In my opinion the display is vile but think about it. If the situation were reversed, liberals would simply call it artistic expression.
Hello Bull153, Thank you for bringing this to readers' attention. I had not even heard of this before reading your blog and checking out your source. Your blog title actually encapsulates the message of your post - that personal responsibility goes hand-in-hand with personal freedom (or at least, should do so). Just like that vile anti-Islamic trailer on the internet, some do not use good judgment or common sense when expressing themselves. There are very few people in the United States who condone or support, in any way, radical Islamic extremism. Yet by insulting religious sensibilities with crude and disrespectful depictions of the Islamic religious leader, these "filmmakers" (and I use that term loosely) irresponsibly fanned the flames of this extremism which resulted in violent protests throughout numerous countries (at last count, 20) where the concept of individual "freedom of speech" (no matter how offensive that speech might be) may not be as well understood or as embraced as in our country and the film is mistakenly assumed to be government-sanctioned. Even in the United States, freedom of speech is sometimes hard to defend when, as your examples point out, as well as the Kansas Baptist church that offensively protests at military funerals, this freedom is used to promote hate or cause grief and suffering. Still, this is a cherished right in America and well deserves to be so. It is up to citizens to hold a mirror up to our and others' conduct and denounce abusive behavior and hateful words for what they truly are, even when cloaked in the right of "free speech". Everyone here has the right to free speech, but that comes with it the consequence of being justifiably criticized for the exercise of such. Sincerely, Karen
Leave it to Fredo to turn an otherwise sensible statement into something else entirely. Why can't he simply agree with Bull, they are on the same team, are they not?
You're welcome. When you live in a country where the government controls everything, including your rights of free expression and even religious belief, it is easy to blame another country where its citizens enjoy freedoms others cannot fathom. From ordering assassinations of cartoonists to destroying consulates and embassies, the hate of our way of life continues.
All we can do is what we have always done. Appreciate and enjoy our liberty and freedom. It is also important, as you point out, to use our rights of free expression to hold others accountable for behavior that crosses the line. Only then can we hope that personal rights will be tempered with personal responsibility.
Leave it to crimeriddendump to make a completely ridiculous statement. Why can't he substantiate what he says? Aren't you two on the same team?
I think he has, on numerous occasions, as I recall... and yeah, I would say we are pretty much on the same team, politically speaking.
There is NO substantiation here or in several of his recent posts. Perhaps you need to retrain him?
To tell the truth I don't really mind when politics get "nasty" like this. For example some people made some punching bags and the bags had Obama on them or something. Really who cares, it's goofy, I don't mind. I think the Hitler references(when it comes to either Reps or Dems, it's been done numerous times to both) are stupid but it's not really outrageously offensive in my opinion. I really don't understand why people get that upset over it(unless it really actually becomes a serious talking point, like Obama being like Stalin or something ridiculous like that.)
But I think you have to draw the line somewhere and pictures of chairs being hung is a little over that line for me. Maybe I'm just not as effected by that kind of rhetoric since I've been part of a movement that gets slandered so badly it makes hitler mustaches on Bush look like child's play.
Figures Bull153 would so quickly fall back to his old ways. I had some hope that his comments above were indication that Bul153 was trying to distance himself from his personal insults, and baseless attacks that have constituted the majority of his posts.
It's clear again that Bull153 seems to only care about his bias and bigotry. Regardless of how he tries to sugar coat it, it is clearly still there I had hopes that he turned the corner; obviously, I was wrong.
Again, sad and pathetic that someone can't mean what he says ... ever.
"...someone can't mean what he says ... ever" Sounds like Willard, which does seem logical considering for whome it was intended :-)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a stirring and memorable speech to the United Nations on September 27th. It was covered by national and international press organizations.
Sadly, the message became lost as three of the major media, the AP, Reuters, and Getty Images chose to release images of Mr. Netanyahu with his left arm extended.
NOTHING could be more offensive to a Jew, any Jew, than to be depicted with an arm raised style salute. It is outrageous, offensive to anyone with common sense, and completely indefensible. Instead of the threat poised by Iran, the chosen images portray the Israeli Prime Minister as a hated world tyrant.
Now, the liberal media would have you believe it cannot be offensive because the hated 'Nazi' salute is made with the right arm. They would add that Mr. Netanyahu never held out his outstretched arm, it was simply a moment of time during his animated speech. Simply stated, that is BS.
There were hundreds of images made during the speech. If not to portray Benjamin Netanyahu in such a negative way, why use those images? If not to be offensive, why these particular photos? Other news outlets used images of the Prime Minister holding his chart of a bomb...drawing a red line - the whole point of his speech.
People expressed their outrage when Mr. Obama was portrayed as an empty chair - and a couple of ignorant people hung chairs in effigy. Portraying Benjamin Netanyahu with an extended arm exceeds the bounds of responsible journalism. It defies common decency. Yet little is heard from the so-called unbiased media. Nothing is heard from those crying out against the hanging chairs. The left wing liberal crown remains silent. Apologies from these three agencies are in order. But I wouldn't hold my breath...
Here is an article showing the offensive pictures as well as others released by these agencies that are not offensive. Judge for yourselves.
"NOTHING could be more offensive to a Jew, any Jew, than to be depicted with an arm raised style salute."
FIRST - Reads ALLOT like a Matt Drudge article ...
SECOND - Are you Jewish? If not, how can you know what is and is not offensive to jewish people?
THIRD - I find your use of the word "Jew" offensive - more offensive than I found your imagined arm raising nonsense.
Unreal hypocrisy that you would feign offense at Netanyahu for being "offensive" and then go on to use a pejorative term to reference the Jewish people!!! Frankly - pun intended - that is insane!
Sad and pathetic that you have such an absurdly difficult time with hypocrisy. Even sadder still to see people use fake offense to try and gain something politically. Bull153, you should be ashamed of yourself!
"Now, the liberal media" - Yeah, "Liberal media" now there is that Conservative Foxnews speak we have come to expect from any wing nut "voicing his opinion."
It's as if they have become a parody of themselves. The simple are good followers, and they always seem to fall in line.
BTW, Benjamin Netanyahu is a right wing radical who will do more harm to Israel and its image than anyone else. He is a war monger who only has a spine because we are standing behind him. Thats how weak little people do things, they are only strong when someone big is standing behind them ready to defend them.
"People expressed their outrage when Mr. Obama was portrayed as an empty chair" - no, there was no "outrage", there was mocking of the individual who attempted political satire and bombed. It didn't work except to draw attention to a floundering Republican campaign. They only ones outraged are the Conservatives who did not get a bounce out of the convention.
I can fondly recall Twiddledee and Twiddledum's online reactions here to a minor offense when in 2009 the the Barack Obama "Joker" poster went viral. Can you say integrity? Can you two even feign integrity?
I looked up "Nazi salute" and online sources depict the gesture as right handed raised arm IN FRONT OF the body, not a left handed side arm raised as is shown in the picture of Netanyahu. So is it Bull153's contention that any Jewish leader who is captured in a photograph raising ANY arm In ANY direction is automatically an inferred reference to Nazis and an insult? That, in my opinion, is a huge stretch. More to the point, what was up with that ACME cartoon bomb picture Netanyahu used to illustrate the threat of Iran gaining nuclear power? A nuclear bomb looks NOTHING like his illustration and that cartoonish depiction detracted from the seriousness of his words and message, which is unfortunate. Sincerely, Karen
A highly evident and intrinsic moral difference between those on the political right and those on the political left, is that the right will not hesitate to condemn vile acts generated by their own while the left blindfolds themselves while they proceed to search in vain for any minutia that they can distort in order to explain and justify viles acts coming from their own. Two very different mindsets at work here.
If this chair incident were reversed and the metal chair was hung from a tree by a suspected liberal the explaination we would receive from those on the left would go exactly like this...
The political prop chair used during the convention was a dark stained non folding wooden chair with four long legs and a fixed wooden seat positioned approx 2 1/2 feet above floor level.
However, the chair that was suspended from a tree in Austin Texas was a light colored metal folding chair with a seat positioned approx 16 inches above floor level when opened. Clearly two very different chairs so no vile act can be inferenced or attributed to the person responsible for the supended folding chair that was hung from a tree in Austin because the two chairs are so very disimilar in style.
Did I do good Karen?
The irony here is that Bull153 in trying to condem the picture of Netanyahu as offensive used what is widely considered to be a pejorative and insulting term to describe the Jewish people. The hypocrisy of the whole thing is not lost on me.
Personally, I am offended by his word choice and I think it illustrates how disingenuous his comment really was.
Hello Friendo, I am curious as to what you see as the purpose behind the supposed "vile acts" (in your words) committed by three new services. What do you surmise their "agenda" was? Are you claiming these news services are anti-Semitic? Do you seriously believe that the chair hanging incidents were not an implied reference to lynchings? Don't you think that such actions reflect the anti-Obama sentiments of the perpetrators? So what is the reasoning behind the supposed disrespect to Netanyahu? What do you theorize that these news services have against him because it seems unlikely that they would purposefully try to be insulting with no explanation or justification. Personally, I think the arm outstretched picture (conveying passion and conviction in his gesture) is way less offensive than the picture of him with his cartoon bomb, which looks ridiculous. Maybe you could suggest that he NEVER raise his arm in a straight angle, regardless of direction, so as not to be caught in an apparently (accordng to you and Bull153) Nazi-like position by media who, for some unknown reason,(at least you haven't supplied any, other than the dreaded "liberal" label) are supposedly just salivating for the opportunity to immortlize in a photograph. Apparently, you believe any and all arm raising is directly associated with the Nazis. But just like those who think ANYONE opposed to Obama is a racist (as opposed to the chair hangers who make their racism blatant), there are always those who will manufacture insult or injury where none actually exists, as is the case with this over-analyzed picture. Sincerely, Karen
Did you ever notice how 1) the wing nuts on the right always know what the left thinks, or how they would react, and 2) its all about symbolism. Whether its about a an arm raised in a particular fashion, a flag pin on a lapel or a chair, either being spoken to, or hung from a tree, they will dwell on the symbol ad nauseam.
I truly believe that right wingers do things symbolically in order to project what they believe "Liberals" would think, when in reality, its just what they think. Such simpleminded people, they are very visual in nature it seems, but then as Santorum has pointed out, they don't attract the intelligent ones.
Oh, now I get it! Insult and injury are monopolized by the left and become imaginary when the right is targeted. Yeah...Sure.
Hello Friendo, Please go back and re-read the last sentence in my post. I pointed out that there are always those from both sides (hence the "anyone opposed to Obama is racist" comment) who feign imagined slights and outrages. Yet, you seem to ignore this even-handed comment so that you can enjoy playing the martyred victim with 'The liberals are picking on us conservatives, the liberals don't play fair' mentality, as well as, "liberals would simply call it artistic expression" (direct quote from you) and other far-fetched imagined scenes where you claim to know "EXACTLY" how a liberal explanation would go. You probably really enjoyed Eastwood's empty chair routine where he, alone, got to supply all the imaginary dialog and amazingly could knock down the straw arguments that he, alone created. Quite masterful! (heavy sarcasm here, although I know an expert at detecting written sarcasm, such as yourself, has probably already ferreted this out). I was wondering if you planned to avoid my questions entirely and contentedly remain self-satisfied in your "victimization" mode? Sincerely, Karen
One - I don't know Matt Drudge or read his articles.
Two - Whether or not I am Jewish is irrelevant - one does not need to be Hispanic or Asian to know what is offensive to a Hispanic or Asian person.
Three - I'm sorry you find the word 'Jew' offensive - many others don't. There are many things you have said and done that are offensive to me - so what?
According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2000):
--- It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as "There are now several Jews on the council", which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." - Winston Churchill
I disagree with your snide and offensive comments. You make these rude and unsupported comments solely to get a rise out of me and for me to sink to your level.
I've explained before, I'm not interested in playing Hoffman's, Larry's, or your silly game. The fact is that Benjamin Netanyahu is a respected official of his government in the eyes of the free world. Your insults will not change that. All you do is demonstrate that for all your knowledge you have no intelligence. That is sad.
You can't (or won't) even quote me properly. You left off the key part of my statement "People expressed their outrage when Mr. Obama was portrayed as an empty chair - and a couple of ignorant people hung chairs in effigy." It wasn't the political satire that was outrageous, but the hanging of the chairs. If you are going to be insulting, at least get the insult right.
"People don't mind being mean; but they never want to be ridiculous." - Moliere
I think everyone is pretty well versed on what a 'Nazi salute' constitutes. It is not my contention that 'any Jewish leader who is captured in a photograph raising ANY arm In ANY direction is automatically an inferred reference to Nazis and an insult.' You feel it is a huge stretch, but I am not so sure you would feel the same way had Barack Obama been photographed as Benjamin Netanyahu was. If you look at the many photographs of Hitler and Mussolini saluting, it is very easy to see the comparison, with the exception of the left arm. Many people were outraged. Few have defended it.
Mr. Netanyahu's illustration was kept simple. Do you know what a nuclear bomb looks like? I do - I've seen several of the real McCoy - and they come in various shapes and sizes. The point was to draw a red line... and everyone regardless of their technical expertise recognizes a cartoon bomb... and not a technical image of some device. The message was far more important than the medium. I don't think it distracted from the message at all.
It's said that a picture is worth a thousand words. You asked what motivated the wire services to release these vile photos. The answer is simple.
Those who support President Obama's failed foreign policy would prefer to portray Mr. Netanyahu as the aggressive non-compromising provocateur in the Middle East and what better way that to release photos that infer he is a dictator wanting control of the Middle East at any cost.
Benjamin Netanyahu is a tough minded leader, a veteran IDF commando, and member of the Israeli government. His efforts resulted in an end to economic decline, lowered unemployment and spurred growth. An Israeli economy that was shrinking in 2001 grew in 2004. Those that want an unstable Middle East don't want to deal with the Israeli Prime Minister.
So, what better way to deflect the nation's attention from the murder of our Libyan Ambassador and three members of his staff by terrorists and the demonstrations around the Middle East than to paint Mr. Netanyahu in some horrific manner.
You don't seem to think it is a big deal. That's OK, I do - and I've explained why.
So now Bull153 is justifying his religious bigotry!!
Next are you going to tell us it is OK for you to use the "N" word to describe black people? Why not call Japanese people the three letter shortening of their ethnicity as well? Why not call hispanics names too!
You have a real problem Bull153! You call out the media for being anti-semitic where you justify your own anti-semitic language.
Yes, by all accounts you are a hypocrite and a bigot. I can't believe you have ZERO remorse for your offense words and even worse, suggest that you "know how it feels."
You disgust me.
I'll say it one more time: For Bull153 to say showing Netanyahu with his arms raised "defies common decency" at the same time he calles people "JEW" is hypocritical, disingenuous, bigoted and just plain 100% wrong.
Bull153 is obviously too much a hypocrite to see how blatantly wrong he is on this. Unreal how Bull153 has the audacity "instinctively know" (sarcasm) how Jewish people feel deep-down about the Netanyahu picture, even though he is not one. And also knows how Jewish people feel about being called "Jew."
The whole thing is absolutely disgusting.
Bull, really, all this time I have been sinking to your level. And I have a news flash, you continually play the game, you can't help yourself, you are a Conservative looking for acceptance among Americans. It's tough, I can imagine, it has to be hard for Conservatives to be accepted in this day and age, especially with their feeble track record of destroying American values and dividing the nation.
I mean really, how can you defend an organization that doesn't say what they mean, and truly does not mean what they say? Americans are just not buying the BS anymore, which is why not only is Romney floundering, but so is the down ticket for the GOP as well. You just can't believe anything they say and for good reason!
Don't worry, you will meet my expectations and continue to play the game. It's your Conservative inferiority complex that keeps driving you. I think this is the part where you feign indignation while throwing jabs and insults. Martyrdom is also a trait of the Conservatives, and you play that game well.
Hey Bull, here is your quote, "People expressed their outrage when Mr. Obama was portrayed as an empty chair - and a couple of ignorant people hung chairs in effigy."
Its two thoughts tied together, and I commented in that manner. Note the word "and" which is used to tie two or more things together, and the hyphen also shows the start of another example.
Feign, feign, feign, feign feign. Keep playing the game, you are too easy.
Here is an example of Bull153's hypocritical, backward thinking:
-- Jewish leader pictured with arm raised: "defies common decency" and outrages him.
-- Bull153 using a pejorative term to describe people of Jewish faith: perfectly acceptable to him.
Shows the complete and total disingenuous hypocrisy of Bull153.
Hello Bull153, I was mostly addressing my comments and questions to Friendo, but welcome you into the discussion. You write that you are "not so sure" that I "would feel the same way had Barack Obama been photographed as Benjamin Netanyahu was." Let me clear up your misconception and give you the peace of mind certainty can bring. I would NOT be offended by a photograph of President Obama raising his arm as Netanyahu did. This is because I do not see Nazi symbolism in every innocent gesture. Now, a superimposed "Hitler mustache" on either gentleman WOULD have outraged me or at least incurred my disgust.
We will have to agree to disagree about the effectiveness of the cartoon bomb picture. I think a mushroom cloud image would have been much more potent and evocative of the seriousness of the issue. Remember Condelezza Rice's chilling warnings in her "mushroom cloud" quote used in reference to the supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? That imagery was quite persuasive.
I take issue with your assertion that the three wire news services used the photograph of Netanyahu because they, in your mind, "support President Obama's failed foreign policies" and so apparently want to portray Netanyahu as "the aggressive non-compromising provocateur in the Middle East" by releasing "photos that infer he is a dictator wanting control of the Middle East at any cost" and that they, for some unknown reason, "want an unstable Middle East". Those are an awful lot of assumptions, without supporting details or proof to back up your contentions, all based on YOUR (and Fox News, as I have seen them cover this "story") interpretation of ONE picture. A picture CAN be worth a thousand words, but it also can apparently inspire all types and manner of unfounded accusations and unwarranted conspiracy theories. What back-up sources, facts, or objective proof do you offer to substantiate your allegations? I honestly don't see any, other than your expressed OPINION, which is NOT verifiable proof, although you have every right to voice your perspective. Instead, you go out further on the shaky conspiracy theory limb by suggesting these news services sought to "deflect the nation's attention from the murder of our Libyan Ambassador and three members of his staff by terrorists" by painting "Mr Netanyahu in some horrific manner". That, in my opinion, is hyperbole and gross exaggeration. If you can RATIONALLY explain, with supporting facts and corroborating details, why these news services want unrest in the Middle East, are known Obama supporters that use their line of work to further their own political agenda, and have some personal grudge against Netanyahu, then I might give your assertions more credence. As it stands, your allegations seem baseless and far-fetched. Sincerely, Karen
Hello Karen. No as a matter of fact I did not catch Eastwood's RNC chair routine. So sorry to disppoint you. I actually had to google a photo of the chair for my comments made yesterday.
If a photo of obama happened to be published with his arm raised in a similar style and published by conservative media would your liberal sensitivities remain intact?
Hello Friendo, I have already answered your question in my post to Bull153. Please see above, so I won't waste anyone's time by repeating myself. I think my response is clear, but I can elaborate, if you need me to. My point with the Eastwood comment is that it is unconvincing to put forth an argument or debate when one person assumes both sides in order to "defeat" his imaginary opponent, whether that be talking to an empty chair or speculating on what "liberals" think or how they would act in any given situation. Sorry if I assumed you "enjoyed" Eastwood's performance. That was unnecessarily snarky of me. Sincerely, Karen
Speaking of the Middle East question, I would be interested in what Bull and Fredo have to say about what Willard said on the matter in the now infamous 47% secretly taped fund raiser in which he suggested that a two-state solution for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians — longstanding United States policy — was not feasible.
I was mentioned in your comment to Friendo, so I took the opportunity to provide my input. I believe you when you say you would not be offended by a similar photo of Mr. Obama. You don't see it as offensive - many others don't as well. Some of us do and expressed that.
You and I feel differently about the bomb image used by Mr. Netanyahu. That's fine, too. It just goes to show that what is offensive to one person or group may not be to another, and what is ridiculous and ineffective to one person or group may not be to another. It is all good.
You take issue with my position on the intent of the three wire services. You say there is no substantiation or support that the news services wanted to portray Mr. Netanyahu negatively. What do you consider substantiation? An admission from the media that they did indeed have a purpose for releasing those photos? When was the last time you saw the AP, Reuters, or Getty release a similar photo of a world leader with an outstretched arm? There were many photos taken. several with animated gestures, but these were designed to portray Mr. Netanyahu negatively. If not, why didn't the major media outlets use them?
Of course, it is just my opinion. It is just your opinion that the photo was not intended to insult Mr. Netanyahu. You ask for proof, how does one prove an opinion? It is my opinion that reelecting President Obama would be disastrous for our country. It is my opinion that blue is a prettier color than red.
I expressed my opinion - you state the allegations are baseless. OK, that's your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
"Respect for another man's opinion is worthy. It is the realization that any opinion is valuable, for it is the sign of a rational being." - Sargent Shriver
We can all see your blatant hypocrisy and fake indignation and borderline anti-semitic remarks. Who are you trying to convince at this point? Yourself?
Just give up; your done.
"Insanity is knowing that what you're doing is completely idiotic, but still, somehow, you just can't stop it." - Elizabeth Wurtzel
But feel free to keep trying there, Sport!
Hello Bull153, I don't really know whether the three news services purposefully meant to insult Mr. Netanyahu or not. I don't have enough background information to definitively assert that. It is surprising to me that you seem so certain that you understand the motivation and reasoning behind actions that you can not possibly know without a shadow of a doubt. I believe if someone is making negative accusations, even if those allegations are just that person's opinion, he should provide greater substantiation than just "that's what I think", otherwise, that only encourages slanderous speculation which can spin outside the boundaries of rational argument. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinion. It is just that opinions introduced with supporting, verifiable facts tend to be more respected and worthwhile than baseless accusations. It does not look like we see this issue in the same way. I am not trying to change your mind, but am stressing that if you backed your opinions with sources or proof, it would make them more valuable. Sincerely, Karen
Thanks for your response. Perhaps my assertions were a bit too forceful. I, like you, do not know without a shadow of doubt. I would provide further substantiation, but there is no smoking gun, like a memo from someone in the organization that reads "At the next photo op, be sure to release pictures of Mr. A that portray him in a terrible fashion." Like some criminal cases, sometimes there is just circumstantial evidence.
Part of the issue is perception. You make it clear that you didn't find the images offensive and explained why. I did - as a history buff I have read much about WWII, the Nazis, the abhorrent treatment of Jews, and the Jewish people's struggles to reclaim their homeland. I have traveled the world and often been closely involved with the media and its tactics. I don't know your background, but I would imagine it is safe to say it is quite different than mine. So when you see a picture of a world leader with his left arm held out, it isn't offensive. When I see the same picture, particularly of a Jewish leader, I am offended. Different backgrounds and different perceptions.
I remember years ago when the media was trusted. I enjoyed Andy Rooney and watched Walter Cronkite for years. No one doubted what was being reported. Now, I have little trust in the media and those reporting the news. I don't know what changed. I just know that I've seen enough misreporting, disinformation, and cover-ups to substantiate in my mind that it is possible those images were meant to offend, left arm or not.
"If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news." - Jon Stewart
Perception? misreporting? disinformation and cover-ups??? Do you have any EVIDENCE for that?? OR, is that all part of you "perception" as well?
Seems yo have a WILD imagination and you put far more credence in it than you do hard facts and reality. That is just sad.
Also, you claim offense at seeing a picture of a Jewish leader holding his arm out, yet have no problem using PEJORATIVE/INSULTING language toward jewish people; you do it AGAIN HERE after being told that it is offensive.
YOU DON'T CARE about offending Jewish people. That much is clear since you have done it here yourself several times now. All you care about is substantiating your incredible bigotry.
I am telling you now for the last time, using the three letter word you use to describe people of Jewish faith is INSULTING! Please stop it.
The King of Insults and Bigotry is asking others to please refrain from
(according to his warped and disingenuous assertions) insulting others?
What an absolute JOKE!
Yes King of Insults and Bigotry...We'll all be sure to get right on that!
Are you suggesting that because you think it's rude of me to question your/Bull153's baseless accusations and "perceptions", you/Bull153 are allowed to use whatever insulting language or religious epithet you like without consequence???
Are you seriously defending the repeated use of racially insulting language?
Say whatever you like about my direct language, I NEVER use foul language, I never use racially insulting terms, and I never call people pejorative terms based on their religion. You/Bull153 can't say the same ting. Sadly, and pathetically enough, it seems your proud of it.
Regardless, saying you are insulted by a picture for being possibly anti-semitic while at the same time using anti-semitic language yourself is incredibly hypocritical and disingenuous.
Keep on defending bigotry; it only helps prove my point.
Wrong King of I and B. All you are attempting to do is to gain favor by overstating and exaggerating the truth solely due to your political disagreement with another. Race Baiting serves no intelligent purpose.
"@TheDumpster" - see there Bull you can't control yourself, or what you say or what you mean. You make statements, and when you are cornered by another commenter who points out the weakness of your argument, you try desperately to re-represent what you meant to say. You have done it through out this one blog.
I am still laughing over your attempt at presenting a perception that you are a history buff by pointing out "the abhorrent treatment of Jews" so as to bring a shred of credibility to what you claim. The Nazi atrocities were to more than just the Jews, but you opened a can of worms with you arm flapping comment, you had to try something.
The Jewish people are a strong and resourceful people who have done a far better job of defending their country on their own and in far less time that we have during the time of their existence. They don't over react to immature symbolism like conservatives do, like you were doing in this blog but then, as its been pointed out, Conservatives will never draw the smart ones. Keep on supporting that notion, I am enjoying it.
"I often hear them accuse Israel of Judaizing Jerusalem. That's like accusing America of Americanizing Washington, or the British of Anglicizing London. You know why we're called 'Jews'? Because we come from Judea." - Benjamin Netanyahu
Speaking of the Middle East question, I would be interested in what Bull and Fredo have to say about what Willard said on the matter in the now infamous 47% secretly taped fund raiser in which he suggested that a two-state solution for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians — longstanding United States policy — was not feasible.
No, you are not. You are not the least bit interested in what I have to say, you are simply looking for another opportunity to fling a cream pie. I'm not interested in being a target.
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." - Thomas Szasz
What hypocritical audacity for you to act like you "know" seemingly by supernatural means.
It is very clear Bull153 that you have zero interest in having rational discussion. Rather, you seem to only care about spreading your unfounded "perception regardless of a very contrary reality.
It's sad to see relentless bigotry.
@ Sov, Reasonably we can see that Bull153's use of the words "the abhorrent treatment of Jews" were compassionately used in order to attatch the proper perspective connected with the vile intent that was necessary for the three photos to be published.
Bull, of course I am. What? You tired of the constant barrage of cream pies? Well, stop being a clown...
Actually we all know you will stand by Willard's every word. Much like Willard himself, so said "I don't know what I said but I stand behind whatever it is you say I said" or something dumb like that....
Your first sentence makes absolutely no sense. It is impossible for me to have a rational conversation with an irrational person like you. Your consistent and constant use of the terms 'bigotry' and 'hypocrite' when referring to me leads me to but one conclusion:
"Never attribute to malice, that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity." - Spider Robinson
“It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful.” - Anton LaVey
Otherwise you'd need to keep a truckload of aspirin handy.
Friendo, what we reasonably can see is a person without any credibility trying desperately to rescue his point after having serious and thoughtful rebuttal that rejected the shallow points he was presenting.
That is the misfortune of being a Conservative. Their whole premise is based on fabricated indignation and supposition. That is why we hear what "Liberals think" or what "Liberals want" from those who are trying to create a perception.
The indignation towards the pictures of the Israeli Prime Minister are a desperate effort to victimize the Israeli government while the war drum is beaten against Iran.
"@ TheDumpster" - Poor Bull, he is now down to name calling, one of the first signs that you are loosing the "game." You just don't have the ability or the capacity to make a case, but then, you are just a Conservative, and expectations aren't that high for you.
Poor Bull, he continues to expose himself for what he is, a minor league player trying to compete in the majors. It must be frustrating to you since it always looks so easy on Foxnews, but then, those are controlled situations where there is no rebuttal to the feigned indignation that they present.
"I can't wait to see Barry Soetoro get his cream pie in November." try to remember that in Nov....
Bull, not gonna take a stand with Willard?