Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spy for Israel Loses Supreme Court Appeal [Pollard]
AP ^ | 3/20/6

Posted on 03/20/2006 7:56:46 AM PST by SmithL

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last
To: Shalom Israel
No, moron.

From your profile page: I'm a Bible-believing Christian

101 posted on 03/20/2006 2:06:10 PM PST by Sometimes A River (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46031)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: cicero's_son
The rule is this: anyone who uses the word "meme" in casual conversation or political discourse is a liberal. Or a kook.

I sympathize: I hated semioticians before semiotics was fashionable. However, I plead innocence on this use of a word I also generally despise: the idea being conveyed here is that Mr. Acts did not betray himself by the use of a specific word or phrase, but rather of making a statement that only makes sense against the backdrop of certain assumptions and ideas.

So for the first time, your rule has mislead you--but the ecxeption is rare enough that you can keep using it; I use a similar rule myself.

102 posted on 03/20/2006 2:06:16 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38
From your profile page: I'm a Bible-believing Christian

For someone who chose a bible verse as his nick, you're interestingly ignorant of scriptures. I'm using the term "moron" in its strict technical sense, to describe someone of extremely low intelligence.

Homework: find all the passages in which Christ, Paul or another prophet calls someone a "fool". Interpret in light of the sermon on the mount. I'll help you out if you get stuck.

103 posted on 03/20/2006 2:08:07 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
"Broker"? Don't "brokers" sell more than one item in their career?

Yes, they do. And Pollard sold at least 850,000 pages of documents, over half of which were classified Top Secret. He then agreed to a plea bargain in which he was to cooperate fully with American authorities in identifying what documents went to Israel. He then proceeded to renege on that agreement.

You are conflating Pollard's guilty plea with the entirety of his activities.

104 posted on 03/20/2006 2:09:53 PM PST by BeHoldAPaleHorse (Tagline deleted at request of moderator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel

You're really a great witness!!


105 posted on 03/20/2006 2:10:26 PM PST by Sometimes A River (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46031)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
And Pollard sold at least 850,000 pages of documents...

BS. That's been debunked long ago. That number was arrived at by counting every page of a document, if Pollard gave Israel so much as one sentence from it. They also added in the page count of any document that was referenced by a document procured by Pollard.

His total delivery to Israel consisted of eleven bundles of papers, each of which fit in a briefcase. To take almost a million pages would require an 18-wheeler.

You are conflating Pollard's guilty plea with the entirety of his activities.

You are conflating the activities of Aldritch Ames and Robert Hanssen with those of Pollard, along with some plain-old exaggerations known to be untrue.

106 posted on 03/20/2006 2:14:00 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
The reason the rule works so well is because the word betrays the user's intellectual framework.

For liberals, there is no absolute truth. There are only competing "memes," which--through the alchemy of language--insinuate themselves into human brains in the form of religion, ideology, and various forms of false consciousness masquerading as common sense.

Conservatives, on the other hand, acknowledge and seek absolute, transcendent Truth. Therefore, the very idea of "memes," which I gather are akin to linguistic viruses, are either anathema or...beside the point. There is only Truth and unTruth. Ideas must be evaulated in terms of how True they are.

Anyway, that's just a longwinded way of saying that your attempt to dismiss an opponent's argument by calling it an "anti-Semitic meme" is obfuscatory.

And your use of liberal verbal strategies makes me, at least, suspicious of your motives.

107 posted on 03/20/2006 2:15:01 PM PST by cicero's_son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
Welcome to reality. Is it nice where you've been? There are any number of cases where an individual is never freed, even after ironclad exculpatory evidence. That is of course even easier to perpetrate when the documents on which the conviction was based are "classified".

If I'm not mistaken, such a writ as Habeas Corpus filed by a next friend has the flexibility to clear it up. If not, some other extraordinary remedy, or even a plain suit. There is always a remedy in the American justice system. It may be expensive, but it's there.

Courts can open classified documents and consider the contents without sharing them with a plaintiff, if the classified documents are alleged to have a bearing on a complaint. Consider the case of Michael New and Bubba's classified EO's.

