Printable View
LMFAO...priceless...let's see ...antisemitisim AGAINST arabs...what a concept...you really should have stayed in high school, shortbus. You probably should never have sniffed all that glue either. Thanks for the laugh. You never fail to deliver, zippy.Quote:
Originally Posted by worthy2
[quote="chefmike"]Quote:
Originally Posted by worthy2
OH MY GOD...LOL This election has brought out the best and the brightest among us. Oh, and this clown...LOL
[quote="worthy2"]Sure i have common sense. Unfortunately that doesn't help me to understand what "voting uncle otoma" means.Quote:
Originally Posted by dafame
Worthless is so dense he still hasn't figured out why the title of this thread is so idiotic...but I guess that should come as no surprise.
No child left behind?
Not in his case.
Arabs ARE semites. Arabic and Hebrew are both semitic languages.
So what. It's obvious that what worthless was trying to say in his thread title is that Obama was anti-semitic/pro arab like the GOP would have people believe, and of course worthless couldn't get it right with his room-temperature IQ. The GOP handlers even had that idiot Joe the Plumber saying that Obama would bring about the death of Israel. He had no clue as to what he was repeating, nor does worthless. Worthless regurgitated what he had heard because his pea-brain reacts to anything and everything that is anti-Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by thx1138
I accurse Raoph Nadr of unamerikanism against Canadians!!!
The only plausible defense worthless could have is that he was dropped on his head as a baby...Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkThanos
Just post all the crap you find on YouTube here and present it as gospel.... what, think for yourself? Naaaaaah.
Chefmike is right. Arabs are semites, but antisemitism means hatred of Jews. Just like anti-Americanism frequently means hatred of people from the U.S rather than the rest of the Americas (North and South). It's called a misnomer. The word was coined in 19th century Germany by a self-described anti-semitic German named Wilhelm Marr. It has been part of the lexicon in English for over one hundred years. So people making the tired argument that Arabs are semites ergo antisemitism includes them need to buy dictionaries and/or get college educations.
Bingo. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages The most widely spoken Semitic language today is Arabic[1] (322 million native speakers),[2] (422 million total speakers)[3]. It is followed by Amharic (27 million),[4][5] Tigrinya (about 6.7 million),[6] and Hebrew (about 5 million).[7]
Note both Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages. I'm assuming if you speak a Semitic language you are....a Semite. :>)
I don't know why it's so hard for some people to follow an argument. Anyone speaking a semitic language is a semite. However, the term "antisemite" deals only with Jews and should not be broken into its constituent parts. Before the word was coined by Wilhelm Marr the word used to describe Jew-hatred was the German "judenhass" or literally Jew-hate. He thought some Jews had tried to avoid this hatred by adopting secular attitudes (or converting) and so he wanted a word that sounded like it invoked ethnicity. His was a racial hatred, which is why he founded the league of antisemites.
Hence the word antisemite was coined even though it is a misnomer. Its meaning as denoted by Oxford and Webster dictionaries is antipathy towards or hatred of Jews.
Furthermore, most of the shitbrains trying to play semantics know nothing about the history of the word, quibble little over other misnomers, and take exception to this one because they want to prevent Jews from claiming an ostensible monopoly on suffering. It is a bogus and deceptive argument you make. You make yourself look stupid when you intentionally re-cast the argument to deal with what defines a semite rather than what defines an antisemite.
I feel sorry even engaging in an argument with somebody trying to dillute the only word commonly used to refer to hatred of jews by attempting to subsume it in a more general category. The reason the word has stayed part of the vernacular is because it involves both racial and religious hatred. If someone hates a Muslim, they are Islamophobic. If they hate an Arab, they are racist. But, if they hate Jews, the reasons may be religious or racial which again has specific relevance to the context in which it was first used.
"because they want to prevent Jews from claiming an ostensible monopoly on suffering." OK, so you're saying Jews are the only ones who have suffered throughout history? How many deaths make a genocide? Who decides these things? :>)
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you're implying that Jews claim to be the only ones who have suffered. Thanks for proving my point. Every single person I've ever come across who makes the facile argument you make about the word antisemitism believes that they are in some small way preventing Jews from trying to claim (to claim as in to assert) a monopoly on suffering. They believe they're doing this by abolishing the distinction between discrimination against Jews and discrimination in general. Now read that sentence carefully and tell me what it means. You're not the first person to make the argument you make about the origin of the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by thx1138
There have been several genocides in history, including the Armenian genocide and the Rwandan genocide. I'm sure you'll agree that the Holocaust was a terrible atrocity (as were these others) considering it wiped out nearly all European Jewry. Now if you think that first paragraph calls you antisemitic, here's where you'll accuse me of being a "Zionist" of some sort. The truth is I'm not calling you anything but a shmuck and trying to make sure you don't pester anyone else with your poor reasoning skills.
The bottom line is that it is political suicide for any American Politician to go against Israel. Its a shame that such a young & tiny country would have so much influence over us, but thats the way its been for the last 60 years and thats the way its going to stay.
Political suicide? Politicians can say whatever they want. It's always gonna be unpopular to oppose an ally. Proposing a flat tax in a federal election is political suicide as well. Supporting any idea without broad support is gonna hurt a career in politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeCumInPiece
You write your comment as though people don't know what the subtext is. You're saying that Israel has control over the U.S because Jews in the U.S control policy and think in terms of their Jewishness. Amazing how a thread about the origin of a word ends up clarifying how the word should be used.
Who made the decision to go to Afghanistan? What about Iraq? What about intervention in Cuba? The rest of Latin America? Vietnam? Korea? All the Israeli lobby? The Jews are always gonna be here and no amount of complaining or undermining our part in the political process is gonna change that.
So you live in Hymietown New York :D ? Now I think I get the resentment. Stay strong, whatever's wrong with your life, I'm sure you'll get through it. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeCumInPiece
I think the resentment referred to is because you do not see our politicians so feverishly pledging their support to any other nation as much as they do Israel. You don't turn on the TV and see such and such candidate stating that they are ardent supporters of Canada or England. Even Obama had a section of his website dedicated to his support of Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I will not try to argue against the notion that some resent this because they dislike Jews to begin with. Yet I think one could resent this for other logical reasons, such as our politicians should not pledge a loyalty to anything but our own Nation and its interests.
From:
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues...licy/#onisrael
On Israel
PS- About the other issue, the semantics over what is an anti-Semite is a little out of control. The usage is clear and deals with Jews, even if others are technically included in the group.Quote:
* Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. They support this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.
* Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He and Joe Biden believe strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.
* Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. They defend and support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.
It's an issue that gets exploited by both parties. McCain says he wants to "prevent another Holocaust", and Obama says he's "strong on Israel." It reminds me of when some Republican congressman from Wyoming was on the Bill Maher show and said, "nobody has more gays than us" at which point the audience laughed at this man's attempt to establish his bonafides.
Hey we even saw Joe the Plumber get in on the action and say that a vote for Obama would be a vote for the death of Israel. Why do they make it an issue in their campaigns (and furthermore use laughable hyperbole)? Well cause there are Jewish populations in Florida and New York that they wanted to capture I guess and they felt there was nobody in the electorate they would alienate by being pro-Israel. In other words, 3% of people care a lot about that issue and might be influenced by the rhetoric, and 97% is indifferent. If being pro-Guatemala could capture a risk-free 2% of the votes and the opposing view could lose those votes, we'd hear viva Guatemala quite frequently.
I don't protest your analogy about Britain and Canada except to say that they're allies of us that don't face nearly the same existential threat. That's not to say that if they did, it would be just as much of an issue. I'm just saying that it's a complex issue that transcends the usual theories. There are some who say that Israel is just as an outpost to advance U.S interests in the region. Do I think that's effective? No, I'd prefer we stay out of the region altogether and invest in alternative energy. But I just love how some people think Israel is more of an influence on our policy than energy interests.
The last thing I want to say is, if being anti-Israel destroyed a politicians career then how do we explain Pat Buchanan? He's a marginal figure now, but he's not just anti-Israel, but anti-Mexican, anti-black, and anti-gay. That's perhaps a bridge too far. But he's on tv every week and is pretty mainstream.
The recently deceased Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, (who was a jew) wrote the following statement on anti-Semitism; "It used to be than an antisemite was anyone who hates Jews, but unfortunately today...an antisemite is anyone whom Jews hate."Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan