Dude, I totally feel your pain. America belongs to me and yet you simply refuse to leave and hand it over. Oh the humanity.
"Liberal" American Jew equates civic equality with genocide
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Dude, I totally feel your pain. America belongs to me and yet you simply refuse to leave and hand it over. Oh the humanity.
No no pjdude you are missing the whole point. When white Christians talk about the "browning" of the US, its not racism, no, its their multiple-sovereignty which they display by being upset at the genocide of the white race through the incorporation of colored peoples.
Similarly American Jews are "upset" at their termination by according equal rights to Palestinians dispossessed by multiple-sovereignty Jews
Whoever knew that $tromfront was a liberal movement. Lovaduck!
Similarly American Jews are "upset" at their termination by according equal rights to Palestinians dispossessed by multiple-sovereignty Jews
Whoever knew that $tromfront was a liberal movement. Lovaduck!
No you don't. your a selfish and entitled person who is incapable of feeling he should be equal to others spits on the very idea of the rule of law. calls treaties older than yourself made up and your completely incapable of empathizing with the victims of the conflict.
typical Israel support spits on everyone who isn't an Israeli jew. did the most jewish people buy the land with the belief the title was uncontested no so that that buy the simple virtue of basic property law is not legally theirs. Your hypocrisy is really grating funny you should make that infantile whine when it is exactly what your religion did.
rather than repeat the same childish arguments all Israeli supporters use why don't you try and address the problems in a fair manner based on the law and morality rather than a selfish and self entitled want.
Sense and insensibility
No, really. Can this thread get worse?
We have an OP that conflates a one-state solution with the automatic installation and maintenance of equal rights, a fact I think the people of Darfur for one would be interested to note.
The same misanthropic OP takes the word of a single writer as indicative of the entire spectrum of liberal Jewish voices across the United States - and, as her loose approaches normally go, probably across the world.
We have the complete ignorance of the picture of civil rights all across the ME; either unimportant because of (fill in the excuse here) or because, well, Israel is populated by Jewish people. Didn't you know? And so on.
The 'oh, wow' moment?
Oh, wow.
Mods: please. Close this house.
No, really. Can this thread get worse?
We have an OP that conflates a one-state solution with the automatic installation and maintenance of equal rights, a fact I think the people of Darfur for one would be interested to note.
The same misanthropic OP takes the word of a single writer as indicative of the entire spectrum of liberal Jewish voices across the United States - and, as her loose approaches normally go, probably across the world.
We have the complete ignorance of the picture of civil rights all across the ME; either unimportant because of (fill in the excuse here) or because, well, Israel is populated by Jewish people. Didn't you know? And so on.
The 'oh, wow' moment?
S.A.M. said:
Oh, wow.
Mods: please. Close this house.
Whatever you say, then?
Hey, Bork, what the fuck are you on about now?
No, seriously, what the hell are you babbling about?
This was a pretty simple proposition from the outset: Someone said something. S.A.M. thought the consequences of taking what someone said in a straightforward manner brought about the appearance of a paradox. That's all there is to this.
I've reminded her that the appearance of paradox depends on an expectation of rhetorical consistency that cannot be fairly assigned to that or any particular individual according to the terms of the underlying identiy politic.
Whatever the fuck you're ranting about, or Geoff, or anyone who has invested their identity so significantly in pretending to be wounded by S.A.M. every time she opens her mouth so that you can carry on your valiant march against Muslims, is your own goddamn problem.
Look, if you have to complicate every damn issue needlessly just so you can bawl about S.A.M., go do it quietly, in your room, listening to Morrisey, while crying that nobody understands you because you're the most special and unique person God ever created if only God existed and oh God who doesn't exist you're gonna cut yourself you're gonna do it for real man you're gonna do it.
No, seriously, Bork, I have no idea what you're yammering about.
CptBork said:
Hey, Bork, what the fuck are you on about now?
No, seriously, what the hell are you babbling about?
This was a pretty simple proposition from the outset: Someone said something. S.A.M. thought the consequences of taking what someone said in a straightforward manner brought about the appearance of a paradox. That's all there is to this.
I've reminded her that the appearance of paradox depends on an expectation of rhetorical consistency that cannot be fairly assigned to that or any particular individual according to the terms of the underlying identiy politic.
Whatever the fuck you're ranting about, or Geoff, or anyone who has invested their identity so significantly in pretending to be wounded by S.A.M. every time she opens her mouth so that you can carry on your valiant march against Muslims, is your own goddamn problem.
Look, if you have to complicate every damn issue needlessly just so you can bawl about S.A.M., go do it quietly, in your room, listening to Morrisey, while crying that nobody understands you because you're the most special and unique person God ever created if only God existed and oh God who doesn't exist you're gonna cut yourself you're gonna do it for real man you're gonna do it.
No, seriously, Bork, I have no idea what you're yammering about.
And you've attached an entirely different and universal identity politic.
Oh my living fuck. Are you serious? Read. It ain't hard.
Bells
Staff member
One word..
Breeding..
Copulation leading to more births..
That is why they view it as a risk to genocide.
There fear that if they have "one State in Israel", Jews will soon become the minority..
So they repress and hope they reduce the amount by which Palestinians 'breed'. Or more to the point:
What Netanyahu said last week was not new for him. He was reported to have made the same appeal to the same sort of audience -- Charedi political leaders -- a couple of years ago as finance minister. Then, as now, he was apologizing for the way his child welfare cuts had hurt large Charedi families, while at the same time asking the Charedim to look at the bright sides of that policy.
"Two positive things happened," he told a conference of Charedi government officials in Nir Etzion last week. "Members of the Charedi public seriously joined the workforce. And on the national level, the unexpected result was the demographic effect on the non-Jewish public, where there was a dramatic drop in the birthrate."
The once and possibly future prime minister of Israel says publicly that he's sorry his welfare cuts made life harder for Jewish families who are "blessed," as he put it, with many children, but isn't it "positive" that these cuts resulted in fewer Arab children being born?
Then Netanyahu went on to suggest a national remedy for the victims of his economic policies -- but for Jewish victims only, not Arab victims.
"I don't think that the Jewish Agency should refrain from helping part of the Jewish public in the state," he said, "and it is possible that additional nongovernmental bodies could have done so."
Imagine if any non-Jewish government official in the world cited the lowering of the Jewish birthrate in his country as an accomplishment, then recommended that his country's founding institution raise money to help poor non-Jewish families but not poor Jewish families.
How would the Jewish world, starting with Israel, characterize such an individual? What sort of pressure would the Jewish world apply to get him or her fired, blackballed and, if possible, indicted?
-------------------------------------------------------
The Anti-Defamation League won't say anything, and neither will the other Diaspora Jewish organizations. Bibi is just too big, too popular, too important, too much a symbol of Israel for the Diaspora Jewish establishment to say a word against him, let alone accuse him of being a shameless bigot.
(Source)
"Two positive things happened," he told a conference of Charedi government officials in Nir Etzion last week. "Members of the Charedi public seriously joined the workforce. And on the national level, the unexpected result was the demographic effect on the non-Jewish public, where there was a dramatic drop in the birthrate."
The once and possibly future prime minister of Israel says publicly that he's sorry his welfare cuts made life harder for Jewish families who are "blessed," as he put it, with many children, but isn't it "positive" that these cuts resulted in fewer Arab children being born?
Then Netanyahu went on to suggest a national remedy for the victims of his economic policies -- but for Jewish victims only, not Arab victims.
"I don't think that the Jewish Agency should refrain from helping part of the Jewish public in the state," he said, "and it is possible that additional nongovernmental bodies could have done so."
Imagine if any non-Jewish government official in the world cited the lowering of the Jewish birthrate in his country as an accomplishment, then recommended that his country's founding institution raise money to help poor non-Jewish families but not poor Jewish families.
How would the Jewish world, starting with Israel, characterize such an individual? What sort of pressure would the Jewish world apply to get him or her fired, blackballed and, if possible, indicted?
-------------------------------------------------------
The Anti-Defamation League won't say anything, and neither will the other Diaspora Jewish organizations. Bibi is just too big, too popular, too important, too much a symbol of Israel for the Diaspora Jewish establishment to say a word against him, let alone accuse him of being a shameless bigot.
(Source)
Welcome to the world of the "Arab demographic threat". Please ensure you keep your arms and legs in the vehicle at all times and do not feed the natives. They bite.
