Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6896)

Bloggingheads 07-16-2011 11:18 PM

Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 

chamblee54 07-17-2011 12:54 AM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
What is the "places" where we want to see a "liberal, tolerant, civil" society emerge? The word "liberal" is an insult in American politics.
If we can't have this sort of government here, why would be demand that other countries have one?
chamblee54

Starwatcher162536 07-17-2011 01:00 AM

Saudi spare oil production capacity
 
Josh's comment here

Josh; It's doubtful that Saudi has anywhere near the spare capacity you think they do. Gahwar, Saudi's crown jewel which has historically produced half of all Saudi oil and the world's most prolific oil field ever is probably declining. While technically true Saudi, and possibly the UAE, could temporary increase the rate of extraction of oil through overproducing their fields through methods such as "Waterflooding" no one is going to since overproducing a field decreases the total cumulative production that field would have. Even if they did it's difficult to see how this could affect price as the raising of production would lead to the "Water Cut" soaring and neither Saudi nor the UAE have any spare water-oil separation facilities so all that would result is a bunch of crude, which would probably have to high a water content to be shipped in any appreciable quantity, sitting around in the middle of a dessert unused.

From your talk I'm guessing oil is periphery to your expertise Josh. I'm not saying you have not come across reports that disagree with my assertions above but what you should know is that when you look behind those numbers you only find unverifiable numbers originating from the Saudi state itself. Saudi stopped giving field-by-field numbers decades ago. The only reason agencies such as the EIA (or is it IEA?) use these Saudi supplied numbers is because of the remarkable "Iron Curtain" the Saudis have put up in order to prevent other contradicting data from coming out.

I'm also not saying that prices will not drop. Estimating future oil prices is a bit of a fool's errand since predicting future demand is tricky tricky. What I am saying is that if prices do drop it will not be because of anything on the supply side resulting from Saudi Arabia.

chamblee54 07-17-2011 01:44 AM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
1- It was said that Arab/Persian countries use Israel bashing as a way to divert attention from their own shortcomings. What about Israel screaming about Iran to divert attention from the plight of the Palestinians?
2- Mr. Block (I think it was him. I was multi tasking, and not watching.) said that Iran today is not Iraq in 2003. The games that were played to get us to invade Iraq make it difficult to believe these same governments. When you cry wolf, soon you are not believed.
3- Iran has been the winner of our war in Babylon. They no longer have to fear Saddam. They can exert influence in Iraq.
4- There will be no .gif files produced of these four moving lips.
chamblee54

Baz 07-17-2011 10:14 AM

Playing with Dangerous Things
 
This was pretty comical.

harkin 07-17-2011 10:28 AM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Sabotaging the Iranian nuclear program is reckless in that screwing the pooch via corrupted soft/hardware can lead to accidents which can lead to damage/death. But you also have to consider that much of the Iranian technological/informational gains have been through breaking the law and the risk of stealing corrupted technology can be viewed as a legitimate deterrent.

In the early 80s, it was already known that the soviet union was relying almost exclusively on western technological/military/industrial advances procured by spies in an attempt to keep up with the free world. Through information provided by french intelligence, the americans learned the particulars. The Farewell Dossier and its exposure of soviet infiltration ('Line X') in western labs, factories and govt agencies (often instigated through 'bridges of peace' programs) is one of the great stories of the cold war. The CIA answer of not immediately shutting the spy ring down but allowing them to steal corrupted technology is one of the reasons that the CCCP crashed when it did. After the soviets had imported a few years' worth of sabotaged technology, the US and other NATO countries did a massive shutdown on the known agents and deported hundreds of spies. After that the soviets not only had nuke plants, gas pipelines, radar/defense and other computer systems etc that were unreliable, they had no new technology to compare it to. While they were panicking Reagan announced the Star Wars program as a coup de gras - priceless (in more ways than one).

You can call all that reckless, you can also call it a smashing success.

chamblee54 07-17-2011 11:48 AM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
"After the soviets had imported a few years' worth of sabotaged technology, the US and other NATO countries did a massive shutdown on the known agents and deported hundreds of spies. After that the soviets not only had nuke plants, gas pipelines, radar/defense and other computer systems etc that were unreliable, they had no new technology to compare it to."
Is this how we got Chernobyl? Do we really want to play games like this with nuclear technology, with it's massive ability to poison the planet.
Regarding stuxnet...It is a cool move for the USA now. The next move is up to Iran, and we might not be as pleased with the results.
chamblee54

bjkeefe 07-17-2011 12:54 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
As instinctively dubious as I am about anyone who would willingly do business with Lanny Davis, I do have to say that it was a pleasant surprise to hear someone who is associated with him, and who was part of the DLC, not run away from the L-word.

I wonder how much of that has to do with what "conservative" has come to mean these days, and by extension, what "centrist" has also come to imply.

apple 07-17-2011 01:22 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chamblee54 (Post 217060)
What about Israel screaming about Iran to divert attention from the plight of the Palestinians?

The PLIGHT of the 'Palestinians' (not a real people)? If they had done to any other country what they do to Israel, they would have suffered severe consequences - forcing 1 million people into bomb shelters with rockets, attacking women and children, voting in governments dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Had Mexicans done this to the US, they would have been nuked by now.

Of course, some people can't stand the fact that Jews may finally be able to live in peace at last - no, they have to be attacked an vilified for defending themselves against murderous terrorists.

apple 07-17-2011 01:24 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 217097)
As instinctively dubious as I am about anyone who would willingly do business with Lanny Davis, I do have to say that it was a pleasant surprise to hear someone who is associated with him, and who was part of the DLC, not run away from the L-word.

I wonder how much of that has to do with what "conservative" has come to mean these days, and by extension, what "centrist" has also come to imply.

Most people who call themselves conservatives are not actually conservatives. They're just dumb. As for liberals, most people who call themselves liberals are not actually liberals. They are just pussies.

AemJeff 07-17-2011 01:41 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 217099)
Most people who call themselves conservatives are not actually conservatives. They're just dumb. As for liberals, most people who call themselves liberals are not actually liberals. They are just pussies.

So which are you? Stupid or scared?

apple 07-17-2011 01:58 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 217100)
So which are you? Stupid or scared?

Neither, I think both groups are foolish for having an ideology that isn't even internally consistent. I am also not a centrist or a libertarian.

Alternative answer: if you can figure it out, there's prize money involved.

Don Zeko 07-17-2011 02:09 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 217101)
Neither, I think both groups are foolish for having an ideology that isn't even internally consistent. I am also not a centrist or a libertarian.

Alternative answer: if you can figure it out, there's prize money involved.

Ooooh, oooh, pick me! It's Likudnik, right? So what is this fabulous prize?

Ocean 07-17-2011 02:12 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 217101)
Neither, I think both groups are foolish for having an ideology that isn't even internally consistent. I am also not a centrist or a libertarian.

Alternative answer: if you can figure it out, there's prize money involved.

Got it! You're from Mozambique! ;)

bjkeefe 07-17-2011 02:15 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 217102)
Ooooh, oooh, pick me! It's Likudnik, right?

Either that or college sophomore.

Don Zeko 07-17-2011 02:19 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 217104)
Either that or college sophomore.

Maybe he just reads too much Christopher Hitchens. After all, I think there's a point at which arrogant asshole becomes not just a character trait, but a special language only available to a select few. So really, this is to be expected. If the only pundits you've actually been exposed to are Hitchens and Krauthammer, these issue positions are going to be about par for the course.

harkin 07-17-2011 02:19 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chamblee54 (Post 217090)
Is this how we got Chernobyl?

Everything known seems to indicate otherwise.

The managers in charge of Chernobyl performed a power restoration test that had repeatedly failed. This was like their fourth attempt and it took place after hours when the day shift prepared for the test (and the evening shift prepared for the post-test procedures) had gone home, without proper supervision and authorization and disregarding their own control rules.

I seriously doubt if CIA sabotage prompted the authorities to roll the dice in this manner, to switch all (govt-controlled) radio and TV stations to playing classical music instead of warning the nearby populace nor to deny that anything even happened until radioactivity readings in Sweden forced their hand.

Stolen technology, govt hegemony instead of freedom of press, almost complete disregard for public safety and a disgraceful cover-up. One would hope you could find something wrong here with the communist system.

apple 07-17-2011 02:19 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 217102)
Ooooh, oooh, pick me! It's Likudnik, right? So what is this fabulous prize?

Sure it is. Now you can go back to bashing Israel and ignoring all the actual atrocities and wrongdoings in the world - much like the UN HRC.

apple 07-17-2011 02:20 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 217103)
Got it! You're from Mozambique! ;)

Nigeria, actually. Now, you want to collect your prize money?

