Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Spinning Wheels?

In a move more symbolic than substantive, Ehud Olmert met with Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank town of Jericho on Monday. This was the first time in seven years an Israeli prime minister visited a West Bank town. Very little was accomplished, other than Olmert expressing the desire that real peace talks begin soon.

But I have to side with columnist Chaya Gil who won't hold her breath given the history of such attempts, particularly if peace is contingent upon Israel giving up land. Since Israel has left Gaza, literally hundreds of Qassam rockets have rained upon Israeli towns. " ...on July 29, two terrorists tried to infiltrate Israel from Gaza and two rockets were fired-one landing on a college campus and injuring a woman. It is sheer luck, and perhaps the bad aim of the Hamas terrorists, that prevented more deaths of Israeli civilians."

Also from Gil's column:

"The Israeli public has shown countless times they want peace, they welcome peace, they are ready for peace. Israel's government has shown good faith in dealing with the Palestinians. Despite the continued terrorism, Israel recently released 250 prisoners who were members of Fatah. Israel allowed Gazans, who had fled to Egypt a few weeks ago to avoid the vicious fighting between Hamas and Fatah security forces and were trapped, to return to Gaza through Israel.
"Did you see the celebration on Israel's humanitarian gestures on the Arab street? No? That's because there were no celebrations and virtually no acknowledgment of Israel's efforts."

She goes on to express the sentiment that talk is cheap, and especially so in that region, and also that it can't be disregarded that the Hamas charter still calls for the complete destruction of Israel and the total occupation of that area by Palestinians.

I have to agree. Talk is indeed very cheap there and the hatred for all things Israel will be a difficult aspect to overcome. So I hope something comes of any talks and I hope it's truly satisfactory to both sides. I'm not holding my breath, either.

81 comments:

ELAshley said...

Arabs do not see Israelis as even human... they're all the descendants of apes and pigs. Why then would Arabs-- NOT Palestinians --celebrate the good gestures of animals?

I know Israelis are tired of the constant tension and war-- even to the point of doing the unthinkable, but sooner or later they'll have to accept that peace with the murderous religion of Islam is not possible.

At least, not if man is behind the process.

On a side note: Aliyah is at near record highs. Only the 1950's and '60's saw higher numbers of Jews emigrating to Israel.

Marshall Art said...

Exactly my point. In discussions of Israeli "injustice", it seems to be ignored the prevailing Arab/Muslim attitudes toward Jews. In doing so, one can deceive one's self regarding Israeli actions. But considering what they've been up against, basically since around 670AD, I have to insist the onus is on the Arabs to prove themselves first and foremost before any further concessions are had by the Israelis.

Parklife said...

Marshall.. Since Mark doesnt like my posts.. yet you seem to be able to take it...

“(The troops) see this as another manifestation of the good they've been doing and the progress that is happening daily.”

"That the Iraqis could field and train a team.."
7 of the 24 players are affiliated with Iraqi club teams.. with the best players and captain playing outside the country. In other words.. the players do not live in Iraq. Even better the players are not 5 years old. They grew up in a different era and are not a product (thank god) of this war. Even better than that? The players have stated, on several occasions, that they want the US out of Iraq.

Oh.. wait.. the team is forced to practice in Dubai because Iraq is a complete mess. Dubai likely has better facilities.. therefore contributing to the better condition of the players.. therefore the eff-up that is Iraq has indirectly caused the soccer team to claim victory over such soccer world powers as South Korea. My bad.

The troops are fighting because the American people sent them over there. The American people were under the misconception that Iraq was planning on using WMDs. This has nothing to do with the Iraqi people.. And even less to do with soccer. Connecting a soccer win to any “good” in this war torn country is misleading to say the least.

Everybody is ecstatic that Iraq won. Yet, I have found zero evidence (aside from a 2004 letter from the WH) supporting your claim. Please provide some evidence as to how the troops “see this as another manifestation of the good they’ve been doing and progress that is happening daily”. Until then, it appears you enjoy gobbling up the conservative propaganda. Yum yum!

Marshall Art said...

If you want to believe that, fine. I'm not about to put myself out over an off-handed remark I heard 2-3 weeks ago. I prefer to go by the overall attitude I hear in the interviews of service personnel doing the heavy lifting in Iraq. When I listen to interviews of troops, I have no reason to believe they are just feeding me conservative propaganda. That their own words contradict what you'd like to believe about their purpose, their attitudes and their desire to see their mission through to completion, is just something with which you'll have to deal. It's easy for me. I have a higher opinion of them than apparently do you.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Aiding Fatah is a big mistake by the West. We should cut off all aid, let Hamas run the show, and let the Pali's simmer in their own filth.

Marshall Art said...

I agree with you totally, Jason, in principle. But there is something to be said for our show of concern for the Palestinian regular Joe. The problem is, has it ever done any good in the past? I'd like to see some real concessions on the part of the Palestinians before they see one more dime from us. It's high time we hold the dregs of the world to higher expectations.

Timothy said...

El writes:
"Arabs do not see Israelis as even human... they're all the descendants of apes and pigs."

Why is it that one group always refers to the others as apes or pigs? Wasn't this a common argument for slavery in the 1800s?

I guess b/c it's a lot easier to kill those you think of as apes, instead of humans. Sad.

Parklife said...

MA.. you are connecting the surge to soccer. That doesnt see weird to you? Whatever

Marshall Art said...

Parklife,

You have a problem. Why are you so hung up on this statement I made, that I said was based on an aside, said in passing, a small piece of a larger discussion? I went to your link. You dissected my comment as if you've made some kind of point. Why don't you twist one up and chill? I'm not connecting the surge to a soccer game. I don't think I even mentioned the surge. Here's a tip: Blow it off until there's an actual thread focussing on the soccer game, the mood of the troops, or something related to that topic rather than the one for which this thread exists. Do you get this worked up over navel lint? The topic of this thread is far weightier than the comment I made about the soccer team. Jeez louise!

Mark said...

Yes. Spinning wheels indeed. There will never be peace in the Middle East until the second coming. To expect the Arab nations to embrace peace with Israel is to deny reality.

Parklife, where did you get the impression that I don't like your posts? Maybe I don't, but I certainly never said so. I just haven't been online much lately. Busy busy busy, you know.

The only significance the Iraqi soccer victory has is to give us some insight into actual conditions in Iraq, versus what the "if it bleeds, it leads" media reports. My point, over at my place, is that there is not widespread murder and mayhem all over Iraq, as we are led to believe. There are many parts of Iraq that are relatively peaceful, thanks mostly to the fact that our troops are enforcing peace. If the picture painted by the main stream media is true, all soccer players playing even one game in Iraq, would not be playing, rather they would be cowering in fear in the nearest concrete bunker.

Perhaps the reason they feel safe to play soccer in Iraq is because rhe surge is working, as even the New York Slimes has grudgingly admitted.

Marshall Art said...

