34 Comments

• 1. William Teach  |  August 16th, 2008 at 11:15 am

  Yes, Team Barry does want these types of people, because, to them, it is not about who is voting for Obama, just that people vote for Obama.

• 2. RINOs for Obama ·&hellip  |  August 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am

  [...] This Fall News » News News RINOs for Obama2008-08-16 10:50:27Coming East … Dhimmi Carter as an envoy to Columbia University this fall to [...]

• 3. Upstart  |  August 16th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

  We’ll take them. Might be helpful in states like Colorado, Virginia, Ohio and Florida. Many are Repug Congressman trying to save their political lives come this November and the perks that come along with being a Congressman.

• 4. History rules  |  August 16th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

  I don’t know if you heard, but George Washington said that killing armed English was a legitimate resistance to England’s occupation.

  Also, Michael Collins said killing armed English was a legitimate resistance to England’s occupation.

  I am pretty sure that sentiment has been echoed throughout history by victims of occupation.

• 5. Nevada Pundit  |  August 16th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

  Yes History rules you are exactly right, but do you think the english said the same thing? I doubt it. What you are also saying is that Israel is not a country but an occupying force and there for should be shot at. This is about picking sides and last I saw America supports the country of Isreal, maybe Obama does not.

• 6. congressive  |  August 16th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

  “Obamessiah” vs. “Son of Cain”

  You do know that “Mc” in Gaelic means “son of”, don’t you?

  Ready to accept the Mark of Cain?

• 7. 42  |  August 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

  ***DELETED***

  Off topic and overly insulting.

• 8. neocon  |  August 16th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

  42,

  Oh my, an angry liberal. Hide the Christians.

  Tell me, are your tires inflated, is your thermostat above 72, have you sold your SUV and what has your food consumption been today? You obviously believe the crap that comes out of Obamas mouth, so we are all curious how daftly you toe the line.

  Update please.
  thanks
  neocon

• 9. neocon  |  August 16th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

  Evidently, RINO’s and Racists support Obama. That would leave the clear minded, intelligent people that support McCain, fortunately, they are the majority.

  “If you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the [laughs] Republican party.” - Howard Dean

• 10. 42  |  August 16th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

  psst…neotroll…I don’t support Obama, but you’re doing a great job continuing to show everyone that you’ve yet to have an original thought…

  “Tell me, are your tires inflated”
  psst…neotroll….cars have a real hard time moving if the tires aren’t inflated…does this solve the mystery as to why you haven’t been able to get out of first gear? Are you really this stupid, I mean come one….you have to be faking this…even for a con you are just increadibly…well…stupid….are you and Leo the same person? Have you really been trying to drive on flat tires? Since Obama said to have them properly inflated, did you try to become a con activist and deflate your tires to show you won’t do what Obama says? Hows that working for you neotroll…good?

• 11. Dennis  |  August 16th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

  Nevada Pundit, you touched on the nub of the biscuit in post 5. Yes, the US does support the modern state of Israel, but careful historical review leads one to question whether that was ever the proper moral choice to make.

  The modern state of Israel was founded on the ethnic cleansing of over 800,000 Palestinians accomplished by terror, intimidation, mass killings and crimes against humanity. The UNSCOP partition plan that preceded the explusion of Palestinians was drawn up without Palestinian participation. Compensating European Jews for their suffering during the World War overruled all consideration of the indigenous Palestinian population.

  Truman’s religious zeal founded on faulty biblical exegesis was the single basis for initial US recognition of the new state of Israel. All Truman’s most trusted foreign policy advisers were adamantly opposed to the establishment of a Jewish state in the Middle East.

  Secy of State Dean Acheson adamantly opposed recognizing the new self-declared Zionist state. The Polish-born Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion chose the name “Israel” impulsively and presumtuously, as Israel’s founders had NO ancestral linkage to the Semitic Israel of Biblical times - a fact given short shrift by the Bible-believing Truman as well as Israel’s modern evangelical apologists.

