Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Main Entry: an·ti–Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: \ˌan-tē-ˈse-mə-ˌti-zəm, ˌan-ˌtī-\
Function: noun
Date: 1882
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or RACIAL group

Courtesy of Merriem Webster.

So is he hostile towards them as a racial group or as a religious group?

The Kennedy's are the labeled aristocracy. I am talking congress as a whole. If they have been there for 3 terms it's time to go.

I could care less about the Kennedy family. They can have their liquor fortune.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Love the facepalm! Self-rationalization is never an excuse for the truth.

Sarpedon_702 wrote:I couldn't care less

halonachos wrote:

Main Entry: an·ti–Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: \ˌan-tē-ˈse-mə-ˌti-zəm, ˌan-ˌtī-\
Function: noun
Date: 1882
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or RACIAL group

Courtesy of Merriem Webster.

Notice how race is only one of the possible means of discriminating against Jews? That means that antisemitism is not necessarily racist, which means that racism and antisemitism are not the same thing. They can overlap, but they are not the same.

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Main Entry: 1eth·nic
Pronunciation: \ˈeth-nik\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin ethnicus, from Greek ethnikos national, gentile, from ethnos nation, people; akin to Greek ēthos custom — more at sib
Date: 15th century
1 : heathen
2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common RACIAL, national, tribal, RELIGIOUS, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves> b : being a member of a specified ethnic group <an ethnic German> c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics <ethnic neighborhoods> <ethnic foods>

Thanks for the correction! hehe

So are you saying that one could hate ONLY religion. If I was to say "I hate those of any faith besides Roman Catholocism." I wouldn't be a rascist?

halonachos wrote:

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Main Entry: 1eth·nic
Pronunciation: \ˈeth-nik\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin ethnicus, from Greek ethnikos national, gentile, from ethnos nation, people; akin to Greek ēthos custom — more at sib
Date: 15th century
1 : heathen
2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common RACIAL, national, tribal, RELIGIOUS, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves> b : being a member of a specified ethnic group <an ethnic German> c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics <ethnic neighborhoods> <ethnic foods>

Same response as above. Ethnicity does not necessarily relate to race, and therefore someone who despises a certain ethnic group is not necessarily racist. Also note that the original definition of ethnic was 'heathen', which doesn't have anything to do with race at all.

halonachos wrote:So are you saying that one could hate ONLY religion. If I was to say "I hate those of any faith besides Roman Catholocism." I wouldn't be a rascist?

Yes.

And you can prove that the fellow has hatred only towards the religion?

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Main Entry: an·ti–Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: \ˌan-tē-ˈse-mə-ˌti-zəm, ˌan-ˌtī-\
Function: noun
Date: 1882
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or RACIAL group

Courtesy of Merriem Webster.

Notice how race is only one of the possible means of discriminating against Jews? That means that antisemitism is not necessarily racist, which means that racism and antisemitism are not the same thing. They can overlap, but they are not the same.

At best your argument is not that he's a racist, but an antireligious bigot. Ok....

I'm a feared Halonachos imagery in this instance is right on point.

halonachos wrote:And you can prove that the fellow has hatred only towards the religion?

No, but I also can't prove he's antisemitic. Neither can you. That isn't the point. The point is that antisemitism and racism aren't the same thing. This was meant to feed into a larger point which I would've raised on Fraz's reply. Namely that its rather odd for someone who often harps about the blanket use of racism as a pejorative to mislabel an antisemite as a racist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

At best your argument is not that he's a racist, but an antireligious bigot. Ok....

I'm a feared Halonachos imagery in this instance is right on point.

Why are you assuming that I'm defending LaRouche? He's an idiot, and an antisemite.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:And you can prove that the fellow has hatred only towards the religion?

No, but I also can't prove he's antisemitic. Neither can you. That isn't the point. The point is that antisemitism and racism aren't the same thing. This was meant to feed into a larger point which I would've raised on Fraz's reply. Namely that its rather odd for someone who often harps about the blanket use of racism as a pejorative to mislabel an antisemite as a racist.

No I'd still equate that with racist in this instance...sorry...

Frazzled wrote:
No I'd still equate that with racist in this instance...sorry...

And now you know why racism gets thrown around so freely. People use it out of context so much that its simply come reference anyone with a clear dislike for a large group of people.

LaRouche and some of his followers spread racist ideas that range from the absurd-such as the claim that Black musicians did not invent Jazz5-to the crude, as in the question posed by LaRouche in one essay: "Can we imagine anything much more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?" 6 It's not just Blacks LaRouche has a problem with. He has dismissed rural Chinese culture as "hideous muck" with its people "paralleling the behavioral stagnation of lower animal life." 7 Elsewhere he dissed a group of Puerto Rican organizers as incompetent, which LaRouche asserted was tied to their being "almost totally sexually impotent."8

While the cultural accomplishments of people of color have been routinely dismissed by LaRouche, he regularly celebrates Eurocentric icons. We all become civilized, according to the LaRouchites, by learning to sing along with Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven; 9 reading the work of 17th century European scholars such as Leibniz; 10 and, surprise, studying the words of LaRouche.

http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/truestory.html

Although the above does sound rascist.

He also has attacked jewish culture.

While LaRouche's antisemitism is often veiled, he has written that Judaism is a kind of parasitic appendage to Christianity, that "a selfsustaining Judaism never existed and never could exist," and that Jewish culture "is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed" to non-Jews.15 In the mid-1970s, LaRouche began incorporating claims of a vast Jewish conspiracy into his writing and the LaRouchites began to forge ties with persons from right-wing racist and antisemitic groups.16

What Halo said. Larouchites are nutjobs. Perotistas are just middle of the roaders sick of both parties.

generalgrog wrote:

Relapse wrote:Frank and Herb Moses

http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6501027316/m/2551029448

This part right here....I'm sorry but the guy should be run out of office for conflict of interest alone.

Wakeup all you Frankophiles.......I say wake up!!

GG

His boyfriend left Fannie Mae in 98. Frank had been a long time advocate for housing before that. It is not that strange that a guy who enters politics with an ambition for extending affordable housing would find a lot in common with a guy working at a company that is dedicated to facilitating affordable housing.

Frank's mistake was in failing to see the housing crisis coming, and in continuing policies that relied on the continuing boom. This is not a small thing, but was no different to the general line maintained by both parties. But the claim that he was the architect of a global meltdown is bizarre.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:Barney Frank is the Devil... he is Satan incarnate.

The reason I call Barney the Lord of Flies, Balzebub, Lucifer etc. is that he is a career politician. Career politicians are at the very heart and core of what is wrong with the US Political system. Rather than being concerned with fixing the issues besetting their country (many of which are their own doing) they rather focus on how to keep their Party, and by extension themselves, in power.

Anyone who thinks the current focus on "Healthcare" or "Green" is anything other than a Left Wing power grab is willfully ignorant. The Democrats want nothing more than to entrench themselves so deeply in the fabric of US domestic policy that they can never be unseated.

You are trying to cram reality to fit your political views and it is not working. If the Democrats simply wanted to maintain power, they would do nothing and benefit from the very low levels of support the Republicans had in the wake of Bush. Instead they're trying to implement reform that has a long record and unsuccessful record of being attempted. Now you can take the ultra-cynical position that attempting reform of a highly emotive and political sector of the economy is some sort of effort to grasp power, and handwave away the lack of connection between an expansion of healthcare and more Democratic votes.

Or you could consider the idea that possibly, whether you agree with their position or not, this reform is being attempted because US healthcare is dysfunctional, that the richest country in the world shouldn't have somewhere around 10% of its population without health insurance, and that medical costs should not . Because it's an easy crutch to cover ignorance with cynicism and ideology, but at some point it becomes very hollow, very cheap. At some point you need to actually learn how the world works.

Barney and those like him are the Devil. Term Limits for Congressional seats are the only answer. Until we let these blood suckers on both sides of the political spectrum know they will need to go get a real job and stop sucking off the public teat nothing will change.

Term limits are a bandaid solution at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perot isn't all that sane, but this is US politics and by those standards he's basically middle of the road.

But the Larouchites are much closer to a cult than a political group.

