How can Dean be anti-Jew when he has a Jewish wife?

His son was raised Jewish too.

I'd like an explanation from the Lieberman apologists.

I have no idea why so many get up in arms and so defensive, except that with any fundamentalists, including Jewish fundamentalists, the best defense is a good offense. The hypocrisy is pretty amazing.

:)

Just as we must not allow Bushites to question our patriotism if we critize and work against Bush* Policies, we must also insist that Sharon is not Isreal. I am sure there are millions in the world who agree Isreal should exist but are not behind the methods and policies of those currently in power.

Being against bad policy does not mean one is anti-Jewish, anti-Isreal or anti-American. It means one wishes to adopt policy different from the blood feud sentiments that are currently in use.

see above

Its not about Israel, or being Jewish, or American and being Christian, or Iraq and being Muslim for that matter.

Its when the extremity and righteousness gets mixed into the batter that the problems, blame games and wrongdoing begins.

:toast:

Well said.

It can't possibly be because he thinks he has a chance. I can never really understand what his agenda is. But it sure isn't helping the Democrats.

Possibly its because being Jewish is not quite an automatic endorsement of Israel.

Someone Please tell Liberman to shut the hell up!

Fox and Rush have had a field day with his attacks on Dean...


As far as I can tell Dean's comments are just like Bush and Clinton before him..


Hey Al Gore ...make the call

SHUT THE FUCK UP !

Hows that ?

Could being anti-Jew in Lieberman's book mean putting the interests of the United States above those of Israel? Because that is exactly what I expect an American president to do.

I had a post deleted for less than that. Funny thing is if you said the same about Vatican City...it'd be ok.

RC

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Or the self-righteous sleaze who recruits one?

Ever?

I think it's nice that you feel so bad for the poor put upon Palestinians. Maybe the fact that they kill Jews is why you like them so much, rather than championing say, Kurds, or some other war-ravaged minority.

Personally, I like Kurds, but that's just me.

than Israelis kill them back, and commit more land theft. The only American leader who can put a stop to it is someone who recongnizes the injustices on both sides.

of history you have.

"They" were killing Israelis before there was an Israel. Its a popular avocation in thst part of the world.

Please explain. And when you get done with that please share with us your bountiful knowledge on the history of the area. I'd hazard to guess the average Palestinian family has lived there a whole hell of allot longer than Barney Silverstiens, from Syosset New York.

RC

actions of a guy dressed in 25,000 dollars worth of equipment blowing the shit out of some Palestinians while comfortably seated in the air conditioned cockpit of an Apache Helicopter your tax dollars bought?

Have you ever questioned sending 9 billion a year or $84,854,827,200 (that's trillion) since 1949 (more than any other country on earth) to Israelis (primarily transplanted Americans, Europeans and Russians) so they may purchase the equipment with which to most efficiently murder their "fellow semites"?

I don't believe anyone said they liked the fact that Palestinians are waging a war the only way they can possibly wage one. I believe what people are saying is that it is improper to send Israel Trillions of dollars to wage theirs against the Palestinians. I propose that we level the playing field and send the Palestinians 85 Trillion as well. They'd no doubt adopt the more civilized means of killing Israelis....you know....dressing up in 25,000 dollars worth of equipment and blowing the shit out of them from the cockpit of an Apache. That approach would surely be more attractive and heroic than blowing ones self up in the process.....and in your eyes it would be so much more socially acceptable.

Tell you what chief....I'll toddle over to your neighborhood, knock your house down and build one of my own where it stands.....if you bitch about it or raise a ruckus, I'll tell Uncle Sam he owes me a hand out, cause I am originally from New York. Then I'll chase you, your wife and kids around in the Apache Long Bow I bought with my free money and squirt 200 rounds a minute in your families general direction from its 30mm chain gun or maybe I'll opt to fire couple of Hellfire missiles or perhaps one or two 2.75" rockets. Skies the limit, cause I'm gonna get another 9 billion next year. You know...cause I'm from New York. If anyone suggests I'm doing something wrong I'll put the back of my hand to my head and say.....OOOOOOH your an anti-New Yorker....how dare you say anything nasty about what I am doing....you just hate New Yorkers like me. If you throw a few rocks at me or get real desperate and strap a bomb to your chest and walk into the store my wife shops at, I'll put the back of my hand to my head and cry OOOOOOOH you aren't playing fair!