  Loy Henderson, director of the State Dept’s Near East Agency wrote that supporting Zionist aspirations in Palestine would betray the high principles the US had enunciated during the war. William Yale warned that creating a Jewish state in Palestine would be “a major blunder in statesmanship,” and warned of disastrous effects on US interests in other Arab countries. George Kennan and James Forrestal concurred with this view.

  Truman’s religious convictions determined US policy toward Israel, however the wisdom of Acheson, Yale, Henderson, Kennan and Forrestal continue to be vindicated. The interests of the fanatical few Zionists whom Truman permitted to have their way shipwrecked peace in what is arguably the most strategic region in the world, and ultimately created fanatical extremists of the whole Arab world - a thing that most likely never would have happened without the provocation of Israel and the manifestly unjust way it came into being.

  Ref. “Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel” by Michael T. Benson http://www.amazon.com/Harry-S-Truman-Founding-Israel/dp/0275958078 and “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Ilan Pappe http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218914515&sr=1-1

• 12. Dennis  |  August 16th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

  I should have said in my first paragraph above, “careful historical review leads one to question whether that was ever the proper moral OR strategic choice to make.”

• 13. Mark Noonan  |  August 16th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

  Dennis,

  Thank you for the anti-Semitic and pro-terrorist point of view.

  For Pete’s sake, man, is there anything about America and its allies that you don’t hate?

• 14. Dennis  |  August 16th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

  No Mark, it’s plain history without any bias one way or another except to empirical facts. If you doubt the veracity of my post reference the first book - if you hate Pappe you’ll probably love Benson. They both have something relevant to say.

  Might I suggest it is your own bias and resentment that cause you to see hatred behind every point of view not in harmony with your own carefully constructed, stubbornly blindered world view. I believe this is why you feel compelled to delete so many posts for laughably false excuses - reality is troubling to you.

  As for modern terrorism, it was Louis Pasteur who demonstrated that no disease rises in a vaccuum - everything has a cause. Ponder that concept.

• 15. 42  |  August 16th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

  “For Pete’s sake, man, is there anything about America and its allies that you don’t hate?”

  For Pete’s sake Noonan, I completely disagree with Dennis also, but lay off the “anyone who I disagree with hates American” BS…if you don’t have the intellectual wherewithal to respond to what was posted, then at least come up with something a bit more original than “you hate”

  Who are you to be throwing stones? Have you atoned for all of your sins?
  Shouldn’t you be doing some charity work right now? Is this really the best way to honor and respect what Christ did for you?

• 16. neocon  |  August 16th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

  42,

  I see that instead of presenting a cogent rebuttal to Dennis, you have instread kept your disdain aimed at Mark. Has he gotten in your head?

  His denial of the Jews to settle their home land exposes his prejudice, ignorance and gives us all a glimmer into the mindset of individuals who are responsible for the chaos and bloodshed around the globe. Dennis, indirectly, you are a murderer.

  I will pray for your soul, as I know your mind is already gone.

  have a nice day
  neocon

• 17. Dennis  |  August 16th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

  I cited facts, along with documentation from scholarly sources on both sides of the political spectrum. Pappe is a respected Israeli historian; Benson is a staunch Israel supporter, fervent admirer of Truman and current president of Southern Utah University.

  You really should check facts before deciding who’s right and wrong on all the above. Much less before calling anyone a murderer.

• 18. Nevada Pundit  |  August 16th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

  Dennis, remember prior to WWII there were already more than 100,000 Jews living in Palestine (11% of the population). The influx of refugee Jews was to be expected and of course with that large of a population that was ideologically different self rule was to be expected.

  As far as “Israel’s founders had NO ancestral linkage to the Semitic Israel of Biblical times” I find it hard to believe that during the later crusades and the Muslim advance into southern Europe, pushing Jews in front of them (remember this is after the truce with the Jews was broken) it would be almost impossible for the Jews returning from Europe not to have some connection with their ancestral home.

