Mayor Ford to nix Pride Funding!

[Shady]

This whole discussion is a perfect illustration as to why tax dollars shouldn't be funding political causes. And despite all of its glam and glitter, and fat ugly shirtless women, Pride is a political cause.

And Black Dogg, you really need to get over the fact that Rob Ford won the mayoral election. It's been several months. Get over it already. You're worse than a teenage girl getting over her first love.

[Black Dog]

This whole discussion is a perfect illustration as to why tax dollars shouldn't be funding political causes. And despite all of its glam and glitter, and fat ugly shirtless women, Pride is a political cause.

Empty words from an empty headed boy.

And Black Dogg, you really need to get over the fact that Rob Ford won the mayoral election. It's been several months. Get over it already. You're worse than a teenage girl getting over her first love.

Considering you're still shitting yourself over a guy who won an election three years ago in another country, your "advice" rings pretty hollow.

[dre]

Also do you really think the hardships those in Hamas and the West Bank endure are solely the fault of Israel and not the militant policies of their leaders?

I think Palestinians will be in the same boat regardless of what they do. Even if all attacks were stopped, and they unconditionally recognized Israel as a Jewish state that would not stop Israel from colonizing their land and pumping the resources off of it.

The fundamental reality is that Palestinians are weak... they arent capable of mounting any effective armed resistance to the occupation, and they dont have a position thats strong to bargain from. Israel holds all the cards... and they want keep control of all that land so they can expand into it, and continue to plunder it.

I think its similar to the case with Native North Americans... some of them tried to reason with us and be our friends... some of the tried to fight us. But no matter what they did we were gonna take their shit... Because we were ABLE to, and we WANTED to.

[Boges]

I think its similar to the case with Native North Americans... some of them tried to reason with us and be our friends... some of the tried to fight us. But no matter what they did we were gonna take their shit... Because we were ABLE to, and we WANTED to.

Yeah because that region is full of people that want to be Israel's friend. :facepalm.

[Rue]

In this case, the hammer is your belief that any opposition to Israeli policy is inherently antisemitic. It leads to decidedly circular thinking.

Continually mistating my position won't change what I in fact stated. I have never once stated oppositin to Israeli policy is inherently anti-semitic.

Now its interesting for someone who has like Bloody continually and repeatedly deliberately mis-stated what I have said over and over again, that you then have the audacity in the same response as the above to demand citations from me as to what QUIAA said.

How about you stop being such a 2 face and produce the words from me where I stated opposition to Israeli policy is anti-semitic.

You can't. However it hasn't stopped you and bloody from repeatedly responding and deliberately mis-stating my positions over and over again.

How is that Oleg for being precise.

Also Oleg-you know I agree with your criticism of me. Appreciated.

[Rue]

This whole discussion is a perfect illustration as to why tax dollars shouldn't be funding political causes. And despite all of its glam and glitter, and fat ugly shirtless women, Pride is a political cause.

And Black Dogg, you really need to get over the fact that Rob Ford won the mayoral election. It's been several months. Get over it already. You're worse than a teenage girl getting over her first love.

I would of course agree with you. I myself argue for gay pride events claiming they have now beome a celebration of culture and if the politics raised is specific to explaining the history of how gay people fought to become equal I believe that is now part of their culture and part of their story or history or tradition.

I like many gays and straights am disappointed it has been hijacked by an vocal minority who want to exploit and misappropriate a cultural celebration and turn it into an opportunity to engage in confrontational, adversarial partisan politics.

[Rue]

Right, and we're supposed to take the word of some subliterate internet poster?

Ah, here comes the antisemitism card.

Because its all in your head.

Do you have any evidence that you aren't a pedophile? I mean, you'll probably say you aren't a child-raping scumbag, but what's the real story.

That's your logic here.

Calling me a pedophile and stating its as legitimate as calling QUIAA anti-semites is exactly what I would expect from someone like you-trying to bait me personally to try avoid

having to defend QUIAA's anti-semitic platform.

You can call me an anti-semite, a homophobe, a pedophile, call me any name you want. I have more than demonstrated that people like you who claim to defend tolerance, are in fact

bigoted and ignorant people and engage in the very exercise they claim to be fighting.

You show vividly everything I challenge in trendy leftists like you-the fact you are vindicative, hateful, and engage in bully boy tactics to try shut up a Jew who won't

back down to anti-semites.