Now, with attitudes like that leading the country and dominating political discourse and people like Geoff harping on about genocide of Jews in the future by Palestinians if they were given equal rights, out number them or well, whatever reason Geoff will cite on any given day, can you be surprised? Because you see Sam, the genocide of Palestinians or any Arab means nothing. Fuck all! They should just convert to be honest. Then maybe the world might notice the genocide of the new Jews and actually try to stop it.
Welcome to Geoff's Brilliant Invent-A-Whirl
Geoff, the subject under discussion here is not "whatever Geoff says it is in order that he might bawl about S.A.M."
The only "oh, wow" moment here is the idea that we're supposed to read this thread according to your petulant, sulking, fuming, belligerent need.
I'm pretty sure that if S.A.M. wasn't a Muslim, you'd be much more capable of understanding her point.
Get honest. It ain't hard.
GeoffP said:
Geoff, the subject under discussion here is not "whatever Geoff says it is in order that he might bawl about S.A.M."
The only "oh, wow" moment here is the idea that we're supposed to read this thread according to your petulant, sulking, fuming, belligerent need.
I'm pretty sure that if S.A.M. wasn't a Muslim, you'd be much more capable of understanding her point.
Get honest. It ain't hard.
Oh no! It's a Coolsville throw-down! Whatever will I do?
Well, no shit, Sherlock.
What amazes - no, I take that back; what unimpresses me about the discussion is your tangiental approach to the same goddamn issues while simultaneously loadin' her up and blastin' away at any target in reach; meaning me. You and Bells endlessly bitch and whine that thet there Geoff is a-makin' it all about hissef agin while actually, factually making it a context and contest of personalities. I've outlined my points above, some of which you borrowed a couple posts back, and then threw an Americanism spin on it, which is funny for a guy that actually accused me of anti-Americanism (a pointless accusation, since criticism is the soul of not fucking up) a while back. The points stand. Deal or walk.
Oh, stuff it. Enough, already. Your plaintive cries to "Geoff is a-evilin' agin'!" don't cut it any more. They're done. Sam made some typically myopic points, with massive empty holes where there should have been back-fill for support, but I should cut that some slack because otherwise I guess a $tormfront angel wouldn't win her wings.
Finally, we get this bit of course also, because...you know, the argument would have been empty without it, I guess:
Right, right: I should 'get her' because Islamic Sandy is so much less ridiculous than Evangelical Sandy. Why? Just because. Those massive problems with the proposition? Never mind them.
Go paint your toenails black again.
Well, no shit, Sherlock.
What amazes - no, I take that back; what unimpresses me about the discussion is your tangiental approach to the same goddamn issues while simultaneously loadin' her up and blastin' away at any target in reach; meaning me. You and Bells endlessly bitch and whine that thet there Geoff is a-makin' it all about hissef agin while actually, factually making it a context and contest of personalities. I've outlined my points above, some of which you borrowed a couple posts back, and then threw an Americanism spin on it, which is funny for a guy that actually accused me of anti-Americanism (a pointless accusation, since criticism is the soul of not fucking up) a while back. The points stand. Deal or walk.
Oh, stuff it. Enough, already. Your plaintive cries to "Geoff is a-evilin' agin'!" don't cut it any more. They're done. Sam made some typically myopic points, with massive empty holes where there should have been back-fill for support, but I should cut that some slack because otherwise I guess a $tormfront angel wouldn't win her wings.
Finally, we get this bit of course also, because...you know, the argument would have been empty without it, I guess:
Right, right: I should 'get her' because Islamic Sandy is so much less ridiculous than Evangelical Sandy. Why? Just because. Those massive problems with the proposition? Never mind them.
Go paint your toenails black again.
Oh, poor, petulant, bigoted, lying you
Reviewing the Lies
We might pause to consider this "poor you" argument and wonder why you're making it: Did I mention you, Geoff, before you missed my point?
No? What's that? You mean I didn't pick on poor Geoff? You mean I didn't say a goddamn thing to him before he decided to stick his nose into my discussion of an issue with S.A.M. and miss the fucking point in yet another attempt to pick a flame war?
Blastin' away at any target? Oh, poor you, Geoff. What's the matter? Did big, bad Tiassa be mean by acknowledging you?
So tell you what, Geoff: If you feel picked on, maybe you shouldn't go sticking your nose in.
So can that pathetic, whining lie.
