Biden/Palin Debate: On Israel Debate Banned
Kixi...@hotmail.com
1. On the Middle East - the only topic with no difference between
candidates. Almost as if pre-arranged - the Jews would not do that
would they? - each tried to outdo the other in their "support for
Israel". The "debate" did not include the words "Palestine",
"occupied", "settlements" or derivatives thereof. Therefore, on the
ME, the two campaigns of change promise no change.
2. The sickest comment: Palin said "there must not be a second
Holocaust". The Jews would not have got her to put in a plug for the
mother of all lies .... would they?
3.Palin wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Again, a comment
right out of the wish book of the zionist project. No country has
their embassy there, in recognition of the fact that Israel is the
only country with its parliament located outside its territory.
Al Smith
I watched the debate, and it looked to me as if Palin was wearing a
pin with the Israeli flag on it. Is that right? It was placed above
the pin with the American flag on it.
Think of the symbolism of that. First, that Palin would even dare to
think it was proper for her to wear the flag of a foreign nation
when debating to become vice-president of the United States.
Second, that she would place the Israeli flag above the American
flag. Mind-boggling that she could do this, and not be called on it.
Biden, on the other hand, wore only a pin with the American flag. He
was stating where his loyalties lie.
-Al-
docremington
Kixi_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Watched the Vice-Presidential show yesterday.
>
Such self-sacrifice, indeed.
> Three observations:
> 1. On the Middle East - the only topic with no difference between
> candidates.
Why? Cool minds think alike, it seems.
> Almost as if pre-arranged - the Jews would not do that
> would they? - each tried to outdo the other in their "support for
> Israel".
Same as the above.
> The "debate" did not include the words "Palestine",
Which is no more, of course, and which in its politically charged
meaning has never existed anyway.
> "occupied",
By occupationally occupied palisimian occupants.
> "settlements" or derivatives thereof.
Palisimian settlers, calling others settlers again. What else is new.
> Therefore, on the
> ME, the two campaigns of change promise no change.
With all that international palisimian welfare dollars and euros do
they really need any change?
> 2. The sickest comment: Palin said "there must not be a second
> Holocaust". The Jews would not have got her to put in a plug for the
> mother of all lies .... would they?
Well, she's not an akhmed's wife.
> 3.Palin wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Again, a comment
> right out of the wish book of the zionist project. No country has
> their embassy there,
Costa Rica and El Salvador do, if my memory serves me.
> in recognition of the fact that Israel is the
> only country with its parliament located outside its territory.
Funny, those, who dissed the resolution 181, talk about "territories".
Krudd the Dudd
Kixi...@hotmail.com (Kixi...@hotmail.com) sprouted forth in
644de7c0-9597-4849...@v15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:-
>Palin wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Again, a comment
>right out of the wish book of the zionist project. No country has
>their embassy there, in recognition of the fact that Israel is the
>only country with its parliament located outside its territory.
Get over it, shit stain.
Your hatred of Joos is on a loser.
anar...@reborn.com
> Watched the Vice-Presidential show yesterday. Three observations:
>
> 1. On the Middle East - the only topic with no difference between
> candidates. Almost as if pre-arranged - the Jews would not do that
> would they? - each tried to outdo the other in their "support for
> Israel". The "debate" did not include the words "Palestine",
> "occupied", "settlements" or derivatives thereof. Therefore, on the
> ME, the two campaigns of change promise no change.
>
> 2. The sickest comment: Palin said "there must not be a second
> Holocaust". The Jews would not have got her to put in a plug for the
> mother of all lies .... would they?
McInsane said the same thing in the first pres debate. This is double-
holohoaxing, threatening something that won't happen, with the spectre
of something that didn't. They are all Zionist stooges.
lowk...@gmail.com
Are you really that stupid?
Its not an Israeli flag. It's a blue star banner which in the US is
traditionally worn or displayed by families with members serving in
the military during a war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_star
Second, to run your mouth without confirming your facts really makes
you look stupid because this issue has been discussed after almost all
of Palin's major events.
Biden on the other hand could get his information about the
Constitution right (Executive is Article II of the Constitution, not
Article I as he said) and he's been in government how long? Maybe he
should stop and read the document that outlines his duties before he
lectures others on it.
-lowkey
ejudk...@gmail.com
The Israeli parliament, for your information, is in West
Jerusalem...not occupied territory.
Ariadne
Welcome back, Doc and l'shana tova!
Ariadne
wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 07:45:17 -0700 (PDT), somebody claiming to be
> 644de7c0-9597-4849-b4ff-220ef7e81...@v15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:-
>
> >Palin wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Again, a comment
> >right out of the wish book of the zionist project. No country has
> >their embassy there, in recognition of the fact that Israel is the
> >only country with its parliament located outside its territory.
>
> Get over it, shit stain.
>
> Your hatred of Joos is on a loser.
Yes. His or her personal 3 versions of
the Tooth Fairy.
Paul P
> I watched the debate, and it looked to me as if Palin was wearing a pin
> with the Israeli flag on it. Is that right? It was placed above the pin
> with the American flag on it.
>
> Think of the symbolism of that. First, that Palin would even dare to
> think it was proper for her to wear the flag of a foreign nation when
> debating to become vice-president of the United States.
>
> Second, that she would place the Israeli flag above the American flag.
> Mind-boggling that she could do this, and not be called on it.
>
> Biden, on the other hand, wore only a pin with the American flag. He was
> stating where his loyalties lie.
That flag is a Service Flag in support of her son deployed in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_flag
Paul P
Kixi...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
West Jerusalem is illegally occupied by military force.
If this were not the case the embassies would be there.
Krudd the Dudd
>West Jerusalem is illegally occupied by military force.
What is "illegal" about it, dumb nuts?
Kixi...@hotmail.com
Dudd<let's.have.a.gabf...@nodecisions.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:21:06 -0700 (PDT), somebody claiming to be
>
> >West Jerusalem is illegally occupied by military force.
>
> What is "illegal" about it, dumb nuts?
Every year, the General Assembly of the UN reiterate the facts of the
illegal actions of the jews. Here is the latest from 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------
A/RES/62/84
21 January 2008
Sixty-second session
Agenda item 17
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly
62/84. Jerusalem
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in particular
its provisions regarding the City of Jerusalem,
Recalling also its resolution 36/120 E of 10 December 1981 and all
subsequent resolutions, including resolution 56/31 of 3 December 2001,
in which it, inter alia, determined that all legislative and
administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying
Power, which have altered or purported to alter the character and
status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular the so-called
"Basic Law" on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel, were null and void and must be rescinded
forthwith,
Recalling further the Security Council resolutions relevant to
Jerusalem, including resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, in which
the Council, inter alia, decided not to recognize the "Basic Law" on
Jerusalem,
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the
International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the
Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory ,1 and
recalling resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,
Expressing its grave concern about any action taken by any body,
governmental or non-governmental, in violation of the above-mentioned
resolutions,
Expressing its grave concern in particular about the continuation by
Israel, the occupying Power, of illegal settlement activities,
including the so-called E-1 plan, its construction of the wall in and
around East Jerusalem, its restrictions on access to and residence in
East Jerusalem, and the further isolation of the city from the rest of
the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which is having a detrimental
effect on the lives of Palestinians and could prejudge a final status
agreement on Jerusalem,
Reaffirming that the international community, through the United
Nations, has a legitimate interest in the question of the City of
Jerusalem and the protection of the unique spiritual, religious and
cultural dimensions of the city, as foreseen in relevant United
Nations resolutions on this matter,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General,2
1. Reiterates its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the
occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration
on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void
and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to cease all
such illegal and unilateral measures;
2. Welcomes the decision of those States that had established
diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to withdraw their missions from the
city, in compliance with Security Council resolution 478 (1980);
3. Stresses that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the
question of the City of Jerusalem should take into account the
legitimate concerns of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides and
should include internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure the
freedom of religi on and of conscience of its inhabitants, as well as
permanent, free and unhindered access to the holy places by the people
of all religions and nationalities;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at
its sixty-third session on the implementation of the present
resolution.
65th plenary meeting
10 December 2007
Krudd the Dudd
>> What is "illegal" about it, dumb nuts?
>
>Every year, the General Assembly of the UN reiterate the facts of the
>illegal actions of the jews. Here is the latest from 2007.
So, if "illegal', dumb nuts, where are the actions in the World Court?
Ariadne
wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:37:26 -0700 (PDT), somebody claiming to be
>
> >> What is "illegal" about it, dumb nuts?
>
> >Every year, the General Assembly of the UN reiterate the facts of the
> >illegal actions of the jews. Here is the latest from 2007.
>
> So, if "illegal', dumb nuts, where are the actions in the World Court?
These Muslim Arabs are so stupid that
they think the partition they rejected in
1947 can somehow be resurrected
today.
They rejected partition in 1937, 1947
and 2000.
All they are really about is death and on
Israel's land the Arabs really are the
squatters.
What is amazing is that so many people
in the West, supposedly educated,
manage to swallow so many Arab lies
Al Smith
Yes, I saw by doing a few Google searches that it is *said* to be
not an Israeli flag. Well, it sure looks like an Israeli flag in
camera, and in photographs. I'm not the only one by a long shot who
thinks it looks like an Israeli flag, either. There are lots of
similar observations on the Internet. Dozens of them that I read,
and probably hundreds more than I didn't.
If Palin has an Israeli flag in her office in Alaska (and she does),
a state that has almost no Jewish population, and she wears a pin
that every thinks is an Israeli flag pin when they see it, why
should it be a wonder if people question whether she's wearing an
Israeli flag pin?
-Al-
Al Smith
So I discovered it is said, after doing a Google search on the
subject ... but it is also still maintained by some that it is an
Israeli flag. Why? Because that's what it looks like on camera and
in photographs, the flag of Israel. Makes you wonder who designed
that pin.
Given that Palin has an Israeli flag in her office in Alaska, and
given that she has proclaimed her unquestioning loyalty and
acquiescence to the leadership of Israel, whatever course of action
they might take, I think people can be forgiven for wondering if the
pin is an Israeli flag pin.
-Al-
William Black
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
news:sjqFk.438$DK3.40@edtnps82...
> I watched the debate, and it looked to me as if Palin was wearing a pin
> with the Israeli flag on it. Is that right? It was placed above the pin
> with the American flag on it.
>
> Think of the symbolism of that. First, that Palin would even dare to think
> it was proper for her to wear the flag of a foreign nation when debating
> to become vice-president of the United States.
>
> Second, that she would place the Israeli flag above the American flag.
> Mind-boggling that she could do this, and not be called on it.
Ignorant bastard.
It's a 'blue star banner' showing she has a close family member in the armed
services.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Ariadne
> "Al Smith" <inva...@address.com> wrote in message
> > I watched the debate, and it looked to me as if Palin
> > was wearing a pin with the Israeli flag on it.
> > Is that right? It was placed above the pin
> > with the American flag on it.
>
> > Think of the symbolism of that. First, that
> > Palin would even dare to think it was
> > proper for her to wear the flag of a
> > foreign nation when debating
> > to become vice-president of the United States.
>
> > Second, that she would place the Israeli
> > flag above the American flag.
> > Mind-boggling that she could do this, and
> > not be called on it.
>
> Ignorant bastard.
>
> It's a 'blue star banner' showing she has a
> close family member in the armed
> services.
>
> --
Which banner? None of these look remotely
like the Israeli flag:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=blue+star+banner&gbv=2
William Black
<Kixi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a0bff51-5038-4323...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 9:27 am, Krudd the
Dudd<let's.have.a.gabf...@nodecisions.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:21:06 -0700 (PDT), somebody claiming to be
> Kixi_...@hotmail.com (Kixi_...@hotmail.com) sprouted forth in
> d849e0fd-536a-41b9-885b-1701c0605...@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:-
>
> >West Jerusalem is illegally occupied by military force.
>
> What is "illegal" about it, dumb nuts?
Every year, the General Assembly of the UN reiterate the facts of the
illegal actions of the jews. Here is the latest from 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------
A/RES/62/84
21 January 2008
Sixty-second session
Agenda item 17
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly
62/84. Jerusalem
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in particular
its provisions regarding the City of Jerusalem,
-------------------
That's the 'Old City' from which the Jews were ethnically cleansed by Jordan
in 1947.
--
Al Smith
>> > "Al Smith" <inva...@address.com> wrote in message
>>> > > I watched the debate, and it looked to me as if Palin
>>> > > was wearing a pin with the Israeli flag on it.
>>> > > Is that right? It was placed above the pin
>>> > > with the American flag on it.
>> >
>>> > > Think of the symbolism of that. First, that
>>> > > Palin would even dare to think it was
>>> > > proper for her to wear the flag of a
>>> > > foreign nation when debating
>>> > > to become vice-president of the United States.
>> >
>>> > > Second, that she would place the Israeli
>>> > > flag above the American flag.
>>> > > Mind-boggling that she could do this, and
>>> > > not be called on it.
>> >
>> > Ignorant bastard.
>> >
>> > It's a 'blue star banner' showing she has a
>> > close family member in the armed
>> > services.
>> >
>> > --
>
> Which banner? None of these look remotely
> like the Israeli flag:
>
> http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=blue+star+banner&gbv=2
>
>
>
What I saw when I was watching the debate was a small blue star,
that looked like the star of David to me, on a white background,
with a dark blue stripe above and below. If they were red stripes
above and below, they sure didn't look red on my television set.
Maybe it was the "blue star banner" but what it looked like was the
flag of Israel.
-Al-
Carl
shot.
Are you going to continue to defend yourself regardless of how many people
explain this to you? At what point do you say, "Oops, sorry, I was
mistaken"? You seem like a rational, reasonable person to me by the depth
and variety of your posts.
Carl
Carl
several times already and instead of apologizing for your moronic and
uninformed overreaction, you're continuing to bulldoze ahead with this
"Israeli flag" assertion of yours. Continuing to argue in the face of all
evidence to the contrary is the sign of an exceptionally stupid person. And
arguing that some other people are just as stupid as you doesn't make you
smarter either. People can be "forgiven" for "wondering", but not for
adhering to and defending their position despite all reason. That just makes
you a hate-mongering bigot.
Carl
enough, they become the truth". The Arabs have learned to exercise this bit
of psychology to their great advantage. How so many seemingly educated
people buy into this strategy, despite the clear historical record, is
beyond my comprehension.
jgarbuz
No, it's the Arabs living there who are outside their huge territory
which includes 22 states and comprises 3 million square miles. The
occupiers of Jewish soil, the so-called "Palestinians," have rejected
every territorial compromise since 1937. All land west of the Jordan
river. all 10,000 square miles of it, is Jewish soil, but some of it
may be conceded to the Arabs to create yet another Arab state ONLY if
they fully recognize Jewish rights on Jewish soil. If not, then the
liberated lands of Judea and Samaria will remain "occupied" and the
Jewish settlements will continue to grow.
jgarbuz
> On Oct 3, 9:27 am, Krudd the
>
> Dudd<let's.have.a.gabf...@nodecisions.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:21:06 -0700 (PDT), somebody claiming to be
> > Kixi_...@hotmail.com (Kixi_...@hotmail.com) sprouted forth in
> > d849e0fd-536a-41b9-885b-1701c0605...@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:-
>
> > >West Jerusalem is illegally occupied by military force.
>
> > What is "illegal" about it, dumb nuts?
>
> Every year, the General Assembly of the UN reiterate the facts of the
> illegal actions of the jews. Here is the latest from 2007.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A/RES/62/84
> 21 January 2008
>
> Sixty-second session
> Agenda item 17
>
> Resolution adopted by the General Assembly
>
> 62/84. Jerusalem
>
> The General Assembly,
> Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in particular
> its provisions regarding the City of Jerusalem,<
The unanimous Arab REJECTION of UNGAR 181, and the subsequent attack
by 7 Arab armies on the UN authorized infant Jewish state, made 181
NULL AND VOID!!!! The illegal Arab aggression on the newly authorized
Jewish state put an end to the partition plan. The mistake Israel made
was not taking ALL JEWISH SOIL right up to the Jordan river! If
Israel had taken ALL Jewish land right then and removed any and all
violent resisters over to the other side of the Jordan river, we
would not have had 60 years of turbulence. In fact, King Abdullah
later remarked in an interview that he was frankly surprised that
Israel, which in 1949 was winning and on the offensive, chose to stop
where it did, and not go all the way to the river.
> Recalling also its resolution 36/120 E of 10 December 1981 and all
> subsequent resolutions, including resolution 56/31 of 3 December 2001,
> in which it, inter alia, determined that all legislative and
> administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying
> Power, which have altered or purported to alter the character and
> status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular the so-called
> "Basic Law" on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the
> capital of Israel, were null and void and must be rescinded
> forthwith,<
The UN ignored the resolution of the Council of the League of Nations
of 1922, which gave Jews the right to return and settle ALL PARTS of
Palestine west of the Jordan river, but chose instead the "Partition
Plan" of 1947. But the Arabs rejected even this, and the UN did
nothing to stop the illegal aggression against the UN-authorized state
by the Arabs. Hence, all further UN resolutions are of no consequence
and do not bear any weight of law. The UN had no right to rearrange
the terms of the League of Nations Mandate of 1922. So no UNGAR
related to Israel has any basis in settled law.
jgarbuz
They are thirsty for ARab oil so must also swallow Arab lies. Of
course UNGAR 181 is dead thanks to the illegat Arab aggression on a UN
authorized state. But eVen then, the UN really had no right to
partition Palestine, as all of it was supposed to be settled by Jews
until they became the majority and reestablished Jewish sovereignty.
That was what the League of Nations had enscribed in the Mandate for
Palestine. Even so, the Arabs rejected partition every time it was
offered, always hoping to crush and loot the Jews. And they are using
every excuse to reject a state even now. They still cling to the vain
hope that somehow Israel will wither on the vine.
Al Smith
LOL. What does that make you, then?
-Al-
Al Smith
Whether or not it's an Israeli flag pin, it *looks* like an Israeli
flag pin. And whether or not it's an Israeli flag pin, it might as
well *be* an Israeli flag pin, because Palin has repeatedly
proclaimed her undying fidelity and devotion to Israel above all
else. She has an Israeli flag in her office in Alaska, why not one
on her lapel? She's Israel's lapdog.
-Al-
Al Smith
You'd be wrong. Hitler wrote this in his autobiography, but he
wasn't advocating it, he was condemning it. From Ch. 10 of "Mein Kampf":
[quote]
But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for
falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to Justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which
is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a
certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation
are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their
emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the
primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims
to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell
small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to
large-scale falsehoods.
[end quote]
Yes, Goebbels made a somewhat similar statement, but he also made it
only to condemn it. From "Churchill's Lie Factory," an article
written by Goebbels in 1941:
[quote]
The essential English leadership secret does not depend on
particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid
thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one
lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies,
even at the risk of looking ridiculous.
[end quote]
For some reason (big lie?) people have the mistaken notion that
Hitler and Goebbels were advocating the Big Lie, but just the
opposite was the true -- they were contemptuously condemning its use
by their enemies.
-Al-
docremington
Kixi_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 3, 9:27�am, Krudd the
> Dudd<let's.have.a.gabf...@nodecisions.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:21:06 -0700 (PDT), somebody claiming to be
> > Kixi_...@hotmail.com �(Kixi_...@hotmail.com) sprouted forth in
> > d849e0fd-536a-41b9-885b-1701c0605...@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:-
> >
> > >West Jerusalem is illegally occupied by military force.
> >
> > What is "illegal" about it, dumb nuts?
>
> Every year, the General Assembly of the UN reiterate the facts of the
> illegal actions of the jews. Here is the latest from 2007.
> A/RES/62/84
> 21 January 2008
> Sixty-second session
> Agenda item 17
> Resolution adopted by the General Assembly
> 62/84. Jerusalem
> The General Assembly,
> Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in particular
> its provisions regarding the City of Jerusalem,
>
It's all very nice for blowing hot air, but,
recalling that, the UN general assembly is a pro-arab pro-muslim
voting block and,
recalling that, the general assembly is not known for using brains,
and,
recalling that, arabs dissed the resolution 181 in the first place,
we may happily conclude that, in view of the above, thumping
resolution 181 and all subsequent resolutions is a useless occupation.
Peter Webb
So there are dozens and probably hundreds of people on the internet as
stupid as you.
> If Palin has an Israeli flag in her office in Alaska (and she does),
Evidence?
> a state that has almost no Jewish population, and she wears a pin that
> every thinks is an Israeli flag pin when they see it,
"Every" doesn't think its an Israeli flag. According to you, "dozens" of
people on the internet thought it was, which is about the number of people
on the internet that think that Bali was a micro-nuke, the earth is flat, or
that the airplanes that flew into the WTC were giant holograms.
> why should it be a wonder if people question whether she's wearing an
> Israeli flag pin?
>
Because its not.
You were wrong.
Peter Webb
>> Al Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I watched the debate, and it looked to me as if Palin was wearing a pin
>>> with the Israeli flag on it. Is that right? It was placed above the pin
>>> with the American flag on it.
>>>
>>> Think of the symbolism of that. First, that Palin would even dare to
>>> think it was proper for her to wear the flag of a foreign nation when
>>> debating to become vice-president of the United States.
>>>
>>> Second, that she would place the Israeli flag above the American flag.
>>> Mind-boggling that she could do this, and not be called on it.
>>>
>>> Biden, on the other hand, wore only a pin with the American flag. He was
>>> stating where his loyalties lie.
>>
>>
>> That flag is a Service Flag in support of her son deployed in Iraq.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_flag
>>
>> Paul P
>
>
> So I discovered it is said, after doing a Google search on the subject ...
> but it is also still maintained by some that it is an Israeli flag. Why?
> Because that's what it looks like on camera and in photographs, the flag
> of Israel. Makes you wonder who designed that pin.
>
So you were wrong.
> Given that Palin has an Israeli flag in her office in Alaska,
Evidence?
> and given that she has proclaimed her unquestioning loyalty and
> acquiescence to the leadership of Israel,
Obvious crap. Unless you have evidence.
> whatever course of action they might take, I think people can be forgiven
> for wondering if the pin is an Israeli flag pin.
>
Forgiven for making outrageous allegations that turn out to be completely
wrong?
> -Al-
Of course, having been proved wrong, you might think about issuing a
retraction and apology.
Peter Webb
Somebody who looks at the facts before making false allegations?
Peter Webb
To you, and "dozens" of other anti-semtic cranks on the internet.
> And whether or not it's an Israeli flag pin,
But its not, is it? You accept that now, don't you?
> it might as well *be* an Israeli flag pin,
Ohh, so whether she was wearing an Israeli flag pin during the debate has
nothing to do with whether she was wearing an Israeli flag pin during the
debate (as you claimed)?
> because Palin has repeatedly proclaimed her undying fidelity and devotion
> to Israel above all else.
A new and different claim. Is that as much bullshit as your previous claim
that she was wearing an Israeli flag pin during the debate.
I, personally, have no doubt that what you say above is also complete
bullshit.
But hey, if you have evidence that this is true, feel free to post it.
> She has an Israeli flag in her office in Alaska,
Not the claim you originally made, but also crap. Unless you can provide
evidence, of course (ha ha)?
> why not one on her lapel?
Let me get this straight. Your argument is that if one of your beliefs is
obvious bullshit (that she has an Israeli flag in her office in Alaska) then
your original claim that she wore an Israeli flag pin must be correct?
> She's Israel's lapdog.
>
You are an anti-semitic crank with no evidence to support ANY of your
claims.
Al Smith
I'm someone who points out the obvious -- Palin is a lapdog for the
Zionists. She has a flag of Israel in her office in Alaska ... the
flag of a foreign country ... why? She is not Jewish and she doesn't
have Israeli citizenship. She kisses the asses of AIPAC every chance
she gets, and has stated that she would support Israel no matter
what action it chooses to take in the Middle East. Get that, bubba?
No matter what it might do in the future, Palin has stated publicly
that she will support it. If that doesn't make her a toady to the
Zionists, I don't know what does.
Why does she give Israel such fanatical and unquestioning support?
Because she is a fundamentalist nut-job who thinks Israel is
essential to trigger the so-called End Times that the fundies so
want to bring about. She is ovulating over the prospect of
Armageddon, when all fundie nut-jobs go to heaven, and get to watch
the rest of us go to hell ... which is what she is really looking
forward to.
-Al-
Al Smith
You are so wrong on this issue, you are comical. Read this and learn
something you obvious do not know:
http://www.nysun.com/national/palin-only-flag-in-my-office-is-israeli/86671
[quote]
Palin: 'Only Flag in My Office' Is Israeli
On the Hustings
By Staff Reporter of the Sun | September 26, 2008
PALIN: 'ONLY FLAG IN MY OFFICE' IS ISRAELI
President Peres of Israel yesterday met for the first time with
Governor Palin and with Senator McCain, who called the veteran
Israeli statesman "my old friend." The warm handshake and exchange
of broad smiles occurred during an international gathering known as
the Clinton Global Initiative, hosted by President Clinton. "I
wanted to meet you for many years," Ms. Palin told Mr. Peres,
according to an aide to the president. "The only flag at my office
is an Israeli flag," she was quoted as saying, "and I want you to
know and I want Israelis to know that I am a friend."
[end quote]
Get that, bubba. "The Only flag in my office is an Israeli flag."
So now are you just going to silently slink away? Or are you going
to deny the stated and proven fact of the matter? Which will it be?
Silence? Or obfuscation?
-Al-
Al Smith
I said it looked like an Israeli flag pin to me, on the television
and in on-line photographs. It still does.
I said Palin has an Israeli flag in her office in Alaska, and she
does. It is the only flag she has in her office ... the flag of a
foreign nation.
What would people say if she had the flag of Saudi Arabia in her
office? Or the flag of Syria?
-Al-
Al Smith
I was thinking more along the lines of someone who hurls virulent
and unjustified personal insults at others, rather than carrying on
a rational discussion.
-Al-
William Black
> I said it looked like an Israeli flag pin to me, on the television and in
> on-line photographs. It still does.
You do keep repeating this despite everyone telling you that you're wrong.
I think you have 'unresolved issues' here.
Did a nice Jewish girl once turn you down or something?
Al Smith
> news:L8MFk.599$DK3.332@edtnps82...
>
>> > I said it looked like an Israeli flag pin to me, on the television and in
>> > on-line photographs. It still does.
>
> You do keep repeating this despite everyone telling you that you're wrong.
>
> I think you have 'unresolved issues' here.
>
> Did a nice Jewish girl once turn you down or something?
>
> -- William Black
Palin's mindless and unconsidered loyalty to Israel, her stated
willingness to support Israel, no matter what action it might choose
to take in the future, should alarm all Americans, and indeed,
everyone in the world (except Israelis).
Palin puts the interests of a foreign nation before the interests of
America. That is an important and completely valid factor to
consider when evaluating her for the role of vice president of the
United States.
-Al-
William Black
You're talking utter rot.
What's more you know it.
Like I said, you have 'unresolved issues'.
Carl
McCain and Obama committed to Israel and both have made statements to that
effect. Intelligent, educated, and rational people on BOTH sides of the
aisle in the U.S. are committed to Israel's security because the alternative
is clearly not acceptable.
In light of all this information, and despite it, you are not re-evaluating
your position. Why then should they do you think?
Believe me, it's not about being "Israel's lapdog" but purely about the
self-interests of the U.S. If that self-interest ever changed, so would
that position on Israel. Perhaps you should consider why abandoning Israel
is NOT in the apparent self-interest of the U.S.
Carl
British mandate, am I right? And isn't it Jordan that's supposed to be the
"Palestinian Arab" state? But they want the little tiny piece called
"Israel" too because it just ain't enough.
Read here http://palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_british_mandate_jordan.php
Carl
actually occupy in order to understand the significance of this constant war
over Israel, a mere 8000 - 10,000 sq. miles out of many millions. Put in
that perspective it exceeds outrageous greed and selfishness. Add to it that
there is almost no religious significance in Islam to either the area known
as "Palestine" nor to Jerusalem, and the rationale becomes even more
confounding. Furthermore, consider that the British mandate created Jordan
to satisfy the desire for a "Palestinian" state, and the issue becomes even
that much more irrational.
I believe if you consider all Muslim occupied land, including that of Arab
and non-Arab, you'd be talking about 10 million sq. miles. I don't know
where you got your 3 million sq mi figure from, but either way any rational
person can see there's a gross imbalance.
SaPeIsMa
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gc8ai5$61d$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> willingness to support Israel, no matter what action it might choose to
>> take in the future, should alarm all Americans, and indeed, everyone in
>> the world (except Israelis).
>>
>> Palin puts the interests of a foreign nation before the interests of
>> America. That is an important and completely valid factor to consider
>> when evaluating her for the role of vice president of the United States.
>
> You're talking utter rot.
>
> What's more you know it.
>
> Like I said, you have 'unresolved issues'.
>
>
Not to mention is BLATANT ignorance of what the role of the Vice-President
is as defined by the US Constitution
Al Smith
> news:3dNFk.621$DK3.61@edtnps82...
>>> >> "Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:L8MFk.599$DK3.332@edtnps82...
>>> >>
>>>>> >>> > I said it looked like an Israeli flag pin to me, on the television and
>>>>> >>> > in on-line photographs. It still does.
>>> >>
>>> >> You do keep repeating this despite everyone telling you that you're
>>> >> wrong.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think you have 'unresolved issues' here.
>>> >>
>>> >> Did a nice Jewish girl once turn you down or something?
>>> >>
>>> >> -- William Black
>> >
>> >
>> > Palin's mindless and unconsidered loyalty to Israel, her stated
>> > willingness to support Israel, no matter what action it might choose to
>> > take in the future, should alarm all Americans, and indeed, everyone in
>> > the world (except Israelis).
>> >
>> > Palin puts the interests of a foreign nation before the interests of
>> > America. That is an important and completely valid factor to consider when
>> > evaluating her for the role of vice president of the United States.
>
> You're talking utter rot.
>
> What's more you know it.
>
> Like I said, you have 'unresolved issues'.
>
>
> -- William Black
The only unresolved issue I have is a frustration with the cant and
politically correct bullshit that passes as informed social
discussion these days. There are truths that need to be expressed,
and which in the main are not getting expressed.
One is that the control Israel through AIPAC exerts over Washington
is harmful and dangerous to America, and to the rest of the world.
Israel's goals are not America's goals. When American politicians
put the goals of Israel before the goals of the people who elected
them, they are not fit for office.
-Al-
Al Smith
What? You think it is all right for your vice-president to give her
primary support to a foreign country? To support the goals of a
foreign country over the needs of Americans? To support the actions
of a foreign country blindly and without question, whatever that
country might decide to do? Because that's Palin.
-Al-
Al Smith
Yes, all four of the candidates -- Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin
-- have visited AIPAC, cap in hand, to beg for approval, and have
promised AIPAC on their knees that they will support Zionism.
That should make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck! AIPAC
has *that* much power! Israel has *that* much control over the
political process in America! That no candidate for president or
vice-president would even *dare* to consider opposing them.
But Palin went a step further. She publicly stated that she will
support Israel no matter what course of action it chooses to take.
That is blind support, mindless support. It is the fawning loyalty
of a dog toward its owner.
-Al-
Peter Webb
And the evidence this is true is because she was wearing a lapel pin that
you thought was something different?
Like the others said ... you have issues.
> -Al-
Peter Webb
I see. No mention of Palin; now just standard semi-coherent anti-semitic
cant.
I liked it better when you were hallucinating over her lapel pin.
Peter Webb
Evidence?
> why? She is not Jewish and she doesn't have Israeli citizenship. She
> kisses the asses of AIPAC every chance she gets, and has stated that she
> would support Israel no matter what action it chooses to take in the
> Middle East.
Evidence?
> Get that, bubba? No matter what it might do in the future, Palin has
> stated publicly that she will support it.
Evidence?
> If that doesn't make her a toady to the Zionists, I don't know what does.
>
> Why does she give Israel such fanatical and unquestioning support?
Evidence she does?
> Because she is a fundamentalist nut-job who thinks Israel is essential to
> trigger the so-called End Times that the fundies so want to bring about.
> She is ovulating over the prospect of Armageddon, when all fundie nut-jobs
> go to heaven, and get to watch the rest of us go to hell ... which is what
> she is really looking forward to.
Evidence?
>
> -Al-
So far the only evidence you have provided is that she wore an Israeli flag
lap pin once - which turned out to not be an Israeli flag.
You live in a complete fantasy world. This is easily demonstrated by the
fact that you have no evidence for your opinions; they are simply a fantasy.
Peter Webb
Evidence?
> That should make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck! AIPAC has
> *that* much power! Israel has *that* much control over the political
> process in America! That no candidate for president or vice-president
> would even *dare* to consider opposing them.
>
> But Palin went a step further. She publicly stated that she will support
> Israel no matter what course of action it chooses to take.
Evidence?
> That is blind support, mindless support. It is the fawning loyalty of a
> dog toward its owner.
>
> -Al-
How about providing some evidence that your fantasies are true?
Other than Palin wore an Israeli flag lap pin, ha ha.
Peter Webb
... she was reported as saying, by some unknown person.
So there are no people who have ever actually claimed to have seen an
Israeli flag in her office, none has ever been seen in TV footage from her
office, and your evidence is an un-named person claiming she said she had
one?
Have you actually got a link to anyone who has actually seen this flag in
her public office? Not even the un-named person who is quoted claims to have
actually seen the flag.
Perhaps its invisible?
> So now are you just going to silently slink away? Or are you going to deny
> the stated and proven fact of the matter? Which will it be? Silence? Or
> obfuscation?
Proven fact?
How about a single person ever claiming to have seen this flag? Can you name
a single person who claims to have ever seen an Israeli flag in her office?
Even one?
Are you sure it wasn't a lapel pin she left lying around?
>
> -Al-
Al Smith
The evidence is from Palin's big, inarticulate, ungrammatical mouth.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/palin_israel_is_free_to_do_wha.php
[quote]
COURIC: You recently said three times that you would never, quote,
"second guess Israel if that country decided to attack Iran." Why not?
PALIN: We shouldn't second guess Israel's security efforts because
we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second
Holocaust, for one. Israel has got to have the opportunity and the
ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast.
We need them. They need us. And we shouldn't second guess their efforts.
[end quote]
No "second guessing" means no criticism. Unconditional support.
Palin's said this repeatedly.
-Al-
Peter Webb
No it doesn't.
They mean different things; that's why they are different phrases.
> Palin's said this repeatedly.
>
> -Al-
Palin said (repeatedly!) we shouldn't second guess the motives of foreign
countries?
And this is your evidence that she is a "ZioNazi", and "Palin puts the
interests of a foreign nation before the interests of America", etc?
Man, you are one serious fuckjob.
Peter Webb
Like you insulted and made unjustified personal attacks on Palin, only on
the evidence that she was wearing an Israeli flag lapel pin, which in fact
she wasn't ?
ROFL !
Al Smith
Palin is a public figure, who has voluntarily placed herself into a
position where she should expect to be criticized, sometimes rudely
and harshly.
-Al-
Peter Webb
But not incorrectly or maliciously.
Al Smith
What's incorrect? What's malicious? She is a woman who -- probably
because she is a fundamentalist Christian longing for the End Times
-- supports the state of Israel in a mindless, Pavlovian way, no
matter what Israel may choose to do. She has said as much herself,
publicly, and repeatedly. She shows this support by displaying an
Israeli flag in her office in Alaska ... by her own words, the "only
flag" she has in her office. If the pin she wears is not an Israeli
flag pin, but only *looks* exactly like an Israeli flag from a
distance and on camera, then so be it.
There is nothing malicious or incorrect in my statements. My
judgement, my considered judgement, of Palin, is that she is
unsuited to hold the position of vice-president, due to lack of
qualifications, experience and knowledge on her part. Her blind,
mindless, unqualified adoration of Israel is one factor in her
unsuitability. My judgement happens to be the judgement of the
majority of commentators on this matter, and when election day rolls
around, you will see that it is also the opinion of the majority of
voters.
-Al-