Democrats Boo Moving US Embassy to Jerusalem

[lowtech redneck]

This is why comments like NY Jew's are so harmful.

Because by claiming everyday Democrats are anti-semitic, it makes it a lot harder to make the point when people actually are being anti-semitic. And there are plenty of anti-semites on the far-left.

That certainly seems to be what happened with this thread.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Let me quickly explain something:  just because an analogy involves Nazis doesn't mean you're equating the other part of the analogy with Nazis.  However, when one part of the analogy is static (Jews), and the other part of the analogy involves the "Democratic Party" juxtaposed with the "Nazi Party," your analogy formally says that voting Democratic is alike voting for the Nazis.  I know you meant to say they're both examples of voting against your own interest.  However, that makes an analogy completely pointless, since the other element is static.  It's not an reductio ad absurdum, and it sounds less like you're saying "voting against your own interests is bad!" (you need an analogy to say that?) and more like you're somehow equating the Democratic Party to the Nazi Party.

I mean that it's like voting for a party that hates you with a passion.  

this is not just voting against your interests.


watching the Left wing (full of anti semites) of the Democratic party over the past few years is like watching in slow motion the Nazi's taking over Germany.

the scary part is the young left wingers drones are even more left wing and anti semetic than the many of the "elites" (the OWS are similar to the Hitler Youth on so many levels)

You know, for such a devout Jew who's so quick to see opposition arrayed against him everywhere, you're awfully bad at spelling 'Semitic'.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You know NY Jew is probably the most anti-Semitic poster we have, considering that he hates far more Jews than anyone else I've seen, first there's all his bashing of Jews that aren't Orthodox, and now calling Jews that vote for Democrats as equivalent to Nazi collaborators, which is 3/4 of the Jewish population in America.

[NY Jew]

You know NY Jew is probably the most anti-Semitic poster we have, considering that he hates far more Jews than anyone else I've seen, first there's all his bashing of Jews that aren't Orthodox, and now calling Jews that vote for Democrats as equivalent to Nazi collaborators, which is 3/4 of the Jewish population in America.

can you read

You must be logged in to read this quote.

let's see how well they do this time. (based on results not biased polls)

out of curiosity do you also try to convert Muslims or just Jews?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And guess what, Obama's still going to get 3/4 of the Jewish vote this November. I'd bet my whole bank account on it.

I'd encourage anyone who has not accepted Christ to do so, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, whatever. This also applies to those stuck in legalistic churches that put emphasis not on Jesus but on their own man-made rules or hierarchy. Lots of Christians too are following the same thing that Jesus came to abolish.

[NY Jew]

I am glad there were at least a few people willing to stand up to the Zionists and the religious extremists who want to marginalize atheists.

And being against Zionism (which is harmful to the long term interests of the Jewish people) is not being anti-semitic.

95% of the countries of the world with a significant Jewish population have turned on the Jews at some point. Zionism exists to allow the Jews to determine their own fate and ensure that mass slaughter of Jewish minorities never happens again.

Not every anti-Zionist is anti-semitic, but to be strongly anti-Zionist means that anti-semitism must not be a big concern.

How does Zionism ensure that mass slaughters of Jewish minorities never happen again? They can only control what happens in Israel, not anywhere else. And considering the way they don't care about what the rest of the world thinks, they make attacks on Jews more likely.

Jews should be living in countries where they are accepted, like the USA. And while the Arabs/Palestinians are definitely crazy, in return the Israelis enact apartheid where Arabs are kept separate and treated as 2nd class citizens, which makes the world turn against them. I just don't see how anyone can look at the situation in Israel and think it makes the Jewish people safer. They should have tried to create a Jewish state in Wyoming, rather than a place that is holy for all the 3 violent religions of the world. Nobody would have even noticed.

And please don't give me the bullsh**t that I don't care about Jewish people. I can understand reality that the Jewish people have basically two options in Israel now. They can appease their neighbors, go back to a smaller size which would work out for the time being but could put them under intense pressure later on. The other option is just killing Arabs without mercy. Neither is going to be good for the Jewish people in the long term. Anyways I would hope they do option 1 and gain political capital with the rest of the world, which would then hopefully ensure Israel's existence into the future.

And just to ramble some more, I don't like the idea of ethno-religious states. It's the same as having a white state or a black state in my mind. It offends my sensibilities. But if the goal was to create safety for the Jewish people...should have done it in Wyoming.

and then you would have said we took the Indians land.


1846 population of Jerusalem
Jews 7,515
Muslims 6,100
Christians 3,558

current population of Jerusalem
Jews 497,000
Muslims 281,000
Christians 14,000

[Alcon]

Let me quickly explain something:  just because an analogy involves Nazis doesn't mean you're equating the other part of the analogy with Nazis.  However, when one part of the analogy is static (Jews), and the other part of the analogy involves the "Democratic Party" juxtaposed with the "Nazi Party," your analogy formally says that voting Democratic is alike voting for the Nazis.  I know you meant to say they're both examples of voting against your own interest.  However, that makes an analogy completely pointless, since the other element is static.  It's not an reductio ad absurdum, and it sounds less like you're saying "voting against your own interests is bad!" (you need an analogy to say that?) and more like you're somehow equating the Democratic Party to the Nazi Party.

I mean that it's like voting for a party that hates you with a passion.  

this is not just voting against your interests.


watching the Left wing (full of anti semites) of the Democratic party over the past few years is like watching in slow motion the Nazi's taking over Germany.

the scary part is the young left wingers drones are even more left wing and anti semetic than the many of the "elites" (the OWS are similar to the Hitler Youth on so many levels)

You still don't really seem to understand what analogies are for, but based on this post, that's the least of your problems...

[NY Jew]

And guess what, Obama's still going to get 3/4 of the Jewish vote this November. I'd bet my whole bank account on it.

if you're that sure you would love this bet
how do you like this?
if Obama gets 75+% of the Jewish vote according to the official polls I'll leave this site and never come back.
if Obama gets less than 75% of the Jewish vote according to the official polls you'll leave this site and never come back.

[NY Jew]

Let me quickly explain something:  just because an analogy involves Nazis doesn't mean you're equating the other part of the analogy with Nazis.  However, when one part of the analogy is static (Jews), and the other part of the analogy involves the "Democratic Party" juxtaposed with the "Nazi Party," your analogy formally says that voting Democratic is alike voting for the Nazis.  I know you meant to say they're both examples of voting against your own interest.  However, that makes an analogy completely pointless, since the other element is static.  It's not an reductio ad absurdum, and it sounds less like you're saying "voting against your own interests is bad!" (you need an analogy to say that?) and more like you're somehow equating the Democratic Party to the Nazi Party.

I mean that it's like voting for a party that hates you with a passion. 

this is not just voting against your interests.


watching the Left wing (full of anti semites) of the Democratic party over the past few years is like watching in slow motion the Nazi's taking over Germany.

the scary part is the young left wingers drones are even more left wing and anti semetic than the many of the "elites" (the OWS are similar to the Hitler Youth on so many levels)

You still don't really seem to understand what analogies are for, but based on this post, that's the least of your problems...

just because You don't seem to understand what;s analogous in my analogy, doesn't mean I don't understand the point of an analogy. 

I'll try to do this like we did on the thread that was closed down and give a summary of my overall point and then can explain the specifics.
Here's the overall point
Their are many similarities between the democratic party and the early Nazi party (this ranges from the late 20's to mid 30's) in relations to Jews in both tactics of pushing agendas and it's feeling towards Jews.  (there are also many differences so don't start attacking me on that point).  Thus voting for the party would be akin to voting for the Nazi party in the late 20's and Helping put in place a party that has a very strong potential of putting in place very harmful (not just against your own interest like you said but much closer to suicidal) policies that endanger the future of Jewish life in America and Israel.  when I said how about the Soviets it's because I feel that the type of danger coming to the Jewish People from the democratic party is much closer to the type of threat the Soviets used than the Nazi's.  Given the choice of 2 different analogies I admit I used the Nazi one for greater effect but the point holds true with either one.

if the policies and hatred of Jews of the democratic party continues at it's current pace unchecked (this is still a possibility) it very likely there will be no state of Israel (what happens to the Jews who live there most likely will resemble the results of the Nazi's though not by America's hand directly) in ten years to twenty years.  At the same time I expect Jewish policies in this country akin to the USSR (how this would turn out would very drastically depending about which democrat party special interest takes power at the given time)

just think how far the democrat party has sunk from only a Jewish point of view (not exclusive to Israel but most noticeable there) from the days of Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey.  Granted the were always anti semites in the democratic party (Roosevelt, Joe Kennedy) but they weren't disproportionately in one party more then another.  as the party got much more left wing (not talking about economics) the party also got much more Anti Semitic.  Unsurprisingly it seems the GOP got much less anti semetic.  Honestly do you think there any chance that the platform that was rejected by majority of the democratic delegates would have failed to get 25% of the vote even a decade ago (in a public forum).  Even if your naive enough to actually believe that this was voted down due to the Palestinians do you really think that 50%+ of the delegates care about them or God in the platform enough to pass 50% of the delegates.  BYW for some odd ball reason Left Wing Democrats care more about Palestinians than they do about Somalia ext. which even if you believe every single anti Semitic left Wing/Muslim/Arab lie about Israels treatment of the Palestinians is still much worse then what happens there. 

look at this study (I think we can agree this has nothing to do with Israel or any social issue so maybe you might actually take me seriously)
http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/malhotra_margalit.php
combine this with the fact (speak to Jews who are noticeably Jewish) that as you get more left on the spectrum (once again this is not strictly economically so Ron Paul supporters are often very liberal) the anti semtisim gets much worse in both percentage of people and intensity.  This hard left Democratic party's anti semetisim was already noticed by some back in McGovern's day and has slowly increased as the party got more left wing.   How come relatively speaking the democratic party which officially tries to end all forms of bigotry almost never specifically speaks about anti semtisim despite the fact that it's on the rise more then any other time since the 30's and Jews are the targets of hate crimes per capita (see FBI reports) more then any other group in the country.  but at the same time constantly speaks specifically on the so called (some are-some aren't) ills of Racism, Islamaphobia, Xenophobia, homophobia, Sexisim.  notice the same OWS that is tolerant of almost every single group on the planet has a tremendous amount of Anti Semtisim. 

[Middle-aged Europe]

<- See my current nickname.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

And guess what, Obama's still going to get 3/4 of the Jewish vote this November. I'd bet my whole bank account on it.

if you're that sure you would love this bet
how do you like this?
if Obama gets 75+% of the Jewish vote according to the official polls I'll leave this site and never come back.
if Obama gets less than 75% of the Jewish vote according to the official polls you'll leave this site and never come back.

Awesome.
Either way, the forum wins.

[Vosem]

And guess what, Obama's still going to get 3/4 of the Jewish vote this November. I'd bet my whole bank account on it.

if you're that sure you would love this bet
how do you like this?
if Obama gets 75+% of the Jewish vote according to the official polls I'll leave this site and never come back.
if Obama gets less than 75% of the Jewish vote according to the official polls you'll leave this site and never come back.

Awesome.
Either way, the forum wins.

BRTD hasn't signed the agreement, so I don't think it would be binding on NY Jew either...

[Vosem]

Gonna be honest, NY Jew probably shouldn't be banned for his views, considering he's not really insulting any posters specifically, but he's referring to an ideology.

He's insulted me, by calling me a Nazi collaborator, and by essentially denying that I'm a legitimate Jew.  He's insulted me more than any other poster on this forum, past or present.

Oooh, I hadn't noticed that. That, my friends, is a bannable offense.

[Sbane]

I am glad there were at least a few people willing to stand up to the Zionists and the religious extremists who want to marginalize atheists.

And being against Zionism (which is harmful to the long term interests of the Jewish people) is not being anti-semitic.

95% of the countries of the world with a significant Jewish population have turned on the Jews at some point. Zionism exists to allow the Jews to determine their own fate and ensure that mass slaughter of Jewish minorities never happens again.

Not every anti-Zionist is anti-semitic, but to be strongly anti-Zionist means that anti-semitism must not be a big concern.

How does Zionism ensure that mass slaughters of Jewish minorities never happen again? They can only control what happens in Israel, not anywhere else. And considering the way they don't care about what the rest of the world thinks, they make attacks on Jews more likely.

Jews should be living in countries where they are accepted, like the USA. And while the Arabs/Palestinians are definitely crazy, in return the Israelis enact apartheid where Arabs are kept separate and treated as 2nd class citizens, which makes the world turn against them. I just don't see how anyone can look at the situation in Israel and think it makes the Jewish people safer. They should have tried to create a Jewish state in Wyoming, rather than a place that is holy for all the 3 violent religions of the world. Nobody would have even noticed.

And please don't give me the bullsh**t that I don't care about Jewish people. I can understand reality that the Jewish people have basically two options in Israel now. They can appease their neighbors, go back to a smaller size which would work out for the time being but could put them under intense pressure later on. The other option is just killing Arabs without mercy. Neither is going to be good for the Jewish people in the long term. Anyways I would hope they do option 1 and gain political capital with the rest of the world, which would then hopefully ensure Israel's existence into the future.

And just to ramble some more, I don't like the idea of ethno-religious states. It's the same as having a white state or a black state in my mind. It offends my sensibilities. But if the goal was to create safety for the Jewish people...should have done it in Wyoming.

and then you would have said we took the Indians land.


1846 population of Jerusalem
Jews 7,515
Muslims 6,100
Christians 3,558

current population of Jerusalem
Jews 497,000
Muslims 281,000
Christians 14,000

Well, we did take the Native American's lands....but for the most part we don't treat them as second class citizens or at least don't mean to. There is an entire health service set up to help them and we don't segregate them into specific areas anymore. They can live wherever they want in America. Palestinians don't get to live where their forefathers did.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, we did take the Native American's lands....but for the most part we don't treat them as second class citizens or at least don't mean to. There is an entire health service set up to help them and we don't segregate them into specific areas anymore. They can live wherever they want in America. Palestinians don't get to live where their forefathers did.

fail

[NY Jew]

Gonna be honest, NY Jew probably shouldn't be banned for his views, considering he's not really insulting any posters specifically, but he's referring to an ideology.

He's insulted me, by calling me a Nazi collaborator, and by essentially denying that I'm a legitimate Jew.  He's insulted me more than any other poster on this forum, past or present.

Oooh, I hadn't noticed that. That, my friends, is a bannable offense.

the quote I Said was this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that is "Nazi collaborator"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

stop this

[NY Jew]

I am glad there were at least a few people willing to stand up to the Zionists and the religious extremists who want to marginalize atheists.

And being against Zionism (which is harmful to the long term interests of the Jewish people) is not being anti-semitic.

95% of the countries of the world with a significant Jewish population have turned on the Jews at some point. Zionism exists to allow the Jews to determine their own fate and ensure that mass slaughter of Jewish minorities never happens again.

Not every anti-Zionist is anti-semitic, but to be strongly anti-Zionist means that anti-semitism must not be a big concern.

How does Zionism ensure that mass slaughters of Jewish minorities never happen again? They can only control what happens in Israel, not anywhere else. And considering the way they don't care about what the rest of the world thinks, they make attacks on Jews more likely.

Jews should be living in countries where they are accepted, like the USA. And while the Arabs/Palestinians are definitely crazy, in return the Israelis enact apartheid where Arabs are kept separate and treated as 2nd class citizens, which makes the world turn against them. I just don't see how anyone can look at the situation in Israel and think it makes the Jewish people safer. They should have tried to create a Jewish state in Wyoming, rather than a place that is holy for all the 3 violent religions of the world. Nobody would have even noticed.

And please don't give me the bullsh**t that I don't care about Jewish people. I can understand reality that the Jewish people have basically two options in Israel now. They can appease their neighbors, go back to a smaller size which would work out for the time being but could put them under intense pressure later on. The other option is just killing Arabs without mercy. Neither is going to be good for the Jewish people in the long term. Anyways I would hope they do option 1 and gain political capital with the rest of the world, which would then hopefully ensure Israel's existence into the future.

And just to ramble some more, I don't like the idea of ethno-religious states. It's the same as having a white state or a black state in my mind. It offends my sensibilities. But if the goal was to create safety for the Jewish people...should have done it in Wyoming.

and then you would have said we took the Indians land.


1846 population of Jerusalem
Jews 7,515
Muslims 6,100
Christians 3,558

current population of Jerusalem
Jews 497,000
Muslims 281,000
Christians 14,000

Well, we did take the Native American's lands....but for the most part we don't treat them as second class citizens or at least don't mean to. There is an entire health service set up to help them and we don't segregate them into specific areas anymore. They can live wherever they want in America. Palestinians don't get to live where their forefathers did.

Since we're talking about Jerusalem
1846 population of Jerusalem
Jews 7,515
Muslims 6,100
Christians 3,558

since we're talking about Jerusalem,despite the fact I know I'm stupid ignorant ext. but I think I once heard a wise super liberal person say this
7,515 > 6,100



PS how many Indian terrorist attacks have there been in the past decade?

If the Indians were lobbing over rockets into Nashville every single day because they want their country back what would you the USA do?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Well, that's a gift.

Yep. Thanks for Florida!

The dem convention will help us more than ours did. Nice. 29 electoral votes. Check.

Ts, ts, ts...
And you lambaste the Democrats for being overly certain.

[John Dibble]

Meanwhile, Obama confirms he wants to kill Jesus. Of course, every fundamentalist Republican already knows this.

[AmericanNation]

and than there's this
http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-curse-archbishop-dolan-for-pro-life-prayer-at-dnc-convention

Democrats curse the American Pope.  Nice job guys.


Raw footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F80w9nUGLPQ
I admire the guy for lending his prestige to the event, so he could go and preach to the people who need it most.     

[danny]

and than there's this
http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-curse-archbishop-dolan-for-pro-life-prayer-at-dnc-convention

Democrats curse the American Pope.  Nice job guys.


Raw footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F80w9nUGLPQ
I admire the guy for lending his prestige to the event, so he could go and preach to the people who need it most.     

America has its own pope now? Who appointed him for that?

[AmericanNation]

and than there's this
http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-curse-archbishop-dolan-for-pro-life-prayer-at-dnc-convention

Democrats curse the American Pope.  Nice job guys.


Raw footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F80w9nUGLPQ
I admire the guy for lending his prestige to the event, so he could go and preach to the people who need it most.     

America has its own pope now? Who appointed him for that?

The US bishops  ..and to some degree THE POPE. 

[Brittain33]

There is one Pope - to say otherwise is heresy.

[Phony Moderate]

and than there's this
http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-curse-archbishop-dolan-for-pro-life-prayer-at-dnc-convention

Yeah, I'm sure there were absolutely no conservatives on Twitter who threw abuse at Obama during his speech....

I'm not saying that this kind of abuse is justified, but did that guy really need to write an article devoted to Twitter trolls?