Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » NY Times launches Jew tracker

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: NY Times launches Jew tracker
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The New York Times today offers up a table examining the Democratic (but not Republican) Senators and House members opposed to Obama’s Iran agreement, noting whether they are Jewish and the proportion of Jewish constituents in their state or district.
It's good to identify those evil Jews that oppose Obama and his legacy building nuclear proliferation of the Middle East. With this information, at least we'll know where to start. [Eek!]

Pretty incredible.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
With this information, at least we'll know where to start.
Start what?

According to the article,
quote:
The debate divided Jewish constituents between those who saw the deal as a threat to Israel and those who backed it as a way to avert conflict between Iran and the United States.
So, some Jewish lawmakers oppose the Iran deal, but others support it. Why is that so "incredible"?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Damn... I read the thread title and immediately wanted a service that would let me find the best deals in town.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Smile] . Lemme know what you want. I got relatives who can get it for you wholesale.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
With this information, at least we'll know where to start.
Start what?

I am convinced that you really don't know. That's pretty incredible too. Since you seem oblivious to history, try this: replace "Jews" with "homosexuals" or "blacks" or whatever your favorite SJW cause happens to be.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why would homosexuals be biased in favor of Israeli hawks?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am convinced that you really don't know. That's pretty incredible too. Since you seem oblivious to history, try this: replace "Jews" with "homosexuals" or "blacks" or whatever your favorite SJW cause happens to be.
I'm pretty aware of history, but not so much about paranoid right-wing conspiracy theories. Why do you never answer questions? I'd really like you to explain what you think is going on. Pretend I'm a moron or a friend you want to convince, so be as clear as you can.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
I am convinced that you really don't know. That's pretty incredible too. Since you seem oblivious to history, try this: replace "Jews" with "homosexuals" or "blacks" or whatever your favorite SJW cause happens to be.
I'm pretty aware of history, but not so much about paranoid right-wing conspiracy theories. Why do you never answer questions? I'd really like you to explain what you think is going on. Pretend I'm a moron or a friend you want to convince, so be as clear as you can.
Unless I'm mistaken Rafi is suggesting that the article is describing an attempt to single out Jewish politicians in America that may have untoward allegiances with the Israeli lobby. Or maybe at the very least that the Jews in their constituency tend towards loyalty to Israel and the Congressmen have more desire to cater to them than to their other constituents. Rafi's take on this is apparently that investigating their 'Jewishness' to explain their voting record has the ring of Germany in the 1930's.

In fact Rafi may have a point in some small way, even though it is no secret that the Israeli lobby has many inroads in American politics and powerful backers to boot outside of politics. Tracing a Congressman's loyalty to America through inspection of being Jewish (and therefore potentially serving Israel over the U.S.) does have an alarming element to it, even though it's probably quite true that certain Jewish people may have a favoritism towards Israel over other countries.

For my part I think the allegiances in Washington are so messed up in countless ways that investigating one particular angle of it kinds of stinks. So let's say a senator really is in Israel's pocket - so what? Is that worse than being in Halliburton's pocket? In this sense pointing at the heritage of a person to explain their actions, while potentially informative, seems to me besides the point and is a dangerous road to travel. The only odd thing is that I was under the impression that the NYT was pro-Israel, so I'm not sure whether Rafi's recounting of the article is accurate or whether the article is an aberration.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This usage has gotten some criticism, but I am less sure. If there were a news story about a major Congressional vote that had strong involvement by the Pope (maybe even in giving a speech directly to Congress regarding specific legislation), I think it might be relevant to track the actions of members of Congress with identification of which were Catholic. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at least claimed that Israel was the Jewish nation-state, and so it is at least a relevant question in my mind if Jewish legislators followed suit (for the record, 19 of 28 Jewish Members of Congress voted in favor of this deal and against the position of Netanyahu)
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd really rather Rafi explained what lies behind the single word of astonishment he used (twice), but to your points,
quote:
Unless I'm mistaken Rafi is suggesting that the article is describing an attempt to single out Jewish politicians in America that may have untoward allegiances with the Israeli lobby. Or maybe at the very least that the Jews in their constituency tend towards loyalty to Israel and the Congressmen have more desire to cater to them than to their other constituents. Rafi's take on this is apparently that investigating their 'Jewishness' to explain their voting record has the ring of Germany in the 1930's.
If that aligns with Rafi's comment:
quote:
Since you seem oblivious to history, try this: replace "Jews" with "homosexuals" or "blacks" or whatever your favorite SJW cause happens to be.
Since Greg points out that 19 of 28 Jewish legislators support the agreement, and there are plenty of objections that have nothing to do with challenging anyone's loyalty, this seems very much a wild paranoid conspiracy theory, unless a similar proportion of the unanimous Republican vote against the deal have the same whiff of foreign allegiance. I have a few objections myself, but Rafi's concern does not seem to be about what mine or anyone else's might be.

I'll add that I don't understand why Rafi thinks there is any SJW cause here. Maybe I am just a moron.

[ September 12, 2015, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since this thread is a dud and Rafi has apparently moved on, I'm going to hijack it to make a larger point.

The Republican message this year has become even more negative and apocalyptic than in the past. The country is not only under attack by foreigners like Mexicans and Muslims and our own black citizens, but the very fabric of the nation's soul is being deliberately undermined by the Democratic President and the Party apparatus he controls. Trump, the leading Republican candidate to succeed Obama at the moment, has even coaxed skinheads and white nationalists out of their hidey-holes to praise his message.

The GOP hasn't selected which Chicken Little (or Cassandra, take your pick) will run next year, but most of the leading contenders all rail bitterly about the state of things. Bush and Rubio are exceptions with their gloomy optimism rooted in weak-tea Reaganism, and Walker avoids confronting any issue with fuzzy promises that he will deal with things as effectively in the WH as he has in Wisconsin.

It's natural that candidates tell you why they are better than the alternative and why the alternative is worse than them, but has anyone ever seen it so bad since WWII? As bad as we view Nixon now, in 1960 he ran on a platform of nothing worse than vigilance against foreign threats and in 1968 on optimism about the Vietnam War and promises to increase law and order.

Goldwater was the only major party candidate I can think of who pledged to save us from ourselves, using his most famous dictim that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue".

Now, as then, I don't know what the "liberty" is that the ranters are protecting, since most of their message is aimed at the rest of us who think we love liberty as much as they do.

I'll confess that I too think the country is slipping, but not for the same reasons. But, that's for another time. First, I want someone to tell me what any of the 45% who will pull the GOP lever next year will be voting for, rather than what they will be voting against.

[ September 13, 2015, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1