You think calling me a pedophile changes the QUIAA platform. You think it will avoid you having to debate what their platform is?

That's it. That is what you and Bloody and Shwa are, a bunch of balless, gutless cowards who name call? Lol.

You bet I throw back exactly the same verbage you do. But with respect to Oleg I am keeping it precise.

[Oleg Bach]

All nations have a set of policies that differ in scope, intelligence and morality. Israel like all other nations has it's faults - the greatest fault one can have is blind and arrogant pride. If a policy is not delivering the desired results - get rid of it or alter it.

[Shwa]

Considering you're still shitting yourself over a guy who won an election three years ago in another country, your "advice" rings pretty hollow.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

[Black Dog]

Continually mistating my position won't change what I in fact stated. I have never once stated oppositin to Israeli policy is inherently anti-semitic.

I again state, if you support the QUIAA platform or take on a position where you tell me I must stand by and say nothing while they make gay Jews feel unwelcome, I will challenge what you are supporting as being anti-semitic, now matter how morally righteous you may feel you are.

Now, I know you'll just dodge it by saying you're talking about the alleged QuAIA's pro-terror, death-to-Jews policy (the existence of which we're just going to have to take your word on), but taken alongside all your other statements, my conclusion is a reasonable one

Now its interesting for someone who has like Bloody continually and repeatedly deliberately mis-stated what I have said over and over again, that you then have the audacity in the same response as the above to demand citations from me as to what QUIAA said.

How about you stop being such a 2 face and produce the words from me where I stated opposition to Israeli policy is anti-semitic.

I just did. Now would you be so kind as to provide real references to QuAIA's pro-terror, death-to-Jews policy? Thanks in advance.

You can't. However it hasn't stopped you and bloody from repeatedly responding and deliberately mis-stating my positions over and over again.

Is that like how you continue to state that QuAIA is a hate group that supports terrorism, Hamas, the destruction of the state of Israel and and the liquidation of Jews?

[Rue]

I am now going to specifically respond to Black Dog who has repeatedly stated that the new anti-semitism I quote equates someone with being an anti-semite simply because they criticize the state of Israel.

The actual reference I gave was quite specific and clear

"Anti-Semitism is protean, mutating over the centuries into new forms. Now it has changed again, into a shape which requires a new way of thinking and a new vocabulary. The new anti-Semitism does not discriminate against Jews as individuals on account of their race. Instead, it is centred on Israel, and the denial to the Jewish people alone of the right of self-determination.

..The key motif is a kind of Holocaust inversion, with the Israelis being demonised as Nazis and the Palestinians being regarded as the new Jews. Israel and the Jews are being systematically delegitimised and dehumanised a necessary prelude to their destruction with both Islamists and the Western media using anti-Zionism as a fig-leaf for prejudices rooted in both mediaeval Christian and Nazi demonology.

This has produced an Orwellian situation in which hatred of the Jews now marches behind the Lefts banner of anti-racism and human rights, giving rise not merely to distortions, fabrications and slander about Israel in the media but also to mainstream articles discussing the malign power of the Jews over American and world policy."

Nowhere in the above does it state, criticize Israel and you are automatically considered an anti-semite and Black Dog is well aware of that and yet for him misrepresenting the above and stating it says something it does not is par for the course.

Instead of prefacing his comments and stating, inb his personal opinion he feels the above stated position is so general as to be able to define any criticism of Israel as anti-semitic-instead of being honest and stating it as his personal opinion, Black Dog again demonstrates the tactic he and Bloody have repeatedly engaged in and that is to present their subjective opinion as a fact, and more imporantly to phrase it to mis-state what the person they are interpreting actually said.

That is why I point out Black Dog is dishonest. He does not debate. What he does is to deliberately mis-state what peoples' positions are and then calls them derogatory names.

This coming from someone posing as a self-righteous defender of the right of people to have human rights.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Rue

[Black Dog]

Calling me a pedophile and stating its as legitimate as calling QUIAA anti-semites is exactly what I would expect from someone like you-trying to bait me personally to try avoid

having to defend QUIAA's anti-semitic platform.

No, I'm baiting you to prove your claims about QuAIA by demonstrating how easy it is to hurl unsubstantiated allegations around.

You can call me an anti-semite, a homophobe, a pedophile, call me any name you want. I have more than demonstrated that people like you who claim to defend tolerance, are in fact

bigoted and ignorant people and engage in the very exercise they claim to be fighting.

Ever the righteous martyr, hey? The only thing you've demonstrated is your own hypocrisy, utter inability to form a coherent argument and an inflated sense of self.

You show vividly everything I challenge in trendy leftists like you-the fact you are vindicative, hateful, and engage in bully boy tactics to try shut up a Jew who won't back down to anti-semites.

I don't really care that you're Jewish. You're a terrible debater espousing an untenable position. That's really all I need.

You think calling me a pedophile changes the QUIAA platform. You think it will avoid you having to debate what their platform is?

Actually, bloodyminded and myself have been trying like dickens to debate the QuAIA platform (the real one, not the one that exists only between your ears), but you keep ducking the questions. And right on cue you go off another one of your butthurt victim rants, perfectly time to avoid actually engaging in the debate, which, in fairness, you lost long ago when you refused to/proved unable to provide real evidence of the status of QuAIA as a hate group.

[Rue]

Blackdog I proved you a thread that stated:

"In specific reference to the repeated and deliberate misrepresentations of Black Dog and Bloody in which they claim I state any criticism of Israeli policies is anti-semitic and that is why I challenge the QUIAA I also offer this reference from Irwin Cotler as to the

new anti-semitism in the QUIAA that I challenge and in direct response to their deliberate

mis-representations which I also contend are done by them so they can avoid having

to debate the reasons why I challenge the QUIAA as anti-semitic and instead try avoid the topic by trying to make me appear to criticize ANYTHING THEY SAY FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN they challenge Israeli policies.

reference:http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/17/irwin-cotler-the-new-anti-semitism.aspx

"The indices of this new anti-Semitism are different from those of the old. Today it may be uncommon for a Jew to be refused service in a restaurant. But now Israel remains the standing object of genocidal threat from Iran and its terrorist proxies Hezbollah and Hamas; the Jewish state is singled out in the international arena while the major human rights violators of our time enjoy exculpatory immunity; the legitimacy of Israel is discriminatorily scrutinized to the extent that, for the purpose of country groupings at the United Nations, it is considered not even to "exist" in Asia; and less sophisticated voices spread rumors of Israelis injecting Palestinians with the AIDS virus. Jews may no longer be denied equal housing, but they are now being denied an equal homeland.

As New York Times commentator Thomas Friedman put it: "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanctions, out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."

It is this escalation of anti-Semitism that necessitates the establishment of an International Parliamentary Coalition to confront this oldest and most enduring of hatreds. Silence is not an option. The time has come to act. For as history has taught us only too well: While it may begin with Jews, it does not end with Jews. Anti-Semitism is the canary in the mine shaft of evil, and it threatens us all."

THE ABOVE WORDS DIRECTLY RESPONDED TO THE FALSE AND REPEATED MISTATEMENT OF BLACK DOG CLAIMING I AND THOSE I QUOTE CRITICIZE ANYONE WHO CRITICIZES ISRAEL OF BEING ANTI SEMITIC.

Black Dog shows he is intellectually dishonest for these reasons I would contend:

1-he will not preface his remark of the above position by stating in his personal opinion he finds the above definition so generic it allows for any criticism of Israel to be defined as anti-semitism-instead he poses his subjective opinion as a statement uttered by the above;

2-he then has repeatedly refused to provide a position explaining why the definition is so generic as to allow any criticism of Israel to be defined as anti-semitism.

I expect Black Dog to be intellectually dishonest and refuse to preface and introduce his subjective opinions as such. I have come to expect them to simply state them as if they are fact.I have also come to expect him to render a subjective interpretation of another's position as a statement they made when they never stated it.

I also expct Black Dog to refuse to defend his positions and throw out the subjective name calling. Its what Black Dog and Bloody and Shwa do-engage in the very exercises they claim others engage in.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Rue

[Rue]

Here specifically is the definition of new anti-semitism I contend the QUIAA's web site in its entirety engages in:

reference:http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/09/irwin-cotler-defining-the-new-anti-semitism/

"The new anti-Jewishness overlaps with classical anti-Semitism but is distinguishable from it. Indeed, it almost needs a new vocabulary to define it — but it can best be identified using an equality-based, anti-discrimination juridical perspective.

In a word, classical anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever society they inhabit. The new anti-Semitism involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations, with Israel as the targeted “collective Jew among the nations.”

[Black Dog]

I am going to carefully respond and present once again my position for stating

why QUIAA is anti-semitic, and why it is calling for violence against any Jew

who supports Israel's right to exist or the right of any Jew to express universal

sufferage.