I wasn't intending to respond any further to Parklife's fixation on a throw-away comment, but the following speaks to my underlying point regarding the attitudes of the troops, and it fell into my lap while checking out AmericanThinker.com. Of course, it is one man's perception regarding his own observations, but, from a Time magazine article by Bill Kristol:

"But that was the exception. The rule in Iraq is that brigade and battalion commanders--and even captains and lieutenants--are also taking on responsibilities as diplomats, politicians, development consultants, educators. The limited number of American civilians (and the virtual absence of Europeans) has thrown all the responsibility of nation building--more accurately, community building--on the U.S. military. And rather than complain, the soldiers do it [willingly] and even cheerfully, and with remarkable competence."

The brackets around the word "willingly" are mine. They align with what I've been saying about the mindset of many, if not most, of the troops in Iraq, that they see their mission as being one where they can make a positive difference. Of course they are there initially by command. But I've heard so many speak of doing good there. We haven't heard it much from the mainstream media, but only from bloggers and/or conservative talkers who take the time to really speak to them. Are there soldiers who are pissed and think its all a big crock and waste of time, that nothing they do matters, that their ONLY concern is of themselves staying alive and going home? Sure there are. Aren't there always?

I haven't read the full article. Go to AmericanThinker.com to check out where I got the above, and I think they might link to Time, though not necessarily to the article. Perhaps its on the newsstands now.

Mark said...

Lone Ranger, who writes for an international news organization writes this:

"It's almost quitting time. I've been here nearly 10 hours and have not heard a peep out of Iraq. Nothing on the daily situation report, nothing from the Coalition, no bombings, no shootings. Nothing but crickets. I haven't written a single story all night. But I'm still being handsomely paid.

You can't tell ME the surge isn't working!"

Unlike Parklife, LR knows what is actually happening, or more appropriately, not happening in Iraq. If it doesn't bleed, it not only doesn't lead, it doesn't even get reported.

Democracy Lover said...

It's so interesting that Israel and the US (bastion of democracy and defender of self-determination) ostracized the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people and are now making nicey-nice with the unelected, unrepresentative, and undemocratic "leadership". Hard to spin that one, isn't it?

Of course there is nothing substantive going on in the talks between Olmert and Abbas - that's exactly what is intended - a sham display.

While Hamas (a creation of Israel in the first place) has committed terrorist acts, they certainly have committed no more than the Israeli government. They have the added excuse that they are resisting an illegal occupation. You are hardly likely to see Arabs celebrate the occasional sops Israel throws to the Palestinians in their PR war as long as they continue to occupy Palestinian land and repress Palestinian people.

Marshall Art said...

That would make sense, DL, if in fact there ever was such a thing as Palestinian land. There isn't any. The area known as Palestine was home to more than just Arabs and those who now call themselves "Palestinians", but it was never a recognized state or nation. Also a bit of a mistatement is the idea that Israel created Hamas. Nonsense. Arab Muslims have been looking to anihilate Jews since the 600's and Hamas is simply going with the game plan. Funny how those Palies that live as Israeli citizens are living better than those fighting with Israel. Considering all the monetary aid sent to the Palies just from our country alone, one would expect better.

And if you want to discount the "occasional sops", perhaps you can name all the sincere gestures made by the Palies.

Finally, if you believe we should support a government that retains a charter with the aim of destroying an ally of our country, whether fairly elected or not, then there's something wrong with you. We did nothing to overturn that election. We rightly acknowledged the right of the Palestinians to elect assholes. Only idiots would continue to send money to assholes who have done nothing to renounce their asshole ways. We're looking to help bring about peace in between those two groups and that's not likely to happen when one of the groups puts in charge the very scumbags that have escalated the violence.

Jason H. Bowden said...

democracylover--

"They have the added excuse that they are resisting an illegal occupation."

This is a bullshit statement. Israel is a legitimate, democratic, and civilized country. For the nature of Pali society, go no further than Pallywood itself. Farfour clearly explains to children the basics of global Islamic domination, extermination of the Jews, martyrdom and so forth.

I absolutely can't stand the way the left demonizes Christians at home, but acts like dark age theocrats abroad are in a state of grace.

Democracy Lover said...

You bought that ridiculous bit of Israeli propaganda? That's like saying that there never was any such thing as Native American land because the Native Americans were never organized like Europeans and did not share the European concept of private property.

I believe the United States should not take sides in the conflict in Palestine. There is nothing to be gained from our uncompromising support of Israeli aggression and a very great deal to lose. The paltry sums the US has funneled to the "Palestinian Authority" pale in comparison to the billions that have been given to Israel - aid that has kept that nation from having to face the reality of its situation.

Israel is a legitimate nation - within its internationally agreed borders. It has no legitimate claim to the West Bank or Gaza, no right to establish settlements, checkpoints and remove Palestinians from their land.

I can see that the writer and readers of this blog have been so blinded by Israeli propaganda that they simply do not know the facts about this conflict or choose not to believe them.

Peace cannot be achieved by forcing people to agree to the theft of their land, by forcing people to stifle their objections to constant daily harassment and oppression, or by ignoring their right to exist and their right to determine their own destiny. That way is the way of war and that is why the brief history of the state of Israel has been one of constant warfare.

Marshall Art said...

Again you make mistakes in that Israel has not denied the Palies the right to exist. But the Palies demand the right to exist only on THEIR terms with no regard for Israel. Sure, there's always talk about Israel moving back to pre '67 borders. But history has shown that Israel moving back to any position simply means the Palies move in and launch missiles from a better vantage point. This has been the case in Gaza, and it's well documented. The lands that Israel has taken were to prevent such attacks, to better their position strategically. Considering the goals of wiping out Israel by their enemies, I bow to their sense of what is best for them, and I have no problem with giving aid to an ally in such dire straights. If it's not Hamas from one direction, it's Hezbollah from another. If not them, it's destructio rhetoric from Iran. No sir. It is YOU who has fallen for propaganda and YOU who needs to see the reality of the situation.

Democracy Lover said...

It is evident from your language that you have no respect for any position but the Israeli one in this matter. If you referred to both sides by their names rather than your derogatory terms, it might make your argument a bit more believable.

Of course, the Palestinians are angry and of course there are groups that demonstrate that anger with violence. Given your attitude I have to think that if you were a Palestinian living under Israeli occupation, you would be a Hamas supporter. The question here is how do we bring the violence to an end? The answer is justice for all parties.

A just and equitable solution is the only way (short of genocide) to isolate and dis-empower the violent radical elements. At one point, it might have been possible to have 2 states living side by side, but the Israelis killed that idea. Their idea of a Palestinian state is about like our idea of the "sovereign nation" of the Indian reservation. I doubt that is possible now.

The US, by its unquestioning support for the Israeli government, regardless of their policy, has made itself the enemy of Israel's enemies. That was never necessary, it was never advisable, and it was never consonant with America's historic values. We must accept our responsibility for this morass and insist that our ally, the Israeli government, act to end this violence with a just and equitable solution that gives Palestinians equal rights and equal standing with Israelis.

hashfanatic said...

"Given your attitude I have to think that if you were a Palestinian living under Israeli occupation, you would be a Hamas supporter."

BINGO!!

Bless you, democracy lover.

Marshall Art said...

