Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

[Bill C]

On Jan 13, 11:13*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> *>We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
> *>Bill C
>
> I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just
> don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously
> without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing
> views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in ALL
> cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least bit
> surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an issue,
> not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us
> need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind
> them.
>
> --Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
Exactly. There isn't a damned thing I'm told by a politician, read in
a study, or read as the "latest advance" in medeicine and other things
I don't either take with a grain of sand, or seriously question, even
if it sounds good.
Proove it, peer review it, duplicate it accurately, document all
that, and THEN I'll think about taking it as solid, and we all know
that even then we're wrong sometimes.
I've pretty much always figured ANYTHING coming out of the Pentagon
was either an outright lie, or suspect at best, this administration,
and the anti-war/MoveOn folks are in the same boat too.
They'll all happily lie their asses off, cook whatever they need to,
commission whatever fictional documentation they want to support their
positions.
As sort of an aside, but I think it's relevant, I was reading an
article about Facebook in Canada and how people use it to live a much
larger, embellished life than they actually have. The statements
weren't documented but match my experiences going back to the
beginning of Q-Link where I was pretty invovled as a host type way
back when.
I Guess, for me, it comes down to people doing whatever they have to
to get what they want, gratification, and recognition and being
willing to do a lot of questionable things to get there.
Bill C

[Howard Kveck]

In article <e280794b-35bd-4a7b-b6c0-43867cc41e2d@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> I've pretty much always figured ANYTHING coming out of the Pentagon
> was either an outright lie, or suspect at best, this administration,
> and the anti-war/MoveOn folks are in the same boat too.

So what about the JDL? Or HonestReporting.com? You seem to swallow what they say
without a hint of question, Bill.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Michael Press]

In article
<e5c54c22-64e1-4fb5-82bd-494fa1b9168d@t1g2000pra.google
groups.com>,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:

> On Jan 14, 11:16 am, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
> > Dans le message denews:41c9735e-cdad-4992-8619-70436d56071b@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
> > rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com <rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> a réfléchi, et
> > puis a déclaré :
> >
> > > On Jan 14, 10:17 am, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
> > >> I babbled.
> >
> > > Then we agree.
> >
> > That was like doing an appendectomy to save the appendix.
>
> In this case, it was the only part worth saving.

All the way up to this point I gave you credit for
above average probity and good will, but have now
revised my estimate downward. Anyone who disagrees
with you is automatically a rightwingnut. Do you
know what you are doing?

A long time ago I decided I could learn from anybody,
and it has been a good decision. Looking forward to
hearing from you.

--
Michael Press

[Tom Kunich]

"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-4B03D2.15370314012008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net ...
>
> A long time ago I decided I could learn from anybody,
> and it has been a good decision. Looking forward to
> hearing from you.

Learning from Chung is like reading the little red book.

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Learning from Chung is like reading the little red book.

My powertap manual isn't red, perhaps the left wing
Ergomo's is.

[Bill C]

On Jan 14, 10:47*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:rubrum-4B03D2.15370314012008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net ...
>
>
>
> > A long time ago I decided I could learn from anybody,
> > and it has been a good decision. Looking forward to
> > hearing from you.
>
> Learning from Chung is like reading the little red book.

His politics don't effect his ability and knowledge of his field. They
just aren't related, and besides that I'm not sure what they are.
There're issues we've disagreed on, but those have been on technical
points, not to any support he's stated for political positions.
Questioning something, on a professional basis, isn't a political
statement. I appreciate his, and others here, providing their
expertise, and suggestions so I can re-evaluate, and follow up, on my
current position.
You can never have too much solid information to form beliefs with.
Following up on just about everything he's said, has proven his
arguments out, or at least made it clear that there are serious
questions.
I don't know if he's as rigorous and critical of professional work
coming from other political viewpoints. I would bet that he is, he
just doesn't say it publicly.
He seems, to me, to be a real pro's pro but I don't have the real in
depth knowledge to evaluate his skills, and I'd doubt many others here
do either. Stats 101 isn't gonna do it.
My opinion is formed on following up on our conversations, and
finding him to be very credible, and from his displayed skills, and
attitude towards his field.
Bill C

[Bill C]

On Jan 15, 2:05*am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> In article <e280794b-35bd-4a7b-b6c0-43867cc41...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> *Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > *I've pretty much always figured ANYTHING coming out of the Pentagon
> > was either an outright lie, or suspect at best, this administration,
> > and the anti-war/MoveOn folks are in the same boat too.
>
> * *So what about the JDL? Or HonestReporting.com? You seem to swallow what they say
> without a hint of question, Bill.
>
> --
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard
>
> * * * * * * * * * *Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
> * * * * * * * * * * *But I've already got a pitchfork...
>
> * * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

How about MediaMatters Howard? You take them unquestioned. I do for
their stuff what I do for people like AFP, BBC, CBC and find other
stories to cross check things with. Most of the time they're pretty
damned close when reporting on other media, and link to other press
stories around the globe so that you can start to follow up on your
own.
It's pretty damned simple in reality Howard.
I've made a reasoned and researched judgement that the support for
Israel and all things Jewish, here in the post ww2 West has seriously
declined. That significant, incredibly vocal sections of the West have
embraced "Revolutionary groups", "Freedom Fighters", etc as a concept,
since the 60s. Despite their actions which are always excused for the
most part. IE Castros human rights record and his prisons. We've had
this coversation repeatedly about the selective indignation and I
still don't buy your position.
My opinion, again formed from experience and research is that this,
along with a new generation of overwhelmingly 60s mindset graduates
moved into these jobs and editorial chairs and moved the information
we get to support their political beliefs.
These have become increasingly anti-Israel/Anit- Jewish as the large
increase in anti-semitic acts, especially throughout Europe document.
Does that concern you in any way? It concerns me when there are any
attacks, on anyone for peacefully, and respectfully of the rights of
others, practicing their religion, within the framework of the law.
How about you?
I do what any rational, reasoned person does. I research, process the
information, try to get as wide a spectrum of views and reporting on
any subject I'm interested in, realize I will NEVER have the technical
skills to evaluate EVERY piece of information properly.
That leads to finding sources, and assets to analyze things I can't,
such as Robert for the validity, and methodology of studies and such.
Over time, based on the accuracy of their work you begin to assign
each source, and asset a value judgement, and then you keep re-
assessing them.
Eventually you end up with those you trust pretty close to without
question, but never totally, down to those you assume are lying but
check on to be sure.
I'd hope that's what we all do but the massive partisan BS with folks
blindly swallowing the propaganda from those that say the things they
want to hear, true or not, to go with the group doesn't leave me a lot
of hope.
Bill C

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jan 15, 3:43*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

> * *I've made a reasoned and researched judgement that the support for
> Israel and all things Jewish, here in the post ww2 West has seriously
> declined. That significant, incredibly vocal sections of the West have
> embraced "Revolutionary groups", "Freedom Fighters", etc as a concept,
> since the 60s. *Despite their actions which are always excused for the
> most part. IE Castros human rights record and his prisons. We've had
> this coversation repeatedly about the selective indignation and I
> still don't buy your position.
> * My opinion, again formed from experience and research is that this,
> along with a new generation of overwhelmingly 60s mindset graduates
> moved into these jobs and editorial chairs and moved the information
> we get to support their political beliefs.
> *These have become increasingly anti-Israel/Anit- Jewish as the large
> increase in anti-semitic acts, especially throughout Europe document.
> *Does that concern you in any way?

<snip>



Dumbass -


There was a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WW2
because of the Holocaust (as you know). We made a huge mistake in
trying to give the Jewish refugees a country. Should have taken them
in as refugees to the US. Probably didn't do that due to anti-Semitism
in the US (you reap what you sow). In 1920, only 11% of the population
of the area now known as Israel was composed of Jews. The numbers grew
before and during WW2 because of an influx of Jewish refugees from
Europe.

The reason it was a mistake for us is that in order to make a coherent
state for them (Israel), another group of people had to be
dispossessed, just as the Jews had been. Not only that, in order to
protect the fragile existence of this new state, we had to insert
ourselves into a cultural struggle between religions. Israel is a
religious state. It is not a secular democracy. It discriminates based
upon religion.

Because of the dispossessed people, the Palestinians, Israel has come
to be seen as an oppressor, ironic since the Jews themselves had
previously been the oppressed. Hence the conditions for the rise in
anti-Semitism.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <1ca5b087-156a-48df-833a-390ac22ee434@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Jan 15, 2:05*am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e280794b-35bd-4a7b-b6c0-43867cc41...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > *Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > *I've pretty much always figured ANYTHING coming out of the Pentagon
> > > was either an outright lie, or suspect at best, this administration,
> > > and the anti-war/MoveOn folks are in the same boat too.
> >
> > * *So what about the JDL? Or HonestReporting.com? You seem to swallow what
> > they say without a hint of question, Bill.

> How about MediaMatters Howard? You take them unquestioned.

Have you spent much time looking at MM's stuff? The typical piece involves them
quoting some media source (be it newspaper, magazine, broadcast, etc.) and then
showing where the source is factually in error. It's not subjective. The articles
that are more opinion in nature are still overwhelmingly fact driven, mostly culled
from the week's regular articles. On the other hand, HonestReporting.com is filled
with extremely subjective complaints, most of which can be shot down with a few
minutes of research: http://tinyurl.com/2ksfyy

> It's pretty damned simple in reality Howard.
> I've made a reasoned and researched judgement that the support for
> Israel and all things Jewish, here in the post ww2 West has seriously
> declined.

