|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Meegook, get it straight.
Criticizing Jews, as if they are an ethnic group with different inherent traits that tend to lead them towards 'bad' behavior, is anti-semitic.
Criticism of Israel as a nation-state is typically not anti-semitic.
Criticism of the religion of Judaism, if done independent from ethnicity or race, is not antisemitism.
Just like I feel comfortable slamming muslims but not Arabs. Ethnicity, or genetic traits, is off limits. |
You need to get it straight. Where have I 'criticised' Jews? I haven't. I posted some facts pertinent to Jews. That's it.
I'm free to post facts about Jews, just as others are free to post facts about 'evangelical' Christians, Christians in general, Muslims, homosexuals, or any other persons or groups of persons we want to. We can even posts facts about you.
And are Jews somehow above criticism? They're sacred and therefore beyond critique? Maybe that's a big part of the problem, too many are afraid to criticise the Jews for fear of being labeled 'anti-Semitic.' Okay to be anti-Christian, anit-Islamic, but lo and behold, don't dare be anti-Semitic.
"Just like I feel comfortable slamming muslims.."
Slamming Muslims, in general, is prejudicial.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
Slamming: "a harsh criticism; verbal attack:"
Someone who admits he's prejudiced towards Muslims, so much so that he feels comfortable 'slamming" them, is telling someone else who is only posting facts about different groups of people, or criticising what different groups do or think, to get it straight? You want to control what I think now?
It's okay for you to feel comfortable in 'slamming Muslims" but not okay for me to post facts about Jews?
Last edited by Meegook on Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:28 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're wasting your time.
A bigot will always be able to rationalize his bigotry. If push came to banning, he'd justify it in his mind as the board being a bunch of lefty, jew-loving, homos who'll all lament not realizing his "truth" eventually.
It's the same way you can't help the crazy man on the street corner yelling about ET stealing his brainwaves. You just got to politely smile and move away as quickly as possible, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Meegook wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
Meegook, get it straight.
Criticizing Jews, as if they are an ethnic group with different inherent traits that tend to lead them towards 'bad' behavior, is anti-semitic.
Criticism of Israel as a nation-state is typically not anti-semitic.
Criticism of the religion of Judaism, if done independent from ethnicity or race, is not antisemitism.
Just like I feel comfortable slamming muslims but not Arabs. Ethnicity, or genetic traits, is off limits. |
You need to get it straight. Where have I 'criticised' Jews? I haven't. I posted some facts pertinent to Jews. That's it.
I'm free to post facts about Jews, just as others are free to post facts about 'evangelical' Christians, Christians in general, Muslims, homosexuals, or any other persons or groups of persons we want to. We can even posts facts about you.
And are Jews somehow above criticism? They're sacred and therefore beyond critique? Maybe that's a big part of the problem, too many are afraid to criticise the Jews for fear of being labeled 'anti-Semitic.' Okay to be anti-Christian, anit-Islamic, but lo and behold, don't dare be anti-Semitic.
"Just like I feel comfortable slamming muslims.."
Slamming Muslims, in general, is prejudicial.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
Slamming: "a harsh criticism; verbal attack:"
Someone who admits he's prejudiced towards Muslims, so much so that he feels comfortable 'slamming" them, is telling someone else who is only posting facts about different groups of people, or criticising what different groups do or think, to get it straight? You want to control what I think now?
It's okay for you to feel comfortable in 'slamming Muslims" but not okay for me to post facts about Jews?
|
The difference between slamming Jew and Muslims is that you have no choice in what ethnicity you are born into. You have a choice in the religion you chose to practice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think it's right to 'slam' anyone. Disagree and point out their errors as I see them, but 'slam' them? I'll leave that to you bigots.
And I think Jews, whether they be Ashkenazi Jews, or Sephardic Jews or Zionists or Orthodox, should be just as subject to scrutiny as any other peoples, maybe more so, because it certainly isn't the Nepal Buddhists or the Indian Hindus that are getting everyone in the world together to eliminate their enemies and starting wars and having American sons and daughters fight them for them and their parents pick up the tab just because they erroneously think that somehow they are 'God's Chosen People.'
If the American taxpayer would stop funding its biggest welfare recipient, Israel, the entire country would collapse in less than a year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Then you've got to talk about Zionists, not jews. There are probably plenty of jews, especially in america, that don't support the current israeli approach. Noam Chomsky, I believe, is jewish... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Then you've got to talk about Zionists, not jews. |
No, if we can talk about Christians, and we certainly have been, see the Haggard and evangelical threads, we can talk about Jews. It's not only the Zionists that need more scrutiny.
