Pages

 

Recent Pages by dragonfire1981 (Eclectic Cyborg):
Left to Rot - an Immigrant Speaks on the GOPs Appalling Political Stunt One Small Step...50 Years Later Reflecting on "Tank Man" 30 Years Later 20 Years Later: Reflecting on Columbine Why I March

Jump to bottom

43 comments

1 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 12:54:24pm

Ach ja, ja. Nur für die arische Herrenrasse.

2 Bulworth  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 1:08:53pm

I almost feel sorry for people who have no idea how ignorant and ridiculous they sound.

3 Sinistershade  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 1:31:09pm

But he's letting in the Jews? What could he be thinking??!!

// (as if it were necessary)

4 Prideful, Arrogant Marriage Equality Advocate  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 2:36:02pm

Hmm. Odd that he didn't exclude child molesters, rapists, serial killers, racists, anti semites etc. They must all be part of his warmly welcomed! guests.

5 HappyWarrior  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 4:07:47pm

What a jackass. There's that Tea Party love of freedom again. But they're not bigots or so say them.

6 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 4:20:51pm

So, basically, if you're a gay Muslim illegal immigrant you are RIGHT out.

This guy is pretty picky about who gets to buy his garage sale crap.

7 Lidane  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 5:06:39pm

I've never seen anyone exclude people from a garage sale.

What a tool.

8 Buck  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 5:21:25pm

The Tea Party has a garage sale? This is a craigslist ad, that some random person put up.

How do you figure this has anything to do with The Tea Party? I don't see where this has anything to do with any of the people or organizations you slander.

However the person who posted this is clearly a fan of Facebook...

So I suggest a new title:

Facebook has a garage sale - NO gays or muslims allowed of course.

9 Lidane  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 5:35:51pm

re: #8 Buck

How do you figure this has anything to do with The Tea Party? I don't see where this has anything to do with any of the people or organizations you slander.

Maybe because this tool parrots every single Tea Party talking point?

10 Buck  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 5:44:08pm

re: #9 Lidane

Maybe because this tool parrots every single Tea Party talking point?

Not even close. Not even a million miles close.

Reduced government spending
Opposition to taxation in varying degrees
Reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit

11 moderatelyradicalliberal  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 5:45:19pm

re: #10 Buck

Not even close. Not even a million miles close.

Reduced government spending
Opposition to taxation in varying degrees
Reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit

Only when a Democrat is President.

12 Buck  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 5:50:58pm

re: #11 moderatelyradicalliberal

Only when a Democrat is President.

OK, lets say that is true. You want a list of things Obama was opposed to before he was President?

Not at all on topic. dragonfire1981 finds a highly objectionable post on Craigslist (not a tea party forum, not a tea party website, not a Fox News forum, not a Rush Limbaugh forum and not a Pamela Geller forum.

Craigslist is not even a known hangout for Christians specifically.

You don't find the title to be snark at best, slander at worst?

13 Lidane  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 5:52:26pm

re: #10 Buck

Not even close. Not even a million miles close.

Anti-gay? Check.
Anti-Muslim? Check.
Bigoted against "illegal immigrants" (i.e., people who aren't white)? Check.
Paranoid? Check.

Anyone who says this:

no drama, terrorism, or illegal transactions with non-US citizens / illegal immigrants / people taking jobs away from people who belong and are legal in this country is desired. thanks.

is saying everything the Tea Party stands for. It's not about the economy and never has been. That's a load of horseshit.

14 Buck  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 5:55:35pm

re: #13 Lidane

Anti-gay? Check.
Anti-Muslim? Check.
Bigoted against "illegal immigrants" (i.e., people who aren't white)? Check.
Paranoid? Check.

Well, you do seem to be an expert on horseshit...

15 Lidane  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 6:05:30pm

re: #14 Buck

Well, you do seem to be an expert on horseshit...

It comes from reading your posts.

16 Interesting Times  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 6:24:57pm

re: #15 Lidane

It comes from reading your posts.

Notice his response to this Tea Party favorite's latest position on mosques - *crickets*

He's said in past threads that when people don't explicitly deny something, it means they admit it. Using that "logic", since he hasn't explicitly denounced Cain's position, it means he agrees with it :)

17 Buck  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 6:36:14pm

re: #16 publicityStunted

Notice his response to this Tea Party favorite's latest position on mosques - *crickets*

He's said in past threads that when people don't explicitly deny something, it means they admit it. Using that "logic", since he hasn't explicitly denounced Cain's position, it means he agrees with it :)

Made up horseshit.... Please understand when people like "Stunted" say something like that, and don't actually link... they are probably full of shit.