108 posted on 03/20/2006 2:17:36 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38
You're really a great witness!!

Suffering fools gladly is not a job requirement.

109 posted on 03/20/2006 2:17:48 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel

You just prove yourself with every post!


110 posted on 03/20/2006 2:19:17 PM PST by Sometimes A River (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46031)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
That number was arrived at by counting every page of a document, if Pollard gave Israel so much as one sentence from it. They also added in the page count of any document that was referenced by a document procured by Pollard.

Which was made necessary because he refused to assist in a damage assessment that was a necessary condition of his plea bargain. The assumption was that if he checked it out, he sent it.

His total delivery to Israel consisted of eleven bundles of papers, each of which fit in a briefcase.

He was taking pictures of many of the documents. He specifically denied having done so, despite the FBI seizing large amounts of exposed film with images of documents on them. He was taking so much material, he had to use a handtruck each time he visited the repository. His apartment was full of documents. The agents investigating the case ended up with seriesly stuned beebers.

111 posted on 03/20/2006 2:21:07 PM PST by BeHoldAPaleHorse (Tagline deleted at request of moderator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
Gosh, you are paranoid.

Let me make this simple. Who can fault a nation, any nation, for taking measures to protect its security? Isn't this the very issue you advance in favor of Pollard?

There is a Israel lobby in the Congress, isn't there? You know there is. What are they doing, if not protecting the security of Israel? What is the purpose of a lobby? To manipulate, isn't it?

I don't see your objection to anyone saying that. And I certainly don't see it is "anti-semetic". That term is used an awful lot to stifle debate.

The poster obvious has issues with Israel. I do, too. That certainly doesn't expand to an assumption that he hates, what did you call it, Joooos? Is he not allowed to have issues with Israel? If not, why not?

Will you call me "anti-semetic", now?

112 posted on 03/20/2006 2:31:22 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Will you call me "anti-semetic", now?

Yes, he will.

Sad to see more and more "conservatives" resorting to attacks liberals use, like calling someone racist, bigot, etc., when they disagree with them.

You do make a good point. It is in Israel's best interest that the US invade Iran, get rid of their nuclear program, etc.I just don't think that's our problem.

And saying Israel should rely on their own power for their own security, and not to rely on others is not "anti-semitic."

113 posted on 03/20/2006 2:35:21 PM PST by Sometimes A River (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46031)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel; cardinal4

Sharon Scranage was NOT spying for Guyana. She was a low-level employee at the Station in Accra. She was a country girl who fell under the spell of a Ghanian Intelligence Officer and ultimately compromised some sensitive information from the Station.


114 posted on 03/20/2006 2:38:06 PM PST by Ax (The monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga; they were bitten off by whales.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cicero's_son
The reason the rule works so well is because the word betrays the user's intellectual framework. For liberals, there is no absolute truth. There are only competing "memes"...

Right. That isn't my framework however. I'm merely struggling to find a word that successfully captures the idea of "a unit of information, including not only what is said but enough assumptions to make the statement intelligible."

A bad example is if someone refers to ZOG. Of course one knows immediately that he's an antisemite who believes the Protocols are real, and who believes that Jews control the world. But in this case the word itself suffices to convey that information, because hardly anyone even knows the word who isn't an antisemitic conspiracy kook.

Another example is the word "meme" itself, but again that's a piece of jargon that most people don't know, so the word itself is enough information.

A slightly better, but still not great, example, is the word "Zionist." It has fallen into such disuse that honest-to-goodness Zionists hardly use it much anymore. But Arabs use it all over the place; for them it's a synonym for "Jew", but usefully (for them) gives the impression that they don't hate all Jews, only the "bad" Jews known as "Zionists." Very often, anyone who uses the word will turn out to be acting under the influence, to a greater or lesser extent, of anti-Israeli propaganda originating with the Pali movement itself.

