Many Key Liberal's Don't Back Israel

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Pabst, Jul 22, 2006.

  1. Pabst


    Much was made of the landslide 411-8 vote on the U.S. House resolution supporting Israel. There's more to the vote though, than meets the eye. In addition to the 8 who said fuck you to Israel, 4 additional House Democrats sat in the chamber and merely voted present, including Left wing socialist hero Dennis Kucinich.

    After reading the roll call a HUGE fact became evident. Other than iconoclastic Republican Ron Paul (he's a TRUE Libertarian) who gleefully votes against EVERYTHING that has a feel good activist ring to it, a full FIFTH of the Democrats in the far left organization the Progressive Caucus failed to vote, yea. That includes moonbat Cynthia McKinney who's been AWOL from the House for days on end.

    Several nay or "present" votes were recorded by black members, (Lee, Waters, Conyers, Dingell) which tells me things are still icy between blacks and Jews. Perhaps Maxine Waters felt she got gouged too many times in the Jewish owned stores in Watts as a kid. LOL.

    I predict this rift between the most liberal members of the House is a harbinger of the tepid support Israel will see in the future from the far-left. I hope this puts super-lib Jews on notice. The new Democrat's might be friends with Jewish contributors but they're enemies of Zionists. You better start watching the 700 Club doodoo.:)
  2. The vote was 411-8, and you complain about the 8?

    Seriously, aren't there more important things to worry about than the less than 2% dissenters?
  3. If you can show me that those same 8 people voted for war in Iraq, or other wars since Afghanistan (most supported Afghanistan in the beginning), or funding of wars during the Bush regime, or funding of military efforts that were war might have a point.

    In addition, are you showing the vote of blacks who did vote in favor of the resolution?

    Are you showing a pattern of non support for Israel, or is this not really about Israel, but about senseless killing?

    I suspect this is just another example of you looking too much at race, drawing spurious conclusions to support a racist agenda...which is something racists tend to do...

    You know, the type of thing spect8or does....perhaps you are looking to join his league.

  4. Pabst


    Who said 8? 12 Members who were on the House Floor failed to vote for it. You're missing the point. 20% of Progressive Caucus members failed to support the resolution. That's significant.
  5. Pabst


    Your ability to spot political trends is zilch. You said repeatedly Bush would fail to win re-election.
    Besides while most people here know nothing of the Progressive Caucus, you do. This vote is a sample of tepid support among lefties.

    I could also show that virtually NONE of the Jewish members of the PC voted for Iraq but they all voted for this resolution.
  6. Actually that's 11 democrats, one of them is a republican and you can twist it all you want but thats only about 5% of the house democrats. The senate democrats were unanimous in their support of Israel.

    And what do you think about Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak who are rabidly anti-Israel? Of course they have about as much influence among republicans as Cynthia McKinney has among democrats.
  7. Pabst


    Last I looked neither Buchanan nor Novak (who's Jewish) have served in Congress. The Progressive Caucus (it's an old Communist Party inspired offshoot) contains the creme de la creme of lunatic lefties. ONE-FIFTH of them failed to vote for this resolution. For fans of statistics, Progressive Caucus members are 40 times more likely to vote against the Resolution than are Republicans.
  8. Last I looked neither Buchanan nor Novak (who's Jewish) have served in Congress."
    What difference does it make when the point is there are anti-Israel sentiments both on the left and on the right (I don't disagree that more on the left). Frankly I am more concerned with anti-Israel propagandists than anti-Israel members of congress who are unknown to 95% of this country.

    The Progressive Caucus (it's an old Communist Party inspired offshoot) contains the creme de la creme of lunatic lefties. ONE-FIFTH of them failed to vote for this resolution.
    Hey, 80% of House communists:D voted for the resolution, that's actually not bad at all given that all mainstream and conservative democrats also unanimously voted for this resolution.
  9. I see you evaded the criticism, and have nothing but an ad hominem response. (Actually, I said I thought Bush would win re-election because Kerry is such a putz. Check your facts.)

    I have no doubt that the Jewish members voted for the resolution, but you have shown no evidence that the black members are anti Israel in their vote.

    I think if you were to talk to the black congressmen and black congresswomen, they would essentially say that they have a hard time endorsing aid and support for a violent unnecessary war effort in the Middle East when they see money not spent by the U.S. government to do something about the poverty and lack of opportunity in the American inner cities they represent.

    It often appears that many care more about Israel and its struggles, than those Americans here at home in the poverty filled communities.

    We hear the politicians and neocons say "We are all Israelis now" but I doubt you will those same folks say "We are all African Americans Now."
  10. Pabst


    The language in the resolution comes no where near implying U.S. aid to Israel.


    Registered: Apr 2003
    Posts: 2386

    02-13-04 11:59 AM

    Kerry is not above criticism at all.

    His voting record is an issue. So is security. So is his vision moving forward.

    Though, wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to put up with all the mud from both sides?

    There is a definite and serious split in ideology in this country.

    Both sides believe they are ABSOLUTELY right.

    This will likely boil down to once again people choosing an evil of two lessors.

    However, if I were a Republican, I would be very concerned if my focus was more on what was wrong with Kerry rather than what was right with Bush.

    If we look back to the 2000 election and think:

    Of those who voted for Gore, how many of them will vote for Bush this time around?

    So if the Democrats can capture the same Gore voters, and swing over some of the Bush voters, the election can be easily won.

    Lacking a third party candidate this time also favors the Democrats.

    The running mate is probably more important in this election than ever before.

    Can't you imagine a pretty boy like Edwards, with his southern charm, swinging some of the necessary votes away from Bush down in Dixie?

    Bush had better fire Cheney and take on a guy like Rudy Giuliani as his running mate.

    The issues will become very blurred in this campaign. The mud slinging will be intense, and the last election was oh so close. The rhetoric will be insane from both sides.

    The economy better start to improve quickly, as it is very hard to turn the economy around quickly in September.

    Bush had better do something about the price of oil and gas soon too.

    If I were Karl Rove, I would be concerned.

    #10     Jul 22, 2006