Christ was Jewish and he lambasted the Jewish leaders before there was anything remotely refered to as Zionism.
And I have yet to see or hear anyone call Jesus Christ anti-Semitic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Pelosi is wrong, and you have no standing in the conversation...because you are a partisan hack, nothing more...You are irrelevant.... |
Additional evidence suggests that OP is far, far to the left of the Democrats who have taken power of the legislative branch. (I know, I know, not news; but I felt a response to his standard "relevancy" allegation was particularly appropriate in this instance.)
This is especially so in the Senate. Listen to what the second-ranking Senator has to say...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6469274 |
That there are Dems saying unpatriotic, even stupid, things that support your indefensuble position that raping the country and the constitution is OK indicates only that there is stupidty in the form of political expediency pretty much everywhere.
How can it be "left" or "right" to protect the nation from an imperial presidency? Asinine. There are millions of people all over the country, from all persuasions, all fields of endeavor, all walks of life calling for impeachment.
You are wrong. You are always wrong. You spend your time playing Ivory Tower word games, yet you lack the wisdom and intelligence to correctly interpret what you see before you. This is further exacerbated by your political insecurities and partisan lies and bullshit. You have no clue about reality. You are the Joo of the Repubulican party on this board: irrelevant.
Are you going to bother ever posting on-topic on this thread?
Mod Edit: Edited for language.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Too many personal attacks in here.
Just an observation.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ...your indefensuble [sic] position that raping the country and the constitution is OK...How can it be "left" or "right" to protect the nation from an imperial presidency...? You are wrong. You are always wrong...you lack the wisdom and intelligence to correctly interpret what you see before you. This is further exacerbated by your political insecurities and partisan lies and *beep*. You have no clue about reality. You are the Joo of the Repubulican party on this board: irrelevant. |
I will not respond to your hysteria-driven insults anymore.
However, if W. Bush were indeed "raping" the country, and if his presidency truly represented "an imperial presidency" (or "a military dictatorship," "police state," "banana republic," or any of the other absurd and puerile allegations that you and others have posted here, for that matter), then I would need to understand why he and his "henchmen" have followed Supreme Court rulings, why they allowed this last election to proceed, why they accepted its results, why they compromised on Rumsfeld, why they are not simply bypassing Senate confirmation on Bolton, and, of course, why are they letting people start manuevering for the upcoming presidential election if we all know that they are not ever going to step down from power. Well...?
Oh yeah, and it is most unlikely that Congress will move to impeach W. Bush. For one thing, there is simply no good evidence to support any conceivable charge against him -- not to mention he has simply not done anything impeachable. For another thing, unlike you, the Democratic leadership is not in a cantankerous, belligerent mood. They are looking to find ways to make things better, and not to go off on a brainless rampage and make things worse.
It would appear, then, that you are the one with irrelevant views on this matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Pelosi is wrong...I want impeachment...!"
Blah, blah, blah.
Take a good look at what is going on right now. And I'll give you very good odds that, as this continues to unfold, none of W. Bush's pretzels are "going down right" this weekend...
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Likely House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will back prominent Iraq war critic John Murtha over her current deputy for majority leader in the Democratic-led Congress, Murtha's office announced Sunday.
In a letter released by Murtha's office, Pelosi told the Pennsylvania congressman that his surprise call for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2005 "changed the national debate and helped make Iraq the central issue of this historic election."
"Your leadership gave so many Americans, including respected military leaders, the encouragement to voice their own disapproval at a failed policy that weakens our military and makes stability in that region even more difficult to achieve," she wrote. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/12/pelosi.murtha/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ...your indefensuble [sic] position that raping the country and the constitution is OK...How can it be "left" or "right" to protect the nation from an imperial presidency...? You are wrong. You are always wrong...you lack the wisdom and intelligence to correctly interpret what you see before you. This is further exacerbated by your political insecurities and partisan lies and *beep*. You have no clue about reality. You are the Joo of the Repubulican party on this board: irrelevant. |
I will not respond to your hysteria-driven insults anymore. |
Hysteria? Awww... it's upset dat its wittlwe pwan of disinfowmation didn't work here. Um, does this mean you're going to stop initiating the insults, as you hypocritically have done yet again in the above? You see, lying about my state of mind by using pejorative terms like "hysteria-driven" IS insulting. Get it? The only people driving hysteria are those in your party. Commercials and comments likening a Democratic victory to a victory for Al Queda, and you have the temerity to call me or anyone else fighting against such outright lies and distortions hysterical?