No chief....killing people to settle your disputes is anti-human and that pretty much trumps all other antis- in my book. It's particularly despicable when it's my tax dollar being used to fund that killing. You want to have a war with Palestinians go ahead and spend your own goddamn money to do it but don't spend mine. I'd prefer to have mine go to my next door neighbors 73 year old mother who must work at Walmart so she can afford to take her medicine.

It's pretty damn disingenuous and pathetic to suggest that being of the Jewish faith gives one moral superiority over someone else. It's flat out disgusting when you suggest that because one is of this faith I owe them my money.....particularily when that person or persons intends to use it to kill his fellow human beings. If you don't like bigots...then don't make noises like one. You are doing people of the Jewish faith, no favors when you do.

Joe Lieberman is a pathetic, pandering asshole....his behaviour fits to a t that described in the fore-written paragraph. Nope Joe....I ain't anti-Jewish and I ain't an anti-semitic either....I am anti-pathetic pandering asshole.

RC

:toast:

I can see why your post could be pulled for being perceived as anti-Semitic.

You said:
Thou shalt not disparage anything with jew attached to it. They (my emphasis) can do or kill anything they want but we are not allowed to question their actions.

Maybe it's an error in your wording but I understand you to be saying "they" = Jews??? Not extremists in the Likud Gov't or anti-Palestinian agitators, for example?

Let me help you with the definition: 1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples.

So evidently it isn't being an anti-semite which is the problem.....it is being the wrong kind of anti-semite.

Further...the average "Israeli", transplanted Americans, Europeans and Russians is a whole lot less semitic than those who lived there for the past few centuries.

No what I am is anti-stupid....and particularly anti-funded with my tax dollars-stupid.

I don't have a problem with anyone of any faith....as long as they don't think their faith gives them moral authority to kill me or to use my money to kill someone else. If and when they do think these things....you can bet your ass I'll call them on it...in a real severe way. Makes no difference if they're Jewish or Christian or Hindu or Muslim....you'll get the same reaction. If my response is met with self pitying indignant claims that I am anti-(insert religion here)...the person making those claims can take his or her bigotry and stick it up his or her self serving, self righteous ass.

RC

and his/her? sweeping assertion re: Jews, period. If you'll reread my post I'm sure it's quite clear on the point.

And while I appreciate your "help" I'm already aware that the definition is broader usually understood and includes non-Jewish members of Middle Eastern ethnic groups (tho I'm fuzzy on whether Persians are included- you could clarify that if you'd like).
But if it will make you happy, I'll gladly substitute (in the future, it's too late to edit the above) Jew Hater for Anti-Semite. I'll also be particularly careful with terms like homophobe, racist and misogynist....

Here-here!

Couldn't resist...

He's not anti-jew, and it's ridiculous to suggest that he is. Maybe he harbors some prejudices on the subject, but that's only human: we're all a bit bigoted and sexist; recognizing weird demons inside is part of enlightenment. I don't trust people who claim no prejudices; those who admit them, conversely, are often the least so.

He's taking unfair hits because what he really meant to say was that we need to be as fairminded and dispassionate about the Israeli situation as possible, and YES, this country has been too blindly tilted toward Israel's interests. You can't say such things in many circles. Look what trouble Moran got into; he was speaking something with a shred of truth in it. Look how many American Jews turned a blind eye on the railroading of Saddam (sure, he was a creep, but he wasn't a threat), even to the extent of voting for the war. Admittedly, we don't know all of what Congress was told behind closed doors, but why would a Henry Waxman vote for the war? It's highly charged. There are less Jews in the world than there were a hundred years ago. Somewhere around 40% of them were killed off and nobody really did a damned thing. Even after the war, the Canadian Prime Minister, when asking how many he'd allow in said "one is too many". Unfortunately they created a country that's almost a definition of a "no-win" situation, and there we are.

