Levin attacks "Jon Leibowitz, a.k.a Jon Stewart": "I'm really tired of these phony intellectuals ... arrogantly looking down their sizable noses at our armed forces"
On his radio show, Mark Levin said, "As you know, from time to time, we monitor Jon Leibowitz, a.k.a. Jon Stewart, as well as some of the other nudniks out there." While discussing remarks Stewart made on his Comedy Central show, Levin stated, "I'm really tired of these phony intellectuals -- and that's what they are, phony -- arrogantly looking down their sizable noses at our armed forces."
During the July 16 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Mark Levin said, "As you know, from time to time, we monitor Jon Leibowitz, a.k.a. Jon Stewart, as well as some of the other nudniks out there." Levin aired an audio clip from the July 15 broadcast of Comedy Central's The Daily Show in which Stewart said of the Transportation Security Administration's "terror watch list": "You know that expression, 'kick ass and take names?' Turns out this country is really good at one of those. We -- we take a lot of names." Levin responded to Stewart's comment, saying, "I'd say this country is pretty damn good at kicking ass when we have to. ... I'm really tired of these phony intellectuals -- and that's what they are, phony -- arrogantly looking down their sizable noses at our armed forces, at all the people who actually have to make an effort to save this -- this society, to liberate people, and to fight this enemy. I'm so sick and tired of it, you have no idea. We know how to kick ass, you little dwarf, you five-foot-seven phony."
From the July 16 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Mark Levin Show:
LEVIN: As you know, from time to time, we monitor Jon Leibowitz, a.k.a. Jon Stewart, as well as some of the other nudniks out there. And yesterday, he said this, cut 5, go.
STEWART [audio clip]: The terror watch list is hitting the big 1-0-0-0 --
LEVIN: All right, stop a second and cue it back. "The terror watch list." Is he sitting on a cucumber? Go ahead.
STEWART [audio clip]: The terror watch list is hitting the big 1-0-0-0-0-0 ... 0! You know that expression, "kick ass and take names?" Turns out this country is really good at one of those. We -- we take a lot of names. It really is an incredible accomplishment. Let's try and put it in perspective if we can. A million people on the terrorist watch list.
LEVIN: There aren't a million people on the terrorist watch list.
STEWART [audio clip]: If you were to take all the people that our government suspects of terrorism and stack them one on top of the other -- that would be considered an acceptable method of interrogation according to the Justice Department.
LEVIN: Very funny, but notice the line, "You know that expression kick ass and take names? It turns out this country's really good at one of those." Another put-down of the armed forces in this country. I'd say this country is pretty damn good at kicking ass when we have to. We don't look for fights. We don't look to go to war, but we don't shy from them if we must. I'm really tired of these phony intellectuals -- and that's what they are, phony -- arrogantly looking down their sizable noses at our armed forces, at all the people who actually have to make an effort to save this -- this society, to liberate people, and to fight this enemy. I'm so sick and tired of it, you have no idea. We know how to kick ass, you little dwarf, you five-foot-seven phony. Yeah, we really do. And your show's a joke, which is why we continue to monitor it. I don't mean funny, I mean you're a joke. Let's go to Cody, Fort Hood, Texas, the great WBAP, go.
From the July 15 broadcast of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:
STEWART: I couldn't think of a better time for this to happen because tonight is a night of celebration. Tonight is an exciting night. Tonight our country -- this great land that we live in has reached an exciting milestone in the war of terror.
FOX NEWS ANCHOR [video clip]: Well, the TSA's terror watch list getting mighty long, adding its one millionth name.
STEWART: By the way, if I tried to do this bit last night [no sound]. But tonight [horn blows]. The terror watch list is hitting the big 1-0-0-0-0-0 ... 0! You know that expression, "kick ass and take names?" Turns out this country is really good at one of those. We -- we take a lot of names. It really is an incredible accomplishment. Let's try and put it in perspective if we can. A million people on the terrorist watch list. If you were to take all the people that our government suspects of terrorism and stack them one on top of the other -- that would be considered an acceptable method of interrogation according to the Justice Department. And by the way, a million people on the list, but it is a tightly managed list.
