Posted on 02/25/2005 9:31:30 AM PST by Marguerite
Edited on 02/25/2005 9:36:36 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- On Sunday, Feb. 20, Israel crossed two Rubicons. The Cabinet decided once and for all to withdraw from Gaza and dismantle 25 settlements -- 21 in Gaza and 4 in the upper West Bank. Yet, had Israel done only this, it would be seen, correctly, as a victory for terror, a unilateral retreat and surrender to the four-year intifada. That is why the second Israeli decision was so important. The Cabinet also voted to finish the security fence on the West Bank, which will separate Israeli and Palestinian populations, and create the initial border between Israel and a nascent Palestine.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
It's not about Krauthammr.
Your personal problem is showing.
Being obsessed is not healthy.
Hi Peach,
Churchillbuff is not antisemitic because he has a different opinion with Krauthammer. He just simply point out what Krauthammer said. Once again, Churchillbuff is not antisemitic.
Now please take some time to read this historical essay by Laureen Moe about anti-Semitism.
Enclose is the real deal. Peace....
Anti-Semitism: ..... What Is It?
Hi, Major.
Churchillbuff has attacked this Jewish man constantly for months because he wrote one article out of 1000's that he didn't like. If we all attacked columnists we didn't like, we wouldn't have time to eat.
Churchillbuff always goes after the most conservative, popular politicians and columnists. It's because he's a faux conservative and most of us around here have recognized that for a long time.
I appreciate that you think I might be using the word anti-semite incorrectly, but since Churchillbuff went after the neocons a few years ago, which most reporters admit is code for Jewish, I have to conclude he's prejudiced. And a troublemaker.
I haven't attributed any "motives" to him.. I've just reproduced what he wrote - a vicious attack on Mel Gibson and the Passion, and by extension, my religion. The previous poster who suggested that praying for Krauthammer is appropriate, hit the mark.
"Your" religion seems to think it's okay you compare yourself to Jesus. Get over yourself. And quit spamming.
Well, neocons what to say about neocons.
I could spend all night talking about US Mideast policy and most likely agree on some points and disagree on others about the 5 W's but it's not going to change the fact the Bush and Israel are draining the swamp of terrorism that has plagued Israel and the west for decades.
The believe Bush with Israel & now old Europe will have victory and create a lasting peace in the Mideast, but at a cost. US tax payers are going to get hit with the bill in the future and it's going to hurt. I hate to be President in the 2008-2012 cycle.
Who ever it is, it's a one term deal.
Now I don't Churchillbuff and he may have a different opinion about neocons like may people do. If this is the case, they don't think America should be fighting this war. They think it is Israel's problem. I know Dem's and Republican that feel this way.
However, it doesn't make Churchillbuff or any of them anti-semitic. It's just the way they see it. No harm in having a different opinion.
I'm wondering whether "Peach" isn't actually Sen. Robert Byrd. Peach uses the same tactics as Sen. Byrd -- smear. Byrd calls the Republicans, "Hitler" for trying to confirm conservative judges. Peach calls me "antisemitic" for standing up for Mel Gibson against a vicious attack. They've both - Peach and the Senator (maybe one in the same?) - have learned from the Jesse Jackson school of rhetoric: If you can't out-argue someone, try to shut him up by calling him a racist (or, in this case, a Hitler or an antisemite). It's a vile tactic, but it's counterproductive on freerepublic, where people aren't like a Johnnie Cochran jury - they don't buy the race card when it's played.
You MIGHT have once ounce of credibility on this site if I saw you take after other columnists who continuously attack Christianity with the same vigor you attack Krauthammer. But you don't attack any other columnists.
Just the Jewish guy. Who is also a conservative. You're a disruptor on FR and nearly everyone who has been here any length of time knows it.
Of course, once you used Scott Ritter, the pedophile who works for Al Jazeera, to bolster your case about Iraq, you lost what little credibility you had.
Keep playing the race card, Peach. Jesse Jackson -- and Sen. Byrd -- would be proud. (You're not Sen. Byrd, are you? If not, you two really ought to compare notes - - you both are partial to smearing people as "Hitlers" or "antisemites", if they disagree with you! Maxine Waters would also be impressed! But most freepers aren't, I suspect)
I take on Krauthammer because he's lionized by many freepers - - who don't necessarily know about his attack on The Passion. Please give me the name of another columnist who is widely admired by freepers, who has savagely attacked the Christian Gospels the way Krauthammer has. I will take on that columnist as well. What is his or her name?
I agree. Brilliant man.
Oh really? On a thread of at this point, 113 posts, by my quick count 29 of them are yours bashing Krauthammers position on a movie and arguing that his opinions about this article itself other issues have no merit.
You have an agenda all right. Pray for Krauthammer if it makes you feel better. While you're at it, throw in a few prayers for yourself.
for later
LOLOL.
Oh. Now freepers have to LIKE a columnist who attacks Christianity before you'll attack that columnist too.
You have twisted yourself into a pretzel.
Don't worry. We all know what you are.
The Gospels aren't fiction.
You've said the same thing, over and over, trying to address different posters each time, as though those of reading a thread, don't read every post.
You've hijakced every thread on Krauthammer, and perhaps more would pay attention to your comments, if you said them ONCE and then gracefully departed.
But noooooo, you have to stay around, and say the same thing, over and over, reducing the thread to a sideline issue - that of ONE column written by Krauthammer, a column where he expressed his position. Perhaps that position is wrong, but you devalue your position by hijacking the thread and stating your opinion, over and over.
Why don't you just go away? You've made your point - everyone has read what you believe about Krauthammer, now go away.
And before you attack me, your favorite line of defense, I am a Christian and I do not appreciate what Krauthammer wrote, but it is his opinion - one among many others he has. A good friend of mine, a Jew, was very concerned about Mel Gibson's movie on the passion for the same reason as Krauthammer but they never saw the movie and they don't know how it was handled, but to this day, they will say the same thing - that it was blaming the Jews, when in fact, the movie didn't.
Get over it and move on.
Many columnists have views which from time to time, any of us will agree with, and so some of us will just choose to overlook what they've written on a previous topic because in the aggregate, they have a useful perspective on this thing called life.
You incessant ragging on this one column is boring and shows a lack of tolerance for the variance among those of us who are imperfect. I suggest you take your most perfect self elsewhere.
First you say I'm "antisemitic" because I single out Krauthammer for his anti-Christian column. Then I ask what other columnist who is quoted on freerepublic has voiced anti-christian views -- and you can't name one. Ergo, i'm not "singling out" Krauthammer. He's unique among "conservative" columnists in his expression of hate toward Christianity.
I merely respond to those who question or challenge me, like I'm responding to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.