You're not going to speak rationally on the Israel issue without taking hits, and I think Dean was doing the right thing here. His response to Lieberman was a bit tart and dismissive, but that's just quibbling on my part.

Certainly far fewer than tose of Jewish decent.

And why stop there.......
How many Africans are dying every day of AIDS due to the arrogant greedy bigots of the pharmaceutical companies...TODAY???

Ethnic cleansing is absolutely wrong no matter what race it is!

But excluding one over the other creating a victimization that
this race is the only one that has ever suffered is also
a narrow,provincial way of thinking.

I was one of those ABB people. If for some reason he got the dem nom, I was gonna buy a 5th of any kind of liquor and go to the polls and vote for him. Not Now! If for some bizaare reason he did get the nomination you will find me packing and applying for a passport, unlike Alec Baldwin, I am serious as a heart attack.

That's friggen awesome. Of course Liebershit will say that. Dean should be advertising this from every billboard. He can win Jewish vote.

though Dean never converted (he's Protestant Christian)

at least that is the religion listed at his Vote-smart.org website and his CNN profile.

there is a real difference

Nobody ever implied anti-semitism

Dean wants to destroy Israel for whatever reason, his opponents claim. If a person wasn't anti-semetic, why the hell would they want to do this?

They are one and the same.

RC

anti-Israel. But he seems to be going out of his way to avoid being perceived as pro-Israel. And the fact is, American policy over the past 50 years has been decidedly pro-Israel.

We can't be an honest broker if we're decidedly pro-either side.

And a wall goes up placing the Palestinian people in a corral, then perhaps something needs to be looked at a bit!!

Maybe the definition of "Pro-Israel" should be reflected upon again, and the people of Palestine need to be treated humanely.

Fundamentalism is Fundamentalism if you have Jerry Falwell or you have Sharron. The two are no different really, except that one has more power than the other.

The issue of extreme fundamentalism is the issue here, there and everywhere.

I'll start caring about them. But as long as they consider terrorism to be a legitimate means of pursuing political ends, I won't. That's the simple truth, and I believe that most Americans agree with me on this.

and steal their land.

than vice-versa

is that there are Palestinian terrorist groups that are deliberately targeting Israeli civilians. Israel is targeting the leaders of the terrorist groups. To me that makes a big difference. I think Israel has every right to go after these people, just as the U.S. had every right to go after Al Quaeda. Innocent people died in Afghanistan. That's didn't stop us. Why should the risk of harm to innocent Palestinian stop the Israeli's from going after Palestinian terrorists? It shouldn't.

to hell with those pesky "innocents" :eyes:

You're a real laugh a minute....no seriously.

All Israeli civilians are deemed guilty by the Palestinian murderers, why are Jews worse to deem Palestinian civilians guilty?

Yet, I would like to ask for the death toll figures. Any census done?

How many Palestinians dead versus Israelis? Heck, I'll even let you count the suicide bombers for your side.

Since Palestinians blow up a bus and the usual Israeli response is to bulldoze a house, I'd need to see your numbers to be impressed by them.

Bad, bad Israelis. Good, good Palestinians.

Yes, indeed.

My side is peace...what's yours?

GAZA CITY, Aug 13 (AFP) - A total of 2,647 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the Palestinian uprising against Israel in September 2000, a Palestinian Authority (PA) information office said Wednesday.
"The number of martyrs killed between the start of the Al-Aqsa intifada (uprising) on September 28, 2000 and July 31, 2003 stands at 2,647: 1,157 in the Gaza Strip and 1,490 in the West Bank," it said in a statement.

