Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, April 03, 2014

OTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments

Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 03, 2014 at 01:59 PM | 4718 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 7 million aca signees and counting, i-95 south, nc, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 23 of 48 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >  Last ›
   2201. The Good Face Posted: April 23, 2014 at 01:55 PM (#4692156)
Watch it. What is socially and politically desirable is a poor way to go after scientific truth--any truth, really. The way I see it is that TGF is advancing the theoretical argument that not all groups of people have to necessarily be the same in all ways--and that includes mental ways. Why that is such a mind-blowing outrage of staggering proportions to some people has to do with things beyond the search for what is true.


Here's the thing. The vast majority of people are pretty ordinary. They'll never be the smartest, the richest, the strongest, the best looking, etc. There's only a tiny number of people who can realistically compete to be top in any given category that people care about. But there's one big exception; if you embrace a religious creed, you can ALWAYS be holier than thou. And that's why this stuff is such a "mind-blowing outrage" to a certain group here. To people who have embraced the leftist faith, the vigor with which they attack the heretics is a way to accumulate status points, to demostrate their worthiness and superiority. That's why you see such increasingly over-the-top denunciations; it's the true believers competing to be the MOST orthodox. It's just status seeking behavior. Nothing else justifies the hysterical responses to fairly banal and prosaic arguments, namely, "not all groups of people have to necessarily be the same in all ways--and that includes mental ways."

But TGF is not an impartial seeker of truth. He trumpets anything that favors his world view, however shoddy, while at the same time dismissing or ignoring hard data that cuts the other way.


We all do it. I just do it better than most people. Unlike most folks here though, I'm willing to admit to uncertainty and acknowledge that all the things I believe are not necessarily proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. So I guess that's yet another way in which I'm better.

   2202. zenbitz Posted: April 23, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4692160)
This argument about the skin color of sprinters is stupid. Grab some dna and do a GWAS study or STFU.
   2203. Ron J2 Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:07 PM (#4692170)
#2200 I was under the impression that the selective prosecution argument is rarely successful -- that the courts give prosecutors wide leeway. Am I mistaken?
   2204. Steve Treder Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:07 PM (#4692171)
This argument about the skin color of sprinters is stupid.

Monumentally.
   2205. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4692172)
My argument is that the article says, "D'Souza says that he's being selectively prosecuted; however, he's actually guilty." The 'however' clause there is a complete non-sequitur. Whether he's actually guilty is not relevant to whether he's being selectively prosecuted.

The prosecutors should just drop the charge if DeSouza consents to walk around the gated communities in Florida for the next six months wearing sunglasses and a Raiders hoodie.
   2206. Morty Causa Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4692173)
2201:

I thought the discussion was about the possible development and propagation of certain biological attributes in a certain group in a certain place.
   2207. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4692181)
To people who have embraced the leftist faith,


And there's the nub of the matter. TGF doesn't promote recycled white supremacist arguments because he's a racist. He promotes recycled white supremacist arguments because it allows him to feel morally superior to "leftists." The white supremacy is just a side product of his need to preen.
   2208. Shredder Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4692186)
Didn't someone rat D'Souza out to the feds? I mean, it might be something that the DOJ doesn't actively investigate or spend a lot of time on, but if someone drops evidence into your lap, it's kind of hard to ignore.
   2209. spike Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4692192)
Didn't someone rat D'Souza out to the feds?

"The indictment was the result of a routine review by the FBI of campaign filings with the FEC by various candidates after the 2012 election, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office."

WaPo

Some of the more recent evidence, as I noted earlier, was provided from the husband of a woman D'Souza was "protecting traditional marriage" with.
   2210. Publius Publicola Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4692193)
Interesting Douthat column on the sentatorial races. Now, I know YC is going to discount a NYT columnist of overt partisanism but Douthat is part of Team Red:

The Republican Party’s Senate Problem

As Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out, the striking thing about the ’12 Senate races was just how many Republican candidates, many of them perfectly respectable nominees on paper, ran well behind the not-exactly-world-beating Mitt Romney:


Romney was not a drag on the Republican party. The Republican party was a drag on him … He did better than Connie Mack in Florida, George Allen in Virginia, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, Denny Rehberg in Montana, Jeff Flake in Arizona, Pete Hoekstra in Michigan, Deb Fischer in Nebraska, Rick Berg in North Dakota, Josh Mandel in Ohio, and of course Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana. In some cases Romney did a lot better. (He also did slightly better than Ted Cruz in Texas, a race Blake for some reason ignored.)

… The only Republican Senate candidates who ran significantly ahead of Romney were people running well to his left in blue states, and they lost too.
   2211. Ron J2 Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4692194)
Incidentally, Swing voters in Midterm Elections

Basic point: Even though the Democrats did poorly in 2010, "only a small percentage of voters actually switched sides between 2008 and 2010. Moreover, there were almost as many John McCain voters who voted for a Democratic House candidate in 2010 as there were Obama voters who shifted the other way."

And

"Fewer than 6 percent of 2008 voters in the presidential election voted for a congressional candidate from the other party in 2010, with the switchers roughly evenly divided across the parties"

It's basically about turnout.
   2212. Mefisto Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4692195)
I was under the impression that the selective prosecution argument is rarely successful -- that the courts give prosecutors wide leeway. Am I mistaken?


No, your impression is correct.

My argument is that the article says, "D'Souza says that he's being selectively prosecuted; however, he's actually guilty." The 'however' clause there is a complete non-sequitur. Whether he's actually guilty is not relevant to whether he's being selectively prosecuted.


Your argument is wrong for two reasons. First, the article didn't use the technical term "selective prosecution" or any variant thereof. It said that D'Souza was "being singled out for political reasons". That's a broader category, which includes cases of actual innocence. The "however" clause precludes that possibility.

Second, even if the article had used the phrase "selective prosecution", we can't assume that the ordinary reader would understand that being guilty is implied in that phrase. Thus, the "however" clause serves to let the lay reader know that.

   2213. The Good Face Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4692200)
2201:

I thought the discussion was about the possible development and propagation of certain biological attributes in a certain group in a certain place.


It was, but you mentioned the monumental outrage so that's what I chose to digress into.

And there's the nub of the matter. TGF doesn't promote recycled white supremacist arguments because he's a racist. He promotes recycled white supremacist arguments because it allows him to feel morally superior to "leftists." The white supremacy is just a side product of his need to preen.


And we're back to "hatefacts". Certain things must not be true, so anybody pointing out evidence that they are true must be tarred as "white supremacists". Predictably protecting the faith.

But as long as we're doing online psychology, why don't you tell us the root of your jew-hatred Sammy? From whence does your persistant and pervasive anti-semitism spring?
   2214. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4692202)
Didn't someone rat D'Souza out to the feds? I mean, it might be something that the DOJ doesn't actively investigate or spend a lot of time on, but if someone drops evidence into your lap, it's kind of hard to ignore.

Unless you're the Securities and Exchange Commission.
   2215. spike Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4692203)
D'Souza is boned and he knows it. It's a question of how good a plea he can get if he gets some Senatorial tantrum action on his behalf.
   2216. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:44 PM (#4692205)
#2214 - right on.
   2217. Morty Causa Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4692209)
2213:

My mistake, and apologies. My post should have referenced 2202. I understand what you were getting at (and agree for the most part).
   2218. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4692214)

And we're back to "hatefacts". Certain things must not be true, so anybody pointing out evidence that they are true must be tarred as "white supremacists".


If white suprematism is true, then how can calling someone who believes the truth a 'white suprematist' be incorrect?
   2219. The Good Face Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4692230)
If white suprematism is true, then how can calling someone who believes the truth a 'white suprematist' be incorrect?


The issue is Sam claiming facts that make him uncomfortable are "white supremacy".
   2220. spike Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4692240)
If white suprematism is true, then how can calling someone who believes the truth a 'white suprematist' be incorrect?

Or a pejorative, for that matter?
   2221. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4692241)
The issue is Sam claiming facts that make him uncomfortable are "white supremacy".


My problem is most of what you claim are not facts at all, just some cherry picked data and whole piles of assertion. And much ignoring of anything that cuts against your beliefs. I am not offended against you as a liberal I am offended as a critical thinker.

It is not the discomfort, it is the wrong that is the problem.
   2222. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4692242)
The issue is Sam claiming facts that make him uncomfortable are "white supremacy".


No, son. You're just trying to avoid the facts of your argument. If you don't want to be called for making white supremacist arguments, stop arguing white supremacist positions.

You argue that "West Africans" (*) are intellectually inferior to white people. If you do not argue that, then you should seriously revamp your argumentative technique, because pretty much everyone who reads you here assumes that is your position. Because that is what you argue. The argument that "West Africans" are intellectually inferior to white people is, by definition, an argument that white people are intellectual superior. Or, to use the more historical term, "supreme." As in, "white SUPREMACY."

(*) as people with an actual working knowledge of genetics have attested, your category here is made up and stupid, but that's just part and parcel to the white supremacist game
   2223. formerly dp Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4692246)
And we're back to "hatefacts". Certain things must not be true, so anybody pointing out evidence that they are true must be tarred as "white supremacists". Predictably protecting the faith.
You keep building up the same straw man, because the case you've actually constructed looks precisely the same as the case white supremacists have been making for centuries. You won't even acknowledge that the category of 'race' has been highly unstable, and often uses skin color as a lazy stand-in for genetics. You're so emotionally invested in this narrative yourself that you can't see how flimsy it is. And your lack of understanding of race science's historicity just makes you come off all kinds of ignorant.
   2224. zenbitz Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4692255)
I basically agree with all of @2156

Yes they have the power now, but if they ever lose it, do you doubt their enemies would at best, expel every Jew from Israel? At worst, conduct a 2nd Holocaust? In that environment, it would be foolish to make any compromise at all in terms of security.


And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump it's ass a-hoppin'.

I don't judge people by their presumed actions. Israel and some of it's surrounding states are enemies. Lots of states are enemies. I don't pay one whit of attention to their rhetoric directed either internally or externally. I judge them by their actions.

The price of Isreal keeping the boot on the neck of the Palestinains is continued asymmetric warfare. I actually think that suits the Isreali right wing (as well as the Muslim jihadists) so that is why they don't relax in terms of security.
   2225. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4692262)
Romney was not a drag on the Republican party. The Republican party was a drag on him


Well I think it was a combination of factors:

1: Romney did better than fellow Rs because he tacked back towards the center after getting the nomination and the longstanding conservative meme that GOP candidates have to get more conservative to win (the general) is completely wrong.

2: Obama had not changed the minds of anyone who voted against him in 2008 and had disappointed many of those who had, so he was bound to fall off.

3; The National mood was (and still is) very anti-GOP (it's by no means pro-Dem or pro-Obama, but the general public's opinion of the GOP was and still is far worse.

   2226. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4692269)
#2200 I was under the impression that the selective prosecution argument is rarely successful -- that the courts give prosecutors wide leeway. Am I mistaken?
You are not Sam; hence you are not mistaken. It's almost never successful.
   2227. The Good Face Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4692275)
You argue that "West Africans" (*) are intellectually inferior to white people. If you do not argue that, then you should seriously revamp your argumentative technique, because pretty much everyone who reads you here assumes that is your position. Because that is what you argue. The argument that "West Africans" are intellectually inferior to white people is, by definition, an argument that white people are intellectual superior. Or, to use the more historical term, "supreme." As in, "white SUPREMACY."


Sam, if you don't want people to keep calling you an anti-semite, perhaps you should stop accusing jews of using the blood of goyim children to make their matzos and posting links to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion all over the web.

Look, we can go 'round and 'round like this, or you can start dealing with what I actually say instead of what you want to hear.

You keep building up the same straw man, because the case you've actually constructed looks precisely the same as the case white supremacists have been making for centuries.


This is an ad hominem fallacy (pay attention BM); bad people made an argument, therefore the argument is invalid.

You won't even acknowledge that the category of 'race' has been highly unstable, and often uses skin color as a lazy stand-in for genetics.


I've actually linked to scientific papers that have explicitly endorsed the biological concept of race. I have the pharmaceutical industry and Stanford's School of Medicine backing up my claims. What do you have?

You're so emotionally invested in this narrative yourself that you can't see how flimsy it is. And your lack of understanding of race science's historicity just makes you come off all kinds of ignorant.