Well, DL. I won't say you're the Jew hater that Hash has shown himself to be, but if I were a Palestinian, and I mean an average Joe Palestinian, I would wonder why "leaders" like Hamas, Arafat, Fatah, and other jerkwads want to continue messing with a country that has the guns to eradicate us if they so desired. This claim that the onus is on Israel is evidence of your myopic view of the situation. It is not the Jews who seek the total destruction of the Palestinian people. It is not the Jews who teach their children that Palestinians are animals who need to be anihilated and their memory erased. I ask you again: what has the Palestinians done to show THEIR good faith in any negotiations that ever took place? Israel offered tons of concessions to Arafat and he not only balked because it wasn't 100% of what the Palies wanted, but continued his intifada. Israel pulled out of Gaza and as has been stated, they've gotten hundreds of rockets for their troubles. The Palies have shown NO real desire to make nice with Israel.

Les said...

"The Palies have shown NO real desire to make nice with Israel."

This is the key part of this entire debate that Israel's detractors fail to acknowledge exists, Art, and it's why I part company with my liberal brethren (most of them, anyway) on this particular issue. After all the finger pointing, it sadly boils down to this - a war(s) was waged, and a victor emerged. Sorry, Arab nations - you lost. Is it 100% fair to all those Palestinians - many of whom, I'm sure, had no interest in Israel's destruction - who lost their land? Well, of course it's not. War, and all of its tragic consequences, is NOT fair! For some, it's beneficial. For others, it's disaster. There are always victims - innocent or otherwise - who will suffer irrespective of the outcome. If peaceful coexistence with the Israelis was something the Palestinians truly desired, then they'd find a way to pick up the pieces of their devastated lives and move on. If they valued their futures and the futures of their children, they'd work within themselves to stop the cycle. I have yet to see proof that they have it in them. Until then, they are at the mercy of Israel's sword, and I have no problem with that.

Democracy Lover said...

Marshall, if you were a Palestinian living in the occupied territories, you would indeed be disappointed in leaders like Arafat and Abbas. They have cooperated off and on with the Israeli government mostly in order to get the foreign aid money and line their own pockets.

When a nation is occupying territory in violation of international law, the onus is on them to make concessions, not on the victims of the occupation. While we could go around and around about the details of each negotiation in the long history of "peace talks", the question now is how do we achieve a just and lasting peace.

What the last 60 years have shown is that peace cannot be achieve through military means, or oppression, or walls and checkpoints, it requires a settlement that the populations on both sides find to be just and equitable. The continuation of the occupation and the disdainful attitude toward the Palestinian people are not going to solve anything.

Jason H. Bowden said...

democracy lover--

The left worships the Palestinians because they see them as noble victims, and the Israelis as bullies. This occurs because the left thirsts for equality and refuses to make distinctions, therefore any inequalities must be due to wrongdoing in their mind, and not self-destructive beliefs or practices.

The right sides with the Israelis because the Israelis practice democracy, have gay pride parades, value science, while the Palestinians execute people for homosexual practices, teach martyrdom to their children, and believe in rule of the gun.

Note that most Europeans immigrated to Palestine under the British administration fair and square. There are 1,000,000,000 Muslims on the planet, and only 14 million Jews. That six million of them live in Israel, a country the size of New Jersey, of which over half is the Negev desert, is not a ground for outrage. The would be peace IMMEDIATELY in the region if the Palestinians gave up their holy mission to complete Hitler's work.

Parklife said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Democracy Lover said...

Jason, you seem to be confusing the Palestinians and the Taliban. The accusations you make about the Palestinians might fit the Taliban or the Shiite theocracy in Iran, but are not true of Palestine.

There was European Jewish migration to Palestine while it was under the British Mandate following WWI. It seems rather dubious that Britain's decision to allow Zionists to migrate to Palestine with no regard to the current occupants of that land was "fair and square".

Britain effectively administered this land from the end of 1917 until 1922 under terms of WWI treaties that only called for the undefined area of "Palestine" to be maintained as an international enclave. In 1923 a League of Nations mandate went into effect that recognized the desire for Jews to create a homeland stated "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

You can read An Introduction to the Israel-Palestine Conflict for more detailed history of the methods Zionists used to push Palestinians off their land.

hashfanatic said...

"...I won't say you're the Jew hater that Hash has shown himself to be..."

Yeah, marsh, now that you have slandered me with the shameful "jew-hater" designation, I am now compelled to go out and pledge my life, my heart, my soul, and my money to the Jewish cause, as you have.

Marshall Art said...

Dem Lover,

"When a nation is occupying territory in violation of international law..."

Seems to me they mostly occupy territory to protect themselves. They'll take whatever has proven to be of strategic value to the Palies and made it the same for themselves. Again, if the Palies would stop lobbin' bombs on Israeli towns, there'd be less land taking. What the last 60 years has shown is that the Palies aren't really serious about peace with Israel, only with their destruction. In fact, it's shown that Israel's destruction is even more important than the welfare of their own people.

I would also say that comarisons between the Palies, particularly Hamas, and the Taliban is not a stretch considering the hatred each holds for Israel and the Jews. Their religion drives much of their sentiment and thus they are kindred spirits in the worst possible way.

As I understand it, when Israel pulled out of Gaza recently, they left behind functionally assets, like agricultural stuff I believe. Instead of using that which Israel left behind for their own good, a good for which there was great need if you want to take their side of the issue, they trashed it all and simply began their rocket attacks. I know Hash-orama will call this Zionist propaganda, but what say you to this? Is it crap or based on fact?

Marshall Art said...

And for the Hashmeister himself,

You may call it slander if you like, but I call it "if the shoe fits..." You bring up Israel in discussions that where Israel isn't the topic. You insist that there are these "neocons" who put Israel above American interests and never take the time to supply proofs or evidence. You seem to think that we have undue influence from Israeli sources. I'm satisfied with the amount of "homework" I do to come to the conclusions I do. At this point, I'd much prefer to see what you think you've got to back up your Israelophobia. Until then, I've got a big box of mockery with your name on it. Don't make me use it.

hashfanatic said...

"Until then, I've got a big box of mockery with your name on it. Don't make me use it."

You know what you can do with your empty threats...

If the cause of Israel and whatever "Judeo-Christian" one-world belief systems is the basis of your worldview and you feel free to express such theories that undermine the nation's (and my personal) safety, I will refute it.

If you attempt to justify failed neocon policies and unjust war for benefit of other nations by using false doctrines and questionable, biased sources as fact, I will set myself in opposition to you and challenge you on it.

Nowhere in America is a law that says anyone must support Israel, as much as you would like to hold otherwise.

Marshall Art said...

"Nowhere in America is a law that says anyone must support Israel, as much as you would like to hold otherwise."

Don't be an idiot. I've never said or suggested anything of the kind. I don't even believe we should support them "no matter what". What I am saying is that as long as their neighbors are trying to wipe them off the face of the planet, which they are, and as long as Israel is a solid ally, which they are, then I'm going to support them in their efforts to thwart the outside aggression against them.