CNN ANCHOR [video clip]: Just this month, President Bush signed a bill that removes Nelson Mandela from the watch list.
STEWART: Hey, that's good news. The 90-year-old Nobel Peace Prize laureate, no longer considered a terror threat. Still on the list, of course, painter of light Thomas Kinkade, Elmo's friend Zoe, and Alan Alda. Apparently they had him now as a-Lan al-Da. The truth is, to be perfectly frank, the one million number is a bit inflated.
FOX NEWS ANCHOR [video clip]: It turns out there are not a million names on the list. ... Federal officials say there are only roughly 400,000 names on the list.
STEWART: It's only 400,000 people. The reason it's a million is because their aliases also count. So it works out to about two-and-a-half names per terrorist. Quite frankly embarrassing. You had a mafia watch list, you'd have a million names on that for only like 20 guys. Uh yeah, we're looking for Freddy Angelini a.k.a. Freddy Salad a.k.a. Freddy Apps a.k.a. Freddy Meat-a-Fish, a.k.a. Freddy Gelato also known as Freddy Four Course, Freddy Full -- Freddy Full Dinner and of course Fat Freddy, a.k.a. Tiny. With a million names on the list, how do find out if you were on the list, if you are a terrorist -- if you are being watched? It's very simple. Go online. Google the terrorist screening database and scroll down to the end and by the time you get to the end, you'll probably be on it. Obviously, though, there's more important things to talk about in this country than the hundreds of thousands of people who have sworn to destroy it. There's also cartoon depictions of said terrorists.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
A self-hating Jew. What's the big nose comment?
And did Levin ever serve in the military? I get real suspicious of guys who never served extolling the virtues of military service.
No, he never served. Just another one of those damn chickenhawks.
His excuse probably would have been his 'bad heart'. He did have a heart attack, although I do not know how long ago it was. Of course... if he controlled his temper and outright hatred for 'libs' his heart wouldn't be so screwed up. LOL...
Levin is Jewish.- greatjob
Umm... Nice Jew-spotting !
Hate the truth, POV? I don't recall republicans flocking to Webb's amendment in droves. In fact, McCain didn't even show up, and Bush threatened to veto it. I'll be so bold as to state that most improvements in G.I. benefits were done by Democrats. Republicans fought tooth and nail all the way.
This is just another example of a common flaky argument that people on the right use. They somehow think that a false comparison of one minor flaw to a major offense makes sense and wins them friends.
I love it when they do that. It's a failing strategy. Voters see right through it, and that's why they have only the brain-dead and tone-deaf far righties still supporting them.
Snoopy's remark wasn't kind, but was true. Levin's comment, on the other hand, was a personal attack combined with a comment that wasn't rooted in reality. Snoopy is a poster on a board, and Mark Levin has a national radio show and is given air time by Fox News.
This is a version of the "he said, she said" argument that we see here all the time, and it's nonsense now just like it is other times. If something is wrong, it's wrong, but compare apples to apples.
Thanks for having my back. I don't pull punches, if POV can't stand it he will just have to accept it. Our American military did just fine taking care of themselves once congress started supporting them. The red ball express is a great example. And republicans come in and say "we can do it better than you" and end up killing soldiers with poor wiring, spoiled food and unprotected airports? We waste more troops protecting a bunch of rogue pansies called blackhawk than we would have if our own military controlled their own operations. What a stupid idea - "oooooh! if our soldiers aren't shooting, they ain't working! ooooohh!"
Anthony C. McAuliffe pulled cooks and mechanics out of their normal jobs and defended Bastogne against the German panzer army just fine, thank you...
Snoopy
You dont pull any punches.....you have to be kidding. What you said was ridicilious. You have to be a real idiot to think that republicans only care abot dead soldigers, and dont want to tke care of any one else. It is people like you, far left wing radicals that make the political split so bad in this country. You come across all high and mighty, and you have nothing to add to a discussion but flase bravado and tough talk. I really really feel sorry for you, and for people like you who think you have it all figured out, and are ready to attack the millions of people who are rupublicans. You are sad sad man.
Snoopy
You dont pull any punches.....you have to be kidding.
Really? Pulling punches would mean I was not hitting very hard. You think I'm doing that? Nah, I'm holding your feet to the fire...
What you said was ridicilious. You have to be a real idiot to think that republicans only care abot dead soldigers, and dont want to tke care of any one else.
Walter Reed, Tillman, Afghanistan, PTSD, the list goes on and on of how republicans refuse to treat soldiers when an injury occurs - unless it benefits them. Jessica Lynch, anyone?
It is people like you, far left wing radicals that make the political split so bad in this country. You come across all high and mighty, and you have nothing to add to a discussion but flase bravado and tough talk.
Served in the USMC. What did you di? Get a deferment for a pimple on your butt? I know of at least one republican who did just that.
I really really feel sorry for you, and for people like you who think you have it all figured out, and are ready to attack the millions of people who are rupublicans. You are sad sad man.
Which brings us to you. You make a living of attacking millions of people who are democrats. Can't stand looking in a mirror, can you little man?
Snoopy
How dumb can you be? I started out my first post saying that his comments were out of line. Unlike you, I can say when a member of my party says something that is wrong. You are so blind and so jaded you hang on to your hate filled views no matter what. Once again, I feel sad for people like you.
Aww, poor POS. Dismiss me all you want, but the truth is republican leadership continually votes against our G.I.s. Walter Reed, anyone? Webb's G.I. bill, anyone? But when they want to use a G.I. for their selfish interists, they are all over that. Jessica Lynche, anyone? Pat Tillman, anyone?
You can say whatever you want about me, POS. Fact is I served in the USMC. I bet you got a deferment for a pimple in your butt, or post draft just decided college was more important than serving your country. But I know all about republican "love". It only happens when republicans want to get elected, but if a soldier is a democrat, all that hate you guys have boils over. (see Kerry, Max Cleland, and any other democratic soldier trashed by republicans for daring to speak out against republican policies).
There is nothing to address. If you point out a specific member of congress and how they voted on a specific bill, I might very well agree with you that they voted wrong. My problem with what you said, and I have stated it over and over, is your blanket view than an entire segment of society, conseratives, do not care about the troops.
I do not agree with Obama or Clinton and their desire to close gitmo, or their desire to pass legislation that in my view makes it harder to gather info on terrorists. But i would never make the leap from that, that either of those people want terrorists to attack us or want the troops to be harmed, or want us to lose the war. You however, seem to have no trouble making such a huge leap against the republicans.
that is a much more reasonable approach than anything snoopy said, and actually something one could debate or discuss like an adult. Thank you.
Hey POV!
I am a veteran and for these bumb ass Republicans to get us into the war under false pretenses is criminal. Just ask the 3 million displaced Iraqis how they feel about BushCo. Thats right POV it doesn't affect you and your cozy whitebread neighborhood.
Snoop, you are disingenuous to say the least. For starters there is plenty of finger pointing to go around on all sides. Walter Reed just didn’t up and decide one day to have problems, it has gone on this way for a while under both parties in charge of the legislative and executive branches.
Using an initial yes/no vote for the Webb bill as an absolute shows transparency to the gotcha politics practiced by MMFA. The hard truth was it was passed by both houses of congress (after tweaking) and signed by the President. McCain even changed his opposition to the bill after the bill was changed to allow transfer of benefits to family members.
As far accusing Republicans of electrocutions in Iraq…I guess getting the troops out of the trenches and tents the kind you used during time spent as a jar head is not a good idea? Image the dehydration and moral problems the services would face today if these attempts at a modern (temporary) field housing arrangements were not made. It is true; we all wish these things did not happen. But to blatantly toss out the Republicans don’t care almost like they planned the conditions is false pretense.
Pathetic whiner.
At the heart of this latest screw up in Iraq (electrocuted servicemen) is the conservative privatization dogma. This is about private contractors sucking money from the commons and providing a faulty product in return. It's the classic profit over people syndrome so many idiot conservatives are afflicted with. Do it on the cheap, make profits and damned be those who get in the way. Punk.
Tell me again about how efficient the private sector is. Idiot.
Why don't you imagine a military without stop loss, a military in which permanent shelter isn't required to house our children in a foreign land for 4,5 and 6 extended deployments. And why don't you imagine an American government without imperialist designs on foreign oil reserves, an America committed to inventing our way out of our harmful oil addiction.
Imagine a green economy. Imagine a government working for the people.
You can imagine all you want...reality is a different story.
Your point that private contractors that suck money from the commons provide a faulty product. What do you call road builders, bridge builders, plumbers, carpenters, etc in the US. Are they all bad too, becasue if they work for the government under contract (not directly employed by them) are they a problem too? Is your doctor or lawyer a governement empoloyee or they part of the privite sector? What about the farmer who grows your crops, the grocer and your barber, are they all crooks and bad people too; after all they are part of the private sector. Let me guess these are all ok because they don't have a contract to work for the government signed under this administration. But if they had one for the last administration that was ok.
Your rant is just that, a rant.
Sure, peole are people, and lots of them are good and decent. That goes for policemen, firemen, librarians, and Animal control officers. And soldiers.
But the American experience is that a corporation whose primary motivation is profit will constantly try to cut corners, sweeten their deal, substitute, back out. If they are not compelled by law to be honest, and watched, they won't be.
In the case of the armed forces, the point wasmade that the military's own people do a bqang up job--and a large part of that is that they work for pride, solidarity with their fellow soldiers, and discipline.
The Republicans have replaced that system with a bunh of crony-owned contractors --UNSUPERVISED crony-owned contractors. And given them no-bid cost-plus contracts. Are these people going to doa better job than the troops' fellow soldiers?
There's no theoretical reason they would, and all the evidence shows to the contrary.
War profiteers used to be hung like spies. Now they're rewarded.
It's 'support the troops', not 'make money off them.' And I for one feel that the best system is one in which that is the only operating principle.
Your examples don't make sense for the most part. Your assumption is that I have no use for the private sector. Wrong. I have no use for people who would take away jobs better done in the open air of public service. I prefer the accountability my vote leverages with those charged with stewardship of my capital. I have no use for those who seek to privatize profits and socialize the cost.
first, McCain didn't even show up to vote for the bill and then had the nerve to say he helped drive it.
second, Republicans had 6 years to do something about Walter Reed and they did - they cut funding.
Republicans exploited Pat Tillmans' death, and when the truth was revealed conveniently dropped it.
Republicans exploited Jessica Lynche, and when she spoke up and said it never happened the way they claimed, they turned on her.
Republicans trashed Max Cleland's service, Kerry's service, and a host of other democrats who served for political purposes, and then get all defensive when one of their own comes under the radar.
Call it disengenious all you want, you can't escape the fact that it is republican policy to use soldiers for personal gain while they do everything they can to reduce soldier benefits, reduce health care services for soldiers, and scuttle traditional soldiers duties in favor of privitization. My point stands.
Yep your right all Republicans....no Democat did/played/had any part in any of the above things.
To Uncle Round:
Being dignified envolves finding the root cause of problems to thwart them in the future. Partisan wrangling and story telling without providing all the facts is, as I said DISINGENUOUS.
For example..Walter Reed and the blame game of only the Republicans can be blamed because it is their policy to deny troops what they need; I served 20 years and 21 days by the way and can tell you from my perspective and those I served with this is not true. Now back to Walter Reed, shall we discus the BRAC recommendations concerning this installation. We all know BRAC, made up by non-partisan people to do the job Congress can't do (remove money from their own districts). To say this administration is evil for reducing funding to Walter Reed while the BRAC people have been saying for years they recommend closing it doesn't add up. Congress votes to close these places not the president. It would make no fiscal sense to increase funding to a location that BRAC recommended to close. This is just one example how this blame game has people on both sides of the isle envolved...and not just straight party politics.
What you said was that Levin's core comments and Snoopy's were comparable, and that's crazy talk.
Keep it up. Keep acting crazy, and keep failing to learn from your mistakes, and keep trying to make false comparisons, and keep making 'he said, she said' arguments that don't hold water. Keep doing that.
Blondie
You are right, they are not comparable. What Snoopy said was worse.
I appreciate it when righties like you show their true colors.
You think that telling the truth is worse than distorting reality. You like the distortions and lies better than you like the truth. You respect those who abuse the truth and disrespect those who speak the truth.
Keep it up. Keep on showing how disreputable you are. I love it!
(I'm looking for done, not said, and actions, not "support")
But if you were to ask me what democrats have done for Blacks, I wouldn't go there. I'd try to dredge up something, like the huge median wage increase and plunging unemployment among minorities during Clinton's term.
I hope the analogy is clear, but you never know.
I'm not quite sure I understand the point of your analogy. Are you saying that Democrats have not done anything good for blacks--that the huge median wage increases and plunging unemployment rates were the results of macroeconomic factors beyond any party's control? Yet Blacks overwhelmingly support a party that had nothing to do with the conditions that led to (some of) their economic betterment? And then are you trying to compare this to Republican political control at a time in which the military was improved but the improvement was actually due to factors that had nothing to do with Republicans?
It always irks me when the Clinton miracle is cavalierly tossed off to outside forces. If the 90s economy sucked, you can bet that outside forces suddenly would have had nothing to do with it. And if Clinton's '93 budget didn't have a huge impact, the republicans would have had little incentive to unanimously vote against it.
Why is tax policy so very important to both parties if it doesn't greatly impact the economy?
Blondie
So you think his comment was true. You think all of the millions of republicans only care about the dead and not the living troops? I used to actually read things you posted, but now I know that you not worth any real consideration if that is how jaded and far out your views really are.
He employs the method of playing word games when he doesn't have a rebuttal. POV did it on another thread regarding Obama's trip to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Remember that, POV? You played word games, you know, with the letter 's' on the end of 'war zoneS'.
Nice game you're playing - but it's a double standard - and as usual, you've got nothing.
as usual, you have NO common sence!!
In the first thread, GMA saud war zones...plural...pretty easy to understand. They were right, and you are wrong.
On this thread, snoopy said republicans only care about the troops when they are dead. Again, wrong. It is really easy to refute your so called common sense approach when all you have to do is post the real words people use.
So "Republicans" is plural also. As long as his argument applies to at least two Republicans, what he said is 100% correct.
Of course that's stupid, but it's the same sort of linguistic BS you were trying to pull on that thread. The obvious implication of the phrasing is different from the technical interpretation.
I've actually listen to this guys show
Levin is absolutely horrible. He lives somewhere in the 19th century. Notice he doesn't actually criticize Stewart for what he says. Instead he makes it into an arguement about supporting our military. The fact that we have a ridiculously high number of people on a government list doesn't bother the conservative Levin one bit. Aren't conservatives supposed to be wary of government grabbing to much authority? Well, Levin usually talks out both his ends and somehow get them to agree.
Yeah...
LEVIN: Very funny, but notice the line, "You know that expression kick ass and take names? It turns out this country's really good at one of those." Another put-down of the armed forces in this country.
It apparently completely eluded him that the point was that we are NOT able to get RID of the names on the list ("kick ass"), but we only ADD to it ("take names"). FOr him, it was just an opportunity to hide behind calling it a "put down of the armed forces", the right's favorite sacred cow - that had NOTHING to do with this.
It's really sad that people listen to these idiots.
Even worse, it's sad that they follow this line of thought...one that leads to the daylight at the end of the tunnel.
Oh sh!t! That's not daylight! It's an on-coming train!
Oh no, Jon Stewart may have given the military insufficient credit for their ass-kicking skills by implication!
...on the other hand, I think Levin is onto something with his pejorative-but-factual statement of Stewart's height. Think about it for a second following this especially grave double-formatted text:
John Stewart is 5'7".
Still think the U.S. military hasn't kicked ass? Well, just think about it some more.
What's that? You're in Europe, and you've been watching those lame ruined-for-an-international-market editions of The Daily Show? In that case, would it change your effete intellectual mind if I told you that Stewart was 170.18 centimet"re"s?!
No? Well then, how tall are you? You must be at least 5'8" and not Jewish to ride the most ass-kicking country in the whole world. Just hurry up and get on board before the STEEP DROP is over!
(N.B.: by "get on board," I definitely meant spend years attempting to navigate a laughably overcomplicated bureaucracy (which may not be available in your fancy-pants native 'language of love'), and NOT that you simply walk across the border and change my soiled hotel sheets. Well, they are pretty soiled, LOL. Come on over! Just don't stand near me.)
Hey, isn't Bin Laden like 6'6"? Does that put him above Jon Stewart on the Mark Levin authenticity and correctness scale? Please, "Great One," I need to know!
Wow!!
I have to say that l am shocked. Who would have thought that any self respecting right winger would have anything disparaging to say about a member of the Jewish faith. Of course we were lucky to miss out that sort of tghing here in Europe for the last few decades!!
I am 5'11" tall and even though l am in Europe here in the Uk we don't always use the metric system. ;-)
Posting in the early am isn't alays the best thing but George Galloway, who went to a US Senate hearing and with a use of language and force uxepected by the Republican Senators on the commitee destroyed the false allegations thrown at him expecially by Norm Colman, has his own radio show on Talksport.net Friday and Saturdays at 10pm UK time. I listen to that while i'm online.
And your proof of that is...
Oh, wait, you never provide proof. Galloway had nothing resembling his "arse" handed to him. But the GOP walked away without their nuts, because they were in Galloway's briefcase.
Levin is Jewish you moron.
Let's see... Levin, who is Jewish, makes a comment disparaging Jews. And UnInteresting Observer, who is a moron, makes an insult using the word moron.
Perfect analogy.
Chimpevil, You started off your post saying "I'll address it" and then proceeded to comletely ignore it. POV and I were referring to the DOUBLE STANDARD that Media Matters is perpetuating--that somehow a black media personality calling another black "a negro" or a "n*****" is not worthy of an article but a Jew saying that another Jew has a "long nose" is worthy of an article. Please address this DOUBLE STANDARD and not your personal background, as interesting as it is.
I would have thought that was obvious already, but I'm here to help.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
You want to talk about a double standard with respect to Jesse Jackson's remarks about Obama? Sure, I've got one for you.
Remember when Kathleen Gingrich called Hillary Clinton a b1tch in an interview with Connie Chung? Chung got fired for that. Sure, Gingrich knew that she was speaking before an open mic and a camera, but she thought her remarks were off the record and Chung shouldn't have used the clip.
Has anyone at Fox been fired over using Jackson's off-the-record remarks -- not once, but twice?
Meanwhile, Levin took a swipe at Stewart for... what? apparently just being a Jew who disagrees with Levin?... when he knew he was on the air. The situations couldn't be more different.
"Levin is Jewish you moron."
So that makes it OK?
No you shmuck it was just painfully obvious that our British friend was unaware of the fact that Levin was Jewish so I kindly pointed it out to him.
Just to point this out (though why l am bothering l don't really know):
We have Jews here in Europe, and some of them are called Levin.
I don't know which is more irriating, the fact that you actually posted what you did to try to "expain" about Levin to me or the fact that l have to actully reply to it. My god, how condecending are you? Anyone with a little bit of knowlege of European history will know more than a bit about the type of Jew that Levin is, and yes l did do a little bit of history in school.
Levin's comments are not unique. I have heard Zionists say this sort of thing for over 20 years to Jews who did not agree with their political viewpoints or aggressive military asperations. Why don't you look up the Golan Heights controversy, if it was reported in the US at all, and the comments about it.
And notice how l said Zionists. Just as not all Americans are Republicans, not all Jews are Zionists, and that is something which is getting harder to point out with the reporting in the media, AIPAC, and the talking heads who are the spokespeople for Jewish people in the US.
Wow!!
It's like watching an over-the-hill heavyweight trying to throw a jab at an up and coming prospect. Your question is completely sad, pedestrian and you are looking for an answer which would lead to a predictable response. What are you hoping for, a simple "yes", so you can try to say that l am anti-semetic and that my posts have no weight or reason?
Here's some questions for you my pedigree chum:
Which one of all the groups you have named have the same political power in their own countries like the Zionists do in Israel?
How many have a group of Lobbyists pushing their agenda which has the money, media and politicians working as hard for them as AIPAC does?
Why do you try to equate the Zionists with just the Basques and the Kurds? Why not the Tamils in Sri Lanka or the Chechnyans in Russia? Is this because of the terrorist actions of the latter cannot be as easily glossed over as the terrorist actions of the former?