Blastin' away at any target in reach, meaning you.
Quit crying.
What the fuck are you on about, Geoff? Seriously, try making a coherent complaint for once instead of just making up random shit to bawl about.
Quit crying.
Oh, poor you. Somebody doesn't tremble at your petulant tantrums. Maybe if you made sense once in a while? Maybe if you had something more to offer this community than toxic hatred?
Quit crying.
Actually, I just meant if you weren't such a pathetic bigot, you'd see the obvious question, where it falters, and the reasonable response; that is, instead of making up six kinds of shit in order to cry, cry, cry all the way home.
Quit crying.
Oh, and quit lying.
Seriously, Geoff, get honest.
Reviewing the Lies
GeoffP said:
We might pause to consider this "poor you" argument and wonder why you're making it: Did I mention you, Geoff, before you missed my point?
No? What's that? You mean I didn't pick on poor Geoff? You mean I didn't say a goddamn thing to him before he decided to stick his nose into my discussion of an issue with S.A.M. and miss the fucking point in yet another attempt to pick a flame war?
Blastin' away at any target? Oh, poor you, Geoff. What's the matter? Did big, bad Tiassa be mean by acknowledging you?
So tell you what, Geoff: If you feel picked on, maybe you shouldn't go sticking your nose in.
So can that pathetic, whining lie.
Blastin' away at any target in reach, meaning you.
Quit crying.
What the fuck are you on about, Geoff? Seriously, try making a coherent complaint for once instead of just making up random shit to bawl about.
Quit crying.
Oh, poor you. Somebody doesn't tremble at your petulant tantrums. Maybe if you made sense once in a while? Maybe if you had something more to offer this community than toxic hatred?
Quit crying.
Actually, I just meant if you weren't such a pathetic bigot, you'd see the obvious question, where it falters, and the reasonable response; that is, instead of making up six kinds of shit in order to cry, cry, cry all the way home.
Quit crying.
Oh, and quit lying.
Seriously, Geoff, get honest.
Aw: is someone picking on the anti-Semitism-enabling mod? Poor thing.
OMG - it's not a "poor me" argument when your line starts with "usual suspects" and ends off with "whatever the fuck you're ranting about, Geoff" and then on to the inevitable accusations of bigotry and all the rest of it. It's not even at this point that you're wrong about any of the objections to the OP, but that you've even misunderstood your own spin.
And who cares? How about the actual comments I posted? "Don't make it about you, Geoff!" "So what are the insults for? Did you even read the issues?" "You're a bigot, Geoff!" You and Bells do this a lot recently: throw a few insults around in lieu of a reasonable statement, then turn the entire thread into some kind of Hegelian rehashing of a strawman meant to look like the other person's personality or arguments. That or talk around them as if you were dealing in fact.
Lord: just about him and around him, as above. Here's the thing: I don't even care about it that much. As a form of trolling, it's losing it's lustre, because I've come to the unavoidable conclusion that as glib as you like to make these comebacks, you dodge, dodge, dodge, and throw feces. No comments on what Sam needs to do to make it a reasonable statement.
We don't much like yer kind 'round these parts.
You dig away at these personal attacks, trying to see just how juvenile you can get. That and in point of fact it's you that tries to turn each and every discussion into a flamewar; libel, mud-slinging, bomb-dropping. I listed a bunch of items Sam might conceivably have to examine WRT to her OP - but you just keep slinging mud.
Look, if you don't want a discussion, fine. Just wave your 'White Passport' in the air and duck your head. I might have been a little mean to you about the coatrack comment, but if you're going to point your nose in the air and demean the "usual suspects", you kind of earn a response.
Oh, you earned a complaint on the above.
OMG - it's not a "poor me" argument when your line starts with "usual suspects" and ends off with "whatever the fuck you're ranting about, Geoff" and then on to the inevitable accusations of bigotry and all the rest of it. It's not even at this point that you're wrong about any of the objections to the OP, but that you've even misunderstood your own spin.
And who cares? How about the actual comments I posted? "Don't make it about you, Geoff!" "So what are the insults for? Did you even read the issues?" "You're a bigot, Geoff!" You and Bells do this a lot recently: throw a few insults around in lieu of a reasonable statement, then turn the entire thread into some kind of Hegelian rehashing of a strawman meant to look like the other person's personality or arguments. That or talk around them as if you were dealing in fact.
