Palin exciting Base....

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/09/12/chafee_defends_use_of_cocky_wacko/

Well it is hard to figure sometimes why politicians do what they do.

There is lots of speculation that McCain was trying to gain support with the hardcore republican base by picking a pentecostal firebrand with ties to a secessionist movement in Alaska.

But could this backfire by driving away the country club wing of the party?

Hard to say.

So far the polls seem to indicate he is gaining ground but Palin has not really been checked out.

Some say the Campaign will have to purchase a couple pickup trucks just to carry her baggage so we will see.

I tend to think a more centrist, kinder, gentler running mate would have served him better, but my track record for political prognostication is not all that good.

Afterall, the far right bunch really had nowhere to go anyway.

I think he made this pick for serveral reasons, probably most notably the one you listed. Had he chosen who he wanted, Joe Lieberman, the Rush Limbaugh side of the party would have eaten him alive and there's no way he would have won.

I think it's interesting that over the past 8 years a very liberal democrat, Al Gore and a moderate Republican, John McCain, both thought the best bet for their VP was a consertative thinking democrat who is strong on national defense.

IMHO, this is just further evidence that the majority of Americans are tired of the extremes of both parties and is taking us one step further down the road to a viable third party candidate.

Well I dont remember the source but I read where he had decided on Lieberman and was trying to sell him to the party pooh-bah's till ten different state delegations threatened to walk out if he did.

So he gave up and picked Palin. I dont know.

But I cannot believe Palin was his first choice.

I'm pretty sure Lieberman was as well and I won't be suprised that if McCain wins, Lieberman won't hold a pretty high position in his adminstration.

Aaron wrote:I think he made this pick for serveral reasons, probably most notably the one you listed. Had he chosen who he wanted, Joe Lieberman, the Rush Limbaugh side of the party would have eaten him alive and there's no way he would have won.

I think it's interesting that over the past 8 years a very liberal democrat, Al Gore and a moderate Republican, John McCain, both thought the best bet for their VP was a consertative thinking democrat who is strong on national defense.

IMHO, this is just further evidence that the majority of Americans are tired of the extremes of both parties and is taking us one step further down the road to a viable third party candidate.

I think it's proof that there two parties are becoming less distinct and more alike. The leadership of neither party is interested in putting America or Americans first. They're more interesting in doing "what's best" for Israel than for the USA. Joe Lieberman is a Zionist, just like John McCain, GWB, AlGore and Joe Biden. They're all too interested in empire building and centralizing power.

I'm seriously considering doing what Ron Paul asked and voting for a 3rd party candidate. If I do, I will likely be voting for Baldwin.

http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2008/09/12/feminist_army_aims_its_cannons_at_palin?page=2

So when Iran finishes what Hitler started and wipes the Jewish nation and Israel off the face of the earth, all will be right in the world, huh Stephanie.

Aaron,

If you think for even a nano second that Iran has the ability to "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth" you are an idiot.

Now we both know you're not an idiot. You're being dramatic.

We also both know that Hitler did not attempt to destroy the Jewish nation or Israel because there was no Jewish nation and Israel did not exist during Hitler's time.

We also have clear and compelling evidence that the very people who are actively engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide, are Zionist Israelis.

I think that Biden and Lieberman and Aaron from Poca can be Zionists if they like. They just have no business holding positions of power in the US government.

Well Kelli there will be anti-semitism as long as the world exists.

Admittedly some of it is from some segments of the political left.

But the most rabid anti-semitism, at least on this forum, appears to be from the far right fringe.

When they question Israel's right to exist they are holding the Jewish state to a much higher standard than they apply to the other nations of the world.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp507.htm

"The Jewish claim to a right of sovereignty in the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel; Palestine) emerged in the last century for three essential reasons:

First, it was not a new claim, but rather a reassertion of a historic right that had never been conceded or forgotten. Even after the destruction of the last Jewish commonwealth in the first century, the Jewish people maintained their own autonomous political and legal institutions: the Davidic dynasty was preserved in Baghdad until the thirteenth century through the rule of the Exilarch (Resh Galuta), while the return to Zion was incorporated into the most widely practiced Jewish traditions, including the end of the Yom Kippur service and the Passover Seder, as well as in everyday prayers. Thus, Jewish historic rights were kept alive in Jewish historical consciousness.

Second, the security of the Jewish people in the diaspora became completely untenable as the threat from anti-Semitic persecution and assault was replaced in the twentieth century with the threat of actual annihilation - or genocide - as demonstrated by the Holocaust. While this threat initially was focused in Europe, it soon extended to the Middle East, as newly independent Arab states came to view their ancient Jewish communities as European foreigners and systematically violated their basic human rights, either by denying them protection or by confiscating their properties. From the 1840 Damascus blood libel to the 1941 farhud (pogrom) against the Jews of Baghdad, an uneasy Arab-Jewish coexistence that existed earlier collapsed even before the rise of the State of Israel. Far from receding, the danger of rabid anti-Semitism persists, thereby necessitating a strong Jewish state that can serve as an ultimate refuge for Jews under threat, anywhere. The Jewish people have learned that they must not return to a state of powerlessness.

