And, on what issue will CJ finally come out against Israel?
Will it be the "settlements" issue?
Or will it be the "nuclear weapons issue" (as Obama will tie that to the inevitable Iranian "negotiations" to Israeli nuclear weapons)?
Hmm, let's see now, which should it be?
Because I don't follow LGF anymore, I did not know this. Jeppo reports:
The issue will be Avigdor Lieberman. CJ considers him to be a Kahanist, racist and fascist, and therefore his position as Foreign Minister delegitimizes the entire Israeli government, which in turn delegitimizes the entire state of Israel.
Think about it: In any diplomatic fight between the US government (led by the saintly BHO) and the Israeli government (which includes the "evil" Lieberman), who do you think CJ will side with? Wait for it.
26 comments:
The issue will be Avigdor Lieberman. CJ considers him to be a Kahanist, racist and fascist, and therefore his position as Foreign Minister delegitimizes the entire Israeli government, which in turn delegitimizes the entire state of Israel.
Think about it: In any diplomatic fight between the US government (led by the saintly BHO) and the Israeli government (which includes the "evil" Lieberman), who do you think CJ will side with? Wait for it.
I guess Israel will probably be banned from LGF, now.
LOL
Queen Johnson (Alice in Wonderland style): Off with their heads!
Pastorius,
You continue to disappoint me. Remember when you learned your entire political philosophy at my scaly knee? I thought we had something special between us back then. But you've betrayed your blogfather for the last time: As we speak, Killgore Trout and Sharmuta are headed to your house to bring you back to me for a lizard re-education session involving whips, chains and a gimp suit complete with mouth-ball. You WILL learn to obey me once again.
As for Israel, I'll throw them under the bus when I'm good and ready to throw them under the bus.
P.S. I'm noticing a severe lack of banning disloyal commenters around here. You can start with the trained monkey of the Vlaams Belang that calls itself "jeppo".
Pasto, be sure and check out this hard-hitting smackdown of CJ over at GoV. Ouch!
GoV is a disreputable bed of folks who defend FASCISM literally.
I haven't been there in LONGER BY FAR than I haven't been to LGF
"GoV is a disreputable bed of folks who defend FASCISM literally."
Prove it.
The crucial issue will be those Zionist squirrels. They're everywhere in all the trees spying on us. And they're telepathic. They're trying to read my thoughts and report them back to the Elders. The only protection is a tinfoil helmet.
http://foreignerinformosa.typepad.com/the_foreigner_in_formosa/2007/07/the-zionist-squ.html
P.S. Charles is as sane as I am.
Ayatollah,
You never cease to crack me up.
Jeppo,
Here's what I find on Lieberman:
Lieberman Plan
Main article: Lieberman Plan
According to Lieberman, "The peace process is based on three false basic assumptions; that Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main cause of instability in the Middle East, that the conflict is territorial and not ideological, and that the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict."[29]
In late May 2004, Lieberman proposed a plan in which the populations and territories of Israeli Jews and Arabs, including some Israeli Arabs, would be "separated." According to the plan, also known as the "Populated-Area Exchange Plan," Israeli Arab towns adjacent to Palestinian Authority areas would be transferred to Palestinian Authority, and only those Arab Israelis who migrated from the area to within Israel's new borders and pledged loyalty to Israel would be allowed to remain Israeli citizens. On May 30, 2004, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon condemned Lieberman's statements, stating "We regard Israeli Arabs as part of the State of Israel."[30] On 4 June 2004, as the disputes over the up-coming disengagement plan grew more intense, Sharon dismissed Lieberman from the cabinet.[31][32]
After the 2009 Israeli elections, Lieberman said he changed his mind in recent years and decided to support the creation of a Palestinian state. He wrote in a letter to the The Jewish Week that he "advocates the creation of a viable Palestinian state," and told The Washington Post that he would agree to the evacuation of Nokdim "if there really will be a two-state solution". He explained in the Knesset that "reality changes" and that his shift had occurred over the last few years.[33] In his The Jewish Week article, Lieberman tried to explain his party's "no loyalty – no citizenship" campaign by writing: "During Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, I was appalled by the calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and for renewed suicide bombings that some Israeli Arab leaders called for at pro-Hamas rallies. Although 'responsible citizenship' had always been part of our platform, I realized that this was a burning issue that had to take top priority."[34] He explained his "responsible citizenship" platform and compared his position to the express policy of nations around the world, saying: "In the U.S., those requesting a Green Card must take an oath that they will fulfill the rights and duties of citizenship."[35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman
More:
Other issues
Lieberman supports Israeli membership in the European Union and NATO.[36] Although he considers Iran a serious threat to Israel, he favors further political/economic sanctions and he opposes a military strike, saying that he cannot imagine the implications of armed action.[28]
While his party is sometimes described as doctrinally secular and aiming to reduce the role of the rabbinical system in government by the news media,[37] it actually supports the continuation of the role of Orthodox rabbinical courts, but wants more nationally minded religious people, rather than the ultra-orthodox, in charge.[38] It does not advocate introducing civil marriage within Israeli law, but rather to find a solution to some of those who cannot marry under such laws.[37] It does not advocate a separation of church and state in Israeli society.[38].