Sebster wrote:Or you could consider the idea that possibly, whether you agree with their position or not, this reform is being attempted because US healthcare is dysfunctional, that the richest country in the world shouldn't have somewhere around 10% of its population without health insurance, and that medical costs should not . Because it's an easy crutch to cover ignorance with cynicism and ideology, but at some point it becomes very hollow, very cheap. At some point you need to actually learn how the world works.

Both Republicans and Democrats agree that change is needed, and serious change at that. For now all the Republicans seem to be doing is maintaining their fringe votes and stirring up the undecided (or misinformed/ uninformed) undecided votes. Now I may be a bit new to all of this, but I see a distinct push to keep Obama popular, although I think there is a whole lot more than meets the eye in Washington; jumping directly to conclusions about flouride and all that nonsense is just emotion without thought.

People that are crazy are... umm... crazy? Tin-foil and the like does not really keep the voices out of your head... and if they listened a bit closer they would realize that they are talking to themselves, over, and over, and over again about that same damn things. People hide behind a lot of things to maintain their particular form of perspective and enforcing the crazy is no exception. If I infer that Sebster is in fact a 20 foot tall monkey with a shark head... and, umm... and a pair of flippers on the feet and stuff... not inspired at the moment so we will give him a laser too, a high powered laser. Yep...

Anyway, if I said Sebster is a ABCD he very well might be, but that would be one of the craziest occurrences I have actually met. Monkey/Shark/Flippers/H.P.Laser... yes, a sight to see.

"Note"
A safety tip for the crazies...

The trick to blocking the psychic brain feed is to cover everything BESIDES YOU with tin-foil. This method is tried and tested to make people give you that self affirming "nope I am not the crazy one here" looks... wait... never mind, just cover it with tin-foil. Wow... look how frakking shiny it is and stuff...



So very very shiny shiny and convincing you, convincing you... convincing you... convincing you

If you have reached this part of the message you are officially indocrtinated into the tin-foil crusades... bless your tin-foil and bless the truth(ish)

Oh, oh... one more thing, if your cat talks to you... it IS the government, and those words are ones of evil and fur-balls.

BTW, if you need to prepare for battle, make sure you dress like this so the rest of us can make sure to know which one of us you are... because it gets kinda confusing when everybody wears the same kitchen appliances. Ted over here has a blender for a hat, very very creative use of everyday stuff.



It isn't really a blender, but he likes to think so, and we all respect his creative use of his brain and stuff. Art on the other hand is... evil.

sebster wrote:Oh, and on the 'Frank ran a prostitution ring out of his apartment' thing... does anyone need evidence that that was rubbish?

Because the claim was made by a guy Frank had been sleeping with. After Frank came out, the guy came out with the prostitution stories. The House Ethics committee investigated it, and it's finding was that Frank shouldn't have let the accuser use his parking spot for personal business. That's it, the Ethics committee specifically said the prostitution accusations were absolute bunk.

Did anyone really believe that someone at that level of office had been found to run a criminal operation and continue in office, with no media blow up? Really?

Look what Kennedy got away with and you have the answer to your question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy_Chappaquiddick_incident

Relapse wrote:Look what Kennedy got away with and you have the answer to your question:

I know... it is really too bad that the VW was too hippy for him. Be safe folks, drive VW, they still float or something down here.



Oh man... "But it's not a boat, it's a car"...

Relapse wrote:Look what Kennedy got away with and you have the answer to your question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy_Chappaquiddick_incident

As long as you assume that a gay jew with no position of status in the senate had the same political pull as the heir to the political throne of what was the most powerful political family in the US, and who was at the time the Senate majority whip. In fact, you have to assume the former is a far more powerful force, because the latter was in an accident and despite his connections he still testified guilty in court seven days after the event, whereas the former is accused of willingly committing a crime and used his far weaker connections to make the whole event go away.

So you're left with two things. You're left with believing the conclusion of a bi-partisan senate ethics committee after a year long investigation. Or you're left with believing the accusations of a spurned lover after his blackmail attempt had failed, and that this was covered up by a bi-partisan committee (who didn't just sweep it under the carpet, but covered it up by dragging the investigation out for a year).

And at this point I think you have to ask yourself why you believed that latter, because whatever caused you to believe the latter, reason and weight of evidence had nothing to do with it.

The question you asked , however was what people at a high level of office could do and get away with.
Frank even admited he knew the guy was a prostitue, and the rest of his protests of innocence are about as believable as Kennedy's.

Relapse wrote:The question you asked , however was what people at a high level of office could do and get away with.
Frank even admited he knew the guy was a prostitue, and the rest of his protests of innocence are about as believable as Kennedy's.

No, that wasn't my question. My question was 'Did anyone really believe that someone at that level of office had been found to run a criminal operation and continue in office, with no media blow up?'

Which is a completely different question, because the intent to run a criminal operation is wholly different to crashing a car and running off. And there was plenty of media coverage of the Kennedy incident, whereas Frank somehow managed to stop the ethics committee from revealing the truth and shutting the media down.

So again, what leads you to believe that it's true? Do you have such faith in the evidence free accusations of all former lovers, or is it only when they're talking about senators you don't like that you believe them?

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:The question you asked , however was what people at a high level of office could do and get away with.
Frank even admited he knew the guy was a prostitue, and the rest of his protests of innocence are about as believable as Kennedy's.

No, that wasn't my question. My question was 'Did anyone really believe that someone at that level of office had been found to run a criminal operation and continue in office, with no media blow up?'

Which is a completely different question, because the intent to run a criminal operation is wholly different to crashing a car and running off. And there was plenty of media coverage of the Kennedy incident, whereas Frank somehow managed to stop the ethics committee from revealing the truth and shutting the media down.

So again, what leads you to believe that it's true? Do you have such faith in the evidence free accusations of all former lovers, or is it only when they're talking about senators you don't like that you believe them?

At the time this happened, there was quite a bit of media coverage. Perhaps not to the extent that Kennedy got when he left that woman to drown in the car he wrecked, but quite a bit non the less. People were as amazed that he kept his office as at the fact that Kennedy avoided jail, let alone keeping his office.
As far as your statement about letting his boyfriend use his parking space being the only indescretion commited, I believe you are incorrect on that matter according to this link and to be fair, I found a favorable story about this slug:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1721111_1721210_1883878,00.html

As I said before, Franks protests of innocence are about as believable as Kennedy's are to more than a few people.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1721111_1721210_1883878,00.html

The Representative maintained that he had no knowledge that his digs were being used as a brothel and said that he kicked Gobie out once he learned what the escort had been doing there. Desperate to prove his limited culpability in the case, Frank requested an investigation by the House ethics committee. The 10-month probe found that Frank did not, in fact, know about the happenings in his home but that he should be reprimanded for use of House privilege in waiving 33 of Gobie's parking tickets and for writing a memo that attempted to end Gobie's probation for a prior infraction. Despite attempts by former Idaho Rep. Larry Craig (the stall-inator) to have the Massachusetts Rep. removed, Frank went on to win several reelections by wide margins.

Yep... your point is well proven and researched. *Dot dot dot*

So politics have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of pressure put on Barney Frank... at all... in lollipop wonderland where all of your parking tickets disappear and politicians hire escorts, OH DEAR!

Relapse wrote:At the time this happened, there was quite a bit of media coverage. Perhaps not to the extent that Kennedy got when he left that woman to drown in the car he wrecked, but quite a bit non the less. People were as amazed that he kept his office as at the fact that Kennedy avoided jail, let alone keeping his office.
As far as your statement about letting his boyfriend use his parking space being the only indescretion commited, I believe you are incorrect on that matter according to this link and to be fair, I found a favorable story about this slug:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1721111_1721210_1883878,00.html

No, I didn't say it was the only indiscretion. I said it was the only indiscretion that he was reprimanded by the ethics committee for... "The House Ethics committee investigated it, and it's finding was that Frank shouldn't have let the accuser use his parking spot for personal business."

Anyhow, as Wrexasaur noted, the story summarises exactly what I'd said. He was reprimanded for giving out his parking space, but found to have no knowledge of other goings on. But yeah, he paid for sex. So now you have 'committed misdemeanour in paying for sex' and 'committed ethics breach in misusing parking priviledges'... and what? That's really what you've got as proof that Barney Frank is a monster?

As I said before, Franks protests of innocence are about as believable as Kennedy's are to more than a few people.

And I'll say again, those people really need to consider why they reject the findings of a year long ethics probe and instead take at face value the evidence free claims of a spurned lover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Despite attempts by former Idaho Rep. Larry Craig (the stall-inator) to have the Massachusetts Rep. removed, Frank went on to win several reelections by wide margins.

Yep... your point is well proven and researched. *Dot dot dot*

So politics have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of pressure put on Barney Frank... at all... in lollipop wonderland where all of your parking tickets disappear and politicians hire escorts, OH DEAR!

It's funnier than you think. Idaho Rep. Craig, the guy who really went after Frank over this, is the guy who was later caught having sex with a rent boy in a toilet cubicle.

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:At the time this happened, there was quite a bit of media coverage. Perhaps not to the extent that Kennedy got when he left that woman to drown in the car he wrecked, but quite a bit non the less. People were as amazed that he kept his office as at the fact that Kennedy avoided jail, let alone keeping his office.
As far as your statement about letting his boyfriend use his parking space being the only indescretion commited, I believe you are incorrect on that matter according to this link and to be fair, I found a favorable story about this slug:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1721111_1721210_1883878,00.html

No, I didn't say it was the only indiscretion. I said it was the only indiscretion that he was reprimanded by the ethics committee for... "The House Ethics committee investigated it, and it's finding was that Frank shouldn't have let the accuser use his parking spot for personal business."

Anyhow, as Wrexasaur noted, the story summarises exactly what I'd said. He was reprimanded for giving out his parking space, but found to have no knowledge of other goings on. But yeah, he paid for sex. So now you have 'committed misdemeanour in paying for sex' and 'committed ethics breach in misusing parking priviledges'... and what? That's really what you've got as proof that Barney Frank is a monster?

As I said before, Franks protests of innocence are about as believable as Kennedy's are to more than a few people.

And I'll say again, those people really need to consider why they reject the findings of a year long ethics probe and instead take at face value the evidence free claims of a spurned lover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Despite attempts by former Idaho Rep. Larry Craig (the stall-inator) to have the Massachusetts Rep. removed, Frank went on to win several reelections by wide margins.

Yep... your point is well proven and researched. *Dot dot dot*

So politics have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of pressure put on Barney Frank... at all... in lollipop wonderland where all of your parking tickets disappear and politicians hire escorts, OH DEAR!

It's funnier than you think. Idaho Rep. Craig, the guy who really went after Frank over this, is the guy who was later caught having sex with a rent boy in a toilet cubicle.

Sorry, when you said "that's it", the ethics committe said he shouldn't have let the guy use his parking space, it read to me like you were inferring it was the only thing Frank was doing wrong. My apologies.

Kennedy also went on to win several elections after killing that woman.

Craig makes me proud I'm an independent, I don't trust the bastages from either party.

You forgot this bit of crucial physical evidence Relapse.



Political pressure is not some sort of "Look he is the one!" kind of operation, it could have been many people pushing many buttons simultaneously; many of these people could be indirect politicians like Rupert Murdoch but the whole area is too gray to really understand with any piercing clarity or reprimand for that matter... Rupert Murdoch being a total douche-bag aside.

Here is his interview with John Stewart.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-13-2009/barney-frank-extended-interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-13-2009/barney-frank-extended-interview-pt--2

Wrexasaur wrote:You forgot this bit of crucial physical evidence Relapse.



Political pressure is not some sort of "Look he is the one!" kind of operation, it could have been many people pushing many buttons simultaneously; many of these people could be indirect politicians like Rupert Murdoch but the whole area is too gray to really understand with any piercing clarity or reprimand for that matter... Rupert Murdoch being a total douche-bag aside.

Here is his interview with John Stewart.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-13-2009/barney-frank-extended-interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-13-2009/barney-frank-extended-interview-pt--2

ROTFLMAO! Good one!