(snipper)

I hate to say it, Bill, but you do have a seriously kneejerk reaction to anything
Israel related and, from my perspective, you vigorously work to shift responsibility
for all sorts of things onto everyone but Israel. You don't want to acknowledge that
*all* of the countries/people in the area are doing things that have consequences
(for example(s) lobbing missiles into settlements or building those settlements in
that take away the water for the people who were originally there)

My point wasn't to get started on a discussion of Arab/Israeli relations (and this
ends it on my part) but to point out to you that you sseem to like to condemn people
for the sources of their info but you don't seem critical enough of your own sources.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:c9872f0e-04e4-453a-a781-557fdf596124@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> His politics don't effect his ability and knowledge of his field.

They nevertheless color a lot of what he writes. That's unfortunate since he
otherwise seems a highly intelligent person. It must be that he hangs around
with people who are likely to automatically say something like, "Bush and
his 'weapons of mass destruction' ruse was for his own profit" and ignore
the fact that every single word and policy decision was muttered 5 years
before by Clinton and virtually the entire Democrat party.

[Bill C]

On Jan 15, 9:19*am, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 3:43*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > * *I've made a reasoned and researched judgement that the support for
> > Israel and all things Jewish, here in the post ww2 West has seriously
> > declined. That significant, incredibly vocal sections of the West have
> > embraced "Revolutionary groups", "Freedom Fighters", etc as a concept,
> > since the 60s. *Despite their actions which are always excused for the
> > most part. IE Castros human rights record and his prisons. We've had
> > this coversation repeatedly about the selective indignation and I
> > still don't buy your position.
> > * My opinion, again formed from experience and research is that this,
> > along with a new generation of overwhelmingly 60s mindset graduates
> > moved into these jobs and editorial chairs and moved the information
> > we get to support their political beliefs.
> > *These have become increasingly anti-Israel/Anit- Jewish as the large
> > increase in anti-semitic acts, especially throughout Europe document.
> > *Does that concern you in any way?
>
> <snip>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> There was a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WW2
> because of the Holocaust (as you know). We made a huge mistake in
> trying to give the Jewish refugees a country. Should have taken them
> in as refugees to the US. Probably didn't do that due to anti-Semitism
> in the US (you reap what you sow). In 1920, only 11% of the population
> of the area now known as Israel was composed of Jews. The numbers grew
> before and during WW2 because of an influx of Jewish refugees from
> Europe.
>
> The reason it was a mistake for us is that in order to make a coherent
> state for them (Israel), another group of people had to be
> dispossessed, just as the Jews had been. Not only that, in order to
> protect the fragile existence of this new state, we had to insert
> ourselves into a cultural struggle between religions. Israel is a
> religious state. It is not a secular democracy. It discriminates based
> upon religion.
>
> Because of the dispossessed people, the Palestinians, Israel has come
> to be seen as an oppressor, ironic since the Jews themselves had
> previously been the oppressed. Hence the conditions for the rise in
> anti-Semitism.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

Yep, lots of truth in that, but the reason there weren't many Jews in
their historical homeland area is the same there aren't tons in Saudi
Arabia, and other Arab countries, centuries of discrimination,
slavery, and extermination.
There were well over a hundred thousand Jews in displaced persons
camps in Europe. Europe could've reabsorbed them, but why would they
want to stay there where historically they'd been the punching bag,
and designated sacrifice. We should've taken them here, but instead we
tried to give them some justice by sending them to a place they had a
historical claim to, and had been an enemy territory for centuries.
Not much different than all the Euro border rewrites, just long
distance with very good intentions, and getting rid of a problem in
mind.
I'd still argue that an Arab in Israel has more rights and freedoms
than a Jew in Saudi, or Syria, or Egypt, etc...
Someone's always going to get stepped on. The Israelis aren't
committed to extermination, huge chunks of the Arabs still are. They
drop that then we have a different discussion. That's enough for me.
If you don't think the Israelis could physically depopulate the
disputed territories and drive everyone off then you are sadly
mistaken. Politically they can't do it, and don't want to do it. They
are demanding reasonable treatment, freedom, and a safe place in
repayment for centuries of oppression and slaughter, not much more
than that.
Bill C

[Tom Kunich]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d84de9fa-b617-41cf-a49d-e415ff8fcf3a@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> There was a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WW2
> because of the Holocaust (as you know). We made a huge mistake in
> trying to give the Jewish refugees a country. Should have taken them
> in as refugees to the US. Probably didn't do that due to anti-Semitism
> in the US (you reap what you sow). In 1920, only 11% of the population
> of the area now known as Israel was composed of Jews. The numbers grew
> before and during WW2 because of an influx of Jewish refugees from
> Europe.

I think you should spend more time here demonstrating your almost total lack
of knowledge of the conditions in Israel before WW II and after. Just so
that you understand - there was NO Palestine before WW II. Before WW I that
was a territory of Turkey and after WW I until WW II it was an very thinly
populated territory of Syria. Palastine was in fact an invention of the UN
after WW II. The Jews already OWNED most of the area that became Israel.
They took NOTHING AT ALL. They even offered to give special rights to Syrian
Arabs that were living in the area. The West Bank and the Gaza strip was
where most of the arabs were living and the UN called that Palastine and
handed it to them.

All of this is public knowledge but as usual you don't actually want to know
what you're talking about.

> Because of the dispossessed people, the Palestinians, Israel has come
> to be seen as an oppressor, ironic since the Jews themselves had
> previously been the oppressed. Hence the conditions for the rise in
> anti-Semitism.

If you had actually known what had happened you'd have known that Israel
more than bent over backwards to allow Arabs to keep their land and that it
was the Arabs themselves who deserted that land.

I suggest you learn something before shooting your ignorance off.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <d84de9fa-b617-41cf-a49d-e415ff8fcf3a@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Kurgan Gringioni <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

> There was a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WW2
> because of the Holocaust (as you know). We made a huge mistake in
> trying to give the Jewish refugees a country. Should have taken them
> in as refugees to the US. Probably didn't do that due to anti-Semitism
> in the US (you reap what you sow). In 1920, only 11% of the population
> of the area now known as Israel was composed of Jews. The numbers grew
> before and during WW2 because of an influx of Jewish refugees from
> Europe.
>
> The reason it was a mistake for us is that in order to make a coherent
> state for them (Israel), another group of people had to be
> dispossessed, just as the Jews had been. Not only that, in order to
> protect the fragile existence of this new state, we had to insert
> ourselves into a cultural struggle between religions. Israel is a
> religious state. It is not a secular democracy. It discriminates based
> upon religion.
>
> Because of the dispossessed people, the Palestinians, Israel has come
> to be seen as an oppressor, ironic since the Jews themselves had
> previously been the oppressed. Hence the conditions for the rise in
> anti-Semitism.

It's interesting that there is some discussion going on in Jewish circles about
precisely that: whether it was a good idea to set up Israel where it is. And,
unsurprisingly, the (Jewish) people who are trying to get the discussion started are
being hammered as "anti-semitic".

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> On Jan 15, 3:43 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I've made a reasoned and researched judgement that the support for
>> Israel and all things Jewish, here in the post ww2 West has seriously
>> declined. That significant, incredibly vocal sections of the West have
>> embraced "Revolutionary groups", "Freedom Fighters", etc as a concept,
>> since the 60s. Despite their actions which are always excused for the
>> most part. IE Castros human rights record and his prisons. We've had
>> this coversation repeatedly about the selective indignation and I
>> still don't buy your position.
>> My opinion, again formed from experience and research is that this,
>> along with a new generation of overwhelmingly 60s mindset graduates
>> moved into these jobs and editorial chairs and moved the information
>> we get to support their political beliefs.
>> These have become increasingly anti-Israel/Anit- Jewish as the large
>> increase in anti-semitic acts, especially throughout Europe document.
>> Does that concern you in any way?
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> There was a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WW2
> because of the Holocaust (as you know). We made a huge mistake in
> trying to give the Jewish refugees a country. Should have taken them
> in as refugees to the US. Probably didn't do that due to anti-Semitism
> in the US (you reap what you sow). In 1920, only 11% of the population
> of the area now known as Israel was composed of Jews. The numbers grew
> before and during WW2 because of an influx of Jewish refugees from
> Europe.

I don't have the information before me, but you are right. After the
liberation of the camps there were plenty of displaced people--not only
Jews but gypsies and others "undesirables" to the Nazis. Problem was,
the western countries didn't want a flood of these "undesirables"
either, and finding a homeland for them was a handy way out. The The
doors to mass immigration to the US pretty much closed in the 1920s.
The fact that the Zionists were already in place merely made things
easier for the allies. And yes, the eastern European countries whose
Jewish populations were decimated weren't exactly unhappy either to have
their particular "Jewish problems" solved this way.
It wasn't all that cold--yes there was humanitarian need, and that
angle was played up--esp. for the benefit of the Jews in the U.S. (for
political purposes) but to deny the economic and perceived social
advantages to Europe is to deny the reason why things played out the way
they did.

Steve


>
> The reason it was a mistake for us is that in order to make a coherent
> state for them (Israel), another group of people had to be
> dispossessed, just as the Jews had been. Not only that, in order to
> protect the fragile existence of this new state, we had to insert
> ourselves into a cultural struggle between religions. Israel is a
> religious state. It is not a secular democracy. It discriminates based
> upon religion.
>
> Because of the dispossessed people, the Palestinians, Israel has come
> to be seen as an oppressor, ironic since the Jews themselves had
> previously been the oppressed. Hence the conditions for the rise in
> anti-Semitism.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[ST]

On 1/15/08 6:59 AM, in article
8e4b8b99-fd13-487f-a415-9ee2a22d9bd6@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, "Bill C"
<tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Jan 15, 9:19*am, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 3:43*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> * *I've made a reasoned and researched judgement that the support for
>>> Israel and all things Jewish, here in the post ww2 West has seriously
>>> declined. That significant, incredibly vocal sections of the West have
>>> embraced "Revolutionary groups", "Freedom Fighters", etc as a concept,
>>> since the 60s. *Despite their actions which are always excused for the
>>> most part. IE Castros human rights record and his prisons. We've had
>>> this coversation repeatedly about the selective indignation and I
>>> still don't buy your position.
>>> * My opinion, again formed from experience and research is that this,
>>> along with a new generation of overwhelmingly 60s mindset graduates
>>> moved into these jobs and editorial chairs and moved the information
>>> we get to support their political beliefs.
>>> *These have become increasingly anti-Israel/Anit- Jewish as the large
>>> increase in anti-semitic acts, especially throughout Europe document.
>>> *Does that concern you in any way?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Dumbass -
>>
>> There was a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WW2
>> because of the Holocaust (as you know). We made a huge mistake in
>> trying to give the Jewish refugees a country. Should have taken them
>> in as refugees to the US. Probably didn't do that due to anti-Semitism
>> in the US (you reap what you sow). In 1920, only 11% of the population
>> of the area now known as Israel was composed of Jews. The numbers grew
>> before and during WW2 because of an influx of Jewish refugees from
>> Europe.
>>
>> The reason it was a mistake for us is that in order to make a coherent
>> state for them (Israel), another group of people had to be
>> dispossessed, just as the Jews had been. Not only that, in order to
>> protect the fragile existence of this new state, we had to insert
>> ourselves into a cultural struggle between religions. Israel is a
>> religious state. It is not a secular democracy. It discriminates based
>> upon religion.
>>
>> Because of the dispossessed people, the Palestinians, Israel has come
>> to be seen as an oppressor, ironic since the Jews themselves had
>> previously been the oppressed. Hence the conditions for the rise in
>> anti-Semitism.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> K. Gringioni.
>
> Yep, lots of truth in that, but the reason there weren't many Jews in
> their historical homeland area is the same there aren't tons in Saudi
> Arabia, and other Arab countries, centuries of discrimination,
> slavery, and extermination.
> There were well over a hundred thousand Jews in displaced persons
> camps in Europe. Europe could've reabsorbed them, but why would they
> want to stay there where historically they'd been the punching bag,
> and designated sacrifice. We should've taken them here, but instead we
> tried to give them some justice by sending them to a place they had a
> historical claim to, and had been an enemy territory for centuries.
> Not much different than all the Euro border rewrites, just long
> distance with very good intentions, and getting rid of a problem in
> mind.
> I'd still argue that an Arab in Israel has more rights and freedoms
> than a Jew in Saudi, or Syria, or Egypt, etc...
> Someone's always going to get stepped on. The Israelis aren't
> committed to extermination, huge chunks of the Arabs still are. They
> drop that then we have a different discussion. That's enough for me.
> If you don't think the Israelis could physically depopulate the
> disputed territories and drive everyone off then you are sadly
> mistaken. Politically they can't do it, and don't want to do it. They
> are demanding reasonable treatment, freedom, and a safe place in
> repayment for centuries of oppression and slaughter, not much more
> than that.
> Bill C

How about........

"An Arab in Israel probably has MORE rights than they do in an Arab
country!"

Without a doubt if they are female!

If it was not for oil in the early last century the Middle East would be
much more like African nations in the GDP department.......

What is a positive aspect of Islamic countries?? Their decision to run their
governments and societies on religious doctrine holds their citizens to a
higher level of personal responsibility, even overboard and violating
rights.

Personal responsibility is something we have given up and replaced by
coddling feelings and blaming anyone else but our own actions & behaviors.

[Bill C]

On Jan 15, 9:11*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:

>
> * *My point wasn't to get started on a discussion of Arab/Israeli relations (and this
> ends it on my part) but to point out to you that you sseem to like to condemn people
> for the sources of their info but you don't seem critical enough of your own sources.
>
> --
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard
>
> * * * * * * * * * *Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
> * * * * * * * * * * *But I've already got a pitchfork...
>
> * * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

I guess we agree. I feel the same way about you, and a lot of yours,
and your kneejerk support for anyone anti-Israel, anti-US.
Bill C

[Howard Kveck]

In article <cb2fc80e-235d-43bf-9eee-b8dba3c7e18c@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Jan 15, 9:11?pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > ? ?My point wasn't to get started on a discussion of Arab/Israeli relations
> > (and this ends it on my part) but to point out to you that you sseem to like to
> > condemn people for the sources of their info but you don't seem critical enough
> > of your own sources.

> I guess we agree. I feel the same way about you, and a lot of yours,
> and your kneejerk support for anyone anti-Israel, anti-US.

Would you mind telling me exactly who these "anti-Israel, anti-US" people are that
you think I'm supportive of?

Bill, the fact that I think you have a kneejerk level of support for certain
things does not mean that I have the same level of support for the opposite things.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Bill C]

On Jan 16, 11:11*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:

>
> * *Would you mind telling me exactly who these "anti-Israel, anti-US" people are that
> you think I'm supportive of?

It's not worth the effort. It'd end up like the Castro discussion,
where you wouldn't say he's ever done anything wrong, but wouldn't say
you support him, but did say you "support the Cuban people".
Which I should've answered with "Which ones? The ones basically
summarily executed by him and Gueverra, the ones in prisons that make
Gitmo look like a 5 star resort, or the ones here in the US that had
everything taken from them, and left before they were summarily shot,
well maybe tortured for a while first."
Tom focuses on one or two tiny details and sticks with them to the
exclusion of the big picture. You keep the target moving.

> * *Bill, the fact that I think you have a kneejerk level of support
for certain
> things does not mean that I have the same level of support for the opposite things.
>
> --
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard
>
> * * * * * * * * * *Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
> * * * * * * * * * * *But I've already got a pitchfork...
>
> * * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Howard I don't see it as knee jerk. I see my positions as well
founded, researched, and constantly re-evaluated. The evidence and my
thinking is here for everyone to see, complete with many links, and
references over the past years.
You do the name calling thing, keep moving the argument,
etc...without making your case for us to see. I've repeatedly asked
you to provide the background on your positions, the thinking behind
them, and the resources you use. None of which has been forthcoming,
except for a few articles and links you've sent me in the past to
pretty obscure stuff.
That I appreciated, because that's stuff, even I, would never
normally stumble upon, except for the Salon stuff.
You accuse me of things, but then I can lay out my argument, and you
either can't, or won't shoot it down based on the merits. You resort
to genteel name calling.
It amounts to everything I read is wrong, Fox is biased and evil, any
publication owned by a corporation is part of the vast right wing
conspiracy, etc...
That's not the reality, at least not to most people. Some are pretty
middle of the road, some are biased one way or the other, that's why I
have sources from all points of view that I read.
It's fascinating to see how differently incidents are reported in
each source. Over time this gives a person a real good feel for where
there editorial slant is.
A really good example is the BBC. AFP is easily the most middle of
the road stright up news service out there. The BBC is incredible, but
has moderate to severe problems in it's Middle East coverage as
compared to AFP. It's amazing the number of relevant details that
don't appear in their coverage that do in AFP, and how it's
structured.
I could go on and on, but until you actually put something other than
accusations, and names on the board it's useless.
Bill C

[Howard Kveck]

In the interests of brevity, I'm putting three posts/replies in one.

In article <75f018f1-7dad-4aaf-9e64-ab8be95d34fe@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Jan 16, 11:11*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > * *Would you mind telling me exactly who these "anti-Israel, anti-US"
> > people are that you think I'm supportive of?
>
> It's not worth the effort.

Well, that's a letdown. But you did redeem yourself in the course of these three
posts by variously stating that I support Stalinism, Maoism and FARC. I may have
missed one or two.

> It'd end up like the Castro discussion, where you wouldn't say he's ever done
> anything wrong, but wouldn't say you support him, but did say you "support the Cuban
> people".

That discussion was about "the Left's" support of Castro. A fairly common view of
the Cuba situation by liberals is that the US policy is harmful to the Cuban people
and empowers Castro. Hence, it's counterproductive.

> Which I should've answered with "Which ones?

How about the rest of them?

> > * *Bill, the fact that I think you have a kneejerk level of support for certain
> > things does not mean that I have the same level of support for the opposite
> > things.

> Howard I don't see it as knee jerk. I see my positions as well
> founded, researched, and constantly re-evaluated.

Just because you feel your positions are well founded, researched and constantly
re-evaluated, it doesn't mean that you can't have a kneejerk reaction involving that
position. The leap you made from my indicating that goodwill toward the US has
dropped worldwide to it being all about Israel sure indicated that to me,
particularly when you followed up your own post with the one about Ben and the SS
dude.

> You do the name calling thing, keep moving the argument,
> etc...without making your case for us to see. I've repeatedly asked
> you to provide the background on your positions, the thinking behind
> them, and the resources you use. None of which has been forthcoming,
> except for a few articles and links you've sent me in the past to
> pretty obscure stuff.
> That I appreciated, because that's stuff, even I, would never
> normally stumble upon, except for the Salon stuff.
> You accuse me of things, but then I can lay out my argument, and you
> either can't, or won't shoot it down based on the merits. You resort
> to genteel name calling.

Hmm, over the years I have shown plenty of links that would explain a position
that I'm arguing - the Pew study, for example. But you seem to think those are all
"obscure", hence not worthy? "Genteel name calling?" Such as??? (And is the "genteel"
part just a way of saying that I'm engaged in "elitist talk?")

> It amounts to everything I read is wrong, Fox is biased and evil, any
> publication owned by a corporation is part of the vast right wing
> conspiracy, etc...

You're really good at jumping to conclusions and catastrophising, Bill.

> That's not the reality, at least not to most people. Some are pretty
> middle of the road, some are biased one way or the other, that's why I
> have sources from all points of view that I read.

Apparently you think I don't.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

In article <534d352d-882d-4aa5-b173-1f8e6f61ea3b@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Jan 16, 11:11*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a178ef42-10de-4a1e-ac94-1e79b7d2a...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > *Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Trying to convince people that genocide, wholesale torture, brutal human rights
> > > violations are bad is a good thing.
> >
> > * *How do you justify that sentiment when the US has supported governments that
> > do those things, like Rios Mont, Saddam Hussein, Mubarak or the Somozas?

> Pragmatism. We have some influence over "our" scumbags as opposed to
> those who hate us.

I think that's a poor rationalization. I believe that the US has rarely actually
influenced "our" scumbags to not do the things that you listed above as being "bad."
The influence has been more in the area of getting them to do stuff that is seemingly
beneficial to US national interests. That's the point I'm making that you won't see:
supporting a government that is engaged in vile acts against its citizenry, while
knowing that they're doing that and sometimes even participating in it (by supplying
weapons or training), just so we can have a military base, have access to their
resources or keep that government from taking aid from someone else is crap and
hypocritical. In the long run, it certainly doesn't engender much good will from the
citizens, does it? I'm not sure that the people who've been killed by, say, Rios
Mont would see it as quite such a good deal: "Well, at least the Stalinists didn't
get a foothold..."
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

In article <f6d124d5-e191-467b-ab35-6c9a008c4893@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> Howard you conntinually accuse me of only holding one side
> responsible, especially when you are pushed. I have NEVER seen you
> hold anyone on the left responsible for anything other than not being
> far enough left.
> I think the US has helped a lot of those places despite the miserable
> record. The record under the Stalinist folks you support would be
> worse. How's FARC on human rights?
> You're really good at the game, and get your points in without giving
> anything back. Seems in everyone elses responses/comments over the
> years they understand what I'm saying, and I'm sure you do to.
> The difference is that I have a point of view, I make it plain and
> open. I own it. Your positions and how you got to them are like a
> blizzard in the air, always shifting, hard to see through, but pile up
> anyway, then melt away under the pressure of the sun.
> I'm chaising my tail with you, I've known this for a long time, but I
> keep doing. Stupid Pavlov.
> If you don't work for the SF Democratic party, or other progressive
> groups you really should. You are incredibly good.
> Bill C

My perception of a lot of the stuff we've discussed in here recently and via email
(such as the stuff toward the end of '07) has been that it wasn't much of an attempt
to understand my views - more you trying to get me to stand up and accept blame on
behalf of "the Left" for the numerous things you seem to want to blame on "us", or
say that "the Left" was wrong to have supported certain bad people. It starts to feel
like you want me to repudiate, renounce and denounce my leaders (whoever they may be)
and admit that "we" are, in fact, trying to destroy the United States, as well as
take your stuff. I enjoy a friendly exchange of ideas but that started to seem not
very friendly.

The trouble is, I don't happen to believe that "the Left" is responsible for the
things you want to you want to say "we" are. A couple of examples are the Cambodians
killed by the Khmer Rouge, or "our" support of Robert Mugabe's destruction of
Zimbabwe.

I simply have a very difficult time reconciling your description of "the Left" and
"our" activities with my own experiences. In these three posts, you've flatly
assigned me as a supporter of Stalin, Mao and the FARCers. Recently you stated in
here that "at least a large minority" would cheer on a communist takeover in this
country [1]. That statement is, quite bluntly, crazy talk. But you can only arrive at
that point of view if your concept of what "the Left" is about is seriously
distorted. I shouldn't have to point out that what you like to call "the Left" is not
a single unit made up of a bunch of people who have the same positions and support
the same things. Judging from your statements about "us", we all have little
monuments to Stalin and Mao in our homes and PayPal accounts with FARC.

[1] Interestingly, you also said that at least as many would be happy for a
theocracy - you do know that a leading, mainstream GOP presidential candidate said
this week that we need to ammend the Constitution to match the word of God?

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Tom Kunich]

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
news:ACJjj.10442$ac7.3112@trndny03...
>
> I don't have the information before me, but you are right. After the
> liberation of the camps there were plenty of displaced people--not only
> Jews but gypsies and others "undesirables" to the Nazis. Problem was, the
> western countries didn't want a flood of these "undesirables" either, and
> finding a homeland for them was a handy way out.

It would be nice if you were to know what you were talking about before you
said it.

[Bill C]

On Jan 17, 11:00*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in messagenews:ACJjj.10442$ac7.3112@trndny03...
>
>
>
> > I don't have the information before me, but you are right. *After the
> > liberation of the camps there were plenty of displaced people--not only
> > Jews but gypsies and others "undesirables" to the Nazis. *Problem was, the
> > western countries didn't want a flood of these "undesirables" either, and
> > finding a homeland for them was a handy way out.
>
> It would be nice if you were to know what you were talking about before you
> said it.

Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement? There was seriously
selective immigration of people we could use, primarily scientists,
but noone really wanted the masses as far as everything I've seen.
Founding the State of Israel was the perfect soultion, from Europe and
America's point of view to a mass of long standing problems, and it
fit their prejudices well too.
Guilt wasn't a small factor either.
If I missed something please point me to some new reading.
Bill C

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
> news:ACJjj.10442$ac7.3112@trndny03...
>>
>> I don't have the information before me, but you are right. After the
>> liberation of the camps there were plenty of displaced people--not
>> only Jews but gypsies and others "undesirables" to the Nazis. Problem
>> was, the western countries didn't want a flood of these "undesirables"
>> either, and finding a homeland for them was a handy way out.
>
> It would be nice if you were to know what you were talking about before
> you said it.
>



Wouldnt it be nice if we were older
Then we wouldnt have to wait so long
And wouldnt it be nice to live together
In the kind of world where we belong

You know its gonna make it that much better
When we can say goodnight and stay together

Wouldnt it be nice if we could wake up
In the morning when the day is new
And after having spent the day together
Hold each other close the whole night through

Happy times together weve been spending
I wish that every kiss was neverending
Wouldnt it be nice

Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true
Baby then there wouldnt be a single thing we couldnt do
We could be married
And then wed be happy

Wouldnt it be nice

You know it seems the more we talk about it
It only makes it worse to live without it
But lets talk about it
Wouldnt it be nice

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:9107905f-ffce-41d4-b9ba-229dd190eda9@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 17, 11:00 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in
> messagenews:ACJjj.10442$ac7.3112@trndny03...
> > >
> > > I don't have the information before me, but you are right. After the
> > > liberation of the camps there were plenty of displaced people--not
> > > only
> > > Jews but gypsies and others "undesirables" to the Nazis. Problem was,
> > > the
> > > western countries didn't want a flood of these "undesirables" either,
> > > and
> > > finding a homeland for them was a handy way out.
> >
> > It would be nice if you were to know what you were talking about before
> > you
> > said it.
>
> Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?

For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we had
no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it so that
they would seem even more pitiful. I'm not saying that I blame them but the
fact is that today we're seeing the result of uncontrolled massive
immigration into this country.

In the 1940's the US departments controlling immigration weren't allowed to
just open the doors as Steven and you seem to imply. The USA had quotas and
they stuck to them AS THEY SHOULD HAVE.

This absolutely was NOT a case of turning away those who were
"undesireables" since my grandfather hadn't any trouble entering and he was
a lower class Jew. My father's family had also entered the country, some
legally (grandmother) and others illegally and they were considered low
enough low-lifes that my father and uncles were not allowed to attend public
school in Oakland. By the 1940's Oakland had started allowing Slavs,
Portuguese, Italians and others scum into the public school system. By that
time Jews were considered to be a step above these other groups.

BTW, it wasn't until 1957 before the New York Yacht Club would allow Jews
into their membership and even then they wouldn't talk to them.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?
>
> For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we
> had no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it
> so that they would seem even more pitiful.


That's pretty pathetic, Tom. I was actually referring to the Allies'
lack of incentive to repatriate these people to their countries of
origin. Nothing to do with throwing open the doors of the US to immigrants.
Unfortunately, I failed to find the article discussing this, despite
looking for quite some time. I really shouldn't have bothered.

Steve

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jan 17, 6:55*pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?
>
> > For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we
> > had no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it
> > so that they would seem even more pitiful.
>
> * * * * That's pretty pathetic, Tom. *I was actually referring to the Allies'
> lack of incentive to repatriate these people to their countries of
> origin. *Nothing to do with throwing open the doors of the US to immigrants.
> * * * * Unfortunately, I failed to find the article discussing this, despite
> looking for quite some time. *I really shouldn't have bothered.



Dumbass -

Even if you weren't talking about that - "flood of immigrants" is a
lame excuse not to take those people in.

The United States had 50% of the world's GDP after WW2, mainly because
this was the only industrialized country that didn't have it's economy
physically devastated by the war. The war never touched our economic
infrastructure.

Instead, we created an intractable problem. We helped out the
oppressed Jews, but unfairly penalized the Palestinians in the
process. We could've afforded a better solution w/ a little more
generosity and foresight.

The price for that decision is still to be fully paid.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Tom Kunich]

"Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13p059i4lmm2j24@corp.supernews.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?
>>
>> For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we
>> had no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it
>> so that they would seem even more pitiful.
>
> That's pretty pathetic, Tom. I was actually referring to the Allies' lack
> of incentive to repatriate these people to their countries of origin.
> Nothing to do with throwing open the doors of the US to immigrants.
> Unfortunately, I failed to find the article discussing this, despite
> looking for quite some time. I really shouldn't have bothered.

Steve, you have to understand what you are talking about before you squeal
about it. I actually knew some of these Jews and they weren't all that
embarrassed to say that they didn't have any way of proving what their
nationality was and most of them didn't care to return to their countries of
origin for obvious reasons. I suggest that you talk to some Jews from
Hungary if you don't understand what I'm talking about.

Do you have any idea what happened in Europe after the war? Millions of
refugees were moving in every which direction and none of them had papers
and they were all trying to go to the places where they might get the best
conditions and the best chance of work. It was a MESS!

A very good friend of mine's wife started in what is now Lithuania and
walked all the way to West Germany as a young teenager and then did anything
she could to get work on a US Army base until she could swing coming to the
USA. She described the conditions at that time and I don't think that you'd
understand it.

Now she was very successful in the University of California system and
became a very important person but wasn't particularly liked by other board
members because she was very conservative having already seen what
liberalism could so easily be twisted into. Just read what people here post.
Better yet look at what the US Jews have been advocating which is almost a
form of suicide.

[Bill C]

On Jan 17, 11:09*pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Instead, we created an intractable problem. We helped out the
> oppressed Jews, but unfairly penalized the Palestinians in the
> process. We could've afforded a better solution w/ a little more
> generosity and foresight.
>
> The price for that decision is still to be fully paid.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

Agree with that, but I think we would've had the "zionist" terroists
trying to reclaim the Holy sites if things had gone any other way. I
also think that those sites would be closed to those of religions
other than Islam. We're talking Saudi expanded and probably even more
fundamentalist given who was active at the end of ww2.
Like a lot of things there's no way to satisfy everyone. The roots go
back through at least the post Ottoman Euro occupation.
The UN was idealistic at that point and wanted to actually "solve"
things. They were the hope for the future and peace, and lots of
people believed it could happen through them. In retrospect ithe UN
looks as usefull, in that role, as Bush's Democracy campaign. Ill
conceived and counterproductive.
Bill C

[Steven Bornfeld]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> On Jan 17, 6:55 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?
>>> For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we
>>> had no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it
>>> so that they would seem even more pitiful.
>> That's pretty pathetic, Tom. I was actually referring to the Allies'
>> lack of incentive to repatriate these people to their countries of
>> origin. Nothing to do with throwing open the doors of the US to immigrants.
>> Unfortunately, I failed to find the article discussing this, despite
>> looking for quite some time. I really shouldn't have bothered.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Even if you weren't talking about that - "flood of immigrants" is a
> lame excuse not to take those people in.
>
> The United States had 50% of the world's GDP after WW2, mainly because
> this was the only industrialized country that didn't have it's economy
> physically devastated by the war. The war never touched our economic
> infrastructure.
>
> Instead, we created an intractable problem. We helped out the
> oppressed Jews, but unfairly penalized the Palestinians in the
> process. We could've afforded a better solution w/ a little more
> generosity and foresight.
>
> The price for that decision is still to be fully paid.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.


There wasn't even much of a flood. There is also some doubt that the
majority would even have wanted relocation to the U.S. Certainly those
with relatives here did come. Others that had been dispossessed during
the Holocaust lost their countries, homes etc. It wasn't all us
either--this was the convenient solution for both western and eastern
Europe.
We tend to get into trouble when we get into this "nation-building"
thing--somthing Shrub said he wouldn't do.

Steve

[Tom Kunich]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1ece6d5-f8c5-43f3-b4de-223c52a94e2d@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Even if you weren't talking about that - "flood of immigrants" is a
> lame excuse not to take those people in.

So you beleive that the USA didn't take in HALF of all the immigrants moving
around Europe. Tell me, is that because you're a fool and don't bother to
actually know anything before talking about it?

>The United States had 50% of the world's GDP after WW2, mainly because
> this was the only industrialized country that didn't have it's economy
> physically devastated by the war. The war never touched our economic
> infrastructure.

I wonder if you even have a small clue what the Marshal Plan was and what it
cost the USA?

> Instead, we created an intractable problem. We helped out the
> oppressed Jews, but unfairly penalized the Palestinians in the
> process. We could've afforded a better solution w/ a little more
> generosity and foresight.

And here I thought that you'd bother to actually know what you were talking
about. Before WW I the area belongs to the Turkish Empire. Between WW I and
WW II it belonged to Syria and the populations there were very light and
mosting in Gaza and the West Bank and NOBODY called themselves
"Palestinians". That word was made up by the United Nations.

MOST of the land that was "given" to the Jews was ALREADY OWNED by the Jews
who'd moved there 1850- 1920 or so.

But by all means demonstrate the sort of ignorance you're so well known for.


The price for that decision is still to be fully paid.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Bill C]

On Jan 18, 2:51*am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> * *In the interests of brevity, I'm putting three posts/replies in one..
<snipped>
same here.
>
> * *[1] Interestingly, you also said that at least as many would be happy for a
> theocracy - you do know that a leading, mainstream GOP presidential candidate said
> this week that we need to ammend the Constitution to match the word of God?
>
> --
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard
>
> * * * * * * * * * *Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
> * * * * * * * * * * *But I've already got a pitchfork...
>
> * * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes I do and he's a nutjob. What's you're point? My point on this
would be when have you ever criticized someone on the left for
anything but not being radical enough.
I do think you, and others deny responsibility and the actions of
those people you enabled and supported. I think you're being dishonest
in rationalizing the results of your actions.
I did read the study, and I still stand by my point that there was
already hostility to the US, violent in the middle east, and parts of
africa, and the americas, and that Iraq made it worse. You downplay
the pre-existing level of hostility.
You choose to excuse/ignore the Pal's past, teachings, statements and
behavior, I can't.
You haven't really volunteered a whole lot of your thinking. It's
been a moving target in response to things I've tossed out for the
most part IMO.I've had to form my opinion basedn ot on direct evidence
from you, but on your replies and reactions to stuff.
You come across a lot like a total partisan. Which "leftist" leaders
do you have problems with, and what are they? Which "leftist" leaders
do you feel haven't been supported by people here in the US?
Which "freedom fighters" don't you support, and why?
Bill C
Let's have some dsicussion.

Once again we have the language problem because these folks have
about as much in common with Euro socialism as any other dictator did.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <85acc9e9-cca3-4481-84f3-6a7668c23895@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Jan 18, 2:51*am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > * *In the interests of brevity, I'm putting three posts/replies in one.
> <snipped>
> same here.
> >
> > * *[1] Interestingly, you also said that at least as many would be happy for a
> > theocracy - you do know that a leading, mainstream GOP presidential candidate
> > said this week that we need to ammend the Constitution to match the word of God?

> Yes I do and he's a nutjob. What's you're point?

My point is that the nutjob is one of the leading candidates in the GOP, which
would suggest that he's got a fair amount of support for that position. There's no
candidate on the other side that's suggesting anything even remotely close to a
communist agenda. I thought that was pretty self evident.

> I do think you, and others deny responsibility and the actions of
> those people you enabled and supported. I think you're being dishonest
> in rationalizing the results of your actions.

I don't happen to agree with your assessment of a) what constitutues "my actions"
and b) what constitutes "people that [I] enabled and supported." So I'm not being
dishonest or rationalizing.

> I did read the study, and I still stand by my point that there was
> already hostility to the US, violent in the middle east, and parts of
> africa, and the americas, and that Iraq made it worse. You downplay
> the pre-existing level of hostility.

No, I don't. I can see from the study that it's gotten worse. That doesn't mean it
wasn't bad in some areas before 2002. Noting that it's getting worse from a
pre-existing bad situation is not the same as downplaying the original level of
hostility.

> You choose to excuse/ignore the Pal's past, teachings, statements and
> behavior, I can't.

The who?

> You haven't really volunteered a whole lot of your thinking.

I think I have volunteered enough in discussions here for people to know where I
stand on a variety of issues.

> It's been a moving target in response to things I've tossed out for the
> most part IMO.I've had to form my opinion basedn ot on direct evidence
> from you, but on your replies and reactions to stuff.

Back when the war in Iraq was imminent and there was huge support for it, anyone
who wanted to express an opinion on the war that didn't go along with that popular
opinion had to preface the opinion with some sort of statement like, "Well, Saddam is
a really horrid person, but..." otherwise they got shouted down as a being
objectively pro-Saddam. That seems to be what you'd like me to do when any vaguely
geo-political discussion starts. "I think (Stalin, Mao, FARC, Hamas, Hizb'allah,
Chavez, Castro, Shining path, Six Sick Sikhs, etc.) is/are really bad, but..."

> You come across a lot like a total partisan. Which "leftist" leaders
> do you have problems with, and what are they? Which "leftist" leaders
> do you feel haven't been supported by people here in the US?
> Which "freedom fighters" don't you support, and why?
> Let's have some dsicussion.

Yeah, I'll consider it. In the meantime, please try to think about knowing when to
ease up.

> Once again we have the language problem because these folks have
> about as much in common with Euro socialism as any other dictator did.

???

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Jan 18, 5:09 am, Bill C wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2:51 am, Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > Interestingly, you also said that at least as many would be happy for a
> > theocracy - you do know that a leading, mainstream GOP presidential candidate said
> > this week that we need to ammend the Constitution to match the word of God?
>
> Yes I do and he's a nutjob. What's you're point?

A recent Pew poll asked (among other things) Republicans and Democrats
to place major presidential candidates on an "ideological" spectrum:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/693/republican-primary

This chart was kinda interesting:
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/693-7.gif

On average, Republican respondents rated themselves to be almost
exactly where they rated Huckabee. If you think Huckabee is a nutjob,
perhaps you think the average Republican is, too

Here are a couple of other observations:

On average, Republican and Democratic respondents rated the Republican
candidates very similarly.

On average, Republican respondents rated Democratic candidates very
differently than did the Democrats.

On average, Republican respondents rated Clinton way more liberal than
Obama, while that was reversed for Democrats. In fact, on average,
Democrats rated Clinton very slightly to their right, and Obama very
slightly to their left.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jan 18, 6:42*am, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 6:55 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>> Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?
> >>> For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we
> >>> had no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it
> >>> so that they would seem even more pitiful.
> >> * * * * That's pretty pathetic, Tom. *I was actually referring to the Allies'
> >> lack of incentive to repatriate these people to their countries of
> >> origin. *Nothing to do with throwing open the doors of the US to immigrants.
> >> * * * * Unfortunately, I failed to find the article discussing this, despite
> >> looking for quite some time. *I really shouldn't have bothered.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Even if you weren't talking about that - "flood of immigrants" is a
> > lame excuse not to take those people in.
>
> > The United States had 50% of the world's GDP after WW2, mainly because
> > this was the only industrialized country that didn't have it's economy
> > physically devastated by the war. The war never touched our economic
> > infrastructure.
>
> > Instead, we created an intractable problem. We helped out the
> > oppressed Jews, but unfairly penalized the Palestinians in the
> > process. We could've afforded a better solution w/ a little more
> > generosity and foresight.
>
> > The price for that decision is still to be fully paid.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> * * * * There wasn't even much of a flood. *There is also some doubt that the
> majority would even have wanted relocation to the U.S. *Certainly those
> with relatives here did come. *Others that had been dispossessed during
> the Holocaust lost their countries, homes etc. *It wasn't all us
> either--this was the convenient solution for both western and eastern
> Europe.
> * * * * We tend to get into trouble when we get into this "nation-building"
> thing--somthing Shrub said he wouldn't do.



Dumbass -


Add to that: we created a religious state. It's not a secular
democracy.

Ironically, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was secular. His foreign minister,
Tariq Aziz, was/is a Christian.

Israel could never had a Christian Foreign Minister, or a Christian
(or any non-Jew) occupying a job of any importance in the government.

Ain't it great? Saddam Hussein's Iraq had more religious freedom than
Israel.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Bill C]

On Jan 18, 3:57*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
Some snippetts from:

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

By 1880, about 24,000 Jews were living in Palestine, out of a
population of about 400,000. At about that time, the Ottoman
government imposed severe restrictions on Jewish immigration and land
purchase, and also began actively soliciting inviting Muslims from
other parts of the Ottoman empire to settle in Palestine, including
Circassians and Bosnians. The restrictions were evaded in various
ways by Jews seeking to colonize Palestine, chiefly by bribery.

By 1914, the total population of Palestine stood at about 700,000.
About 615,000 were Arabs, and 85,000 to 100,000 were Jews
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm


Arab Revolt and the White Paper - In 1936 widespread rioting, later
known as the Arab Revolt or Great Uprising, broke out. The revolt was
kindled when British forces killed Izz al din El Qassam in a gun
battle. Izz al Din El Qassam was a Syrian preacher who had emigrated
to Palestine and was agitating against the British and the Jews. The
revolt was coopted by the Husseini family and by Fawzi El Kaukji, a
former Turkish officer, and it was possibly financed in part by Nazi
Germany and Fascist Italy. Thousands of Arabs and hundreds of Jews
were killed in the revolt, which spread rapidly owing to initial
unpreparedness of the British authorities. About half the 5,000
residents of the Jewish quarter of the old city of Jerusalem were
forced to flee, and the remnant of the Hebron Jewish community was
evacuated as well.

The Husseini family killed both Jews and members of Palestinian Arab
families opposed to their hegemony.
(That's the guy who mentored Arafat and this batch of leaders)

Bill C

[Tom Kunich]

The problem with that history is that it doesn't give a good idea what was
actually happening. While there were Jews from North Africa which were "city
Jews" and lived in the cities, the countryside land owners and farmers were
mostly Jews since farming was not in the Arab philosophy and they tended to
live in cities.

When the British were turning Israel over to the Jews who already owned most
of the place already they were announcing that they would completely
recognize Arab land ownership and wished them to remain and be part of the
new country.

It was the hatred-generating Muslim extremist which we see today that told
the peaceable Arabs that the Jews planned to murder them. You will note that
these same Arab "leaders" have kept these SAME Arab families that fled in
the lowest possible life so that they could recrute suicide bombers from
their midst.

The question is this - why do you and the others here believe that reality
was somehow different from what it was? In FACT the Jews begged the Arabs to
stay and be a part of the new country. What's more, AFTER the surrounding
Arab (ALL of them) countries went to war against Israel and had their butts
kicked the Jews STILL tried to sign peace treaties in which the Arab owned
lands would be returned to their rightful Arab owners. Since the
international UN rules of war said that unless the defeated enemy signed a
treaty that the lands under dispute REVERTED to the victim country (let me
repeat this - Israel was attacked and not the Arab countries). The Arab
leaders refused to even talk to the Israelis and so the Arab owned PUBLIC
lands reverted to Israeli ownership.

Why are people lying about this? Why are people misrepresenting what has a
LONG WRITTEN HISTORY by uninvolved bodies such as several western
governments as well as the UN?

[Steven Bornfeld]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> On Jan 18, 6:42 am, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>> On Jan 17, 6:55 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?
>>>>> For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we
>>>>> had no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it
>>>>> so that they would seem even more pitiful.
>>>> That's pretty pathetic, Tom. I was actually referring to the Allies'
>>>> lack of incentive to repatriate these people to their countries of
>>>> origin. Nothing to do with throwing open the doors of the US to immigrants.
>>>> Unfortunately, I failed to find the article discussing this, despite
>>>> looking for quite some time. I really shouldn't have bothered.
>>> Dumbass -
>>> Even if you weren't talking about that - "flood of immigrants" is a
>>> lame excuse not to take those people in.
>>> The United States had 50% of the world's GDP after WW2, mainly because
>>> this was the only industrialized country that didn't have it's economy
>>> physically devastated by the war. The war never touched our economic
>>> infrastructure.
>>> Instead, we created an intractable problem. We helped out the
>>> oppressed Jews, but unfairly penalized the Palestinians in the
>>> process. We could've afforded a better solution w/ a little more
>>> generosity and foresight.
>>> The price for that decision is still to be fully paid.
>>> thanks,
>>> K. Gringioni.
>> There wasn't even much of a flood. There is also some doubt that the
>> majority would even have wanted relocation to the U.S. Certainly those
>> with relatives here did come. Others that had been dispossessed during
>> the Holocaust lost their countries, homes etc. It wasn't all us
>> either--this was the convenient solution for both western and eastern
>> Europe.
>> We tend to get into trouble when we get into this "nation-building"
>> thing--somthing Shrub said he wouldn't do.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Add to that: we created a religious state. It's not a secular
> democracy.

True. Not the last time either
>
> Ironically, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was secular. His foreign minister,
> Tariq Aziz, was/is a Christian.
>
> Israel could never had a Christian Foreign Minister, or a Christian
> (or any non-Jew) occupying a job of any importance in the government.
>
> Ain't it great? Saddam Hussein's Iraq had more religious freedom than
> Israel.


That's a bit of a stretch.

Steve


>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jan 18, 6:51*pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 6:42 am, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >>> On Jan 17, 6:55 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>> Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?
> >>>>> For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we
> >>>>> had no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it
> >>>>> so that they would seem even more pitiful.
> >>>> * * * * That's pretty pathetic, Tom. *I was actually referring to the Allies'
> >>>> lack of incentive to repatriate these people to their countries of
> >>>> origin. *Nothing to do with throwing open the doors of the US to immigrants.
> >>>> * * * * Unfortunately, I failed to find the article discussing this, despite
> >>>> looking for quite some time. *I really shouldn't have bothered.
> >>> Dumbass -
> >>> Even if you weren't talking about that - "flood of immigrants" is a
> >>> lame excuse not to take those people in.
> >>> The United States had 50% of the world's GDP after WW2, mainly because
> >>> this was the only industrialized country that didn't have it's economy
> >>> physically devastated by the war. The war never touched our economic
> >>> infrastructure.
> >>> Instead, we created an intractable problem. We helped out the
> >>> oppressed Jews, but unfairly penalized the Palestinians in the
> >>> process. We could've afforded a better solution w/ a little more
> >>> generosity and foresight.
> >>> The price for that decision is still to be fully paid.
> >>> thanks,
> >>> K. Gringioni.
> >> * * * * There wasn't even much of a flood. *There is also some doubt that the
> >> majority would even have wanted relocation to the U.S. *Certainly those
> >> with relatives here did come. *Others that had been dispossessed during
> >> the Holocaust lost their countries, homes etc. *It wasn't all us
> >> either--this was the convenient solution for both western and eastern
> >> Europe.
> >> * * * * We tend to get into trouble when we get into this "nation-building"
> >> thing--somthing Shrub said he wouldn't do.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Add to that: we created a religious state. It's not a secular
> > democracy.
>
> * * * * True. *Not the last time either
>
>
>
> > Ironically, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was secular. His foreign minister,
> > Tariq Aziz, was/is a Christian.
>
> > Israel could never had a Christian Foreign Minister, or a Christian
> > (or any non-Jew) occupying a job of any importance in the government.
>
> > Ain't it great? Saddam Hussein's Iraq had more religious freedom than
> > Israel.
>
> * * * * That's a bit of a stretch.



Dumbass -


Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he ran a secular state.

Israel does not.

Google "Tariq Aziz" and see. He is a Chaldean Catholic.

Tell me, has a Catholic or any non-Jew ever held a government position
of any importance in Israel?

Scoreboard baby. Those facts speak for themselves.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> On Jan 18, 6:51 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>> On Jan 18, 6:42 am, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 17, 6:55 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?
>>>>>>> For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we
>>>>>>> had no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it
>>>>>>> so that they would seem even more pitiful.
>>>>>> That's pretty pathetic, Tom. I was actually referring to the Allies'
>>>>>> lack of incentive to repatriate these people to their countries of
>>>>>> origin. Nothing to do with throwing open the doors of the US to immigrants.
>>>>>> Unfortunately, I failed to find the article discussing this, despite
>>>>>> looking for quite some time. I really shouldn't have bothered.
>>>>> Dumbass -
>>>>> Even if you weren't talking about that - "flood of immigrants" is a
>>>>> lame excuse not to take those people in.
>>>>> The United States had 50% of the world's GDP after WW2, mainly because
>>>>> this was the only industrialized country that didn't have it's economy
>>>>> physically devastated by the war. The war never touched our economic
>>>>> infrastructure.
>>>>> Instead, we created an intractable problem. We helped out the
>>>>> oppressed Jews, but unfairly penalized the Palestinians in the
>>>>> process. We could've afforded a better solution w/ a little more
>>>>> generosity and foresight.
>>>>> The price for that decision is still to be fully paid.
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> K. Gringioni.
>>>> There wasn't even much of a flood. There is also some doubt that the
>>>> majority would even have wanted relocation to the U.S. Certainly those
>>>> with relatives here did come. Others that had been dispossessed during
>>>> the Holocaust lost their countries, homes etc. It wasn't all us
>>>> either--this was the convenient solution for both western and eastern
>>>> Europe.
>>>> We tend to get into trouble when we get into this "nation-building"
>>>> thing--somthing Shrub said he wouldn't do.
>>> Dumbass -
>>> Add to that: we created a religious state. It's not a secular
>>> democracy.
>> True. Not the last time either
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ironically, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was secular. His foreign minister,
>>> Tariq Aziz, was/is a Christian.
>>> Israel could never had a Christian Foreign Minister, or a Christian
>>> (or any non-Jew) occupying a job of any importance in the government.
>>> Ain't it great? Saddam Hussein's Iraq had more religious freedom than
>>> Israel.
>> That's a bit of a stretch.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he ran a secular state.
>
> Israel does not.
>
> Google "Tariq Aziz" and see. He is a Chaldean Catholic.
>
> Tell me, has a Catholic or any non-Jew ever held a government position
> of any importance in Israel?
>
> Scoreboard baby. Those facts speak for themselves.


There's something about losing half your family that focuses your mind
in a certain way. I'm an American, not part of a fifth column. Many
American Jews abhor some of Israel's domestic policy (as do I). But
those I've spoken to are still glad it's there--just in case.
You can differ, and I really don't expect you to understand.

Steve
>
>

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Jan 19, 1:09 am, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:

> http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/693-7.gif
>
> On average, Republican respondents rated Clinton way more liberal than
> Obama, while that was reversed for Democrats. In fact, on average,
> Democrats rated Clinton very slightly to their right, and Obama very
> slightly to their left.

Well, duh. That's exactly where a crypto-Commie
secret-lesbian Manchurian candidate would position
herself. It's a trick, like Gorbachev and perestroika.

You know that Gorby and Putin get together and laugh
about that over vodka shooters and blini, right?

Ben

[William R. Mattil]

rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:

> On average, Republican respondents rated Clinton way more liberal than
> Obama, while that was reversed for Democrats. In fact, on average,
> Democrats rated Clinton very slightly to their right, and Obama very
> slightly to their left.

How could anyone possibly tell where Hillary actually is politically ?
She has no firm position on anything. She changes in response to Polling
Data.


All of the blustering about Right vs Left not withstanding you people
can't really believe that ***** is electable ? I used to think the
Democratic Party leadership had more brains.



Bill

[Bill C]

On Jan 19, 3:09*am, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 18, 5:09 am, Bill C wrote:
>
> > On Jan 18, 2:51 am, Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > > Interestingly, you also said that at least as many would be happy for a
> > > theocracy - you do know that a leading, mainstream GOP presidential candidate said
> > > this week that we need to ammend the Constitution to match the word of God?
>
> > *Yes I do and he's a nutjob. What's you're point?
>
> A recent Pew poll asked (among other things) Republicans and Democrats
> to place major presidential candidates on an "ideological" spectrum:http://pewresearch.org/pubs/693/republican-primary
>
> This chart was kinda interesting:http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/693-7.gif
>
> On average, Republican respondents rated themselves to be almost
> exactly where they rated Huckabee. If you think Huckabee is a nutjob,
> perhaps you think the average Republican is, too
>
> Here are a couple of other observations:
>
> On average, Republican and Democratic respondents rated the Republican
> candidates very similarly.
>
> On average, Republican respondents rated Democratic candidates very
> differently than did the Democrats.
>
> On average, Republican respondents rated Clinton way more liberal than
> Obama, while that was reversed for Democrats. In fact, on average,
> Democrats rated Clinton very slightly to their right, and Obama very
> slightly to their left.

Good stuff. I wishi it showed Kucinich. If it showed Hucabee it
should've showed him. They are similar nutjobs. I agree with the Dems
that Obama is far more liberal left than Hillary is currently showing.
The Republuicans are palying to the extremist/xtian base, Hillary is
playing to the center.
I'm not any happier with the Moral Majority/Focus on the Family end
of the Republicans than I am with the MoveOn end of the Dems. They're
all nutjobs.
Bill C

[Tom Kunich]

<rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:587137fe-c2d8-480e-a13d-da6a0f8849a3@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> On average, Republican respondents rated Democratic candidates very
> differently than did the Democrats.

On the average you've demonstrated that you have no idea what the hell is
going on around you.

[Bill C]

On Jan 19, 4:30*am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:
> On Jan 19, 1:09 am, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/693-7.gif
>
> > On average, Republican respondents rated Clinton way more liberal than
> > Obama, while that was reversed for Democrats. In fact, on average,
> > Democrats rated Clinton very slightly to their right, and Obama very
> > slightly to their left.
>
> Well, duh. *That's exactly where a crypto-Commie
> secret-lesbian Manchurian candidate would position
> herself. *It's a trick, like Gorbachev and perestroika.
>
> You know that Gorby and Putin get together and laugh
> about that over vodka shooters and blini, right?
>
> Ben

I know quite a few democratic activists who want nothing to do with
Hillary for exactly that reason. They're convinced she'll do, and say
ANYTHING for power. If she thought it'd help her win she'd run as a
Republican IMO. That's the way people seem to feel about Guiliani too.
Bill C

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Jan 19, 6:13*am, "William R. Mattil" <wrmat...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On average, Republican respondents rated Clinton way more liberal than
> > Obama, while that was reversed for Democrats. In fact, on average,
> > Democrats rated Clinton very slightly to their right, and Obama very
> > slightly to their left.
>
> How could anyone possibly tell where Hillary actually is politically ?
> She has no firm position on anything. She changes in response to Polling
> Data.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/1603d63c5f5b1411?
http://tinyurl.com/23l8vz

> All of the blustering about Right vs Left not withstanding you people
> can't really believe that ***** is electable ? I used to think the
> Democratic Party leadership had more brains.

Where the **** have you been for the past 100 years?

[Michael Press]

In article <Wznkj.1231$EZ3.575@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On average, Republican respondents rated Clinton way more liberal than
> > Obama, while that was reversed for Democrats. In fact, on average,
> > Democrats rated Clinton very slightly to their right, and Obama very
> > slightly to their left.
>
> How could anyone possibly tell where Hillary actually is politically ?
> She has no firm position on anything. She changes in response to Polling
> Data.
>
>
> All of the blustering about Right vs Left not withstanding you people
> can't really believe that ***** is electable ? I used to think the
> Democratic Party leadership had more brains.

I do not pay close attention. Is the Democratic party offering
a choice between a white woman and a black man? Possibly both?
Who will be on top?

--
Michael Press

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:e20c94b6-4edb-45e3-afcf-6d204814f087@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Good stuff. I wishi it showed Kucinich. If it showed Hucabee it
> should've showed him.

They shouldn't have bothered with Huckabee but then the press is doing
anything they can to sabotage the Conservatives.

> I agree with the Dems that Obama is far more liberal left than
> Hillary is currently showing.

But Hillary is FAR FAR more left than Obama in truth. Or has everyone
forgotten her medical plans for the USA?

> I'm not any happier with the Moral Majority/Focus on the Family end
> of the Republicans than I am with the MoveOn end of the Dems. They're
> all nutjobs.

I'd be willing to bet that you don't know the position of the Focus on the
Family "end".

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jan 19, 3:21*pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 6:51 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >>> On Jan 18, 6:42 am, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 17, 6:55 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?
> >>>>>>> For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we
> >>>>>>> had no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it
> >>>>>>> so that they would seem even more pitiful.
> >>>>>> * * * * That's pretty pathetic, Tom. *I was actually referring to the Allies'
> >>>>>> lack of incentive to repatriate these people to their countries of
> >>>>>> origin. *Nothing to do with throwing open the doors of the US to immigrants.
> >>>>>> * * * * Unfortunately, I failed to find the article discussing this, despite
> >>>>>> looking for quite some time. *I really shouldn't have bothered.
> >>>>> Dumbass -
> >>>>> Even if you weren't talking about that - "flood of immigrants" is a
> >>>>> lame excuse not to take those people in.
> >>>>> The United States had 50% of the world's GDP after WW2, mainly because
> >>>>> this was the only industrialized country that didn't have it's economy
> >>>>> physically devastated by the war. The war never touched our economic
> >>>>> infrastructure.
> >>>>> Instead, we created an intractable problem. We helped out the
> >>>>> oppressed Jews, but unfairly penalized the Palestinians in the
> >>>>> process. We could've afforded a better solution w/ a little more
> >>>>> generosity and foresight.
> >>>>> The price for that decision is still to be fully paid.
> >>>>> thanks,
> >>>>> K. Gringioni.
> >>>> * * * * There wasn't even much of a flood. *There is also some doubt that the
> >>>> majority would even have wanted relocation to the U.S. *Certainly those
> >>>> with relatives here did come. *Others that had been dispossessed during
> >>>> the Holocaust lost their countries, homes etc. *It wasn't all us
> >>>> either--this was the convenient solution for both western and eastern
> >>>> Europe.
> >>>> * * * * We tend to get into trouble when we get into this "nation-building"
> >>>> thing--somthing Shrub said he wouldn't do.
> >>> Dumbass -
> >>> Add to that: we created a religious state. It's not a secular
> >>> democracy.
> >> * * * * True. *Not the last time either
>
> >>> Ironically, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was secular. His foreign minister,
> >>> Tariq Aziz, was/is a Christian.
> >>> Israel could never had a Christian Foreign Minister, or a Christian
> >>> (or any non-Jew) occupying a job of any importance in the government.
> >>> Ain't it great? Saddam Hussein's Iraq had more religious freedom than
> >>> Israel.
> >> * * * * That's a bit of a stretch.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he ran a secular state.
>
> > Israel does not.
>
> > Google "Tariq Aziz" and see. He is a Chaldean Catholic.
>
> > Tell me, has a Catholic or any non-Jew ever held a government position
> > of any importance in Israel?
>
> > Scoreboard baby. Those facts speak for themselves.
>
> * * * * There's something about losing half your family that focuses your mind
> in a certain way. *I'm an American, not part of a fifth column. *Many
> American Jews abhor some of Israel's domestic policy (as do I). *But
> those I've spoken to are still glad it's there--just in case.
> * * * * You can differ, and I really don't expect you to understand.



Dumbass -


The way the Israelis treat the Palestinians w/ all the checkpoints and
such is reminiscent of the way the Jews themselves were treated in
places like the Warsaw ghetto.

It's ironic.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Bill C]

On Jan 19, 6:37*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>
> I'd be willing to bet that you don't know the position of the Focus on the
> Family "end".

You'd lose.
Bill C

[Donald Munro]

Michael Press wrote:
> I do not pay close attention. Is the Democratic party offering a choice
> between a white woman and a black man? Possibly both?
> Who will be on top?

The question is even more vexing if Bill is around too.

[Tom Kunich]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9082fb9b-8938-4e2e-9a15-126db80d4484@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> The way the Israelis treat the Palestinians w/ all the checkpoints and
> such is reminiscent of the way the Jews themselves were treated in
> places like the Warsaw ghetto.

Yeah, as we all know, those two situations are identical.

[Bill C]

On Jan 22, 10:26*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9082fb9b-8938-4e2e-9a15-126db80d4484@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > The way the Israelis treat the Palestinians w/ all the checkpoints and
> > such is reminiscent of the way the Jews themselves were treated in
> > places like the Warsaw ghetto.
>
> Yeah, as we all know, those two situations are identical.

There were hundreds of missiles flying out ot the Warsaw ghetto, don't
ya know.
Bill C

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jan 22, 7:45*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 10:26*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:9082fb9b-8938-4e2e-9a15-126db80d4484@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > The way the Israelis treat the Palestinians w/ all the checkpoints and
> > > such is reminiscent of the way the Jews themselves were treated in
> > > places like the Warsaw ghetto.
>
> > Yeah, as we all know, those two situations are identical.
>
> There were hundreds of missiles flying out ot the Warsaw ghetto, don't
> ya know.


Dumbass -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Tom Kunich]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c0804cc-8d0a-4cce-b98c-3c6fcb55ce72@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 7:45 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 10:26 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > > The way the Israelis treat the Palestinians w/ all the checkpoints
> > > > and
> > > > such is reminiscent of the way the Jews themselves were treated in
> > > > places like the Warsaw ghetto.
> >
> > > Yeah, as we all know, those two situations are identical.
> >
> > There were hundreds of missiles flying out ot the Warsaw ghetto, don't
> > ya know.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

There you have it. According to Chang, trying to prevent being shipped off
to an extermination camp is EXACTLY the same thing as being searched before
being let into a country under terrorist attacks.

[Bill C]

On Jan 22, 12:25*pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 7:45*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22, 10:26*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:9082fb9b-8938-4e2e-9a15-126db80d4484@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > The way the Israelis treat the Palestinians w/ all the checkpoints and
> > > > such is reminiscent of the way the Jews themselves were treated in
> > > > places like the Warsaw ghetto.
>
> > > Yeah, as we all know, those two situations are identical.
>
> > There were hundreds of missiles flying out ot the Warsaw ghetto, don't
> > ya know.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

The situations are about as similar as ice cream and lava. It's not
even good trolling.
Bill C

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jan 22, 12:20*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 12:25*pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 7:45*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 22, 10:26*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:9082fb9b-8938-4e2e-9a15-126db80d4484@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > The way the Israelis treat the Palestinians w/ all the checkpoints and
> > > > > such is reminiscent of the way the Jews themselves were treated in
> > > > > places like the Warsaw ghetto.
>
> > > > Yeah, as we all know, those two situations are identical.
>
> > > There were hundreds of missiles flying out ot the Warsaw ghetto, don't
> > > ya know.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> The situations are about as similar as ice cream and lava. It's not
> even good trolling.



Dumbass -


If you were a Palestinian and the Israelis were systematically taking
away your people's land w/ settlements, what would you do?

Resist? Or take it?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Tom Kunich]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a8e6fa0-d2bb-49d6-9586-3bd7c9f8cf9f@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> If you were a Palestinian and the Israelis were systematically taking
> away your people's land w/ settlements, what would you do?
>
> Resist? Or take it?

Tell me, what exactly do you know about "Palestinian land"?

[Bill C]

On Jan 22, 10:41*pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 12:20*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 12:25*pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 22, 7:45*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 22, 10:26*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:9082fb9b-8938-4e2e-9a15-126db80d4484@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > The way the Israelis treat the Palestinians w/ all the checkpoints and
> > > > > > such is reminiscent of the way the Jews themselves were treated in
> > > > > > places like the Warsaw ghetto.
>
> > > > > Yeah, as we all know, those two situations are identical.
>
> > > > There were hundreds of missiles flying out ot the Warsaw ghetto, don't
> > > > ya know.
>
> > > Dumbass -
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
>
> > > thanks,
>
> > > K. Gringioni.
>
> > The situations are about as similar as ice cream and lava. It's not
> > even good trolling.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> If you were a Palestinian and the Israelis were systematically taking
> away your people's land w/ settlements, what would you do?
>
> Resist? Or take it?
>
> thanks,
&