I will do so because Bl;ack Dog and Bloody rather than debate th QUIAA platform

feel it acceptable instead to call me a pedophile, anti-semite and homophobe and

try switch the debate from the contents of the QUIAA platform to attacking me personally.

First off I will quote from this definition of "new anti-semitism" to preface what I will

contend is the pith and substance of the QUIAA platform as manifested on their web site.

Let me get this straight: After indignantly protesting the charge that you are branding any criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitic, you proceed to support your position by employing an expanded definition of antisemitism that was created for the express purpose of equating criticism of Israeli with antisemitism.

[Oleg Bach]

Let me get this straight: After indignantly protesting the charge that you are branding any criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitic, you proceed to support your position by employing an expanded definition of antisemitism that was created for the express purpose of equating criticism of Israeli with antisemitism.

Anit-semitism? Anti-intellecutalism? Anti- stupidism...Anti-everything ISM - There was this old crook that I knew - yah - the same guy - the old arms dealer - He had another job as some sort of finacial advisor to India ---- He was a bit of a monster but he said one thing that sort of made sense..."I have been all around the world and I have seen all the ISM's - and it is not a pretty sight"....enough of this crap.

[Rue]

The QUIAA states that Jews in the Muslim world were not mistreated. The reference to Jews and how they were treated in the Middle East and the exercise of stating the current conflict is not related to religious conflict between Muslims and Jews is a central QUIAA platform and a blatant example of new anti-semitism and the attempt to revise history to censor and white wash and try hide the actual anti-semitism that flows from the Muslim religion that is still rampant in the Middle East and very much as a result of the sharia law system that does not seperate Muslims and their religion from their political states.

I have argued on this web site many times it is wrong to automatically depict all Muslims as Jew haters or anti-semites, but I will argue that there is fundamentally in Islam to this day, a prevalent attitude in many religious leaders dominating the Middle East an engrained belief that Jews should not have a country flowing from their belief that only Muslims should have Muslim states as part of a prevailing dhimmitude concept.

I offer this reference in direct counter arguement to what I contend is the anti-semuitic revisionism of the QUIAA trying to suggest the current conflict as to the State of Israel's existence is not rooted in and related to certain Muslim concepts being promoted by certain Muslim ideologues and clergy-I do not believe though personally it gives me the right to hate Muslims or negatively stereotype them-it does give me the right to criticize those aspects of their religion that I do the same with when it comes to fundamentalist Judaism and Christian approaches as well.

reference:http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Anti-Semitism.htm

" Arab/Muslim anti-Semitism

Considering the treatment of Jews in European countries, the experience of Jews under Islamic rule was relatively benign, , giving rise to the idea that Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in perfect harmony. That is far from the truth, but it is true of the best of times and the best rulers in Islam, such as the Ottoman Sultans who invited Jews to settle in Turkey after they had been expelled by Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions, or to settle in communities such as Tiberias and Safed in the holy land.

The status of Jews under Islam, was variable, depending on the time and place. The Quran has mixed injunctions about Jews and Christians, variously praising them as people of the book and damning them as hypocrites because they didn't follow Muhammad. Early in his career, Muhammad attacked and destroyed the Jewish town of Khaybar, and the cry "Khaybar, Khaybar" became the rallying cry of Muslim anti-Jewish riots. In all cases, Jews, like Christians were formally considered to be protected second class citizens in Muslim countries. Only Muslims could fight in wars, and therefore Jews and Christians could not receive land grants in conquered countries as knights, which was a major source of wealth and social status. Jews and Christians paid a special tax and usually had to wear special clothing. Jews were confined to a "Mellah" (ghetto) in certain places. In many countries such as Morocco and Yemen, it was customary for little children to throw rocks at Jews and curse them. At times Jews were forced to convert to Islam or be expelled as under the Al-Mohad dynasty in Morocco, beginning in 1146.

Jews were generally despised as wily but weak people with no courage. For example, following the revolution of the Young Turks in Ottoman Turkey, Jews could serve in the army. A Turkish joke related that at great length it was possible to recruit and train a Jewish unit. They were then sent to the front. They returned quickly however, because they had been scared by a gang of bandits that they met on the road. A Muslim hadith (legend associated with the Qur'an) relates that the end of days, Muslims will kill all the Jews, who will try to hide in trees. Only one sort of tree will agree to hide them however. This hadith is repeated in the charter of the Hamas organization, but it is of venerable origin.

