Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Dual Loyalty: Why Did a Neocon Vote in Both Israel and U.S.?
3 views
Skip to first unread message
HHW
May 17, 2013, 4:09:51 PM5/17/13
to
Dual Loyalty: Why Did a Neocon Vote in Both Israel and U.S.?
By Staff 1/16/07 10:11am
When attacking the ideology of the neoconservatives, the big
enchildada is dual loyalty: in their hearts, do they feel allegiance
to Israel? Gabriel Schoenfeld of Commentary Magazine said that this
was the clear thrust of Walt and Mearsheimer’s paper, they were
accusing supporters of Israel of being a fifth column. W&M have
responded (in their recent rebuttal) that “we recognize that all
Americans have many affinities and commitments,” including to other
countries. That’s the American way. They’re echoing the Louis Brandeis
line, which he came up with 90 years ago to assuage concerns about
dual loyalty held by assimilated Jews who didn’t care for Zionism,
such as Jacob Schiff and Arthur Sulzberger.
Where academics fear to tread, the blogosphere doesn’t. I think it’s a
legitimate issue. But how to talk about it?
The question has come up lately in the Jimmy Carter brouhaha. Critics
of Israel are justifiably upset that Amazon.com is not being
evenhanded in its listing for Carter’s book: in its “Editorial
Reviews” heading for the book—”a space normally used either for the
publisher’s own description of a book, or for short, even-handed
summaries from listing services such as Booklist and Publishers
Weekly”—Amazon offered only the full text of a sharply-critical
Washington Post review by the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Goldberg, accusing
Carter of being unChristian in his approach to Israel/Palestine.
(Amazon.com would seem to have amended the heading, to include a PW
review alongside Goldberg’s.) The critics point to Goldberg’s
background—that he “is a citizen of Israel as well as the United
States, and that he volunteered to serve in the Israeli Defense
Forces, for which he worked as a guard at a prison for Palestinian
detainees.” The critics are saying, You should say where Goldberg’s
coming from.
(Goldberg doesn’t mention citizenship on his website bio. Henry Norr,
who wrote the petition to Amazon, tells me, “Glenn Frankel of the
Washington Post, in a review of [Goldberg's book] “Prisoners,”
includes the following in his summary of Goldberg’s personal story:
“Like all new citizens below a certain age, he enters the Israel
Defense Forces…”)
The issue is a long-held concern among Jewish critics of Zionism. In
1970, a leading Jewish anti-Zionist, Rabbi Elmer Berger, learned that
several Jewish Americans had served in the Israeli Defense Forces,
having gained automatic citizenship in Israel.
[T]his peculiar dual nationality extends only to Jews…It is extended
to citizens… who have never been to Israel and whose only relationship
to that state is the Israeli presumption—written into its nationality
legislation—which claims as a national anyone identified as a Jew. [In
allowing them to serve without question,] the United States government…
is acquiescing in this religiously-discriminatory presumption…[and it]
is contrary to the constitution.
Berger worried about Jewish identity. He feared that American Jews
would be called upon to define their religious identity in terms of
identification with a neo-colonialist “theocratic” state that was
dehumanizing Arabs. (He was right!) And he feared that American Jews
would be torn in allegiance, or be seen to be torn in allegiance.
I called one of the leading experts on dual loyalty, John Fonte, of
the neoconservative Hudson Institute. Fonte doesn’t write about Jews
and Israel (probably a Career-Limiting Move at Hudson!), he writes
about Mexico. He is concerned that in granting Mexicans in the U.S. a
right to vote in Mexican elections, Mexico is making those citizens
“supra-citizens,” with more rights than other citizens—and also
slowing the process of American assimilation.
That’s his word: assimilation. This neocon scholar says that
assimilation is a democratic value in America: for immigrants or their
children, or grandchildren, to take on Americanness.
“I don’t think it’s a good idea” for American citizens to fight for or
vote in other countries, Fonte said. Before America entered World War
II, some Americans went over to fly with the RAF, and neocon Fonte
thinks Americans joining the Israeli army are in the same category,
taking part in a war that’s in America’s interests. Still he thinks
that the State Department should sign off on this kind of thing on a
“case by case basis.”
“I don’t think Israel’s interests and ours overlap completely,” I
said.
“There’s never a complete overlap of interests,” Fonte said. “Even
Britain and the U.S. differed on the Grenada invasion.”
You used to forfeit your citizenship by voting in another country or
fighting for one. The law on forfeiting citizenship ended in the late
60s on a 5-4 Supreme Court vote in a—you guessed it—Israel-based case,
where a Jewish-American artist who had voted in Israel wanted to move
back here. Thus a 200-year precedent crumbled.
I told Fonte that the revolving door between Israel and the U.S.
disturbed me. One of my relatives just came back from his “birthright”
trip to Israel (“Israel is about Jews. It is about saving Jews…”) and
showed me photos of American kids proudly holding guns and serving in
the IDF—serving the apartheid-like Occupation. My relative’s
commemorative t-shirt for the trip was IDF olive-green, to show
solidarity with an army that helps to deprive Palestinians of their
rights. On campuses here, Jewish students are told to wear blue and
white in solidarity with Israel, something that would have horrified
Elmer Berger.
“I find this confusing,” I said.
“Definitely there’s confusion,” Fonte agreed. “Right now you can do
anything.”
He pointed out that after one of his articles on Mexico, fellow Hudson
Institute hawk Max Singer told him that he was going to stop voting in
U.S. elections, just in Israeli ones.
So a big neocon was voting in both countries? I called Singer in
Israel.
“Correct,” Singer said. “I felt I should vote in one country or
another but not both.”
“John Fonte said you came to that realization not that long ago.”
“Yes.”
Singer says the dual loyalty issue in his case did not arise from his
being Jewish but from being a citizen of both countries. (Which he
could be because he’s Jewish). He even served in the U.S. Army
reserve, according to Hudson’s website. But he’s decided to be
“politically active in Israel.”
Of course, he’s politically active here, too, helping to shape our
foreign policy. Hudson describes him as “Senior Fellow, Board Member,
Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C. Headquarters. Areas of Expertise:
Middle East…”
I guess I’m still confused.
By Staff 1/16/07 10:11am
When attacking the ideology of the neoconservatives, the big
enchildada is dual loyalty: in their hearts, do they feel allegiance
to Israel? Gabriel Schoenfeld of Commentary Magazine said that this
was the clear thrust of Walt and Mearsheimer’s paper, they were
accusing supporters of Israel of being a fifth column. W&M have
responded (in their recent rebuttal) that “we recognize that all
Americans have many affinities and commitments,” including to other
countries. That’s the American way. They’re echoing the Louis Brandeis
line, which he came up with 90 years ago to assuage concerns about
dual loyalty held by assimilated Jews who didn’t care for Zionism,
such as Jacob Schiff and Arthur Sulzberger.
Where academics fear to tread, the blogosphere doesn’t. I think it’s a
legitimate issue. But how to talk about it?
The question has come up lately in the Jimmy Carter brouhaha. Critics
of Israel are justifiably upset that Amazon.com is not being
evenhanded in its listing for Carter’s book: in its “Editorial
Reviews” heading for the book—”a space normally used either for the
publisher’s own description of a book, or for short, even-handed
summaries from listing services such as Booklist and Publishers
Weekly”—Amazon offered only the full text of a sharply-critical
Washington Post review by the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Goldberg, accusing
Carter of being unChristian in his approach to Israel/Palestine.
(Amazon.com would seem to have amended the heading, to include a PW
review alongside Goldberg’s.) The critics point to Goldberg’s
background—that he “is a citizen of Israel as well as the United
States, and that he volunteered to serve in the Israeli Defense
Forces, for which he worked as a guard at a prison for Palestinian
detainees.” The critics are saying, You should say where Goldberg’s
coming from.
(Goldberg doesn’t mention citizenship on his website bio. Henry Norr,
who wrote the petition to Amazon, tells me, “Glenn Frankel of the
Washington Post, in a review of [Goldberg's book] “Prisoners,”
includes the following in his summary of Goldberg’s personal story:
“Like all new citizens below a certain age, he enters the Israel
Defense Forces…”)
The issue is a long-held concern among Jewish critics of Zionism. In
1970, a leading Jewish anti-Zionist, Rabbi Elmer Berger, learned that
several Jewish Americans had served in the Israeli Defense Forces,
having gained automatic citizenship in Israel.
[T]his peculiar dual nationality extends only to Jews…It is extended
to citizens… who have never been to Israel and whose only relationship
to that state is the Israeli presumption—written into its nationality
legislation—which claims as a national anyone identified as a Jew. [In
allowing them to serve without question,] the United States government…
is acquiescing in this religiously-discriminatory presumption…[and it]
is contrary to the constitution.
Berger worried about Jewish identity. He feared that American Jews
would be called upon to define their religious identity in terms of
identification with a neo-colonialist “theocratic” state that was
dehumanizing Arabs. (He was right!) And he feared that American Jews
would be torn in allegiance, or be seen to be torn in allegiance.
I called one of the leading experts on dual loyalty, John Fonte, of
the neoconservative Hudson Institute. Fonte doesn’t write about Jews
and Israel (probably a Career-Limiting Move at Hudson!), he writes
about Mexico. He is concerned that in granting Mexicans in the U.S. a
right to vote in Mexican elections, Mexico is making those citizens
“supra-citizens,” with more rights than other citizens—and also
slowing the process of American assimilation.
That’s his word: assimilation. This neocon scholar says that
assimilation is a democratic value in America: for immigrants or their
children, or grandchildren, to take on Americanness.
“I don’t think it’s a good idea” for American citizens to fight for or
vote in other countries, Fonte said. Before America entered World War
II, some Americans went over to fly with the RAF, and neocon Fonte
thinks Americans joining the Israeli army are in the same category,
taking part in a war that’s in America’s interests. Still he thinks
that the State Department should sign off on this kind of thing on a
“case by case basis.”
“I don’t think Israel’s interests and ours overlap completely,” I
said.
“There’s never a complete overlap of interests,” Fonte said. “Even
Britain and the U.S. differed on the Grenada invasion.”
You used to forfeit your citizenship by voting in another country or
fighting for one. The law on forfeiting citizenship ended in the late
60s on a 5-4 Supreme Court vote in a—you guessed it—Israel-based case,
where a Jewish-American artist who had voted in Israel wanted to move
back here. Thus a 200-year precedent crumbled.
I told Fonte that the revolving door between Israel and the U.S.
disturbed me. One of my relatives just came back from his “birthright”
trip to Israel (“Israel is about Jews. It is about saving Jews…”) and
showed me photos of American kids proudly holding guns and serving in
the IDF—serving the apartheid-like Occupation. My relative’s
commemorative t-shirt for the trip was IDF olive-green, to show
solidarity with an army that helps to deprive Palestinians of their
rights. On campuses here, Jewish students are told to wear blue and
white in solidarity with Israel, something that would have horrified
Elmer Berger.
“I find this confusing,” I said.
“Definitely there’s confusion,” Fonte agreed. “Right now you can do
anything.”
He pointed out that after one of his articles on Mexico, fellow Hudson
Institute hawk Max Singer told him that he was going to stop voting in
U.S. elections, just in Israeli ones.
So a big neocon was voting in both countries? I called Singer in
Israel.
“Correct,” Singer said. “I felt I should vote in one country or
another but not both.”
“John Fonte said you came to that realization not that long ago.”
“Yes.”
Singer says the dual loyalty issue in his case did not arise from his
being Jewish but from being a citizen of both countries. (Which he
could be because he’s Jewish). He even served in the U.S. Army
reserve, according to Hudson’s website. But he’s decided to be
“politically active in Israel.”
Of course, he’s politically active here, too, helping to shape our
foreign policy. Hudson describes him as “Senior Fellow, Board Member,
Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C. Headquarters. Areas of Expertise:
Middle East…”
I guess I’m still confused.
plainolamerican
May 17, 2013, 4:15:16 PM5/17/13
to
israel every time.
dsharavi
May 17, 2013, 5:44:04 PM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 1:09 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dual Loyalty: Why Did a Neocon Vote in Both Israel and U.S.?
> By Staff 1/16/07 10:11am
Wow, late breaking article from the New York Observer only seven years
> Dual Loyalty: Why Did a Neocon Vote in Both Israel and U.S.?
> By Staff 1/16/07 10:11am
ago. Awesome.
Question: Why did the neocon vote in Israel and the US?
Answer [Kirk]: "Because ... he ... was ... a .... JEW LIKE SHATNER."
Answer [Worf]: "I do not know. Klingons do NOT vote in Israel."
Answer [Picard]: "Engage vote."
The author of the piece said that someone told him that he was told by
the neocon in question .... who cares?
The neocon in question was one Max Singer, Senior Fellow, Board
Member, Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C. Headquarters, and a US Army
reservist.
> I guess I’m still confused.
he was seven years ago.
drahcir
May 17, 2013, 5:48:55 PM5/17/13
to
If you want to have some fun, go to Google Groups search and use
keywords [loyalty democratic]. It is so hilarious watching HHW squirm
when presented with the simple fact that everyone agrees that the
Republican party is more supportive of Israel than the Democrats, yet
the vast, OVERWHELMING majority of American Jews vote Democrat each
and every year. That is all any sane person needs to convince himself
that there is no significant dual loyalty issue among American Jews.
But of course, HHW is far, FAR from sane. He's as capable of simple,
logical thought as I am of ski jumping.
keywords [loyalty democratic]. It is so hilarious watching HHW squirm
when presented with the simple fact that everyone agrees that the
Republican party is more supportive of Israel than the Democrats, yet
the vast, OVERWHELMING majority of American Jews vote Democrat each
and every year. That is all any sane person needs to convince himself
that there is no significant dual loyalty issue among American Jews.
But of course, HHW is far, FAR from sane. He's as capable of simple,
logical thought as I am of ski jumping.
alittlesanity
May 17, 2013, 6:01:00 PM5/17/13
to
In article <649dp89b24fep13k7...@4ax.com>,
try to identify material which somehow supports his position,
and post it. He's an utter and complete intellectual zero.
drahcir <sg...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> If you want to have some fun, go to Google Groups search and use
> keywords [loyalty democratic]. It is so hilarious watching HHW squirm
> when presented with the simple fact that everyone agrees that the
> Republican party is more supportive of Israel than the Democrats, yet
> the vast, OVERWHELMING majority of American Jews vote Democrat each
> and every year. That is all any sane person needs to convince himself
> that there is no significant dual loyalty issue among American Jews.
> But of course, HHW is far, FAR from sane. He's as capable of simple,
> logical thought as I am of ski jumping.
HHW is a scanner, and scanners don't think. All he can do is
> If you want to have some fun, go to Google Groups search and use
> keywords [loyalty democratic]. It is so hilarious watching HHW squirm
> when presented with the simple fact that everyone agrees that the
> Republican party is more supportive of Israel than the Democrats, yet
> the vast, OVERWHELMING majority of American Jews vote Democrat each
> and every year. That is all any sane person needs to convince himself
> that there is no significant dual loyalty issue among American Jews.
> But of course, HHW is far, FAR from sane. He's as capable of simple,
> logical thought as I am of ski jumping.
try to identify material which somehow supports his position,
and post it. He's an utter and complete intellectual zero.
drahcir
May 17, 2013, 6:10:30 PM5/17/13
to
Marcus Aurelius
May 17, 2013, 7:24:05 PM5/17/13
to
Thank you for the original post. The USA should end "dual citizenship"
immediately and forbid by law, "dual citizens" from holding public
office.
Why? This partial quote from President George Washington's "Farewell
Address" delineates why the aforementioned should be implemented:
. "Nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate
antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for
others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and
amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which
indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness,
is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its
affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its
duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another
disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of
slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when
accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent
collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests.
Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favourite, are
liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp
the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their
interests." (From President George Washington’s “Farewell Address.”)
immediately and forbid by law, "dual citizens" from holding public
office.
Why? This partial quote from President George Washington's "Farewell
Address" delineates why the aforementioned should be implemented:
. "Nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate
antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for
others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and
amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which
indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness,
is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its
affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its
duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another
disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of
slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when
accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent
collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests.
Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favourite, are
liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp
the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their
interests." (From President George Washington’s “Farewell Address.”)
HHW
May 17, 2013, 7:45:58 PM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 4:44 pm, dsharavi <dshr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 1:09 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dual Loyalty: Why Did a Neocon Vote in Both Israel and U.S.?
> > By Staff 1/16/07 10:11am
>
> Wow, late breaking article from the New York Observer only seven years
> ago. Awesome.
You're right that there is nothing new about the problem. It's the
> On May 17, 1:09 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dual Loyalty: Why Did a Neocon Vote in Both Israel and U.S.?
> > By Staff 1/16/07 10:11am
>
> Wow, late breaking article from the New York Observer only seven years
> ago. Awesome.
same as it was seven years ago. It still needs a remedy.
>
> Question: Why did the neocon vote in Israel and the US?
>
> The author of the piece said that someone told him that he was told by
> the neocon in question .... who cares?
> The neocon in question was one Max Singer, Senior Fellow, Board
> Member, Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C. Headquarters, and a US Army
> reservist.
>
> > I guess I’m still confused.
HHW
May 17, 2013, 8:04:12 PM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 4:48 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
Clip diversionary nonsense.
everyone agrees that the
> Republican party is more supportive of Israel than the Democrats, yet
> the vast, OVERWHELMING majority of American Jews vote Democrat each
> and every year.
The way they vote is irrelevant. That's done in the privacy of the
voting booth. It's their failure to resist their arch-conservative
Israel Lobby leadership, to get out of step with the intense tribal
social pressure to conform and do as they're told in public.
That is all any sane person needs to convince himself
> that there is no significant dual loyalty issue among American Jews.
I'd prefer to call it conflict of interest for which positions in the
foreign policy apparatus should be denied. You can still try the
Department of Agriculture, Ratner. The idea of you working at State or
in the White House or the Pentagon or any of the intel agencies is
absurd.
Sane people make independent evaluations and are driven by the facts,
not assertions by actors who display profound conflict of interest
themselves.
> But of course, HHW is far, FAR from sane. He's as capable of simple,
> logical thought as I am of ski jumping.
Who might have thought of you in the context of any manly sport?
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:09:51 -0700 (PDT), HHW
Clip diversionary nonsense.
everyone agrees that the
> Republican party is more supportive of Israel than the Democrats, yet
> the vast, OVERWHELMING majority of American Jews vote Democrat each
> and every year.
voting booth. It's their failure to resist their arch-conservative
Israel Lobby leadership, to get out of step with the intense tribal
social pressure to conform and do as they're told in public.
That is all any sane person needs to convince himself
> that there is no significant dual loyalty issue among American Jews.
foreign policy apparatus should be denied. You can still try the
Department of Agriculture, Ratner. The idea of you working at State or
in the White House or the Pentagon or any of the intel agencies is
absurd.
Sane people make independent evaluations and are driven by the facts,
not assertions by actors who display profound conflict of interest
themselves.
> But of course, HHW is far, FAR from sane. He's as capable of simple,
> logical thought as I am of ski jumping.
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:09:51 -0700 (PDT), HHW
HHW
May 17, 2013, 8:05:52 PM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 5:01 pm, a little sanity, please <ratio...@nospam.com>
wrote:
> In article <649dp89b24fep13k79n8m4io6srvdq2...@4ax.com>,
People who borrow other posters ideas don't think.
wrote:
> In article <649dp89b24fep13k79n8m4io6srvdq2...@4ax.com>,
drahcir
May 17, 2013, 8:31:32 PM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:04:12 -0700 (PDT), HHW
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 17, 4:48�pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>
>Clip diversionary nonsense.
You ever gonna grow a pair, H?
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 17, 4:48�pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>
>Clip diversionary nonsense.
i'll just replace your "clip".
If you want to have some fun, go to Google Groups search and use
keywords [loyalty democratic]. It is so hilarious watching HHW squirm
Republican party is more supportive of Israel than the Democrats, yet
the vast, OVERWHELMING majority of American Jews vote Democrat each
and every year. That is all any sane person needs to convince himself
the vast, OVERWHELMING majority of American Jews vote Democrat each
that there is no significant dual loyalty issue among American Jews.
But of course, HHW is far, FAR from sane. He's as capable of simple,
logical thought as I am of ski jumping.
As usual, you seem to be unfamiliar with the definition of words that
logical thought as I am of ski jumping.
you bandy about. A "diversion" is an attempt to distract by being off
topic. What you "clipped" demonstrates the simple reality that you
were utterly helpless in the fact of American Jewish voting records in
the past, just as you are now.l
>
>
> everyone agrees that the
>> Republican party is more supportive of Israel than the Democrats, yet
>> the vast, OVERWHELMING majority of American Jews vote Democrat each
>> and every year.
>
>The way they vote is irrelevant. That's done in the privacy of the
>voting booth. It's their failure to resist their arch-conservative
>Israel Lobby leadership, to get out of step with the intense tribal
>social pressure to conform and do as they're told in public.
H, if your intent is to demonstrate your idiocy, you're doing an
>
> everyone agrees that the
>> Republican party is more supportive of Israel than the Democrats, yet
>> the vast, OVERWHELMING majority of American Jews vote Democrat each
>> and every year.
>
>The way they vote is irrelevant. That's done in the privacy of the
>voting booth. It's their failure to resist their arch-conservative
>Israel Lobby leadership, to get out of step with the intense tribal
>social pressure to conform and do as they're told in public.
excellent job. Were voting simply a private matter, no one would know
the huge percentage of Jews who vote democratic, would they? All of
your incredible blather above means NOTHING in view of the fact that
were there dual loyalty among the vast majority of American Jewry,
they'd vote Republican. They don't, so there isn't, End of story.
>
>That is all any sane person needs to convince himself
>> that there is no significant dual loyalty issue among American Jews.
>
>I'd prefer to call it conflict of interest for which positions in the
>foreign policy apparatus should be denied.
Constructing sentences that make no sense, such as that above, won't
>That is all any sane person needs to convince himself
>> that there is no significant dual loyalty issue among American Jews.
>
>I'd prefer to call it conflict of interest for which positions in the
>foreign policy apparatus should be denied.
help you. The problem is, you're attempting to make a case that black
is white. You can' possibly do that so long as there are those of us
here who know black is black. It's really so very simple - if American
Jewry felt any loyalty to Israel, they'd vote Republican, obviously.
They don't, so no dual loyalty, obviously.
You can still try the
>Department of Agriculture, Ratner. The idea of you working at State or
>in the White House or the Pentagon or any of the intel agencies is
>absurd.
>
>Sane people make independent evaluations and are driven by the facts,
>not assertions by actors who display profound conflict of interest
>themselves.
Democratic voting = obviously no conflict of interest = HHW is an
>Sane people make independent evaluations and are driven by the facts,
>not assertions by actors who display profound conflict of interest
>themselves.
idiot.
>
>
>> But of course, HHW is far, FAR from sane. He's as capable of simple,
>> logical thought as I am of ski jumping.
>
>Who might have thought of you in the context of any manly sport?
>
It's funny, for someone who has demonstrated time and time again his
>
>> But of course, HHW is far, FAR from sane. He's as capable of simple,
>> logical thought as I am of ski jumping.
>
>Who might have thought of you in the context of any manly sport?
>
lack of balls, you sure do a lot of blabbing about manliness.
drahcir
May 17, 2013, 8:32:24 PM5/17/13
to
drahcir
May 17, 2013, 9:08:57 PM5/17/13
to
Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive:
https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/7603588266296075?hl=en%EC%A1%AFc95d0367d9&
http://tinyurl.com/a7p58jl
Here is the gist of the above thread:
The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
himself back then, put this as his subject:
"American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
anti-Semitic."
The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
However, here is the context for the line he pulled from the article:
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
So the author, far from claiming what HHW pulled as the subject is
true, states that it is the CORE ASSUMPTION OF A COMPLETELY FUTILE
PREDICTION.
If you don't believe anyone could possibly be so despicably dishonest,
read the linked-to thread for yourself (from which, by the way, the
manly HHW fled, of course). If there is a soul here who disputes that
HHW, as evidenced by the above, is the single most despicable,
disgusting character who has posted here, please, enlighten me as to
why.
H, just so that we understand one another, any time you try the dual
loyalty crap in this or any other group I read, you're going to get
this thrown out for all the world to see. Got it?
therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive:
https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/7603588266296075?hl=en%EC%A1%AFc95d0367d9&
http://tinyurl.com/a7p58jl
Here is the gist of the above thread:
The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
himself back then, put this as his subject:
"American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
anti-Semitic."
The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
However, here is the context for the line he pulled from the article:
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
So the author, far from claiming what HHW pulled as the subject is
true, states that it is the CORE ASSUMPTION OF A COMPLETELY FUTILE
PREDICTION.
If you don't believe anyone could possibly be so despicably dishonest,
read the linked-to thread for yourself (from which, by the way, the
manly HHW fled, of course). If there is a soul here who disputes that
HHW, as evidenced by the above, is the single most despicable,
disgusting character who has posted here, please, enlighten me as to
why.
H, just so that we understand one another, any time you try the dual
loyalty crap in this or any other group I read, you're going to get
this thrown out for all the world to see. Got it?
dsharavi
May 17, 2013, 11:10:31 PM5/17/13
to
dsharavi
May 17, 2013, 11:11:01 PM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 4:24 pm, Marcus Aurelius <alexander...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the original post. The USA should end "dual citizenship"
> immediately and forbid by law, "dual citizens" from holding public
> office.
Dual citizens like Barack Obama?
> immediately and forbid by law, "dual citizens" from holding public
> office.
dsharavi
May 17, 2013, 11:24:48 PM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 4:45 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 4:44 pm, dsharavi <dshr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 1:09 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dual Loyalty: Why Did a Neocon Vote in Both Israel and U.S.?
> > > By Staff 1/16/07 10:11am
>
> > Wow, late breaking article from the New York Observer only seven years
> > ago. Awesome.
>
> You're right that there is nothing new about the problem. It's the
> same as it was seven years ago. It still needs a remedy.
Why don't you ask dual citizen Barack Obama for a remedy for dual
> On May 17, 4:44 pm, dsharavi <dshr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 1:09 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dual Loyalty: Why Did a Neocon Vote in Both Israel and U.S.?
> > > By Staff 1/16/07 10:11am
>
> > Wow, late breaking article from the New York Observer only seven years
> > ago. Awesome.
>
> You're right that there is nothing new about the problem. It's the
> same as it was seven years ago. It still needs a remedy.
citizenship? And the tens of thousands of other Americans who are also
dual - even triple - citizens?
> > Question: Why did the neocon vote in Israel and the US?
>
> Clip frivolous quote from a television series.
--Answer [Kirk]: "Because ... he ... was ... a .... JEW LIKE SHATNER."
--Answer [Worf]: "I do not know. Klingons do NOT vote in Israel."
--Answer [Picard]: "Engage vote."
ever appeared in ANY TV series.
> > The author of the piece said that someone told him that he was told by
> > the neocon in question .... who cares?
> Who cares that you don't care. It fits the thrust of the article.
timbers.
> > The neocon in question was one Max Singer, Senior Fellow, Board
> > Member, Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C. Headquarters, and a US Army
> > reservist.
>
> > > I guess I’m still confused.
>
> Clip ad hominem slander of the author.
excess. But the author IS just another hypocritical little asswipe. At
dsharavi
May 17, 2013, 11:25:58 PM5/17/13
to
HHW
May 18, 2013, 2:01:03 PM5/18/13
to
On May 17, 8:08 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
> therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive.
> Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
It is true that if you can do it, I deserve it. We'll see now, won't
we?
> https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/76035882662960...http://tinyurl.com/a7p58jl
> Here is the gist of the above thread:
its the Glenn Greenwald piece on Jewish dual loyalty/conflict of
interest with which it was begun:
https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/browse_thread/thread/a14a0345cc9c8924/7603588266296075?hl=en%EC%A1%AFc95d0367d9%EF%BF%BD
> The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
> himself back then, put this as his subject:
>
> "American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
> anti-Semitic."
would have written it:
> "American Zionist activist Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
> anti-Semitic."
> The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
> the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
> which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
HHW mounts a one man conspiracy, eh? Acutally, Missy, I used that
> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
> anti-Semitic."
> The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
> the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
> which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
sentence from Greenwald as the header because of what IT SAID in and
of itself which is not so easy to parse as you seem to think.
> However, here is the context for the line he pulled from the article:
>
> > > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > > assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
> > > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
>
> So the author, far from claiming what HHW pulled as the subject is
> true, states that it is the CORE ASSUMPTION OF A COMPLETELY FUTILE
> PREDICTION.
Zionist activists such as you from the slimy fringes of American Jewry
with opportunities to scream ANTISEMITIC!? Of course American Jews
vote liberal. That's a given. It's been true for a century. How Jews
vote was not what I was about in my choice of the header. It was the
dishonesty, the calculated theater of the SCREAMING which comes not
from liberal Jews but from your troglodytic faction of neo-fascistic
American Zionists.
> If you don't believe anyone could possibly be so despicably dishonest,
> read the linked-to thread for yourself (from which, by the way, the
> manly HHW fled, of course).
hominem attacks.
If there is a soul here who disputes that
> HHW, as evidenced by the above, is the single most despicable,
> disgusting character who has posted here, please, enlighten me as to
> why.
Don't miss my long post there.
> H, just so that we understand one another, any time you try the dual
> loyalty crap in this or any other group I read, you're going to get
> this thrown out for all the world to see. Got it?
Don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, that I am using a more precise
term now days. It's 'conflict of interest'
rather than dual loyalty. For these purposes feel free to see them as
synonems. This applies especially to Ratner as he gradually awakens to
the fact that he is making these threats and uttering these whines
about a principle of ethics which applies to all the professions, the
business world in all its aspects, and most particularly to government
service where the sworn oath demands support of the Constitution and
laws of the United States. Conflict gets judges recused and lawyers
disbarred. It even governs behavior in the medical profession and,
believe it or not in Congress.
drahcir
May 18, 2013, 2:20:57 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:01:03 -0700 (PDT), HHW
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 17, 8:08�pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
>> therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive.
>
>It is true that if you can do it, I deserve it. We'll see now, won't
>we?
>
>> https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/76035882662960...http://tinyurl.com/a7p58jl
>
>> Here is the gist of the above thread:
>
>You won't get away with that, Missy. Here is the gist of the thread,
>its the Glenn Greenwald piece on Jewish dual loyalty/conflict of
>interest with which it was begun:
>
>https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/browse_thread/thread/a14a0345cc9c8924/7603588266296075?hl=en%EC%A1%AFc95d0367d9%EF%BF%BD
>
>> The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
>> himself back then, �put this as his subject:
>>
>> "American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
>> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
>> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
>> anti-Semitic."
>
>That's Glen Greenwald speaking. Were it not taken from his article I
>would have written it:
Yes, H, that is a direct quote from the article. However, it is
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 17, 8:08�pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
>> therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive.
>
>It is true that if you can do it, I deserve it. We'll see now, won't
>we?
>
>> https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/76035882662960...http://tinyurl.com/a7p58jl
>
>> Here is the gist of the above thread:
>
>You won't get away with that, Missy. Here is the gist of the thread,
>its the Glenn Greenwald piece on Jewish dual loyalty/conflict of
>interest with which it was begun:
>
>https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/browse_thread/thread/a14a0345cc9c8924/7603588266296075?hl=en%EC%A1%AFc95d0367d9%EF%BF%BD
>
>> The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
>> himself back then, �put this as his subject:
>>
>> "American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
>> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
>> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
>> anti-Semitic."
>
>That's Glen Greenwald speaking. Were it not taken from his article I
>would have written it:
precisely the OPPOSITE of what Greenwald said with the context of that
quote. It doesn't matter in the least how you would have written it.
It's what you wrote that counts.
>
>> "American Zionist activist Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
>> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
>> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
>> anti-Semitic."
>
>> The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
>> the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
>> which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
>
>HHW mounts a one man conspiracy, eh? Acutally, Missy, I used that
>sentence from Greenwald as the header because of what IT SAID in and
>of itself which is not so easy to parse as you seem to think.
The words in the subject you wrote was used by the author to convey
>> "American Zionist activist Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
>> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
>> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
>> anti-Semitic."
>
>> The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
>> the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
>> which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
>
>HHW mounts a one man conspiracy, eh? Acutally, Missy, I used that
>sentence from Greenwald as the header because of what IT SAID in and
>of itself which is not so easy to parse as you seem to think.
the fallacious thinkng of Republicans. You tried to give the
impression with your subject that the author was stating that subject
as fact. Of course, I immediately proved what an incredible lie that
act was.
>> However, here is the context for the line he pulled from the article:
>>
>> > > > UPDATE II: �Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
>> > > > I'm talking about: �hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
>> > > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
>> > > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
>> > > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. �The
>> > > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
>> > > > with complete futility, but think about it: �what is the core
>> > > > assumption of such a claim? � That American Jews determine their
>> > > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
>> > > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
>> > > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
>>
>> So the author, far from claiming what HHW pulled as the subject is
>> true, states that it is the CORE ASSUMPTION �OF A COMPLETELY FUTILE
>> PREDICTION.
>
>Futile on what level, Ratner?
hope of converting American Jews to the Republican party.
Below is blahblah designed solely to try to distract from the obvious
mendacity of HHW.
Making "Xs" on ballots? Or providing
>Zionist activists such as you from the slimy fringes of American Jewry
>with opportunities to scream ANTISEMITIC!? Of course American Jews
>vote liberal. That's a given. It's been true for a century. How Jews
>vote was not what I was about in my choice of the header. It was the
>dishonesty, the calculated theater of the SCREAMING which comes not
>from liberal Jews but from your troglodytic faction of neo-fascistic
>American Zionists.
>
>> If you don't believe anyone could possibly be so despicably dishonest,
>
>About what, neo-fascistic American Zionists? It's perfectly accurate.
article. About attempting to make it appear that a Jewish author
supports your fallacious and antismitic point of view. Your opinion of
your subject's accuracy with regard to American Jewry is completely
irrelevant. It is the subject's IRRELEVANCY to the article it
pretended to summarize that is the evidence of your incredible
dishonesty.
>> read the linked-to thread for yourself (from which, by the way, the
>> manly HHW fled, of course).
>
>Sure, go read the thread. Read my posts. Ratner's are merely ad
>hominem attacks.
obvious proof of your incredibly brazen dishonesty has nothing to do
with your favorite coward's refuge, "ad hominem".
>
> If there is a soul here who disputes that
>> HHW, as evidenced by the above, is the single most despicable,
>> disgusting character who has posted here, please, enlighten me as to
>> why.
>
>See above, I'm right, you're wrong. Ha Ha.
>
>Don't miss my long post there.
>
>> H, just so that we understand one another, any time you try the dual
>> loyalty crap in this or any other group I read, you're going to get
>> this thrown out for all the world to see. Got it?
>
>DUAL LOYALTY!
No prob H. You'll obviously be seeing a lot more of this most
> If there is a soul here who disputes that
>> HHW, as evidenced by the above, is the single most despicable,
>> disgusting character who has posted here, please, enlighten me as to
>> why.
>
>See above, I'm right, you're wrong. Ha Ha.
>
>Don't miss my long post there.
>
>> H, just so that we understand one another, any time you try the dual
>> loyalty crap in this or any other group I read, you're going to get
>> this thrown out for all the world to see. Got it?
>
>DUAL LOYALTY!
wonderful thread from the past.
>
>Don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, that I am using a more precise
>term now days. It's 'conflict of interest'
>rather than dual loyalty.
First of all, that's bs - you used "dual loyalty" this week. Besides
>Don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, that I am using a more precise
>term now days. It's 'conflict of interest'
>rather than dual loyalty.
that, it's amazing you think any ladies or gentlemen care about what
such an incredibly brazen liar such as you has to say about anything.
For these purposes feel free to see them as
>synonems. This applies especially to Ratner as he gradually awakens to
>the fact that he is making these threats and uttering these whines
>about a principle of ethics which applies to all the professions, the
>business world in all its aspects, and most particularly to government
>service where the sworn oath demands support of the Constitution and
>laws of the United States. Conflict gets judges recused and lawyers
>disbarred. It even governs behavior in the medical profession and,
>believe it or not in Congress.
blahblahblah. Simple fact is Republicans are way more pro-Israel than
Democrats, but American Jewry ALWAYS votes heavily Democratic. Thus
all your dual, conflict bullshit falls apart.
HHW
May 18, 2013, 11:43:22 PM5/18/13
to
> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On May 17, 8:08 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> >> Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
> >> therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive.
> >It is true that if you can do it, I deserve it. We'll see now, won't
> >we?
In the meantime you will be hearing a good deal about conflict of
> >On May 17, 8:08 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> >> Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
> >> therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive.
> >It is true that if you can do it, I deserve it. We'll see now, won't
> >we?
interest among American Zionists. It used to be tabooed and many
attempt to prevent discussion of it even today. You're one of them.
> >>https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/76035882662960...
>
> >> Here is the gist of the above thread:
>
> >You won't get away with that, Missy. Here is the gist of the thread,
> >its the Glenn Greenwald piece on Jewish dual loyalty/conflict of
> >interest with which it was begun in its entirety:
> >> Here is the gist of the above thread:
>
> >You won't get away with that, Missy. Here is the gist of the thread,
> >its the Glenn Greenwald piece on Jewish dual loyalty/conflict of
> >https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/browse_thread/thre...
> >> The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
> >> himself back then, put this as his subject:
>
> >> "American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
> >> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
> >> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
> >> anti-Semitic."
>
> >That's Glen Greenwald speaking. Were it not taken from his article I
American Zionist Jewish activists determine their political beliefs
based on what is best for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the
"dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by others,this very same
faction brands as anti-Semitic.
> Yes, H, that is a direct quote from the article.
However, it is
> precisely the OPPOSITE of what Greenwald said with the context of that
> quote. It doesn't matter in the least how you would have written it.
> It's what you wrote that counts.
Here's what I would have written had I not gone the easy route and
quoted Greenwald:
> >> "American Zionist activist Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
> >> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
> >> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
> >> anti-Semitic."
> >> The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
> >> the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
> >> which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
> >HHW mounts a one man conspiracy, eh? Acutally, Missy, I used that
> >sentence from Greenwald as the header because of what IT SAID in and
> >of itself which is not so easy to parse as you seem to think.
> The words in the subject you wrote was used by the author to convey
> the fallacious thinkng of Republicans. You tried to give the
> impression with your subject that the author was stating that subject
> as fact. Of course, I immediately proved what an incredible lie that
> act was.
> >> However, here is the context for the line he pulled from the article:
>
> >> > > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> >> > > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> >> > > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> >> > > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> >> > > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> >> > > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> >> > > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> >> > > > assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
> >> > > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> >> > > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> >> > > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
>
> >> So the author, far from claiming what HHW pulled as the subject is
> >> true, states that it is the CORE ASSUMPTION OF A COMPLETELY FUTILE
> >> PREDICTION.
>
> >Zionist activists such as you from the slimy fringes of American Jewry
> >with opportunities to scream ANTISEMITIC!? Of course American Jews
> >vote liberal. That's a given. It's been true for a century. How Jews
> >vote was not what I was about in my choice of the header. It was the
> >dishonesty, the calculated theater of the SCREAMING which comes not
> >from liberal Jews but from your troglodytic faction of neo-fascistic
> >American Zionists.
>
> Clip Insult.
> >with opportunities to scream ANTISEMITIC!? Of course American Jews
> >vote liberal. That's a given. It's been true for a century. How Jews
> >vote was not what I was about in my choice of the header. It was the
> >dishonesty, the calculated theater of the SCREAMING which comes not
> >from liberal Jews but from your troglodytic faction of neo-fascistic
> >American Zionists.
>
> Futile in the hope of converting American Jews to the Republican party.
anyway? they are 1.8% of the population and only part of them vote at
any given time. What I care about is brutal political activity
*irrespective of party* which is sabotaging the way our democratic
system is supposed to work. It's got nothing to do with party
membership.
Clip insult.
AIPAC is non-partizan. It will bribe or punish any politician on
behalf of Israel, a foreign country, and do it contrary to law
American law in its capacity as an illegally unregistered lobbyist for
that foreign country.
> >> If you don't believe anyone could possibly be so despicably dishonest,
>
to lie about their shenanigans. It's in the bright light of day,
constantly. All it needs is exposure and defiance.
> No, about attempting to deceive the reader as to the meaning of the
> article. About attempting to make it appear that a Jewish author
> supports your fallacious and antismitic point of view.
nuts, Ratner. And enough Jewish wealth is already Republican to
paralyse our legislature and, apparently, our executive. You Zionists
are non-partizan oppressors, political brutes.
Greenwald is an American, not a Zionist, neofascist, activist pig such
as you. I've been reading him for years. I have yet to find an article
of his with which I disagreed much and that includes the one you're
barking about, the neocon dreams of converting liberal Jews to
Republicanism. He doesn't think it's going to happen and neither do I.
What you can't see is that this scam has its origins in the Jewish
right. Re-read it.
Your opinion of
> your subject's accuracy with regard to American Jewry is completely
> irrelevant. It is the subject's IRRELEVANCY to the article it
> pretended to summarize that is the evidence of your incredible
> dishonesty.
legitimate Jewish electoral politics. What's virtually criminal and
may well be in fact is a tiny group of obscenely wealthy ethnics
gathering together to terrorize our political class on behalf of a
foreign country with a despicable history. We can protect the Israelis
without giving over our institutions for them to run on their own
behalf.
>
> >> read the linked-to thread for yourself (from which, by the way, the
> >> manly HHW fled, of course).
Nonsense.
> >> read the linked-to thread for yourself (from which, by the way, the
> >> manly HHW fled, of course).
> >Sure, go read the thread. Read my posts. Ratner's are merely ad
>
> LOL! Nice try, weakling. The thread speaks for itself.
It surely does, but I don't recall you making much of this conversion
> LOL! Nice try, weakling. The thread speaks for itself.
to Republicanism issue three years ago.
The simple and
> obvious proof of your incredibly brazen dishonesty has nothing to do
> with your favorite coward's refuge, "ad hominem".
your inutterably filthy behavior? Why? Because you, poor fellow, are
Jewish, bald, fat? Or disabled somehow by your homosexuality? Or an
academic failure living off your family, unable to make a living. Tell
us why you should not be held to minimal standards of personal
behavior. Where are we going to find it, in the Talmud?
> > If there is a soul here who disputes that
> >> HHW, as evidenced by the above, is the single most despicable,
> >> disgusting character who has posted here, please, enlighten me as to
> >> why.
>
> >See above, I'm right, you're wrong. Ha Ha.
>
> >Don't miss my long post there.
>
> >> H, just so that we understand one another, any time you try the dual
> >> loyalty crap in this or any other group I read, you're going to get
> >> this thrown out for all the world to see. Got it?
>
> >DUAL LOYALTY!
>
> No prob H. You'll obviously be seeing a lot more of this most
> wonderful thread from the past.
The Jewish, Zionist, activist right in the United States, the core of
the Israel Lobby, displays a profound conflict of interest on
questions related to Israel. It's described as dual loyalty by some
and I've used that term. Those afflicted with such conflicts shouldn't
be in government affecting policy regarding the very object of their
affections. That is obvious. The result should be clear if they take
dual citizenship and/or serve in the IDF. Off to the Agricultural
Department with them. Doublas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Miller, Perle and
dozens of others should have been excluded from positions relating in
any way to Israel. Anyone who worked on the "Securing the Realm"
memorandum given to Netanyahu should have been dismissed immediately.
They should have been denied a presumption that they'd be okay and
would resist the temptation to betray their own country further. We
don't have a good history regarding American Zionists in office with
long periods of Likudish chuminess. And when you look at the COST of
our prostrate relationship with Israel as in the post FROM DAVID
DUKE'S BLOG I put up here yesterday the rule of exclusion should be
firmly enforced. We don't owe you these gigantic sacrifices, Ratner.
And you certainly don't otherwise deserve them.
>
>
>
> >Don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, that I am using a more precise
> >term now days. It's 'conflict of interest'
> >rather than dual loyalty.
>
Clip insult.
>
>
> >Don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, that I am using a more precise
> >term now days. It's 'conflict of interest'
> >rather than dual loyalty.
>
>
> For these purposes feel free to see them as
> >synonems. This applies especially to anything from Ratner as he gradually awakens to
> For these purposes feel free to see them as
> >the fact that he is making these threats and uttering these whines
> >about a principle of ethics which applies to all the professions, the
> >business world in all its aspects, and most particularly to government
> >service where the sworn oath demands support of the Constitution and
> >laws of the United States. Conflict gets judges recused and lawyers
> >disbarred. It even governs behavior in the medical profession and,
> >believe it or not in Congress.
>
> Yawn. Yet again with the dual loyalty, conflict of interest,
> blahblahblah.
You're simply corrupt, Ratner.
> >about a principle of ethics which applies to all the professions, the
> >business world in all its aspects, and most particularly to government
> >service where the sworn oath demands support of the Constitution and
> >laws of the United States. Conflict gets judges recused and lawyers
> >disbarred. It even governs behavior in the medical profession and,
> >believe it or not in Congress.
>
> Yawn. Yet again with the dual loyalty, conflict of interest,
> blahblahblah.
Simple fact is Republicans are way more pro-Israel than
> Democrats, but American Jewry ALWAYS votes heavily Democratic. Thus
> all your dual, conflict bullshit falls apart.
activists do which hurts the United States has nothing to do with
party affiliations. You are equal opportunity oppressors of America's
political class and anyone else who stands against you out of concern
for the country's decline, a great part of which is attributable to
the humiliating nature of our relationship with Israel.
By the way, I checked out Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine"
today as promised. Where shall we begin? Massacres, perhaps? Rapes in
front of entire villages? Demolitions? machine gunning terrified
refugees fleeing across the open countryside? How 'bout it, Ratner?
Perhaps it would do you good to face it.
dsharavi
May 19, 2013, 1:23:53 AM5/19/13
to
> > >On May 17, 8:08 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> > >> Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
> > >> therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive.
> > On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:01:03 -0700 (PDT), HHW
> > <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >It is true that if you can do it, I deserve it. We'll see now, won't
> > >we?
> > >> Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
> > >> therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive.
> > On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:01:03 -0700 (PDT), HHW
> > <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >It is true that if you can do it, I deserve it. We'll see now, won't
> > >we?
On May 18, 8:43 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the meantime you will be hearing a good deal about conflict of
> interest among American Zionists.
From more of Hunter's fellow neofascists / white supremacists, no
> In the meantime you will be hearing a good deal about conflict of
> interest among American Zionists.
doubt.
> It used to be tabooed and many attempt to prevent
> discussion of it even today.
discussions of all the alleged "taboo" stuff.
> > >> The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
> > >> himself back then, put this as his subject:
> > >> "American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
> > >> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
> > >> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
> > >> anti-Semitic."
>
> > >That's Glen Greenwald speaking. Were it not taken from his article I
> > >would have written it as follows:
>
> American Zionist Jewish activists determine their political beliefs
> based on what is best for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the
> "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by others,this very same
> faction brands as anti-Semitic.
> Here's what I would have written had I not gone the easy route and
> quoted Greenwald:
> > >> "American Zionist activist Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
> > >> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
> > >> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
> > >> anti-Semitic."
> Me, a life-long Democrat? And who gives a damn about how Jews vote
> anyway?
> AIPAC is non-partizan. It will bribe or punish any politician on
> behalf of Israel, a foreign country, and do it contrary to law
> American law in its capacity as an illegally unregistered lobbyist for
> that foreign country.
> > >> If you don't believe anyone could possibly be so despicably dishonest,
> > >About what, neo-fascistic U.S. Zionists? It's perfectly accurate. One can't even be tempted to
> > > to lie about their shenanigans.
> What's antisemitic about Jews converting to Republicanism?
> Greenwald is an American, not a Zionist, neofascist, activist pig such
> as you. I've been reading him for years. I have yet to find an article
> of his with which I disagreed
and of course agrees with all the racist neofascist white supremacists
he rolls with.
> Now my crime is irrelevancy to something which isn't even important,
lying coward.
> Coward's refuge, eh?
Hunter would know about coward's refuge--and running away.
> The readers are presumed to give you a pass on
> your inutterably filthy behavior?
facts in opposition to Hunter's crap.
> Because you, poor fellow, are
> Jewish, bald, fat? Or disabled somehow by your homosexuality?
supremacists, Hunter also hates gays.
> And when you look at the COST of
> our prostrate relationship with Israel as in the post FROM DAVID
> DUKE'S BLOG I put up here yesterday
Duke's blog, Hunter finally admits it. Hunter comes out of the closet
about Duke, one might say.
>We don't owe you these gigantic sacrifices, Ratner.
some inclusive "we" here.
> > Simple fact is Republicans are way more pro-Israel than
> > Democrats, but American Jewry ALWAYS votes heavily Democratic. Thus
> > all your dual, conflict bullshit falls apart.
>
> Falling apart, eh? I remind you that what conflicted Jewish Zionist
> activists do
DON'T do is guzzle as much tequila as Hunter Watson.
> By the way, I checked out Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine"
> today as promised.
read/owned/studied it?
drahcir
May 19, 2013, 9:05:18 AM5/19/13
to
to amaze me. You misrepresented it, H, because you are lying scum.
>
>Here's what I would have written had I not gone the easy route and
>quoted Greenwald:
As I said in what you "clipped" away, what you would have written is
>Here's what I would have written had I not gone the easy route and
>quoted Greenwald:
IRRELEVANT.
>
>> >> "American Zionist activist Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
>> >> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
>> >> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
>> >> anti-Semitic."
>
>> >> The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
>> >> the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
>> >> which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
>
>> >HHW mounts a one man conspiracy, eh? Acutally, Missy, I used that
>> >sentence from Greenwald as the header because of what IT SAID in and
>> >of itself which is not so easy to parse as you seem to think.
>
>> The words in the subject you wrote was used by the author to convey
>> the fallacious thinkng of Republicans. You tried to give the
>> impression with your subject that the author was stating that subject
>> as fact. Of course, I immediately proved what an incredible lie that
>> act was.
>
>I'll deal with the Republican thesis below.
Oh, I'm sure you will. But the thesis of you being proven lying scum
>> >> "American Zionist activist Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
>> >> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
>> >> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
>> >> anti-Semitic."
>
>> >> The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
>> >> the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
>> >> which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
>
>> >HHW mounts a one man conspiracy, eh? Acutally, Missy, I used that
>> >sentence from Greenwald as the header because of what IT SAID in and
>> >of itself which is not so easy to parse as you seem to think.
>
>> The words in the subject you wrote was used by the author to convey
>> the fallacious thinkng of Republicans. You tried to give the
>> impression with your subject that the author was stating that subject
>> as fact. Of course, I immediately proved what an incredible lie that
>> act was.
>
>I'll deal with the Republican thesis below.
with no escape, that you don't want to deal with. I completely
understnad - it would take balls to do so.
issue. This has nothing to do with your political stance. You asked
about AMERICAN JEWS, of which you are not one. Try to stay focused.
Perhaps another dose of your medication is in order?
And who gives a damn about how Jews vote
>anyway?
American Jewish voting records. You strain what little is left of your
brain to work around that, but that effort is quie amusing in its
futility. Simple fact is that the overwhelmingly Democratic American
Jews cannot have dual loyalty because the Republicans are far more
pro-Israel. Simple fatal flaw in any idiot's thesis about dual loyalty
of American Jewry. Do you understand now why anyone gives a damn about
how Jews vote, or do you need further education?>
they are 1.8% of the population and only part of them vote at
>any given time.
above mean?: What part of them votes at any given time - their hands,
with which they pull the lever?
What I care about is brutal political activity
>*irrespective of party* which is sabotaging the way our democratic
>system is supposed to work. It's got nothing to do with party
>membership.
contention is that American Jews have dual loyalty. I have refuted
that idea simply by showing that they overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
That contradicts any idea of dual loyalty. When you're confronted with
this, you go into your typical rant about "the lobby" - you know, the
thing that PRACTICALLY NO AMERCIAN POLITICIAN COMPLAINS ABOUT, in your
idiotic view because they are all, every single one of them, scared
out of their wits, and that has NEVER been shown to have actually
accomplished anything re any vote in Congress. It's actually too
funny for words.
>
>Clip insult.
>
>AIPAC is non-partizan. It will bribe or punish any politician on
>behalf of Israel, a foreign country, and do it contrary to law
>American law in its capacity as an illegally unregistered lobbyist for
>that foreign country.
>
>> >> If you don't believe anyone could possibly be so despicably dishonest,
>>
>> >About what, neo-fascistic U.S. Zionists? It's perfectly accurate. One can't even be tempted to
>to lie about their shenanigans. It's in the bright light of day,
>constantly. All it needs is exposure and defiance.
>
>> No, about attempting to deceive the reader as to the meaning of the
>> article. About attempting to make it appear that a Jewish author
>> supports your fallacious and antismitic point of view.
Folks, below is H writing anything that pops into his head, just empty
>Clip insult.
>
>AIPAC is non-partizan. It will bribe or punish any politician on
>behalf of Israel, a foreign country, and do it contrary to law
>American law in its capacity as an illegally unregistered lobbyist for
>that foreign country.
>
>> >> If you don't believe anyone could possibly be so despicably dishonest,
>>
>> >About what, neo-fascistic U.S. Zionists? It's perfectly accurate. One can't even be tempted to
>to lie about their shenanigans. It's in the bright light of day,
>constantly. All it needs is exposure and defiance.
>
>> No, about attempting to deceive the reader as to the meaning of the
>> article. About attempting to make it appear that a Jewish author
>> supports your fallacious and antismitic point of view.
blahblah to pretend he is replying to the above, simple fact, which is
that he attempted to deceive in a manner more despicable than in any
post I have ever seen in this group. OK, let's remember what the
simple topic is: HHW's attempt to deceive. Now let's have fun with the
below.
>
>What's antisemitic about Jews converting to Republicanism?
That is quite a quiestion, H! Meaningless and, truthfully, in itself
>What's antisemitic about Jews converting to Republicanism?
an attempt, if not to ourightly deceive, at least to change the
subject. It is a remarkably stupid question and so off topic that I
will not attempt to answer it. Let me remind you, the topic is how you
attempted to deceive by deviously pulling a quote that did not
represent the meaning of the article it was quoted from.
You're
>nuts, Ratner.
LOL! That the best you got?
And enough Jewish wealth is already Republican to
>paralyse our legislature and, apparently, our executive. You Zionists
>are non-partizan oppressors, political brutes.
dishonesty of what you did?
>
>Greenwald is an American, not a Zionist, neofascist, activist pig such
>as you.
Yeah, whatever. Could you please explain how that is relevant to the
>Greenwald is an American, not a Zionist, neofascist, activist pig such
>as you.
disgusting dishonesty of what you did?
I've been reading him for years.
dishonesty of what you did?
I have yet to find an article
>of his with which I disagreed much and that includes the one you're
>barking about, the neocon dreams of converting liberal Jews to
>Republicanism.
dishonesty of what you did?
He doesn't think it's going to happen and neither do I.
>What you can't see is that this scam has its origins in the Jewish
>right. Re-read it.
disgusting dishonesty of what you did?
Whew, glad that's over - I was getting SERIOUSLY bored.
>
>Your opinion of
>> your subject's accuracy with regard to American Jewry is completely
>> irrelevant. It is the subject's IRRELEVANCY to the article it
>> pretended to summarize that is the evidence of your incredible
>> dishonesty.
>
>Now my crime is irrelevancy to something which isn't even important,
Your dishonesty is important, H. EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, because it
>Your opinion of
>> your subject's accuracy with regard to American Jewry is completely
>> irrelevant. It is the subject's IRRELEVANCY to the article it
>> pretended to summarize that is the evidence of your incredible
>> dishonesty.
>
>Now my crime is irrelevancy to something which isn't even important,
informs nearly every post you make here. No reader can trust anything
you say, because what we are discussing proves you are out to deceive,
nothing more. You'll do ANYTHING to try to win favor for your idiotic
points such as "dual loyalty" (you know, the clause you don't use
anymore).
>legitimate Jewish electoral politics. What's virtually criminal and
>may well be in fact is a tiny group of obscenely wealthy ethnics
>gathering together to terrorize our political class on behalf of a
>foreign country with a despicable history. We can protect the Israelis
>without giving over our institutions for them to run on their own
>behalf.
incredibly rotten character that generated the brazenly dishonest act
that we are supposed to be discussing, and that you are hilariously
dancing around, jumping from voting to the lobby to any irrelevant
thing that pops into your withered brain, EXCEPT for what you did.
>>
>> >> read the linked-to thread for yourself (from which, by the way, the
>> >> manly HHW fled, of course).
>
>Nonsense.
H, you can't contradict evidence on newsgroup servers. It's there for
>> >> read the linked-to thread for yourself (from which, by the way, the
>> >> manly HHW fled, of course).
>
>Nonsense.
all time. The evidence proves you fled, irrespective of your flaccid
"Nonsense".
>> >Sure, go read the thread. Read my posts. Ratner's are merely ad
>> >hominem attacks. Mine, however are noble essays on truth, beauty and justice.
>>
>> LOL! Nice try, weakling. The thread speaks for itself.
>
>It surely does, but I don't recall you making much of this conversion
>to Republicanism issue three years ago.
foggiest clue what this wacko is babbling about?
>
> The simple and
>> obvious proof of your incredibly brazen dishonesty has nothing to do
>> with your favorite coward's refuge, "ad hominem".
>
>Coward's refuge, eh? The readers are presumed to give you a pass on
>your inutterably filthy behavior?
LOL! It has been demonstrated innumerable times here that when you use
> The simple and
>> obvious proof of your incredibly brazen dishonesty has nothing to do
>> with your favorite coward's refuge, "ad hominem".
>
>Coward's refuge, eh? The readers are presumed to give you a pass on
>your inutterably filthy behavior?
the word "filth", it simply means you have been caught in a lie, in an
inaccuracy, or in making a complete idiot of yourself. But the truth
is that my "filthy behavior" is also irrelevant. We're speaking of
your brazen mandacity, having done something so outlandishly deceptive
that it indicates a character who is simply not to be trusted. That
you don't fird that act "filthy" speaks volumes about your
comprehension of the word.
Why? Because you, poor fellow, are
>Jewish, bald, fat?
Facebook, H, and you yourself stated here that you were disappointed
that I'm not fat. Yet more proof that lying is simply a way of life
for you and probably always was.
Or disabled somehow by your homosexuality?
either being female or being gay. Pity that he is so stone stupid that
he doesn't realize that that says so much about him and nothing
whatever about me. Ascribing female status in attempt to demean
someone you know is male is clearly an indication of misogyny.
Ascribing gay status to someone whose sexual prefernce you haven't a
clue about is clearly an indication of homophobia.
Or an
>academic failure living off your family,
has no recourse but to lash out with his empty, made-up fantasies
about me. The child cannot understand that an attack based on facts is
not the same as an attack based on fantasy. As Deb has always
maintained, you and facts are not the best of friends.
unable to make a living. Tell
>us why you should not be held to minimal standards of personal
>behavior. Where are we going to find it, in the Talmud?
fantasies about my behavior, H. Did you forget?
>
>> > If there is a soul here who disputes that
>> >> HHW, as evidenced by the above, is the single most despicable,
>> >> disgusting character who has posted here, please, enlighten me as to
>> >> why.
>>
>> >See above, I'm right, you're wrong. Ha Ha.
>>
>> >Don't miss my long post there.
>>
>> >> H, just so that we understand one another, any time you try the dual
>> >> loyalty crap in this or any other group I read, you're going to get
>> >> this thrown out for all the world to see. Got it?
>>
>> >DUAL LOYALTY!
>>
>> No prob H. You'll obviously be seeing a lot more of this most
>> wonderful thread from the past.
>
>CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
Does this putz actaully expect me or anyone else to read the below?
>> > If there is a soul here who disputes that
>> >> HHW, as evidenced by the above, is the single most despicable,
>> >> disgusting character who has posted here, please, enlighten me as to
>> >> why.
>>
>> >See above, I'm right, you're wrong. Ha Ha.
>>
>> >Don't miss my long post there.
>>
>> >> H, just so that we understand one another, any time you try the dual
>> >> loyalty crap in this or any other group I read, you're going to get
>> >> this thrown out for all the world to see. Got it?
>>
>> >DUAL LOYALTY!
>>
>> No prob H. You'll obviously be seeing a lot more of this most
>> wonderful thread from the past.
>
>CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
outrageous, lying attempt to deceive. Of course, you, the manly man,
don't have the balls to face it, so you want to, like a child, change
the subject to my "corruption" (meaning what a bastard I am for
reminding the group what a dishonest liar you are). Sorry, won't work.
>
>Simple fact is Republicans are way more pro-Israel than
>> Democrats, but American Jewry ALWAYS votes heavily Democratic. Thus
>> all your dual, conflict bullshit falls apart.
More soapbox, empty rant below.
>Simple fact is Republicans are way more pro-Israel than
>> Democrats, but American Jewry ALWAYS votes heavily Democratic. Thus
>> all your dual, conflict bullshit falls apart.
>Falling apart, eh? I remind you that what conflicted Jewish Zionist
>activists do which hurts the United States has nothing to do with
>party affiliations. You are equal opportunity oppressors of America's
>political class and anyone else who stands against you out of concern
>for the country's decline, a great part of which is attributable to
>the humiliating nature of our relationship with Israel.
manic romp, like the end of Ravel's Bolero. Let's ask H precisely what
the below has to do with his disgusting attempt to deceive. So, what
about it, H?
HHW
May 21, 2013, 12:31:56 AM5/21/13
to
On May 19, 8:05 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 20:43:22 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 20:43:22 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>
figure-out a Greenwald article about politics by themselves.
>
> >> >> "American Zionist activist Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
> >> >> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
> >> >> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
> >> >> anti-Semitic."
>
> >> >> The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
> >> >> the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
> >> >> which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
>
> >> >HHW mounts a one man conspiracy, eh? Acutally, Missy, I used that
> >> >sentence from Greenwald as the header because of what IT SAID in and
> >> >of itself which is not so easy to parse as you seem to think.
>
> >> The words in the subject you wrote was used by the author to convey
> >> the fallacious thinkng of Republicans. You tried to give the
> >> impression with your subject that the author was stating that subject
> >> as fact. Of course, I immediately proved what an incredible lie that
> >> act was.
>
> >I'll deal with the Republican thesis below.
>
> Oh, I'm sure you will. But the thesis of you being proven lying scum
> with no escape, that you don't want to deal with. I completely
> understnad - it would take balls to do so.
e
> >> >> "American Zionist activist Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
> >> >> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
> >> >> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
> >> >> anti-Semitic."
>
> >> >> The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
> >> >> the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
> >> >> which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
>
> >> >HHW mounts a one man conspiracy, eh? Acutally, Missy, I used that
> >> >sentence from Greenwald as the header because of what IT SAID in and
> >> >of itself which is not so easy to parse as you seem to think.
>
> >> The words in the subject you wrote was used by the author to convey
> >> the fallacious thinkng of Republicans. You tried to give the
> >> impression with your subject that the author was stating that subject
> >> as fact. Of course, I immediately proved what an incredible lie that
> >> act was.
>
> >I'll deal with the Republican thesis below.
>
> Oh, I'm sure you will. But the thesis of you being proven lying scum
> with no escape, that you don't want to deal with. I completely
> understnad - it would take balls to do so.
None of your insults is substantive, not one. They're wholly
gratuitous and a credit, I suppose, to what makes you most comfortable
when dealing with a man you have never been able to handle
intellectually. You want to drive me away as you have for the last ten
years using the same technique. You use it because you have no morals
or ethics and have to substitute them for principled defense of your
Zionist interests which you have proved absolutely incapable of doing.
I try hard not to use your approach because resisting it is a part of
my cultural inheritance. The flesh is weak of course and on occasion
I've sunk to your level, but I do try hard to live by my culture's
code, taught us from the time we are children. I ask you, Richard
Ratner of Sommerville MA, do you try to live by any identifiable moral
and ethical code at all?
don't forget what this is about. Get your Zionist ideologues out of
our Congress and Administrations. Get your colonial "settlers" out of
the West Bank.
You asked
> about AMERICAN JEWS,
>
> And who gives a damn about how Jews vote
>
> >anyway?
>
> You do.
Bullshit. I vote the same way they do. What I detest is two things,
> And who gives a damn about how Jews vote
>
> >anyway?
>
> You do.
the behavior of the wealthy Zionist Jewish right who have literally
subdued a critical part of our government on behalf of the Israel
right and the failure of the liberal and moderate Jewish masses who by
an large can not stand up against them. There are far too few Norman
Finkelsteins, Phil Weiss' and Glen Greenwalds who have the guts to
stand up against the clannish social pressures within their own
community. Far too few and the community should be ashamed of it.
Your entire schtick about "dual loyalty" is disproven by
> American Jewish voting records. You strain what little is left of your
> brain to work around that, but that effort is quie amusing in its
> futility. Simple fact is that the overwhelmingly Democratic American
> Jews cannot have dual loyalty because the Republicans are far more
> pro-Israel. Simple fatal flaw in any idiot's thesis about dual loyalty
> of American Jewry. Do you understand now why anyone gives a damn about
> how Jews vote, or do you need further education?>
>
> they are 1.8% of the population and only part of them vote at
>
> >any given time.
>
> First of all, that is irrelevant. Second, what does the second phrase
> above mean?: What part of them votes at any given time - their hands,
> with which they pull the lever?
>
> What I care about is brutal political activity
>
> >*irrespective of party* which is sabotaging the way our democratic
> >system is supposed to work. It's got nothing to do with party
> >membership.
>
> Off you go again into yourirrelevant, empty rant. Let's review.
with such a vile imitation of a human being as you.
Your
> contention is that American Jews have dual loyalty.
formulation.The racists in this context are Zionist activists, both in
the U.S. and in Israel. The victims are Palestinians and the Amerian
people. I'm saying that lots of Jews, with histories of Zionist
activisim and/or with contacts with pollitical people in Israel should
not be permitted to serve in foreign policy or intelligence billets in
government which have anything to do with Israel. There should be a
presumption that they not serve. That's because they are far more
likely than the typical American have a conflict in favor of Israel, a
foreign country which is contrary which is contrary to our national
interests.
I have refuted
> that idea simply by showing that they overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
> That contradicts any idea of dual loyalty.
When you're confronted with
> this, you go into your typical rant about "the lobby" - you know, the
> thing that PRACTICALLY NO AMERCIAN POLITICIAN COMPLAINS ABOUT
which punishment is swift and sure. The ones who would speak out know
that they will have a heavily funded opponent 'primarying" them and
then another of the opposite party running against them in the next
elecdtion. They keep their mouths shut. They too want to send their
kids to Harvard.
in your
Clip insult
view because they are all, every single one of them, scared
> out of their wits, and that has NEVER been shown to have actually
> accomplished anything re any vote in Congress. It's actually too
> funny for words.
>
Lobby and American Foreign Policy" by Mearsheimer and Walt doesn't
exist. Years ago you admitted reading it. And here you are again
preparing yourself to defame them.
>
> >Clip insult.
>
> >AIPAC is non-partizan. It will bribe or punish any politician on
> >behalf of Israel, a foreign country, and do it contrary to law,
> >Clip insult.
>
> >AIPAC is non-partizan. It will bribe or punish any politician on
> >American law, in its capacity as an illegally unregistered lobbyist for
> >that foreign country.
> >> >> If you don't believe anyone could possibly be so despicably dishonest,
> >> >About what, neo-fascistic U.S. Zionists? It's perfectly accurate. One can't even be tempted to
> >to lie about their shenanigans. It's in the bright light of day,
> >constantly. All it needs is exposure and defiance.
>
> >> No, about attempting to deceive the reader as to the meaning of the
> >> article. About attempting to make it appear that a Jewish author
> >> supports your fallacious and antismitic point of view.
> Folks, below is H writing anything that pops into his head, just empty
> blahblah to pretend he is replying to the above, simple fact, which is
> that he attempted to deceive in a manner more despicable than in any
> post I have ever seen in this group. OK, let's remember what the
> simple topic is: HHW's attempt to deceive. Now let's have fun with the
> below.
>
>
>
> >What's antisemitic about Jews converting to Republicanism?
>
> That is quite a quiestion, H!
I'll restate it. What's antisemitic about efforts to convince Jews to
> >> >> If you don't believe anyone could possibly be so despicably dishonest,
> >> >About what, neo-fascistic U.S. Zionists? It's perfectly accurate. One can't even be tempted to
> >to lie about their shenanigans. It's in the bright light of day,
> >constantly. All it needs is exposure and defiance.
>
> >> No, about attempting to deceive the reader as to the meaning of the
> >> article. About attempting to make it appear that a Jewish author
> >> supports your fallacious and antismitic point of view.
> Folks, below is H writing anything that pops into his head, just empty
> blahblah to pretend he is replying to the above, simple fact, which is
> that he attempted to deceive in a manner more despicable than in any
> post I have ever seen in this group. OK, let's remember what the
> simple topic is: HHW's attempt to deceive. Now let's have fun with the
> below.
>
>
>
> >What's antisemitic about Jews converting to Republicanism?
>
> That is quite a quiestion, H!
convert to Republicanism.
Clip insults
I
> will not attempt to answer it.
Let me remind you, the topic is how you
> attempted to deceive by deviously pulling a quote that did not
> represent the meaning of the article it was quoted from.
you almost never even try. You're here only to drive critics of Israel
away by sheer filth-shock. You're the most disgusting human being I've
ever encountered.
>
> You're
>
> >nuts, Ratner.
>
> LOL! That the best you got?
>
> And enough Jewish wealth is already Republican to
>
> >paralyse our legislature and, apparently, our executive. You Zionists
> >are non-partizan oppressors, political brutes.
>
> Um, could you please explain how that is relevant to the disgusting
> dishonesty of what you did?
>
>
>
> >Greenwald is an American, not a Zionist, neofascist, activist pig such
> >as you.
>
> Yeah, whatever. Could you please explain how that is relevant to the
> disgusting dishonesty of what you did?
Yeah, whatever.
>
>
> >Greenwald is an American, not a Zionist, neofascist, activist pig such
> >as you.
>
> Yeah, whatever. Could you please explain how that is relevant to the
> disgusting dishonesty of what you did?
>
> I've been reading him for years.
Clip insults too numerous to be worth sifting though.
> I've been reading him for years.
drahcir
May 21, 2013, 9:18:27 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:31:56 -0700 (PDT), HHW
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 19, 8:05嚙窮m, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 20:43:22 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>>
>> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
My presumption is irrelevant. All that matters is that you attempted
to deceive in a most vile way. How do I know what was going through
your corrupt "mind"? Maybe you were assuming that no one would
actually read the article. Only one thing matters: the quote you
pulled for your subject was exactly the opposite of what the section
of the article that contained it said, and that is deceptive, PERIOD.
Perfectly natural behavior for a natural liar like yourself. No one
cares what you "would have written" - it doesn't change a thing.You
tried to deceive, end of story.
Ridiculous, indeed.
want to focus on my insults. What's hilarious about that is that THAT
IS AN ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE, TOO, by attempting to distract. See what I
mean, H - lying and dishonesty are so natural for you that you are
apparently not aware that you're engaged in them.
More about insults below, and of course, nothing about the subject of
the subthread, which is how HHW placed a completely deceptive subject
on a post of his, hoping that readers would thing that that was the
essence of the article contained in the body of the post.
They're wholly
>gratuitous
Nice try, H, They are NEVER gratuitous, they are ALWAYS motivated by
your behavior. My PROOFS in the Groups record are all that is required
to refute your accusation.
and a credit, I suppose, to what makes you most comfortable
>when dealing with a man you have never been able to handle
>intellectually. You want to drive me away as you have for the last ten
>years using the same technique. You use it because you have no morals
>or ethics and have to substitute them for principled defense of your
>Zionist interests which you have proved absolutely incapable of doing.
>I try hard not to use your approach because resisting it is a part of
>my cultural inheritance. The flesh is weak of course and on occasion
>I've sunk to your level, but I do try hard to live by my culture's
>code, taught us from the time we are children. I ask you, Richard
>Ratner of Sommerville MA, do you try to live by any identifiable moral
>and ethical code at all?
LOL! 13 lines devoted to my insults, and not one word of admisstion to
having done something devious and dishonest. Par for the course. And
what is the insult that HHW is trying to distract readers with? Why
it's the conclusion, since it would take balls to admit his
deviousness and dishonesty, and since he has not done so in any way,
that HHW has no balls. Completely objective as I ALWAYS am, H. If I
call you a moron, it's because you've demonstrated moronic behavior.
If I call you senile, it's because you exhibit senile behavior. If I
call you a liar, it's because you have lied. So it is if I call you
ball-less - you've obviously demonstrated that right here, right now.
>
>> >> >> However, here is the context for the line he pulled from the article:
>>
>> >> >> > > > UPDATE II: 嚙瘡ere's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
>> >> >> > > > I'm talking about: 嚙篁ard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
>> >> >> > > > assumption of such a claim? 嚙�That American Jews determine their
>> >> >> PREDICTION.
>>
>> >> >Futile on what level, Ratner? 嚙瞎aking "Xs" on ballots? Or providing
That you "think" that your being a lifelong Democrat has to do with
that, H, is symptomatic of mental deficiency, in my opinion.
Look, Ratner,
>don't forget what this is about. Get your Zionist ideologues out of
>our Congress and Administrations. Get your colonial "settlers" out of
>the West Bank.
Nice try. That's not what THIS is about, H. THIS is about your vile
dishonesty.
>> And who gives a damn about how Jews vote
>>
>> >anyway?
>>
>> You do.
>
>Bullshit. I vote the same way they do.
Right, that's nice. I guess I can conclude that you're as dual-loyal
as they are.
What I detest is two things,
>the behavior of the wealthy Zionist Jewish right who have literally
>subdued a critical part of our government on behalf of the Israel
>right
No they haven't. Gosh, I'm sure glad I watched Monty Python.
Here we go below. HHW off on his soapbox again - <big yawn> - silly
oaf trying yet again to distract from his horrfiically vile attempt to
deceive, which is what this subthread is SUPPOSED to be about, but
what HHW desperately wants to distract from.
and the failure of the liberal and moderate Jewish masses who by
>an large can not stand up against them. There are far too few Norman
>Finkelsteins, Phil Weiss' and Glen Greenwalds who have the guts to
>stand up against the clannish social pressures within their own
>community. Far too few and the community should be ashamed of it.
>
>Your entire schtick about "dual loyalty" is disproven by
>> American Jewish voting records. You strain what little is left of your
>> brain to work around that, but that effort is quie amusing in its
>> futility. Simple fact is that the overwhelmingly Democratic American
>> Jews cannot have dual loyalty because the Republicans are far more
>> pro-Israel. Simple fatal flaw in any idiot's thesis about dual loyalty
>> of American Jewry. Do you understand now why anyone gives a damn about
>> how Jews vote, or do you need further education?>
>>
>> they are 1.8% of the population and only part of them vote at
>>
>> >any given time.
>>
>> First of all, that is irrelevant. Second, what does the second phrase
>> above mean?: What part of them votes at any given time - their hands,
>> with which they pull the lever?
>>
>> What I care about is brutal political activity
>>
>> >*irrespective of party* which is sabotaging the way our democratic
>> >system is supposed to work. It's got nothing to do with party
>> >membership.
>>
>> Off you go again into yourirrelevant, 嚙箴mpty rant. Let's review.
the subject that you vilely, deceptively placed on the Greenwald
article, shall we?
"American Jews determine their
political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
Those are your words, your subject. They accuse American Jews of dual
loyalty. Here are Greenwald's words, resembling yours quite closely,
but for that all important "that"
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.:
By modifying Greenwald's quote, you hoped that readers would believe
not only that American Jews are dually loyal, but that Greenwald said
they are. Since the subject is torn from the article in such a way as
to completely distort the article's meaning, it is perfectly logical
to assume that the author who performed that distortion was attempting
to distort it to conform with his beliefs. Thus one can logically
infer that you believe American Jewry is dually loyal. If you see any
flaw in my reasoning, please feel free to voice it, BUT STAY ON TOPIC,
or I just might be tempted to revive a few other proofs of your lies.
GOT IT?
The racists in this context are Zionist activists, both in
>the U.S. and in Israel. The victims are Palestinians and the Amerian
>people. I'm saying that lots of Jews, with histories of Zionist
>activisim and/or with contacts with pollitical people in Israel should
>not be permitted to serve in foreign policy or intelligence billets in
>government which have anything to do with Israel. There should be a
>presumption that they not serve. That's because they are far more
>likely than the typical American have a conflict in favor of Israel, a
>foreign country which is contrary which is contrary to our national
>interests.
Nice backpedalling job. Won't work, H. In the words of Carole Kind,
it's too late, baby. The first two words in your subject were
"AMERICAN JEWS", not some American Jews, or bald American Jews, or
AMerican Jews in office, no, it was AMERICAN JEWS.
idiots who infest this group who claim 9-11 was the work of the US
government. Below is not worth replyiong to.
accuse you of ANYTHING without proof. Either you do the same, or
you're lying YET AGAIN.
You pretend that "The Israel
>Lobby and American Foreign Policy" by Mearsheimer and Walt doesn't
>exist. Years ago you admitted reading it.
I won't accuse you of lying here. ALthough your statement is untrue, I
believe you suffered a hallucination and that has become fixed in your
memory as a reality. BUt of course, maybe I am misremembering, so why
don't you cite with a link that supposed admission of mine?
And here you are again
>preparing yourself to defame them.
No need. Plenty of critics already have. They have no "fame" left.
>Clip insults
>
> I
>> will not attempt to answer it.
>
>I'm not surprised even though you made the attegation.
>
> Let me remind you, the topic is how you
>> attempted to deceive by deviously pulling a quote that did not
>> represent the meaning of the article it was quoted from.
>
>Frivolous. What a joke. I never submit to you determining a topic.
Gosh, what a manly man you are! Funny how you're manliness will not
allow you to contend with the topic at hand.
And
>you almost never even try. You're here only to drive critics of Israel
>away by sheer filth-shock. You're the most disgusting human being I've
>ever encountered.
Wow, impressive. If I understand you, you find me disgusting because I
revealed you to be a vile liar, and you're upset with me. Do I have
that correct?
trying desperately to shift the topic of conversation away from his
vilely dishonest attempt to deceive, and hardly an "insult" to be
found:
Um, could you please explain how that is relevant to the disgusting
dishonesty of what you did?
>> 嚙瘤or these purposes feel free to see them as
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 19, 8:05嚙窮m, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 20:43:22 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>>
>> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On May 18, 1:20嚙緘m, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:01:03 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>>
>> >> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:01:03 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>>
>> >> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On May 17, 8:08嚙緘m, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
>> >> >> therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive.
>>
>> >> >It is true that if you can do it, I deserve it. We'll see now, won't
>> >> >we?
>>
>> >In the meantime you will be hearing a good deal about conflict of
>> >interest among American Zionists. It used to be tabooed and many
>> >attempt to prevent discussion of it even today. You're one of them.
>>
>> >> >>https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/76035882662960...
>>
>> >> >> Here is the gist of the above thread:
>>
>> >> >You won't get away with that, Missy. Here is the gist of the thread,
>> >> >its the Glenn Greenwald piece on Jewish dual loyalty/conflict of
>> >> >interest with which it was begun in its entirety:
>>
>> >> >https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/browse_thread/thre...
>>
>> >> >> The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
>> >> >> himself back then, 嚙緘ut this as his subject:
>>
>> >> >> Remember, H, you dared reinstroduce the idea of "dual loyalty". You
>> >> >> therefore deserve the thrashing you're about to receive.
>>
>> >> >It is true that if you can do it, I deserve it. We'll see now, won't
>> >> >we?
>>
>> >In the meantime you will be hearing a good deal about conflict of
>> >interest among American Zionists. It used to be tabooed and many
>> >attempt to prevent discussion of it even today. You're one of them.
>>
>> >> >>https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/76035882662960...
>>
>> >> >> Here is the gist of the above thread:
>>
>> >> >You won't get away with that, Missy. Here is the gist of the thread,
>> >> >its the Glenn Greenwald piece on Jewish dual loyalty/conflict of
>> >> >interest with which it was begun in its entirety:
>>
>> >> >https://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/browse_thread/thre...
>>
>> >> >> The lying scum HHW, or "iconoclast", as the pretentious ass called
to deceive in a most vile way. How do I know what was going through
your corrupt "mind"? Maybe you were assuming that no one would
actually read the article. Only one thing matters: the quote you
pulled for your subject was exactly the opposite of what the section
of the article that contained it said, and that is deceptive, PERIOD.
Perfectly natural behavior for a natural liar like yourself. No one
cares what you "would have written" - it doesn't change a thing.You
tried to deceive, end of story.
Ridiculous, indeed.
>>
>> >> >> "American Zionist activist Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
>> >> >> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
>> >> >> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
>> >> >> anti-Semitic."
>>
>> >> >> The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
>> >> >> the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
>> >> >> which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
>>
>> >> >HHW mounts a one man conspiracy, eh? Acutally, Missy, I used that
>> >> >sentence from Greenwald as the header because of what IT SAID in and
>> >> >of itself which is not so easy to parse as you seem to think.
>>
>> >> The words in the subject you wrote was used by the author to convey
>> >> the fallacious thinkng of Republicans. You tried to give the
>> >> impression with your subject that the author was stating that subject
>> >> as fact. Of course, I immediately proved what an incredible lie that
>> >> act was.
>>
>> >I'll deal with the Republican thesis below.
>>
>> Oh, I'm sure you will. But the thesis of you being proven lying scum
>> with no escape, that you don't want to deal with. I completely
>> understnad - it would take balls to do so.
>e
>None of your insults is substantive, not one.
It's hilarious that when I catch you doing something dishonest, you
>> >> >> "American Zionist activist Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
>> >> >> for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
>> >> >> assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
>> >> >> anti-Semitic."
>>
>> >> >> The body of his post was an article by Glenn Greenwald that he hoped
>> >> >> the reader would accept as saying what his subject said it said,
>> >> >> which, if someone did not read carefully, might have been the case.
>>
>> >> >HHW mounts a one man conspiracy, eh? Acutally, Missy, I used that
>> >> >sentence from Greenwald as the header because of what IT SAID in and
>> >> >of itself which is not so easy to parse as you seem to think.
>>
>> >> The words in the subject you wrote was used by the author to convey
>> >> the fallacious thinkng of Republicans. You tried to give the
>> >> impression with your subject that the author was stating that subject
>> >> as fact. Of course, I immediately proved what an incredible lie that
>> >> act was.
>>
>> >I'll deal with the Republican thesis below.
>>
>> Oh, I'm sure you will. But the thesis of you being proven lying scum
>> with no escape, that you don't want to deal with. I completely
>> understnad - it would take balls to do so.
>e
>None of your insults is substantive, not one.
want to focus on my insults. What's hilarious about that is that THAT
IS AN ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE, TOO, by attempting to distract. See what I
mean, H - lying and dishonesty are so natural for you that you are
apparently not aware that you're engaged in them.
More about insults below, and of course, nothing about the subject of
the subthread, which is how HHW placed a completely deceptive subject
on a post of his, hoping that readers would thing that that was the
essence of the article contained in the body of the post.
They're wholly
>gratuitous
Nice try, H, They are NEVER gratuitous, they are ALWAYS motivated by
your behavior. My PROOFS in the Groups record are all that is required
to refute your accusation.
and a credit, I suppose, to what makes you most comfortable
>when dealing with a man you have never been able to handle
>intellectually. You want to drive me away as you have for the last ten
>years using the same technique. You use it because you have no morals
>or ethics and have to substitute them for principled defense of your
>Zionist interests which you have proved absolutely incapable of doing.
>I try hard not to use your approach because resisting it is a part of
>my cultural inheritance. The flesh is weak of course and on occasion
>I've sunk to your level, but I do try hard to live by my culture's
>code, taught us from the time we are children. I ask you, Richard
>Ratner of Sommerville MA, do you try to live by any identifiable moral
>and ethical code at all?
having done something devious and dishonest. Par for the course. And
what is the insult that HHW is trying to distract readers with? Why
it's the conclusion, since it would take balls to admit his
deviousness and dishonesty, and since he has not done so in any way,
that HHW has no balls. Completely objective as I ALWAYS am, H. If I
call you a moron, it's because you've demonstrated moronic behavior.
If I call you senile, it's because you exhibit senile behavior. If I
call you a liar, it's because you have lied. So it is if I call you
ball-less - you've obviously demonstrated that right here, right now.
>
>> >> >> However, here is the context for the line he pulled from the article:
>>
>> >> >> > > > I'm talking about: 嚙篁ard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
>> >> >> > > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
>> >> >> > > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
>> >> >> > > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. 嚙確he
>> >> >> > > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
>> >> >> > > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
>> >> >> > > > with complete futility, but think about it: 嚙緩hat is the core
>> >> >> > > > assumption of such a claim? 嚙�That American Jews determine their
>> >> >> > > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
>> >> >> > > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
>> >> >> > > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
>>
>> >> >> So the author, far from claiming what HHW pulled as the subject is
>> >> >> true, states that it is the CORE ASSUMPTION 嚙瞌F A COMPLETELY FUTILE
>> >> >> > > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
>> >> >> > > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
>>
>> >> >> So the author, far from claiming what HHW pulled as the subject is
>> >> >> PREDICTION.
>>
>> >> >Futile on what level, Ratner? 嚙瞎aking "Xs" on ballots? Or providing
>> >> >Zionist activists such as you from the slimy fringes of American Jewry
>> >> >with opportunities to scream ANTISEMITIC!? Of course American Jews
>> >> >vote liberal. That's a given. It's been true for a century. How Jews
>> >> >vote was not what I was about in my choice of the header. It was the
>> >> >dishonesty, the calculated theater of the SCREAMING which comes not
>> >> >from liberal Jews but from your troglodytic faction of neo-fascistic
>> >> >American Zionists.
>>
>> >> Clip Insult.
>>
>> >> Futile in the hope of converting American Jews to the Republican party.
>>
>> >Me, a life-long Democrat?
>>
>> You are either getting confused or trying hilariously to confuse the
>> issue. This has nothing to do with your political stance.
>
>It has to do with what you're accusing me of doing.
No, actually it doesn't at all. You tried to deceive in a vile way.
>> >> >with opportunities to scream ANTISEMITIC!? Of course American Jews
>> >> >vote liberal. That's a given. It's been true for a century. How Jews
>> >> >vote was not what I was about in my choice of the header. It was the
>> >> >dishonesty, the calculated theater of the SCREAMING which comes not
>> >> >from liberal Jews but from your troglodytic faction of neo-fascistic
>> >> >American Zionists.
>>
>> >> Clip Insult.
>>
>> >> Futile in the hope of converting American Jews to the Republican party.
>>
>> >Me, a life-long Democrat?
>>
>> You are either getting confused or trying hilariously to confuse the
>> issue. This has nothing to do with your political stance.
>
>It has to do with what you're accusing me of doing.
That you "think" that your being a lifelong Democrat has to do with
that, H, is symptomatic of mental deficiency, in my opinion.
Look, Ratner,
>don't forget what this is about. Get your Zionist ideologues out of
>our Congress and Administrations. Get your colonial "settlers" out of
>the West Bank.
dishonesty.
>
>You asked
>> about AMERICAN JEWS,
>
>You're making it up as you go along.
You are delusional.
>You asked
>> about AMERICAN JEWS,
>
>You're making it up as you go along.
>> And who gives a damn about how Jews vote
>>
>> >anyway?
>>
>> You do.
>
>Bullshit. I vote the same way they do.
as they are.
What I detest is two things,
>the behavior of the wealthy Zionist Jewish right who have literally
>subdued a critical part of our government on behalf of the Israel
>right
Here we go below. HHW off on his soapbox again - <big yawn> - silly
oaf trying yet again to distract from his horrfiically vile attempt to
deceive, which is what this subthread is SUPPOSED to be about, but
what HHW desperately wants to distract from.
and the failure of the liberal and moderate Jewish masses who by
>an large can not stand up against them. There are far too few Norman
>Finkelsteins, Phil Weiss' and Glen Greenwalds who have the guts to
>stand up against the clannish social pressures within their own
>community. Far too few and the community should be ashamed of it.
>
>Your entire schtick about "dual loyalty" is disproven by
>> American Jewish voting records. You strain what little is left of your
>> brain to work around that, but that effort is quie amusing in its
>> futility. Simple fact is that the overwhelmingly Democratic American
>> Jews cannot have dual loyalty because the Republicans are far more
>> pro-Israel. Simple fatal flaw in any idiot's thesis about dual loyalty
>> of American Jewry. Do you understand now why anyone gives a damn about
>> how Jews vote, or do you need further education?>
>>
>> they are 1.8% of the population and only part of them vote at
>>
>> >any given time.
>>
>> First of all, that is irrelevant. Second, what does the second phrase
>> above mean?: What part of them votes at any given time - their hands,
>> with which they pull the lever?
>>
>> What I care about is brutal political activity
>>
>> >*irrespective of party* which is sabotaging the way our democratic
>> >system is supposed to work. It's got nothing to do with party
>> >membership.
>>
>
>Let us review? You've got to be kidding. I'm not about to do anything
>with such a vile imitation of a human being as you.
>
>
>嚙磐our
>Let us review? You've got to be kidding. I'm not about to do anything
>with such a vile imitation of a human being as you.
>
>
>> contention is that American Jews have dual loyalty.
>
>No it isn't, son of a bitch. You're lying. That's a racist
>formulation.
Really, H. "I am lying"? How interesting. Let's review ONE MORE TIME
>
>No it isn't, son of a bitch. You're lying. That's a racist
>formulation.
the subject that you vilely, deceptively placed on the Greenwald
article, shall we?
"American Jews determine their
political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
Those are your words, your subject. They accuse American Jews of dual
loyalty. Here are Greenwald's words, resembling yours quite closely,
but for that all important "that"
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
By modifying Greenwald's quote, you hoped that readers would believe
not only that American Jews are dually loyal, but that Greenwald said
they are. Since the subject is torn from the article in such a way as
to completely distort the article's meaning, it is perfectly logical
to assume that the author who performed that distortion was attempting
to distort it to conform with his beliefs. Thus one can logically
infer that you believe American Jewry is dually loyal. If you see any
flaw in my reasoning, please feel free to voice it, BUT STAY ON TOPIC,
or I just might be tempted to revive a few other proofs of your lies.
GOT IT?
The racists in this context are Zionist activists, both in
>the U.S. and in Israel. The victims are Palestinians and the Amerian
>people. I'm saying that lots of Jews, with histories of Zionist
>activisim and/or with contacts with pollitical people in Israel should
>not be permitted to serve in foreign policy or intelligence billets in
>government which have anything to do with Israel. There should be a
>presumption that they not serve. That's because they are far more
>likely than the typical American have a conflict in favor of Israel, a
>foreign country which is contrary which is contrary to our national
>interests.
it's too late, baby. The first two words in your subject were
"AMERICAN JEWS", not some American Jews, or bald American Jews, or
AMerican Jews in office, no, it was AMERICAN JEWS.
>
> I have refuted
>> that idea simply by showing that they overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
>
>
>> That contradicts any idea of dual loyalty.
>
>Not even close, Ratner.
>
> When you're confronted with
>> this, you go into your typical rant about "the lobby" - you know, the
>> thing that PRACTICALLY NO AMERCIAN POLITICIAN COMPLAINS ABOUT
Conspiracy theory bullshit below. You're exactly the same tripe the
> I have refuted
>> that idea simply by showing that they overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
>
>
>> That contradicts any idea of dual loyalty.
>
>Not even close, Ratner.
>
> When you're confronted with
>> this, you go into your typical rant about "the lobby" - you know, the
>> thing that PRACTICALLY NO AMERCIAN POLITICIAN COMPLAINS ABOUT
idiots who infest this group who claim 9-11 was the work of the US
government. Below is not worth replyiong to.
>
>Of course they don't complain about it! That's opposition to it for
>which punishment is swift and sure. The ones who would speak out know
>that they will have a heavily funded opponent 'primarying" them and
>then another of the opposite party running against them in the next
>elecdtion. They keep their mouths shut. They too want to send their
>kids to Harvard.
>
> in your
>
>Clip insult
>
> view because they are all, every single one of them, scared
>> out of their wits, and that has NEVER been shown to have actually
>> accomplished anything re any vote in Congress. 嚙瘢t's actually too
>Of course they don't complain about it! That's opposition to it for
>which punishment is swift and sure. The ones who would speak out know
>that they will have a heavily funded opponent 'primarying" them and
>then another of the opposite party running against them in the next
>elecdtion. They keep their mouths shut. They too want to send their
>kids to Harvard.
>
> in your
>
>Clip insult
>
> view because they are all, every single one of them, scared
>> out of their wits, and that has NEVER been shown to have actually
>> funny for words.
>>
>You know better and are therefore a liar.
Unless you prove it, your accusation is yet another HHW lie. I NEVER
>>
>You know better and are therefore a liar.
accuse you of ANYTHING without proof. Either you do the same, or
you're lying YET AGAIN.
You pretend that "The Israel
>Lobby and American Foreign Policy" by Mearsheimer and Walt doesn't
>exist. Years ago you admitted reading it.
believe you suffered a hallucination and that has become fixed in your
memory as a reality. BUt of course, maybe I am misremembering, so why
don't you cite with a link that supposed admission of mine?
And here you are again
>preparing yourself to defame them.
>>
>> >Clip insult.
>>
>> >AIPAC is non-partizan. It will bribe or punish any politician on
>> >behalf of Israel, a foreign country, and do it contrary to law,
>> >American law, in its capacity as an illegally unregistered lobbyist for
>> >that foreign country.
>
>> >> >> If you don't believe anyone could possibly be so despicably dishonest,
>
>> >> >About what, neo-fascistic U.S. Zionists? It's perfectly accurate. One can't even be tempted to
>> >to lie about their shenanigans. It's in the bright light of day,
>> >constantly. All it needs is exposure and defiance.
>>
>> >> No, about attempting to deceive the reader as to the meaning of the
>> >> article. About attempting to make it appear that a Jewish author
>> >> supports your fallacious and antismitic point of view.
>
>
>
>> Folks, below is H writing anything that pops into his head, just empty
>> blahblah to pretend he is replying to the above, simple fact, which is
>> that he attempted to deceive in a manner more despicable than in any
>> post I have ever seen in this group. OK, let's remember what the
>> simple topic is: HHW's attempt to deceive. Now let's have fun with the
>> below.
>>
>>
>>
>> >What's antisemitic about Jews converting to Republicanism?
>>
>> That is quite a quiestion, H!
>
>I'll restate it. What's antisemitic about efforts to convince Jews to
>convert to Republicanism.
>
Nothing. I never said there was.
>> >Clip insult.
>>
>> >AIPAC is non-partizan. It will bribe or punish any politician on
>> >behalf of Israel, a foreign country, and do it contrary to law,
>> >American law, in its capacity as an illegally unregistered lobbyist for
>> >that foreign country.
>
>> >> >> If you don't believe anyone could possibly be so despicably dishonest,
>
>> >> >About what, neo-fascistic U.S. Zionists? It's perfectly accurate. One can't even be tempted to
>> >to lie about their shenanigans. It's in the bright light of day,
>> >constantly. All it needs is exposure and defiance.
>>
>> >> No, about attempting to deceive the reader as to the meaning of the
>> >> article. About attempting to make it appear that a Jewish author
>> >> supports your fallacious and antismitic point of view.
>
>
>
>> Folks, below is H writing anything that pops into his head, just empty
>> blahblah to pretend he is replying to the above, simple fact, which is
>> that he attempted to deceive in a manner more despicable than in any
>> post I have ever seen in this group. OK, let's remember what the
>> simple topic is: HHW's attempt to deceive. Now let's have fun with the
>> below.
>>
>>
>>
>> >What's antisemitic about Jews converting to Republicanism?
>>
>> That is quite a quiestion, H!
>
>I'll restate it. What's antisemitic about efforts to convince Jews to
>convert to Republicanism.
>
>Clip insults
>
> I
>> will not attempt to answer it.
>
>I'm not surprised even though you made the attegation.
>
> Let me remind you, the topic is how you
>> attempted to deceive by deviously pulling a quote that did not
>> represent the meaning of the article it was quoted from.
>
>Frivolous. What a joke. I never submit to you determining a topic.
allow you to contend with the topic at hand.
And
>you almost never even try. You're here only to drive critics of Israel
>away by sheer filth-shock. You're the most disgusting human being I've
>ever encountered.
revealed you to be a vile liar, and you're upset with me. Do I have
that correct?
>
>
>
>
>>
>> You're
>>
>> >nuts, Ratner.
>>
>> LOL! That the best you got?
>>
>> And enough Jewish wealth is already Republican to
>>
>> >paralyse our legislature and, apparently, our executive. You Zionists
>> >are non-partizan oppressors, political brutes.
>>
>> Um, could you please explain how that is relevant to the disgusting
>> dishonesty of what you did?
>
>Did you just admit the truth of it?
The meaning of the question should be evident to any non-moron.
>
>
>
>>
>> You're
>>
>> >nuts, Ratner.
>>
>> LOL! That the best you got?
>>
>> And enough Jewish wealth is already Republican to
>>
>> >paralyse our legislature and, apparently, our executive. You Zionists
>> >are non-partizan oppressors, political brutes.
>>
>> Um, could you please explain how that is relevant to the disgusting
>> dishonesty of what you did?
>
>Did you just admit the truth of it?
>>
>>
>>
>> >Greenwald is an American, not a Zionist, neofascist, activist pig such
>> >as you.
>>
>> Yeah, whatever. Could you please explain how that is relevant to the
>> disgusting dishonesty of what you did?
>
>Yeah, whatever.
>>
>> I've been reading him for years.
>
>Clip insults too numerous to be worth sifting though.
I decided to see the "insults" HHW "clipped". What they show is HHW
>>
>>
>> >Greenwald is an American, not a Zionist, neofascist, activist pig such
>> >as you.
>>
>> Yeah, whatever. Could you please explain how that is relevant to the
>> disgusting dishonesty of what you did?
>
>Yeah, whatever.
>>
>> I've been reading him for years.
>
>Clip insults too numerous to be worth sifting though.
trying desperately to shift the topic of conversation away from his
vilely dishonest attempt to deceive, and hardly an "insult" to be
found:
Um, could you please explain how that is relevant to the disgusting
dishonesty of what you did?
I have yet to find an article
>of his with which I disagreed much and that includes the one you're
>barking about, the neocon dreams of converting liberal Jews to
>Republicanism.
>of his with which I disagreed much and that includes the one you're
>barking about, the neocon dreams of converting liberal Jews to
>Republicanism.
Um, could you please explain how that is relevant to the disgusting
dishonesty of what you did?
dishonesty of what you did?
He doesn't think it's going to happen and neither do I.
>What you can't see is that this scam has its origins in the Jewish
>right. Re-read it.
>What you can't see is that this scam has its origins in the Jewish
>right. Re-read it.
Yeah, whatever. Could you please explain how that is relevant to the
disgusting dishonesty of what you did?
disgusting dishonesty of what you did?
0 new messages