Of that number, 482 victims were children and 178 women.

The figures include Palestinians killed during Israeli army raids and those hit in "targeted killings" carried out by the military.

During the 34-month-long conflict, 36,448 people have been wounded, 11,390 in Gaza and 25,058 in the West Bank, the statement said.

The report also put the total number of Palestinians in Israeli jails at 7,389 up to the end of July.

Since the figures were compiled, Israel has released around 400 Palestinian prisoners.

According to an AFP count, a total of 3,399 people have been killed as a result of the intifada, including 2,560 Palestinians and 778 Israelis.

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/1aefb71ae849221249256d820011d185?OpenDocument

Thanks for playing.

But did it never occur to you that perhaps the decision by Palestinians to embrace terrorism as a means of achieving political ends is an INSANELY STUPID idea?

Honestly, if the Palestinians rejected terrorism, they would be viewed much more sympathetically by the American public. And the Israeli's wouldn't have to undertake military operations in the occupied terrorities. But instead, they choose to specifically target civilians. In case you weren't aware, Americans don't much care for terrorist attacks on civilians, and they readily support a strong military response to such attacks. Perhaps that explains why, apart from the fringe left, the Palestinians have so few friends in the U.S.

too bad both sides engage in it.Somehow I doubt the american people would so readily accept military attacks if they knew how many innocent people are being killed to.

it's also very interesting that you refer to dead people as points.

Israel looked more like terrorists before we helped them out with so much money/weapons. The Palestinians could have looked like Israel does now if we had done the same for them.

Do I think we should have done that. NO.

I think we should have stayed out of it - just like Dean is suggesting we do now.

Better late than never.

nobody would give a big rats ass about them.

Don't tell me that the average American gives a darn about suffering in other countries, because I don't buy it.

We just don't give a rip.

you know, those 482 palestinian children could have become terrorists, it was important to kill them before they could strike.

:puke:

It is very stupid to think that all of those 2,560 were terrorists... it is obvious that they BOTH attack civilians.

who sure did want to see these numbers.

so go over there and dismantle hamas,

that he isn't being deliberately careless. Afterall dropping a bomb on an apartment building to get a wheel chaired Hamas leader is pretty neglegent. He isn't taking special care, to avoid civilians,and he has deliberately targeted civilians in Lebanon.

I'd say he's shown enormous restraint. I'd have expected far worse from him than we've seen.

Perhaps you might want to ask yourself whehter the terrorist attacks by the Palestinians are the reason why the Israelis have chosen to put Sharon in charge. Sharon's a military guy, not a diplomat. And when a population is under siege, it's only natural that they'd turn to someone like Sharon. As long as the Palestinians take a hard-line against the Israelis, the Israeli people are going to respond in kind.

I think the successfull selling of that myth is why Israelis have turned hard right. I also think Sharon provoked the incident with his visit to the sensitive mosque. This game of Chicken wont' work for either side, which why Dean's views should be welcome. The israelis my not deliberately target to kill, but they do deliberately deny the Palestinians the right to be viewed as equal human beings with their settlement policies.

Followed by a possibly fixed election?
Or is that just crazy talk?

So ignorance is bliss. Refreshing to hear such honesty.

And you're so right, too. Isreal has every right to kill as many Palestinians as they want for the right to steal as much of their land as they want.

I heard that recently. Quite a notion. You sound like a pretty proud taxpayer, you know?

If that's the case there must have been over 2000 Palestine terrorist groups, hundreds of them lead by women and children. I guess the ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD that the Israelis bulldozed, burying everyone alive, was a terrorist leader neighborhood. If someone buried my relatives alive would I be wrong to want to retaliate? Perhaps, but I'd definitely have a very hard f****** time stopping myself.

If you actually count the number of civilians that have been killed by Sharon vs those by Arafat... this is not the path to take in a discussion. Why? First of all-- one would have to define "killed by"
If "killed by" equals through the negligence, instigation or planning by the individual then the result is:

Sharon would have more--and thus would obscure the point of the discussion for many. (just watch the responses to this post...)

If "killed by" equals -- actually took part in the combative action in the form of bombing, war etc. Then the result would be the same.

The point is--when anyone starts competing over who kills more--and stacking bodies in some gruesome display of "your guy is worse than ours" you know what you end up with?

A big stack of bodies.

The blood that gushes from the wounds is the same. The smell of burnt flesh is the same. The cries of the families members are the same.

In saying the the US and Israel have shared values---he leaves out the Palestinians. The point that so irks me about Lieberman's statement concerning "values" last night is that if you follow the logic of his statementment he is implying that Palestinians are some how deficient as a people in valuing human life.

You know what that is? Bigotry--pure and simple.

It paints an entire people with one brush
It dehumanizes them with the inference that as a group they do
not value human lives.
Treating them as subhuman is a vile and twisted notion.

Shame on Lieberman and shame on any who make such sweeping generalizations about any group of people.

No one people has a monopoly on victimhood or morality.

I couldn't have said it better. Absolutely brilliant!

RC

you probably don't feel too affectionate towards Americans right now....right? As long as America continues to kill innocent civilians in this adventurous war in Iraq...you shouldn't care about the US...

I really love it when people lump everyone into a single category...your attitude as expressed above is part of the problem. Please explain to me how the Palastinian authority is able to reign in Hammas extremists, who know by bombing Israeli citizens they undermine the peace process, after Isreal destroyed most of the infrastructure during a year when the US did nothing to stop them...

Here's an idea, the next time that a suicide bomber strikes, Isreal should do nothing...no retaliation, just condem the attack...but that won't happen because Sharon needs to feed on this retalitory nonsense to keep his hands on power....remember Rabin...he held back, and the attacks stopped...they give any nut with the ability to put on explosives the power to single-handedly kill the peace process with their actions....if Israel is supposed to be this great democratic nation it's time they started acting like it....

On a last note....how much trouble do you think Israel would have had if they took half the money thay had spent on illegal settlements in occupied territory and spent it on Palestinian infrastructure? Would we be even having this discussion? While some may try to portray Israel as the victum here...atrocities were commited on both sides and it's time it stopped...and that's where we come in...

*

include many members of the Religious Right now, not just Conservative Jews. The Christian Coalition has been joining Aipac in droves, so they can hurry along the Apocalypse.

one can be anti-Bush without being anti-America. (That's just about an article of faith around here, over on Planet Freep, one has to smack 'em with a cluestick to make that point, but it's still valid )

By the same token, one can be anti-Sharon without being anti-Israel. One can certainly make the case that Sharon and his right-wing ilk are storing up incredible long-term harm to Israel.

Supporting a country or a people means that you have the obligation to speak out when you see them heading in the wrong direction.

(full disclosure: I think Sharon's treatment of palestinians is knotting a mighty lash for Israel's back; Israelis will suffer the effects for a long time)

Without being anti-Jew.

RC

?

AND why???? didn't Dr. Dean throw that FACT in Lieberman's face? Was he giving some rope for a hanging, maybe? Is he letting Lieberman make this an issue and then...wham!..."My wife is Jewish, of course I support Israel." However, Lieberman must know Dr. Dean's wife is Jewish....I don't know. :shrug:

That people equate being of the Jewish faith, with being pro-Israel? I know plenty Americans of the Jewish faith who could care less about Israel.

RC

that any "Americans of the Jewish faith " that you might know have any interest in sharing their views about Israel with someone who knows as little as you do about Jews.
" Do you know what a Semite is?
Let me help you with the definition: 1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples.

So evidently it isn't being an anti-semite which is the problem.....it is being the wrong kind of anti-semite."

The term, anti-Semite, was coined by a German to apply specifically to Jews.

"Further...the average "Israeli", transplanted Americans, Europeans and Russians is a whole lot less semitic than those who lived there for the past few centuries."

Since more than half the Israeli population was born there, and Jews are related genetically to each other and to Arabs, including Palestinians, the average Israeli is just as Semitic as anyone else for whom you prefer the term.

"No what I am is anti-stupid....and particularly anti-funded with my tax dollars-stupid.'
With your attitude, why do I fell money is not the real issue here?

"I don't have a problem with anyone of any faith....as long as they don't think their faith gives them moral authority to kill me or to use my money to kill someone else. If and when they do think these things....you can bet your ass I'll call them on it...in a real severe way. Makes no difference if they're Jewish or Christian or Hindu or Muslim....you'll get the same reaction. If my response is met with self pitying indignant claims that I am anti-(insert religion here)...the person making those claims can take his or her bigotry and stick it up his or her self serving, self righteous ass."

You are certainly anti-logical thought.

that's the argument used by some pro israel people when anyone doesn't agree with israel policies. but in this case he wasn't accused of being anti jewish. just not pro israel enough.

are pro-Israel and who do not want the US to be a "neutral" broker but a big stick in support of Israel (Israel as friend, ally, blah, blah). To this crowd, being a neutral person who doesn't take sides, is "fightin' words". Howard just needs to clarify things like "I won't cut off aid to Israel" or some such thing; otherwise these groups will be at his throat if he becomes the nominee. It's sort of like saying "hey, I know bin Laden stinks, but I propose I do lunch with him and hear him out"----that's the kind of reaction you get from very pro-Israeli groups.....and I would assume they are probably a more powerful force and group then say, Muslim, groups in this country. But Joe has got to stop developing lines for Bush.

What would you like to see in its place?

Give us your deepest thoughts.

Why dont you give us YOUR deepest thoughts?

RC

This is not to say that Dean is anti-semetic but I don't think a spouse automatically makes one not prejudiced. As a matter of fact depending on how you get along with your wife and her family could make you go the other way.

...future Episcopalian minister.

"Anti" is a strong word, I prefer "opposed to" as in that I am "Opposed to" organised Religion, period. I am. Everybody knows that.

She, OTH, enjoys her faith and I respect that. She's also a Separation of Church & State Christian so, with all of the possible problems, we still love and respect each other and our personal beliefs (Or non-belief).

Does that help?

the universe would be destroyed...

or did I get that Star Trek episode wrong?

{edited to fit your screen}

Tear down that wall!!!!!
Does this make me an anti-semite?

If you are an anti semite it was probably due to bad potty training.

some Jews are "self-hating"

He could hate his wife and kid!

;-) :evilgrin:

who are mostly republican anyway.

when he supports Bush?

I'll tell you how. He aint, so its safe to infer he is, let his observers and the media eat it up with spoons, and then, if they get far enough, they'll have Lieberman as his VP and all will be well.
Take that to the bank. Youre not only being played, you seem to be enjoying it.

please post here a quote from Lieberman saying Dean was anti-Jewish.

thanks.

what *reason* would any person have to be so, besides being anti-semetic?

when did Lieberman call Dean anti-Israel, or anti-Jew?

Please provide quotes to go along with your leading questions.

put out by the "straight talkin'" Dean "Truth" Squad

....so being Anti-Germany during Hitler's reign meant you were Anti-Christian?
Anti-Milosovic = anti-christian?
Anti-Bush = anti-christian?

It's time people just laughed at the argument that Anti-Israel means you're Anti-Jewish.

Silly ... very silly argument.

Half the Jews in Israel don't support Sharon!!!

That Diabold voting system worked there too.

Dean will have to learn that politics is not a tea party. Even-handed is indeed a code word and he should have been more careful. We know what he meant, but we're not the only ones voting.

Not even Lieberman said anything close to what you are posting.
Dean said nothing wrong and people generally agree with that - here at least. But you brought back some ugly sentiments with your post - not exactly a rallying service to your candidate.
Is it that being a swing voter now you want to divide?