True, but it is embedded enough that it showed up in Die Hard 3. Remember, that’s how they got Samuel L. Jackson involved?
There’s nothing to develop – in my view it is very self-evident, with extremely pointed details on the dynamics of political interference at the highest levels. I would strongly suggest reading the article I posted.
There are just too many tidbits to extract here but the best would be how this guy was able to pay himself into Brookings Institute.
Major point is that dual loyalty is misnomer - for some, there is in fact only one loyalty. And this article shows how it is done and how it works. It is up to you to decide if such dynamic is okay in an allegedly democratic society.
No, developing your claims would be a good thing. Self evident as they may be.
And what exactly would you propose we do in this supposedly democratic society, and who exactly should be targeted?
I read the article. I dont know wtf you mean with dual loyalty, but conflict of interest isnt a special brand applied to Jews. It is all-encompassing and something that democratic societies consider now necessary. Now, going from that to all rich and powerful Jews have some veil of suspicion on them that they are required to disprove is nonsense.
That’s one of the thing that pisses me off with people carelessly calling others racists or antisemites whenever they get rebuked or feel like it. In the case of antisemitism, it didnt suppress it, it just smashed the wall between antisionism and antisemitism.
And that’s one of the reasons threads on Israel, on the net, always end up with only the loonies satying around.
And I mean the loonies of both sides.
No, it’s not. Wieseltier is merely saying that the belief that “every thought that a Jew thinks is a Jewish thought” is anti-Semitic.
Are you saying that it’s wrong to claim that such a statement is anti-Semitic?
Furthermore, it’s very possible for people to hold bigoted beliefs or make bigoted statements without themselves being bigots, but merely being insensitive.
Sully himself has said this on numerous times to explain why he doesn’t feel certain people should be classified as bigots despite making homophobic or racist comments.
What do you mean by the phrase “someone like you”?
Strength of this argument is beyond my capabilities.
I understand. It’s hard to argue with the facts.
Anyway, what did you mean by the phrase “someone like you”?
So, it appears that you are okay with having a high-ranking elected or Senate confirmed official in US Government who looks after foreign country interests first. According to you, it happens all the time with people from various ethnic origins at all levels of US Government that maintain their country of origin interests ahead of those of US when dealing on behalf of US with said country. Furthermore, it is a necessity of a modern democracy (it would be great to see reasoning behind this).
Incredulous, but fine. But, it would be fantastic to see people who engage in such activities declare that they intend to put US interests second when they are up for election or Senate confirmation. Something tells me if they declared their intentions they would never get elected or confirmed by Senate so, they are not disclosing that. Which means a fraud is committed.
And you are okay with that. Fantastic!
It has nothing to do with facts but with understanding and certainty of an interpretation for a given text. If it was about facts there would be no need to discuss. You calling your own interpretation “a fact” is incredibly dishonest and really not worthy of GD.
You are certainly welcome to that point of view if you want. Most people would think that if you’re going to claim Leon Wieseltier of “accusing” Andrew Sullivan of anti-Semitism you could show him doing that, which, you haven’t and you can’t.
Anyway that’s an issue we’ll have to agree to disagree on.
What I would like to know and have asked you politely twice for an answer to and am asking for a third time now is what did you mean by directing the phrase “someone like you” at me?
Would you mind explaining what you meant?
Meaningless and with no specific purpose.
You offered up something. It’s rather odd to refuse to even discuss it.
Well, it seemed like it was intended as an insult and people don’t just say “people like you” for no apparent reason.
So, what did you mean by it?
:rolleyes:
So?
See my response to Captain Zombie http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13380904&postcount=68
Yet again, what is your specific point in citing that specific article and what exactly do you propose be done about it in our ‘supposed democracy’?
Transparency and full disclosure. That’s all.
This is like pulling teeth. What specific charges are you laying, at whose feet, with what evidence, how does this relate go anybody but the guy in the article, and how is this transparency and full disclosure to be compelled and verified? And how does any if that have to do with whether America is a democratic nation or not?
Let us see if we can define and agree, in conceptual terms, on the issue.
Do you think that there are cases where political representation in US Government has been abused and fraud committed where an individual acting as an official of US Government worked either against US interests or put US interests as secondary without disclosing his or her intent?
And, if agreed do you think it is something that should be criminally prosecuted?