The simple fact (and yes l will keep it simple, just for you) is that the Zionists who are in charge of Israel do as they wish because they know that they have the unquestioning backing of this current US administration run by chickenhawk warmongers who would like to make more money (and be damned if the world goes up in flames), and anything they do, no matter how reprehensible the act or overdone the response to attack, will be either ignored, glossed over or excused. And if they do go to far and are critisized, they still have what they feel is the untimate trump/get-out-of-jail-free card. They can call the person who argues with them anti-semetic, and like boorish ethnic minorites who patheticly claim they cannot be racist they are completely wrong.
So no, l don't like "ethnic nationalism". I am against it because l saw enough of it's actions in the 70's and 80's with the terrorist group called The Provisional IRA as well as spending hours fearing for a friend who worked a street away from where a terrorist bomb went off. Unlike the Zionists, they may have got some money from the US but they lacked the political power to take over and fulfill their agenda which is why they tried to blow people up.
Lots of things are great in theory.
I theory l can run the hundred metres in 8 seconds. In practice it's more like 14.
In theory l can stand around in the arctic circle for 10 minutes wearing nothing but a banana hammock. In practice it would be a bloody idiotic thing to do.
In theory tax cuts for the mega rich aid economic growth. How that economy working out for ya?
Oh I get it--Zionism cannot ever go from theory to practice because Jews cannot be trusted with their own government and nation. But other forms of ethno-religious nationalism can work in practice because those other types (like Arabs, for example) are far more even-tempered and calm, fair, rational people. I'm glad you cleared that up for me.
WFT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Just when l had thought that the well of stupidity had run dry you manage to scrape up a barrel of scummy water.
How on earth did you make that logical leap?
Where in anything l have posted on this issue did l specifically say that people of the Jewish faith cannot be trusted to run their own government?
What, did my eviceration of your attempted strawman to make it seem that l was being anti-semitic by actually pointing out the arguement that you were going to use throw you off a bit?
Robert Mubabe has thrown white farmers out of the farms in Zimbabwe and handed them over to people in his government. This is bad but less disgusting than Omar al-Bashir president of Sudan who has today been charged by the ICC with 10 counts of genocide by the Janjaweed forces under his control and who has supported the UFDR rebels in the Central African Republic where thousands have been displaced or killed. Neither man is fit to run a country in my personal view but l would never suggest, as you have, that no other person from there coulod be trusted with their own government.
The iniainty of your arguement has actually stunned me. I really cannot recall any other time, on any other subject where someone's question has actually left me shaking my head in disbelief. I will type it out again for you:
I. DO. NOT.TRUST. THE. CURRENT. GOVERNMENT. OF. PRIME. MINISTER. EHUD. OLMERT.
Its the same as the fact that l do not trust this present US administration, it doesn't mean that l will not trust future ones.
You've just encountered a common discussion tactic of some conservatives here. IO took your words and "reinterpreted" them for you into something you never said, hinted at or even thought of. And yet, he thought of that interpretation. Kind of makes you wonder how that possibility came to his mind, doesn't it?
We have a particular frequent conservative poster here who is extremely prone toward that style of discussion. Sometimes I think it's poor comprehension skills, but other times I'm positive it's outright dishonesty.
Go back to my British counterpart's post about examples of concepts in theory that don't translate to practice (like his running a hundred meters in 2 seconds or whatever it was) and you tell me if any other interpretation is possible! Obviously it is impossible for him or anyone to accomplish that feat so it suggests that it is impossible for Zionism to actually work--there is no interpretation needed it was perfectly clear what he meant. Perhaps you don't truly believe that my good British friend but words, my good ol' chum, are quite important and so you must convey what you mean. Please explain to us what the purpose of your above-mentioned post was.
Thank you for re-reading my post and addressing the fact that l said 8 seconds not 2.
Not only is 14 seconds for the hundred meters possible, its the time l ran when l was 13. In fact, a healthly athletic teenaged male should be able to run a sub 13 second 100 meters with no real trouble. I know this as l played Lacrosse at international standard for 4 years as a teen. I could run at around that time until the age of 33 when the usual factors (beer, women, work, and bad knees) made it impossible and l had to quit.
It's a pity that you latched onto that, and glossed over my other theoretic points which were just as pertinent but l will accept your apologies for the personal attacks.
BTW, two points:
Point one:
l supposed that it has been reported in in largess in the US media about the two bodies of the dead Israeli soldiers that have been returned to the Israelis. The major reports here said that they were being exchanged for two live murderers but what has been glossed over in the reports apart from the usual suspects (The Guardian and The Independant and possibly the Socialist Worker but as l don't read it l am just speculating at this point) is that the Israelis are returning the remains of dozens of Palestinians and Lebanese they have had since the year 2000. Let me repeat that: "The bodies of dozens of Palestinian and Lebanese held since the year 2000". Way to go (sacastic clapping) it's good to see that you have gone out of the way to take the higher ground than that of the people who are fighting you. Now we know what the current Zionist government think one dead Israeli soldier is worth, a dozen dead Palestinians and Lebanese.
Point two:
I am always amused by the charge of being Anti-Semetic which is thrown around at people like me who say they support the Palestinians because of the disgusting way they are treated in their own country. What most people who froth at the mouth and splutter the charge of Anti-Semetism fail to note (or do not wish to admit because it does not fit into their world view) is the Palestinians are also Semites!! Maybe before people start throwing charges at othersthey should get all the facts?
Oh I get it--Zionism cannot ever go from theory to practice because Jews cannot be trusted with their own government and nation. But other forms of ethno-religious nationalism can work in practice because those other types (like Arabs, for example) are far more even-tempered and calm, fair, rational people. - IO
And
Go back to my British counterpart's post about examples of concepts in theory that don't translate to practice (like his running a hundred meters in 2 seconds or whatever it was) and you tell me if any other interpretation is possible! - IO
Yes, other interpretations are clearly possible. Are you trying to claim that Jewish and Zionist are exactly the same? That's the only way to give any shred of credibility to your interpretation, and even then it's pretty weak.
It appeared to me that you were using the old technique of interpreting your opponent's words to mean something other than what they actually meant. The new interpretation is almost always outrageous to some degre. This is usually done to put the other person on the defensive and in the position of having to re-explain what their words meant. It's a cheap and dishonest debate trick and it disgusts me whenever I see it.
Perhaps that wasn't your intent and you actually were unable to understand UKO's meaning. My first impression was otherwise.
"I would like to see Media Matters complain about Jesse Jackson using the n word, Boyce Wadkins calling Juan Williams a "happy negro" or any of the other black media personalities that use the n-word in their vile song lyrics."
I think you have confused the purpose of MediaMatters. Did Jesse Jackson make his comments over the news media or were they accidentally recorded somewhere and released? Do the "other black media personalities" broadcast their "vile song lyrics" over the news media? I'm not sure who "Boyce Wadkins" is but I'm sure that will turn out just as accurate as the rest of your comment.
This thread actually ALOMST makes me miss tommy.
Mark Levin is a total joke, a cartoon character. I've listened to him and still try to figure him out. Totally a narcissist. Almost begging to be recognized by trying to be more outlandish, more controversial, more inflammatory then his mentors. He's a lawyer (joke) who claims to be an expert on the constitution but has been reviewed as a cut and paste author. His foundation has taken money from the oil companies, and he rails against those that oppose drilling. He is totally a " Notice me" radio talk show host who only wants to be recognized - a sad washed up lawyer who had his glory day under Ed Meese. Let him drift into obscurity, cheered by the arm chair patriots who call into his show!
Well put. Levin is the Prex of Landmark Legal Foundation, one of RMScaife's projects.
Lately, however, Scaife's largesse has turned "smallesse": Levin's main sponsor is the Ad Council -- at least in my market. It is endlessly amusing to listen to him rant against socialism for 6 minutes, then break for 2 minutes worth of PSAs informing his listeners about where they can go to get food stamps.
"It is endlessly amusing to listen to him rant against socialism for 6 minutes, then break for 2 minutes worth of PSAs informing his listeners about where they can go to get food stamps."
I hope those food stamps are only good for fish and fish products cuz god knows his audience sure could use the intellectual boost...
Wow. Nice. I wouldn't expect anti-semitic put downs from someone named Levin but whatever.