What makes that a better example is that the word "Zionist" itself carries none of that baggage directly. If you use it, you might in fact be a Zionist. Or you might be a hisorian, discussing Zionism. Context will identify those two cases reliably. The remaining cases are exceedingly likely to show taint of Pali propaganda, and you'll spot elements of it in the context--for example, the speaker will almost certainly invoke various revisionist historical claims advanced by the Palis themselves. It isn't the word itself; it's a package of information larger than the word. The mere fact that they're using the word, for example, suggests that they spend time in intellectual circles where the word is more common than it is in the rest of the community--namely, amongst Arabs.

Anyway, that's just a longwinded way of saying that your attempt to dismiss an opponent's argument by calling it an "anti-Semitic meme" is obfuscatory.

Negative. Mr. Acts stated that "Israeli blood is more precious than American blood" to many Freepers. I inquired, "What blood," and he replied, "The blood they want us to spill in Iran."

That statement, in a thread about Jonathan Pollard, is unintelligible: since he refers to blood that "they want us to shed," it has clearly not been shed yet. In what sense can one be outraged about unshed blood, as if it were in fact already shed? There are only two ways the statement can make sense: first, if one believes that the future shedding of blood is certain; second, if one believes that one's protagonist shares Israel's alleged desire to shed American blood in Iran.

If the former, then the person is saying that Israel somehow has the power to make its wishes reality--in other words, that Israel can indeed cause America to go to war with Iran.

If the latter, one is at least asserting that Israel has a wish that goes against America's interests, and that many Freepers share that wish and the concommittant disregard for America's interests. However you slice it, that's a powerful assertion that Israel is pursuing a malevolent policy with respect to the United States.

But that isn't everything contained in his statement. What does "the blood Israel wants us to shed" mean? He seems to think there's something we both know about, and that it involves shedding blood in Iran. Clearly, he's referring to Iran's current nuclear rumblings, and the American counter-rumbings which suggest that Iran may be the next target in the WoT.

In other words, America is taking a warlike stance against Iran... and Mr. Acts doesn't attribute this to the fact that Iran is a scary hotbed of terrorists with nuclear ambitions. He doesn't indicate that the United States has a real stake in containing the threat of Iran. Rather, he insinuates that the US has no interest in Iran, apart from Israel's interest. After all, if our invasion of Iran is inevitable in our own interest anyway, then why grumble that other nations are glad to see us do it?

The bottom line: the statement by Mr. Acts is only comprehensible if you realize that it rests on the assumption that (1) Israel has an interest in America invading Iran, (2) America doesn't have an interest of its own in invading Iran, and yet (3) the shedding of American blood in Iran is likely despite the lack of American national interest in doing so.

See what you made me do? You made me go into a long-winded analysis of his statement, to capture precisely why he agrees with Cindy Sheehan, David Duke, Ahmedinajad, and others, that the US is heading toward war in Iran, against its own interests, because Israel is somehow tricking us into it.

It's much shorter to say, "This brand of antisemite is easy to spot," and leave it at that. If you want a fuller explanation, I'd say, "He is echoing today's standard antisemitic talking points precisely." But then you'd point out that this is only implied by his statement. Which leads us to struggle for a word to describe the complete informational content of his statement, going beyond the precise words.

Which leads us to my ill-fated decision to use the word "meme", for lack of any other word to capture this notion. I'm looking for something in the territory of "implication," "implicature," "assumption," etc.

115 posted on 03/20/2006 2:44:52 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I never really knew what he told to Israel. Does anybody know and can explain?


116 posted on 03/20/2006 2:46:09 PM PST by ColdSteelTalon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38
Sad to see more and more "conservatives" resorting to attacks liberals use, like calling someone racist, bigot, etc., when they disagree with them.

I disagree with practically everyone on this thread, but I've only called you an antisemite, as is apparent to anyone actually paying attention. There's a reason for that.

117 posted on 03/20/2006 2:47:02 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel

Of course.

And im anti-chinese because the Chinese are "they."

I'm also anti-British, because the British are "they" as well.

I'm also an anti-semite because I believe our foreign policy should be taken with our own considerations trumping all others.


118 posted on 03/20/2006 2:49:16 PM PST by Sometimes A River (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46031)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38
I'm also an anti-semite because I believe our foreign policy should be taken with our own considerations trumping all others.

No. You're an antisemite because you believe that (1) America has no interest in invading Iran, (2) Israel does have an interest in our invading Iran, and (3) by some voodoo, we're going to invade Iran, against our best interests, because Israel wants us to.

Textbook jewish conspiracy theory.

119 posted on 03/20/2006 2:51:00 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
When did I ever say any of those things.

And, is it not in Israel's best interest that we do invade Iran?

120 posted on 03/20/2006 2:53:42 PM PST by Sometimes A River (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46031)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38
When did I ever say any of those things.

A denial is more convincing than Clinton's "answer a question with a question" trick. Do you deny it?

121 posted on 03/20/2006 3:00:26 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38
It is in Israel's best interest that the US invade Iran, get rid of their nuclear program, etc.I just don't think that's our problem.

I agree up to a point. Our stated alibi is that to aid Israel (not the biblical Israel, which was 12 tribes +1 to teach and preach) to keep the middle east from destabilizing. Laughter. The middle east has been in a historical state of destabilization, and I just can't see how Israel stabilized it, unless it just draws the fire of the Sons of Ismael.

My reason to sack Iran is because of its ties to the supplying of terrorists and its work on nuclear materials engineering. If they can make a big nuke, they can make a small one, maybe to sneak into America, where I live.

And saying Israel should rely on their own power for their own security, and not to rely on others is not "anti-semitic."

I agree. The accepted human maxims of the ages can't possibly be "anti-semetic". If I pay someone's rent, groceries, utilities, gas and clothes, I automatically have a right to tell him to get a job, and enforce it. That's the ancient principle that we ignore so spasmodically nowadays. You lose sovereignty (the final say in a matter) to another when you depend on the other. Israel spasmodically forgets this.

122 posted on 03/20/2006 3:10:05 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
I'm not "Teddy." Is "he" out to get you? Being called a moron by a paranoid, that's new.

Also, you're delusional. Israel has a had a government ever since 1948. It was the action of that government to end the state of anarchy and merge the various militias into the IDF else all would have been lost. David Ben Gurion led Israel in that first war and became the first Prime Minister directly after.

I for one am very glad Isrealis don't agree with your preference for anarchy.

123 posted on 03/20/2006 3:10:20 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
we're going to invade Iran, against our best interests, because Israel wants us to.

I read his posts and I didn't come away with anything like that.

124 posted on 03/20/2006 3:14:25 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
I'm not "Teddy." Is "he" out to get you?

No, but he did kill a chick once near the Chappaquiddick bridge. You sound a lot like him.

125 posted on 03/20/2006 3:50:59 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
I read his posts and I didn't come away with anything like that.

I'm not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension. Be comforted, though: there's nothing unusual about it. You have that in common with most people.

126 posted on 03/20/2006 3:51:56 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
The law says what the sentence was. The judge legally and properly sentenced Pollard to life in prison. Pollard's waterboys make a big deal out of the plea agreement, but Pollard violated the plea agreement, and -- this is important -- a plea agreement binds the defence and the prosecutor, but it does not and can not bind the judge.

Maybe you know something about this that I do not know? I am persuaded by the opinion of former Notre Dame President Father Hesburgh that Pollard has not been "fairly" treated by the government.

ML/NJ

127 posted on 03/20/2006 4:04:43 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Also, you're delusional. Israel has a had a government ever since 1948.

When did I ever say otherwise? The struggle for Israel began long before 1948.

128 posted on 03/20/2006 4:07:28 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel

Funny, I think I sound much more like Ronald Reagan and Geogre Bush but probably even more so, so to speak. You on the other hand sound like a fringe nut. You actually believe Israel would be better off in a state of anarchy. That's crazy.


129 posted on 03/20/2006 4:18:27 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel

Can you ever just make a point without slipping in an insult?



130 posted on 03/20/2006 4:19:55 PM PST by canuck_conservative (we haven't seen it yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
Can you ever just make a point without slipping in an insult?

In post #128, to which you're replying, it was Mr. Ed Sheppa calling me delusional, not the other way around.

131 posted on 03/20/2006 4:21:13 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel

AFTER you called him a moron!


132 posted on 03/20/2006 4:26:32 PM PST by canuck_conservative (we haven't seen it yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
I'm not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension.

Why the insult. I didn't insult you.

Why don't you try instead to reporduce the statement(s) he said that made you think that way and explain it? That's what a person usually does when he thinks others didn't understand his point.

133 posted on 03/20/2006 4:40:38 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
AFTER you called him a moron!

Ah, OK--I thought there might be a misunderstanding. Observe that I don't call everyone a moron. If you got the master list of morons, and made a point of looking up the folks I happen to refer to as such, you might see a pattern.

134 posted on 03/20/2006 4:44:02 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Why don't you try instead to reporduce the statement(s) he said that made you think that way and explain it? That's what a person usually does

What an awesome suggestion--I think I'll try it! In fact, for your entertainment, I shall demonstrate paranormal psychic abilities, and I will project my post backward in time. You ready? NYEERRRRRRrrrmmm!

OK, open your eyes and read post #115. Utterly amazing, isn't it?

135 posted on 03/20/2006 4:46:14 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Actually, it's all done with mirrors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
You know, I just fail to see what your problem is. The poster doesn't like Israel, as a country. That's his right. He doesn't want any aid sent there, or other nations I believe he said. He may actually think that Israel will wield the final prod that gets us to Iran, in their own interests.

He simply didn't preface his statements, in the context of this thread (Jews spying for Israel), saying, "Oh, by the way, I'm all for going into Iran for American security, just not for Israel's security".

Maybe he does? Did you ask him?

136 posted on 03/20/2006 5:12:02 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
You know, I just fail to see what your problem is. The poster doesn't like Israel, as a country. That's his right. He doesn't want any aid sent there, or other nations I believe he said. He may actually think that Israel will wield the final prod that gets us to Iran, in their own interests.

You're working hard to explain away what is obvious: he doesn't believe that a nuclear Iran, jam packed with terrorists who are flowing daily into Iraq to man the phony "insurgency," is something in the US interests to deal with. Instead, if the US goes into Iran, he believes it would be entirely about Israel's interests.

That's pathological. Either he believes that this administration is chock full of incompetent morons--or worse, traitors--or he imagines that Israel has some means of getting the US to act against its own interests in the interests of Israel.

There's no way to sugar-coat that in terms of disagreement with some Israeli policy or other. I disagree with plenty of Israeli policies, but I certainly don't believe that Bush is Israel's puppet. It takes an anti-semite, and a conspiracy kook to boot, to believe such a ridiculous thing.

137 posted on 03/20/2006 5:17:41 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Actually, it's all done with mirrors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The only problem that I have with this decision is that Sandy Berger is not Pollard's cellmate for life for the theft and destruction of highly classified documents.


138 posted on 03/20/2006 5:59:14 PM PST by Natty Bumppo@frontier.net (The facts of life are conservative -- Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
You're working hard to explain away what is obvious: he doesn't believe that a nuclear Iran, jam packed with terrorists who are flowing daily into Iraq to man the phony "insurgency," is something in the US interests to deal with. Instead, if the US goes into Iran, he believes it would be entirely about Israel's interests.

On the other hand, I'm not working hard to squeeze some Jew hatred out of him.

How do you know he thinks it's only Israel's interest and none of America's to nail Iran? Did he say so? Have you asked him?

I doubt that he thinks Bush is Israel's puppet, but he might. The point is, Israel has a lobby. And what is that lobby doing but serving Israel's interest, including an Iran operation?

I think we should settle Iran, and it would seem to be in America's best interest to do so, but the Congress of the United States hasn't been serving America's interests too much lately.

Maybe the Israel lobby's activities will be the deciding factor if we go.

What then?

On another topic, I notice your partisan defense and protection of Pollard. This would mean that, if you had been offered the same opportunities, you would have done the same thing, or you would be a hypocrite.

139 posted on 03/20/2006 6:27:29 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: DManA
I'm wondering if you know how to have a conversation without being a piss ant.

Stop me when I say something that isn't true.

Like many of my political adversaries, you ignored my questions and instead made an ad hominem attack.

