 |
"My socks are mis-matched. I'm wearing one blue, one brown. Know who did it? Jews!" |
Posted on 09/13/2007 12:43:47 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Who recently said: "These Jews started 19 Crusades. The 19th was World War (1). Why? Only to build Israel."
Some holdover Nazi?
Hardly. It was former Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan of Turkey, a NATO ally. He went on to claim that the Jews -- whom he refers to as "bacteria" -- controlled China, India and Japan, and ran the United States.
Who alleged: "The Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists, actually. It was a cooperation. They gave them the perfect excuse to denounce all Arabs."
A conspiracy nut?
Actually, it was former Democratic U.S. Sen. James Abourezk of South Dakota. He denounced Israel on a Hezbollah-owned television station, adding: "I marveled at the Hezbollah resistance to Israel. . . . It was a marvel of organization, of courage and bravery."
And finally, who claimed at a United Nations-sponsored conference that democratic Israel was "much worse" than the former apartheid South Africa, and that it "undermines the international community's reaction to global warming"? A radical environmentalist wacko?
Again, no. It was Clare Short, a member of the British parliament. She was a secretary for international development under Prime Minister Tony Blair.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Because the left hates the Jewish people who believe in God and need a point of focus for all their hate. You never hear the left bad mouth the atheist/communist supporters for anything.
As a Republican Jew here is my theory. Most voters are older people. As recently as 40 years ago discrimination against Jews was widespread, legal and promoted by people who were also mostly Republican. In fancy neighborhoods houses came with restrictive covenants that required the buyer not to sell to a Catholic, Black or Jew so Jews became segregated in their neighborhoods. They were not allowed to join mainstream country clubs. They were forced to stay among themselves and became insular. At the time they sided with minorities to gain civil rights. Civil rights law has changed that and now Jews are more widely accepted and even embraced by Republican that formerly shunned them. Younger Jews see the benefits of the R pary but old habits die hard.
Most Jewish votes, contributions, and support go the 'Rats. Barry Goldwater was an Episcopalian whose paternal grandparents were Jews.
Jews are not monolithic in their politics?
Hilarious!
The Jewish vote PROVES conclusively they are monolithic in their politics.
Of course, not as much as the Black vote, but close enough.
And just like the Blacks, their votes for Socialist government help to sustain their second-class position in society.
It is good for Black politicians to serve a purpose and in their interest for their constituents to be whining, helpless victims.
If they were white, wealthy and protestant then they were most likely republican. They were community leaders and influential people who got laws passed that enforced discimination in housing and business. Jews perceived that these were the people that didn't let them buy houses in nice neighborhoods, join country clubs, participate in the political process, etc. so they sided with democrats who wanted civil rights.
Joining democrats may have been the lesser of two evils; Jews felt discrimination was pretty universal.
You may disagree - I'm just explaining why most of my older relatives vote democrat.
Because most, but not all, American Jews are more liberal than Jewish.
I love the title of this piece - “new” strain of anti-semitism; as if anti-semitism ever really passed out of fashion. There’s nothing “new” about it.
My husband and I had a really good friend in Raleigh who was Jewish. When she found out we were registered Republicans (mid-1980s), she ended the friendship. It hurt, but we learned a lot about partisan politics from that experience. She was a native of Cleveland and her father a physician. Perhaps they were discriminated against up there.
Here are excerpts from the Democratic and Republican Platforms of 1964:
The Democratic:
Democracy of Opportunity
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 deserves and requires full observance by every American and fair, effective enforcement if there is any default.
... We will support legislation to carry forward the progress already made toward full equality of opportunity for women as well as men. We will strive to eliminate discrimination against older Americans, especially in their employment. Ending discrimination based on race, age, sex, or national origin demands not only equal opportunity but the opportunity to be equal. We are concerned not only with people's right to be free, but also with their ability to use their freedom.
Republican Platform of 1964:
Year after year, in the name of benevolence, these [Democratic] leaders have sought the enlargement of Federal power. Year after year, in the guise of concern for others, they have lavishly expended the resources of their fellow citizens. And year after year freedom, diversity and individual, local and state responsibility have given way to regimentation, conformity and subservience to central power.