And as long as you continue to oppose my opinions without ever offering anything to support your psycho opinions, which would go a long way toward actually convincing others of the righteousness of your position, then I will continue to mock you for the buffoon that you currently seem to be. Do you understand my point? You offer nothing but unsupported opinion for you position. I'd prefer to engage in a real discussion, but all you do is crap on Jews and scream about "neocons". Just give a little substance for once, that's all I'm asking. If you can do that, you might actually have something I've never seen or heard before and I would consider that a true gift. Am I getting through at all? Otherwise all we're doing is "yes it is, no it isn't". I won't do that. At least not for long.

And another thing. I keep meaning to offer this: You've made a comment about how "such things are discussed openly in Israel" and then ask why not here? Well what the hell are we doing here? Who the hell has threatened you if you discuss these things? Just more goofy crap.

hashfanatic said...

Thank you for the usual subterfuge, smoke, and mirrors you offer up every time you discover your mouth has overridden your ass.

You are so thoroughly programmed that anyone who even HINTS at being critical of "Greater Israel" or the Zionist state is immediately denounced as antisemitic.

"Well what the hell are we doing here?"

Firstly, I was not just referring to this blog. I'm talking about the entire neoconservative and fundamentalist blogospheres.

You're asking for substance, and to be taken credibly on this issue...but you've already indicated your unswerving support for the Jews and refuse to mention anything that carries even a hint of their responsibility for their own situation. Do you really see yourself as objective?

Yet, I see ENDLESS condemnations of Muslims, and there have even been subtle jabs at other Christian faith traditions as well.

"Who the hell has threatened you if you discuss these things? Just more goofy crap."

No, actually I was referring to your creepy, stalker-esque "I know who you are" nonsense.

And I'd like to add that I honestly believe I will be "disappeared" or shot outright by a neocon's gun if conditions in this country continues to deteriorate.

"I'd prefer to engage in a real discussion..."

Marshall, I would have liked that as well...

"...but all you do is crap on Jews and scream about "neocons"...."

And here you betray the sincerity of your first statement, because you know perfectly well you take any criticism of Jews as a personal insult, maintain an absolutist posture in terms of their moral infallibility, and deny that the American neoconservative movement has any hand whatsoever in the Middle East, as you deny all Jewish culpability for any crimes committed ANYWHERE in the world. In fact, you will deny the crimes themselves!

Look at young Jason. He is not embarrassed about affiliating himself with neocons...he even labels himself as one, and is proud of it! How can those of you who adhere so closely to the neocon agenda declare yourselves to be totally seperate from it?

Finally, there is the question of the double standards. You're holding the Jews to a lower standard of decency, honesty, and honor, and just explaining it away
by saying "Israel has a right to do it, because they are defending themselves"....

I say bullshit. Whatever they get, they bring on themselves by those very actions. Everyone has a right to self-determination, not just the Jews.

Also, you employ double standards when you don't even question the most outrageous claims by other conservatives, but demand attribution for every anecdotal phrase I bring up, much of which is based on PERSONAL EXPERIENCE (and I am not a young man).

A perfect for-instance of this was in this post's very first comment, when the poster actually asserted that aliyah totals were at "near record highs", which you accepted at face value, and, I'm sure, no small amount of personal gratification.

The only problem with this little scenario happens to be that a larger group of these "homecomers" actually happen to be RETURNING.
Day-to-to life in Israel can be extremely daunting for those unaccustomed to hard work and struggle, prices are sky-high, living spaces are far smaller, native Israelis can seem very cold and brusque, day-to-day protektsia can be mind-boggling, and even career professionals in demand are paid poorly by American standards.

Also, I'd like to point out that one can make "aliyah" repeatedly, with substantial cash rewards, "rights" for tax-free purchases, free tuition, free housing if you agree to relocate beyond the Green Line....do you understand where I am going with this?

"Aliyah" stats will NEVER be accurate, or an reliable indicator
of Jews moving to Israel. It is the same people, going back and forth! HELLO??

So much for the pre-trib rapture. God don't like ugly, and he doesn't go by ANYONE's statistics!

This is what I mean. You take any person's opinion that you see as being like-minded as gospel.

Well, I'm sorry for rambling, but you made an effort to be civil, and the least I could do is explain my frustration with you.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

Sorry about that. I posted the following without accrediting the author.

Kinky Friedman, Jewish Texas country music singer/songwriter and failed candidate for Texas Govenor, wrote this little song which seems to describe Hashfanatic's attitude toward Jews:

Well, a redneck nerd in a bowling shirt was a-guzzlin' Lone Star beer
Talking religion and-uh politics for all the world to hear.
They oughta send you back to Russia, boy, or New York City one,
You just want to doodle a Christian girl and you killed God's only son.

I said, "Has it occurred to you, you nerd, that that's not very nice,
We Jews believe it was Santa Claus that killed Jesus Christ!
"You know, you don't look Jewish, he said," near as I could figger
I had you lamped for a slightly anemic, well-dressed country nigger.

cho: No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.
He started in to shoutin' and spittin' on the floor,
Lord, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore.

He says, "I ain't a racist but Aristitle Onassis is one Greek we don't need,
And them niggers, Jews and Sigma Nus, all they ever do is breed.
And wops and micks and slopes and spics and spooks are on my list
And there's one little hebe from the heart of Texas-- is there anyone
I missed ?

Well, I hits him with everything I had right square between the eyes.
I says, "I'm gonna gitcha, you son of a bitch ya, for spoutin' that pack of
lies.
If there's one thing I can't abide, it's an ethnocentric racist;
Now you take back that thing you said 'bout Aristitle Onassis.

No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
We don't turn the other cheek the way we done before.
You could hear that honky holler as he hit that hardwood floor,
Lord, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore.

No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They ain't making carpenters who know what nails are for.
Well, the whole damn place was singin' as I strolled right out the door
Lord ... they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore.

Don't that guy sound like Hashfanatic?

hashfanatic said...

"Uh, welcome to Kenneth Copeland's, my name is Mark, and I'll be your shabbos goy this weekend, uh..can I get you some, uh...'Prosperity Punch'??

But it's goooood, Billye made it!!!!......"

Erudite Redneck said...

I'm pretty much stayin; out of tghis, but Hash, yer gonna have to translate that for me.

hashfanatic said...

Satire on Word-Of-Faith televangelists, false prophecies, the cynical championing of a people as a ransom to ensure the "Rapture" while plotting to kill them if they do not convert to your ways, the true motivation behind end time theology in general, the effect it has had on the nations, and how I choose to believe The One Above views this entire scenario that we humans have created, in His Name.

In other words, it's like a movie you show up an hour late for. You watch the rest of it with nary a clue, observe the antics of the rest of the theatergoers, realize that sometimes getting caught in traffic is a GOOD thing, and quietly ask the manager at the box office for your money back.

hashfanatic said...

Benjamin Netanyahu has won the Likud primary in Israel today.

Netanyahu was one of the authors of the Project For The New American Century, also known in certain circles as the "Clean Break Memo."

Erudite Redneck said...

OK. I am painfully aware of Copeland. Thre shabbos goy thing missed me, is all.