This guy hardly sounds like an ultra-Orthodox extremist to me.
Could you provide links where CJ attempts to discredit this man, so I can understand his pov?
It seems to go along with a lot of his other insane ideas of late, but it's still hard to believe.
Look, I'm for separation of Church and State, but if Charles were to hang his hat on that issue, then he would have to condemn the UK as well.
I don't have a link, but I saw a comment by CJ where he called Lieberman a Kahanist (after Meir Kahane). Really I'm just speculating about him using Lieberman as an excuse to chuck Israel under the bus, but it definitely fits his M.O.
Mostly CJ's been eerily quiet about Israel in general and Lieberman in particular--too quiet if you know what I mean. CJ now hates about 95% of the conservative movement in America, so he must really hate a separationist like Lieberman. But he's not quite ready to piss off his remaining Israel supporters yet.
Wait for Pam Geller to write nice things about Liebermen and then watch CJ bare his fangs, LOL.
The funny thing is when Johnson rejects someone he never actually makes a complete argument about why he rejects them. The reason for this could be that he is too egotistic to admit that he once held positions which were exactly that same, and has now rejected those ideas. Maybe, he just doesn't want to admit it when he thinks he is wrong.
For instance, he absolutely ignores Mark Steyn now. One time, someone at LGF (Kilgore Trout?) was making the argument that the problems in Europe are overstated (the point was a bit more detailed but I don't remember the particulars). I pointed out that in order to believe such a thing one would have to reject the Steyn demographics thesis. I asked if they did, and I asked Charles in particular.
I never got an answer.
Similarly, Johnson will likely never deal with this:
Lieberman's point is that ""The peace process is based on three false basic assumptions; that Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main cause of instability in the Middle East, that the conflict is territorial and not ideological, and that the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict."
This has always been Charles' point in the past. Charles knows the problems between the Palestinians and the Israelis are rooted in the fact that the Palestinian people, in general, reject the very notion of Israeli statehood. That is ideological not territorial. They don't want an Israel. That's why neither the Hamas Charter, nor the PLO Charter have ever been renounced.
Charles knows that.
And yet, when Lieberman follows that with what seems to be the only reasonable solution (Lieberman proposed a plan in which the populations and territories of Israeli Jews and Arabs, including some Israeli Arabs, would be "separated." According to the plan, also known as the "Populated-Area Exchange Plan," Israeli Arab towns adjacent to Palestinian Authority areas would be transferred to Palestinian Authority, and only those Arab Israelis who migrated from the area to within Israel's new borders and pledged loyalty to Israel would be allowed to remain Israeli citizens... ), Charles condemns the man.
Charles does not deal with other possible solutions. He doesn't deal with the problem at it's root. He just rejects Lieberman.
If you are going to reject an idea, it is incumbent upon you to explain why, and to explain some idea which is a better solution/idea/model/theory.
Charles never does this.
Is it because he is too stupid to come up with any ideas?
No, I don't think so.
I think he may be a bit lazy, and his laziness collides with his ego and produces the whole "Off with their heads" syndrome.
I love Lieberman, Kahanism, and GoV.
I must be evil incarnate because I think that nobody should be forced to lay down and give your country, your life, your beliefs, your rights, or your land away to anyone.
I really do not care what CJ thinks - all I care is that when things like promoting DAWKINS happens that I provide counter information for people to access that tells the whole story, not just his version. Same reason I did the work on the VB 2 years ago - which began because I did NOT believe him, not because I did.
I do not attack CJ personally, I do not let anyone attack anyone personally at my place,
anyway...who cares about CJ personally IMO.... I do posts with information that can refute the lies and the AGENDAS that I feel are dangerous and wrong that he is pushing, but as far as a personal attack on him it turns my stomach. I cannot stand over the bodies of former friends and piss on them, no matter what they do to me. Can not do that. It has nothing to do with him personally from my POV but with the AGENDAS which I do my best to combat, and not just from him, for everywhere.