And the irony meter asplodes. I'm quite literally the only person in this debate who has admitted doubt or the possibility that my claims might be less than 100% proven.
   2228. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4692285)
Basic point: Even though the Democrats did poorly in 2010, "only a small percentage of voters actually switched sides between 2008 and 2010


The 2010 wave was driven largely by the following:

1: people who didn't vote in 2008 (or 2006 or 2004...)and were freaked out by the results of 2008.
2: people who voted for McCain in 2008, who don't usually turnout in non-POTUS years but did so in 2010 to vote against Obama again.
3: People who switched sides, as noted this group was far smaller than 1 & 2 above.

   2229. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4692286)
Sam, if you don't want people to keep calling you an anti-semite


Then I should block you. Nothing you accuse me of is true. I have yet to accuse you of anything you haven't done.
   2230. Publius Publicola Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4692292)
I have the pharmaceutical industry and Stanford's School of Medicine backing up my claims.


You don't have what you think you have.
   2231. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:44 PM (#4692297)
Sam, if you don't want people to keep calling you an anti-semite

Then I should block you. Nothing you accuse me of is true.


I still assume the reason Sam dislikes me is because I'm a jerk.
   2232. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4692299)
I still assume the reason Sam dislikes me is because I'm a jerk.


You're a Yankees fan, right?
   2233. formerly dp Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4692300)
This is an ad hominem fallacy (pay attention BM); bad people made an argument, therefore the argument is invalid.
Maybe you don't read too well: I said above that those people didn't look bad at the time. They weren't evil incarnate. They were making bad arguments with bad science because they insisted that race (as poorly as they defined it) came with a set of essential characteristics. You are doing the same thing here. That doesn't automatically make you a bad person, but that does make you someone who is, as Sam explained yesterday, making the same arguments that white supremacists have made for generations.

I've actually linked to scientific papers that have explicitly endorsed the biological concept of race. I have the pharmaceutical industry and Stanford's School of Medicine backing up my claims. What do you have?
This is part of your problem-- you insist on using definitions that are inconsistent across discourses as if they are evidence you have the solution, not evidence of a problem in the so-called science. But since you're so sure: please provide a biological definition of race, and show how that same definition has informed the studies of IQ and crime that you constantly refer to.

I'm quite literally the only person in this debate who has admitted doubt or the possibility that my claims might be less than 100% proven.
As part of your "I'm above everyone" posturing, you've typed those words. You haven't said anything that indicates you believe them. You *need* this stuff to be true, because you need to prove those close-minded Cathedral-dwellers wrong.
   2234. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:52 PM (#4692308)
I still assume the reason Sam dislikes me is because I'm a jerk.

You're a Yankees fan, right?


That's right, I shouldn't forget to note the jealousy angle.
   2235. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4692324)
3. "Bill Kristol's arguments in his latest op-ed directly put the interests of Bibi Netenyahu's government ahead of US national interests." - not anti-semitic

I'm not so sure about that. How does the question even pop into your head to be answered if not because of a concern about the "dual loyalty" of American Jews? And what other group's rhetoric do you analyze for whether it puts the "interests" of another government ahead of US national interests? Kristol's arguments are either right or wrong for America; if they're right for America, who cares if they're even more right for Israel? If they're wrong for America, just say so on the merits -- no need to compare the relative benefits they'd give Israel.

The canard of "dual loyalty" of American Jews is anti-Semitic.

And obviously, your denial of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and denomination of its policies as "apartheid" is garden variety anti-Semitism.

You're much, much closer to an anti-Semite than anyone on the board is to a "racist."
   2236. Publius Publicola Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:08 PM (#4692330)
Of course, it's in Kristol's interests to have his critics labeled anti-semites if they disagree with him on him opinions about Israel. He and his fellow travelers count on it to silence or marginalize legitimate criticism so they can get their way easier.
   2237. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:09 PM (#4692331)
How does the question even pop into your head to be answered if not because of a concern about the "dual loyalty" of American Jews?


I am concerned about the bad arguments and poor policy proposals promoted by Bill Kristol and his ilk. Kristol often uses Netenyahu's rhetoric as a foil for his positions. Thus it makes sense. Again, it is 100% reasonable to argue that Argument X puts the interests of Y ahead of the interests properly understood of the United States. That is the only argument I've made, and it is not in any way whatsoever antisemitic, no matter how much TGF whines and lies.

And what other group's rhetoric do you analyze for whether it puts the "interests" of another government ahead of US national interests?


All of them. For example, recently I have argued quite a bit that the interests of Ukrainians should not supercede the interests of the United States.
   2238. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4692343)
Again, it is 100% reasonable to argue that Argument X puts the interests of Y ahead of the interests properly understood of the United States. That is the only argument I've made, and it is not in any way whatsoever antisemitic, no matter how much TGF whines and lies.

Only if not racially-based and aimed. If you only make that argument about things an American Jew writes about Israel and the only other government whose interests you analyze vis-a-vis the US's is Israel's -- it's anti-Semitic.

For example, recently I have argued quite a bit that the interests of Ukrainians should not supercede the interests of the United States.

But you've never criticized a Ukrainian-American writer of putting the interests of Ukraine ahead of the interests of the United States.

It's the aiming of the argument only at American Jews that makes it anti-Semitic.
   2239. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:17 PM (#4692346)
Kristol often uses Netenyahu's rhetoric as a foil for his positions.

Then the answer is exploring the fallacies of Netenyahu's rhetoric, not questioning or impugning Kristol's loyalty.

And there's also your well-documented denial of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state .... Also anti-Semitic or pretty damn close.
   2240. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4692349)
I'm not so sure about that. How does the question even pop into your head to be answered if not because of a concern about the "dual loyalty" of American Jews? And what other group's rhetoric do you analyze for whether it puts the "interests" of another government ahead of US national interests?


It was common from about 1920 to the end of the cold war to assert that American Communists and Socialist were putting the interest of the USSR's government ahead of the US's (and with respect to the US Communist Party those assertions were in fact correct). Isolationists during and before both World Wars would accuse their opponents of putting Great Britain's interests ahead of the US's.

And obviously, your denial of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state

Does he do that? And if so, does he deny other state's the right to exist as religious states? (I know atheist who do not agree with Christian, Hindu or Moslem states as a matter of principal)

and denomination of its policies as "apartheid"

There are some pretty uncomfortable parallels between how the Afrikaners treated non-whites and how the Israeli Government treats Palestinians. Israel has not enacted the explicit de jure segregation enforced by the Apartheid regime, but it has enabled substantially similar de facto segregation. Palestinians in the pre-1967 Israel get the vote of course, but Palestinians in other parts of the land controlled by Israel do not (unless you count the PA "government" and the Hamas "government" - there's South African analog for that too- the so-called Bantustans or Homelands, there's a ton of system zoning discrimination as well- basically designed to push Palestinians out of certain areas and replace them with Israelis

Actually a better analog for how the Israeli Government functions vis a vis the Palestianians is how the US Government treated Native Americans historically and how some state governments treated Blacks after the Civil War and until the 60s/70s.