18 Interesting Times  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 6:45:38pm

LOL.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

When asked if he was bringing back Amos and Andy, Stewart didn't deny that it was Amos and Andy.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I gave my opinion based on what Stewart didn't say when asked if he was doing "Amos and Andy".

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Buck, this is typical of you. John Stewart didn't do an Amos and Andy voice. Your 'proof' that he did is that he didn't deny it, which is meaningless.

So, based on what Bigoted Buck hasn't said, I conclude that he approves of Herman Cain's mosque position :P

19 Buck  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 6:48:27pm

re: #18 publicityStunted


So, based on what Bigoted Buck hasn't said, I conclude that he approves of Herman Cain's mosque position :P


Difference is Stewart was asked....
Did you ask me?

20 Interesting Times  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 7:03:34pm

You want questions? Then you'll get them :)

1) Do you agree with Herman Cain's position on mosques?

2) Do you agree with Tea Party Nation's position on gays?

3) Do you agree Michele Bachmann and her husband on the issue of gays?

4) Do any of the above positions constitute anti-Muslim or anti-gay attitudes on the part of prominent people in the GOP/Tea Party movement?

21 Buck  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 7:18:47pm

re: #20 publicityStunted

You want questions? Then you'll get them :)

1) Do you agree with Herman Cain's position on mosques?

No


2) Do you agree with Tea Party Nation's position on gays?

No


3) Do you agree Michele Bachmann and her husband on the issue of gays?

I don't really know what their position is on this subject. I know he has been accused of bad stuff, and I know their church is very anti gay.


4) Do any of the above positions constitute anti-Muslim or anti-gay attitudes on the part of prominent people in the GOP/Tea Party movement?

No.

Let us see if you will be honest and answer my three questions.

1. If someone mocked you by using a Pakistani accent voice, would you be offended?

2. If Stewart told you he did that same voice mocking a black man long before he even knew about Herman Cain, would you admit that he probably was not doing an imitation of Herman Cain, and was mocking him with a "black voice"?

3. If Bill Maher is a prominent liberal/progressive and he is islamophobic, does that mean most liberal/progressives are islamophobic?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

22 Buck  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 8:07:38pm

Bonus question?

Do you agree with Media Matters that AIPAC dictates to US policymakers and is bad for the U.S.A.?

23 Gus  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 9:29:03pm

What does this Craigslist ad have to do with the Tea Party? Sorry guys but I'm with Buck on this one. Blaming homophobia on the Tea Party and using this obscure and possibly trolling ad from Craigslist as a vehicle is quite a logical leap.

24 Interesting Times  Tue, Jul 19, 2011 9:38:25pm

re: #21 Buck

Heh...so many analogy fails and MBF crap I couldn't possibly cover it all.

Fail One: accusing Stewart of using a "black voice". "Bombastic preacher voice" would be a much more accurate way to describe it, and he doesn't use it for Obama because Obama doesn't speak like that (I do recall one segment where he used a Barry White voice for him, so, like any comedian with any skill, he tailors the voice to the actual speaking style of the person being satirized. And on that note, no, I'm not offended by something like Apu from the Simpsons).

Fail Two: bringing that "Media Matters is antisemitic" thing up again. Already debunked in the comments here.

Fail Three: misrepresenting the question I asked, which was:

Do any of the above positions constitute anti-Muslim or anti-gay attitudes on the part of prominent people in the GOP/Tea Party movement?

To which you replied, "No." Meaning you don't think Tea Party Nation, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain are prominent in the Tea Party movement, and you don't think their positions are anti-gay or anti-Muslim. Reading comprehension is important.

25 Dancing along the light of day  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 12:49:39am

Hooray, Bucky's back in town!

26 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 5:42:22am

re: #8 Buck

You've got a good point. We may argue about whether or not these are TP values, but this is not a "Tea Party event".

27 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 5:44:43am

re: #22 Buck

MM never said that.