We Republicans hold that a leadership so misguided weakens liberty in America and the world. We hold that the glittering enticements so invitingly proffered the people, at their own expense, will inevitably bring disillusionment and true disappointment in place of promised happiness. Such leaders are Federal extremists—impulsive in the use of national power, improvident in the management of public funds, thoughtless as to the long-term effects of their acts on individual freedom and creative, competitive enterprise. Men so recklessly disposed cannot be safely entrusted with authority over their fellow citizens.
...
3. Within our Republic the Federal Government should act only in areas where it has Constitutional authority to act, and then only in respect to proven needs where individuals and local or state governments will not or cannot adequately perform. Great power, whether governmental or private, political or economic, must be so checked, balanced and restrained and, where necessary, so dispersed as to prevent it from becoming a threat to freedom any place in the land.
|
"My socks are mis-matched. I'm wearing one blue, one brown. Know who did it? Jews!" |
He goes on and on about how the IDF was bombing civilians during the Lebanese war... What he leaves out is that the terrorists were attacking Israel FROM those very same civilian areas. Lots of other things as well. I had previously decided to let my subscription to Playboy run out. While it's always been left leaning, it's taken a hard turn left over the last few months, and this month was really the last straw... They've got an interview with Keith Olberman... I tried reading the interview, and I'll probably get through it eventually, but it's really shocking. The interviewer is practicly wearing knee-pads for Olberman, and right off the bat, Olberman slandars the Minutemen (uses the term "hunting" then says that they want to shoot "immigrants.")
The women in Playboy simply aren't good looking enough for me to put up with the rest of that slime.
Mark
Because they've ALWAYS voted for democrats. I don't think that it's necessarily a "Jewish thing," since many Catholics and working class union members have always voted dem as well, even though their moral views were 180 degrees out of sync with the dems.
And then there are those who simply aren't willing to think for themselves... I've brought this up here before: I've got an aunt that I dearly love, but my head hurts when I talk to her about politics. She tells me that she "hates Bush." So, I ask her why. And she can't give me a single reason for hating him. She just does. I ask her about his policies, and she can't name a single one. Eventually she can come up with the Iraq war, but only in the vaguest terms, since she is a big supporter of Israel, and I guess she's conflicted in the thought that something Bush might be doing could be good for the world in general, and Israel in particular.
She loved Clinton, but was concerned that Arafat was his #1 guest at the White House. But shortly after mentioning that, she'll tell me that she'd vote for Bubba again if she could, and she's going to vote for Hillary.
I believe that my aunt is brain damaged.
Mark
It’s more important to be “liberal” than Jewish...
Kansas City's own Rabbi Morris Margolies wrote an editorial in the KC Jewish Chronicle after Friedman's death that stated nobody should say "Kaddish" (the Jewish prayers for the dead) for Friedman because of all the "harm" his economic and political views did to the world.
Mark
The Jews are the targets, often, because they are successful financially.
This financial success stems from deeply ingrained cultural ethics and trust for one another, making mutually beneficial business and finance deals work.
And, like most of those of the ignorant and leftist bent think - if some group is successful and another is not, it must be because the successful group took advantage of the unsuccessful.
I think Israel needs to look within for the answer to its problems with the Arabs.
Our society is becoming unstable. I don’t know how much longer they will be able to count on the United States for help.
Goldwater was raised a Christian. His father was Jewish, however.
If you look primarily at those institutions that were populated and run by republicans, you'll see that Jews were severely limited or even banned from those institutions.
There were strict limits set on the number of Jews allowed admission to Ivy League universities, which is one of the reasons that Jews flocked to liberal colleges like NYU. And this could also account for the hard left leaning of many Jews, when generation after generation were sent to these liberal colleges. Same with country clubs (believe it or not!). In fact, the CC fallout has continued to this day... A few years ago, Tom Watson (the PGA pro golfer from KC) was to be honored by the Kansas City Club, a very exclusive country club in KC. But he refused their offer, because it seems that they never actually removed their ban of Jews from their by-laws. It's been a number of years, so I may have some of the details wrong, but there was a huge flap over it. I believe that while Watson's not Jewish, his wife is.
Mark
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.