Third, the steady growth of assimilation threatened to eliminate Jewish communities worldwide. The existence of a Jewish state, whose public culture is based on the unique practices of the Jewish people, is the best guarantor for Jewish continuity - both religious and non-religious - and the birth of a new Jewish civilization that can continue to contribute to the world community..."(from the above link.....)

You're not going to silence me with slanderous accusations of anti-Semitism. I am not holding Israel to a higher standard. I am demanding my government stop funding and arming a nation that practices genocide. I'm demanding the UN, with its hands constantly digging deep into the pockets of every productive American citizen, hold Israel accountable for the human rights atrocities it commits each and every day.

Shermangeneral, you'd better never come whining to me, or about me, with allegations of personal attacks and name calling again.

In addition, the argument that the Jewish settlers were "displacing" the "indigenous" arab population has serious questions....

"The Palestinian Arabs Include Waves of Arab Immigrants...

During the restoration of the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel, the overwhelming impression of Western visitors in the nineteenth century was that there were few Arab inhabitants. The British Consul General, James Finn, wrote in 1857 that "the country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants." He added that the land's "greatest need is that of a body of population."10 Mark Twain visited Eretz Israel in 1867, traveled through the Jezreel Valley, and related, "there is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent."11 Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, the great British cartographer, reached similar conclusions in 1881: "In Judea it is hardly an exaggeration to say that for miles and miles there was no appearance of life or habitation."12

Geographers had long concluded that it was improbable "that any but a small part of the present Arab population of Palestine is descended from the ancient inhabitants of the land"; indeed, according to their analysis, Palestine was "peopled by the drifting populations of Arabia, and to some extent by the backwash of its harbors."

...

"Yet the Palestine Liberation Organization has perpetuated a myth, put forward on the world stage by Yasser Arafat at the United Nations in 1974, that "the Jewish invasion [of Palestine] began in 1881." Moreover, he asserted that there was already a large indigenous Arab population when the Jews arrived. His implicit message was that there was a well-entrenched Palestinian society in place before Israel's rebirth, a society that had rights superior to those of the returning Jews.

Yet it is now clear that during the years that the Jewish presence in Eretz Israel was restored, a huge Arab population influx transpired from neighboring countries as Arab immigrants sought to take advantage of higher wages and economic opportunities that resulted from Jewish settlement in the land. Indeed, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt concluded in 1939 that "Arab immigration into Palestine since 1921 has vastly exceeded the total Jewish immigration during the whole period...

"Shermangeneral, you'd better never come whining to me, or about me, with allegations of personal attacks and name calling again."

Well Stephanie you know full well I have never "come whining" to you.

Any complaints I have had have been posted openly for the other participants to see.

OK.......so you whine openly, to the group. That doesn't alter the fact that when I, or anyone else, says anything you take offense to you whine.......a LOT.

I call you a socialist because you want government control of key industries and redistribution of wealth......key components of socialism. You are a socialist.

You call me an anti-Semite because I want an end to Israeli aggression.....I want the wall torn down, the settlements dismantled, the right of return for displaced Palestinians and I demand my government stop using my tax dollars to fund it.

I want the Israeli Jews to come here, and live in America. I want them to be my neighbors. If that's anti-Semetic I'm guilty as charged.

"I want the Israeli Jews to come here, and live in America. I want them to be my neighbors. If that's anti-Semetic I'm guilty as charged."

Well isn't that presumptuous of you to say they should just give up their own nation and come live with you?

A nation duly recognized by the world community btw.

With solid claims going back thousands of years?

Their claims to their territory are much older than our own nation has existed.

Long before the Europeans came here and struggled with each other over the lands each had taken by force from the "Indians"?

Sod/sherm,

I don't agree with you much but I have to say that you have found a double standard here. I do think your charges of anti-Semitism are false--anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. Still you are quite correct that if Israel has no right to exist as the Jewish state, we may have to question what our own right to this land is.

I think it is far more likely that Obama will be dumping Biden than McCain dumping Palin. Why should McCain dump Palin? Because she is inflating his poll numbers? Because the crowds coming to see her are burgeoning? How awful!

OIC. We did it to the native North Americans so of course we should support the genocide of the indigenous people of Palestine.

Stephanie,

No, it's just that the concept of "ownership" is never cut and dry. By what standards is anyone the "rightful" owner of the land?