Marshall Art said...

OK, I'm back.

Thanks Hash, for responding by merely repeating yourself. I ask for some support for your opinion and I get the same old same old.

"You are so thoroughly programmed that anyone who even HINTS at being critical of "Greater Israel" or the Zionist state is immediately denounced as antisemitic."

No. But it certainly seems as if YOU are anti-semitic.

"I'm talking about the entire neoconservative and fundamentalist blogospheres."

Which ones are quashing debate? Or are there simply others that are tired of your unsupported ramblings?

"Do you really see yourself as objective?"

Absolutely. It is with complete objectivity that I've concluded that anyone who straps explosives to their young and persuades them to detonate amongst civilians are scumbags unworthy of my sympathies. Anyone who teaches their young that another people are animals worthy of extinction are unworthy of my sympathies. Anyone who is conceded land and uses it to launch missile and rocket attacks on the people who conceded the land are unworthy of my sympathies. Anyone who celebrates the news of 3000 of my countrymen being murdered in terrorist attacks in my own country are unworthy of my sympathies. Which of the above are NOT true of the Palestinians? And to the Muslims that support their efforts, I have heaping helping of non-sympathy for them as well.

"No, actually I was referring to your creepy, stalker-esque "I know who you are" nonsense."

No stalking. Please, why would I waste my time? The comment referred to yours that said words to the effect of "at least you know who you are, it's a first step" to which I replied, "I KNOW who I am. I also know who YOU are." meaning, a goofball. I hope this allays your fears.

"... I honestly believe I will be "disappeared" or shot outright by a neocon's gun..."

Your tinfoil hat is a bit too tight. And your perception of "neocons" is truly ficticious. Get a grip.

"And here you betray the sincerity...etc..."

Nonsense. I dispute your assertions and reject them as baseless and will continue to do so until you present ANYTHING that I can read and review and research. You provide NOTHING but your own totally anti-Israeli position. OK. We get it. We know the Hashman don't truck wit no Jews. Why bother if you're simply going to restate that by which you've so expertly bored us?

"Look at young Jason. He is not embarrassed about affiliating himself with neocons...he even labels himself as one, and is proud of it!"

Why shouldn't he be? He doesn't see neoconservativism in the same lefty conspiratorial way. In other words, he understands the concept.

"How can those of you who adhere so closely to the neocon agenda declare yourselves to be totally seperate from it?"

I don't. Not necessarily.

"You're holding the Jews to a lower standard of decency, honesty, and honor, and just explaining it away
by saying "Israel has a right to do it, because they are defending themselves"...."

No. I insist that they ARE more decent, honest and honorable and you've presented nothing to prove otherwise.

"... but demand attribution for every anecdotal phrase I bring up..."

No. I demand SOMETHING, ANYTHING, for ONCE! I've never gotten anything from you to back up anything. Your personal experience might be flawed or skewed by your own biases. It's not unreasonable to expect a little something recorded for anyone to read. But you have to point us there with a link or referrence of some kind.

"... which you accepted at face value, and, I'm sure, no small amount of personal gratification."

Though ER might feel otherwise, that particular poster has never given me reason to assume his comments aren't trustworthy. I've also never taken much notice or given much concern to such stats. But YOU are free to demand support for HIS comments if you so choose. But since you disagree with him, give a link to prove your position or ask one of him. As to my gratification, I've no doubt you feel such when others agree with you. So what? I've no cause to dispute the comments of posters I've grown to trust. It's not that I agree, but that I trust their sincerity and there past performance hasn't given me pause. YOU on the other hand, need to prove yourself since you have never supported anything. You settle for crapping on conservatives and Israel and leave it at that. Not good enough.

mom2 said...

Amen, Marshall! You said it well!

hashfanatic said...

Marshall, you're missing it. Totally and deliberately missing my point.

Okay, here's an example.

The Jewish comedienne Sarah Silverman makes the following statement:

“I hope the Jews did kill Christ…I’d do it again. I’d f**king do it again—in a second.”

Apparently, this sort of statement is nothing unusual for her.

Do you find it offensive?

Had you heard of this before I brought it up?

Have you seen any public outcries, boycotts, public expressions of rage, etc.?

Now, neoconservatives forever whine about the unacknowledged "Islamofascist" threat, and speak of "the enemy within".

Can you imagine any Muslim making such a statement and not having it be "front-page news" on Fox News, Newsmax, WND, Malkin, and the like?

If one ever did, and there were any left-leaning power structure to speak of or even any Muslim apologist that were to suppress such comments from one, you'd immediately rage about "dhimmitude".

This is what I am talking about. The left is always held to a higher standard than ANY non-left leaning American, Muslim OR Jew, any European who points this out is instantly drawn and quartered, and forget about the fate of any traditional American paleoconservative who dares to make a peep!

It would not surprise me for one moment if you deleted this post, Marshall, not because you are acting with any particular malice to me as a person, but because it points out an instance of a Jewish public figure indulging in a hateful statement directly toward, to her, my ultimate sacred, reverential being and giver of life. This is more than a cartoon.

But I predict you will not be able to bear the HINT of any Jew (besides the ones despised, Noam Chomsky and the like, who have set themselves in disagreement) to be portrayed in anything but a totally positive manner.

It is about preferential treatment for the ones exalted and sanctified, and persecution and damnation for the rest of humankind.

I protest the hypocrisy of this, and I protest my own demonization for pointing out any possible manifestation of persecution by the Jewish people.

I deny that this is of the Lord.

Les said...

Off topic, but it has to be said...

You've completely (deliberately?) eliminated this pesky little thing called "context" from your Silverman example, hash. I saw that special, and anyone who enjoys Silverman's comedy knows she's a shock comedienne. She also tells vile jokes about her grandma and somehow pulls humor out of the Holocaust. Her intention is to find laughs in the most ironic places by completely - and often brutally -undermining them. Sorry, but I think people who can't laugh at their own fundamental convictions once in a while have no place judging those of us who can. Maybe that's why the outcry you're looking for ain't gonna happen - it's just a freakin' JOKE, y'all.

Lighten up.

mom2 said...

hashfanatic is scared of me, a short white haired fundamentalist conservative grandma because he is sure that I fit into the mold of near terrorism. I never saw such wild imaginations expressed by my type people. We go to church, enjoy family time, read and think about issues but we are all lumped into one violent group.

hashfanatic said...

"I saw that special, and anyone who enjoys Silverman's comedy knows she's a shock comedienne."

Well, Les, I guess it's okay when THEY do it....

Les said...

"Well, Les, I guess it's okay when THEY do it..."

You're not understanding me, hash. I think it's ok when ANYBODY does it as long as the joke's INTENT isn't maliciously disparaging. I hate political correctness with my very soul, and walking on eggshells over shock humor is indicative of the overly-sensitive social climate such "thought policing" has created.

Here's an example of what I mean:

I believe it's wrong to walk up to a bunch of black guys and scream "Ni**ers!" at them. On the other hand, I believe it's perfectly ok to get a chuckle from the "Rex Kramer - danger seeker" sketch from "Kentucky Fried Movie". (for those who don't know, google it)

Can't say it enough, friend - context, context, context. It was funny in the movie, but it sure as hell wasn't funny when Michael Richards did it.

Marshall Art said...

"CATH-O-LIC SCHOOL GIRLS IN TROUBLE!"

That was for Les.

Hash,

It's physically, intellectually and spiritually impossible to deliberately miss a point that is so poorly made.

As to Silverman, no I haven't heard that bit. Yes I find it offensive. No, you won't hear it splashed all over the media for two very good and obvious reasons:

1st, "Neocons" and Christians in general don't get their undies in a twist over such comments as we consider the source.

2nd, The source is not a member of a psychotic group of marginally attractive Jewish tramps who murder people.

I can assure you that there is much about Jews, particularly American Jews, with which I have a problem. Mainly, they're mostly goofy liberals and lefties.

I must leave. Going to rehearse "John the Revelator" for church. More later.

Marshall Art said...

Back again.

Now, I'm not about to delete any but the most deviant, threatening or gratuitously profane and obscene comments. Stupid and ignorant comments reflect on the commenter and gives me a chance for mockery, which is entertaining, at least to me.

As to your posts specifically, you're getting to the constant mockery point unless you can offer something to support your contention that Israel is perpetrating acts equally as heinous as those of the Palestinian thugs. I would also like to see something illustrating your comments regarding those who put Israel's interest above the USA's. Who are these people? I would also like you to re-read the PNAC stuff to see that they are not calling for, planning to perpetrate, or in any way look forward to another 9/11-like event. What they HAVE said is that it would take another Pearl Harbor to wake people up. This is not an admission that they want to see such a thing occur, but that the mood and attitude of the people is that of people asleep and willfully ignoring the real threats posed by the dangerous scum of the world, such as Islamofascists.

In short, it's not enough to say our side is wrong. One needs to provide evidence, supporting data, anything that can illustrate or demonstrate why we might be. That's all I ask. Take your time.

hashfanatic said...

Can't you just respond to any of MY questions to you, first?

Why don't you ask your neocon posters for such sources?

Why do you lie about the PNAC, when 9/11 WAS their "new Pearl Harbor"?

Why do you act as though it is an event that has not transpired yet?

"....ignoring the real threats posed by the dangerous scum of the world, such as Islamofascists...."

What threats? Who are these "Islamofascists"?

Where do they live?

Marshall Art said...

You haven't really asked any questions? But to those of your last post, I respond this way:

My "neocon" posters have already provided something that can be checked, or have provided something with which I agree or already believe to be true. So since you are disputing our points, I would think it reasonable to expect some substantive link or data that can be checked. Once again, you are free to request that anyone provide support for their comments if you so desire.

How did I "lie" about PNAC? I believe my explanation is sound. Did not 9/11 "wake people up" to the threat of Islamofascism? It's the type of event they thought would do so, not that they wanted such to happen. I don't see how you can make the case that they did. But it's clear to me from what I read that they didn't feel the concern was widespread or properly acknowledged by the American people and wouldn't be without something big and bad happening. I believe I've made an accurate interpretation here.

"What threats? Who are these "Islamofascists"?"

I find it incredibly troubling that you'd even ask this question. Apparently there cannot be an event too fantastic to wake YOU up. It has to be truly the goofiest thing you've ever put in print. Does the name "bin Laden" mean anything to you? How about Ahmadinijad, Hezbollah, AlQueda, Taliban, Zarqawi, Muslim Brotherhood?

hashfanatic said...

"My "neocon" posters have already provided something that can be checked, or have provided something with which I agree or already believe to be true."

So you are freely admitting that you expect non-neocon posters to provide backup for their assertions, yet you automatically accept any notion pre-approved as "correct" from your own kind, much the same as you automatically disbelieve any any non-Zionist source on Israel, and support all Zionist propaganda unconditionally? Because that is precisely what you've said here, when you cut the political correctness and the code words out of it.

"How did I "lie" about PNAC? I believe my explanation is sound."

You misrepresented the PNAC's role in the 9/11 occurrences and glossed over any responsibility by inferring that "Pearl Harbor" was YET to come, to foster the illusion of some unseen, "Islamofascist" threat that simply does not exist, in order to play on fears and undermine the judgement of the nation.

"It's the type of event they thought would do so, not that they wanted such to happen."

Oh, the administration knew what what happen. They simply have such a disregard for ordinary Americans that they never expected anyone to question their entire operation, or see through the government's complicity in the 9/11 occurrences and the plan that unfolded thereafter.

"But it's clear to me from what I read that they didn't feel the concern was widespread or properly acknowledged by the American people..."

This concept owes its beginnings not only to the current BCF, but originated during Pappy Bush's term and percolated during Clinton, who anticipated the Jews would follow through with their committments at Oslo...but when the Dim Son staffed his administration exclusively with Israeli-trained propagandists and their shabbos goyim, and every single synchophant and lackey he could dredge up, filled the military with simple dominionists who were trained to kill Arab types for God (witness Stephen Baldwin's indoctrination sessions in Iraq), and established a sense of impending doom in the population at home (decadent movie stars, increasing violence, product poisonings, seemingly natural disasters and unpredicatable weather catastrophes, illegal aliens, foreclosures, political divisiveness and moral tensions among families, etc.)

This generalized culture of nervousness coupled with a fundamental lack of respect for the other nations (save one) and the relentless push for revenge, have forced us into this untenable situation.

"I find it incredibly troubling that you'd even ask this question."

Why? It would be the most natural and normal thing for these radicals to want to do damage to America, for we fund, support, and enable Israel and support Zionist terrorism, which is the cause of all of the trouble.

"Apparently there cannot be an event too fantastic to wake YOU up. "

Marshall, I LIVE amongst these crazy people...both Palestinians and Orthodox Jews. We may all despise one another, but, day after day, we all get up, we shower, we
dress our kids and bring them to school, we work our day, and go to bed at night. No terrorism.

I'm far more concerned about my culture being overrun by the so-called rights that are being extended to them. I understand, that they many of them are quite shocked to be receiving the preferential treatments that they do...so, do I yell at the foreigners themselves, or do I hold my own fellow Americans and their leadership's feet to the fire?

Meanwhile, there is no security at the ports, they HAVE been turned over to other nations, airports and building security at even our local nuclear power plant is a minimun-wage joke, so, rather than focus on whatever wackos you can dredge up in foreign lands, why not secure ourselves HERE?

"Does the name "bin Laden" mean anything to you?"

Yes. I understand our president is very good friends with the entire family....how many years does it take to find an old man on a dialysis machine in the middle of a desert?

"How about Ahmadinijad...."

What about Ahmedinijad? He is the leader of Iran, his comments about Israel were deliberately mistranslated (by an Israeli translator, I might add), he has been demonized by the neocon power structure, but I see through this and I have no problem with him doing what he needs to do to defend his people against constant aggression. If Israel has nukes (which they obtained illegally, of course), than why shouldn't Iran or any other country? What right do we have to tell any other sovereign nation whether or not they may have nuclear weapons or not?