   2241. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4692350)
But you've never criticized a Ukrainian-American writer of putting the interests of Ukraine ahead of the interests of the United States.


Show me a Ukrainian-American writer who does that and I will gladly make that claim. The fact that Ukrainian-American isn't a popular cultural identifier isn't my problem.

Then the answer is exploring the fallacies of Netenyahu's rhetoric, not questioning or impugning Kristol's loyalty.


When Kristol makes bad arguments, I note his bad arguments. When Kristol argues explicitly that the US should follow Netenyahu's lead over the elected government's considered opinion of her best interests, I note that Kristol is ranking Israeli interests above US interests.
   2242. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:24 PM (#4692351)
It was common from about 1920 to the end of the cold war to assert that Amerioacn Communists and Socialist were putting the interest of the USSR's government ahead of the US's (and with respect to the US Communist Party those assertions were in fact correct).
Well, since they were getting paid by the USSR, that wasn't really much of a stretch.

Isolationists during and before both World Wars would accuse their opponents of putting Great Britain's interests ahead of the US's.
Actually, they'd blame the Jews, too.

Does he do that? And if so, does he deny other state's the right to exist as religious states? (I know atheist who do not agree with Christian, Hindu or Moslem states as a matter of principal)
Israel is not a "religious state."
   2243. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:24 PM (#4692353)
It's the aiming of the argument only at American Jews that makes it anti-Semitic.


I don't think he's made that claim only with respect to Jewish writers and politicians
   2244. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:24 PM (#4692354)
And there's also your well-documented denial of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state


A strong mischaracterization of my arguments. I have argued that IF Israel prefers to exist as a religious state, THEN the United States should not continue to support Israel financially and militarily, as it is not our national credo to support theocracies. IF Israel opts to be a democracy or republic, rather than to succumb to theocracy, THEN the US should continue her support.

I have also noted that the client-state relationship between the US and Israel has become utterly clustered and reversed in recent time, where the tail wags the dog too often these days. Yes; the little fish is a client of the big fish, not vice versa.
   2245. The Good Face Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4692355)
Then I should block you. Nothing you accuse me of is true. I have yet to accuse you of anything you haven't done.


Right back at you. Look, I'm used to you using logical fallacies, ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your worldview, hating jews, making impotent threats and generally acting like a slightly above average intellect who believes he's a brilliant thinker. It's all part of your dubious charm. But you usually eschewed baldfaced lying until the past couple of days. So. You can either knock off the lying, block me, or accept that this page will establish the parameters for our discourse in the foreseeable future.

That doesn't automatically make you a bad person, but that does make you someone who is, as Sam explained yesterday, making the same arguments that white supremacists have made for generations.


No, it doesn't. The difference is the data. I haz it. They didn't. You may argue that they thought they had data supporting their arguments, and perhaps they did, but I'm not using their data.

This is part of your problem-- you insist on using definitions that are inconsistent across discourses as if they are evidence you have the solution, not evidence of a problem in the so-called science. But since you're so sure: please provide a biological definition of race, and show how that same definition has informed the studies of IQ and crime that you constantly refer to.


Still waiting for you to provide some scientific evidence to support YOUR conclusions. I have a feeling I'm going to be waiting a long, long time.

As part of your "I'm above everyone" posturing, you've typed those words. You haven't said anything that indicates you believe them.


You SAY you're not sexually attracted to 6 year old boys, but you haven't said anything that indicates you believe it.

You *need* this stuff to be true, because you need to prove those close-minded Cathedral-dwellers wrong.


Stick to the day job, because your internet psychology skills are terrible. My posting here is mostly for my own amusement, with a small side of encouraging/enlightening any lurkers with right wing inclinations and a creeping sense that the current "right wing" institutions in the US are not representing their interests.
   2246. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4692357)
A strong mischaracterization of my arguments. I have argued that IF Israel prefers to exist as a religious state, THEN the United States should not continue to support Israel financially and militarily, as it is not our national credo to support theocracies. IF Israel opts to be a democracy or republic, rather than to succumb to theocracy, THEN the US should continue her support.
Israel is not a "theocracy." Either you don't know what the word means, or you don't know much about Israel. Or, since you're Sam, both.
   2247. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:28 PM (#4692360)
Actually, they'd blame the Jews, too.


Well some people blame the Jews for everything, it's overcast, it's the Jews fault- they finance companies that pollute because that causes respiratory ailments which makes people go see their doctors- and we all know that the doctors are Jewish... yada yada yada.
   2248. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:29 PM (#4692364)
I'll also note that TGF is loving this subthread, as it is exactly the tangent he hoped would occur when he dropped the slander into the conversation to start with. It relieves him of having to defend his white supremacist arguments while having others continue his slander of me.
   2249. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:30 PM (#4692365)
I have argued that IF Israel prefers to exist as a religious state, THEN the United States should not continue to support Israel financially and militarily, as it is not our national credo to support theocracies. IF Israel opts to be a democracy or republic, rather than to succumb to theocracy, THEN the US should continue her support.

And that's anti-Semitic. As noted, you don't support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state along the lines that it has existed since 1948.

"Jewish state" of course does not mean "theocracy," or even "religious state." It simply means Jews have rights as Jews.

Are these wanton mischaracterizations of Israel's features anti-Semitic? You make the call.
   2250. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:30 PM (#4692366)
I'm not sure what "putting [another country's] interests ahead of the United States" is even supposed to mean, unless you're assuming that the person being accused of such dual loyalties knows that the policy he's advocating will damage the U.S.

But why would we assume that deliberately harming the United States is his intent? I don't agree with most of the policies that Bill Kristol is advocating, but "dual loyalty" seems to me to be an unfair accusation to level against any person, unless you can honestly prove that he consciously thinks along the lines of "What's good for [another country] may well be bad for the U.S., but so what?"