Dude can run whatever kind of asshole site he wants, it's his right, it's his right to change his mind completely if he wants to as well...
Sadly he is not secure enough in himself to extend that right to others - this much is obvious, and his influence is shrinking fast.
IMO people who have nothing to say at all unless as it is related in response to something CJ said are even more pathetic than he is. Threads of 500 plus comments calling him names are more pathetic than he is.
People have called me "coward" among other things for not attacking him personally, especially after he sat on threads last year and more recently last week talking shit about me.
Far as I am concerned that says way more about him than it does me. Anyone who follows a link to my blog will see I am doing zero he should be bitching about other than I do not agree with him on a million things. SO?
Listen, better people than him have lied about me.... this is not my first time at the rodeo, and I try very hard to stick to the Lashon Hara so you could say it is against my religion to act toward him as he acted/acts toward me. Jewsus called it turn the other cheek, nu? I speak about GOD at my blog, a lot. I can not be a hypocrite who will speak viciousness with one side of my mouth and the LORD with the other. Can't do it.
It's his right to hate GOD all he wants, I am not angry at him in the least. I do feel sorry for him though. Man has lost every good friend he could have had the last 7 years.
Will he abandon Israel? He already has.
ooo. So Stone me.
Or at least get me stoned!
May the Lord bless & keep CJ.
Far away from me!
http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/song/Everything_You_Can_Think/182624
A shorter way to say all that:
It ain't between me & him
it's between him & GOD
His problem, not mine.
@Jeppo - Pasto and I (and others) were going there (GoV) frequently when in a thread populated by both the Baron and the Anchoress, if I remember correctly Henrik and SD BOTH 'theoretically' defended fascism as a government system to solve the 'problem' faced in Europe and here. However it became clear this was being considered seriously and WORSE, had much support ..naturally this sprang out of the entire VB mess as it originally began. Even to the extent of who you want in your foxhole. I opined that people who were willing to accept one kind of absolutism to fight off another were not going to be in mine.
By the end of the thread which was quite long, NEITHER of the blog owners had rejected fascism, and in fact TOOK PART.
Absolutism in any form results in loss of that which we are aspiring to keep.
There is no way to justify such a discussion WITHOUT iron hard rejection of such absolutism, but of course there are many in that forum FROM THAT EUROPE we here are children of escapees from. From that culture in which such solutions are a historical commonality, along with all the abuses and actions against OTHER are characterized by, really, tribal action.
It is my judgment that despite ANY commonality of our feelings about things like the Muslim Brotherhood, GoV has been revealed as defenders of CULTURE by any governing means (and perhaps more but I wouldn't claim that) and not defenders of individual freedom except as they co-reside. Frankly it was a shocking and extremely disappointing moment, and it continued on.
I won't speak for Pastorius on GoV, he, I think, manages to speak for himself.
However, this particular topic about them has come up before.
http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/song/Lets_Go_Get_Stoned/3262862
But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; GOD has called us to live in peace.
~1 Corinthians 7:15
http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/song/God_s_Away_on_Business/7954608
To Jeppo,
Epa's comment on the GOV website does speak for me.
I just didn't feel like going into it.
But, now that he has articulated it so well, I sign on in my big JOHN HANCOCK.
Babba,
For the record, I don't believe I am attacking Johnson here, so much as relating what I think is inevitable. I am also saying I think he has lost his mind. If that is true, it is not something to gloat over, for it is very painful to lose one's mind.
There is no torture like mental illness. I grew up with it in my family. I have watched it up close. The people who are mentally ill are almost impossible to love, because of their behavior. But, they need love very badly.
It's very sad to behold.
It's like watching a drowning man thrashing about, and you jump in to help him, and he keeps thrashing so that you can't, and in fact, he begins to endanger your life as well.
That's what happens with mental illness.
There is no more pathetic sight to behold.
I'll never comprehend what happened over there ..but it did
who?
Bloggers Must Disclose Payments for Reviews
This may really affect certain people's income. But really, are print reviewers and TV hacks under any such obligation? I don't think so..
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- The Federal Trade Commission will require bloggers to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.
It is the first time since 1980 that the commission has revised its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials, and the first time the rules have covered bloggers.
But the commission stopped short Monday of specifying how bloggers must disclose any conflicts of interest.
The FTC said its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation.
The rules take effect Dec. 1.
Tee to the MFing Hee !
Post a Comment