Lunatic right-wing Jew-haters at LPSG

[Calboner]

I have never heard of a right winger use the term neo-con. Neo-con is a slam about the Bush Administration. This term is used by Liberals. He claims no political party, but yet you assign him one. It shows that you want to denigrate us by calling him that. Hence I take offense.

Well, apparently I was just making this up:

I understand, but I am sorry to say that I only like white, right-wing, hugely hung, and if possible christian (french right-wing has notiong to do with the zionist pro-war crap !) and uncut men...

Of course, all she (read "she" in quotation marks) says is that she likes right-wing men, and that the French right wing has nothing to do with "Zionist pro-war crap": but no doubt she just threw that in to conceal her left-wing sympathies.

 

[B_Monster]

Thanks for the info CalBoner, ill remember those 2 jerks Ill also remember some of these jerks posting here!!!

 

[B_All4show]

Of course, all she (read "she" in quotation marks) says is that she likes right-wing men, and that the French right wing has nothing to do with "Zionist pro-war crap": but no doubt she just threw that in to conceal her left-wing sympathies.

I though all of us right wingers were pro war?

Regardless, he is not a right winger, only an idiot.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Everyone who accepts the reality of the neo-conservative movement uses the term frequently, including everyone outside of the USA regardless of their political idealogy. I've also heard Republicans and conservatives use the term in the USA as well. It's not a slam by itself. It's a recognition that contemporary "conservative" politics in this country, as characterized by the current presidential administration, in no way resemble the policies or ideologies of Nixon, Reagan, or Goldwater. The neo-cons themselves don't frequently use the term, but even they do on occasion. It has only developed a negative connotation because the neo-cons are so widely reviled, even among (perhaps especially among) true/more traditional conservatives, and the term is frequently uttered with contempt.

 

[B_All4show]

Everyone who accepts the reality of the neo-conservative movement uses the term frequently, including everyone outside of the USA regardless of their political idealogy. I've also heard Republicans and conservatives use the term in the USA as well. It's not a slam by itself. It's a recognition that contemporary "conservative" politics in this country, as characterized by the current presidential administration, in no way resemble the policies or ideologies of Nixon, Reagan, or Goldwater. The neo-cons themselves don't frequently use the term, but even they do on occasion. It has only developed a negative connotation because the neo-cons are so widely reviled, even among (perhaps especially among) true/more traditional conservatives, and the term is frequently uttered with contempt.

I do not disagree with your assessment, but it is a term I hear used by Liberals for the most part. As I said, I think Calboner took this as an opportunity to bash right wingers instead of just calling him out as a faker and Jew hater.

 

[Calboner]

As I said, I think Calboner took this as an opportunity to bash right wingers instead of just calling him out as a faker and Jew hater.

You have yet to provide the slightest substantiation for this charge. I challenged you to explain how my describing someone as a "lunatic right-wing Jew-hater" implies that political rightists are Jew-haters or lunatics. Rather than answer the challenge, you have tried to argued that Emma/Chris is not a right-winger. After I defined the respects in which his position is identical with that of classic right-wing anti-semitism, and quoted his virtually explicit description of himself as a right-winger, you fell back on the fact that he uses the word "neo-Cohen" as your sole evidence that he is not a right-winger. After Nine-inch destroyed that argument of yours, you fall back on your original unsubstantiated claim. Plainly, you have no case.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

You have yet to provide the slightest substantiation for this charge. I challenged you to explain how my describing someone as a "lunatic right-wing Jew-hater" implies that political rightists are Jew-haters or lunatics. Rather than answer the challenge, you have tried to argued that Emma/Chris is not a right-winger. After I defined the respects in which his position is identical with that of classic right-wing anti-semitism, and quoted his virtually explicit description of himself as a right-winger, you fell back on the fact that he uses the word "neo-Cohen" as your sole evidence that he is not a right-winger. After Nine-inch destroyed that argument of yours, you fall back on your original unsubstantiated claim. Plainly, you have no case.

hey now...

as much of a fruitcake as All4Show is... he does have a point. You didn't have to include right-wing in the subject heading, whether the poster is right-wing or not. Their political leanings have little to nothing to do with what crazy conspiracies they believe in and which people they choose to hate. By sandwiching the term "right-wing" in the heading, you are implying that this term goes hand-in-hand with both lunacy and jew-hating, which I also don't think was fair.

 

[odd_fish_9]

However, one of the exceptions we make is for hate speech. We make laws against that.

We do? Since when? Canada has it. And some parts of Europe do. But it's a slippery slope to thought-control the US haven't slid down yet. Not outside of university campuses, at least.

 

[invisibleman]

I bet you are offended if some one calls you a Liberal or a left winged nut.

If someone calls me a Liberal or a left winged nut, I can handle that. I like being Liberal. :smile:

 

[HazelGod]

Hazel, I did not miss the word play. Liberals use the word Neo-con all of the time and my point is it most likely refers to the Bush Administration and it shows their distain for it. Who hates Bush more than the Liberals? Right wingers? – No. So I am assuming Neo-Cohens refers to the Bush administration and this would place him on the side of the Liberals. I am also trying to demonstrate that you should not lump us in with the Jew Hater. Get it?

You should think before you post and instead of assuming everyone is an idiot, try to think about what they are trying to say – that’s embarrassing.

I didn't have to assume your idiocy...you laid the proof right out in the open for all to see.

The big point that you missed in your rush to accuse Cal of being a liberal Bush-hater (and presumably, by extension, hope to invalidate his assertions) is that it wasn't Cal using the term neo-Cohen at all...it was used in the quotes from the two faces of the troll in question. Cal wasn't using the term to slam anyone...wasn't even the one using the term at all. You erroneously assumed it was him, and that he was playing on the term neo-con, and that neo-con itself is only a slam used by liberals. Completely erroneous, all of it.

Learn to think for yourself before discoursing with grownups, please.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Liberal is another term that should not have any negative or offensive connotations connected to it. It's only assholes like Rush and Hannity who keep trying to reposition the word as a pejorative.

 

[Calboner]

hey now...

as much of a fruitcake as All4Show is... he does have a point. You didn't have to include right-wing in the subject heading, whether the poster is right-wing or not. Their political leanings have little to nothing to do with what crazy conspiracies they believe in and which people they choose to hate. By sandwiching the term "right-wing" in the heading, you are implying that this term goes hand-in-hand with both lunacy and jew-hating, which I also don't think was fair.

Okay, I can see your point. I would say in reply, as I said earlier, that Emma/Chris's views fit the profile of a variety of anti-semitism the followers of which have consistently been on the political right. It is a matter of historical fact that they are right-wing views. Here, to support my claim, is a passage from the Wikipedia article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Russian: "Протоколы сионских мудрецов", or "Сионские протоколы", see also other titles) was first published in 1903 in Russian, in Znamya; it describes a Jewish and Masonic plot to achieve world domination. It is one of the best known and discussed examples of literary forgery, and a hoax. It was published again in 1905 as a final chapter 12 by Serge Nilus in the second edition of his semiautographical book, Velikoe v malom . . ., a text about the coming of the Antichrist.
"The Protocols" (the briefest title by which the text is known) is widely considered to be the beginning of contemporary conspiracy theory literature,[1] and takes the form of a speech describing how to dominate the world, the need to control the media, finance, replace traditional social order, etc.
The text was popularized by those opposed to Russian revolutionary movement, and was disseminated further after the revolution of 1905, becoming known worldwide after the 1917 October Revolution. It was widely circulated in the West in 1920 and thereafter. The Great Depression and the rise of Nazism were important developments in the history of the Protocols, and the hoax continued to be published and circulated despite its debunking.

The view recounted here is pretty much the Emma/Chris view, and the people who have embraced it have been on the political right (czarists, Nazis, etc.). Once again, I will try to make a point that some people seem bent on misunderstanding: To say that (all or most) the adherents of view X belong on political side Y is not to say that (all or most) people who belong on political side Y are adherents of view X; it implies only that some of them are. I have said that the particular variety of anti-semitic fantasy put forward by Emma/Chris is a right-wing view: that is a matter of historical fact, and to assert it is not to imply that all those with right-wing views accept this or any other anti-semitic fantasy. I am sorry that some people seem bent on reading such an implication into my post, but that seems to me to be their fault and not mine.

 

[Calboner]

The big point that you missed in your rush to accuse Cal of being a liberal Bush-hater (and presumably, by extension, hope to invalidate his assertions) is that it wasn't Cal using the term neo-Cohen at all...it was used in the quotes from the two faces of the troll in question.

Thanks for trying to back me up, HG, but I think that you have—surprising though it sounds—given All4show too little credit here. I believe that what he meant to show by citing Emma/Chris's use of "neo-Cohen" was that Emma/Chris is some sort of liberal. Of course, the argument is rubbish, and the facts manifestly refute the intended conclusion, but I don't think that All4show intended quite as stupid an argument as you attribute to him.

 

[wldhoney]

Personally, I do not mind being called a right winger, you can call me a conservative too. :smile: But why would you try and lump this idiot in with us?

I bet you are offended if some one calls you a Liberal or a left winged nut. I am sure you are a moderate.

You demonstrate your intolerance and hypocrisy.

All4show, I'm sorry, but you have shown yourself, in other threads, to be very intolerant, blasphemous, and hypocritical as the pharisees. It's easy to be as a bleeting sheep, to pass judgment on others. Not so easy to be kind and forgiving. At the end of this life, are you going to look back and see a road traveled with love and caring, or one that is pebbled with the spreading of intolerance and hate?

I challenge you to go to your church and tell them the type of websites you go to, including ones like this. I can guarantee you that many will proclaim you to be sexually immoral, despite that they, too, may also be doing the same.

You, and those Calboner is calling out pass judgement, are playing God, which is the greatest of sins.

There are so many phony Christians, who use God's name, (and read the commandments, my friend, because He does not like His name abused) to spread HATE, PREJUDISM, ANGER, MALICIOUSNESS, PAIN and JUDGEMENT in God's name. When we judge someone in God's name, we are committing BLASPHEMY.

More "Christians" turn others away from God than anyone else. They destroy the tentative faith of others with PHONY behavior and hateful, ugly, vindictiveness.

As Ghandi once said, "I would have been a Christian, if it weren't for Christians."

Satan will spread hate and anger and discourse and separate man from his brother, and will raze our house thru deception. If your heart is filled with feelings not akin to helping and loving your fellow human beings without expectation, as Jesus did, then you are being used and manipulated.

It's easy to be as bleeting sheep, to be mean and judgemental. Not so easy to be kind and forgiving. At the end of this life, are you going to look back and see a road traveled with love, or one that is pebbled with the spreading of intolerance and hate?

I myself have to try and be understanding when it comes to so-called "Christians" who cannot see the damage they do because they are so focused on their own personal agenda. They wouldn't know what their true path is if it was announced in front of them with neon lights. I know that some are simply not emotionally and mentally strong enough to break away from the "cult" Christian mindset.

You know why so many from the Christian church like to condemn homosexuality, abortion, etc., (while ignoring adultery)? Because then they can claim they are trying to fight sin without actually having to go out and volunteer in a shelter, or abuse center, or nursing home, or hospital. They can go to church on Sunday morning, then go have breakfast and tell each other what good Christians they are and ignore that guilty little feeling inside. Pathetic.

Whew......I'll get off my soapbox now......

 

[cantona]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

 

[kalipygian]

Thanks, Calboner, for bringing this up.

I had been skipping over these flaky posts, but is a better practice to call the person on it.

 

[BigPuppy]

[FONT=&quot]My boyfriend is a gay Jewish communist (actually that bit is true) but obviously doesn’t trust me enough to tell me about these plots to take over the world. Do the members of the LPSG thing that I should raise the issue with him? I think that trust is very important in a relationship.[/FONT]

 

[Drifterwood]

Aren't there any Masons to square up to this as well?

 

[Calboner]

[FONT=&quot]My boyfriend is a gay Jewish communist (actually that bit is true) but obviously doesn’t trust me enough to tell me about these plots to take over the world. Do the members of the LPSG thing that I should raise the issue with him? I think that trust is very important in a relationship.[/FONT]

I take it that you are not Jewish. I am sorry to say that, unless you undertake conversion, he can't tell you about the conspiracy. Which does not exist.

Okay, this is maybe a little bit funny, but, you know, I thought Emma Pool was joking when I read her post about how Al Gore is a Jew and so on, so it's pretty nearly impossible to say something so loony that it is not believed seriously by someone.

 

[BigPuppy]

Liberal is another term that should not have any negative or offensive connotations connected to it. It's only assholes like Rush and Hannity who keep trying to reposition the word as a pejorative.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
John F. Kennedy
September 14, 1960