Ocean 07-17-2011 02:20 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 217105)
Maybe he just reads too much Christopher Hitchens. After all, I think there's a point at which arrogant asshole becomes not just a character trait, but a special language only available to a select few. So really, this is to be expected. If the only pundits you've actually been exposed to are Hitchens and Krauthammer, these issue positions are going to be about par for the course.

He could be suicidal by bilateral mob murder, no?

apple 07-17-2011 02:22 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 217105)
Maybe he just reads too much Christopher Hitchens. After all, I think there's a point at which arrogant asshole becomes not just a character trait, but a special language only available to a select few. So really, this is to be expected. If the only pundits you've actually been exposed to are Hitchens and Krauthammer, these issue positions are going to be about par for the course.

What's interesting is that Hitchens is actually very much against the so called "Israeli occupation". Still, I do appreciate him.

Don Zeko 07-17-2011 02:26 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 217109)
He could be suicidal by bilateral mob murder, no?

Clever, clever. We've got to keep an eye on this one.

chamblee54 07-17-2011 02:38 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 217106)
Everything known seems to indicate otherwise...
Stolen technology, govt hegemony instead of freedom of press, almost complete disregard for public safety and a disgraceful cover-up. One would hope you could find something wrong here with the communist system.

So, you are saying that Chernobyl was built using stolen technology? If so, was it that disinformation technology that we allowed them to steal?

The reaction to Chernobyl was interesting. Here was a case where the commies really did screw up. However, the press in this country was beholden to the nuclear industry, and did not want to say anything bad about it.

chamblee54

Hal Morris 07-17-2011 02:40 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chamblee54 (Post 217056)
What is the "places" where we want to see a "liberal, tolerant, civil" society emerge? The word "liberal" is an insult in American politics.
If we can't have this sort of government here, why would be demand that other countries have one?
chamblee54

Some almost wholly random comments:

Are you being completely ironic or what? By the way, what a remarkably artistic and interesting web site you have, chamblee54, no kidding! Still, I have no idea whether you think "liberal" is an insult or not. It certainly is a source of confusion, as are almost all the most popular political words. Von Mises among others wanted to reclaim "liberalism" (ala John Stuart Mill) for his belief system, and Von Mises' axiom driven system would certainly have made Edmund Burke gag.

Did you know the party of Jefferson were often referred to as "Democratic Republicans"?

And in Lincoln's time, some of the Democrats (at least half of whom were slaveocrats) resented the misappropriation of the name "Whig" by their principal political opponents (try as I have, I cannot imagine my heart beating faster when I hear the word "Whig" - see article http://jmisc.net/whigs.htm, or anyone declaring "I belong to the Whig wing of the Whig party!")

Ocean 07-17-2011 02:44 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 217111)
Clever, clever. We've got to keep an eye on this one.

Or away from.

chamblee54 07-17-2011 02:49 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Thank you for your kind words.
Liberal and conservative are meaningless words, designed to confuse ignorant people. IMO, use of these words should be restricted, along with terrorist, MSM, and more. This might be a good subject for a blog post.
I am a whig, nor do I wear one.
chamblee54

Wonderment 07-17-2011 03:31 PM

Josh and Joel
 
I hate to point out the obvious, but we are not getting anything remotely resembling a debate of the underlying issues here, and we are not getting a clear perspective about the "debaters'" backgrounds.

Let's review: Joel and Josh are two American Zionists who have been friends and fraternity buddies since their years together at an elite Jewish-American university. One of them has worked for years for AIPAC, and the other represents J-Street.

Not only do Josh and Joel represent very similar mainstream Zionist positions (when we could have had a Middle East moderate who was far to the left of both of them), they also never discuss the elephants in the room: Israeli error, injustice, intransigence, illegality, foreign policy, ties to the USA, and secret rogue nuclear weapons program; much less the incestuous and dysfunctional relationship between the USA and Israel that works to the great detriment of the rest of the Middle East.

This is a dialogue about preserving US policy toward Israel (how aggressively should we defend Likud), disguised as a dialogue about Iran's nuclear program.

apple 07-17-2011 04:32 PM

Re: Josh and Joel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 217120)
Let's review: Joel and Josh are two American Zionists

Ah, yes, immer die J... uh... Zionists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 217120)
One of them has worked for years for AIPAC, and the other represents J-Street.

Seems like a perfect balance. One organization (AIPAC) that does its best to preserve and improve American-Israeli relations, regardless of the current Israeli government, and one leftist Zionist organization. But apparently, even the people of J-Street are right-wing fascists, according to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 217120)
Not only do Josh and Joel represent very similar mainstream Zionist positions (when we could have had a Middle East moderate who was far to the left of both of them),

Sorry, Helen Thomas couldn't be on - and she isn't mainstream either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 217120)
they also never discuss the elephants in the room: Israeli error, injustice, intransigence, illegality, foreign policy, ties to the USA, and secret rogue nuclear weapons program; much less the incestuous and dysfunctional relationship between the USA and Israel that works to the great detriment of the rest of the Middle East.

Israeli error: offering 99% of the West Bank to Arafat, when it knew perfectly well that neither he, nor the 'Palestinians', were interested in peace.
Israeli injustice: allowing its citizens to live in fear of terror and attack, in order not to offend the 'international community'.
Israeli intransigence: I agree with you on this one. Those damn... Zionists should just give up and go back to Germany and Poland (yes, especially Poland).

Wonderment 07-17-2011 07:22 PM

Re: Josh and Joel
 
Quote:

Ah, yes, immer die J... uh... Zionists.
We Jews find suggestions that we are Nazis to be deeply offensive. Are you an anti-Semite? Would you like to apologize?

Quote:

Seems like a perfect balance. One organization (AIPAC) that does its best to preserve and improve American-Israeli relations, regardless of the current Israeli government, and one leftist Zionist organization. But apparently, even the people of J-Street are right-wing fascists, according to you.
"Fascist" is your second gratuitous allusion to Nazis. Are you suggesting I called someone a fascist? Would you like to apologize?

There is nothing wrong with two career Zionists discussing US policy toward Iran. I'd like to see more diversity of opinion, however, both on Bheads and in the US government.

apple 07-17-2011 07:40 PM

Re: Josh and Joel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 217142)
We Jews find suggestions that we are Nazis to be deeply offensive. Are you an anti-Semite? Would you like to apologize?

It was about anti-Semitism, not Nazism. The only reason you called these people "Zionists" is because they are Jewish. That is a favorite tactic of the left: cover your ass by not attacking Jews for being Jews, but for being "Zionists". If they had been non-Jewish Zionists, no one would call them "Zionists". I don't see anyone calling Hillary Clinton a Zionist.

Does that guarantee that you are an anti-Semite? Apparently not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 217142)
"Fascist" is your second gratuitous allusion to Nazis. Are you suggesting I called someone a fascist? Would you like to apologize?

I didn't suggest it, I was guessing that you would call them fascists - if you think that a "moderate" would be far to the left of someone from J-Street, a left-wing Jewish organization that didn't even support the attack on Gaza. It supports a two state solution, and opposes settlement? What more do you want? A Finkelstein/Chomsky-style Israel-hater?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 217142)
There is nothing wrong with two career Zionists discussing US policy toward Iran. I'd like to see more diversity of opinion, however, both on Bheads and in the US government.

I doubt that you want to see "diversity", I think you want to see more of your opinion.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with being a Zionist.

Hal Morris 07-17-2011 09:46 PM

Re: Josh and Joel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 217146)
It was about anti-Semitism, not Nazism. The only reason you called these people "Zionists" is because they are Jewish. That is a favorite tactic of the left: cover your ass by not attacking Jews for being Jews, but for being "Zionists". If they had been non-Jewish Zionists, no one would call them "Zionists".

Once again, someone is soundling like a 'bot' programmed to spout canned responses upon detection of certain patterns.

Amazingly, this response came after Wonderment used the phrase "we Jews". So maybe when he said Zionist, he was referring to some degree of automatic support of Israel no matter what, rather than merely their Jewishness.

If someone attached Chomsky as a Zionist, I'd say maybe yes, they're just rabidly antisemitic.

It sounded to me like a pretty interesting and useful pairing of viewpoints, and not overly "Zionist", but it's a ridiculous stretch to imply that the writer goes around spewing nastiness towards all Jews (including himself apparently), and covers it up by using Zionist as a code word.

brucds 07-17-2011 11:19 PM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
"I don't see anyone calling Hillary Clinton a Zionist.

Hillary Clinton is pro-Zionist.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Others disagree: http://tinyurl.com/3tj9y93

The record is set straight.

Also, FYI:

Josh Block is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, a partner in Davis-Block LLC (a strategic consulting and public affairs company he co-founded with Lanny Davis), and a fellow at the Truman National Security Project. He was previously the spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and for the State Department's U.S. Agency for International Development during the Clinton Administration.

Full disclosure, etc. etc.

ohreally 07-18-2011 12:26 AM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 217098)
The PLIGHT of the 'Palestinians' (not a real people)?

Oh yes, "A land without a people for a people without a land."

Trust a hasbaranik on duty to recycle the old racist trope.

ohreally 07-18-2011 12:34 AM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Memo to Block: Your Wohlstetterian 15 minutes are up. We ain't attacking Iran. Ever. Get used to it.

Wonderment 07-18-2011 01:01 AM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

The PLIGHT of the 'Palestinians' (not a real people)?
Perhaps you are "American" or "Israeli."

Quote:

Had Mexicans done this to the US, they would have been nuked by now.
The USA has not tortured, assassinated or illegally imprisoned any Mexicans. The USA has not occupied Mexico, demolished Mexican homes as collective punishment, or established Apartheid Settlements on Mexican land.

Quote:

Of course, some people can't stand the fact that Jews may finally be able to live in peace at last - no, they have to be attacked an vilified for defending themselves against murderous terrorists.
Jews live in peace virtually wherever they want Earth, including Iran. Here in North and South America, Jews have flourished everywhere, completely independently of Israel and Zionism. Jews are doing splendidly in Germany, if you haven't noticed. Times change.

Israel does not speak for all Jews, or even the majority of Jews. In fact, the majority of Jews worldwide has chosen NOT to emigrate to the Zionist state. Increasingly, young Jews are rejecting the anachronistic, anti-democratic and exclusionist movement that is Zionism. I hope you care enough about the Jewish people to understand this.

apple 07-18-2011 09:28 AM

Re: Josh and Joel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hal Morris (Post 217171)
Once again, someone is soundling like a 'bot' programmed to spout canned responses upon detection of certain patterns.

Amazingly, this response came after Wonderment used the phrase "we Jews". So maybe when he said Zionist, he was referring to some degree of automatic support of Israel no matter what, rather than merely their Jewishness.

Like the people of J-Street, who oppose settlements, opposed the attack on Gaza, and support a two state solution?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hal Morris (Post 217171)
It sounded to me like a pretty interesting and useful pairing of viewpoints, and not overly "Zionist", but it's a ridiculous stretch to imply that the writer goes around spewing nastiness towards all Jews (including himself apparently), and covers it up by using Zionist as a code word.

Not necessarily, but I do often notice that "Zionist" is often used instead of "Jew". Gentiles are rarely called "Zionist", even if they are Zionists.

apple 07-18-2011 09:29 AM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brucds (Post 217177)
"I don't see anyone calling Hillary Clinton a Zionist.

Hillary Clinton is pro-Zionist.

Yes, we know that, but even though she is a Zionist, she is never attacked for being a "Zionist". Neither are any other gentile supporters of Israel. Why?

Because Zionist is sometimes a code word for "filthy Jew". Not always, sometimes.

apple 07-18-2011 09:30 AM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 217184)
Oh yes, "A land without a people for a people without a land."

Trust a hasbaranik on duty to recycle the old racist trope.

Those poor 'Palestinians'. Before 1967, they were part of Jordan and Egypt, and no one was even aware of their 'plight' - not even the 'Palestinians' themselves.

apple 07-18-2011 09:34 AM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 217188)
The USA has not tortured, assassinated or illegally imprisoned any Mexicans. The USA has not occupied Mexico, demolished Mexican homes as collective punishment, or established Apartheid Settlements on Mexican land.

Why has the USA not done that? Because Mexicans aren't waging a campaign of terror against the USA. Mexicans are not flooding the country to blow up old men and pregnant women in buses. Mexicans aren't forcing 50 million Americans (1/6 of the population) into bomb shelters with missiles. Mexicans aren't electing governments that don't recognize the USA and want to drive Americans into the sea.

Get it now? BTW, New Mexico, California, and other states won during the Mexican War are "illegal settlements".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 217188)
Jews live in peace virtually wherever they want Earth, including Iran.

You're so delusional that it isn't even funny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 217188)
Increasingly, young Jews are rejecting the anachronistic, anti-democratic and exclusionist movement that is Zionism.

Ah, so you're an anti-Zionist.

brucds 07-18-2011 10:47 AM

Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)
 
"(Hillary) is never attacked for being a 'Zionist'".

But of course she is...

Apple's desperation to piggy-back a weak argument and useless "analogies"* on fear-mongering over anti-semitism and assertions of bad faith is showing.

(*BTW, New Mexico, California, and other states won during the Mexican War are "illegal settlements".)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.