Yes, I am sorry for misunderstanding your own words in black and white, in context. I am equally sorry to ‘misunderstand’ catching you in your silly little evasions.
The classic question, of course, is were you lying then or are you lying now?
But it should probably be modified to something like “were you a weasel then, or are you a weasel now?”
Finn, it’s hardly necessary to go into detailed analysis of what you think elucidator means when he says “Why wouldn’t we expect such (Dual Loyalty among Jews), given that otherwise loyal Americans spied for the Soviets due to their unjustifiable loyalty to international Communism. Why would we refuse to contemplate such a loyalty on religious or ethnic grounds?” Or when he says “My point is that there are many, many occasions when conflicting loyalty overwhelms patriotism: many of the people who spied for the Soviets did not hate America and did not think of themselves as working against her interests. The Jewishitude of the person doesn’t enter in to it, its merely one of many such possibilities.”
It’s quite crystal clear what he means; no comprehensive parsing is necessary.
And he’s far from alone. In fact, his words call to mind those of a famous American whose reputation still shines brightly among many admirers. This gentleman spoke his mind in a widely-reported 1941 speech, and he’s still being pilloried for it.
*"No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race…But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy…without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences…
Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not…
I am not attacking…the Jewish…people…But I am saying that the leaders of…the Jewish race…, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in…war.
We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction."*
Cleaned up a bit to drop some slightly embarassing stuff and to add contemporary relevance, and you have sentiments a number of people posting in this thread would applaud - not publicly perhaps, given the smearing of Patriotic Americans who speak out on the issue, but certainly in private.
When history’s wheel turns, it’s interesting how often it brings us back to where we used to be.
Jack, I’m surprised, that is truly a disgusting implication. Disgusting.
I’m sure that Lucy doesn’t know how to fly a plane.
Oh, hell, everybody knows the Jews lost out to the Catholics in the struggle to control America, though the Beach Boys put up a good fight with their hit single, “Be True to Your Shul”…
Wow, responding to your own sock is a masterful touch. Grats on your advanced trolling technique.
Why, aside from those possible Traitor Jews who have a dastardly Dual Loyalty based on religious or ethnic grounds yet, paradoxically, whose “Jewishitude” doesn’t enter in to their Dual Loyalty, I bet you’d even agree that few Jews of the right type are, I believe, an asset to any country.
You know what amuses me? Being called a racist by a member of one of, if not the, most divisive groups of people who ever walked the earth.
It was you jews, lest ye forget, who decided that everyone who was non-jew was not the same as you, unless they adopted your ridiculous belief system.
Hence the first step down the road of non-critical thinking.
I don’t think dividing the world into “people like us” and “weirdo” is an exclusively Jewish trait, nor did Jews invent it. Most languages have two words for people…a word for themselves that means “human beings”, and a word for everybody else that means “barbarian”. If anything, the ancient Jews were less restrictive than most people, by adopting foreigners in if they adopted the “ridiculous belief system”. Although, honestly, Judaism isn’t really about belief at all. Historically, there’s been a lot more pressure towards orthopraxy than orthodoxy.
It’s funny that you mention language, because I’ve read some fairly compelling arguments that language itself (coupled with accents) helped serve the purpose of identification. That is, tribal allegiances could be feigned or potentially changed, but if you met someone on the border of your territory and they weren’t able to sling the lingo, you knew that they were a potential hostile without doing anything more than saying “Hi there, how you doing?” and seeing if they could respond properly.
Then again, even if Jews had invented tribalism, blaming modern Jews for whatever happened millennia ago is, well, a bit weird. Like going up to an Italian person and kicking them in the shins for all that ‘feeding Christians to lions’ stuff. Of course, when corrected on his view that “the Chosen People” is a superiority complex rather than a burden that can be met by any gentile simply by following the Noahide Laws, Ivan has proved, shall we say, factually resistant. He’s’ not particularly interested in facts that get in the way of his opinions, is all.
Turning that full circle and back to the Jews, there’s a story in the bible about that, in the book of Judges, after Jephthah leads Gilead to victory against the tribe of Ephraim. After the battle, the Ephraimite soldiers tried to escape back across the Jordan into Ephraim, so Jephthah put sentries at the fords who ordered anybody wanting to cross to say “shibbolet” (stalk of grain). Since the dialect of Hebrew spoken in Ephraim didn’t have a “sh” sound, the Ephraimites couldn’t say it “correctly”, and Jephthah’s troops killed them.
Since you know what I think so much better than I do, I’m reluctant to hazard a guess.
But, it’s okay for recently modern jews to base their right to a homeland on events millenia ago, eh?
…the Jews!
So, uh, not the Jews?
Yeah, it’s really hard to imagine an American with a fanatical attachment to Israel. Wherever could we find such a creature?
In Texas! Had a bunch of them in Waco, where I grew up, but, of course, they were mostly in Temple.
Probably in the desperate fictions of a racist like you when he meets a Jew who not only doesn’t endorse your politics, but also shows where you’re full of shit, relentlessly dishonest, a paranoid conspiracy freak and a coward who likes to change the subject whenever you’re caught at your games?
Perhaps when you’re clearly beaten on the facts and reduced to lying about someone by claiming that in a thread where their first posts cites some of the times they’ve been critical of Israel, that they really tolerate no criticism of Israel at all?
Perhaps if someone notices you trolling with a Gish Gallop of fallacies that you know aren’t accurate but that you use to try to change the subject?
Maybe a fanatic can be spotted because they point out how transparently deceptive you are when you argue that asking someone to prove their own claims, or in fact asking any question at all that doesn’t have a ‘snappy answer’ is a logical fallacy?
Then again, we may be able to positively identify Traitor Jew Fanatics if someone as brave and honest as you can point to the dastardly Jews who worked for the PNAC and advised Israel to stop receiving financial aid and stand on its own from US help, but who clearly revealed their Jewish Treachery when they said that someone who launched missiles at Israeli population centers and paid bonuses to suicide bombers’ families might just have been a security threat?
Because that’d be my guess.
Speaking of how you, ya know, still haven’t actually addressed facts that show you’re full of shit, let’s look at the factual claims you have yet to back up.
I’m sure that you can, but you just don’t want to. But it would be easy to, seeing as how wrong I am and how right you are. It’s just taken you days. And days. And days. And days to come up with a rebuttal more substantial than “Hey… look over there!”
Any time now.
Seeing as how right you are and how wrong I am.
Any time now spoke old buddy.
Lavar Arrington.
OK. its been almost two hours now, and nobody has asked him what the heck he’s talking about. Well, I’m not gonna! Nosir! You ask him!
Oh Finn, that’s just the Aspergers talking.