what is that I smell?
oh…somebody secretly hates jewish people! how cute and original!
Yep. As a conservative Republican, that d–n Baptist Jimmy Carter still gives me the heebie jeebies every time he makes one of his liberal public statements.
To anticipate, Carter rejected the Southern Baptist Convention a few years back and is now part of something called the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
Has predujice against conservative Christians reached such a fever pitch that people are even against anything that mildly correlates with being a conservative Christian, such as being a Baptist?
At the end of the day if he is a Jew is neither here nor there, If he is a zionist* (I don’t know myself whether he is or not)then that could conceivably be an issue, but Jew/zionist is not interchangeable as many Jews are not Zionists and many non-Jews are. If he is a zionist you then have to ask yourself does he have the integrity to put US interests ahead of Israeli interests? Again I don’t know much about him, so I couldn’t say.
To tell the truth I think he’d do alot better job than GWB when it comes to US-world relations.
*by zionist I mean Israeli nationalist/supporter of Israeli nationalism
Well, by that standard every US president since Truman has been a Zionist, MC. I imagine they all had the integrity to put US interests ahead of Israeli interests.
I don’t imagine anyone else elected president would do any differently, whether they are jewish or non-jewish, zionist or non-zionist.
Your definition of Zionism only means that someone supports the continued existance of the state of Israel. You are opposed to that I suppose? And what exactly do you plan on doing with the Jews who live in the area once they are under Muslim rule?
No, Lemur866 you misunderstand my meaning of ‘Israeli nationalist’. What I mean is someone who is nationilistic in the ‘European’ sense, i.e expansionist, jingoist, will defend country from any criticism, etc.
For example I would not class the Israeli labor party as nationalist but a would class Likkud as nationalist.
Wait, so all Zionists are expansionist, jingoist, bigoted, etc? No. That’s not what Zionism means. From dictionary.com:
Zi·on·ism (noun): A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.
zionist (adj): 1: relating to or characteristic of Zionism; “the Zionist movement” [syn: Zionist] 2: relating to or characteristic of a supporter of Zionism; “the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl” [syn: Zionist] n : a Jewish supporter of Zionism [syn: Zionist]
Ok, my definition wasn’t great but basically my distinction is between those who believed that the dream of zionism has been fulfilled and those who do not.
This is completely bizarre.
How in the world did you ever extract this meaning from my statement? I am baffled. My statement doesn’t even remotely imply that. Perhaps someone else could explain it…?
The OP did mention a deal. The OP is saying that we must appease the Muslim world and keep people who may have been only considering joining Al Qaeda from standing in line to join up, and the way we are going to do this will be by not electing Lieberman president. That is the “deal”.
Marvelous painting with the really huge black-and-white brush there. :rolleyes: You, along with Rex, simply unquestioningly assume that electing Lieberman would [big air quotes] “anger Muslims” and that the consequences of [big air quotes] “angering Muslims” would be the nuking of an American city. Neither of you is bothering to distinguish between “Moslems” and “Moslem terrorists”, you’re both just lumping them all in together as “Moslems”. Fine critical thinking there, guys. :rolleyes:
Try this:
First, distinguish between “Muslims” and “Muslim terrorists”.
Second, since we do not give a flying fuck whether or not we anger terrorists of any stripe, prove that electing Lieberman would anger mainstream, non-terrorist Muslims.
Third, prove that those angry mainstream, non-terrorist Muslims would express their anger through violence towards America.
The minute those angry mainstream non-terrorist Muslims begin to express their anger through violence, specifically of nuking an American city, they are magically transformed into terrorists. Duh. And the way to deal with terrorists is with law enforcement, not appeasement.
If electing Lieberman means that they’re standing in line down at the Al Qaeda Recruitment Center, big fucking deal–that’s a terrorist problem. And terrorist problems are not solved by appeasement–they’re solved by law enforcement.
Refusing to elect Lieberman president because you’re afraid that it’ll mean they’ll be standing in line down at the Al Qaeda Recruitment Center is the action of a spineless jellyfish, of a craven wiener, of a useless wuss who sleeps with a nightlight because he’s afraid of terrorists under the bed.
Be a mensch–elect Lieberman.
You’re free to make that choice for yourself. It may even be a noble choice, certainly many men and women in our armed forces feel exactly that way. But you’re not just making that choice for you. You’d be making it for 3 million other people. Is it right that we would willingly risk the almost certain disaster to come, the death of millions of Americans? We won’t have to give up our freedoms here, just our freedom of action abroad. Since we should never have started meddling in the first place, I don’t count that a great loss. The history of this country since WW1, to intervening in Europe in WW2, to our projections of power in Asia during the 50’s-70’s, all has been leading up to this moment. We can continue as we have, and suffer the intolerable consequence (no option at all, to my mind), or we can change our ways.
I simply do not believe that people in this thread make a convincing case that “the terrorists won’t be satisfied.” I have repeatedly admitted that the leaders might not be satisfied until the US converts to Islam and stops being “infidels”, but I continue to maintain that the rank-and-file holy warrior will only be motivated to a suicide bombing of any sort if the problem faced is one that hits close to home. Israel hits close to his home, US degeneracy a half-world away does not. These people may be whipped into a frenzy, fed misinformation, etc., but there’s only so far a human being will go. Without the seeming presence of a tangible, detectable threat to themselves or their families or their neighbors, I don’t think they’ll have the motivation necessary. The US presence on their lands is a local issue. Israel is a local issue. A nation halfway around the world isn’t an issue if we stop meddling.
What happens when they do want us to give up our freedom here? Is it okay to risk our lives then? At what point do you stand up to the bullies?
I assure you I am genuine, sir. And yes, had I been in control of the USA during WW2, I would have attacked Japan (because they struck at us) but not intervened in Europe. Let Germany declare war on us, so what? Why respond in kind? Hitler could never have been a threat to us, he would have lost anyways. All we did was get millions of people killed fighting a war that wasn’t theirs to fight. Mutual defense pacts are a clear evil in this world, they’ve been nothing but trouble. If you don’t believe me, ask the ghost of Archduke Ferdinand. And don’t even pretend that was a war of principles. We allied with the greatest evil force on the planet to destroy the second-greatest evil force (in sheer numbers of murders, see Cecil’s column.) I don’t mean to hijack my own thread in that direction, but that’s my feeling on the subject.
IT’S NOT OUR FIGHT. If you want to save the world, go out and do so. I have nothing but respect for those who make that sacrifice of themselves willingly. But don’t endanger millions of American lives just because your frickin’ pride is on the line. That’s BS. This problem was started because the US thought it could throw it’s power around and manipulate the world. Sorry to break it to you, but that’s not gonna fly anymore.
If it truly and ultimately comes down to preserving the ideals of this country within the borders of this country, then the fight is ours and it’s no holds barred. But right now, the fight to stop terrorism with a police state is a greater threat to our nation’s principles than the terrorists themselves would be if we simply backed the f*ck out of the Mideast and said goodbye to our meddling ways. If you want to endanger innocent American civilians just so we can keep parading our might around the globe, at best to save some bunch of ingrates half a world away (notice how much France likes us lately? think they care we helped them? think Israel will care a lick?) then count me out.
Every man has the right to choose the time he dies, and to make that death worth something if he chooses. He does not have the right to make that decision for anybody else.
RexDart, are you one of those people who turns the other way and pretends not to see anything when you see someone getting attacked or mugged on the street?
BTW, if owlofcreamcheese’s accusation is directed against me, reread what I said. My opposition is not based on my opinion that Liberman will be a rabid Zionist who will destroy the world. All our recent presidents have been pro-Israel. My opposition is based not on what I think of Liberman, but what the Islamic world will think of him and what they’ll think of America for electing him.
Jeez, you people just don’t get it. I can decide whether or not to help a man being attacked in the street, and if I can do so with a reasonable chance of success and without endangering others, then I very well might. What I cannot and will not do is force anybody else to do so. I will not do that. My libertarian principles make that VERY clear. I will not make that decision for anybody else. Period. There is a difference between assuming a risk for myself and choosing to endanger others. Among the millions who will die in the forthcoming nuclear fire there will be some who did not make the choice to sacrifice themselves in preservation of American power projection about the globe. It is for that man, and his right to make that choice, that I fight. I will not stand idly by and watch a person be sacrificed for the goals of others, made into less than a man by depriving him of his choice. That is my fight, and I must pick my battles. I stand back, and I see the faces of my friends in St. Louis, San Francisco, Washington DC, Chicago, Kansas City, Atlanta, any of them a prime target for a nuclear attack…and I will not stand by as our government puts their lives at risk, without those people’s choice in the matter, just to wave it’s frickin’ c*ck around acting like “King of the Hill”, pulling the strings of the world. Screw that.
Yeah, but that’s what your original topic, about electing a Jewish president, is about. If we say that we won’t elect a Jewish president because we’re scared of what Al Qaeda will do if we do, then we’re betraying the ideals of our country.
As for your other topic, the world’s interrelated now, and our responsibilities and our interests don’t stop at the water’s edge. We simply can’t afford to turn our back on the world.
Why is it okay to decide others must fight to preserve the ideals of this country within the borders but not to preserve the ideals outside of the boarders? Your “libertarian” principles are about as clear as mud.
It’s quite clear. Those who join our nation’s military choose to subject themselves to the desires of our government personel. Those individuals have freely chosen to sacrifice themselves for whatever purpose the people in government decide to use them for. It is never OK to make the choice for others. Others certainly can lay down and play dead were the fight to come within our borders. However, it is part of the social contract of government, one of the only primary purposes for which we have a government, that government protect our liberties. Self-defense is a legitimate purpose of government, and one which we should have a reasonable expectation will be protected regardless of what our neighbor thinks. Matters abroad do not concern our liberties here in the US, so do not carry this same weight under the social contract. Nobody in either case would be forced to fight, but if the fight comes here then by mutual agreement of the social contract the government would be right to take steps in preserving liberty at home, though that may carry risks. This is a clear distinction.
RexDart, you don’t seem to understand this, so let me make this clear… United States support of Israel is not the problem!
[ul]
[li]These same people kidnap and bomb Christians in the Phillipines. Nothing to do with Israel.[/li][li]These same people bomb a nightclub in Bali. Nothing to do with Israel.[/li][li]These same people foment trouble in India. Nothing to do with Israel.[/li][li]These people take over a theatre in Moscow and hold hostages. Nothing to do with Israel.[/li][/ul]
Do you get the picture yet?
These people just want to be rid of us (well, our lifestyle, anyway).
So, what do you suggest we do? Abandon Israel. Fine, we abandon Israel. Do you then think that seeing how easily they can influence policy in the world’s only superpower that they will say “OK, thank you. Go on and live your life and we won’t trouble you anymore?” If you do, then (and forgive me for being blunt) you’re hopelessly naive.
Otherwise, what then? Give in to their next demand? Should we become pawns of the terrorists? If they say “support the Muslim takeover of India or we’ll begin attacking again,” do we suddenly start working to bring down the government of India? When they suggest we don’t elect a Jewish president, do we listen to them and ban all Jews from running for President because we’re afraid of a nuke? What if they want all Jews killed? Or everyone else converted.
And your argument that it’s only the leaders and not the rank and file holds little weight anyway, since it’s not the rank and file we need to worry about. They’re not trying to put 300 Muslims on boats to invade our shores. We have to worry about a network of a few thousand, who are under the direct control of those leaders.
So, RexDart, at what point in the following spectrum do we stop appeasing them and stand up?
[list]
[li] Stop all support for Israel[/li][li] They call for the US to actively help Syria invade Israel[/li][li] Not allow Jews (or any other racial/ethnic/religious group) to run for elective office.[/li][li] Complete disenfranchisement of and stripping of civil right from said group.[/li][li] Forcible conversion to Islam[/li][li] Handing over all civil, military and political authority to mullahs and imams.[/li]
At which point do we stand up to them and say “no more!” Where do we say “go ahead and try to nuke a city, you can’t push us any further?” "Obviously (according to you) not after the first. So when? And how do you propose to stop them when they threaten to nuke a city if we don’t follow through with the next proposal?
Zev Steinhardt
Well, Zev, since we apparantly fought on the wrong side in WWII, I imagine points 1-4 would be OK with Rex…
Hola!
If we have to elect a Jewish president, I say write in Adam Sandler and show his movies to the Arab countries. I would also enjoy his state of the Union Addresses when he refers to Saddam Huessain as a bitch and kicks ass any lawmaker against him (as long as Bob Barker is not the Speaker of the House).
Just my opinion.
SENOR