Same with charges of "anti-semitism", in the absence of any demonstrated hostility to Jews per se, as opposed to philosophical objections (which I don't share) to the idea of a Jewish state. AFAIC all these charges and counter-charges are doing is making it impossible to have any sort of real discussion.
   2251. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:32 PM (#4692368)


A strong mischaracterization of my arguments. I have argued that IF Israel prefers to exist as a religious state, THEN the United States should not continue to support Israel financially and militarily, as it is not our national credo to support theocracies. IF Israel opts to be a democracy or republic, rather than to succumb to theocracy, THEN the US should continue her support.


I'll let Queen Elizabeth know that when Sam is elected president, we'll be withholding support. Also, the dozens and dozens of other countries that have state enshrinment of religion. Oh, lest we throw stones, I'd like to see how this country would react if the demographic trend would clearly put Christianity in an inevitable minority to Islam. Maybe we should've discussed this on Good Friday, when the US markets were closed.

I have also noted that the client-state relationship between the US and Israel has become utterly clustered and reversed in recent time, where the tail wags the dog too often these days. Yes; the little fish is a client of the big fish, not vice versa.


Those Jews getting too big for their britches, are they? Better put them back in their place.
   2252. Publius Publicola Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:32 PM (#4692369)
Israel is not a "religious state."


In some respects it is. Secular jews are noticing the trend toward theocracy with dismay and regret.
   2253. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:32 PM (#4692370)
Israel is not a "theocracy." Either you don't know what the word means, or you don't know much about Israel.


Judaism is a bit of an odd-duck when it comes to world religions and cultures, but you can't have it both ways. Either it's really important for Israel to be a "Jewish state" - which is nationalist and theocratic in nature - or it is not. If you'd prefer to use the old standard National Front talking point of "England for the English" instead of "theocracy" as the analogy, I'm fine with that, as it's really a split decision of theocratic identity and rank proto-fascist nationalism.
   2254. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4692372)
Those Jews getting too big for their britches, are they?


You're still an idiot, I see. Israelis - not "the Jews," Israelis - may do with their nation as they please. I am concerned with my nation's support of bad policy at home and abroad.
   2255. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4692375)
I'll also note that TGF is loving this subthread, as it is exactly the tangent he hoped would occur when he dropped the slander into the conversation to start with. It relieves him of having to defend his white supremacist arguments while having others continue his slander of me.


Obviously you're not clever and shifty enough to avoid his Jew-baiting. You won't see me taken in so easily!
   2256. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:35 PM (#4692376)
Same with charges of "anti-semitism", in the absence of any demonstrated hostility to Jews per se, as opposed to philosophical objections (which I don't share) to the idea of a Jewish state. AFAIC all these charges and counter-charges are doing is making it impossible to have any sort of real discussion.


"Philisophical objections" to Israel that curiously are applied solely to the Jewish state are anti-semitic, even if they would not be anti-semitic if applied equally to all states.

Man, I don't even ####### like Israelis, and I certainly don't ####### like Bibi Netanyahu, but this dual-loyalty #### gets my blood up.
   2257. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:35 PM (#4692377)
And that's anti-Semitic. As noted, you don't support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state along the lines that it has existed since 1948.


And this is horseshit. It's a common argument, but horseshit nonetheless. In your arrangement, any disagreement with Israel would be antisemitic by definition. That's stupid and dumb and wrong and intelligent humans don't have to kowtow to your desire to stifle dissent with political correctness.

   2258. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:36 PM (#4692378)
First SBB says this:
"Jewish state" of course ...simply means Jews have rights as Jews.


the the very next line he says:
Are these wanton mischaracterizations of Israel's features anti-Semitic?


hmmm

I tend to believe that when someone like Netanyahu about a "Jewish State" he means it in the sense that someone says France is a "French State"

OTOH I have no idea what SBB means when he says that it "simply means Jews have rights as Jews" other that at face value, that's completely wrong.
   2259. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:36 PM (#4692379)
You're still an idiot, I see. Israelis - not "the Jews," Israelis - may do with their nation as they please. I am concerned with my nation's support of bad policy at home and abroad.


But with a laser-like focus on the Hebrews' bad policy, amirite?
   2260. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4692381)
Judaism is a bit of an odd-duck when it comes to world religions and cultures, but you can't have it both ways. Either it's really important for Israel to be a "Jewish state" - which is nationalist and theocratic in nature - or it is not. If you'd prefer to use the old standard National Front talking point of "England for the English" instead of "theocracy" as the analogy, I'm fine with that, as it's really a split decision of theocratic identity and rank proto-fascist nationalism.


Rank proto-fascist nationalism? Do you seriously just equate the Jewish people's desire for a Jewish state with proto-fascism? Are you being blithly ironic, or intentionally so?
   2261. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4692382)
OTOH I have no idea what SBB means when he says that it "simply means Jews have rights as Jews" other that at face value, that's completely wrong.


Jews don't have rights as Jews. They have rights as humans. Just like Kenyans and Ukrainians and Greeks and Palestinians.
   2262. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4692383)
Do you seriously just equate the Jewish people's desire for a Jewish state with proto-fascism? Are you being blithly ironic, or intentionally so?


I did, because it is so. The irony, alas, is the world's, not mine.
   2263. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4692385)
OTOH I have no idea what SBB means when he says that it "simply means Jews have rights as Jews" other that at face value, that's completely wrong.

It means that as a Jew, you're given certain rights and privileges by the state of Israel solely because you're a Jew. E.g., the Law of Return.

   2264. The Good Face Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4692386)
I'll also note that TGF is loving this subthread, as it is exactly the tangent he hoped would occur when he dropped the slander into the conversation to start with.


Yeah, I blew my magic conch shell and summoned the forces of Zionist supremacy to hound you to the ends of the earth.

FFS, look in the mirror. You did it to yourself.
   2265. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4692387)
I did, because it is so. The irony, alas, is the world's, not mine.


It is not so, and that you see it as so is the irony. The man who holds himself out as above the petty blindness of privilege and tribalism is the filthiest bigot of them all.
   2266. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:43 PM (#4692390)
amirite?


As usual, no. You are as far from right as ever. Anyone paying a modicum of attention would be aware that I've focused on Ukraine, Russia and any other number of current topics over the last few months. (Including, briefly, the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, David.)
   2267. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:44 PM (#4692392)
srael is not a "religious state."

In some respects it is. Secular jews are noticing the trend with dismay and regret.


