[M. Espinola #1673] I understand Queens & Brooklyn are part of Long Island Well, I am glad that since your transplantation from your British English place of origin you have learned that Queens and Brooklyn are on Long Island. You did ask if I was originally from the NYC/Long Island area. (As in Lon Gisland).
[M. Espinola #1673] Your irrelevant nonsense is noted as irrelevant.? You disagree with my response so instead of addressing the issue you sink back into mud slinging with the comment above. It seems when dragged back into the real world of 1861 you are unable to handle the realities.
I will note that your diversionary rant has once again avoided answering the simple LEGAL question that was put to you. Evidently, you cannot handle the LEGAL realities.
IF a legal RIGHT to secede existed, does the holder of said RIGHT require a good reason to exercise said RIGHT?
What other RIGHTS cannot be exercised without providing prior justification?
Does the RIGHT to free speech extend only to speech in a good cause, said good cause to be determined by some government entity?
[M. Espinola #1673] Since when was it 'legal' for pro-slavers to
The rant is incomplete but slavery was recognized as lawful by the Constitution. It might be ugly, but your diversions and running from the truth will not change the truth.
What does the (((vague))) phrase, "supported Israel" mean?
[M. Espinola #1673] It's about as (((vague))) as supporting traitors attempting to expand their slave empire. Is that vague enough? Give me a break.
I note that yet again you must run and hide from the question with a diversionary non-answer.
Does it mean taxing Americans and giving their money to Israel?
[M. Espinola #1673] Oh no, Americans should send out tax dollars to the sand nazis of Hamas to blow up more Israelis. Would that make you happy?
The question concerned what an Arab-American would have to do to meet your litmus test for elective office. You said the Arab-American candidate must "support Israel." We are now examining what you meant said Arab-American candidate must do to meet your requirements.
Does it mean providing military equipment and personnel to support Israel should Israel make a pre-emptive strike against an Arab nation...
[M. Espinola #1673] Damn good idea, as in nuclear threatening, Persian Iran. Go IDF!!
[M. Espinola #1673] Your true sentiments were dramatically revealed in that little diatribe directed at Israel. Thanks for removing your mask on that issue as well.
I asked you to define where in a range of options you define "support Israel." Thank you for removing your mask and demonstrating that you would place the welfare of Israel before that of the United States.
This was your stated litmus test for you to vote for a qualified, Arab-American for elective office. It appears, by your own rant, that you would only consider voting for an Arab-American if he first proclaims his support for an Israeli preemptive strike against an Arab nation and to support such preemptive strike with American military personnel and equipment.
Notably, in case of such preemptive strike, you are not only cheering "Go IDF!!" but you are saying that an Arab-American candidate, to meet your litmus test, must be cheering "Go U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Air Force!!"
Why not just state the obvious. You will never vote for any Arab-American for elective office.
Does it include releasing Israeli spies caught spying against the United States?
You avoided this one like the plague. Come on. Speak up. I answered your questions and did not run and hide.
What should the United States do with Jonathan Pollard, for example? Should we let him sit and rot? The Victim Impact Statement, filed by the United States said, "The specific instances of damage to the national security caused by Mr. Pollard's offense will be described in a classified damage session affidavit to be submitted to the Court in camera. Generally, it can be said that the breadth and scope of the classified information compromised by Mr. Pollard is among the greatest of any espionage operation uncovered by Federal authorities. Thousands of pages of Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information were sold to the Israelis by Mr. Pollard. As explained in detail in the government's in camera affidavit, Mr. Pollard's unauthorized disclosures have threatened the U.S. relations with numerous Middle East Arab allies, many of whom question the extent to which Mr. Pollard's disclosures of classified information have skewed the balance of power in the Middle East. Moreover, because Mr. Pollard provided the Israelis virtually any classified document requested by Mr. Pollard's coconspirators, the U.S. has been deprived of the quid pro quo routinely received during authorized and official intelligence exchanges with Israel, and Israel has received information classified at a level far in excess of that ever contemplated by the National Security Council. The obvious result of Mr. Pollard's largesse is that U.S. bargaining leverage with the Israeli government in any such further intelligence exchanges has been undermined. In short, Mr. Pollard's activities have adversely affected U.S. relations with both its Middle East Arab allies and the government of Israel."
Do you condemn Jonathan Pollard as a traitor to the United States?
[M. Espinola #1673] On the Supreme Court issue, in so far as the Civil War, there were two sides. Pro-Union & anti-slavery or pro-slavery secessionists.
On the Supreme Court issue, there is the law as set forth in the Constitution and those who would choose to ignore the law as set forth in the Constitution. It is obvious that you must run and hide from the law as set forth in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court found that "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. The question is very simple. It is a very simple "yes" or "no" question. Do you agree with the Supreme Court statement that "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.
[M. Espinola #1673] Which side would you have been on in 1861? I know which side I would have taken.
Presuming I was in 1861 as a native New Yorker, I would presumably have been on the Union side. Had I been a native of Virginia, I presumably would have been on the Confederate side. While I was in the military, had I been given orders to go to the middle east and make war on an Arab nation, I presumably would have gone and made war on an Arab nation. And if I had been given orders to go make war on Israel, I presumably would have gone and made war on Israel.
More importantly, in 2005 if there were a choice between the United States and Israel, which side would you be on?
I like the idea of USA first.
..."slavery was recognized as lawful by the Constitution." It's really a shame you could not be transplanted back to the time of the early Civil War, as a slave, and then would statements defending slavery as being "
lawful by the Constitution" be so freely stated?
Why not just state the obvious. You will never vote for any Arab-American for elective office.
This is an incredible statement. How do you know whom I would or would not vote for? For your information there are Arab Americans which do indeed support Israel. The question should be, after reviewing numerous comments relating to Israel is why are you so down on Israel?
There you go again....lolol
It appears, (in your view) by your own rant (I see statements you are not in full agreement, are rants), that you would only consider voting for an Arab-American if he first proclaims his support for an Israeli preemptive strike against an Arab nation and to support such preemptive strike with American military personnel and equipment. (Talk about twisting someone's words. You take the cake!
Your question on Jonathan Pollard is very tipical by those which have deep rooted problems with the either the Jewish people or the state of Israel.
I do not read any concern relating to demented Hamas bus bombers from you. Why is this?
In terms of your preoccupation with Pollard being a 'traitor' that's funny considering your repeated support for Confederate traitors. Were the Confederate secessionists traitors when they shelled a United States fort?
Presuming I was in 1861 as a native New Yorker, I would presumably have been on the Union side. Had I been a native of Virginia, I presumably would have been on the Confederate side. While I was in the military, had I been given orders to go to the middle east and make war on an Arab nation, I presumably would have gone and made war on an Arab nation. And if I had been given orders to go make war on Israel, I presumably would have gone and made war on Israel.
Does where you happen to reside dictate your morals? You sound more robotic then anything else. In other words if The Supreme Court, which you act like is the closet thing to the Almighty, handed down a ruling that all those living in your section of Long Island be immediately relocated to northern Maine, would you simply abide, since the Supremer Court mandated so?
The two Supreme Court justices you mentioned previously I too admire thus I do not understand much of your line of reasoning nor questioning. Neither one of those men would asking such a question: "More importantly, in 2005 if there were a choice between the United States and Israel, which side would you be on?
Which side? The basis of you question implies one nation is against the other, which is not the case. All Americans must defend America and secondary our most trusted allies, so considering Israel has been directly on the front lines battling the worst of the terrorist jihadists we should be aiding Israel. Since the current governments of Jordan & Iraq are making concerted efforts to stem the tide of radical jihadism, we should also be assisting Jordan & Iraq in these endeavors, would you not agree?
Oh, by the way you used the term Middle East Arab allies I hope you don't mean the Wahhabist Saudis, do you?
