Is Israel Falling Apart?

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. Joe M says:

   March 8, 2007 at 5:41 pm

   This, added to the video the Dana posted on 2/25 is really lending credence to the view that the Israelis are just a bunch of thugs.

2. Hube says:

   March 8, 2007 at 7:52 pm

   This, added to the video the Dana posted on 2/25 is really lending credence to the view that the Israelis are just a bunch of thugs.

   Wow. And people excoriate others for generalizations about Muslims and the resultant Islamophobia?

   Do you perhaps mean some Israelis are thugs, Joe?

3. Joe M says:

   March 8, 2007 at 9:08 pm

   No Hube, I meant exactly what I wrote. Read it in a different way, and you may understand my point.

   Real nice try, though.

4. Hube says:

   March 9, 2007 at 8:00 am

   “Nice try?” How so? You have only to “thank” your fellow leftists for inculcating the overly zealous trepidity regarding “correct” speech. But I should “read it in a different way.” Enlighten me as to precisely what you mean, please.

   Nevertheless, then, you should have no problem when people merely say, for instance, “Muslims are barbarians” instead of “Radical or some Muslims are barbarians,” right? Or doesn’t that fit your definition of “progressivity”?

5. Joe M says:

   March 9, 2007 at 8:31 am

   Hube,

   The point that I was making was that the posting of that article supports a decidedly liberal view, that the Israelis are thugs. Nowhere in there did I state my opinion, which I will keep to myself as I don’t have enough information to state one way or the other and I try not to think in black and white.

   It does not surprise me that you didn’t see it as you are more prone to attack than you are to critical thought.

6. Nancy Willing says:

   March 9, 2007 at 9:36 am

   I had this same problem with the Hubicon.

   According to Hube, I am supposed to “own” whatever I may refer to, no matter if I have offered a personal opinion or not.

   This is from the guy who wrote the Wayne Smith Horrors:

   What I put together about the News Journal in an Editorial calling Smith a “Kindred spirit” with the KKK was all cited with the News Journal sources.

   Which again are here:

   n News Journal Editorial, “Any bill favored by the KKK is bound to be racist,” April 29, 1996, p. 10A.
   n News Journal, “Women Rally vs. Smith Bill”, April 26, 1996, p. 1B.
   n Ralph Moyed, “Shed no tears for legislator endorsed by Klan”, April 28, 1996, p. 2H.

   The record speaks for itself, don’t attack the messenger, OK.

7. Hube says:

   March 9, 2007 at 9:36 am

   Well, thanks for the clarification, Joe. But for someone who clamors about “critical thought” (and who posts “thoughtful” posts on this site of all sites), you’d know better to be more careful — or at least recognize that making such a comment about “credence” based on, as you admittedly say, little information, is quite disingenuous. Especially given your subsequent “Well, duh Hube” follow up.

8. Hube says:

   March 9, 2007 at 9:40 am

   Nancy: Once again, you’re completely full of crap and you know it. You purposely and knowingly REPOSTED what the WNJ wrote as one of many reasons why Smith “was a failure.” Since you posted that in that context, it implicitly means you AGREE with the sentiment.

   PS: STILL waiting for you “proof” that Smith aided Atkins.

   You loser.

9. Nancy Willing says:

   March 9, 2007 at 10:36 am

   I never claimed to have proof of any such thing and you know it.
   What I promised was to someday dig up the post comment of the anonymous person who brought out the possibility.
   One of these days I am sure to run across it.

   I would not say that Smith = those from whom he accepted financial support
   but is it not fair to say that Smith + those of whom he accepted financial support from = an appearance problem?

   Hell, the Pope’s peeps listened to George Bush when they decided to refuse to allow high profile, pro-abortion Democrats the right of commuinon back when they were targeting Kerry and Biden in 2004.

   You get painted with the brushes you carry in your paintbox. Wayne Smith carried that weight.

10. Hube says:

    March 9, 2007 at 10:59 am

    Nancy, you continally move the goal posts to assuage your guilty conscience.

    You just indicted yourself on the Smith-Atkins bit. You’ve (YOU, Nancy) made the assertion (more than once) that Smith [probably] assisted in covering the Atkins mess. This is a fact. However, just as you admitted now, you have no PROOF of such an assertion. IOW, you engaged in tabloid garbage.

    You’re also now switching to Smith’s financial backers. That was never an issue in this imbroglio. What IS an issue is your pathetic repetition on YOUR OWN SITE that Smith is akin to a KKK member for being against affirmative action — listed as one of [many] reasons to oppose Smith. This is pure character assassination that you’re aiding and abetting. As I said previously, take on Smith on the MERITS of his anti-AA stance. Implying he’s a Klan believer BECAUSE of his views is the old “kindred spirit” argument, which, if you REALLY want to subscribe to it, sure doesn’t make you (or anyone else, for that matter) look very good.

11. G Rex says:

    March 9, 2007 at 11:27 am

    Interesting article; I didn’t know the stuff about Moshe Dayan collecting artifacts, but the lack of outcry from Israelis certainly squares with the high regard they had in their warrior kings like him and Sharon. Maybe it’s time for a Netanyahu comeback.