[quote]pat wrote:
Those pics of obama, he looked like a whore in church. [/quote]
So much for “love thy neighbour”.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
Those pics of obama, he looked like a whore in church.
So much for “love thy neighbour”.[/quote]
Whores love all thier neighbors, for a price.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Because values associated with urbanites are more statist, culturally libertine, and relativistic than values associated with rural or suburban citizens, and the Democrat party is the chief political vehicle for those values, as the party of modern liberalism.
Pew poll: 55% US Jews identify “the economy” as the first issue by which they will vote this year; this is the same as the general public. (“Israel’s security” is the first issue among only 8%)
Interesting fact there, but when both major parties are extremely pro Israel, there is less reason for your vote to be influenced by that particular issue. Likewise, if major both parties had very similar economic policies there would be little reason to base your vote on the economy.
I have a feeling Obama would lose a fair bit of his Jewish support if he announced that he was pursuing a non interventionist foreign policy and was cutting off Israel’s “aid” money.
[/quote]
Not if he said he was cutting off aid to Pakistan and the Arabs as well.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JoshM wrote:
The exception, of course, would be if one candidate was perceived as radically anti israel (ron paul could be perceived that way by some). Then, in a case of good for israel vs. awful for israel, it would probably make a difference.
If you don’t mind me asking, why is it that some perceive Ron Paul as “radically anti israel”? Are you one of them? Surely, you must be able to realize that his stance is more neutral than “anti” anything. Also, do you think the US’ unconditional support for Tel-Aviv and military handouts may hurt any peace prospects?[/quote]
Maybe radically anti israel was a bad wording. I was trying to give an example of a candidate whose middle east policy differs radically from the norm. In the event where the two candidates positions differ significantly,(ron paul vs. anyone)then Israel would be an issue.
[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
- Why the high DEM percentages?
-Jews tend to be urbanites, congregating in big cities. Democrats of the modern era tend to do well as the party of the urban world.
Hooray for Captain Obvious and his invaluable insight!
Now why would the Democrats do better in “the urban world” than the GOP?[/quote]
Because people who do not work, looking for a handout, would not survive in the country or rural areas. That is why liberals live in big cities; easier to beg for money on the street corners.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Now my ignorance is REALLY showing.
- Why the high DEM percentages?
Because their money can buy a lot of influence. It was a democrat (Truman) who voted in favour of the state of Israel in 1948.
[/quote]
In 1948, what money was that? How much and to whom? Do you have a specific reference for this contention, or are you repeating mindlessly a racist slur? Perhaps not money, but votes in New York and Chicago were more important in the 1948 election against Dewey.
Perhaps you would like to read the McCullogh biography, among others, in regard to Truman’s decision, a decision he made on principle, and against the advice of some very powerful people, including General Marshall and the whole slimy horde of the State Department of the time.
And Truman himself was not one to hold back on blue-streaked anti-Semitic tirades, too; but he nevertheless bucked Marshall–who threatened to resign over recognition–to do “the right thing.”
Principle. A novel concept. Then, and now, too.
Does no one notice that in 1980, 17% went to “other?” It is not so much that Reagan won that vote, but Carter, recognized by many Americans as a weakling, could lose a vote to John Anderson, of all people.
[quote]
Mufasa
Edit:
James Bakers mouth was the reason why a lot of Jews were turned off of Republicans in 92 so don’t listen to Lixy’s bullshit.[/quote]
But Friend Mufasa, why would anyone choose to listen to DysLixy’s bullshit? If only to test the boundary of reality with lies?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Now my ignorance is REALLY showing.
- Why the high DEM percentages?
Because their money can buy a lot of influence. It was a democrat (Truman) who voted in favour of the state of Israel in 1948.
In 1948, what money was that? How much and to whom? Do you have a specific reference for this contention, or are you repeating mindlessly a racist slur? [/quote]
Where do you see “a racist slur”?
You can make a point without the anti-Semitic boogeyman card.
[quote]Mufasa
Edit:
James Bakers mouth was the reason why a lot of Jews were turned off of Republicans in 92 so don’t listen to Lixy’s bullshit.
But Friend Mufasa, why would anyone choose to listen to DysLixy’s bullshit? If only to test the boundary of reality with lies?
[/quote]
Read again. It wasn’t Mufasa. Was our resident Daily Mail reader.
I can’t help but wonder if Lixy’s obsession with Israel has something to do with the stuff discussed in this thread:
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=2362119
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Now my ignorance is REALLY showing.
- Why the high DEM percentages?
Because their money can buy a lot of influence. It was a democrat (Truman) who voted in favour of the state of Israel in 1948.
In 1948, what money was that? How much and to whom? Do you have a specific reference for this contention, or are you repeating mindlessly a racist slur? Perhaps not money, but votes in New York and Chicago were more important in the 1948 election against Dewey.
Perhaps you would like to read the McCullogh biography, among others, in regard to Truman’s decision, a decision he made on principle, and against the advice of some very powerful people, including General Marshall and the whole slimy horde of the State Department of the time.
And Truman himself was not one to hold back on blue-streaked anti-Semitic tirades, too; but he nevertheless bucked Marshall–who threatened to resign over recognition–to do “the right thing.” [/quote]
Fuck you that is not what I meant and you know it. It was two simple sentences so I didn’t bother to break it up into two seperate paragraphs. I should have known some retarded asshole would try to make it into something else. I’ll remember this bitch.
No you retard that was my edit.
[quote]lixy wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Now my ignorance is REALLY showing.
- Why the high DEM percentages?
Because their money can buy a lot of influence. It was a democrat (Truman) who voted in favour of the state of Israel in 1948.
In 1948, what money was that? How much and to whom? Do you have a specific reference for this contention, or are you repeating mindlessly a racist slur?
Where do you see “a racist slur”?
You can make a point without the anti-Semitic boogeyman card.
Mufasa
Edit:
James Bakers mouth was the reason why a lot of Jews were turned off of Republicans in 92 so don’t listen to Lixy’s bullshit.
But Friend Mufasa, why would anyone choose to listen to DysLixy’s bullshit? If only to test the boundary of reality with lies?
Read again. It wasn’t Mufasa. Was our resident Daily Mail reader.[/quote]
You see Dr.Sceptix-putz even the Meshugena Grand Mufti of Stockholm (P.B.O.H.) got it right.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Because values associated with urbanites are more statist, culturally libertine, and relativistic than values associated with rural or suburban citizens, and the Democrat party is the chief political vehicle for those values, as the party of modern liberalism.
Pew poll: 55% US Jews identify “the economy” as the first issue by which they will vote this year; this is the same as the general public. (“Israel’s security” is the first issue among only 8%)
Interesting fact there, but when both major parties are extremely pro Israel, there is less reason for your vote to be influenced by that particular issue. Likewise, if major both parties had very similar economic policies there would be little reason to base your vote on the economy.
I have a feeling Obama would lose a fair bit of his Jewish support if he announced that he was pursuing a non interventionist foreign policy and was cutting off Israel’s “aid” money.
Not if he said he was cutting off aid to Pakistan and the Arabs as well. [/quote]
Really? That sounds like Ron Paul’s foreign policy.
How does US aid to Palestine compare to US aid to Israel?
Why would Jews care about aid to Pakistan more than anyone else?
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Really? That sounds like Ron Paul’s foreign policy.
How does US aid to Palestine compare to US aid to Israel? [/quote]
One is wheat and corn. The other comprises F-16s and similar gadgets.
Because with that money, the theocracy and terrorist-harboring country that is Pakistan might develop a nuclear bomb. And, you know, commit suicide…
What’s that? They already got nukes? Oh well…
Why are you against Pakistan having nukes and not Iran? Is it because Pakistan is an ally of the US and Iran is not?
If Iran and the US began talking to one another, reached an agreement to begin trade and resume diplomatic relationships, would you suddenly condemn Iran as being a terrorist exporting near-nuclear armed state?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Now my ignorance is REALLY showing.
- Why the high DEM percentages?
Because their money can buy a lot of influence. It was a democrat (Truman) who voted in favour of the state of Israel in 1948.
In 1948, what money was that? How much and to whom? Do you have a specific reference for this contention, or are you repeating mindlessly a racist slur?
Where do you see “a racist slur”?
You can make a point without the anti-Semitic boogeyman card.
Mufasa
Edit:
James Bakers mouth was the reason why a lot of Jews were turned off of Republicans in 92 so don’t listen to Lixy’s bullshit.
But Friend Mufasa, why would anyone choose to listen to DysLixy’s bullshit? If only to test the boundary of reality with lies?
Read again. It wasn’t Mufasa. Was our resident Daily Mail reader.
You see Dr.Sceptix-putz even the Meshugena Grand Mufti of Stockholm (P.B.O.H.) got it right.[/quote]
My mistake. Sorry. I have done you a disservice, twice over; I did not mean to accuse you of evil-tongue, but of repeating a canard, which is this case is entirely without substance.
My apologies, since I find much of what you say of value.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Why are you against Pakistan having nukes and not Iran? Is it because Pakistan is an ally of the US and Iran is not?
If Iran and the US began talking to one another, reached an agreement to begin trade and resume diplomatic relationships, would you suddenly condemn Iran as being a terrorist exporting near-nuclear armed state?[/quote]
I believe that at this point,the probability of any terror group securing a nuke is far higher from Pakistan than from Iran.Yet there is very little attention given to current state of affairs in that country.
While Musharraf is a US ally,he is not likely to be in the drivers’ seat for much longer.The country is collapsing in ruins around him.There are upwards of a million armed men in the tribal territories,who are heavily supportive of AQ and their associates.All this has been exacerbated by how Pakistan,under U.S. guidance, has carried out operations in the area.
So if Pakistan falls to fundamentalists,or even just becomes unstable enough for nukes to be ‘redistributed’,that is where the rogue nuke will come from.
So why does that situation get almost zero airtime?
I do not know Neuro.
What can we do about it?
If we invade, whatever support Musharraf has will soon evaporate.
If he appeases the militants they will crush him.
If he backs the US war on terror and takes a strong stance against them, people like Lixy will condemn his government as a tyranny and the terrorists will justify a jihad against him. (as they have done last week).
If we suspend aid to Pakistan, Musharraf will likewise be crushed.
So he is in a lose/lose situation.
How do we combat this threat from Pakistan?
(I say, let Karzai’s afghans handle it. They speak the language, the can infiltrate the Pakistani bases more easily. They should work to defeat al-qaeda both on the battlefield and from within.)
P.S. I’d like to see an al-qaeda base obliterated by afghani suicide truck bombers who sneek in dressed as Taliban warriors. That’d be a sight.)