"Hezbollah,"

Hezbollah's function is to defend the people of Lebanon against Israel. I did not support them until last year, when Israel invaded Lebanon and bombed the crap out of it for no good reason.

Therefore, my position of Hezbollah has changed, based on this very real and demonstrated threat the Lebanese (particularly Catholics) must suffer, I do not support Hezbollah but I do not oppose them either and I understand they have to do what they have to do.

"AlQueda"....

Honestly, do they even exist? Who are they? Have you ever heard or seen any evidence from non-American sources that irrefutably supports that Al-Qaeda is who the administration says they are, or that they even exist? We're always hearing "the second in command" has been killed...how many "seconds" does this organization have, anyway? Could this possibly be some bizarre Islamic version of the Freemasons or the Knights of Columbus?

"...Taliban..."

First we were their friends, then we they are their enemies, then we are all friends again....

That's what I mean by moral relativism. We are hypocrites on this.

And they did supposedly get rid of the poppy fields, which would be a good thing for our drugged-out society HERE....what do you want me to say?

"Zarqawi,"

Unless he's found a way to haunt us from the grave, I'm not losing sleep over him...

"Muslim Brotherhood?"

Don't know much, because I don't have to....they don't even know what their own purpose is, and that ship has sailed anyway, with Egypt's waning influence...

My point is, why should I worry about all these Islamics flying planes into our buildings when we already have Israelis commandeering our government?

Marshall Art said...

Well, there you have it folks. Can there be anymore paranoid and confused individual than the Hashmeister? I am dumbfounded by his level of misunderstanding and the neurosis of his conspiracy theories. If anyone can suggest a good counseling service for the guy, please, by all means...

mom2 said...

Marshall, The only reason I can think of to print or read Hash's rant is to let such extremist reveal themselves.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Sigh. Much ado about nothing . . .

Marshall Art said...

Strange, Geoff, that this is your first entry on this thread, especially since it was you that suggested Israel as a topic. Though it's degraded to include Hash's paranoia, I'd be more than happy to get back on topic.

hashfanatic said...

You see imaginary suicide bombers behind every curtain, and I'M paranoid? Hee, hee, hee....

Marshall Art said...

You might feel better assuming that, Hash. But there's nothing I said that should indicate anything of the kind. Suicide bombers are a reality. Evil neocons planning the destruction of American buildings for personal gain aren't. Seek help.

hashfanatic said...

"Suicide bombers are a reality."

Oh? Really? Where are they?

mom2 said...

hashfanatic, Everything you post just exposes your tunnel vision more.

ELAshley said...

Hashfanatic, to my mind, raises some very good questions in his "screed" despite the disturbing anti-Israel/Zionist overtones.

We SHOULD be protecting our borders, our ports, our nuclear facilities. We should take a more isolationist stance in the world. Our borders ARE too wide open, not just in terms of defense, but in terms of culture and decadence. America, once a proud virtuous woman on a church pew, is now little better than a $20 whore on a street corner. Oh, how the mighty have fallen!

WHEN (not "If") we are attacked again, we WILL have ourselves to blame. Because America has become fat, lazy, hedonistic, perverted, and dare I say it? Dangerous. Not simply to the world, but to ourselves!

Anonymous said...

If Hashfanatic has not deleted his posts somewhere, you might take into consideration who he thinks the enemy is - fundamental, conservatives. Yet I read some posts on a liberal site that had so much venom in them that the written words of those folks scared me. If their deeds are worse than their words, we are in trouble from within. mom2

hashfanatic said...

"you might take into consideration who he thinks the enemy is - fundamental, conservatives..."

This is true, but it has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing, and is just another "look-at-me!" attempt at divisiveness amongst the commenters.

hashfanatic said...

"We SHOULD be protecting our borders, our ports, our nuclear facilities. We should take a more isolationist stance in the world. Our borders ARE too wide open, not just in terms of defense, but in terms of culture and decadence. America, once a proud virtuous woman on a church pew, is now little better than a $20 whore on a street corner. Oh, how the mighty have fallen!"

Absolutely. Good post, el.

Mark said...

It's too bad that Hash apparently doesn't watch/read the news. He asks, where are the suicide bombers and who are the suicide bombers? The impression he leaves is that he doesn't believe suicide bombers don't exist.

Perhaps he shoukld go ask the thousands of victims of suicide bombers if they exist.

Oh wait. they can't answer. Suicide bombers killed them all.

hashfanatic said...

"The impression he leaves is that he doesn't believe suicide bombers don't exist."

Well, they do, but they are a rarity, and certainly don't exist in the ridiculous numbers you try to perpetuate.

I simply realize I'm not to be governed (or manipulated) by a spirit of fear.

Besides, the suicide bombers are not out for me. I've done nothing and supported nothing that would cause them to target me.

Perhaps those who have need to take a second look at their own actions and ask themselves why they've discovered themselves to be the target of such hate, and what they've done specifically to earn it.

mom2 said...

Isimply realize I'm not to be governed (or manipulated) by a spirit of fear.> not completely true since you seem to fear fundamentalist conservatives.

Besides, the suicide bombers are not out for me. I've done nothing and supported nothing that would cause them to target me.> Maybe they think you are on their side.

Perhaps those who have need to take a second look at their own actions and ask themselves why they've discovered themselves to be the target of such hate, and what they've done specifically to earn it.> Typical liberal response, blame someone else and never take responsibility yourself.

If you're so near perfect, why do you have the malicious feelings toward the Jews?

Marshall Art said...

Hash,

My point in even bringing up suicide bombers was to further illustrate the differences between the people I'm defending vs. the people you're defending. The numbers of suicide bombers and the frequency of their attacks is irrelevant relative to the fact that the Palestinians do it, encourage it, & glorify it, whereas the Israelis, like me, tend to think only assholes support the assholes who engage in such behavior.

You like to believe you are not governed by a spirit of fear. Well there's two problems with that statement. The first is that you think WE are, when in fact we recognize the threats of Muslim extremists and understand they are scumbags with whom we must deal. The second is you constant rantings about "neocons" and "Iraeli influence" in American policy makes the statement a absolute lie. You are indeed
governed by fear. The real difference is yours exists only in your imaginings.

Another piece of idiocy is your belief that you would not be a target for suicide bombers. Well, when they walk into the public place where YOU'RE dining or socializing, or get a seat on the bus or train YOU'RE riding, what makes you think they'll take a freakin' poll before detonation? Next is the fact that Christians are equals to the Jews as targets of destruction or domination. Though the Palies are directly concerned with Israel and their alleged sins, taking out any Christian westerner is a bonus, and you'd damn well better believe it.

Finally, it frankly doesn't matter what the perceptions of the haters are. Only their manifestations are of concern. Hate all you want. But if the hate manifests in attacks on civilians, the cause of your hate no longer matters. You are now an asshole and need to be put down. Period. Attacks on civilians is unacceptable particularly when Israel is not the world's fair haired boy. The UN is more than willing to support those opposed to Israel that attacks on innocent civilians is entirely unnecessary.