In modern times, beginning in the 19th century, Muslim and Arab countries adopted European anti-Semitic themes such as the blood libel (an incident occurred in Damascus in 1840) and later, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, publication of Mein Kampf and other trappings of European Christian anti-Semitism such as Holocaust denial. Cartoons in Arab and Muslim journals regularly show Jews as having the characteristic "traits" of anti-Semitic portrayals such as bent posture, beady eyes and hooked noses.

A more extensive treatment of the historical position of Jews in Arab countries, including source readings, is given in Jews in Arab lands: Introduction and readings,"

[Rue]

I now ask readers to go to the QUIAA and judge for themself whether it engages in negative stereotypes of Israel that go futher and negatively stereotype Jews as well.

I contend not just the contents of the QUIAA web site but the comments of its leaders and followers in public rallies and at gay pride events have violated the below listed exercises which Alan Dershowitz provides on a checklist of factors he believes tend to indicate anti-semitism and I concur with and can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/when-legit-criticism-cros_b_3524.html

1. Employing stereotypes against Israel that have traditionally been directed against "the Jews."

3. Characterizing Israel as “the worst,” when it is clear that this is not an accurate comparative assessment.

5. Singling out only Israel for sanctions for policies that are widespread among other nations, or demanding that Jews be better or more moral than others because of their history as victims.

6. Discriminating against individuals only because they are Jewish Israelis, without regard to their individual views or actions.

7. Emphasizing and stereotyping certain characteristics among supporters of Israel that have traditionally been used in anti-Semitic attacks, for example, “pushy” American Jews, Jews “who control the media,” and Jews “who control financial markets.”

8. Blaming all Jews or “the Jews” for Israel’s policies or imperfections.

9. Physically or verbally attacking Jewish institutions, such as synagogues or cemeteries, as a means of protesting against Israel.

10. Stereotyping all Jews as fitting into a particular political configuration (such as “neo-conservatives,” Zionists, or supporters of Sharon).

11. Accusing Jews and only Jews of having dual loyalty.

12. Blaming Israel for the problems of the world and exaggerating the influence of the Jewish state on world affairs.

13. Denying, minimizing, or trivializing the Holocaust as part of a campaign against Israel.

14. Discriminating against only Israel in its qualification for certain positions or statuses, such as on the Security Council, the International Court of Justice, and the International Red Cross.

15. Blaming the Jews or Israel, rather than the anti-Semites, for anti-Semitism or for increases in anti-Jewish attitudes.

17. Falsely claiming that all legitimate criticism of Israeli policies is immediately and widely condemned by Jewish leaders as anti-Semitic, despite any evidence to support this accusation.

18. Denying that even core anti-Semitism—racial stereotypes, Nazi comparisons, desecration of synagogues, Holocaust denial—qualifies as anti-Semitic.

19. Seeking to delegitimate Israel precisely as it moves toward peace.

[Rue]

BlackDig, Bloody et al have called me a pedophile, homophone and anti-semitic because I have challenged thwe QUIAA as anti-semitic. They do so to avoid debating the QUIAA platform.

The test I use in addition to the above definitions and references is what I refer to as the 3D test which I now quote and can be found at:

http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-sharansky-f04.htm

"Recognizing the "New Anti-Semitism"

Moreover, the so-called "new anti-Semitism" poses a unique challenge. Whereas classical anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, "new anti-Semitism" is aimed at the Jewish state. Since this anti-Semitism can hide behind the veneer of legitimate criticism of Israel, it is more difficult to expose. Making the task even harder is that this hatred is advanced in the name of values most of us would consider unimpeachable, such as human rights.

Nevertheless, we must be clear and outspoken in exposing the new anti-Semitism. I believe that we can apply a simple test - I call it the "3D" test - to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.

The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.

The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism."

[Oleg Bach]

LET'S CLEAR THIS UP - SO-CALLED ANTI-SEMITISM ORINGATED IN THE PROPOGATED AND MANIPULATIVE HATE MONGERING THAT STATED -

THE JEWS KILLED CHRIST....THIS IS BULLSHIT.

Who was in control of Judea at the time of Christ? It was the state of Rome.

Who was marshalling and controling the army and police force at this time? It was the state of Rome.

Who ultimately was in full control of the judicary system that proclaimed innocence or guilt of someone being tried?

IT WAS THE STATE OF ROME.... The Jew that did not like Christ - for various reasons may not have even been Judeans as Christ mentions in scripture. So what we should have in full and forceful reality is anti-Italianism......

The Romans executed Jesus the Christ and proclaimed with a sign above his head that he was the King of Judea...they executed the rightful heir to the throne...

It is fantastically ironic that Rome becomes the centre of the universal Christain church - with saint peter the betrayer as the foundation - and Paul as the writer of the doctrine - who never even met Jesus...

If Hitler and his croonies wanted to be accurate they would have genocided the decendants of the Romans and Italy would now be Israel.

BUT as with all spiritual movements they become cults..The Italian mafia have a ritual - to be head of the Mafia - you must kill a totally innocent and pure man...and suck up his power and rule....Rome did exactly that...so back off the Jews and go get your revenge starting with the POPE - or f**king forget about it - I suggest we all forget about it and move forward.

[Boges]

Let me get this straight: After indignantly protesting the charge that you are branding any criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitic, you proceed to support your position by employing an expanded definition of antisemitism that was created for the express purpose of equating criticism of Israeli with antisemitism.

Sort of like expanding the definition of Apartheid to include the situation in Israel when all other definitions of Apartheid include racial segregation.

Or calling someone who disagrees with certain parts of the Gay agenda a homophobe when they aren't viscerally afraid of homosexuals like the term phobia would indicate?

The left constantly co-opts words to suit themselves. Yet you seem indignant when others do the same?

BTW I don't think many people who don't support Israel are anti-semitic. I just think they're hopelessly hypocritical in their condemnation of anything connected with US policies.

[Rue]

Black Dog and Bloody take on the classic tactic of denying QUIAA supports terrorism demanding I provide quotes, while at the same time accusing my words of manifesting anti-semitism and homophobia, accusing anyone of criticizing Israel of being anti-semitic and now pedophilia with never once providing any alleged words from me. What makes their actions even more cowardly and pathetic is they have repeatedely engaged in the exerecise while demanding of me (quotes) the very thing they refuse to do. It is this double standard I would argue is a deeply engrained behaviour that comes from people who feel self-entitled and superior to me and those they disagree with.

The following comes from an article posted on the QUIAA which they advocate and stand for:

The article entitled "Jews Confront Zionism" I contend in fact contains from beginnining to end unsunstantiated subjectively opined negative generalizations of Jews.

"What Im labeling as a new transnationalism is resolutely anticolonialist and anti-imperialist, ambivalently antinationalist, firmly if often inchoately anticapitalist, generally anti-authoritarian, and in no way organizationally unified. It recognizes the importance of resistance in the belly of the beast while affirming self-determination in an array of communities of resistance and the right of liberation struggles to choose the tactics which they find most suitable to that end."

I contend the leaders and followers of the QUIAA have made it clear they stand for the above.

I contend the words " choose the tactics which they find most suitable to that end" is a

reference calling for the engagement of terrorism.

I leave it to you to decide for yourself whether this is innocent rhetoric or not.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Rue

[Rue]

Since Black Dog and Bloody are now experts on the QUIAA and accuse me of being a pedophile, anti-semite and homophobe for challenging their platform how about you ask them what this means which is one of the stated objectives of the QUIAA:

"foster cultures of radical queer organizing".

[Black Dog]

Sort of like expanding the definition of Apartheid to include the situation in Israel when all other definitions of Apartheid include racial segregation.

But the argument is that Israeli apartheid includes racial segregation. That's not my argument, mind you: mine is that Israeli apartheid is a distinct phenomenon, much like (and I'll pause here to state that that follows is only for illustrative purposes) Italian Fascism was a distinct entity from that practiced by Germany, despite the shared moniker.

Or calling someone who disagrees with certain parts of the Gay agenda a homophobe when they aren't viscerally afraid of homosexuals like the term phobia would indicate?

You are aware that words are defined as much by common usage as they are by dictionaries?

The left constantly co-opts words to suit themselves. Yet you seem indignant when others do the same?

I'm not objecting to the word being co-opted. I'm objecting to how its being co-opted and to what end.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Black Dog

[Boges]

You are aware that words are defined as much by common usage as they are by dictionaries?

So you should have no problem with the term "Gay" being used as a pejorative. Since of course many people using it as a pejorative aren't being "homophobic" It's just the way language evolves afterall.