28 Interesting Times  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 5:57:00am

re: #26 Sergey Romanov

You've got a good point. We may argue about whether or not these are TP values, but this is not a "Tea Party event".

dragonfire1981 never said it was:

Now I know this is only one person, but it seems pretty clear this person is a big fan of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and probably Pamela Geller.

I saw the post title more as metaphor/snark, though perhaps it should have been made clearer to avoid more literal interpretations.

29 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 5:59:47am

re: #28 publicityStunted

The title is pretty misleading, and it's also in the tags.

30 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 6:19:06am

re: #27 Sergey Romanov

MM never said that.

And before we see outrageous outrage from Buck: in most cases, when one says Media Matters, one means mediamatters.org, a group started long ago. A relatively recent group called "Media Matters Action Network", to which the Political Correction belongs, is a partner org with Media Matters, it's not Media Matters as such. It _is_ a separate structure, albeit closely related. So saying "Media Matters said this or this" and then point to a blog at a site of a partner organization is disingenuous and misleading. No, Media Matters said no such thing. No, items at mediamatters.org are not discredited by opinion pieces on a blog of a sister organization.

31 Buck  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 7:32:36am

re: #24 publicityStunted

So you wont answer the questions?

32 Buck  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 7:42:00am

re: #30 Sergey Romanov

First of all context is important. I was talking to PS. She felt very comfortable attributing a post in a non-TP website to the TP.

For her to then say that the antisemetic AIPAC all powerful rant, on a site that is Media Matters Action Network which is a partner project of Media Matters for America, is not at all related to media matters would show everyone her hypocritical stand.

So were her non answers to direct questions.

33 Buck  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 7:53:32am

And although the MM link could be debated over if this is MM approved policy or just an opinion piece, make no mistake about it, saying that the Israel lobby, AIPAC dictates to US policymakers and is bad for the USA is straight up anti semitism.

Alluding to historical fantasies that have been used to demonize jews, like blood libel or "Jewish cabals that control the media and play politicians like puppets on a string" isn't sort of or almost anti-Semitic. It is the essence of old fashioned anti-Semitism.

From the site:

If one needs additional proof that the "pro-Israel" lobby and the policies it dictates to US policymakers are bad for both the U.S. and Israel, look no further than what is happening in Egypt.

very clear to me what they are saying.

34 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 7:58:14am

re: #33 Buck

Yeah, now a Jewish ex-AIPAC employee criticizing AIPAC is antisemitic. Whatever, dude.

35 Buck  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 8:05:40am

re: #34 Sergey Romanov

Yeah, now a Jewish ex-AIPAC employee criticizing AIPAC is antisemitic. Whatever, dude.

It would depend on what he said wouldn't it?

Do you really think that being jewish (or a former AIPAC employee) insulates this man from any criticism of WHAT HE WRITES?

You characterize what he wrote as simply "criticizing AIPAC". I see more.

36 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 8:31:07am

re: #35 Buck

You don't see, you simply slap a label on him. That he is both Jewish and ex-AIPAC is very relevant to what he says, because it's simply unlikely (although not impossible, of course) that he means anything antisemitic here. Besides, having been at AIPAC, he obviously has a skewed/subjective perspective about that org's influence, thus he uses the exaggerated language like "dictates" in his blog posts (which are just that; not academic papers).

While such language is not really warranted, neither it is a great faux pas of any import - while AIPAC doesn't "dictate" things, like many other lobbies it does wield an enormous influence on lawmakers and politicians (consider the weird fact that every presidential candidate of note appears at AIPAC) and thus the US policy. Whether this influence is good or bad everybody decides for themselves and this opinion, again, has nothing to do with antisemitism.

Just as easily, some writer can say "the big oil lobby dictates to our lawmakers and it's bad for our country" or "private health insurance lobby dictates etc.". Not precise? Sure. But it's how people talk about these things. It has nothing to do with Jewish conspiracies.

By false accusations of antisemitism you cheapen the term.

37 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 8:51:36am

Turns out there's been a follow-up to that blog post.

[Link: tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com...]

This is email that MJR received from a Capitol Hill aide:

I work on Capitol Hill and I disagree with you about AIPAC. You make it seem as if AIPAC is the only lobby that gets what it wants through threats of cutting off campaign contributions, as if only AIPAC dictates legislation through intimidation.

