[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Not saying that this is a likely scenario or anything, just a what-if.
[/quote]
I think people would fall in and shout “Hail Bush”. Anyone who would “rise up” would be branded a traitor and anti-American. Crap, I was almost expecting it to happen 6 years ago.
One thing that has never floated with regards to Zionism conspiracy theories is that a lot of the proponents tend to use examples from the past 100 years. They make it sound like “The Jews” are a highly structured, hierarchical, society bent on domination and control of the entire world.
Kind of like how Al Qaeda really. It doesn’t really exist in a traditional sense, and it is certainly not a highly structured, hierarchical, payroll having, evil organization that hangs out with bloomfeld and SPECTRE.
It is scaremongering in both cases. “The Jews want to rule the world” “The Arabs want to rule the world”. I fail to see the difference, as far as the American people are concerned. Heck, didn’t we used to rule the world?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Krobz, had you quoted me, you would have realized your mistake. Try supplementing with Selenium, Manganese and Lithium. They’re good for memory. Staying away from psychotropic drugs helps as well.[/quote]
Now you’re accredited to hand out advice as a physician? And suggesting that I take psychotropics?
When all else fails, discredit your adversary with immoral and baseless accusations. Good tactics.
[quote]lixy wrote:
However, if you mess with my integrity and call me a liar, cheater or thief, I may easily snap and turn violent. [/quote] The true pacifist. [quote]My heart rate jacks up everytime someone accuses me of something I didn’t do. I won’t bore you with the psycho-analytical reason of why I exhibit that behavior.
If I understood your previous post correctly, you were accusing me of editing/deleting a “have sway over” bit (which I maintain is not an expression I even knew existed). I did no such thing. According to Varq, both expressions (“[hold] sway over” and “got significant leverage over”) are interchangeable, which would mean that there is absolutely no incentive for me to change anything in the post.
I’ll be expecting excuses.[/quote] Excuses for what?
[quote]And I am no moron. I have expressed many opinions in such a manner that refutes any supposition that I am stupid or that I have an IQ less than 70. Those are the criteria that distinguish a moron from any regular fool.
Technically you’re not. But accusing and sentencing someone without evidence makes you qualify for the colloquial sense of the term.[/quote]
You’re wrong. If it were true (that I made something up just to discredit you) that would classify me as a dissembler. You know, just like that thread you started about the UK no longer teaching the Holocaust in schools. Remember that one? A thread you started knowing full well it was an April fools joke, yet submitting it to the forums as legitimate.
You mean I’m just like that? Giving false witness? lixy, you damn yourself.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Anyway, let’s get back to what I wrote:
A cavemen with rudimentary knowledge of explosives is much less scary than a powerful lobby that’s got significant leverage over the mightiest army the world has ever seen.[/quote]
Yes, lets. The CfI is a powerful lobby in of itself? News to me. However, if you are suggesting that they have influence by proxy through AIPAC… you have proof? Actual secret meeting notes? Or do you know that there’s a significant volume of AIPAC / CfI members in the military, ready to take over - like a sleeper cell.
Or, is this just more of your scaremongering?
Ding-ding!
C’mon, you don’t think to get away with conspiracy theories without being grilled? That any of us would just take your word? Every word you type is met with the greatest of scrutiny.
[quote]kroby wrote:
Excuses for what? [/quote]
For slander.
I thought we went over that already…geez. The story dugg its way thru to the front page of Digg where I stumbled upon it. I had no way of knowing that it was a scam. I made public apologies for not checking it more thoroughly. What more could you expect from me?
Plus, it was dated April 2nd, NOT 1st.
And, it was partially true!
What ulterior motive could I have to post the story knowing it wasn’t true? Do you honestly think I am THAT stupid as to try and pass an April joke as fact by this forum? You know as well as I do that there are lots of smart people around here.
I always assume the good faith of my interlocutor. Otherwise, there’s no way to have a constructive exchange of ideas. I still believe that you made an honest mistake. After all, we’re only humans. You can’t possibly remember everything you read.
Note how much time there is between your first two posts, and note also that what you’re arguing isn’t a change in position, but a mere nuance. Seriously, who the fuck are you to claim that you would remember the EXACT wording of a sentence you read a day earlier?
You’re not talking about remembering the essence (which most of us can easily do) but a change of “[have] sway over” to “have significant leverage over”, both of which being interchangeable.
This is the silliest argument possible, but I demand that we get to the bottom of this. I hate being called a cheater and a liar. Please note that I didn’t call you a liar. I just pointed out that your memory failed you (c’mon! “[have] sway over” vs. “have significant leverage over”? It’d happen to anyone.).
Awww, you’re missing the point completely. Here’s how it went:
I present CfI and say that they are a scary bunch.
Somebody argues that they’re not as scary as Al-Qaeda.
I disagree and point out that Al-Qaeda doesn’t have public meetings in Washington, or has ties to some of the most influential lobbies in the US.
You then try to portray them as not having much influence over Capitol Hill or the White House.
I then point out that their president is highly regarded among the AIPAC crowd and that he made a highly acclaimed speech during AIPAC 2007 (all of which properly referenced by, not some left-wing conspiracy blog, but by the right-wing paper that is the Jerusalem Post). I also pointed out to the fact that a US Senator spoke at their conference.
I never said that they control the army or are part of a shadow government. All I said was that they have means to influence your foreign policy. Shit, a senator gave a speech at their meeting. What more proof do you need?
Or, is this just more of your scaremongering?
[quote]Ding-ding!
C’mon, you don’t think to get away with conspiracy theories without being grilled? That any of us would just take your word? Every word you type is met with the greatest of scrutiny.[/quote]
You’re quite good at building strawmen, but what I suggested is clear as mud. They have a foothold in Washington. Can we start from here?
I don’t know alot about AIPAC,but what I do know is not positive.
[quote]lixy wrote:
…but what I suggested is clear as mud. They have a foothold in Washington. Can we start from here?[/quote]
Everybody with significant cash has a foothold in Washington. I’m worried about the AARP’s influence the most since they are apparently the most influential.
A bunch of rich senile old farts. Who knows what they’ll dream up!
[quote]vroom wrote:
lixy wrote:
…but what I suggested is clear as mud. They have a foothold in Washington. Can we start from here?
Everybody with significant cash has a foothold in Washington. I’m worried about the AARP’s influence the most since they are apparently the most influential.
A bunch of rich senile old farts. Who knows what they’ll dream up![/quote]
Word.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Everybody with significant cash has a foothold in Washington. I’m worried about the AARP’s influence the most since they are apparently the most influential.
A bunch of rich senile old farts. Who knows what they’ll dream up![/quote]
The worst these can do is prohibit “the music of the devil” and toughen up drug policy.
The other guys are actively working to rob Palestinians of even more land.
You pick.
[quote]lixy wrote:
You’re quite good at building strawmen, but what I suggested is clear as mud. They have a foothold in Washington. Can we start from here?[/quote]
I’ll do you one better. Every lobby group subverts the democratic rule of law, and should be abolished. Perhaps this could be the start of responsible governing. No special interests. No influence.
[quote]vroom wrote:
A bunch of rich senile old farts. Who knows what they’ll dream up![/quote]
Wait, are you referring to AARP, to the Senate, or to the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
I think that Kroby is on to something here. Abolishing all lobbying organizations and special interest groups is a good place to start. I would go a step farther and establish the same eight-year term limit on Congressmen and Supreme Court justices as the Constitution imposes on the President, just to balance out the three branches.
And while we’re at it, let’s abolish the Electoral College, and split California into three separate states: Coastal North (capital: San Francisco), Coastal South (capital, Los Angeles), and Inland (capital… uh… Fresno, maybe?). This would give us one new blue state and one new red one, and balance out the disparities in population and land mass with all the other states (yeah, Texas and Alaska still have the land mass thing going, but elections are not decided by acreage).
I have no idea what this has to do with the U.S. Right and Israel, but I thought I’d toss it out anyway. Sorry for the hijack, Lix.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I would like to see the American people rise up in arms against anything, doesn’t matter what. Just to prove that they still can.[/quote]
LOL.
This is why I believe Freedom is dead in the States.
You’re becoming like us… Canadians. Welcome to Socialism.
Just to redeem myself for the previous hijack, here is an interesting little piece that is perhaps pertinent to the original topic. It is a piece written a few years ago by Jonah Goldberg, editor of the National Review.
It is an interesting perspective, coming as it does from a member of the US Right (he’s a self-proclaimed neoconservative), who is also a Jew, but not necessarily a hardcore Zionist.
I’m neither Jewish nor neoconservative, nor do I agree with everything he says, but I like Jonah’s style. What a happy place it would be if all conservatives (and liberals) were as reasonable when talking about the intertwining of religion and global politics.
Evangelical argument over Israel
By Jonah Goldberg
For the National Review
Wednesday, October 9, 2002
As the name Goldberg might indicate to some of you, I am no expert on Christian theology. And, perhaps contrary to what you might infer from the name Goldberg, I’m no authority when it comes to Jewish theology, either. So if I fail to cross some doctrinal T’s or dot some ecclesiastical I’s, please forgive me.
But for the life of me, I cannot figure out why so many Jews are upset that so many Christians love Israel. Let me explain. Many evangelical Christians take the Bible literally when it says that Jews are God’s “chosen people.” Quite a few Jews think this too but, surprisingly, fewer than you might think. Anyway, because evangelicals believe this, some of them support Israel out of a bedrock faith that God gave all of the land of biblical Israel to his chosen people.
They also believe -and here’s the tricky part -that Christ will not return until the Jews have reclaimed Israel and the final battle of the end times begins. According to Christian biblical prophesy, two-thirds of the Jews will die by the final battle at Armageddon and the final third will convert to Christianity by accepting Jesus upon his return. This will begin Christ’s thousand-year rule. “The Jews die or convert,” explained author Gershom Gorenberg on a recent -and pretty lopsided -edition of “60 Minutes.” “As a Jew, I can’t feel very comfortable with the affections of somebody who looks forward to that scenario.” A liberal political journalist, Gorenberg has written a book, “The End of Days,” about the evangelicals who love Israel, but he wants Israel to turn its back on them.
There are plenty of pragmatic objections to the support of evangelicals; they primarily take the form of worrying that the support of Christian conservatives in America will embolden Israeli hawks to avoid compromise with the Palestinians. This is a perfectly legitimate argument, though I don’t agree with all of it. But it is not the one getting the most attention. What’s got so many folks upset is that the evangelicals support Israel for religious reasons. And sure, it’d be nice -from a Jewish perspective -if Revelations envisioned a happier ending for Jews.
But, first of all, if you are Jewish (as I am), why should you care what Christian prophesy holds if you don’t expect it to happen? And, if it does happen, and Jesus returns to Earth to establish his kingdom, who’s to say a few Jews won’t listen to him? And if it turns out the Jews are right and the Messiah will show up for his first visit, isn’t it possible that he’ll have an explanation handy for everyone?
No one can say their biblical interpretation will actually bind God’s hands at the end of the day, because man is not more powerful than God. In short, leave the details of the end of the world up to God because he’s the one calling all the shots. But let’s come back to Earth for a moment. Other peoples’ religions say all sorts of unpleasant things about non-believers in general or Jews in particular; the only relevant question for us humans is how people translate their theology into moral action because morality is the only thing we can objectively judge.
In the past, supposedly authentic Christian readings of the Bible justified all sorts of terrible things be done to the Jews. Call me crazy, but the fact that evangelicals believe the Bible commands them to love and respect the Jews seems like a huge win for the tribe, historically speaking. Only a fool would complain, “Oh, you’re just being kind to people because the Bible tells you to!” “60 Minutes,” because of its ongoing mission to show Christian conservatives as the downfall of human civilization, portrayed evangelical supporters of Israel as caricatures, incapable of multidimensional thought.
But I’ve discussed this with dozens of evangelicals, and I didn’t recognize the people shown on “60 Minutes.” Yes, the evangelicals I’ve heard from believe that Israel has an important place in God’s plan and that Jews are God’s chosen people. But that’s a backdrop for them, a theological context that allows them to see the plight of Jews in a sympathetic light.
Most of the ones I hear from are much quicker to talk about Israel as a democracy or an ally -not as the tripwire for Armageddon. And, let’s point out there’s no shortage of Israelis who believe Israel exists because God intended it to. They only disagree with the evangelicals over what God’s intentions are. And that argument is only going to be settled on God’s timetable.
[quote]unbending wrote:
vroom wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I would like to see the American people rise up in arms against anything, doesn’t matter what. Just to prove that they still can.
LOL.
This is why I believe Freedom is dead in the States.
You’re becoming like us… Canadians. Welcome to Socialism.[/quote]
Freedom is not dead…the meaning of freedom is dead.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The worst these can do is prohibit “the music of the devil” and toughen up drug policy.
The other guys are actively working to rob Palestinians of even more land.
You pick.[/quote]
Wrong.
Who do you think is the driving force behind Social Security, Medicare, and all sorts of other nanny-state policies that are designed to take care of the old and bankrupt the young? All those non-sustainable spending policies that will eventually have the young people footing the bill?
U.S. military spending is small fraction of overall gov’t spending, and is dwarfed by spending designed primarily to benefit old farts.
What’s that quote? Paraphrasing (badly): A society is great when it’s elders plant trees that will never shade their backs. Our elders, via AARP, are basically spending their children’s money.
I’m not in favor of just tossing old people to the curb, but their lobby is the most powerful of all and they tend to push laws that benefit only the elderly at the expense - sometimes a huge expense - to everyone else. To pretend that they are harmless is foolish.
…and I could give a shit about the Palestinians.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
…and I could give a shit about the Palestinians. [/quote]
No comment.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I think that Kroby is on to something here. Abolishing all lobbying organizations and special interest groups is a good place to start. I would go a step farther and establish the same eight-year term limit on Congressmen and Supreme Court justices as the Constitution imposes on the President, just to balance out the three branches.
[/quote]
I like this, but the best solution would be if Americans actually followed what their reps were doing, and vote them out if they screw up. Alas, that seems to be a pipe dream…
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And while we’re at it, let’s abolish the Electoral College, and split California into three separate states: Coastal North (capital: San Francisco), Coastal South (capital, Los Angeles), and Inland (capital… uh… Fresno, maybe?). This would give us one new blue state and one new red one, and balance out the disparities in population and land mass with all the other states (yeah, Texas and Alaska still have the land mass thing going, but elections are not decided by acreage).[/quote]
I’m sorry Varq, but abolishing the Electoral College is a bad idea. 54.17% of Americans live in the ten most populous states. 32.47% of Americans live in CA, TX, NY, and FL alone!
We have the electoral college for the same reason we have one house of Congress that is weighted towards population and a second in which every state is equal. The EC is a compromise. More populous states should have more say than less populated ones, but if you counted straight population numbers, then a very small number of areas would have far too much power in selecting the President. The vast majority of America would be ignored when selecting the President if the EC were not in place.
That is simply not acceptable. Thus, the electoral college was established.
Also, why break up California if you’re breaking up the electoral college? That’s pointless.
Yeah, I put the Break up California plan in there just in case anyone voiced the objection to the Abolish the Electoral College plan that you, in fact, did.
But who knows, maybe if it worked out we could do the same thing with New York and Texas.
And the quote is: “a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”
Cheers.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Actually its been a completely proven fact for years the Israeli/Jewish faction has almost complete sway over our foreign policy and almost unlimited access to the Pentagon.
Yeah, probably. But I still like to believe that a fact cannot be completely proven one way or the other. It’s a rather pedantic skeptical conceit perhaps, but there it is.
If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don’t have any idea what goes on…"
Rise up in arms? That’ll be the day. Jesus Christ, most of the American people would have trouble rising up from their armchairs these days.
And rise up against whom? The Nation of Israel? The Zionist Lobby? The Israeli-funded mainstream media jackals who have been pulling the wool over the glazed little piggy eyes of the American public for all these years? Congress? The White House? The Pentagon?
I would like to see the American people rise up in arms against anything, doesn’t matter what. Just to prove that they still can.
And no, a bunch of hoodlums looting Korean liquor stores and electronics outlets in South Central LA as a form of “political protest” doesn’t count.[/quote]
Unfortunately your 100% correct. At the very least I’d be nice to see people REFUSE to vote for any candidate who doesn’t put AMERICA 1st, 2nd and 3rd – unfortunately the “Israel issue” is actively hidden from about 90% of the voting public.
This is one of the main factors of Ron Paul’s rising popularity. Its amazing how the other Republicans and Dems can’t get together on a single issue concerning America – but when it comes to Israel, suddenly its a love fest…
US lawmakers unite to demonize Iran
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IG25Ak01.html
Probably not, but then again the military is currently not in the greatest position to police the Homeland either. It might be a whole different story if the scenerio you mentioned happened and the US brought in FOREIGN troops though. I would think (hope) that very few people would ever stand for that.
Congressman Ron Paul Reiterates Danger Of Foreign Troops Being Used For Martial Law
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/241105martiallaw.htm
For more background on CUFI…
Evangelicals to launch ‘Christian AIPAC’
THE JERUSALEM POST
A leading US evangelist is forming an umbrella organization under which all pro-Israel Christians in America can speak as one in support of the Jewish state…
“Think of CUFI as a Christian version of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee],” Hagee told The Jerusalem Post. “We need to be able to respond instantly to Washington with our concerns about Israel. We must join forces to speak as one group and move as one body to [respond to] the crisis Israel will be facing in the near future.”
Hagee declined to specify which crisis, noting that Israel faces one “every day the sun comes up.” But at the top of the CUFI agenda is what the pastor calls “the Bible issue,” namely what he considers to be the mistaken policy of trading parts of the biblical Land of Israel for peace, an agenda that AIPAC, for example, neglects.
Christian Zionists lobby for US attack on Iran
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/cufi.html
Christian Group Warns U.S. Against Pressuring Israel on Peace Deal
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291330,00.html
AIPAC Conference: Pastor Hailed, Bibi Dissed, Pollard Rejected, While Politicians Preen
Washington - Perhaps the most enthusiastically received speaker at this year’s annual AIPAC conference was the fiery evangelical leader Pastor John Hagee. During his speech Sunday night to the 6,000 delegates, he drew no fewer than seven standing ovations, including one that came after he bellowed, “It is 1938, Iran is Germany and Amadinejad is the new Hitler…”
The attendees, however, were thrilled with the pastor’s speech. Hagee, whose ministry is based in San Antonio, sent the crowd into a frenzy, as delegates chanted “Israel lives!”
Several AIPAC members told the Forward that they believed the Jewish community must be open to forging unconventional alliances in the face of the threat posed by Iran…
http://www.forward.com/articles/pastor-hailed-bibi-dissed-pollard-rejected-whil/
Actually it seems CUFI’s real mission is to take some of the heat off all the Jewish groups that have been heavily pushing for expanding the Middle East conflict. As Rev Hagee said, “think of CUFI as a Christian version of AIPAC”
Groups Fear Public Backlash Over Iran
While Jewish communal leaders focus most of their current lobbying efforts on pressing the United States to take a tough line against Iran and its nuclear program, some are privately voicing fears that they will be accused of driving America into a war with the regime in Tehran.
http://www.forward.com/articles/groups-fear-public-backlash-over-iran/
Then along comes “Christians United for Israel”…