Adversaries Go Inside ADL's Spying Operation

San Francisco Examiner ^

[LarryLied]

To show what the left is doing. The first version of the ADL Hate filter was stealthy I've read. A person would be directed to other sites without knowing they had been blocked. Guess it pops up now and tells you you can't read something.

[dasboot]

So, are they good guys, or bad guys?

[LarryLied]

At best.

[mv1]

This is one of the biggest stories of espionage linked to a foreign nation against Americans

[sinkspur]

At the moment the Catholic League is in the position of having to defend priests who have sinned shall we say.

Bill Donohue is BLASTING pederast priests and bishops every chance he gets! What planet are you living on?

[sinkspur]

At the moment the Catholic League is in the position of having to defend priests who have sinned shall we say.

Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic League, is BLASTING pederast priests and bishops every chance he gets! What planet are you living on?

[sinkspur]

I'd say you admire very much someone who works closely with a group you claim is too "liberal" for you. Put that way it doesn't make much sense, does it?

It makes perfect sense, when you consider that the First Lady is first lady to ALL Americans.

You don't admire Laura Bush?

Geoge W. Bush, her husband, is willing to work with Yassir Arafat, whom someone you admire, John Paul II, has defended as being "humiliated."

Does THAT make sense?

[veronica]

LOL. Yeah it's huge story. All across America, people are discussing this story over breakfast. :)

[SpencerRoane]

My point was a narrow one, and perhaps misunderstood by you. I did not mean to imply that the ADL is a conservative organization. It never has been. It has always been politicaly liberal. As far as I know, however, it has never explicitly or implicitly been socialistic or communistic. It has been a mainstream organization within the Jewish politcal spectrum. I believe that it did some good work in the 1950s and 60s when it focused on domestic Anit-Semitism--though even then it made mistakes. Its leadership in the early 1980s sometimes took sound moderate-conservative positions on public issues. Now it is run by an ultra-liberal zealot--Abe Foxman. Moreover, it has obscured its message by treating all anti-Israel thought as synonymous with anti-Jewish thought. But to call it commmunistic is to suggest that it is somehow a fringe group within American Judaism, which it clearly is not. You have made comments concerning "Never-Againism." It is possible that you are confusing the ADL with the JDL, whose slogan was/is "Never Again." The JDL is a fringe group that has never enjoyed more than miniscule support among American Jews.

[SpencerRoane]

See my reply to dasboot.

[SpencerRoane]

See my reply to dasboot.

[Romulus]

It makes perfect sense, when you consider that the First Lady is first lady to ALL Americans. You don't admire Laura Bush?

She is the earth mother. A corner of my home is reserved to her cult, which I observe by the tending of a sacred flame that is never allowed to expire.

Yassir Arafat, whom someone you admire, John Paul II, has defended as being "humiliated."

Dear sinkspur, recover your sanity!

[LarryLied]

Thanks.

[sinkspur]

She is the earth mother. A corner of my home is reserved to her cult, which I observe by the tending of a sacred flame that is never allowed to expire.

Snide, indeed, dear Romulus. John Paul II's defense of Yassir Arafat, a known terrorist, troubles me deeply.

You question my sanity, dear Romulus, while defending JP II's concern for the "humiliation" of Arafat. A known terrorist.

Odd, indeed.

[Romulus]

What's odd, dear Sinkspur is your deliberate misrepresentation of the Holy Father's statement, which expresses "disapproval of the conditions of injustice and humiliation imposed on the Palestinian people". Why you insist on painting the Holy Father as a cheerleader for a terrorist is a mystery to me.

[sinkspur]

Why you insist on painting the Holy Father as a cheerleader for a terrorist is a mystery to me.

Please.

The Holy Father's statement was clearly a rebuke to Israel. He equates the terrorism of Arafat with the reprisals of the Israelis.

A major mistake and misperception.

If you read FR yesterday, you know that the Pope's statement was Pallie-friendly. JPII's statement condemning terrorism "from whichever side it comes" was ridiculous on its face.

[Romulus]

"Pallie-friendly" and Arafat friendly are two different things. I can understand why Arafat (and Sharon) would cling perversely to their equivalence, but why you would do so is a mystery.

Though the Holy Father's bodily suffering is great, happily his critical powers survive undiminished.