Israel vs Palestinians

#26,276
#26,276
ButchPlz said:
Why would I? I don't define anything as "problematic" because all ideas should be shared and addressed in public. That's the point of this "free speech" thing we are supposed to have in this country, which apparently (as evidenced in this thread several times) you aren't cool with. Another fool worshipping fools.

Constantly screeching like a woman in menopause about "problematic" words is the definition of pathetic. Jews aren't magically exempt from scrutiny and criticism just for being Jewish, same as black people, Asians, white people, etc. Anyone questioning why the US spends billions on Israel isn't automatically "anti-semitic", Anyone questioning their lobby groups and campaign donations isn't "anti-semitic". Anyone wanting Americans to stop funding endless violence in the ME isn't "anti-semitic" or "anti-Islam".

Remove brain, replace with media catchphrases. That's the standard model today.
Click to expand...
Lol this has nothing to do with Free Speech. The State isn’t going to come arrest you for making any of these statements.

That was just a weak, pathetic attempt to evade the question.

You don’t think anything is problematic? Ok. Let’s try another one -

Black people are by and large lazy, and are inherently less intelligent than others.

Any issues with that one?
 
#26,279
#26,279
85SugarVol said:
Lol this has nothing to do with Free Speech. The State isn’t going to come arrest you for making any of these statements.

That was just a weak, pathetic attempt to evade the question.

You don’t think anything is problematic? Ok. Let’s try another one -

Black people are by and large lazy, and are inherently less intelligent than others.

Any issues with that one?
Click to expand...
No issues with any of them. You could recite to me a mainstream religious belief that Jesus is boiling in a vat of excrement in hell or that non-members owe a tax to members of a congregation and I wouldn't find it "problematic" in the way that I'd want to flip my sh*t and shut it all down and call everyone a whatever-ist. People are entitled to their own opinion and will get their own judgment.

If you have a problem with it, you can take the opportunity to teach and disprove it. That's just the state of the world today.

I am sure the meaningless "racist" and "anti-semitic" semi-insult is locked and loaded in your chamber now.
 
#26,280
#26,280
volgr said:
You didnt answer my question.
Click to expand...
Because he prefers white-knighting for "helpless minorities" on the internet rather than actually having substance. It's standard behavior in most things he posts in. I think he is another one that claims to be a lawyer too, no?
 
#26,281
#26,281
McDad said:
Would you mind expounding on, "...and most threatening in the way they do it..."?
Click to expand...
Some orgs are discrete in how they will support or refuse to support you if you go along with them. Those guys are different. They are more "we will bury you, politically, financially, reputation, etc" if you dont go along. Candidate better be squeaky clean because they have serious oppo (opposition research) talents. I have no inside knowledge that they are run by the Israeli state but I can tell you they THINK like an intelligence org. I hear this even from other pro-Israel lobbyists.

McDad said:
I can't speak for others but I am interested in quantifying the strength of Pro Israel lobbies. You have any credible resources?
Click to expand...
They are woven into the very fabric of most every business. Guys all go to temple together. Its more about supporting fellow members of "the tribe" than strict lobbying per se. In the big cities and big industries, show me one without a Jewish name running it or in high leadership. In the "hinterlands" full of country fed white people, certain groups like AIPAC have developed a strong appeal to evangelical Christians to equate support of Jews more generally and specifically the state of Israel's policies with being a good Christian. That gives them a strong footprint.

This is not to say that just because someone is Jewish (or even a Jewish lobbyist) that they have homogeneous viewpoints on US Policy. However, in my experience, they do have a pretty uniform general expectation of strong alliance between US and Israel AKA we protect them and they provide intelligence on potential threats.

You may have difficulty finding quantification of Jewish lobby strength since even to speak its name and admit as a goyim that it exists is to court trouble. I say this not as someone who has a problem with Jews but do have an issue conflating support of a people with support of the policies of a foreign state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and McDad
#26,282
#26,282
ButchPlz said:
No issues with any of them. You could recite to me a mainstream religious belief that Jesus is boiling in a vat of excrement in hell or that non-members owe a tax to members of a congregation and I wouldn't find it "problematic" in the way that I'd want to flip my sh*t and shut it all down and call everyone a whatever-ist. People are entitled to their own opinion and will get their own judgment.

If you have a problem with it, you can take the opportunity to teach and disprove it. That's just the state of the world today.

I am sure the meaningless "racist" and "anti-semitic" semi-insult is locked and loaded in your chamber now.
Click to expand...
Well that’s certainly a take, you saying there’s nothing wrong with - Black people are inherently lazy and stupid.

But I didn’t expect much from you on that front. You’re a known commodity here.
 
#26,284
#26,284
85SugarVol said:
Well that’s certainly a take, you saying there’s nothing wrong with - Black people are inherently lazy and stupid.

But I didn’t expect much from you on that front. You’re a known commodity here.
Click to expand...
Laziness.

I dare to believe people can say whatever they want and live with their own judgment. How revolutionary, how problematic!

Go ahead, say the two things you really want to say. Put them out there. Have some balls, big girl! Show us what that "tumult of liberty" really means and speak!
 
#26,285
#26,285
volgr said:
I dont do "credible source" link-a-thons. There is plenty of pro and con media on this topic. If you are genuinely curious, the info is out there. If you disagree with me, then we can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
What I am finding so far doesn't support the notion of AIPAC's strength or owning Congress. At least from a monetary assessment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#26,286
#26,286
ButchPlz said:
Laziness.

I dare to believe people can say whatever they want and live with their own judgment. How revolutionary, how problematic!

Go ahead, say the two things you really want to say. Put them out there. Have some balls, big girl! Show us what that "tumult of liberty" really means and speak!
Click to expand...
Lol you obviously have no idea what Tumult of Liberty actually means, do you?

I support, and will defend, anyone’s right to be as racist or bigoted as they want to be. Doesn’t mean I support the content of their statements - simply their right to make them.

You are free to show to all just how little you are. You need not fear reprisal from the State.

I’m sorry these very simple concepts are so difficult for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#26,287
#26,287
McDad said:
What I am finding so far doesn't support the notion of AIPAC's strength or owning Congress. At least from a monetary assessment.
Click to expand...
I think the main issue is that AIPAC is used as a generic label for a handful of single-issue PACs and organizations. The other thing is I'm not sure the data works for either side of the argument, because places like OpenSecrets show their org spending something like $20M while actual FEC filings show $40M+ from AIPAC itself and another $50M+ from their main affiliated Super PACs. Either way it's not peanuts, and they spend a ton on downstream elections in comparison to other orgs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#26,288
#26,288
I enjoy reading some of these comments. I think it would be constructive to start a separate thread as this war expands beyond Palestine. I do not consider myself knowledgeable enough to lead such discussion.
 
#26,289
#26,289
Gandalf said:
Some orgs are discrete in how they will support or refuse to support you if you go along with them. Those guys are different. They are more "we will bury you, politically, financially, reputation, etc" if you dont go along. Candidate better be squeaky clean because they have serious oppo (opposition research) talents. I have no inside knowledge that they are run by the Israeli state but I can tell you they THINK like an intelligence org. I hear this even from other pro-Israel lobbyists.


They are woven into the very fabric of most every business. Guys all go to temple together. Its more about supporting fellow members of "the tribe" than strict lobbying per se. In the big cities and big industries, show me one without a Jewish name running it or in high leadership. In the "hinterlands" full of country fed white people, certain groups like AIPAC have developed a strong appeal to evangelical Christians to equate support of Jews more generally and specifically the state of Israel's policies with being a good Christian. That gives them a strong footprint.

This is not to say that just because someone is Jewish (or even a Jewish lobbyist) that they have homogeneous viewpoints on US Policy. However, in my experience, they do have a pretty uniform general expectation of strong alliance between US and Israel AKA we protect them and they provide intelligence on potential threats.

You may have difficulty finding quantification of Jewish lobby strength since even to speak its name and admit as a goyim that it exists is to court trouble. I say this not as someone who has a problem with Jews but do have an issue conflating support of a people with support of the policies of a foreign state.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I am wary about some of what you've posted but at least you are engaging in a conversation. That is very helpful for me.

Considering your proximity to the lobbying groups and knowledge of tactics, are you aware of any political office holder who did not tow the line with AIPAC and was buried as a result?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Orangeslice13
#26,290
#26,290
85SugarVol said:
Lol you obviously have no idea what Tumult of Liberty actually means, do you?

I support, and will defend, anyone’s right to be as racist or bigoted as they want to be. Doesn’t mean I support the content of their statements - simply their right to make them.

You are free to show to all just how little you are. You need not fear reprisal from the State.

I’m sorry these very simple concepts are so difficult for you.
Click to expand...
Nothing's difficult- you're the one telling me words are problematic. If you support and defend the rights of people to say what they want, why are you constantly posting calling people anti-semetic? Insulting and bleating about "problematic" phrases is the first step to shutting people down.

You can lie to yourself all you want about being cool with freedom and free speech. You can even get confused and ramble and think you've "gotten" all of us. You still aren't calling me what you really want to call me (nut up big boy!), and I guarantee you wouldn't stand up and take (or send) a bullet for someone that wants to say something as simple as "AIPAC owns a lot of Congress". You're the definition of a keyboard warrior. It's cute, in a kitten hobbling around with a cast on kind of way.
 
#26,291
#26,291
ButchPlz said:
I think the main issue is that AIPAC is used as a generic label for a handful of single-issue PACs and organizations. The other thing is I'm not sure the data works for either side of the argument, because places like OpenSecrets show their org spending something like $20M while actual FEC filings show $40M+ from AIPAC itself and another $50M+ from their main affiliated Super PACs. Either way it's not peanuts, and they spend a ton on downstream elections in comparison to other orgs.
Click to expand...
When I looked into it last night, I saw that AIPAC is actually an organization inside of CUI (Christians United for Israel). The information also seemed to suggest both CUI and AIPAC are lobbying on behalf of American citizens.

Is there something which shows the cumulative monetary investment by lobbyists (Open Secrets type info combined with FEC info)?

"Downstream elections" are state elections???
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#26,293
#26,293
McDad said:
Thanks. I am wary about some of what you've posted but at least you are engaging in a conversation. That is very helpful for me.

Considering your proximity to the lobbying groups and knowledge of tactics, are you aware of any political office holder who did not tow the line with AIPAC and was buried as a result?
Click to expand...
The main examples I can think of right now are the handful of dems that lost in primaries to AIPAC-backed candidates. There was a Republican from (I think) Montana that said something about AIPAC involvement and got primaried. Thomas Massie mentioned AIPAC support across Congress and they're now running ads against him, and then AIPAC stopped campaign donations for Republicans that did not vote in favor of some of the recent emergency "aid" bills for Israel.

None of this to me is beyond standard lobbying activity (don't fund candidates that don't vote how you want, which I don't like in any case) but where I personally take issue is the fact that this looks to be one of the only operations that is heavily mixing foreign involvement and aid and this type of lobbying. I'm very much about putting Americans first, and orgs like AIPAC and other Israel single-issue groups (and, I suppose, Palestinian ones too) encourage Congress to put foreign interests first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#26,294
#26,294
ButchPlz said:
Nothing's difficult- you're the one telling me words are problematic. If you support and defend the rights of people to say what they want, why are you constantly posting calling people anti-semetic? Insulting and bleating about "problematic" phrases is the first step to shutting people down.

You can lie to yourself all you want about being cool with freedom and free speech. You can even get confused and ramble and think you've "gotten" all of us. You still aren't calling me what you really want to call me (nut up big boy!), and I guarantee you wouldn't stand up and take (or send) a bullet for someone that wants to say something as simple as "AIPAC owns a lot of Congress". You're the definition of a keyboard warrior. It's cute, in a kitten hobbling around with a cast on kind of way.
Click to expand...
So you really are this stupid then.

There is (rightfully) no law against hateful, bigoted speech. And I would overwhelmingly push back and battle against any that would seek to make it so.

You can be as racist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, as you want to be. Obviously.

Doesn’t mean others won’t call you out for being a sh!tbag.

And lmao we can add Internet Tough Guy to your list of titles - talking about sending/taking bullets on a message board…
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#26,295
#26,295
ButchPlz said:
I think the main issue is that AIPAC is used as a generic label for a handful of single-issue PACs and organizations. The other thing is I'm not sure the data works for either side of the argument, because places like OpenSecrets show their org spending something like $20M while actual FEC filings show $40M+ from AIPAC itself and another $50M+ from their main affiliated Super PACs. Either way it's not peanuts, and they spend a ton on downstream elections in comparison to other orgs.
Click to expand...

There are a ton of feeder orgs and PACs that AIPAC draws on but other pro-Israel lobbying groups have plenty of spend and do so mostly like other single issue groups. AIPAC though is different. Dont see some silly number like $20m or even $50m and think that comes close to approximating what the money they wield by directing a host of other PACs. But even then, they seem to be more strategic and not just throw their money around so they get more even though spending less than others. Again, it is their ability and willingness to spend on the negative side that defines them IMO. Similar to how there are progressive orgs and then there are those in the Soros spiderweb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#26,297
#26,297
#26,298
#26,298
85SugarVol said:
So you really are this stupid then.

There is (rightfully) no law against hateful, bigoted speech. And I would overwhelmingly push back and battle against any that would seek to make it so.

You can be as racist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, as you want to be. Obviously.

Doesn’t mean others won’t call you out for being a sh!tbag.

And lmao we can add Internet Tough Guy to your list of titles - talking about sending/taking bullets on a message board…
Click to expand...
Who said they'd be willing to defend people saying what they want? I'm not willing to take a bullet for many folks, nor did I claim to be some big old "defender" of whatever.

I'm telling you to stop kidding yourself. You think you're good with freedom and free speech and the pros and cons of freedom, but you're really not. Have a little self-reflection time away from the internet, and then come back with your actual opinion. Just be honest big dog.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top