  As for the act causing the creation of Muslim extremists…have you ever heard of the Hashshashin? They were a Muslim offshoot of “holy killers” that used (and this is their words) a “war of terror” to kill those they felt were infidels. The Hashshashin were formed in the late part of the 11 century, well before the Jews resettled in Israel. Also I’m pretty sure that while David Ben-Gurion may have slightly altered the name to Israel it comes originally from the ancient Hebrew word Eretz Yisrael.

  The reality is we can argue the moral value of whether Israel should have become its own nation back and forth and probably match each other on any argument based on one or the other historian’s opinion and view. As of today Israel is a country recognized by the majority of the world and as such has the right of every sovereign nation to defend itself against attacks, whether the attackers once owned the land or not. Realistically, by your reasoning, if England decided to attack us we couldn’t retaliate since we are only occupying their land.

  Israel has been and is still an ally of the U.S. and should be treated as such.

• 19. neocon  |  August 16th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

  Dennis,

  Your, and your “experts”, OPINION is premised on the denial of Israels right to exist and blaming them for the ensuing decades of chaos that followed their illegitimate beginning, again, in your opinion.

  That is anti-semitic and detached from reality and only serves to further the divide, therefore, perpetuating division, hate and violence.

  Why can’t you get that through your thick skull?

• 20. Jeremiah  |  August 16th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

  That is anti-semitic and detached from reality and only serves to further the divide, therefore, perpetuating division, hate and violence.

  That’s exactly right, Neocon.

  Israel is just a tiny country and for Palestine to bully them is just beyond contempt. Israel doesn’t pick on Palestine, so why do they want to pick on Israel, they got all the land they want, and then some…yet they feel somehow justified in picking on little Israel. It seems it’s always like that, the big guy bullies the little guy, and then the lefties have to wonder why the little guy fights back…Well my goodness, it’s like a child and a bag of candy, he has to hang on or they’ll all the other kids will take it from him, just like a man tries to keep his home from thieves coming in and stealing all his possessions and ruining the place. Everyone has a place in society, and should feel content in what we have…but some don’t, some people want it all or none, material greed.

• 21. Ricorun  |  August 16th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

  I presume that any Republican endorsing Obama is sufficient to define them as RINO. Are there any others? How about if they simply don’t endorse McCain and/or if they have positive things to say about Obama? How about if they decline to attend the GOP convention? How about if they never mention the GOP in any of their ads? How about if they donate money to Obama, or some other Democratic entity?

• 22. neocon  |  August 16th, 2008 at 8:11 pm

  “How about if they simply don’t endorse McCain and/or if they have positive things to say about Obama? ……How about if they donate money to Obama, or some other Democratic entity?” - Rico

  They should be shot.
  Have a nice day
  neocon

• 23. 42  |  August 16th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

  16. neocon | August 16th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
  looks like my previous post was correct then neotroll, I guess you really are that stupid, why would I include any rebuttal to Dennis when I was commenting on something Noonan posted…are you still trying to grasp that whole 1+1=2 conundrum? maybe you’re just ticked off from all that driving on flat tires (you can inflate them, I won’t tell all the other cons, I promise)

  “His denial of the Jews to settle their home land”
  pssst..neotroll, we’ve already settled our homeland, Dennis didn’t deny us anything, he may disagree, but he hasn’t actually done anything….maybe you’re just tired and are having a hard time understanding.

• 24. neocon  |  August 16th, 2008 at 8:50 pm

  umm…..42, he cited the formation of the state of Israel as “unjust”.

  Meaning an unwarranted imposition. Therefore, he pretty much denied the right of that State to exist. Following the bouncing ball can help

  just saying
  neocon

• 25. 42  |  August 17th, 2008 at 12:48 am

  umm…neotroll, saying something is unjust doesn’t deny that it exists. Not continuing to show your lack of intelligence can help.

• 26. neocon  |  August 17th, 2008 at 8:58 am

  “Not continuing to show your lack of intelligence can help.” - 42

  um….that’s a double negative. You just complemented me on my intelligence.

  Thank you
  neocon

• 27. Henry Paste  |  August 17th, 2008 at 10:10 am

  2008 Israel is to Palestine what 1908 England was to Ireland.

  It is no coincidence that the early Hamas leadership took a keen interest in the tactics of Michael Collins.

  And during most of The Troubles, the US took England’s side.

• 28. extramedium  |  August 17th, 2008 at 10:21 am

  “Israel is just a tiny country and for Palestine to bully them is just beyond contempt. Israel doesn’t pick on Palestine, so why do they want to pick on Israel, they got all the land they want, and then some…yet they feel somehow justified in picking on little Israel. It seems it’s always like that, the big guy bullies the little guy, and then the lefties have to wonder why the little guy fights back”

  Excuse me Jeremiah, but what exactly are you talking about here? The Palestinians in question are a small minority living in a disputed area within the boundaries of Israel. They have a population of 1.3 million vs. 7.3 million for Israel. Israel has a ready military of 1.2 million, hundreds of fighter jets and attack helicopters and nuclear weapons - not to mention the virtually unconditional backing of the United States in any threatening situation. The Palestinian authority has no organized military, a few armored cars, and some small arms.

  How do you get a big guy (Palestine) picking on a little guy (Israel) out of that? Were you thinking of another country?

• 29. neocon  |  August 17th, 2008 at 10:32 am

  “How do you get a big guy (Palestine) picking on a little guy (Israel) out of that?” - extra

  I wonder if the Palestinians have any broader Arab and Muslim support? Maybe from Iran, or previously from Iraq?

  Maybe?

• 30. extramedium  |  August 17th, 2008 at 11:24 am

  No need to wonder. The Palestinians enjoy the support of many middle east countries, including US ally Saudi Arabia, who contributes tens of millions in financial aid the the Palestinian Authority annually. You must also be aware that the US State Department encourages that support.

  But to my point, how does that make Palestine a bully to Israel?

• 31. neocon  |  August 17th, 2008 at 11:38 am

  “But to my point, how does that make Palestine a bully to Israel?” - extra

  Hard to believe you still don’t get it. Obviously there’s nothing that can penetrate the liberal delusion you subscribe to.

  have a nice day
  neocon

• 32. Dennis  |  August 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

  Nevada Pundit, we certainly can agree on the self-evident fact of Israel’s existence, and ought to focus on how to live in the present with justice for all sides. One essential component of justice is recognizing past injustice, and devising means to avoid continuing established patterns of behavior that perpetuate injustice. I hope this is not too complex for some of the others posting here to grasp.

  The United States has played a role in perpetuating certain injustices by failing to take an even hand between Israel and its dispossessed Palestinian population. I believe this has something to do with denial of our own history of Manifest Destiny and ethnic cleansing of the native American population. That does not mean I favor the eradication of the present United States (duh!), but it means supporting policies that accord native Americans equal rights with all other Americans, and perhaps even cutting them some extra slack to make up for the tremendous inequalities thay have been historically subjected to.

  Neocon, your post 19 is mostly a bigoted mess of falsehood and presumption. Neither of the two scholars I cited deny Israel’s right of existence, and of course neither do I. Ilan Pappe is himself an Israeli and Michael Benson is a fervent admirer of Israel. Both are historians with impressive credentials who know vastly more about Middle Eastern affairs than either of us, and who could intellectually run circles around us.

  As for anti-Semitism, most people who toss the term around do not even know what it means to be a “Semite.” I have no problem with the race or ethnicity of any people. I DO take issue with the _policies_ of some groups and some states. Right now I don’t like what Russia is doing in Georgia, but that does not make me a Russio-phobe. I take emphatic exception to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian population, at present as well as during its ethnic cleansing of the lands it claimed for its new state. That hardly makes me anti-Semitic.

  The facts I raised concerning Israel’s founding are matters of record - one can a.) deny history, b.) acknowledge history and say it is irrelevant now, or c.) say history IS relevant to the present, affects the present and hence must be reckoned with. Apparently Noonan and others here are in group a, whereas I am in group c. That hardly makes me an anti-Semite, and such accusations serve only to shut down discourse and give the accuser a certain psychological satisfaction deriving largely from denial and isolation from reality - a dangerously false comfort in today’s world.

• 33. 42  |  August 17th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

  “um….that’s a double negative. You just complemented me on my intelligence.”

  wow, it’s mind boggling just how stupid you really are; double negative? Hey genius, once again you’ve shown your lack of understanding of even the simplest aspects of the English language. How stupid can you really be?
  wait I know, even with Dennis lobbing softball posts the best you can do is throw back sophomoric responses like “there’s nothing that can penetrate the liberal delusion you subscribe to.”

  neotroll proves that no matter how important the debate, cons will always resort to displaying ignorance and stupidity.

  Dennis - the bottom line is, if you don’t like how you’re being treated, you don’t resort to tactics like the Palestinians have and expect results outside of more violence…there are plenty of other ways (MLK, Gandhi, etc)

• 34. Dennis  |  August 17th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

  Nevada Pundit: “I find it hard to believe that during the later crusades and the Muslim advance into southern Europe, pushing Jews in front of them (remember this is after the truce with the Jews was broken) it would be almost impossible for the Jews returning from Europe not to have some connection with their ancestral home.”

  If you go back far enough there will be some mixed blood between all races. But for biblical Israel, direct lineage was essential to Jewish identity. The Messiah was to come from the tribe of Judah; the Gospels of Matthew and Luke both cite geneaologies of Jesus. If any group were to claim inheritance of the physical land of Israel there would have to be some geneaological record on which to base the claim. The Zionist founders of Israel, as descendents of sixth-century converts to Judaism, cannot be considered to qualify in any normative sense. Of course in all fairness Israel’s founders never made such claims, they simply took advantage of a power vaccuum and global sympathy and by brute force took the land.

  As for God’s promise of biblical lands to the descendents of Abraham, that is part of the mythology apparently embraced by Truman and advanced with a vengeance by evangelicals today. However the Bible teaches that accepting Christ is the criterion, under the New Covenant, of being an inheritor of the legacy of Abraham (see Galatians 3:28, 29).

  The irony is that the evangelicals’ theological model (not part of orthodox Christian tradition, but modern dispensationalism) has no real affection for Jewish people, who become disposable once the scenario for the rapture is set (except for those who become Christians). Most Israelis understand this - they dismiss evangelical theology and take the support; it is a practical matter to them.

  You reference the Hashshashin, I was speaking in post 11 of modern Arab fanaticism. The fact is most Palestinians craved normality after WW2 and did not imagine what would happen next. After the UN partition plan was laid out the (mostly somnolent) Arab League and regional inter-Arab Organization objected to its terms and simply boycotted the negotiations, believing that would be enough to send planners back to the table.

  It was a most unfortunate strategy. They later offered token resistance to the newcomers but were unprepared for the fanatical intensity that drove the Zionist settlers. It was only after thousands of Palestinian deaths and the razing of hundreds of Palestinian villages and towns to their foundations that Arab hatred coalesced.

  Continuing policies of collective punishment and inhumane treatment of Palestinians by Israel has fanned this hatred, as has US knee-jerk support of Israel. This hatred has been exploited by bin Laden (along with the religious fanaticism of people like Sayyid Qutb, but that is another line of influence that can’t be discussed here without going too far off-topic). If the United States is serious about Arab alliances we cannot be a bystander to a favored ally continuing human rights violations that would be considered unacceptable if committed by others. This is pure hypocrisy and the Arab world sees it as such.

  Israel IS a player and by any standard must be cultivated and held as an ally - but they are not beyond censure when they violate basic standards of civilized conduct. 42, this by no means excuses Palestinian terror, but the US must reckon with both the proportionality and real history of the Israel-Palestine situation. Until we are willing to do that there will be little improvement in our relationship with the Arab world.