WRONG! My colleague who handles the Israel issue confirms your analysis. But it's no different on the domestic issues I cover. The issues of jobs, health, taxes, the environment, regulation to protect kids' health, oil drilling, workers' safety, education, guns...they are all dictated by lobbies just as overbearing as AIPAC. All we do up here is cater to rich, selfish people and their special interests. And their interest is cutting all social programs so we can keep cutting taxes to make them even richer.

True, most of them don't brag as much as AIPAC but that doesn't make them any better or worse, just smarter (AIPAC gets more negative attention because of its swagger). Big deal. The public is getting screwed eight ways to Sunday by special interests and AIPAC is just one of them. Don't mislead your readers into thinking it is unique. Not only is it not unique, it's insignificant in the sense that it's not the guys robbing the poor to put money in their own pockets. They own US Middle East policy. But the real fat cats own everything else.

I cite this is not to "confirm" MJR's blog post. This is to demonstrate how even people on the Hill use this exact language.

38 Buck  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 11:50:09am

Your post remonds me of the arab antisemite who says he can't be an antisemite, because he is a semite.

You and I know that the term is specifically about jews, and not about all semites.

Well, here we have the same idea. The jews control congress is not the same as the evil oil lobby control congress.

If one needs additional proof that the "pro-Israel" lobby and the policies it dictates to US policymakers are bad for both the U.S. and Israel, look no further than what is happening in Egypt.

These words have been used to demonize jews in the past.

He could just as easily have said "Jewish cabals play politicians like puppets on a string"

Again, it is the essence of old fashioned anti-Semitism.

39 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 12:06:41pm

re: #38 Buck

He didn't say "Jewish cabals". He said what he said and it's not antisemitic. If he would have said "the Jews dictate to the Congress..." I would be first to call for his tar-and-feathering, as that would have been antisemitic. He wrote that about AIPAC, not about Jews, not even about "Zionists" in general, not even about Israel.

As far as I can see, he has a problem with AIPAC because it is (supposedly) right-wing, and because of its policies. Not because it has to do with Jews. The key point here: he did not generalize about Jews, whether explicitly or implicitly.

As for whether or not it reminds you of something, well, your spelling of Jews as "jews" reminds me of how neo-Nazis on their forums don't capitalize this words out of spite, but I would be a moron to accuse you of antisemitism on such a basis.

40 Buck  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 3:30:18pm

Seriously... capitalization? Really?

You miss the real point. I was trying to show how calling this a Tea Party Garage sale was foolish. I was trying to make that point to PS, not to you. We paint entire websites with a broad brush based on anonymous comments. I think we can do the same thing with published commentary on a "sister site"

Second, you can make excuses but this guy has a trail on the internet a mile long.

Of course, no one would even be worried about the (Egypt) peace treaty if the Israelis had agreed to implement the critical second part of the Camp David Accords.

That was the part that would have ended the occupation. But the Israelis chose to ignore it and the lobby and the ever-faithful Congress blocked Carter's efforts to push it through.

Here he clears up if he is just talking about AIPAC policies. If you can differentiate between Jews and Israelis... well good for you.

He says the outright lie that the Israelis could have ended the occupation.

You can excuse him, but I don't. Professor Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer are smiling. Their only crime was that they weren't Jewish...

41 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 3:34:30pm

> Seriously... [...]? Really?

That's what I thought when I saw your accusation.

I did get your rhetorical analogy the first time you explained it, no need to repeat. Now you're getting into another argument, and frankly I'm not interested in playing.

42 Buck  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 3:50:55pm

re: #41 Sergey Romanov

> Seriously... [...]? Really?

That's what I thought when I saw your accusation.

OK, just so I am clear, lower case j in jew and you see Nazi's, but saying the "Israel Lobby" dictates bad policy to US policy makers and you don't see antisemitism.

Sergey, I really think you are driving off a cliff to defend this guy. I just don't understand why.

43 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jul 20, 2011 4:00:18pm

re: #42 Buck

Not "Israel lobby", but "pro-Israel" lobby - that's how AIPAC calls itself. Saying that AIPAC lobbies for bad policies is not antisemitic. Saying that AIPAC "dictates" anything is an exaggeration (one that is also used for other lobbies), but, again, not antisemitic. It's freaking AIPAC, not "the Jews". If you think that explaining these rather obvious things is "driving off a cliff", we better finish this discussion. If you derive antisemitism from such unrelated stuff, you will also derive antisemitism from "defending this guy" sooner or later.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh