This will be a breif post as I am working on a more important post where do we go from here. We will discuss the future without ommiting history and liberals are especially invited.
I use 167 to point out two lies of the far left. They claim to be concerned about anti semitism and say nothing when Communists and fellow travelers readily say identical words to David Duke. The other part is how liberals allow Communists into their ranks and say nothing.
Today 167 talks of a neocon cabal that grasped power after 9-11. 167 uses neocon as slang for evil joooooish republicans. He also talks of the Iraq war as being part of an Israel centric foriegn policy.
This is exactly the type of hate speech those well know conservatives Howard Dean and Rep Nadler called anti semitic.Even the Chemist runs from that line of reasoning.
The not so subtle text is the joooos are responsible for the Iraq war. Lets be honest the Chemist and others have made lengthy posts on alleged anti Gay attacks that were far less obnoxious then this slur such as boycotting Disney. Yet they remain silent when the far left issues a modern blood libel.
167 for all his delusions is not original and his material is repeated by Communazis in NYC and on Stormfront a white power site. To the two posters who are soooo concerned about my calling an antisemite and a Communist by their correct names you have not got a clue seriously.
What is 167s excuse for Dean denouncing his theories. Dean has a jooooish wife and kids and is a zionist sympathizer. The zionist (jooooish ) media put pressure on Dean
to lie. When is enough for the liberals to say this is anti semitic. Does the idiot 167 have to build a concentration camp. I am sure some lackey will say but he says he is pro joooooooo.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
All right, let me show my ignorance. What's with all the anti-Semitism? Granted, I work with a lot of Jews (Jews for Christ, actually), so maybe I'm insulated.
beak,
The statement your speaking of, i do not find anti-semetic in it self
we are in iraq because of israel
In general i don't find it anti-semetic, is it a senstitive remark, probbally not, should it be said, that could be debated, but as i previously post in general i don't find it anti-semetic, i think it comes down to the context in which someone says it, and the under tone they use.
As far as your issue's with Mark and Robert Lyndsay. That is none of my business, thats your guys issues not mine, my stance is thats your feud not mine, i will stay neutrual, as always i will remark on what i think is right and wrong, no matter who is that says it, you know me well enough to know beak, i'm a straight shooter.
Rob
I am glad you have chosen to be neutral. This is an improvement and much better.
Again Howard Dean has said those statements are anti semitic. Even the wacky Chemist has never gone near that line. He made the point abundantly clear. You should think it over.
Always: anti semitism in modern times is usually thought of as speech or discriinatory practices against Jews, Judaism or the state of Israel. It can however, be against any group of Semitic speaking peoples of the Near East and Northern Africa.
So when 167 says something against the Jewish people he is being anti semitic.
anti-Semitic
speech or discriminatory practices especially on the basis of race or religion of a semitic peoples.
Semite:
A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
Hope that helps you understand.
Main Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
Function: noun
Date: 1882
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
- an·ti-Se·mit·ic /-s&-'mi-tik/ adjective
- an·ti-Sem·ite /-'se-"mIt/ noun
While looking this up, it seems i found the following information.
Anti-Semetic refers to prejudice against jews, no other faiths or grouo of people are mention in any defintions i found.
However, Semite it self, does include many other diffrent religions, but we all know commonly anti-semetic is normally used for anything anti-jew.
As far as that general statement Beak, i stand by the statment in it self is not anti-semetic. We will just have to disagree on that.
Beak,
This is a little off topic, but i think it's a sincere question. I come here for a decent debate, knowling already, we disagree, however, for the second time i have been subjected to this:
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...
Everyone knows where I stand on homosexuality. You're either born gay (a birth defect) or you choose to behave that way (a mental disorder).
Until a literal coup by homosexuals at the American Psychiatry Association PC'ed their journals in the early 1970s, homosexuality was not only on their list of sexually deviant behaviors, it TOPPED their list.
What changed this? Science? No. Research? No. Experimentation? No.
Feces-licking drama queens in a tizzy? Yes.
Now i hear alot of talk about whats anti-semetic, yet statements like that which are obvisouly grounded in hate and bigiotry, not to mention homophobia, are never talked about, and this idiot continues to say it, and NOT one person here, those who i respect, say one word, why is this.
And lastly, just a point blank questions, that only you can answer, are gays welcomed here? If not that is cool, but i don't understand how people can be so passionate about one article of bigiotry and so silent on another.
I would ask you the same question about anti semitism. Mr Beamish and everyone else is well aware that I support gay rights and Gays are welcome here.
Incedentsally if you read the other readers Jason, Warren, Esther and Always on the Watch have expressed general support for gay rights. Even the poster you blasted Captain Neptune was supportive of Gay rights.
I discuss anti-semtism where its applicable, do i go looking for remarks of anti-semitism, nope, thats not the basic of my argument, neither do i make remarks against jews.
I have noted, and as i said those who i respect, but i won't respect nor condone someone who is tossing out bigioted comments.
As far as neptune goes, me and his argument had very little to do with gay rights. His little rant was childish and uncalled for. However once again i will note, you did not address why no one objects to such bigioty, if the same was said about jews, i imagine, people here would be outrage, but because Mr. Beamish is directing his comments towards gays, they remain quiet, and i wonder why that is.
I'm "homophobic" because I want political correctness to be removed from scientific diagnoses of mentally and / or genetically derived behavioral deviances?
Next you'll tell me I'm "bacteriophobic" because I wash my hands?
Do yourself a favor, Robert Bayn. Look at the reasons the APA removed homosexuality from their list of sexual deviancies. If you find a scientifically valid reason among them, do let the world know, as that would be the find of the century.
Here goes my ignorance again...I assumed that anti-Semitic meant prejudice against Jews, although the term Semite has a broader meaning.
What I'm trying to understand is why people who claim to be unbigoted would utter hateful remarks. It seems to me that name-throwing people are searching for epithets to use against those who disagree with them. The "ad hominem" attack is a logic fallacy, I believe.
Blaming the Jews and/or Israel for 9/11 (I actually heard someone say that at the WTC ruins a few years ago) or for the war in Iraq doesn't fly with me.
What I meant when I asked my question is this: Why the recent increase in anti-Semitism? Why the rise in Neo-Nazism?
Feces-licking drama queens in a tizzy? Yes.
this is what makes you homophobic, i suggest rethinking how you talk about gays.
Mr. Beamish,
This is last i will say on this, cause this really is'nt about this, Obvisouly you have a problem with gays, thats evident by your posts, all i'm saying, its offensive and wrong to say what you say about gays, maybe no one else here will stand up and say its wrong, but i will, you think gays are mentally ill or defective, which is a cute opinion, and the fieces thing, only once again shows how you truly feel, dosen't take a genious to figure that out, where it stems from for you i don't know and don't pretend to know, all i would say is rethink how you think of gays and address gays, we are not bad people, in fact most of us are just like everyone else, and who someone sleeps with should never be anyones concern unless your sleeping with them.
Rob
Whatever Mr Beamish has done or not done is far less offensive then blaming a nationality for war.
The original removal of Homosexuality from the DSM3 was an entirely political act and Beamish is correct on that point. The Social Sciences are heavily political and the matter is sacrosanct. I have no problem with Gays being declassified as a mental illness as I know plenty of well adjusted people who are gay. Yet this was the first step in a dangerous direction read below. My problem is more with the Social sciences community then gays.Being Gay tells us nothing about a persons worth as a human by itself.
That being said I wish that the feces liking talk would stop. Plenty of heterosexuals engage in sodomy as well . In fact any act done by Homosexuals can be done by heterosexuals.
I have my problems with the Social sciences community and on the fringes there are some who now wish to remove Pedophelia ( nothing to do with Gays ) from the list of abberent behavior. I hope all are against that declassification.
My basic view is that gays are people who have different proclivities. I like pettite brunetes and Rob doesn't . This doesn't make him a good or bad person.
Rob in many respects is an admirable person. He fights for what he believes in and he has courage and yes he is my friend as is Mr Beamish whose humor and intellect I enjoy.
Rob I want you to rethink blaming a war on an ethnic group . Is that more offensive then some rather silly remarks. I wouldn't even say a word if all 167 made were ethnic slurs but a blood libel is far worse.
Whatever Mr Beamish has done or not done is far less offensive then blaming a nationality for war.
I would disagree with that assestment, as your misunderstanding my statement on the war, but this is where i let bigons be bigons.
Rob
What Beamish has said is silly but not designed to rile up hate against gays. Blaming Jews for the war in Iraq and every unpopular policy is a blood libel. If the moron 167 would stick with ethnic slurs I would not write. However blood libels and Holocaust minimization etc is no laughing matter.
Post a Comment