Middle east outcome

[Kenyth]

"Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

– Frederick Douglass, African-American abolitionist


As demonstrated above, the US has a history of protestors. They were less effective in the 19th Century, compared to the 20th, most probably due to transportation difficulties making it next to impossible to get large groups together. I don't think it was due to any respect for the office, unless the person holding it was really deserving.


It's my understanding that Lincoln used to have people gather in certain areas of the White House, and would actually go and talk to them. Even during the Civil War, he would still carry out that practice, often speaking with the families of soldiers who had fallen in battle.

The present admins SOP is to avoid the subject of dead soldiers altogether, especially involving the families.

I don't know if this was directed at me, but in my case it's irrelevent to the point I'm trying to make. You seem to want to exclusively blame republicans for actions that are common to government in general, regardless of whether it's a democrat or republican. This administration is no worse that any other of this age when it comes to treating dissenters unfairly.

[SmokinDVM]

I don't know if this was directed at me, but in my case it's irrelevent to the point I'm trying to make. You seem to want to exclusively blame republicans for actions that are common to government in general, regardless of whether it's a democrat or republican. This administration is no worse that any other of this age when it comes to treating dissenters unfairly.

This is the area we disagree on.

"Free speech zones" that get set up with only those supporting the present admin., in public view. Loyalty oaths, and endorsement statements.
This is McCarthy era politics at its worst. The dumbya admin violates the rights of American citizens with a fervor, using "terrorists" to replace "communist", as the scare word of the day.

The reason many people fail to see the violations, is this admin, uses the threat of "White House Press Corp" bans for any news agency not towing the line. You have to do a lot of digging to find any real news today. And this has NOT been the case with previous admins.

[SuperChuck]

Throughout history, Jews have usually been smarter and more successful than other cultures, starting banks, businesses, etc., as a result this jealousy has cause many groups, not just Muslims, to hate them.

There's no smiley for "you got it right on the nose" (although I suppose that smiley would look more like a field sobriety test)...

(Actually, that may be the smartest thing said in this thread)

Jews in Medieval Europe created a great economic "empire" for themselves. The majority of their success came from being outsiders (sorry, not because they were necessarily smarter) and were able to do business freely. Basically, if were were from country A, you did business in country A and hate the people from country B; being outsiders with no allegiances, Jews did business in countries A, B, and C.

As WW points out, people hated their success. The German city states in particular are famous for gathering up as many copies of the Talmud (the Jewish book of law) and burning them in public. This hatred never really died out and, hundreds of years later, Hitler revived the book burning.

If you ever get the chance to, take a medieval history course. It's really amazing how much of European history goes back to the middle ages and before.

Edit: I don't think calling the Jews smart and successful is racist (hell, it sounds like a compliment to me).

[Shagaroo]

Edit: I don't think calling the Jews smart and successful is racist (hell, it sounds like a compliment to me).

Of course it's not racist, but playing the "you're a racist" card is bait when trying to incite a flame war...

[WhiteWidow]

I think SC explained what I was trying to say a little better.

[SmokinDVM]

Of course it's not racist, but playing the "you're a racist" card is bait when trying to incite a flame war...

Actually it is a racist statement.

Just as racist as somebody saying black guys are hated only because they have bigger dicks.
Just because you try to sugar coat the remark, doesn't make it any less racist.

It was not meant to start a flame war, but to point out the lack of historical knowledge as to the deep-seated hatred of jews by certain cultures.

SuperChuck filled in the details for him quite well, however much nicer than I would have.

It was a stereotypical racist comment, and whether from ignorance or not, still racist.

[Kenyth]

Actually it is a racist statement.

Just as racist as somebody saying black guys are hated only because they have bigger dicks.
Just because you try to sugar coat the remark, doesn't make it any less racist.

It was not meant to start a flame war, but to point out the lack of historical knowledge as to the deep-seated hatred of jews by certain cultures.

SuperChuck filled in the details for him quite well, however much nicer than I would have.

It was a stereotypical racist comment, and whether from ignorance or not, still racist.

"Racist" is slung around a bit too liberally these days in my opinion. You can't completely ignore different physical traits and cultures. That in itself, should be an insult. You just can't use racial or cultural differences to "discriminate". Granted, the perception of discrimination and racism is given to a lot of subjective definition. A comment that obviously shows someone to negatively discriminate against certain physical, religious or cultural differences should be labeled as racist. To curtail someones right to objectively discuss different people and cultures under threat of being accused of racism is just as bad as bigotry. It stifles education and free expression as much as the bigotry it's meant to prevent. When I say that in my opinion, the Egyptians were master stoneworkers because they built the pyramids, I don't expect (and refuse to) be labeled the racist bigot. White Widow was trying to express that he felt the Jewish culture and history showed a strong aptitude for financial prowess, and that he felt their success was a reason they were targetted for hatred. Right or wrong, it's not racism. I feel from my experience, that the hispanic culture fosters a better work ethic than the average American. Does that make me racist?

[SmokinDVM]

"Racist" is slung around a bit too liberally these days in my opinion. You can't completely ignore different phsical traits and cultures. That in itself, should be an insult. You just can't use racial or cultural differences to "discriminate". Granted, the percetion of discrimination and racism is given to a lot of subjective definition. A comment that obviously shows someone to negatively disciminate against certain physical, religious or cultural differences should be labeled as racist. To curtail someones right to objectively discuss different people and cultures under threat of being accused of racism is just as bad as bigotry. It stifles education and free expression as much as the bigotry it's meant to prevent. When I say that in my opinion, the Egyptians were master stoneworkers because they built the pyramids, I don't expect (and refuse to) be labeled the racist bigot. White Widow was trying to express that he felt the Jewish culture and history showed a strong aptitude for financial prowess, and that he felt their success was a reason they were targetted for hatred. Right or wrong, it's not racism. I feel from my experience, that the hispanic culture fosters a better work ethic than the average American. Does that make me racist?

Saying that a specific culture fosters a better work ethic, is different than saying that members of a particular religion have a genetic predisposition for financial prowess.
One is an, at least, arguable position, the other is an ignorant statement.

[Kenyth]

Saying that a specific culture fosters a better work ethic, is different than saying that members of a particular religion have a genetic predisposition for financial prowess.
One is an, at least, arguable position, the other is an ignorant statement.

In the case of being Jewish, the religion kind of makes the culture, doesn't it?