Posted on 01/02/2005 2:58:07 PM PST by Former Military Chick
I answered: It is your position -- that Jewish influence, not US interest, controls US policy -- that suggests anti-Jewish prejudice
Then you said: The US supports Israel for many reasons. I don't believe that the neocons have that much influence--to make the US give support where it does not already have an interest. However, that may not always be so. I fear that Israel will be in for harder times in the years to come, with what I see emerging among the Euros and the US Dems--and it'd sure help if the liberal US Jews would get on board!
Nope. Never said any such thing. YOU can say it, if you like, and I guess you do like. I am getting used, to having silly statements such as yours put in my mouth (or keyboard), however, by those anxious to holler "antisemite" at any breath of criticism.
So you agree that US support of Israel now is in the US interest. Great. Me too. So in your first statement you were talking about a future need for US Jewish support when at some later hypothetical juncture the US interests diverge from Israel’s like the way they have often diverged from other democracies?
When those interests diverge obviously the US should go with their own interests. I would hate to see undue influence by Jews of any stripe effect legitimate US interests. Wouldn’t you?
It is not helpful to the interest of Israel to take such rhetorical positions with allies--but I see such behavior over and over in this forum. Sometimes I suspect it comes from trolls...
I guess you are implying here that I am a troll. Why? Is that defined as someone who coherently questions your position? And may I ask with who are you “allies”? I am in favor of US interests on all issues.
Thanks for the welcome.
You have yet to present a fact-based argument....though you're moderately talented at invective. Get back to me when you have some facts to present that relate to the issue at hand and we might actually have a constructive discussion! Cheers.
Your entire first sentence is wrong. I never claimed that terrorists didn't exist in Iraq before 9-11 only that there are more of them now than ever before. That is my claim. If you have facts to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing them.
I am dismayed that so few American Jews understand the folly of supporting anti-Israel candidates. Without Jewish leadership, US support for Israel will shortly fall apart. Evangelicals cannot do it all by themselves.
Pat Buchanan, BTW, supported the pro-Israel candidate, unlike 76% of US Jews. I always like to give that rind out for the neos to think about when they want to carry on about PB and the mythical threat of the paleo dinos.
I'm bored beyond imagining with the same old, same old stuff from the neocon "intelligentisia." Tired. Weary. Wish some new writers with fresher things to say could get a TUMBLE from the few "conservative" outlets that remain. But they fired Ann Coulter, and I believe that neocons want more to impress the liberal Blue-City jazz afficionados sucking up lattes than they care about Red Country.
I'll never forget Brooks and Krauthammer both coming out shortly after the election with columns asserting that the evangelical vote in 2004 was nonexistant and should be meaningless. It wasn't the evangelicals, you see, that helped elect W--it was the increased numbers of women, Hispanics, and blacks who did the helping.
Well, what's neocon for "D'UH", oh bright boys from the urban trenches and the Ivy League? Did it every occur to you that there are a lot of women evangelicals, black evangelicals, and you're probably too insulated in your rent-controlled to realize that there are huge numbers of Hispanic evangelicals, too? This is the stuff that neo "intellects" write.
Why am I stuck on definitions?
Seems to me that you initially jumped in on this thread defining neocons.
I've just gone about correcting you.
I could care less what "many" would want, but Reagan's policies fir perfectly into the paleocon's definition of a neocon...of course, most paleocons would rather not acknowledge the fact that Reagan was in fact, the very picture of neocon ideology that they so despise.
I can't make you accept the truth, I can only lead you to it.
What do you base this on? Frum has been nothing but complimentary to Bush. Where is the disloyalty?
And what is incorrect about this statement? Nothing. It's politically incorrect, yes -- it;s it's true. (And it's no more "antisemitic" than pointing out that most Jewish voters are Democrats, or that most Jewish voters supported Kerry) Interesting that you defend the anti-Christmas liberals!!!! Gotcha,, you outted yourself as a bigot!!!! Thanks for showing freepers your true stripes, Peach. You're making me look good!.
Are you capable of discussion or is your repertoire limited to stereotyped name calling – calling me a vain, Nazi-killing troll, calling Neo-cons rent-controlled, urban, blue state dwellers from the Ivy League. I note that you entered the discussion to give the “name” to, ie define, Neoconservatives. I like to think that the side that re-elected Pres Bush (my side) did so because they think instead of relying on names or labels but instead looked at issues.