Truly, you are more and more irrelvant because you have nothing to say of any use or substance. Everything you post is bullshit. You don't think through your positions. Every response is a chuldish attempt at what you perceive as high brow insult.
| Quote: |
| However, if W. Bush were indeed "raping" the country, and if his presidency truly represented "an imperial presidency" (or "a military dictatorship," "police state," "banana republic," or any of the other absurd and puerile allegations that you and others have posted here, for that matter), then I would need to understand why he and his "henchmen" have followed Supreme Court rulings, why they allowed this last election to proceed, why they accepted its results, why they compromised on Rumsfeld, why they are not simply bypassing Senate confirmation on Bolton, and, of course, why are they letting people start manuevering for the upcoming presidential election if we all know that they are not ever going to step down from power. Well...? |
Do you seriously think this deserves an answer? This is nothing more than an attempt to over-simplify the issues to make your opposition appear extreme. I mean, this is what I'd expect from a high school drop out swilling beer in his back yard while ranting about the weak Dems and their love of Bin Laden.
| Quote: |
| Oh yeah, and it is most unlikely that Congress will move to impeach W. Bush. For one thing, there is simply no good evidence to support any conceivable charge against him -- not to mention he has simply not done anything impeachable. |
Now, see? That's just plain ignorant. Or partisan. Your choice. The first makes your comment stupid, the other makes you deluded or a liar. Both are ridiculous. You see, wiretapping alone is an impeachable offense. There are laws on the books specificaly to prevent it. Those laws were intentionally broken by the president by his own public admission. There is no argument here. I happened. It is a "high crime and misdemeanor." This isn't even debatable.
| Quote: |
For another thing, unlike you, the Democratic leadership is not in a cantankerous, belligerent mood. They are looking to find ways to make things better, and not to go off on a brainless rampage and make things worse.
It would appear, then, that you are the one with irrelevant views on this matter. |
Nancy Pelosi is one person. Being Speaker does not make her infallible. Her job, by the way, is to represent the people, not her own agenda. Or do you not understand what republic means? Oh, and you're wrong. They are. Listen to what the committee chair are saying. they, too, are part of teh leadership. But, they are also politicians who will do what is expedient if it serves their own interests. I, and millions of others, both red and blue, demand justice, not just control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ...wiretapping alone is an impeachable offense. There are laws on the books specificaly to prevent it. Those laws were intentionally broken by the president by his own public admission. There is no argument here. I happened. It is a "high crime and misdemeanor." This isn't even debatable. |
Wrong. If it were so clear-cut; your impeachment would have been a done deal already.
You cannot force the issue with your hysteria. It will get you no further than being able to get a few people who read this board -- people like Meegook, I might add, just to clarify -- to nod their heads "yes."
The rest of the world either (a) does not hear you; or (b) the people who matter and make decisions disagree with your position and will never put it into practice.
| Quote: |
| Nancy Pelosi is... |
the Speaker of the House for at least the next two years. And, disagree with her though I may, she at least does not share your hysteria-driven, conspiracy-theory nonsensical politics. Good for her. Good for America.
So deal with it, sonny.
And, oh yeah...
| Quote: |
| I...demand justice, not just control. |
We already knew you to be a control-freak. But thanks for putting it on the record nevertheless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ...wiretapping alone is an impeachable offense. There are laws on the books specificaly to prevent it. Those laws were intentionally broken by the president by his own public admission. There is no argument here. I happened. It is a "high crime and misdemeanor." This isn't even debatable. |
Wrong. If it were so clear-cut; your impeachment would have been a done deal already. |
Now that is the stupidest and/or most disingenuous thing you've ever said and cements your position as the new Joo. You are completely out of touch with reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
Too many personal attacks in here.
Just an observation.
cbc |
You're obviously wrong, because when I refered to Lewinsky, who is light years away from this forum for English speaking babysitters of Korean children, as a Jewess, that was taken to mean I was racist.
But these *bleep*-less teacher wannabes can make personal attacks all they want and that is politically correct and acceptable, because I just happen to be one of the only professing Christians on the board, and who gives a shriveled up *bleep* about us?
| Quote: |
Your paranoid fantasies about Jewish conspiracies are what earn you the title of anti-semite, Meegook. |
If you can't explain the difference between a Ashkenazi Jew and a Separdic Jew, or why the United States entered WWI when it was virtually over and German offered very reasonalbe peace terms, you have no right to be calling anyone, especially someone that claims the King of Jews as his Savior, anti-semitic because you don't know the first thing about what your're talking about.
Mod Edit:Edited for language.
The mods come in to a post to change 'gonads' to 'bleep'?
LMHO
Last edited by Meegook on Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
