soundbytes of 10 seconds at the most. There is no context of the larger point he was making. This is the equivalent of the snapshot in time of him without his hand on his heart, that we've seen similar shots of Bush and anyone else who's ever been in public! I've heard entire speeches he's made, and have never heard that spirit of downplaying the threat of anyone. As we speak, sanctions are being voted upon against Iran. Whether they will work is a whole 'nother topic, but it doesn't make sense to impose sanctions against someone you don't think is a threat, does it?

david gibson
06-09-2010, 11:18 AM
sorry, those are highly edited soundbytes of 10 seconds at the most. There is no context of the larger point he was making. This is the equivalent of the snapshot in time of him without his hand on his heart, that we've seen similar shots of Bush and anyone else who's ever been in public! I've heard entire speeches he's made, and have never heard that spirit of downplaying the threat of anyone. As we speak, sanctions are being voted upon against Iran. Whether they will work is a whole 'nother topic, but it doesn't make sense to impose sanctions against someone you don't think is a threat, does it?

i remember hearing the longer verions right after he said them. sorry dnf, it is what it is. thats what he said and he meant it at the time. no amount of editing can change what he meant, he said it over and over.

anything you dont agree with you just shrug off as "edited" and "out of context". you are really growing tiresome

dnf777
06-09-2010, 11:20 AM
i remember hearing the longer verions right after he said them. sorry dnf, it is what it is. thats what he said and he meant it at the time. no amount of editing can change what he meant, he said it over and over.

anything you dont agree with you just shrug off as "edited" and "out of context". you are really growing tiresome

So are you. The difference is, I can make points or disagree without calling names and personal insults and saying I HATE large groups of fellow Americans and RFTers. If that insults you, sorry.

huntinman
06-09-2010, 11:25 AM
sorry, those are highly edited soundbytes of 10 seconds at the most. There is no context of the larger point he was making. This is the equivalent of the snapshot in time of him without his hand on his heart, that we've seen similar shots of Bush and anyone else who's ever been in public! I've heard entire speeches he's made, and have never heard that spirit of downplaying the threat of anyone. As we speak, sanctions are being voted upon against Iran. Whether they will work is a whole 'nother topic, but it doesn't make sense to impose sanctions against someone you don't think is a threat, does it?

Go on youtube, there are tons of versions of this verbal pollution from bambi. Every time someone gives you facts you try to rationalize it away. Your boy is an incompetent, inexperienced radical. He hid who he is during the campaign with help from the media. The cat is out of the bag now no matter how hard you libs scramble to try and put it back.

YardleyLabs
06-09-2010, 11:28 AM
Enjoy your boy at his finest!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB_DFfIolOE
You can see the comment in context at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ

Obama was arguing that we needed to try to have face to face negotiations with countries like Iran. He said Iran was much smaller and less of a threat than enemies we had faced such as the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but that we had sat down with the Russians and we needed to be ready to sit down with the Iranians also.

huntinman
06-09-2010, 11:33 AM
You can see the comment in context at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ

Obama was arguing that we needed to try to have face to face negotiations with countries like Iran. He said Iran was much smaller and less of a threat than enemies we had faced such as the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but that we had sat down with the Russians and we needed to be ready to sit down with the Iranians also.

It sure seems that you guys have to tell us what Obama "really" means every time he says something stupid. Maybe he should start a new Gov't agency... Federal Bureau of Clarity. Some dweeb in coke bottle glasses to interpret Obamas telepromter...

david gibson
06-09-2010, 11:37 AM
So are you. The difference is, I can make points or disagree without calling names and personal insults and saying I HATE large groups of fellow Americans and RFTers. If that insults you, sorry.

nothing you say insults me, i consider the source.

saying "i hate liberals" does not include a "large group" or rtf'ers, just a select few! and again, you take things literally if they fit your agenda. i have liberal family members, and i dont hate them. its a manner of speech.

"i hate liberalism, and strongly disagree with most liberals"

there, is that PC enough for you???

and i didnt see you condemning anyone that called me names in the past. ho hum, no surprise. i take very little on the internet seriously, unlike you.

dnf777
06-09-2010, 12:14 PM
and i didnt see you condemning anyone that called me names in the past. ho hum, no surprise. i take very little on the internet seriously, unlike you.


Hey you guys! Quit pickin' on Dave Gibson!!

There, how's that? Didn't realize it was my job to coddle you.

Can I get you some warm milk and cookies while I'm at it?

If you think I take this seriously......think again!

YardleyLabs
06-09-2010, 12:18 PM
It sure seems that you guys have to tell us what Obama "really" means every time he says something stupid. Maybe he should start a new Gov't agency... Federal Bureau of Clarity. Some dweeb in coke bottle glasses to interpret Obamas telepromter...
I don't know if you listened to it or not, but it is a question of what he said, not what he meant to say. The words in the clip were just that -- words clipped deliberately to distort what was actually said. It's a time honored tactic used by sleezeballs from all points on the political spectrum. Do you belkieve that Iran today, or Iran in 2008, is a greater threat to our security than, say, the Soviet Union in the 1960's? The Soviet Union during the Cold War had the ability to destroy us at will any time they were willing to suffer the consequences of having us destroy them. Iran does not have that power and is probably decades away from being able to develop that power even if permitted to do so. We, however, are able to destroy them at any time we choose as long as we are prepared to accept the collateral damage to the surrounding countries. Iran does have the power to hurt us, but that is not an existential threat.

"Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries," Obama says in his statement from which the clip was taken. "I mean, think about it," he continued "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us and yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time that they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent a nuclear war....."

The bold section represents what was included in the "clip". How well does that reflect what was actually said. I don't think the problem is liberals trying to explain what Obama meant to say. The problem is conservatives choosing to select the words they wish he had said so that they can completely distort his comments into a lie. That is so much easier than dealing with someone who, even if you disagree with him, is neither stupid nor ignorant.

depittydawg
06-09-2010, 12:26 PM
i remember hearing the longer verions right after he said them. sorry dnf, it is what it is. thats what he said and he meant it at the time. no amount of editing can change what he meant, he said it over and over.

anything you dont agree with you just shrug off as "edited" and "out of context". you are really growing tiresome

That piece of film is about as reliable as one of the tapes they dig out supposedly from Bin Ladin every few years.. Worthless piece of doctored trash. What I want to know about conservatives is why are they so afraid of everything? My god, do you guys ever get any sleep... The boogeyman is out there. Watch out... Be afraid! Relax. The military is already positioned right next door to Iran. In fact, they are surrounded. And how many aircraft carriers are withing striking distance? You want something to be afraid about how about turning your eyes to America. The Supreme Court is doing some pretty crazy legislating from the Bench right now. And the Senate is downright destroying the fabric of the Republic. Those are "REAL" threats America faces today.

david gibson
06-09-2010, 12:50 PM
Hey you guys! Quit pickin' on Dave Gibson!!

There, how's that? Didn't realize it was my job to coddle you.

Can I get you some warm milk and cookies while I'm at it?

If you think I take this seriously......think again!

you are the last person i want defending me. just pointing out your hypocrisy, again, as tiresome as it is.

huntinman
06-09-2010, 12:54 PM
I don't know if you listened to it or not, but it is a question of what he said, not what he meant to say. The words in the clip were just that -- words clipped deliberately to distort what was actually said. It's a time honored tactic used by sleezeballs from all points on the political spectrum. Do you belkieve that Iran today, or Iran in 2008, is a greater threat to our security than, say, the Soviet Union in the 1960's? The Soviet Union during the Cold War had the ability to destroy us at will any time they were willing to suffer the consequences of having us destroy them. Iran does not have that power and is probably decades away from being able to develop that power even if permitted to do so. We, however, are able to destroy them at any time we choose as long as we are prepared to accept the collateral damage to the surrounding countries. Iran does have the power to hurt us, but that is not an existential threat.

"Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries," Obama says in his statement from which the clip was taken. "I mean, think about it," he continued "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us and yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time that they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent a nuclear war....."

The bold section represents what was included in the "clip". How well does that reflect what was actually said. I don't think the problem is liberals trying to explain what Obama meant to say. The problem is conservatives choosing to select the words they wish he had said so that they can completely distort his comments into a lie. That is so much easier than dealing with someone who, even if you disagree with him, is neither stupid nor ignorant.

You are hereby appointed Czar of the Federal Bureau of Clarity!

Franco
06-09-2010, 01:10 PM
And the Senate is downright destroying the fabric of the Republic.



With the help of the White House. But, your point is well taken, there is far more danger from within than some goat hearders in the mideast.

Hew
06-09-2010, 04:20 PM
What I want to know about conservatives is why are they so afraid of everything? My god, do you guys ever get any sleep... The boogeyman is out there. Watch out... Be afraid!
Says the guys who less than 24 hrs ago, on this very thread, was posting warnings about rightwing hate groups. You're something else, dude.

subroc
08-03-2010, 08:46 AM
an article that states Helen Thomas may get a statue in the Arab American National Museum in Michigan?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3929328,00.html