But the extremists aren't worried about land, equal treatment, friendship or anything of the kind in regards to Israel. They are only concerned with Israel's destruction. They have been enemies of the Jews since Muhammed first tried to pretend he was a prophet of the same God the Jews worship and was rejected as the fool he was. When you figure out a way to change that reality, then we'll begin to realize real negotiations between the two peoples.

Les said...

"Typical liberal response, blame someone else and never take responsibility yourself."

Seriously - back off, lady. Liberalism ain't got nuthin' to do with it.

mom2 said...

les, liberals have shown themselves to be blamers a lot of times. I know there are different stripes of liberals and I should not make a blanket statement for all, but then again we conservatives are used to being treated that way. Back off is a pretty strong statement. If I were hash, I would accuse you of threatening.

Les said...

"...liberals have shown themselves to be blamers a lot of times."

So have conservatives, mom2. For example, Falwell essentially blamed liberalism for 9/11. Give me a freakin' break. To claim liberals have some sort of monopoly on finger-pointing is not only naive and absurd, it's downright insulting.

Besides, the comment hash made to which you responded dealt with the notion that our own policies/behaviors/whatever made our enemies target us, right? Gee, I know I've heard that somewhere before...

Oh, yeah - it's one of the cornerstones of conservative Republican anti-war presidential candidate Ron Paul's platform. Not exactly a liberal, my dear.

So yes - back off.

mom2 said...

Ron Paul's platform. Not exactly a liberal, my dear.> You describe him, you can have him. He's not my candidate.

Les said...

"You describe him, you can have him."

What does that even mean?

mom2 said...

It just means that if you think you are making me mad by bringing Ron Paul into the discussion, you are wasting your time. I don't consider him a candidate at all, conservative or whatever he is. You are sounding more like hash all the time. I thought that you were half way a friend to Israel, but now I guess you are just enjoying the thought of roiling me.

Les said...

Are you really this sensitive, mom2? If so, you've picked the wrong arena to play in!

"...if you think you are making me mad by bringing Ron Paul into the discussion..."

Well, I certainly didn't think that until now. But for the record - no, that's not why I mentioned Ron Paul. I mentioned Ron Paul to refute your ridiculous accusations of a "typical liberal response". That's what one does when one debates - one offers examples that weaken the position of one's opponent. It's not malice, and you shouldn't think of it as such.

"I don't consider him a candidate at all..."

You mean you don't consider 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul a candidate? That makes no sense whatsoever. I have a feeling his CAMPAIGN STAFF might disagree with you.

"You are sounding more like hash all the time."

Why? Because I'm defending liberalism? Be honest now - is that really fair?

"I thought that you were half way a friend to Israel..."

You were wrong. I am a friend to Israel ALL the way. I have no idea where you could have gotten any other possible impression. I have supported Israel openly and proudly for years, and I will continue to do so, much to the consternation of fellow liberals everywhere.

"...but now I guess you are just enjoying the thought of roiling me."

No, but I've gotta admit - you make it soooooo easy, love.

mom2 said...

You mean you don't consider 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul a candidate? That makes no sense whatsoever. I have a feeling his CAMPAIGN STAFF might disagree with you.>

You expect that, don't you? I hear no one talking about him. His chances are such a low percentage, that to me he's wasting his time and money.

I also am a friend of Israel and that is probably why hash gets so upset with me, what is your problem?

Les said...

"You expect that, don't you?"

mom2, there are currently 8 Democratic, 8 Republican, and 7 third party candidates battling it out for the job. One of those CANDIDATES is Ron Paul. It's not that I "expect" as much - it's simply a FACT. What part of this are you not getting? Perhaps you're confusing "candidate" with "nominee"?

"...what is your problem?"

Um, have I been having a conversation with myself or something? How can you not know what this exchange has been about? I took exception to your characterization of "typical liberal" speak. I'm a liberal, mom2, and I opt to defend liberalism whenever and wherever I see it libeled. What do you expect?

mom2 said...

les, so I should not defend my position? I am a conservative. I still say that Ron Paul's chances are so slim that he is wasting his time and money. Sure, I know he is only a candidate but as far as acting or talking like a Republican, he is not. He probably should consider himself a candidate for a third party.

Marshall Art said...

Les, Mom2, I want you each to sit on opposite sides of the room.

mom2 said...

Ok. :-)
I'll quit and be good.

Les said...

"Les, Mom2, I want you each to sit on opposite sides of the room."

Ok, but I'm gonna yell so she can still hear me.

"I'll quit and be good."

Not me. I'm not done yet.

"...so I should not defend my position?"

What position are you talking about? All I've seen from you in this conversation between us is an ill-advised mischaracterization of liberalism, an awkward and completely unnecessary display of defensiveness, an inexplicable comparison between hash and myself, and an apparent lack of understanding about the difference between a candidate and a nominee!

"...as far as acting or talking like a Republican, he is not."

Think about this statement you just made, mom2. Do you really believe it's a good idea for your party to have assembly-line candidates with no diversity of opinions? Personally, I like options, and since America is held hostage by the two-party system, you better PRAY your party gives you more than one option before the primaries!

Besides, from what I know of Paul, you might want to hold off on passing judgement on him until you know more about him. He's pro-life, supports lower taxes and smaller government, and his record shows he just might passively disapprove of homosexuality. A couple of these are, of course, the all important "wedge issues" that ruin political discourse, so how unfortunate it would be for the GOP vote counters if his opposition to this war was the determining factor in your evaluation of him.

mom2 said...

Since les won't quit, May I have another time?
Since I don't expect you (les) to be voting in the Republican primary, why are you concerned with my candidates? You want us to pick one that your Democrat can beat and you have all you can handle over there with that group that you have to pick from.
Marshall expresses my views on everything that I have read so far, so why should I just say it again.
I was a Democrat for more years than I have not, and that party has so left my corner until I would find almost anyone better than them. Jimmy Carter taught me a lesson.

Les said...

"...why are you concerned with my candidates? You want us to pick one that your Democrat..."

First of all, as Art can surely attest, I'm no Democrat. I don't believe in political parties. Unfortunately for me and those like me, the United States electorate seems content with the two party system. More often than not, that very system inherently undermines genuine dialogue in favor of partisan agendas. That, to me, is a tragedy.

Secondly, and most importantly, I'm concerned with "your" candidates because they are NOT just "your" candidates. They're OUR candidates, mom2. Don't kid yourself - a Republican could still win in 2008. While the Democratic field clearly has an early edge in this race, in politics nothing is ever over until it's over. Should the Republicans retain the presidency, then whoever holds the office will be OUR president, not YOUR president. To keep myself in the dark concerning the platforms and personalities of ALL the potential presidential winners is not only lazy and foolish, it's downright dangerous. An uninformed citizenry is what those who abuse power while holding that very power desire. It's our duty as voters to investigate what exactly we're voting for, even if we can't be 100% convinced of each candidate's sincerity. I would hope you feel the same, and I'd encourage you to learn a little more about the choices available to you before you make any hasty decisions.

Think outside the box, mom2. You can do it. I believe in you.

Peace.