Lord: just about him and around him, as above. Here's the thing: I don't even care about it that much. As a form of trolling, it's losing it's lustre, because I've come to the unavoidable conclusion that as glib as you like to make these comebacks, you dodge, dodge, dodge, and throw feces. No comments on what Sam needs to do to make it a reasonable statement.
We don't much like yer kind 'round these parts.
You dig away at these personal attacks, trying to see just how juvenile you can get. That and in point of fact it's you that tries to turn each and every discussion into a flamewar; libel, mud-slinging, bomb-dropping. I listed a bunch of items Sam might conceivably have to examine WRT to her OP - but you just keep slinging mud.
Look, if you don't want a discussion, fine. Just wave your 'White Passport' in the air and duck your head. I might have been a little mean to you about the coatrack comment, but if you're going to point your nose in the air and demean the "usual suspects", you kind of earn a response.
Oh, you earned a complaint on the above.
Bells said:
At the risk of sounding repetitive, this is an American "liberal" Jew we're discussing. Are American Jews concerned about being bred out of existence in the US? Do they follow the demographics of marriage and procreation zealously to maintain their race? Is there a covert underground team which keeps track of Jews going out of the fold?
It's called peer pressure.
And thats nothing to be laughed at. I know, because community pressure is equally high in Indian society and no one likes to be on the black list of social ostracism.
But ye're Americans! If you can't do it, who can?
No one's going to disown you for being with a non-Jew, but you get the idea they would prefer it. Me and my brothers have tended to end up with chicks from the axis powers, Germany and Japan for some reason. I've only been with one Jewish woman, and she was black (her dad was one of those Ethiopian Jews).
My buddy was discussing the Israeli-palestinian conflict with his jewish friend in a bar in Israel somewhere. He said out loud, that the way to end this conflict would be to have more interracial marriages. His friend hurried and escorted him out of the place and away before the people in there got violent. Apparently that's a very offensive thing to say in Israel.
His jewish friend also told him, that Israel has a way more serious problem at their hands than Arabs and Persians. Their economy will collaps because of the ultra orthodox jews. An ultra orthordox (haredi) woman will give birth to 7-8 children on average, while the more secular segment will give birth to 2,4 kids on average (I'm not 100% sure about the numbers but they are not far off anyway). The Haredi jews aren't allowed to work and they get social security. If that spiral continues there will be no state of Israel in like 30 years or so unless some action is taken.
His jewish friend also told him, that Israel has a way more serious problem at their hands than Arabs and Persians. Their economy will collaps because of the ultra orthodox jews. An ultra orthordox (haredi) woman will give birth to 7-8 children on average, while the more secular segment will give birth to 2,4 kids on average (I'm not 100% sure about the numbers but they are not far off anyway). The Haredi jews aren't allowed to work and they get social security. If that spiral continues there will be no state of Israel in like 30 years or so unless some action is taken.
What do you mean aren't allowed to work? You mean ever?
Intermarriage between the ruling classes is how Europe used to solve it's cultural differences.
Allow me to refresh your memory for you.
I'm simply asking if you're agreeing with SAM, that an American Jew fearing Jewish genocide in the event of a one-state solution with an Arab majority is counterintuitive to the Jewish experience during the Holocaust. That seems to be what you two are implying, certainly SAM at minimum. You seem to be saying that Jews should know better from their own personal experiences, that the search for a sovereign nation (or to preserve the sovereignty of an existing nation) equates to racism and discrimination. Please correct me if I misunderstood you.
BTW a two-state solution doesn't mean Arab Israelis have to be stripped of their citizenship, so don't go trying to score points by confusing my position on that issue.
Are you implying I'm on some fucking crusade against Muslims? When have I ever advocated for anything to be taken away from Muslims, anything they've owned in the last 60 years? Never, that's when (ok, south Sudan is the one exception). Apparently, resisting further Muslim expansionism and the retarded Conquistador Caliphate makes me an imperialist crusader. SAM keeps making underhanded calls to clear the Jews out of Israel or at least render them a minority in an environment just begging for war, and I keep telling her to shove it. How do you blow that up into a goddamn fucking crusade? Keep the Morrisey and cutting to yourself, I don't want any part of that nonsense.
Last edited: