The Seriously? Theatre of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts V

[DavidB.]

Sen. Franken (D-MN) is officially a YES.

Another self-hater.

Sen. Franken (D-MN) is officially a YES.

Another self-hater.

It's an honor for me to be quoted here.

[DavidB.]

Are you really calling Jews who support the Iran deal race traitors?

Silly question. Jews are not a "race". Only nazis think that. And some commies, maybe...

I hope you realize you fit your own description to a T (also thank you for posting directly in the deluge, etc.)

Uh, nope, this is really not gonna fly. I'm not the one who defends anti-Jewish interests.

Btw, I already expected you to show up here, whahaha. One might wonder why...

Listen, I am a cultural secular WASP and a strong supporter of Israel. Always have been. The reason I think your comment is offensive (the bit in bold), is that many Jews don't believe in good faith that the Iran deal threatens Israel's security, and indeed might enhance it. If they though otherwise, they would oppose the deal. It's a judgment call. That judgment might be wrong (I don't know enough about the Iran deal, and what the options are at this point (the sanctions regime might be effectively dead now no matter what happens for example), to have an opinion myself), but just because the judgment is wrong, does not make such Jews self haters, or indifferent to Israel. I might add that Alan Dershowitz who opposes the deal, suggests that probably the best option at this point, given what he views as the incompetent negotiating, is for Congress to embrace the statement of intent in the preamble of the deal that Iran is never to have nukes, and vote to grant POTUS authority to use force if that is necessary to take out Iran nukes if and when they come into being to carry out the intent of the preamble. In his view, the milk now has largely been spilt, due to Obama's ineptitude.

Your comment was reported, which is why I am weighing in here. I don't think it a violation of the TOS myself (it is your sincerely held opinion), but I hope you will ponder what I am saying, and think about walking your comment back, and just suggest perhaps that it saddens you that so many Jews just have such poor judgment as you see it on this matter. JMO. Take care.

Hi Torie, thanks for your kind reply. First of all, I'd like to emphasize that in fact I haven't called all Jewish supporters of the Iran deal self-haters or traitors. I, like you, know Jews who support this agreement because they think it will hinder Iran in obtaining nucleair weapons, or because they think including Iran in the "international community" will render nuking Israel a bad deal for Iran, since it will derive many benefits from not doing so. To be clear, I find that unbelievable and I think these people are misinformed and misguided, but I respect them, because they genuinely care about Israel and the security of the Jewish people.

What strikes me is that Al Franken didn't seem to have this in mind when deciding on the deal. I don't get the impression that he cares more about Israel than any random Democratic senator, who maybe mentions Israel once to secure his Jewish donors' support. If I ever hold public office (which I highly doubt ), I think my fellow Jews can legitimately hold me to a higher standard than other politicians when it comes to defending the Jewish people's inalienable right to live in the Jewish homeland in security. That's what I do with Franken (and those other guys like Schatz and Wyden) and that's why I'm disappointed in him. I think it is reasonable to judge them for this, since I don't know of many legitimate rabbis who considers ahavat yisrael something that can be taken lightly (Malaspina, please note the legitimate part).

In short, I agree with you: if Jews have Israel's (and America's, mind you) best interest at heart but decide to be in favour of the deal, then I don't think they have to be self-haters or traitors. However, there are many Jews who either don't care or who actively try to undermine Israel's security. These people are the ones my comments were directed at. That might be offensive to some, but to me it is highly offensive that there are fellow Jews who don't care about our land and our people, the land I love with all my heart and the people I love with all my heart.

[DavidB.]

People don't owe loyalty to whatever ethnic group they might belong to. This is an disgustingly reactionary and un-democratic idea that must be destroyed with fire. I can't believe I even have to say this.

Well, in some sense, Judaism obviously is extremely reactionary. We've been around for quite some time, you see. And you're not the first one to think it should be killed with fire, nor will you be the last one.

See, I'll try to stop this "discussion" for now because I truly like most posters here, even though I haven't been around on Atlas for so long, and basically I'm not here for discussing Judaism/Israel anyway, since I'm much more interested in learning about politics in areas I don't know so much about. But if people ask me for my opinions, I won't be silent.

[DavidB.]

People don't owe loyalty to whatever ethnic group they might belong to. This is an disgustingly reactionary and un-democratic idea that must be destroyed with fire. I can't believe I even have to say this.

Well, in some sense, Judaism obviously is extremely reactionary. We've been around for quite some time, you see. And you're not the first one to think it should be killed with fire, nor will you be the last one.

See, I'll try to stop this "discussion" for now because I truly like most posters here, even though I haven't been around on Atlas for so long, and basically I'm not here for discussing Judaism/Israel anyway, since I'm much more interested in learning about politics in areas I don't know so much about. But if people ask me for my opinions, I won't be silent.

And if your opinions are trash, we'll call them trash.

You're entitled to do so, just as I'm entitled to voice my opinions - but not everyone seems to agree on that, given the fact that someone reported it. So to the person who reported me: Please put me on ignore if you don't like what I'm saying, it's the easiest option. I'm not reporting all the commie/pally nonsense either. Let it go.

I get extremely frustrated when discussing Israel with bedstuy, and not even he uses such extreme rhetoric like DavidB., so I can't even imagine us trying to have a conversation! I'd probably be labeled and anti-semetic genocidal maniac.

I must ask why you think Al Franken is purposefully trying to undermine Israel? Why do you think he sincerely doesn't have Israel's interests in heart? Should a United States Senator be thinking about Israel first when deciding policy?

This is probably not the best thread for discussing this, so I'll answer briefly. I don't know if Franken tries to undermine Israel's security or if he simply doesn't care about Israel, but -- as far as I know -- he didn't show any special commitment to its security (not talking about the average Democratic mumbo jumbo right now), which is problematic to me. A U.S. Senator should firstly be thinking about the U.S. when making policy, that is obvious. (This is not only a bad deal for Israel, but also for the U.S.) However, I think that it's not strange for a Jew to expect Franken to show somewhat more commitment to Israel's security than he actually did. I'm not talking about him voting for the deal in itself, I'm talking about whether he considered Israel's security relevant at all when making the decision to vote for this deal.

[DavidB.]

I'm Jewish, and I believe that this deal is better for the safety of Israel in the long run than no deal at all. To disagree with that opinion is fine, but to deem it self-hating is just stupid.

If you read my reply to Torie well, then you will find that I actually haven't deemed that self-hating.

[DavidB.]

I'm Jewish, and I believe that this deal is better for the safety of Israel in the long run than no deal at all. To disagree with that opinion is fine, but to deem it self-hating is just stupid.

If you read my reply to Torie well, then you will find that I actually haven't deemed that self-hating.

Do you actually believe that Al Franken doesn't care about/is seeking to undermine Israel's safety?

Yes, I hope it's the first option.

Edit: Now I read that Franken also skipped Bibi's speech, I see my opinion confirmed. Really, it's no conincidence that Jewish senators were disproportionately absent at Bibi's speech: three (Franken, Schatz, Sanders) out of eight (the others being Leahy, Heinrich, Kaine, Warren, and Whitehouse), while there are only ten Jewish senators. That's because they don't feel comfortable with their Judaism. It makes them feel guilty about being bad Jews. Israel's existence makes them feel guilty. It's easier for these senators to keep their people at a distance.

[DavidB.]

So to be a good Jew you have to listen to the reactionary dictations of an unconstitutionally invited foreign leader?

Not only is much of this absolutely unhinged and insane but much is also factually wrong. My favorite part is when you say there are only 10 Jewish US Senators when Jews make up 2.1% of the U.S. population. What number is enough? How much of our government do you think should be owned by the Israel lobby?

Three out of ONLY ten Jewish senators not being at the speech = 30% of Jewish Senators
Five out of 90 non-Jewish senators not being at the speech = I'm lazy, but a very low percentage of Senators.

That's what I meant. I didn't mean that there should be more Jewish senators. I don't care about that. In fact, I think it would be good if people like Franken and Schatz were outvoted and replaced by non-Jewish senators, who would probably be better on Israel. At least they wouldn't be able to pull the "I'm Jewish so every horrible thing I say about Israel is legitimate and not anti-Semitic at all"-card, like many do, while ordering another ham-cheese sandwich on the annual J Street conference - and some more shrimps.

I do find it strange, however, that you seem to have a problem with the current amount of Jewish senators, and I also find it strange that you seem to think that being Jewish equals "being owned by the Israel lobby". Not only is this untrue (I just made the calculation that Jewish senators were disproportionally absent at Bibi's speech...), but it also reinforces the idea, popular among socialists and racist libertarians, that there is a "conflict of interest" between supporting Israel and supporting the U.S., while in reality, Israel is the most reliable ally of the U.S. in the Middle East: being pro-Israel is also in the interest of the U.S and this shouldn't even be a partisan issue.

Also lolz @ "unconstitutionally invited", you're trying to bring the Tea Party's vocabulary to the left side? When people scream "unconstitutional" you know they have run out of arguments. So that's why I'm going to put you on ignore. Buh-bye

[DavidB.]

A Likud piece of trash is putting me on ignore!? Whatever shall I do?

Lol. I'm well to the right of Likud, I wouldn't have voted for them...

But let's end this pointless "discussion".

[DavidB.]

Eh, you shouldn't. He's baalei tshuvot, so he likely can't help himself...

Talking to me in plural is a bit too much honor, even for me. Ever considered taking Hebrew classes?

I'm Jewish, and I'm extremely offended by DavidB.'s posts.

1 like = 1 tear
1 share = 1 ban

[DavidB.]

2012 was a GOP wave year

Obama only won reelection by four states and the Dems only made 2 Senate pickups

In a regular year (2006, 2008, etc.) you would see that NC is much swingier than MN

Oldie but a goldie. 2006 and 2008 were "regular years". 2012 was a "GOP wave year". Okay...

[DavidB.]

I've always been annoyed by the assumption that the "natural state of things"

Yeah, that's nonsense too, of course.

[DavidB.]

But as I know the politically correct, naive left-leftists Merkel, Faymann and Co. I'm sure they will not learn from these tragedies and just keep on doing what they have done until now: talking and leading a comfortable life of elitists with their 10.000€ monthly salary, far removed from the needs of the average German/Austrian citizen and even further away from the lives of the refugees ...

I like the introduction of the neologism "left-leftist". It is directly translated from German ("Linkslinke"). I think I'm going to use it. But Merkel wouldn't really be someone I'd call like that...

[DavidB.]

Context:

Sweet.  I didn't really like dealing with people when ordering my fast food anyway.  Plus robots will screw up my order a lot less often and put the proper amounts of things on my burger or taco.

This is why neoliberalism is a danger to the people.

Well, I would say that the news article in that thread shows why socialism is a danger to the people.

It is the unions who are responsible for the ongoing nonsense about a higher minimum wage (why $15? Why not $150?), leading to fewer jobs and the introduction of the fastfood robot technology dead0man describes. So while you may not like the (obviously somewhat sarcastic) way he formulated this, the implications of his statement with regard to a higher minimum wage are factually correct.

[DavidB.]

Wow...

So you guys are always whining about "Wahhh our population is decreasing/stagnating" but then the solution comes to your doorstep and you still whine? Austria/Germany need more population growth. The USA does not. Furthermore, it was Austria/Germany who started two World Wars which destabilized everything and gave rise to the USA which in turn made a mess of things in Iraq/Syria. So it's your fault and you should take more refugees.

[DavidB.]

... in the "How would you have voted?" thread:

ATAKA.

Thought this was bad enough to post this here. Parties like Jobbik, Ataka, NPD, and Golden Shower should be off-limits for every sane person.

[DavidB.]

But you support True Finns...

There is quite a difference between one of Europe's "softest" new-right parties on the one hand ("True Finns" is a mistranslation, btw) and a classical example of a far-right, openly antiziganist, racist, and anti-Semitic party on the other hand. I might support some new-right parties, but there's a limit to that, and classical far-right parties are by definition off-limits. FPÖ and Front National go too far for me, let alone true far-right parties that are to the right of these two.

[DavidB.]

MaxQue might have been wrong in specifically saying that the Allies failed to denazify Austria, but Xahar and MaxQue are certainly right in saying that the FPÖ's popularity is directly related to the popularity of the nazis in Austria's past - the FPÖ knows this as well and uses this for its own benefit in campaigns. "Die Soziale Heimatpartei", one of the party's slogans, basically says as much as "lol we're nazis". Pretty distasteful.

I don't think Germany's successful denazification has been caused by the Allies. Germany simply did more introspection than Austria because there was no possible way to ignore its dirty past, whereas for Austria, the "first victim" myth came in handy - this enabled Austria not to do as much introspection as Germany did, leading to the continuation of the popularity of a particular kind of branding of Austrian nativist sentiments rooted in its national socialist past.

Tl;dr: MaxQue's comment doesn't deserve a nomination to this topic.

[DavidB.]

No, they should not. In fact they should not celebrate it even once. Instead they should turn to truth of Christianity and leave the lies of Islam behind.

[DavidB.]

If Rubio didn't have a Hispanic last name, no one would give a sh!t about him.

In a thread absolutely filled with bad posts, this one takes the cake.

[DavidB.]

Conservative America is a terrorist organization that calls for the murder of the President and other elected officials, champions violent overthrow of the federal government and then sends its re-programmed ideologues into schools and churches to smear kids' brains on the walls

Even though I tend to agree with his main point in the thread, this comment is very bad.

(and yeah, bobloblaw's post, to which Adam Griffin replied, was just as bad - but that's bobloblaw after all)

[DavidB.]

I think most posts in this thread leave out the context, otherwise it isn't entirely clear what exactly constitutes the bad post in question. Anyway, I even referred to bobloblaw's post being just as bad.

[DavidB.]

Alot of SNITCHES here that got my posts deleted.

lol

[DavidB.]

Yes, in all forms. One's bodily integrity is of fundamental importance. Violating it can cause severe psychological damage.

I suffered through corporal punishment, and I do have psychological damage. It's called respect for others.

domestic violence makes you respectful hmmkay

[DavidB.]

Are you fycking drunk? That is literally the only "reason" I can think of for being so overtly racist when it comes to Mizrahim, and it doesn't make it any better anyway. This line of reasoning almost makes me throw up.

The only thing that would make you throw up would be to have some loose change fall out of your pocket.

Another one...

[DavidB.]

One person's words seem to encourage violent acts to forward political goals, another's words hurt feelings. Obviously I think that you know which one I think is more deserving of punishment - if we are to go that route with moderation anyway.

There are many others in that thread, such as CrabCake and MalaspinaGold, who arrive at the conclusion that certain historical terrorist acts, perpetrated under extreme circumstances, could be considered moral. Do you want to ban these people too, or do you only have a problem with people who think this certain terrorist act in the past perpetrated by Jews could be considered legitimate?

Besides, I wonder if you would consider it "Atlas acceptable" if non-Jews were called "ape-people"... The problem is clearly not that it "hurts people's feelings", but that it is outright racist. Also, lmao @ that comment being "obviously unserious".