I never mentioned Buchanan. I note you keep talking about him obsessively.
Well, what's neocon for "D'UH", oh bright boys from the urban trenches and the Ivy League? Did it every occur to you that there are a lot of women evangelicals, black evangelicals, and you're probably too insulated in your rent-controlled to realize that there are huge numbers of Hispanic evangelicals, too? This is the stuff that neo "intellects" write.
What does that have to do with this discussion except for you to rail on the stupidity of ”neocons’ who you obviously hate en masse. Now what characteristic of ”neocons do you really dislike? Hmm, what do all those you named, even though there are many others, have in common?
Sorry you are bored. Try focusing on issues instead of names. It is really more interesting, and you might be up to the task even if you aren’t from the Ivy League.
As I already pointed few US Jews care about Israel. Sorry that does not fit in with your pre-conceived idea of Jews. If support for Israel falls apart it will be because the US stupidly does not recognize their confluence of interest with Israel. Ditto India.
You're an ass.
Very true, Mamzelle. I've pointed out in a number of posts that the anti-Christmas crusade is led by liberal Jews. (Notice I didn't say all Jews - certainly not traditionalists like Medved or Lapin -- I said "liberal" Jews. It's not "antisemitic" to point out that liberal Jews are making war, in the courts and elsewhere, against Christmas and against traditional values. Peach can't find real examples of antisemitism in my posting history, so Peach tries to suggest I've done something wrong by criticizing the bigots in the ACLU and the ADL. Peach sides with these anti-Christian and anti-Christmas bigots. This is pretty revealing about Peach - - and it certainly vindicates Churchillbuff.
I just love these neocon bashing threads. They just make me better and more "perfect" neocon. May the influence of the dark side of conservatism, the paleos, continue to be marginalized.
By the way, Mamzelle, I don't confine my attacks on liberals, to liberals who happen to be Jewish. I've posted a lot of articles and comments against liberal "Christians" - - in the Episcopal Church and other semi-pagan "religious" organizations that are making war on our culture. Does this make me "anti-Christian"? In Peach's twisted perspective, maybe it does!
When are you going to turn your guns on ex-Calvinist Unitarian types? Gentiles are a huge majority of those who are uncomfortable with religion in the public square - your focus on liberal Jews really misses the mark. If it was solely or even largely, just them, the less enlightened of them, the less tolerant of them, this particular movement would be near invisible. As usual, you have it wrong. You lack the judgment to parse what moves and shakes and animates the fruited plain.
Bad as they are, they aren't the spear-carriers in the anti-Christmas crusade. The ACLU is. As for the term, "Unitarian," you're out of date by at least 50 years. The "Unitarian types" died out by the middle of the last century, if not earlier -- replaced by outright atheists. You're right, though, that the upper-crusty New England descendants of the Mayflower voyagers, rejected the religion and values of their ancestors, and proclaimed themselves Unitarians. But this pseudo-religion was just a weigh-station along the road to atheism -- and that's where northeastern liberals are today. Unitarian churches have been empty for decades.
But as hostile as this demographic group is to traditional values, it really isn't represented in the ACLU -- which is the most active anti-Christmas organization going. Probably it's cultural snobbery that keeps WASPy liberals by and large out of that organization, even though they surely support its culture-subverting goals.
Captain Kirk...I think your phaser is leaking...deadly Gama gas..( or whatever they are filled with..)
Moreover, as I point out in post 113, I have a rich history posting against "Christian" liberals, particularly the Episcopal Church, but also leftists in Presbyterian robes, and left-wing Catholics.
Tripe.
Not a bad post actually, and I am a cultural personage of that group, but if you really want to understand the secularist impulse in America, to focus on the Jews is a red herring. It is more an aspect of a wing of Protestantism, ex-Protestantism, which has attracted many from other ethnic groups. I know, because it was the way I was brought up. Since then, I have become older and wiser, and while still a near atheist, have come to appreciate the benefits of faith in the public square, and become quite relaxed about the "dangers." Thus I am able to easily accommodate myself to the more deomonstrably religious tone of my party.
LOL. So many to loathe, so little time. I really don't think you are a Jew hater qua Jew hater. That would unduly circumscibe the scope of your passions.
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.