One thing that Israel does that is out of step with most (not all*) Western Democracies is the authority in some areas it gives to Religious figures as opposed to civil government.

If you are Jewish in Israel who you can marry and whether or not you can get divorced is up to the Rabbis to decide, if you are Muslim your religious leaders get to decide, etc.

Of course most theocracies tend to at least try to force minority religious groups to honor/obey/observe if not outright convert to the State's religion, I don't think Israel has ever tried to do that that.

*For an example for most of it's history as an independnet nation the Irish Government has given a huge amount of both de facto and de jure authority to the Catholic Church.
   2268. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4692397)
In your arrangement, any disagreement with Israel would be antisemitic by definition.

No, but reducing Israel's national life and existence to a crude admixture of "theocratic identity and rank proto-fascist nationalism" would be anti-Semitic by definition.
   2269. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4692398)
It is not so, and that you see it as so is the irony


Next thing you'll tell me a black guy can't be bigoted. Fascism is not Nazism. German fascism was Nazism. Italian fascism was different, as was Spanish fascism. As is American fascism, and the Russian variant that is blossoming again in the Black Sea states. And if you go to Google and pull up video of Israeli "settlers" assaulting "dirty Arabs" for existing, you'll see Jewish fascism in action.
   2270. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4692399)
No, but reducing Israel's national life and existence to a crude admixture of "theocratic identity and rank proto-fascist nationalism"


I haven't reduced anyone's national life to anything. I discuss Israeli politics the same way I discuss US politics and Euro-Russian politics; as politics. I've not really discussed the dance club scene in Tel Aviv at all.
   2271. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4692400)
As usual, no. You are as far from right as ever. Anyone paying a modicum of attention would be aware that I've focused on Ukraine, Russia and any other number of current topics over the last few months. (Including, briefly, the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, David.)


That's not responsive. What other nations have you suggested that the United States cease supporting because of their theocracy or, as you put it, "proto-fascist" nature?
   2272. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4692402)
It means that as a Jew, you're given certain rights and privileges by the state of Israel solely because you're a Jew.


Oh so you mean Israel is a "Jewish State" in the same way southern segregationists meant it when they said the US was a "White Country"

Ok... if you say so.
   2273. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:49 PM (#4692405)
And if you go to Google and pull up video of Israeli "settlers" assaulting "dirty Arabs" for existing, you'll see Jewish fascism in action.


How do you define fascism, Sam?
   2274. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:51 PM (#4692407)
Oh so you mean Israel is a "Jewish State" in the same way southern segregationists meant it when they said the US was a "White Country"

Ok... if you say so.


Is there some sort of "gotcha" you're trying to get at? I'd be happy to address it.

Jews are explicitly given special privileges within Israel, which is kind of ... you know ... the point. I'm assuming you aren't suggesting that makes it the moral equivalent of Dixie.
   2275. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:51 PM (#4692408)
That's not responsive. What nations have you suggested that the United States cease supporting because of their theocracy or, as you put it, "proto-fascist" nature?


Answering for myself, not answering for Sam, the obvious one is Saudi Arabia
   2276. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:52 PM (#4692409)
What nations have you suggested that the United States cease supporting because of their theocracy or, as you put it, "proto-fascist" nature?


Egypt. Saudi Arabia. Quatar. Next?

How do you define fascism, Sam?


Fascism is hyper-nationalism, almost universally married to a national religious identity, promoted in contrast to a villified "other" and implemented with a strong element of sanctioned but usually 'unofficial' state violence. The violence is usually enacted by internal, but again 'unofficial' gang/police organizations. Fascist regimes are universally militaristic, both internally and externally.
   2277. Publius Publicola Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:53 PM (#4692410)
What nations have you suggested that the United States cease supporting because of their theocracy or, as you put it, "proto-fascist" nature?


Saudi Arabia?

EDIT: coke to JSL-F
   2278. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:53 PM (#4692411)
Jews are explicitly given special privileges within Israel, which is kind of ... you know ... the point.


Yeah and Francophones are given special privileges in Quebec, and I disagree with that too.
   2279. Publius Publicola Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:54 PM (#4692413)
Fascism is hyper-nationalism


Forced uniformity of thought and politics has to fit in there somewhere as well.
   2280. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4692416)
Forced uniformity of thought and politics has to fit in there somewhere as well.


Yes. Sublimation of the individual to the concept of the national ideal. And as with all political identities and tropes, fascism moves. There are genetic markers for fascism across the spectrum though, and the violently nationalist, theocratic right wings of Israel's "settler movement" makes the grade. The idea that fascism is simply another word for Nazism is wrongheaded in any number of ways.
   2281. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4692417)
Yeah and Francophones are given special privileges in Quebec, and I disagree with that too.

OK, and? If you disagree with the fundamental right of Israel to form and exist as a Jewish state, that's either anti-Semitic or very close. I'm not sure how the existence of other nations privileging certain groups was supposed to budge me off that earlier-espoused principle.
   2282. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4692418)
What's remarkable to me is how Sam is a perfect illustration of why a Jewish state was, and remains, absolutely necessary. The bigotry against Jews is so pervasive in Western society that even the Sam's of the world - actually, especially the Sam's of the world - internalize it so completely that they think it is just the normal way it should be. No matter where they are, no matter how integrated, Jews are still treated as the other, as evidenced by Sam's assumption that a Jew would be dually-loyal simply because he's a Jew and of course he is. The reason the Jews need Israel is because the world insists upon treating Jews and Jews; and if that's the way the world wants it to be, then the Jews need a military and a collective government to administer that military. And that is Israel. And that is why I do not know of a single Jew - liberal, conservative, ####### socialist or proto-fascist - who does not believe with absolute certainty that Israel must exist and it must be a Jewish state.

None of which should indicate any support for the right wing frumie loonies, or the Netanyahu government, for settlers or settlements. But never forget that the nation exists to protect the Jews against cultured, carefully barely-concealed anti-semitism under the guise of rational philosophy. The guns are to protect against Sam.
   2283. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:00 PM (#4692419)
Same with charges of "anti-semitism", in the absence of any demonstrated hostility to Jews per se, as opposed to philosophical objections (which I don't share) to the idea of a Jewish state. AFAIC all these charges and counter-charges are doing is making it impossible to have any sort of real discussion.

"Philosophical objections" to Israel that curiously are applied solely to the Jewish state are anti-semitic, even if they would not be anti-semitic if applied equally to all states.


Honest question: How many states these days outside the Middle East are religious states in the same way that Israel is a Jewish state?

And how many of those states were mostly populated by people of other religions prior to World War II?

I'm in favor of Israel. I have no problem with its being a Jewish state. And I fully understand why it doesn't want to encourage a demographic mix that could very well vote the Jewish state out of existence. "Never again" is more than just a slogan to me, even if whatever "Jewish" blood I have in my veins came via the fjords of Norway and the Mayflower.

All that said, I can see why Israel is viewed by some NON-anti-semites in a different light than (say) Arab neo-theocracies. With them it's not so much anti-semitism as anti-colonialism, and a rejection of what they see as an alien invasion.

Obviously it's often hard to tell when this "philosophical" objection ends and real anti-semitism begins, but sometimes you'll have cases where the anti-semitism would vanish if the perceived "colonialism" were ended. That requires taking a certain strain of secular Arabist rhetoric at face value, but I don't think that it's always a disingenuous or dishonest line. Much as I never cared much for Edward Said, for instance, I never thought of him as anti-semitic or anti-Jewish. I mostly just saw him as a product of history, a history that to a great extent we're all still trapped in.
   2284. formerly dp Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:01 PM (#4692424)
Still waiting for you to provide some scientific evidence to support YOUR conclusions. I have a feeling I'm going to be waiting a long, long time.
Man, this isn't hard: what is the biological definition of race? Is that definition used consistently across all the studies that you're claiming provide "the data" for your position? This is the core of the constructivist objection.

Here's one example, addressing the link between race and sickle cell:
Sickle cell isn't an African disease. It is true that some Africans have sickle cell, particularly individuals who have ancestry around West Africa. That's one of the highest places of sickle cell. But, it's also true that East Africans hardly have any sickle cell. South Africans don't have any sickle cell. But, it's also a Middle Eastern disease, and it's also a Mediterranean disease. Individuals in Turkey and Greece and Italy, Sicily, have sickle cell; more than individuals do in South Africa, or in East Africa. So, sickle cell is not an African disease; it's a condition that developed in response to malaria.


You have the same problem previous generations of white supremacists had: you're using race lazily as a stand-in for and short-cut to other things, while not being able to define it with any coherence or consistency. And that betrays the ideology behind your position. It's 'biological' but 'biology' means different things at different times, all pointing to the same predetermined conclusion. Race is a technology: it's a thing humans invented to do things to people. I'm not sure how you get around that, given the wide variety of ways that word has been defined, just within the past 100 years.

Stick to the day job, because your internet psychology skills are terrible. My posting here is mostly for my own amusement, with a small side of encouraging/enlightening any lurkers with right wing inclinations and a creeping sense that the current "right wing" institutions in the US are not representing their interests.
That's a cute way of phrasing "I'm not as clever at concealing my motives as I like to think I am". This is a passion for you in a way that it is for no one else on this site-- you inject it into everything you discuss.
   2285. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:02 PM (#4692427)

Fascism is hyper-nationalism, almost universally married to a national religious identity, promoted in contrast to a villified "other" and implemented with a strong element of sanctioned but usually 'unofficial' state violence. The violence is usually enacted by internal, but again 'unofficial' gang/police organizations. Fascist regimes are universally militaristic, both internally and externally.


"Almost universally married to a national religious identity"? Oh really, do tell?

If your critique is that ultra-orthodox Jews are fascist, then sure, they probably are, just like the bible-bangers of the south and the western academic hard-left. But ultra-orthodox Jews != Israel.
   2286. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:03 PM (#4692430)
Obviously it's often hard to tell when this "philosophical" objection ends and real anti-semitism begins, but sometimes you'll have cases where the anti-semitism would vanish if the perceived "colonialism" were ended. That requires taking a certain strain of secular Arabist rhetoric at face value, but I don't think that it's always a disingenuous or dishonest line. Much as I never cared much for Edward Said, for instance, I never thought of him as anti-semitic or anti-Jewish. I mostly just saw him as a product of history, a history that to a great extent we're all still trapped in


Well this is obviously true. The original sin, as it were, is Israel getting dropped in Palestine in 1948. I never had much time for Zionism. But here we are, and Israel has been there for 60-odd years. So what now?
   2287. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:04 PM (#4692431)
I'm in favor of Israel. I have no problem with its being a Jewish state.


I am in favor of England, but if the UKIP took control of the UK and started kowtowing British policies to the repugnant far right of that citizenry, I'd reconsider that favor. The idea that you can't disagree with Israel without being antisemitic is the worst of thought-crime bullshit.
   2288. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:04 PM (#4692433)
I'm assuming you aren't suggesting that makes it the moral equivalent of Dixie.


No, Jim Crow "Dixie" was being run by and for the people who used to be slave owners (or whose ancestors were).

Israeli's brand of discrimination is being practiced by people whose immediate ancestors were nearly obliterated for the crime of being Jewish. I can certainly understand Israel paranoia and why it feels the need to do some of the things it does, and I'll readily extend them sympathy I wouldn't extend to the enforcers of Jim Crow in this country.

And more to the point, if the US did start to "cease supporting" nations due to how they treat/mistreats their residents/citizens, Israel would not be high up on that lists, among others quite a few Islamic Countries would come first.
   2289. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:04 PM (#4692434)
Forced uniformity of thought and politics has to fit in there somewhere as well.

No, because Israel doesn't do that. Sam's definition was intended first and foremost to capture Israel -- thus the ahistorical and specious linking of fascism as "universally married to a national religious identity."
   2290. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4692436)
OK, and? If you disagree with the fundamental right


No I disagree with your assertion that some groups in a nation should be given special privileges and rights over other groups in the same nations.
   2291. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:08 PM (#4692442)
If your critique is that ultra-orthodox Jews are fascist, then sure, they probably are,


There's no "probably" to it.

just like the bible-bangers of the south


Absolutely. You may take some note of my general positioning with regard to the hard-right, proto-fascist parties of the US and their electoral bases in the deep American south.

and the western academic hard-left.


This seems to be something you just threw in because you needed to make sure you insulted "the left" to stay on quota for the year.

But ultra-orthodox Jews != Israel.


My critiques of Israeli politics have always been in regard to specific politicians (Bibi, etc.) and their alliances with the hard right parties that give them their majority government. Again, I have never made a single argument about "Jews." You, nor the little troll who sent you off on this rabid snipe-hunt, nor anyone else can find a single example of me doing that, because it doesn't exist.
   2292. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:09 PM (#4692443)
But never forget that the nation exists to protect the Jews against cultured, carefully barely-concealed anti-semitism under the guise of rational philosophy. The guns are to protect against Sam.

Yep. They aren't crude about their anti-Semitism, which makes it more dangerous.

The dual-loyalty canard is the tell. That's almost always the giveaway.

Obviously it's often hard to tell when this "philosophical" objection ends and real anti-semitism begins, but sometimes you'll have cases where the anti-semitism would vanish if the perceived "colonialism" were ended.

"Dual loyalty" doesn't have a thing to do with colonialism.
   2293. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4692445)
The original sin, as it were, is Israel getting dropped in Palestine in 1948. I never had much time for Zionism. But here we are, and Israel has been there for 60-odd years. So what now?


If I made this exact statement you and SBB, etc, would accuse me of antisemitism.
   2294. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:11 PM (#4692447)
No I disagree with your assertion that some groups in a nation should be given special privileges and rights over other groups in the same nations.

Then you disagree with Israel existing as a Jewish state, right? What's being missed there?

   2295. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:12 PM (#4692452)
The original sin, as it were, is Israel getting dropped in Palestine in 1948. I never had much time for Zionism. But here we are, and Israel has been there for 60-odd years. So what now?

Trite as it sounds, I'm in favor of our longstanding policy of providing support to Israel while at the same time trying to goose them into easing up with the settlements. Beyond that, if I knew of any real $100 bills that were lying out there on the street, I'd also imagine that someone else would have picked them up long ago.

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

I'm in favor of Israel. I have no problem with its being a Jewish state.

I am in favor of England, but if the UKIP took control of the UK and started kowtowing British policies to the repugnant far right of that citizenry, I'd reconsider that favor. The idea that you can't disagree with Israel without being antisemitic is the worst of thought-crime ########.


Just to be clear, Sam, I've never accused you or anyone else around here of being an anti-semite. IMO that sort of rhetoric is little more than the kissing cousin of "dual loyalty". It probably makes people good to say it, but too often they often say it with their hearts and not their heads.
   2296. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:12 PM (#4692453)
My critiques of Israeli politics have always been in regard to specific politicians (Bibi, etc.) and their alliances with the hard right parties that give them their majority government. Again, I have never made a single argument about "Jews." You, nor the little troll who sent you off on this rabid snipe-hunt, nor anyone else can find a single example of me doing that, because it doesn't exist.


Bullshit. You cited a video of "settlers" as metonomy for the entire state, implying that his fascism was Israel's fascism. Those yahoos aren't a majority, though they are VERY convenient for youre bigotry.


This seems to be something you just threw in because you needed to make sure you insulted "the left" to stay on quota for the year.


Bullshit. The hard left is classically fascist, even by your twisted definition to capture Israel. The regulation of thought, the pogroms against nonbelievers, the belief in their own superiority over the other, its all there. You're as blind to that as you are to the notion that maybe, just maybe, not all Jews should be representated by some shtrayml wearing-nut.

   2297. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:16 PM (#4692457)
Just to be clear, Sam, I've never accused you or anyone else around here of being an anti-semite.


You are not a paranoid loon, apparently. There seem to be a few paranoid loons around, though. I am not now, nor have I ever been antisemitic, and if people think my arguments are antisemitic, they need to get out of their bunker and engage reality a little more.
   2298. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:16 PM (#4692458)
Trite as it sounds, I'm in favor of our longstanding policy of providing support to Israel while at the same time trying to goose them into easing up on the settlements. Beyond that, if I knew of any real $100 bills lying out there on the street, I'd imagine that someone else would have picked them up long ago.


I think the vast majority of secular Israeli jews, and secular and reform Jews in America, would agree. The settlements are awful, but on the otherhand, the colonialism stuff is a non-starter because it can only be resolved by either kicking the jews out of Israel or eviscerating Israel's reason to exist. So Israel ultimately ends up as this parasite state of the US, because it can't seek to grow itself to make itself more self-sustaining in the face of Arab opposition (settlements = continued colonialism) but it also can't leave and basically it just needs to be armed to the hilt and perpetually ready to fight a war. Its a shitty end game but its probably the only one, and it means that perpetually, nothing is resolved.
   2299. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:18 PM (#4692461)
I'm in favor of our longstanding policy of providing support to Israel while at the same time trying to goose them into easing up on the settlements.

Ditto.

The idea that you can't disagree with Israel without being antisemitic is the worst of thought-crime ########.

That's not exactly it. You can certainly disagree with Israel's statecraft and temporal policies without being remotely anti-Semitic. But you can't disagree with Israel's essence in certain terms without being anti-Semitic.
   2300. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:18 PM (#4692462)
The hard left is classically fascist


I'm sorry, but I've always worked on the generally accepted theory that the hard left was Communist authoritarianism, which is certainly violent and in many cases antisemitic, but is historically understood to be distinct from fascism. But there is an element of the flat circle in that, I admit. Follow the Stalinists far enough "left" and you will find yourself marching in perfect time with the fascist hard right.
Page 23 of 48 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3209 - 5:56am, Oct 23)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogAd Week: What Is Madeleine Albright Doing on the Wheaties Box?
(10 - 5:56am, Oct 23)
Last: CraigK

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(352 - 5:54am, Oct 23)
Last: HMS Moses Taylor

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(15 - 5:31am, Oct 23)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogMcSweeneys: NEW BASEBALL STATISTICS.
(15 - 5:26am, Oct 23)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(55 - 3:53am, Oct 23)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(10 - 2:11am, Oct 23)
Last: boteman

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(182 - 12:31am, Oct 23)
Last: Sunday silence

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(534 - 12:25am, Oct 23)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(854 - 12:25am, Oct 23)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(30 - 12:08am, Oct 23)
Last: rlc

NewsblogStatcast: Posey out at the plate
(14 - 11:25pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(65 - 10:38pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogJay set for surgery — and for CF in 2015 : Sports
(5 - 9:58pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(43 - 7:45pm, Oct 22)
Last: catomi01

Page rendered in 1.1467 seconds
52 querie(s) executed