First time visitor? Learn more.

Carter, Clinton pollsters: How the libs can avoid a November bloodbath

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 158 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Dhimmitude, Economy, Health Care, Misery Index, Multiculturalism, Patriotism, Politics, Progressives at April 16th, 2010 - 4:00 pm

They can all slit their wrists in October. No blood, no bloodbaths! :) Just kidding (well, kinda), but fortunately for us, they’re:

A. Too stupid to listen, or:
B. Too arrogant to listen, or:
C. Clueless F**king morons who are both A and B.
I realize that I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m leaning towards C…

How the Democrats can avoid a November bloodbath

By Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell
Friday, April 16, 2010

Media reports suggest that President Obama is turning his attention toward the midterm congressional elections. There are a few things it is imperative he understand if he is to, at the least, minimize Democratic losses in November.

We are Democratic pollsters who argued against the health-care legislation ["Democrats' blind ambition," Washington Forum, March 12] that the Obama administration chose to pursue. Instead, we advocated incremental health-care reform. With the passage of health reform, some harsh political realities have emerged.

Recent polling shows that despite lofty predictions that a broad-based Democratic constituency would be activated by the bill’s passage, the bill has been an incontrovertible disaster. The most recent Rasmussen Reports poll, released on April 12, shows that 58 percent of the electorate supports a repeal of the health-care reform bill — up from 54 percent two weeks earlier. Fueling this backlash is concern that health-care reform will drive up health costs and expand the role of government, and the belief that passage was achieved by fundamentally anti-democratic means. Already we are seeing the implications play out with the retirement of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) — who had effectively become the face of the last-minute, closed-door negotiations that resulted in passage.

Put simply, there has been no bounce, for the president or his party, from passing health care.

In fact, Monday’s Gallup report showed the president’s weekly job approval rating at a low of 47 percent. And as the Democratic Party’s favorability has dropped to 41 percent — the lowest in Gallup’s 18-year history of measuring it — this week’s Rasmussen Reports survey shows the Republican Party with a nine-point lead in the generic congressional vote. Moreover, independents, who are more energized than Democrats, are leaning Republican by a 2-to-1 margin.

Read the rest here

Rodan Update: Stuart Rothenberg has 44 seats moving into the Republican column. If this happens in November, The GOP wins the House of Representative.

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

158 Responses to “Carter, Clinton pollsters: How the libs can avoid a November bloodbath”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | April 16, 2010 4:05 pm

    In some ancient cultures, when a man failed as badly as you have failed (and you have failed) he would throw himself on his sword…


  2. 2 | April 16, 2010 4:07 pm

    I’ll go with C myself and for added measure help them lay on their swords {{Iron Fist}}


  3. vagabond trader
    3 | April 16, 2010 4:10 pm

    Slitting ones wrists in a warm tub. Very Roman,never happen with these whining pvzzies. I’ll be delighted if they’d all get to spend more time with their families,whores,pet goldfish, whatever.


  4. citizen_q
    4 | April 16, 2010 4:11 pm

    D. All of the above.


  5. 5 | April 16, 2010 4:11 pm

    The Demon-KKK-Rat Party needs to suffere a massive defeat.


  6. 6 | April 16, 2010 4:12 pm

    @ vagabond trader:

    Tie ‘em up in a bag with a dog and a rooster and throw the lot into a deep river…

    That’s a Roman thing, too.


  7. vagabond trader
    7 | April 16, 2010 4:13 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Thats what I’m talking about.Unfortunately the RNC is not up to it.

    http://weaselzippers.us/2010/04/16/great-rnc-donors-bankrolling-al-sharpton-event/


  8. citizen_q
    8 | April 16, 2010 4:14 pm

    Being a clueless idiot is a separate attribute. ( As I try for a save :-) )


  9. vagabond trader
    9 | April 16, 2010 4:15 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Leave the dog and rooster on the farm and replace em with a nice fat hissing viper. :evil:


  10. lobo91
    10 | April 16, 2010 4:15 pm

    Schoen and Caddell are correct in their conclusions:

    Democrats must understand that voters will not accept seeing their tax dollars used to pay for higher wages and better benefits for public-sector employees when they themselves are getting higher taxes and lower wages.

    Winning over swing voters will require a bold, new focus from the president and his party. They must adopt an agenda aimed at reducing the debt, with an emphasis on tax cuts, while implementing carefully crafted initiatives to stimulate and encourage job creation. This is the agenda that largely motivated the Clinton administration from 1995 through 2000 and that led to a balanced budget and welfare reform. It promoted a modest degree of social welfare spending. This agenda is enormously popular with the electorate and could eventually turn around Democratic fortunes.

    Democrats can avoid the electoral bloodbath we predicted before passage of the health-care bill, but in one way: through a bold commitment to fiscal discipline and targeted fiscal stimulus of the private sector and entrepreneurship.

    Unfortunately for them, of course, those in charge of their party have no intention of doing anything of the sort. All indications are that they plan to step on the gas, as they go over the cliff, Thelma and Louise-style.


  11. 11 | April 16, 2010 4:17 pm

    @ vagabond trader:

    I was OK with the lesbian bondage club, but bankrolling that race-hustler? WTF? This after Steele’s playing of the race card earlier this week. It is time for Steele to resign.


  12. 12 | April 16, 2010 4:20 pm

    @ vagabond trader:

    Feed them to lions. That’s a Roman thing as well. We’ll wax classical on their asses :twisted:


  13. vagabond trader
    13 | April 16, 2010 4:23 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Heh.


  14. mawskrat
    14 | April 16, 2010 4:23 pm

    yah know the cage around the head with a rat in it hasn’t been used in awhile


  15. 15 | April 16, 2010 4:24 pm

    @ vagabond trader:

    The RNC is Progressive and it needs to go.


  16. 16 | April 16, 2010 4:25 pm

    @ mawskrat:

    What an awful thing! Think if you did that to Pelosie Galore. How terrible for the rat!

    :mrgreen:


  17. citizen_q
    17 | April 16, 2010 4:29 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ vagabond trader:
    The RNC is Progressive and it needs to go.

    Unbelievable!

    Tawana Browley Sharpton is as transparent a huckster if not more then Jesse Jackson.

    His opinion is worthless. It would be better to just ignore him, maybe he would eventually just go away.


  18. mawskrat
    18 | April 16, 2010 4:33 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    yeah you are right I could not do that to a poor rat


  19. myselfandi
    20 | April 16, 2010 4:35 pm

    I heard the whitehouse chapter of the dnc is going to spend lots and lots of money on the problem. Why do they always think that throwing money at a problem will solve it? Education, Welfare, Bank Fraud, ……………..


  20. mjazz
    21 | April 16, 2010 4:35 pm

    @ vagabond trader:
    They are like rats deserting a sinking ship.
    Too bad they don’t have anything to fall back on./


  21. mjazz
    22 | April 16, 2010 4:37 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    What’s the meaning of the dog and rooster?


  22. 23 | April 16, 2010 4:37 pm

    Wow. The Obama Administration continues to make clear that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they are on the side of the Palestinians:

    Hillary Clinton tells Israel to stop ‘settlement activity’ and provoking Palestine

    Hillary Clinton has said Israel must stop ‘settlement activity’ and steer clear of comments that will provoke Palestinians.

    Lovely people.


  23. 24 | April 16, 2010 4:38 pm

    @ mjazz:

    As you drown, you are simultaneously torn apart by the terrified animals as they fight to get out of the bag. I imagine it was a pretty horrible way to go.


  24. Overlook
    25 | April 16, 2010 4:38 pm

    @ lobo91:

    The policies Pat Cadell is suggesting are Republican policies. It is true that Clinton adopted Republican policies after he was elected, but the liberal base was not happy. Why would the independents and swing voters go for donkeys pretending to be elephants and not the real things?
    It is time Pat Cadell fessed up to being a soft Republican anyway.


  25. mawskrat
    26 | April 16, 2010 4:39 pm

    General Anton Dostler treatment///

    jus sayin//


  26. Overlook
    27 | April 16, 2010 4:43 pm

    Generally, though, I think counting seats before they’re voted is a waste of time.


  27. 28 | April 16, 2010 4:43 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    I liked this bit:

    Mrs Clinton warned that the long freeze in the peace process was strengthening hardliners, including Iran’s firebrand President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    As I’ve stated many times before all Governments are completely clueless about what the real issue is. How can Hillary truly act as if everything was better before Israel refused to give up land for nothing? Did it work so well in Oslo? Lebanon? Gaza? As long as the world continues believing and relying on the “two-state” and “land for peace” farce (as has been the discussion since 1967) nothing will improve (just as nothing has so far)


  28. 29 | April 16, 2010 4:43 pm

    mawskrat @ 14:

    I’ve got the cage and rat covered all we need is some donks. lol


  29. 30 | April 16, 2010 4:45 pm

    vagabond trader @ 19:

    You think they would get the point.


  30. 31 | April 16, 2010 4:46 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Oy, the UK’s independent outdoes the BBC by claiming that The Temple Mount and Jerusalem are “occupied”. These are claims that even I have never heard outside the extremist Muslims.

    For those who have never been to Israel, these parts they are calling “occupied” are central to Jerusalem, and probably the most visited parts of Israel. I am one who travels into “east” Jerusalem, and have NEVER (nor heard anyone) considered this to even be in the realm of being called “occupied”.


  31. snork
    32 | April 16, 2010 4:46 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    The Demon-KKK-Rat Party needs to suffere a massive defeat.

    Threatening lives again?


  32. Overlook
    33 | April 16, 2010 4:48 pm

    The British election -- they had the first debates between the three little piggies -- is very instructive:

    1. British politics is remarkably simple-minded. It is at the bare-faced lie level.
    2. There is no ideological coherence in any of the parties.
    3. None of the parties knows what to do about the Muslim take-over.
    4. They are undergoing a party realignment -- particularly on the right -- that is not being addressed adequately. UKIP is not stepping into the vacuum. America does not have a UKIP equivalent.


  33. vagabond trader
    34 | April 16, 2010 4:48 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    The Temple Mount and Jerusalem are “occupied”.

    So is Northern Ireland.


  34. Overlook
    35 | April 16, 2010 4:51 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    Why does Israel still accept the “Quartet”?
    Why doesn’t Israel make a big shift in its policy to answer Obama’s?


  35. snork
    36 | April 16, 2010 4:51 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Hillary Clinton has said Israel must stop ’settlement activity’ and steer clear of comments that will provoke Palestinians.

    Lovely people.

    Lest no one forget, this is the same Sen Hillary Clinton of NY, who was, when representing NY, a staunch supporter of Israel. YOu couldn’t convince 90+% of the Jews in NY that she’d turn on Israel when she no longer needed their votes and donations. Nosiree Bob. She was Zionist to the core. Y’all remember that?

    Who was right all along? Not the 90+%…


  36. buzzsawmonkey
    37 | April 16, 2010 4:52 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    The Temple Mount and Jerusalem are “occupied”.

    Actually, they’re preoccupied, trying to think of a way to get rid of the Arabs there who belong over the River Jordan.


  37. vagabond trader
    38 | April 16, 2010 4:52 pm

    @ Beltfed:

    This I would reserve for pelosi galore© and Barney Frank.

    http://www.shanmonster.com/witch/torture/brank.html


  38. mjazz
    39 | April 16, 2010 4:53 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:
    from the link: how can the Dome of the Rock be the “oldest Islamic building in the world” ?


  39. Guggi
    40 | April 16, 2010 4:53 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    The Europeans are not better:

    Not quite free

    European democracies are spending tens of millions of euros to manipulate Israeli society and politics

    Snip

    For example, under the civil society façade, and using European taxpayer money, as well as donations from the New Israel Fund, B’Tselem’s offices in London and Washington lobby intensely in support of the blood libels in the Goldstone Report. In parallel, the self-styled Coalition of Women for Peace promotes boycotts, divestment and sanctions and to hurt Israeli firms. And a handful of individuals in Breaking the Silence (BTS), were invited to travel (all expenses paid) throughout Europe to tell the journalists, “intellectuals” and left-wing politicians that Israel, and not Hamas or Hizbullah, is the real “war criminal.” BTS films were also shown as part of Israel Apartheid Week activities across campuses last month.

    IN THIS form of European neocolonialism, these groups push the policies selected by their patrons, while central topics for Israelis are given short shrift. As a result, few reports by “human rights” groups deal with Gilad Schalit, women victims of Arab honor killings or other issues missing from Europe’s agenda.

    This funding not only allows GONGOs to manipulate the perception of Israel abroad, but also manipulates the Israeli discourse. In the High Court, many of the cases related to core issues of war and peace, human rights and security are brought by GONGOs that receive the bulk of their funding from European governments. With huge resources, these organizations hire lawyers and run massive media campaigns. In this way, groups like B’Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel enjoy the unfair advantages of “repeat players” in the legal system.

    Snip


  40. citizen_q
    41 | April 16, 2010 4:55 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:
    The only “occupation” is by the muslimes. They need to get out!

    Hitlery would do better working and dropping the sham of her marriage.


  41. 42 | April 16, 2010 4:56 pm

    @ vagabond trader:

    These claims are quite remarkable actually. I’m not easily shocked anymore by much, but the tone coming from there is shocking. In short: they are calling the Western Wall, and other commonly accepted parts of Jerusalem “occupied”, and throwing the homes, etc., there into the “settlement” argument. Now, the Western Wall is a settlement?

    But the images shown in the poster included the Wailing Wall and the Dome of the Rock (ed: The Temple Mount) -- the oldest Islamic building in the world, built in the 7th century -- both of which are in East Jerusalem, part of the disputed Occupied Territories of the West Bank.

    Viewers complained that the advert misleadingly implied that the areas pictured was part of the “state of Israel”.

    Israel’s approval of the construction of 1,600 new settler homes in East Jerusalem last month during a visit by Joe Biden, the US vice-president, prompted the worst diplomatic spat between the US and Israel in a generation.

    The ASA said the advert breached truthfulness guidelines and ordered it not to be used again, adding: “We told the IGTO not to imply that places in the Occupied Territories were part of the State of Israel.”


  42. buzzsawmonkey
    43 | April 16, 2010 4:57 pm

    mjazz wrote:

    how can the Dome of the Rock be the “oldest Islamic building in the world” ?

    By being misrepresented—and by a boneheaded writer knowing nothing about the Ka’aba.


  43. Overlook
    44 | April 16, 2010 4:58 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    mjazz wrote:
    how can the Dome of the Rock be the “oldest Islamic building in the world” ?
    By being misrepresented—and by a boneheaded writer knowing nothing about the Ka’aba.

    The Rock of the Dumb is earlier than the Dome of the Rock.


  44. citizen_q
    45 | April 16, 2010 4:59 pm

    mjazz wrote:

    @ WrathofG-d:
    from the link: how can the Dome of the Rock be the “oldest Islamic building in the world” ?

    Donno, wasn’t it built about 60 somethings years after mo died?


  45. 46 | April 16, 2010 4:59 pm

    @ citizen_q:

    See my #42. Unless I just missed it, these claims (not even made by the Arabs (yet)) seem to be a change in the narrative/discussion to the worse.

    As I just stated, I don’t even think the Muslims have publicly claimed they considered these sections to be “occupied” to the West (excluding the overall belief that all of Israel is “occupied”). The point is that, I don’t think these sections were ever part of any negotiation between Israel and the Muslims -- it was just accepted as Israel (even probably to J-Street)


  46. vagabond trader
    47 | April 16, 2010 5:01 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    Diminish and delegitimize,classic commie playbook.It doesn’t help that most people are completely ignorant of ME history thanks to state controlled education.


  47. 48 | April 16, 2010 5:01 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Am I wrong in my belief that not even the Muslims claim the parts of Jerusalem that this British group is?


  48. citizen_q
    49 | April 16, 2010 5:02 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    mjazz wrote:
    how can the Dome of the Rock be the “oldest Islamic building in the world” ?
    By being misrepresented—and by a boneheaded writer knowing nothing about the Ka’aba.

    I thought the ka’ ass-bah was built by Abraham? That would make it Jewish, and occupied by mulsimes too! Stop the occupation!!! Free the ka’ ass-bah from mulime occupation!!


  49. Nevergiveup
    50 | April 16, 2010 5:02 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    @ citizen_q:

    See my #42. Unless I just missed it, these claims (not even made by the Arabs (yet)) seem to be a change in the narrative/discussion to the worse.

    As I just stated, I don’t even think the Muslims have publicly claimed they considered these sections to be “occupied” to the West (excluding the overall belief that all of Israel is “occupied”). The point is that, I don’t think these sections were ever part of any negotiation between Israel and the Muslims – it was just accepted as Israel (even probably to J-Street)

    The Arabs never considered the Old City as part of Israel. They do consider it occupied Territory. I don’t and I don’t really care what the Arabs think, but they have always and consistantly felt that way.


  50. Overlook
    51 | April 16, 2010 5:03 pm

    @ vagabond trader:

    An education which is tilted -- in Europe -- not to offend Muslims. Halal food in the school cafeterias. Halal history. Of course, mathematics and science are Islamic, anyway.


  51. 52 | April 16, 2010 5:03 pm

    @ vagabond trader:

    I wonder if Liberal Jews’ opinion regarding the conflict and “settlements” would change if they realized that the Muslims were considering all of the Old City of Jerusalem as “occupied” “settlements”.


  52. Nevergiveup
    53 | April 16, 2010 5:03 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Am I wrong in my belief that not even the Muslims claim the parts of Jerusalem that this British group is?

    Yes your wrong


  53. Overlook
    54 | April 16, 2010 5:03 pm

    @ Nevergiveup:

    The Arabs consider the whole of Israel as occupied territory.


  54. Nevergiveup
    55 | April 16, 2010 5:04 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    @ vagabond trader:

    I wonder if Liberal Jews’ opinion regarding the conflict and “settlements” would change if they realized that the Muslims were considering all of the Old City of Jerusalem as “occupied” “settlements”.

    Most liberal Jews have not idea of the geography or history


  55. citizen_q
    56 | April 16, 2010 5:04 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    @ citizen_q:
    See my #42. Unless I just missed it, these claims (not even made by the Arabs (yet)) seem to be a change in the narrative/discussion to the worse.
    As I just stated, I don’t even think the Muslims have publicly claimed they considered these sections to be “occupied” to the West (excluding the overall belief that all of Israel is “occupied”). The point is that, I don’t think these sections were ever part of any negotiation between Israel and the Muslims – it was just accepted as Israel (even probably to J-Street)

    But don’t the allah worshipers also claim that all of Israel is occupied territory?


  56. 57 | April 16, 2010 5:05 pm

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    I don’t and I don’t really care what the Arabs think,

    Then in negotiating with them, why differentiate between their “settlement” in the Old City (Tel Aviv, Haifa, Eilat, Raanana, The Kriyot…), and their “settlements” in Hevron?

    (as we all know) I say let them get out of both.


  57. Nevergiveup
    58 | April 16, 2010 5:05 pm

    Overlook wrote:

    @ Nevergiveup:

    The Arabs consider the whole of Israel as occupied territory.

    Yeah I know and I am not diagreing, but they have never considered the Old City as anything else but part of the West Bank since 1967


  58. Overlook
    59 | April 16, 2010 5:06 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    Liberalism’s assimilation of Jews will defeat Israel -- from within and without.


  59. buzzsawmonkey
    60 | April 16, 2010 5:07 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    Am I wrong in my belief that not even the Muslims claim the parts of Jerusalem that this British group is?

    It is my understanding that the area where the apartments about which the announcement was made were going to be built had never been claimed by the Muslims, ever.

    The Muslims do, of course, claim the Mount, including the Western Wall—or street latrine and garbage dump, as they used it when they held it during the 19 years of illegal occupation.

    It is my understanding that some or all of the Mount/Wall is in what is called “the Muslim quarter”—but it is important to remember that dividing the Old City into “quarters” was done, not under the Turks, but by the British under the Mandate, as a means to separating the various populations and making them easier to rule. The “Muslim Quarter” is not a thing of great antiquity—and even if it were, so what? Harlem was originally white, as was Bedford Stuyvesant; neighborhoods change. Just because somebody once wrote “Muslim Quarter” on a map means nothing.


  60. citizen_q
    61 | April 16, 2010 5:07 pm

    Be back later


  61. Nevergiveup
    62 | April 16, 2010 5:07 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    I don’t and I don’t really care what the Arabs think,

    Then in negotiating with them, why differentiate between their “settlement” in the Old City (Tel Aviv, Haifa, Eilat, Raanana, The Kriyot…), and their “settlements” in Hevron?

    (as we all know) I say let them get out of both.

    You asked a simple question- whether the Arabs even consider the Old City as occupied. That and only that is what I responded to. To nothing else and I do not intend to get into some any other argument with you.


  62. 63 | April 16, 2010 5:07 pm

    @ Nevergiveup:

    I don’t recall the Temple Mount, German Colony, Jewish Quarter and other areas West of The Temple Mount ever being a part of the negotiations as “east Jerusalem”.

    So if you could prove proof, that would be great.@ citizen_q:

    Yes, of course ultimately they consider all of Israel “occupied” and “settlements” but in the phase 1 of their plan they play games and I don’t recall these parts of Israel being considered “settlements” in those games/negotiations.


  63. 64 | April 16, 2010 5:08 pm

    vagabond trader @ 38:

    What Bwaney Fwanks needs is one of these.


  64. vagabond trader
    65 | April 16, 2010 5:09 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    As it now stands they are liberals first and this claim should be common knowledge. The last time a state was proposed Arafat refused an offer to share Jerusalem with Israel as their capital.


  65. Nevergiveup
    66 | April 16, 2010 5:09 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    It is my understanding that the area where the apartments about which the announcement was made were going to be built had never been claimed by the Muslims, ever.

    That’s not really true either. They do claim it. I am not supporting that claim, but they do claim it


  66. 67 | April 16, 2010 5:09 pm

    @ Nevergiveup:

    I was only looking for clarification on your argument, I’m sorry that you consider that an “argument”.

    You are right though, I should have known whom I was typing to & on what subject before I gave it credence.


  67. Overlook
    68 | April 16, 2010 5:09 pm

    @ Nevergiveup:

    They considered it part of the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate, part of Jordan, and now “Palestinian”. Anything but Jewish, even when a majority of Jews lived there.
    Why Israel has not been adamant in its non-negotiability is beyond me. Olmert offered a compromise on Jerusalem, as did Barak.


  68. 69 | April 16, 2010 5:10 pm

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:
    It is my understanding that the area where the apartments about which the announcement was made were going to be built had never been claimed by the Muslims, ever.
    That’s not really true either. They do claim it. I am not supporting that claim, but they do claim it

    Got proof for that?


  69. Nevergiveup
    70 | April 16, 2010 5:10 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:
    It’s very simple any land Israel conquered in 1967 is considered by the ARABS as “occupied territory”. Not by me, but by them.


  70. buzzsawmonkey
    71 | April 16, 2010 5:11 pm

    The basic rule—Muslims never lose title, Jews never gain it—needs to be resoundingly rejected by every Israeli, every non-Israeli Jew, and every non-Jewish friend of Israel.

    And, if not “every,” as many as can be mustered.


  71. Nevergiveup
    72 | April 16, 2010 5:13 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    @ Nevergiveup:

    I was only looking for clarification on your argument, I’m sorry that you consider that an “argument”.

    You are right though, I should have known whom I was typing to & on what subject before I gave it credence.

    Don’t be condensending with me. You are wrong about the Arabs having never considered all of the Old City including the Western Wall as occupied territory. They do. Period. End of discussion


  72. vagabond trader
    73 | April 16, 2010 5:13 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    Temple Mount:

    http://www.templeinstitute.org/archive/09-11-08.htm


  73. Nevergiveup
    74 | April 16, 2010 5:15 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:
    It is my understanding that the area where the apartments about which the announcement was made were going to be built had never been claimed by the Muslims, ever.
    That’s not really true either. They do claim it. I am not supporting that claim, but they do claim it

    Got proof for that?

    Yeah- Because they birch and moan about it all the time. Listen don’t confuse what i believe or don’t believe with what the Arabs believe.


  74. snork
    75 | April 16, 2010 5:16 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    And, if not “every,” as many as can be mustered.

    Or you’ll forever be playing catchup.


  75. buzzsawmonkey
    76 | April 16, 2010 5:17 pm

    snork wrote:

    Or you’ll forever be playing catchup.

    Not to mention beefing about the result.


  76. mjazz
    77 | April 16, 2010 5:17 pm

    @ citizen_q:
    You’d think somewhere near him would have been built sooner. Then again, if you scroll down a bit, one can see here how mohamet had another mosque burned down with worshippers in it, after the builders had said “O Messenger of God, we have built a mosque for the sick and needy and for rainy and cold nights, and we would like you to visit us and pray for us” and he promised to visit.
    how can any sane person regard this freak as a prophet? Has all the inbreeding taken away their brains?


  77. 78 | April 16, 2010 5:18 pm

    @ Nevergiveup:

    Ugh, now you are going to create an disagreement. Your claim may or may not be true. I simply asked for proof, which unfortunately is something you are are not big on providing when asked for it. I usually wouldn’t feel a need to request actual proof but for the fact that your understanding of the facts are historically different than mine. Although you will claim that you do not owe it to me (which is true) your constant refusal to bolster your opinion with facts causes me to take your opinion less seriously than one who has shown their opinion to be based on fact.

    None of this of course gets into the fact that you considered my simple question (and avoidance thereof) to be starting an “argument”.


  78. buzzsawmonkey
    79 | April 16, 2010 5:18 pm

    mjazz wrote:

    Has all the inbreeding taken away their brains?

    To the contrary; they know what plays and plays well in the Western media.


  79. Overlook
    80 | April 16, 2010 5:19 pm

    The British have moved beyond simply not acknowledging Israel sovereignty over the territory gained post 1967 -- which would make it “disputed” territory. They officially regard it as illegally “occupied” territory -- implicitly ceding Palestinian sovereignty.


  80. buzzsawmonkey
    81 | April 16, 2010 5:20 pm

    Overlook wrote:

    Palestinian sovereignty

    A thing that has never existed since the start of recorded history.


  81. Nevergiveup
    82 | April 16, 2010 5:20 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:
    I do not intend to try to prove or disprove the arab claims. I never have. THEY consider that land occupied. I don’t need to validate how they feel. As a matter of fact I don’t even give a shit. But that they feel that way can’t be denied.


  82. Overlook
    83 | April 16, 2010 5:21 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    I know I am butting in, but what facts do you want proof of?


  83. Eliana
    84 | April 16, 2010 5:21 pm

    Well, Zero asked Iran to unclench its fist. Here is Ahmadinejad unclenching his fist, but it’s not exactly what Zero thought his friendly little overture to Iran would bring to him:

    The Iranian president claimed Obama’s success depended on the Islamic Republic. “Obama has only one way to remain in power and be successful. This way is Iran,” he said.

    “Obama should start cooperation with Iran in practice. I have written a letter to Obama which will be published soon.”

    Ahmadinejad balked at a general consensus between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, on the worsening of sanctions on Iran for its disputed nuclear program.

    “The time when they imagine that they can do any harm on Iran is over,” he said. “Once, the US was at the height of glory. Now they are collapsing. They have many economic and cultural problems. They have security problems in the world and their influence in Iraq and Afghanistan is vanishing.”

    Quoting from his letter, the hardline leader said the US wanted to control the Middle East, but could not do so without Iran. “I sent him a message and told him that we welcome change, but we didn’t see any genuine change. Superficial changes do not matter,” he said.

    Ahmadinejad: Obama needs Iran

    Dinner Jacket sees Zero bowing to all these other leaders in the world, so he wants to get his bow, too.

    He’s offering a chance for America to submit to Iran.

    Did we fall into an alternate universe somewhere along the way?


  84. Overlook
    85 | April 16, 2010 5:22 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Although they do try to write themselves in as Canaanites!


  85. 86 | April 16, 2010 5:22 pm

    @ Nevergiveup:

    Ok, I get it now, we are having two different conversations. I am not asking you to prove the truth of their claims, but just that they have made them regarding this part of Jerusalem.

    But, at this point don’t worry about it.


  86. Nevergiveup
    87 | April 16, 2010 5:23 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    @ Nevergiveup:

    Ok, I get it now, we are having two different conversations. I am not asking you to prove the truth of their claims, but just that they have made them regarding this part of Jerusalem.

    But, at this point don’t worry about it.

    Believe me they make that claim all the time and always have.


  87. vagabond trader
    88 | April 16, 2010 5:23 pm

    @ Eliana:

    I’m sure Hussein bowed to this letter.


  88. Overlook
    89 | April 16, 2010 5:24 pm

    @ Eliana:

    “He’s offering a chance for America to submit to Iran.”

    Obama is already taking it.


  89. 90 | April 16, 2010 5:24 pm

    @ Overlook:

    Although I am very familiar with the Muslim rejection of all of Israel, I do not recall them specifically (through negotiation) or otherwise specifically stating that the part of Jersualem in question here (Jewish Old City, Western Wall, Temple Mount, and the Homes there) as “settlements”.

    I was looking for an article or such which has a Muslim from the PLO (or otherwise) whom claims (through negotiation process not koran) that these parts they intend Israel to forfeit.


  90. 91 | April 16, 2010 5:25 pm

    @ Nevergiveup:

    Well, the problem is that I cannot just believe you. (and we go in circles again…)


  91. buzzsawmonkey
    92 | April 16, 2010 5:25 pm

    Overlook wrote:

    Although they do try to write themselves in as Canaanites!

    Fine; then give ‘em the Jebu-sites and take the holy sites away from them.


  92. 93 | April 16, 2010 5:26 pm

    @ Eliana:

    By the time Iran unclenches its’ fist, we will find out it was concealing a detonator.


  93. vagabond trader
    94 | April 16, 2010 5:26 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    Criminy,check # 73.


  94. snork
    95 | April 16, 2010 5:27 pm

    @ Eliana:
    Talk about a narcissism contest…


  95. buzzsawmonkey
    96 | April 16, 2010 5:27 pm

    I’ve been saying for months that Obama wants a nuclear Iran so that Israel will feel pressured to give in to Arab territorial demands.

    I continue to see absolutely nothing that suggests I was wrong.


  96. Nevergiveup
    97 | April 16, 2010 5:27 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    @ Overlook:

    Although I am very familiar with the Muslim rejection of all of Israel, I do not recall them specifically (through negotiation) or otherwise specifically stating that the part of Jersualem in question here (Jewish Old City, Western Wall, Temple Mount, and the Homes there) as “settlements”.

    I was looking for an article or such which has a Muslim from the PLO (or otherwise) whom claims (through negotiation process not koran) that these parts they intend Israel to forfeit.

    Before 1967, before the 67 war, the Old City was in Arab hands. They consider any land seized in that War as Occupied Territory. It really doesn’t get much more simple than that. Again that is how they feel not me.


  97. Nevergiveup
    98 | April 16, 2010 5:29 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    @ Nevergiveup:

    Well, the problem is that I cannot just believe you. (and we go in circles again…)

    Then I suggest you read some history books because it doesn’t get much more basic than this.


  98. buzzsawmonkey
    99 | April 16, 2010 5:29 pm

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    Before 1967, before the 67 war, the Old City was in Arab hands. They consider any land seized in that War as Occupied Territory. It really doesn’t get much more simple than that. Again that is how they feel not me.

    Sauce for goose, sauce for gander; they seized it in war, they lost it in war.

    Fuck ‘em.


  99. 100 | April 16, 2010 5:29 pm

    vagabond trader wrote:

    @ WrathofG-d:
    Criminy,check # 73.

    No, I saw that and know that the PLO considers the Temple Mount to be Muslim. That isn’t exactly what I am talking about though. I am looking for a map, or a part of any negotiation where when discussing what is “Arab East Jerusalem” to be forfeited by Israel in a “two-state” solution and they include this part of the city.

    I am well aware of the religious arguments they make against the Temple Mount, and other Jewish Holy sites.


  100. Eliana
    101 | April 16, 2010 5:29 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    Fatah/PLO officials don’t call the Old City of Jerusalem a “settlement” since it’s old and all, but they most definitely claim it as theirs (all of it, including the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall).

    The Jewish communities in northern Jerusalem (and in southern and eastern Jerusalem) that were built on empty land are being called “settlements” in 2010 because it plays well in the western world.

    In reality, they consider Tel Aviv to be a “settlement,” too, but they’re not quite dumb enough to say this in English.


  101. Overlook
    102 | April 16, 2010 5:31 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    I see. Very technically precise. But really, the agreement as to what is or is not a “settlement” subject to territorial negotiation is between Israel and America. Now not even acknowledged as binding by Obama.


  102. Nevergiveup
    103 | April 16, 2010 5:31 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    Before 1967, before the 67 war, the Old City was in Arab hands. They consider any land seized in that War as Occupied Territory. It really doesn’t get much more simple than that. Again that is how they feel not me.

    Sauce for goose, sauce for gander; they seized it in war, they lost it in war.

    Fuck ‘em.

    I agree, but the question was how the Arabs feel. And that is how they feel


  103. myselfandi
    104 | April 16, 2010 5:31 pm

    @ Nevergiveup:
    I think it is more that they believe any territory/country/state/etc which once had a Muslim travel through it is Occupied territory. They believe Spain is occupied territory. We will see more of this as Muslim expansion increases in Europe. Once a house is/was owned my a Muslim or an apartment rented by a Muslim, it will be deemed to be their territory. I’m waiting for the lawsuits over the street mall Mosques being converted to stores to be declared as holy sites by CAIR thereby negating the conversion to anything worthwhile.


  104. mjazz
    105 | April 16, 2010 5:31 pm

    @ Overlook:
    I don’t think God will let Israel be defeated.


  105. 106 | April 16, 2010 5:32 pm

    @ Nevergiveup:
    @ Nevergiveup:

    Ok, you still have been unable to provide any proof other than your opinion, but assuming you are right that would that is quite a frightening proposition, especially if that is what the U.S., England, etc., mean when they say no to “occupation” and ending “settlements”.


  106. NoThreat2U
    107 | April 16, 2010 5:33 pm

    @ myselfandi:
    Kinda like their desire to build a mosque near ground zero? I am pretty sure that after all the hell they caused there, they surely consider it “conquered” territory.


  107. buzzsawmonkey
    108 | April 16, 2010 5:34 pm

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    I agree, but the question was how the Arabs feel. And that is how they feel

    I do not respect “feelings” when therapy-addled Lefties spout them; I see no reason to respect “feelings” when genocide-addled Arabs spout them, either.

    Yes, I know what they “feel.” For my money—which I will contribute to any organization that furthers this—if they can “feel” harsh and continuous pain to the point where they “feel” that making claims on the Jewish capital in any way, shape or form is no longer worth the pain they are “feeling,” that is the biggest step towards actual peace that can be taken.


  108. Nevergiveup
    109 | April 16, 2010 5:34 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    @ Nevergiveup:
    @ Nevergiveup:

    Ok, you still have been unable to provide any proof other than your opinion, but assuming you are right that would that is quite a frightening proposition, especially if that is what the U.S., England, etc., mean when they say no to “occupation” and ending “settlements”.

    Read any paper or history book. Even Ellana agrees with me on this point. And it is frightening


  109. 110 | April 16, 2010 5:35 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    In reality, they consider Tel Aviv to be a “settlement,” too, but they’re not quite dumb enough to say this in English.

    Yes, I know this. No one needs to convince me of the Muslims intent (I’m the crazy, “Jewish fascist” “kahanist” remember?!). I was under the assumption, until now, however that they accepted these parts as being part of Israel at least as far as the the Phase 1 negotiations towards a two-state thing was concerned.

    I am pretty on top of these things and have never heard a public demand to the extent that the Western Wall wasn’t part of Israel before. (to those who pretend to accept the existence of Israel) (not even by the Muslims)


  110. Nevergiveup
    111 | April 16, 2010 5:36 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    I agree, but the question was how the Arabs feel. And that is how they feel

    I do not respect “feelings” when therapy-addled Lefties spout them; I see no reason to respect “feelings” when genocide-addled Arabs spout them, either.

    Yes, I know what they “feel.” For my money—which I will contribute to any organization that furthers this—if they can “feel” harsh and continuous pain to the point where they “feel” that making claims on the Jewish capital in any way, shape or form is no longer worth the pain they are “feeling,” that is the biggest step towards actual peace that can be taken.

    Fine no argument there. But the Arabs consider any land “Liberated” in 67 by Israel as “occupied” or “disputed” territory. Again they do-not me.


  111. buzzsawmonkey
    112 | April 16, 2010 5:39 pm

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    Fine no argument there. But the Arabs consider any land “Liberated” in 67 by Israel as “occupied” or “disputed” territory. Again they do-not me.

    My, my. It appears that we have a dispute. Guess it’s time for some binding Arab-itration.


  112. Nevergiveup
    113 | April 16, 2010 5:39 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    have never heard a public demand to the extent that the Western Wall wasn’t part of Israel before.

    when they demand return of all lands taken in the 1967 War back, and since the Western Wall is in the Old City and part of that land, what don’t you understand?


  113. mjazz
    114 | April 16, 2010 5:39 pm

    @ Eliana:

    Did we fall into an alternate universe somewhere along the way?

    It seems to have happened awful darn quick.


  114. Eliana
    115 | April 16, 2010 5:39 pm

    @ NoThreat2U:

    Kinda like their desire to build a mosque near ground zero? I am pretty sure that after all the hell they caused there, they surely consider it “conquered” territory.

    The 9/11 terrorists died there, which makes it Muslim holy ground in their view.

    The “Palestinians” almost took permanent Muslim possession of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem earlier in the decade because a terrorist died there. The surviving terrorists wanted to bury him inside the church so that it would become a permanent Muslim holy site.

    They finally agreed to cart out the body in a box while they were still in the church. This saved the church from being turned into a mosque.

    Terrorists (mass murderers) are holy in Islam.

    Their burial places are holy sites.


  115. lobo91
    116 | April 16, 2010 5:41 pm

    @ Nevergiveup:

    Before 1967, before the 67 war, the Old City was in Arab hands. They consider any land seized in that War as Occupied Territory.

    Of course, that’s not even legally correct under international law.

    The Old City wasn’t in “Arab hands” prior to the 1967 war. “Arab” isn’t a national entity that can control anything.

    It was in Jordanian hands.

    Jordan gave up any claim to the Old City when they signed a peace treaty with Israel.

    If it doesn’t belong to them, that only leaves one possibility, since there is no “Palestinian” nation.


  116. 117 | April 16, 2010 5:42 pm

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    when they demand return of all lands taken in the 1967 War back, and since the Western Wall is in the Old City and part of that land, what don’t you understand?

    At this point, I don’t understand why anyone continues the farce of any sort of peace with the Muslims because under no circumstances are they getting Jerusalem (west of the Temple). Even the most liberal of Jews that I know would NEVER offer that land. It is one thing to offer Judea, Samaria, Gaza, or even the Mount of Olives and East, but…


  117. Eliana
    118 | April 16, 2010 5:42 pm

    Well, I just dropped by to say HI.

    I’ve been a bit subdued while counting the omer this year.

    Take care!


  118. mjazz
    119 | April 16, 2010 5:43 pm

    Overlook wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Although they do try to write themselves in as Canaanites!

    I read in the Jerusalem Post about some kind of celebration to Ba’al once. And there is a coin with an image of Baal on it, but it’s ok, the imams said so. Thing is, the Canaanites were caucasian.


  119. NoThreat2U
    120 | April 16, 2010 5:43 pm

    @ Eliana:
    Sneaky little bastards aren’t they?


  120. Overlook
    121 | April 16, 2010 5:43 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    I’ve been saying for months that Obama wants a nuclear Iran so that Israel will feel pressured to give in to Arab territorial demands.
    I continue to see absolutely nothing that suggests I was wrong.

    Hmm. That suggests America’s strategic interests are with the Arabs against Iran. But the “Arabs” who will gain territory from Israel are supported by Iran. So permitting Iran nuclear extortion is not siding with the Arabs. Whichever way you look at it, Obama’s policy is incoherent.


  121. Nevergiveup
    122 | April 16, 2010 5:44 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    when they demand return of all lands taken in the 1967 War back, and since the Western Wall is in the Old City and part of that land, what don’t you understand?

    At this point, I don’t understand why anyone continues the farce of any sort of peace with the Muslims because under no circumstances are they getting Jerusalem (west of the Temple). Even the most liberal of Jews that I know would NEVER offer that land. It is one thing to offer Judea, Samaria, Gaza, or even the Mount of Olives and East, but…

    Hey we almost agree totally on that except I know some liberal Jews who would give back Tel Aviv.


  122. waldensianspirit
    123 | April 16, 2010 5:44 pm

    If they haven’t demanded the Western Wall, after they’d get everything they are demanding, they would certainly demand the Western Wall then.

    But they already claim the Western Wall.


  123. buzzsawmonkey
    124 | April 16, 2010 5:45 pm

    Overlook wrote:

    Whichever way you look at it, Obama’s policy is incoherent.

    If you consider his policy to be based on anti-Israel sentiment first and last, it is still incoherent, but slightly less so.


  124. 125 | April 16, 2010 5:51 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    From your article:

    In part, the problem is practical: the Palestinians insist that the capital of Israel serve as the capital of their future state too

    This is where I get confused and where my questions above come from. I guess the best thing I could do is pull out a map and show where the Knesset is, The Universities etc., but I don’t have time to do that.

    They claim to accept that they will accept a shared Jerusalem as each’s capitol so this is supposed to mean a Jerusalem for Israel that does not include the Old City?


  125. Overlook
    126 | April 16, 2010 5:52 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Overlook wrote:
    Whichever way you look at it, Obama’s policy is incoherent.
    If you consider his policy to be based on anti-Israel sentiment first and last, it is still incoherent, but slightly less so.

    I suppose that forcing open the jaws of a flea to feed it poison is also a way of killing it.


  126. RIX
    127 | April 16, 2010 5:54 pm

    I heard Pat Caddell on the Hannity panel last night.
    Another negative as he sees it for the Demcrats is Obama rejecting American Exceptionalism.
    He said it well, “America is exceptional.”


  127. Overlook
    128 | April 16, 2010 5:56 pm

    RIX wrote:

    I heard Pat Caddell on the Hannity panel last night.
    Another negative as he sees it for the Demcrats is Obama rejecting American Exceptionalism.
    He said it well, “America is exceptional.”

    But no more exceptional than every other country in the class. Every one is exceptional it its own way. Winners, every one.


  128. Buckeye Abroad
    129 | April 16, 2010 5:57 pm

    36. snork

    She was Zionist to the core. Y’all remember that?

    Right up there with her husband’s infamous quote from 2002, “I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die for Israel.”

    Bill and Hill. What a pair.


  129. waldensianspirit
    130 | April 16, 2010 5:58 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:
    That’s what Pipes seems to find.

    I believe they are after wiping the knowledge and memory of all Judaism and temporal connections to the G-d of Abraham than anything else. They are quite willing for a “secular” too as long as it is a muslim too.


  130. Nevergiveup
    131 | April 16, 2010 5:58 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    @ waldensianspirit:

    From your article:

    In part, the problem is practical: the Palestinians insist that the capital of Israel serve as the capital of their future state too

    This is where I get confused and where my questions above come from. I guess the best thing I could do is pull out a map and show where the Knesset is, The Universities etc., but I don’t have time to do that.

    They claim to accept that they will accept a shared Jerusalem as each’s capitol so this is supposed to mean a Jerusalem for Israel that does not include the Old City?

    The Palis want Jerusalem to be the capital of their rotten stinkin state. They don’t really care where Israel makes it’s Capitol. But yes, they have consistently refused to cede even one inch of the Old City up to this point to Israel. If you remember, and if you don’t study up it because Obama is going to reprise it, Clinton suggested the Old City be a joint soverniegnty thing. Israel would control the Jewish Section and the Palis get the Arab sections. The Temple Mount would go to the Palis but the supporting structures beneath go to Israel. Even that Arafat rejected. It was a real fucked up plan and it is coming back to life!!!!! G-D help us all.


  131. lobo91
    132 | April 16, 2010 6:00 pm

    @ RIX:

    I heard Pat Caddell on the Hannity panel last night.
    Another negative as he sees it for the Demcrats is Obama rejecting American Exceptionalism.
    He said it well, “America is exceptional.”

    Of course, Obama is just saying out loud what the Left has long believed.

    I guarantee you that if you were to go into any state university’s college of education and poll the faculty, you’d find almost universal agreement with Obama.

    The concept of American exceptionalism is contrary to the “multicultural” society they’re determined to create by what they teach your kids.


  132. buzzsawmonkey
    133 | April 16, 2010 6:01 pm

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    It was a real fucked up plan and it is coming back to life!!!!! G-D help us all.

    With reference to my saying, upthread, that Obama wanted a nuclear Iran, I do not believe it to be coincidence that the architect of the f*cked-up plan that Arafat rejected, Dennis Ross, was first a special negotiator to Iran and is now a special negotiating assistant to George Mitchell.

    I believe that Ross wants to see the plan that Arafat flung back in his face ultimately enacted.


  133. Nevergiveup
    134 | April 16, 2010 6:02 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    The concept of American exceptionalism is contrary to the “multicultural” society they’re determined to create by what they teach your kids.

    Yeah but I teach my kids the truth at home.


  134. NoThreat2U
    135 | April 16, 2010 6:03 pm

    The Jews need to start a rumor. A rumor that states Jerusalem is NOT what they thought it was. ZOMG!! All these years you guys were wrong…it is not that important to you. Instead, some barren wasteland is the REAL capital of Israel. Watch the “international community” and the palis go crazy trying to coopt that area instead. Could be funny to watch.


  135. Nevergiveup
    136 | April 16, 2010 6:04 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    It was a real fucked up plan and it is coming back to life!!!!! G-D help us all.

    With reference to my saying, upthread, that Obama wanted a nuclear Iran, I do not believe it to be coincidence that the architect of the f*cked-up plan that Arafat rejected, Dennis Ross, was first a special negotiator to Iran and is now a special negotiating assistant to George Mitchell.

    I believe that Ross wants to see the plan that Arafat flung back in his face ultimately enacted.

    I am sure you saw the articles and speculation about that like I did last week. It scares the shit out of me. I don’t think he would dare try anything till after the midterm elections, but then it is going to get really nasty for Israel I fear. And yes it is hard to disagree with you about Dennis Ross


  136. 137 | April 16, 2010 6:05 pm


  137. Nevergiveup
    138 | April 16, 2010 6:05 pm

    NoThreat2U wrote:

    The Jews need to start a rumor. A rumor that states Jerusalem is NOT what they thought it was. ZOMG!! All these years you guys were wrong…it is not that important to you. Instead, some barren wasteland is the REAL capital of Israel. Watch the “international community” and the palis go crazy trying to coopt that area instead. Could be funny to watch.

    How about the oil field in Saudi Arabia?


  138. buzzsawmonkey
    139 | April 16, 2010 6:06 pm

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    I am sure you saw the articles and speculation about that like I did last week. It scares the shit out of me. I don’t think he would dare try anything till after the midterm elections, but then it is going to get really nasty for Israel I fear. And yes it is hard to disagree with you about Dennis Ross

    I actually did not see the articles. But I heard Dennis Ross speak live, a few years ago, and I do not believe he has abandoned the dream of “his plan” making “the peace” in the Middle East.


  139. Nevergiveup
    140 | April 16, 2010 6:07 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    I am sure you saw the articles and speculation about that like I did last week. It scares the shit out of me. I don’t think he would dare try anything till after the midterm elections, but then it is going to get really nasty for Israel I fear. And yes it is hard to disagree with you about Dennis Ross

    I actually did not see the articles. But I heard Dennis Ross speak live, a few years ago, and I do not believe he has abandoned the dream of “his plan” making “the peace” in the Middle East.

    yeah I read his book


  140. Nevergiveup
    141 | April 16, 2010 6:08 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    But it is this Mallory guy that is really dangerous


  141. 142 | April 16, 2010 6:08 pm

    Shabbat Shalom!


  142. NoThreat2U
    143 | April 16, 2010 6:08 pm

    @ Nevergiveup:
    Why not keep changing the claim. Have them barbarians running all over the desert trying to co-opt supposed Jewish holy sites. It sure would make them look like the assholes they are. Even more so maybe. Not SA though, we need someplace that is devoid of everything….water, plants….everything. See their stupidity in action.


  143. RIX
    145 | April 16, 2010 6:09 pm

    lobo91
    132 | April 16, 2010 18:00
    The concept of American exceptionalism is contrary to the “multicultural” society they’re determined to create by what they teach your kids

    .

    Yes & even a little further. Academia seems to consider the Concept of American Exceptionalism to be a rather quaint concept held by the less enlightened.
    I did notice though that right after 9/11 when they were scared, they wanted our military to be “exceptional:” ass kickers.
    Now that they feel safe, business as usual.


  144. waldensianspirit
    146 | April 16, 2010 6:09 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    So Ross is finishing out the tenure of his life wrestling with a slimball of a dead terrorist? He’s got some of those issues snork is highlighting in the next thread.


  145. snork
    147 | April 16, 2010 6:10 pm

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    How about the oil field in Saudi Arabia?

    Mecca would be more fun.


  146. 148 | April 16, 2010 6:11 pm


  147. Nevergiveup
    149 | April 16, 2010 6:12 pm

    snork wrote:

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    How about the oil field in Saudi Arabia?

    Mecca would be more fun.

    Is there a nice Hyatt Hotel there to stay in?


  148. NoThreat2U
    150 | April 16, 2010 6:16 pm

    snork wrote:

    Nevergiveup wrote:
    How about the oil field in Saudi Arabia?
    Mecca would be more fun.

    I think you two are missing my smart assed point. We want to direct them to where NOTHING is…NOTHING. Just say that some raw sewage in the desert is a Jewish holy site and watch them clamor to claim it…as moe took a poo there a bazillion years ago. They can claim that as their capital. Funny to watch them run around like idiots.


  149. snork
    151 | April 16, 2010 6:17 pm

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    Is there a nice Hyatt Hotel there to stay in?

    I don’t know, all the website says is that accommodations are “pet friendly”.


  150. Nikis Knight
    152 | April 16, 2010 6:22 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    If they haven’t demanded the Western Wall, after they’d get everything they are demanding, they would certainly demand the Western Wall then.
    But they already claim the Western Wall.

    This is really key. No amount of submission less than total will satisfy them.

    And at no point should their satisfaction enter into any rational policy decision, as BSM implied.


  151. Guggi
    153 | April 16, 2010 6:26 pm

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    snork wrote:
    Nevergiveup wrote:
    How about the oil field in Saudi Arabia?
    Mecca would be more fun.
    Is there a nice Hyatt Hotel there to stay in?

    http://hotels-saudiarabia-en.globalhotelindex.com/mecca/hyatt_regency_makkah_2434687en.html


  152. buzzsawmonkey
    154 | April 16, 2010 6:27 pm

    Good Shabbos, folks! I’m out.


  153. citizen_q
    155 | April 16, 2010 6:39 pm

    snork wrote:

    Nevergiveup wrote:
    How about the oil field in Saudi Arabia?
    Mecca would be more fun.

    My sister in-law’s husband, a turkish muslim told that the ka’ bah was built by Abraham. That would make it a Jewish holy site. (forget about the fact that it housed idols for the sake of this argument)


  154. Bob in Breckenridge
    156 | April 16, 2010 7:27 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    Terrorists (mass murderers) are holy in Islam. Their burial places are holy sites.

    Really? Sounds like a great place to take a leak or even a shit, if you ax me.


  155. snork
    157 | April 16, 2010 7:50 pm

    citizen_q wrote:

    My sister in-law’s husband, a turkish muslim told that the ka’ bah was built by Abraham.

    So Abraham was an ironworker, too?


  156. 158 | May 10, 2010 2:32 am

    [...] Carter, Clinton pollsters: How the libs can avoid a November … [...]


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David