I wondered whether you could read because I said I thought Pollard should have been executed, and you responded as if I had defended him.

ML/NJ

140 posted on 03/20/2006 6:51:30 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Ok here's the answer to your piss-ant question. Yes I can read.


141 posted on 03/20/2006 7:35:49 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
On the other hand, I'm not working hard to squeeze some Jew hatred out of him.

Hard work is not involved. I merely take his statements at face value. It's sort of interesting, actually; I've noticed that people almost always say exactly what they mean--but, luckily for them, almost nobody seems to notice.

On another topic, I notice your partisan defense and protection of Pollard. This would mean that, if you had been offered the same opportunities, you would have done the same thing, or you would be a hypocrite.

I would not accept a job like Pollard's, since I'm a conscientious objector. However, your reasoning is faulty anyway; I've clearly stated that he deserves prison time for his espionage. I've merely said that serving over 20 years is far out of proportion to his crime.

By way of comparison: Pollard told Israel some things she needed to know, without harming US interests in the process; Clinton sold technology to China with which they will be able to target the US with MERV-based nuclear missiles. Pollard gets life without parole; Clinton gets six-digit speaking fees.

142 posted on 03/21/2006 2:03:54 AM PST by Shalom Israel (Actually, it's all done with mirrors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Ok here's the answer to your piss-ant question. Yes I can read.

The questions were the things with question marks at the end. But thanks for playing.

ML/NJ

143 posted on 03/21/2006 3:58:24 AM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
Actually, 20 years was too lenient.

144 posted on 03/21/2006 7:12:27 AM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Actually, 20 years was too lenient.

There's something cute about assertions made with no attempt whatsoever at logical justification. You can say absolutely anything you want to, and the absurdity is less apparent than if you tried to justify your statement. "Yeah, 20 years? Sheesh! He should have been gassed and cremated, for telling those d--n Israelis about those PLO weapons shipments!"

145 posted on 03/21/2006 7:17:44 AM PST by Shalom Israel (Actually, it's all done with mirrors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
There's something cute about assertions made with no attempt whatsoever at logical justification.

Who cares? What's "logical" about 20 years? 10 years? 5 years? 6 months? House detention?

In every single sentence handed down ever, some though it too lenient, some though it too harsh.

What's your point?

146 posted on 03/21/2006 7:47:03 AM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
What's your point?

He should have been put through a wood chipper. Or used in medical experiments.

147 posted on 03/21/2006 7:49:04 AM PST by Shalom Israel (Actually, it's all done with mirrors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
I would not accept a job like Pollard's, since I'm a conscientious objector.

Let see if I have this correct...you're a bible-believing Christian, pro-Israeli, libertarian, anarchist that calls those that disagree with you morons, fools, and idiots while at the same time slapping the abuse button and crying to the mods....who just happens to believe the traitor pollard got too harsh of a sentence for giving TS/SCI information to the Israelis, which they had a right to anyway.

In addition, you wouldn't have done the same thing pollard did because you just happen to also be a conscientious objector.

That's just from this thread. You lady, are a liberal troll...flowery prose aside.

148 posted on 03/21/2006 12:47:55 PM PST by Decepticon (The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Maybe you know something about this that I do not know?

Evidently.

I am persuaded by the opinion of former Notre Dame President Father Hesburgh that Pollard has not been "fairly" treated by the government.

You mean, Hesburgh of "Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament", "Free Mumia," "Free Tookie," and "End the Death Penalty" fame? That Hesburgh? The one that Clinton presented a gold medal to on the Mall, for his services to the Left?

He is far from unique, this Catholic priest that believes that no criminal should pay for his crime. This is typical of a style of Catholicism that has rejected religion per se and sees the mission of Jesus as being a mission of social justice. I suppose it's a handy substitute for belief in God.

I have no respect for the man. The Bible is not the Communist Manifesto -- not even the Catholic version.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

149 posted on 03/21/2006 3:15:32 PM PST by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
Maybe I need to learn more about Hesburgh?

ML/NJ

150 posted on 03/21/2006 3:21:43 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson