Monday, August 16, 2010


Whatever happened to plain ol’ Antisemitism…you know, hating Jews for no other reason than they’re Jews. Remember the fun of simply spray painting swastikas or Kikes on Synagogue doors, banning Jews from social or golf clubs. Remember Grocho’s great line…”I wouldn’t join any club that would accept me as a member.” You know…all the great old fun of slamming Jews.

Now Harvard pukes in their own aristocratic arrogance have gone and institutionalized Antisemitism and made Jew-hating an official policy. How can Antisemitism be any fun when Harvard elites have co-opted Jew-hating and made a whole curriculum out of it….demonstrated by that so-called august institution’s sale of all Israeli stocks?

It’s a darn shame that we can’t have our normal Jew hating Antisemitism of yesteryear. Now we have to listen to the self-righteous pomposity of Harvardqaedas telling us that they’re not going to side with a tiny country that suffers a steady rain of rockets aimed at killing civilians, but with the very terrorists who are shooting those rockets.

What has American’s alleged premier educational institution come to? Do you want to send your child to an educational icon to major in how to hate Jews…particularly when lots of Jews go to Harvard? What are the Harvard administrators going to do next, paint “Juden” or Star of David on the jackets of Jewish students, line them up on the side of a ditch and open fire?

Harvard has become the poster child of just how sick institutions of higher learning have become. At least we now know how all that Saudi/Muslim money is being spent in Cambridge, Mass. Harvard has obviously been bought and paid for.


TheLonelyArtistClub said...

This from the man who supports the Party that has only two specific items on its current platform:

1) Suspend First Amendment Rights for one religious minority

2) Repeal the 14th Amendment to achieve the surface agenda of not allowing brown people born in this country to be citizens, but also invalidating the judicial basis for every civil rights act and SCOTUS decision of all time, effectively taking the country back to Dred Scott.

Besides all of that, there is a giant difference between being anti-semitic and protesting an apartheid state. Just because people criticize the policies of Israel doesn't mean they hate Jews. I'm pretty sure when the US and other nations issued boycotts in response to the apartheid regime in South Africa, they didn't actually want to holocaust all of the Afrikaneers.

I'm tempted to make the simile with Europeans who protest and teach against the US's foreign policy over the last decade disapproving of our country without wanting to wage a genocidal campaign against us, but I'm not so sure that you don't actually believe that the mildly socialistic countries of Europe want to destroy us. Its hard to understand extreme paranoia.

BTW, I'd appreciate it you would actually post my final remarks on your previous posts. I will reiterate for the 100th time that you are spineless (exaggeration, don't make your entire response the point that I haven't said this 100 times. No idea what minutiae you'll decide to focus on this time). You'll finish a series of comments by making an absurd accusation that I accused you of sleeping with underage girls, which is not what that post meant at all. When I try to explain the comparison I was making (and I'm sure you understood it the first time if I didn't horribly overestimate your intelligence), you don't post it, and leave yourself with this sort of high ground position. No wonder you love FoxNews so much. Silence the opposition, begin and end with your position. (And I regret even typing those words, because that feels like the dozen words out of a few hundred that are so unimportant and yet you'll cling on to and try to debase me over.)

If you have to fortitude to actually support and defend your outrageous positions, I would think you'd publish all of my comments. You've obviously shown that you can censor my posts honestly. However, I still find this a giant crock after you posted a link to a video from Rolling Stone months ago that contain profanity. A magazine that celebrates sex and drugs.

Anonymous said...

Nice to know the party of hate is running or should I say ruining the country.What a surprise.


NewGnome said...

You're right, tos, and they're not the only ones. NG

NewGnome said...

Lonely, you're worse than tedious. Your's is certainly an excessive response not counting full of tripe. The alleged goal of Feisal Abdul Rauf's mosque and community center is to increase a community outreach for peace. Does it sound to you like he's doing that? NO! His demand for this mosque is creating an outcry of the people who suffered most from 911. He also wants to impose Shari' a Law. Think you'd get free speech under that? Is that creating comity?

Under your free speech argument it would be appropriate to install a KKK center next to Martin Luther King's Dexter Avenue Baptist Church and calling it an outreach program. Or putting the confederate flag at Arlington. A Nazi outreach center next to the Holocaust Museum. You'd scream bloody murder, so stuff the typical socialist crap.

Regarding the 14th…you obviously don't think the constitution should or could be amended. You are also assuming that it is acceptable to reward those who break our laws. You want to ignore illegal immigration and reward it. Interestingly, your justification is racist, because you only allow those with physical proximity to America. Just how many immigrants do you want to allow into America say from Indonesia, hit by the Tsunami, using anchor babies? Five million a year? Ten Million? One Hundred million. Just where would your largess end?

You demand to be excused for using your young girl analogy. That's crap. You know the media does this all the time. Someone says something for illustration, especially if they're a conservative, and they are toast. Just in the past few days, Dr. Laura just saying the actual said the word "nigger" (as an illustration in a discussion not an insult) on her show she's hounded off her show by special interests who want to control what anyone says. But no one is even allowed to say it, if you're white. Yet the Farrakhan followers are quick to call whites honkey, cracker and a host of racial slurs. Now that's what I call the twisted application of the first amendment. You are typical of those who do this very thing all the time. You also claim you're only 60 per cent liberal…please regale us with your conservative views because I've not heard any.

Israel an apartheid state. How about Iran, Saudi Arabia or a host of other Muslim state. You can't even put your feet in Mecca as an infidel, it's a heresy says Islam. You can't carry a bible. Even when Saudi Arabia begged us to come and protect them from Saddam Hussein who took over Kuwait and they feared he was heading their way, and the Saudis wouldn't even allow American Soldiers to carry a bible, so don't give me your pathetic tripe of apartheid. I'm amazed at you would swallow that extremism.

BTW, if you want to be posted on my blog you'll have to start staying on subject which you don't seem to have a clue how to do. And another BTW, I'm more than tired of your constant reference to your superior intelligence. You simply are not as smart as you think you are, which is very obvious in your arguments. Just drop it and either discuss the issue at hand or find somewhere else to dump your leftist tripe.

Anonymous said...

this is why the left all are lawyers so they can manuipulate the laws and twist them like a pretzel to make it sound logical.


TheLonelyArtistClub said...

(CC: tos)

I do owe an apology. I have purposefully tried to bate you, attack you, and on the other hand, I've criticized you for bating and attacking me.

This is going to be long, I know that because I've already written everything that will appear on this comment and I'm partway through the next. Neither of you might care to read it. I don't know if you will and I'm not sure if I should care if you do. Maybe that persistent desire of mine to win out is a fault in cases like these? I do believe that through this comment, and what I've written of the next, I've been polite and refrained from insults.


Stay on subject. I responded to your post about Harvard being anti-semitic. You latched on to my two initial comments, which, I admit, I made out of context and in a poor taste ad hominem attack, but instead of staying on topic and dealing with the anti-semitism argument, you spent most of your response on those two points, bringing us even further off topic and adding in some more ad hominem of your own. Which I can't blame you for at all.

With the exception of "Israel an apartheid state." you don't really respond to the main point of this post or my comment. That again is partly my fault. Perhaps if I wouldn't have tried to take multiple cheap and tangental shots and had only replied to your main post, then we wouldn't have taken this side road. One of my many faults: I often let my emotions run ahead of my reason or logic and write/say things (not just to you and not just about politics) that I would go back and edit after calming down and thinking for a while about what would have been the best approach.

But to the actual point. You never deny that Israel as an apartheid state. Maybe the various Muslim countries you mention are also apartheid states. Just because more than one country is, doesn't negate the fact that another is. The fact is that people of certain ethnic and/or religious backgrounds are treated as second class citizens with reduced rights and privileges. I consider that an apartheid system. I realize that might not be the universal definition. It is not as strict as what happened in South Africa and it might not be as strict as what is going on in another country that I am unaware of. But just because someone can come up to me and say "countries x, y and z are also apartheid states by your definition" doesn't mean I'm going to say, "well then the first country isn't actually apartheid."

Other sundries:

1) I don't remember bringing up Free Speech issues. Rereading my original comment I realize I said First Amendment, but I intended that to be understand as meaning restricting the Freedom from state control of religion aspect of the First Amendment. If you brought up Free Speech because of my comments on you censoring my previous attempts to comment, I know well enough that I have no Constitutionally protected Free Speech Rights on your blog.

2) I'm not getting into anything about the Imam. For every expert I hear in defense of him I hear another opposed to him. I don't have the knowledge, time or background to sort through it.

[For readability's sake, I'm splitting this up into a second comment]