Monday, March 12, 2007

Why Not Hagel?

The latest NY Times/CBS News poll finds that Republicans are not happy with their presidential choices for the 2008 election, believe they could lose the White House to Dems, are concerned that the GOP has drifted from the conservative principles of Ronald Reagan, and are open to supporting a candidate who breaks with the preznut on key aspects of his Iraq strategy.

Gee, Chuck Hagel seems to fit the bill on some of what GOPers want in a candidate. Hagel could win the White House (moderates and liberals would probably be open to voting for him because of his war criticisms even though he is one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate.) Hagel is certainly a conservative in the mode of Ronald Reagan. And Hagel has broken with key aspects of the preznut's Iraq war policy.

So why wouldn't Repubs be open to a Hagel candidacy?

Are they opposed to him just because he doesn't treat the preznut with the undying affection of Rudy, Romney and the rest of the Rubber Stamp suck-ups?

Comments:
Or is it because AIPAC etc. won't back him?
 
elizabeth, you wrote:

"Or is it because AIPAC etc. won't back him?"

Leave it to elizabeth, the woman who claims she's a psychotherapist, the take the anti-Semitic route when it comes to political analysis.
 
Why would AIPAC have it in for Hagel?
 
He's tried to listen to Arab-American groups. He's not as reflexively pro-Israel as some Members of Congress.
 
OK, I get it now, Elizabeth. Thanks for the clarification.
 
elizabeth the resident anti-Semite wrote:

"He's tried to listen to Arab-American groups."

Yeah. I'll bet a mob of Jews swinging ax handles busted up the meetings while Hagel was attempting to listen.
 
I put comment modification on because I was sick of some people throwing around the "You're a anti-Semite" charge whenever somebody else says something that is critical of Israel, Israeli policy, or people who support Israeli policy uncritically.

Notice the following thread:

Elizabeth answers my question "Why not Hagel?" with "Maybe it's because AIPAC won't back him.

Immediately no_slappz charges her w/ anti-Semitism.

I then ask, why would AIPAC have it in for Hagel?

Elizabeth replies "He's tried to listen to Arab-American groups. He's not as reflexively pro-Israel as some Members of Congress."

I dunno about you, but I don't see any anti-Semtism in her comments.

Not so for no_slappz, though. He replies "Yeah. I'll bet a mob of Jews swinging ax handles busted up the meetings while Hagel was attempting to listen."

The above thread is EXACTLY why I put comment modification into place. The comments by no_slappz are out of the bounds of reasonable and productive discourse. Whenever he doesn't like something somebody says about Israel, Israeli policy or AIPAC, he calls them anti-Semites.

No slappz has to learn how to play nice in the sandbox instead of throwing blocks at others who don't agree with him.
 
reality, your pal elizabeth knows she's anti-Semitic.

In any case, when she wrote about Hagel saying "He's tried to listen to Arab-American groups," there's a very clear subtext to her statement.

If Hagel "tried" to listen to Arab-American groups, she's implying that he made an attempt but was unable to succeed. That further implies he failed because some force intervened and prevented him from "listening" to Arab-American groups.

If you had to guess the name of the force or group that intervened, which group does she think prevented Hagel from "listening" to Arab-American groups?

Second, it's obvious you know nothing about Arab-American groups, like CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.

They hide their anti-Semitism about as well as hamas.

Meanwhile, you could always take a peek at elizabeth's blog -- http://thoughtsopinionsrants.blogspot.com/ -- where she regularly devotes space to opposing Israel and supporting the people who are actively attempting to destroy the nation. Those people, by the way, want to kill Jews. She doesn't object. Therefore, they are anti-Semites, and she, by extension, is among them.

Furthermore, you have a rather selective view of the world of partisan politics. You may not like what I write because I attack a few people for what they are. But compared with your endless assaults on our current political leaders , my views on a few subjects and a couple of people are tame stuff.

Based on the depth of the animus you maintain for Bush and Cheney, you should censor your own comments.

Meanwhile, those two aren't likely to respond to the blog of a NYC teacher on the warpath. That means your over-the-top attacks go unchallenged except, on occasion, by me.

You wrote:

"The comments by no_slappz are out of the bounds of reasonable and productive discourse."

Says you. Your claim is ridiculous in the face of your own scatological ad hominen attacks on public figures you hate.

Moreover, your posts are not part of any "discourse". They are generally one-sided assaults.

There's nothing wrong with that, in my view. But you should recognize your own practices and prejudices for what they are.
 
no_slappz, you tar anybody whose views of Mideast politics you don't like as anti-semite. That's out of bounds. Sorry, but if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere. I have yet to NOT post one of your comments. The next time you throw out the anti-semite charge without cause, I will.
 
reality, you wrote:

"no_slappz, you tar anybody whose views of Mideast politics you don't like as anti-semite."

Not quite. When it comes to middle east politics, I usually don't bother commenting on the views of others UNLESS it is clear to me the comments are based in anti-Semitism.

You and most others fail to grasp the unique standards set for Jews and Israel when it comes to virtually every aspect of existence.

Blaming the Jews is an old game. In nazi Germany the Jews were scape-goated for Germany's problems. Thus, in that country they were persecuted because they were successful capitalists. Yet Marx was a Jew and there were a number of Jews leading Russia through and after the Russian Revolution. Hence, Jews were branded as communists.

For decades after Jews began arriving in the US, their kids hit the books and began filling top colleges. Whoa. Quotas were set to LIMIT these qualified applicants. Why?

Of course, today, Asians face the quotas. What a shock. In 1970 the student body of Stuyvesant High School was 50% Jewish. Today, it's 50% Asian. Obviously there's no quotas in NYC schools, but colleges have set them.

Try this one on for size. In response to your question about Hagel's potential for becoming the Republican nominee in 2008, your pal elizabeth writes:

"Or is it because AIPAC etc. won't back him?"

In other words, Jews run the US government. But, using her example, they don't control it through ballot-box majorities. No, they control the US government through a cabal of puppeteers and string-pullers working out of sight.

A person writing "AIPAC etc." is actually saying "powerful Jews with big money." Moreover, she's claiming that a group of clever people who account for 2% of the US population, in fact, run the country, while shrewdly allowing almost 300 million non-Jewish dupes to believe their votes matter.

Her sentiment is an expression of a very old anti-Semitic canard.

Then there's issues relating to Israel. No muslim nations acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel despite its 60 year history. No muslim nations support the formation of a palestinian state alongside Israel.

No muslim nations accept Israel's sovereignty. In other words, the muslim nations of the world want Israel to collapse. But that is aimed at only one outcome: a muslim takeover of the country. And that means the institution of muslim law which means practicing Judaism would be a crime.

That's anti-Semitism, and it's all over everyone who thinks muslims have any intention of creating a pluralistic democratic nation to replace Israel, the nation they are desperate to destroy.

Meanwhile, the "palestinians" have performed an unusual magic trick.
Even though there has never been a sovereign nation of Palestine, and there weren't palestinian "refugees" until yasser arafat created them, their numbers have grown from the 500,000 who were displaced by the creation of Israel, to several million.

By the UN's standard for identifying refugees, there were about 500,000 in 1948 when Israel was formed. It has been estimated that death has shrunk that total to about 200,000. Yet amazingly, these people have devised a different method for counting their numbers. They count all their descendants as well. At no other time in history has this occurred.

Why now? Why for these clowns? All the descendants of the displaced people were born somewhere. That makes them citizens of whatever country they were born in. For many, that's Israel. For many others, it's Egypt. And for still more, it's Jordan.

Nevertheless, westerners keep falling for the nonsense and miss the point that all muslim action related to Israel is aimed at its destruction and the removal of all Jews from the region.
 
Here are the rhetorical talking points you use in comment after comment, no_slappz - all Muslims are dirty, anti-semitic scum who hate the West, Israel and America and are plotting our destruction, Israel is ALWAYS right, and whenever anybody doesn't agree with something Israel does (like the Lebanon attack last summer) or criticizes AIPAC, they're anti-semitic.

It gets old after awhile. It also reeks of paranoia and desperation. And while you consistently throw the anti-semitism charge around, you're own comments and slurs against ALL Muslims are certainly more offensive than someone, say, criticizing AIPAC.
 
reality, you wrote:

"Here are the rhetorical talking points you use in comment after comment, no_slappz - all Muslims are dirty, anti-semitic scum who hate the West, Israel and America"

First, I've never said that ALL muslims are dirty. But starting with my experience with them in college, I did notice an unusual broad-based aversion to personal hygiene.

You claimed I said:

"...and are plotting our destruction..."

Apparently you are unaware of how common this desire is. It's not that every muslim is participating in plots to destroy the US. But it is completely accurate to say that a majority of muslims would support the conversion of the US into an islamic land.

You claimed I say:

"...Israel is ALWAYS right, and whenever anybody doesn't agree with something Israel does (like the Lebanon attack last summer) or criticizes AIPAC, they're anti-semitic."

Israel is a country, and like any other, its leaders make mistakes. However, virtually every issue you've raised regarding Israel reads from the muslim playbook on how to twist a story.

For instance, even in recalling the events of last summer, you've omittted the precipitating event -- that three Israeli soldiers were kidnapped from Israel by hezbollah and when hezbollah refused to return them, the attack began.

Moreover, you seem to have no understanding of the fact that hezbollah, a terrorist organization, runs Lebanon. The Saniora government is a powerless front. Nevertheless, your sympathies run to the people and organizations loudly proclaiming their goal of destroying Israel and killing Jews.

Furthermore, you really don't grasp the meanings. When some dope like elizabeth pretends to criticize AIPAC, you accept it. Anyone who knows the code knows she's slamming Jews wholesale. Moreover, as I pointed out, her latest swipe at AIPAC was ludicrous on its face, unless you believe that Jews secretly run the US. Perhaps you do. I'm not sure. You've never responded to comments I've made on this aspect of anti-Semitism.

You wrote:

"It gets old after awhile."

Unfortunately, what's old is your willingness to accept the usual litany of anti-Semitic canards without question.

YOu assessed:

"It also reeks of paranoia and desperation."

Yeah, there's never been a reason in all of history that would unsettle anyone when it comes to considering some of the headaches Jews have faced.

You concluded:

"And while you consistently throw the anti-semitism charge around, you're own comments and slurs against ALL Muslims are certainly more offensive than someone, say, criticizing AIPAC."

Nobody on this board actually criticized AIPAC. The criticism, as I explained, was a full broadside attack on Jews by implying they control the country and the rest of us are too dumb to notice.

As for all muslims, well, all I can say is that if you think they have the same vision for the future of the US that's in your head, you are wildly mistaken.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?