When you aver that the Israelis are not the rightful possessors of the land, you have to consider that every land is in some sense "taken" from others. I'm sure that the Menominee took land from the Algonquin, and in so doing even being a native American would not be a claim to certain land. Where does it stop?

The point is, everyone is never going to be happy. For whatever reason, wherever the Jewish people have lived, they have been persecuted. A Jewish state, which was not taken from Arabs living in four bedroom houses going to work as CPAs, accomplishes this goal (and, for the agnostic in you, it was "created in a day" per the Book of Ezekiel). Still, this is not why I ask the question about Israel and the Jewish state. If God wants Israel to exist, He does not need my help or the help of the United States. My point is that when we question Israel's right to exist as the Jewish state, we might as well question everyone's right to everything. Should the Muslims have Saudi Arabia? 2000 years ago it was not Muslim.

SheikBen wrote:Sod/sherm,

I don't agree with you much but I have to say that you have found a double standard here. I do think your charges of anti-Semitism are false--anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. Still you are quite correct that if Israel has no right to exist as the Jewish state, we may have to question what our own right to this land is.

Well thanks Sheik that is a good point.

Would it be fair to say anti-Israel rather than anti-semitic?

I checked my dictionary and Semitic people include all who speak Semitic languages, including Aramaic, Hebrew, Assyrian, etc. Not just Jews.

But so far as my point about legitimacy of the State of Israel you stated it better than I.

(and the links I posted I thought were pretty persuasive as well)

Plus like a college professor told me, remember the old adage "possession is 9/10 of the law".

And the Jews possess it now.

I had not realized how sparsely populated the area was before the children of Israel started moving back in larger numbers and made the area more productive and inviting which attracted many of the what most people call Palestinian people to move in.

You seem to have lost touch with the theme of your own thread. We had a poster here named shermangeneral who would not have let you get away with that. Perhaps you would be happier if you proved your case against Gov. Palin rather than sticking your thumb in the administrator's eye? Just a suggestion...

SheikBen wrote:Stephanie,

No, it's just that the concept of "ownership" is never cut and dry. By what standards is anyone the "rightful" owner of the land?

When you aver that the Israelis are not the rightful possessors of the land, you have to consider that every land is in some sense "taken" from others. I'm sure that the Menominee took land from the Algonquin, and in so doing even being a native American would not be a claim to certain land. Where does it stop?

The point is, everyone is never going to be happy. For whatever reason, wherever the Jewish people have lived, they have been persecuted. A Jewish state, which was not taken from Arabs living in four bedroom houses going to work as CPAs, accomplishes this goal (and, for the agnostic in you, it was "created in a day" per the Book of Ezekiel). Still, this is not why I ask the question about Israel and the Jewish state. If God wants Israel to exist, He does not need my help or the help of the United States. My point is that when we question Israel's right to exist as the Jewish state, we might as well question everyone's right to everything. Should the Muslims have Saudi Arabia? 2000 years ago it was not Muslim.

Se then if Russia took Georgia, or Iraq annexed Kuwait, it would be OK then, after the fact. No?

A Jewish state, which was not taken from Arabs living in four bedroom houses going to work as CPAs, accomplishes this goal (and, for the agnostic in you, it was "created in a day" per the Book of Ezekiel).

What does it matter the style of the housing- or of the kind of job held by the inhabitants? It either belonged to someone else already, or it didn't.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Stephanie,

No, it's just that the concept of "ownership" is never cut and dry. By what standards is anyone the "rightful" owner of the land?

When you aver that the Israelis are not the rightful possessors of the land, you have to consider that every land is in some sense "taken" from others. I'm sure that the Menominee took land from the Algonquin, and in so doing even being a native American would not be a claim to certain land. Where does it stop?

The point is, everyone is never going to be happy. For whatever reason, wherever the Jewish people have lived, they have been persecuted. A Jewish state, which was not taken from Arabs living in four bedroom houses going to work as CPAs, accomplishes this goal (and, for the agnostic in you, it was "created in a day" per the Book of Ezekiel). Still, this is not why I ask the question about Israel and the Jewish state. If God wants Israel to exist, He does not need my help or the help of the United States. My point is that when we question Israel's right to exist as the Jewish state, we might as well question everyone's right to everything. Should the Muslims have Saudi Arabia? 2000 years ago it was not Muslim.

Se then if Russia took Georgia, or Iraq annexed Kuwait, it would be OK then, after the fact. No?

Hi Ziggy,

Not necessarily, but possibly.

We should just stay the hell out of it. We shouldn't be sending money and weapons to some groups of people so they can maime, displace, kill, and/or oppress others.

This is how we keep digging ourselves in deeper and deeper and deeper.....more people hate us, more people wish us harm, we are further in debt to foreign nations, we have less of our money to take care of ourselves, instead of focusing on what America needs we focus on what Iraq or Israel or Georgia needs.

Enough already.