Mayor Ford to nix Pride Funding!

[bloodyminded]

Hamas is the opposition to Israel in Palestine, right now it's either one or the other. Undermining Israel emboldens Hamas.

Here's an interesting article by Christopher Hitchens.

Boat People Some questions for the "activists" aboard the Gaza flotilla.

Whether you agree or not, fervently opposing Israel like people on the left do indirectly or directly supports Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

You know, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Really? Then summoning Hitchens as "evidence," tacitly agreeing with his perspective, somewhat undermines your whole point here.

His views on the flotilla aside, Hitchen is openly, outright anti-Zionist. He has long declared Israel to be brutal and oppressive to the Palestinians; in fact, he's much harsher in his condemnation that the majority of the people with whom you debate the matter here.

Edited July 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

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.

The tautology is so pitch-perfect, one could almost admire its inner logic.

[bloodyminded]

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.

I didn't call you a pedophile. Black Dog didn't either, actually, but rather produced an argument ad absurdum to underline your attack methods.

I did call you a homophobe; then I offered an olive branch in which I said it might have been my own misperception; then you rejected my tentative peace offering (which is your own business, I agree); but then you admitted openly to being a homophobe, making my original assertion a plain observation with which you agree.

I called you an anti-semite based on the very criteria you used against myself: zero. As i stated clearly earlier. I was exposing your foolishness, nothing more.

Finally, I tried to debate the platform, notably your insistence that the group "calls for killing Jews" and "in the open."

You're the one who has refused, no doubt because it's hard to offer evidence for stuff you make up out of whole cloth.

[bloodyminded]

What if the intent isn't "homophobic"?

Originally Gay meant happy. Word's evolve.

Considering Homophobic doesn't mean phobic at all.

If you object to the kindness of having "hate" reduced in the public domain to "fear," I'm sure some other more precise phrase could be eventually established to delineate the the bigoted little hate-mongers. Any suggestions?

Edited July 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Black Dog]

If you object to the kindness of having "hate" reduced in the public domain to "fear," I'm sure some other more precise phrase could be eventually established to delineate the the bigoted little hate-mongers. Any suggestions?

Antisodimitism?

[bloodyminded]

Antisodimitism?

The problem is that more heterosexuals--perhaps not by percentage, but certainly in real numbers--are more prevalently engaged in such apocalyptic, civilization-destroying sex practices than are homosexuals.

But if the "homophobes" can come up with a suitably self-insulting term, I support it on principle.

[Shady]

Awww, I sense a love connection. Good for you guys!

[Shwa]

Awww, I sense a love connection. Good for you guys!

Awww, such tenderness and sensitivity from Shady. It's about time.

Heckuva job Shady. Heckuva job...

[Rue]

Bloody I am responding to your latest attempts to bait me personally.

You stated:

"I didn't call you a pedophile. Black Dog didn't either, actually, but rather produced an argument ad absurdum to underline your attack methods."

You both have engaged in personal attacks against me and others you disagree with-you engage in the very tactics of intolerance, bigotry and hatred you accuse me and others who disagree with QUIAA's platform of.

For the record I accused Black Dog of referring to me as a pedophile and you referring to me as an anti-semite.

You want to engage in the above bullshit attempt to deny Black Dog's words go ahead his words are clear in intent when he stated:

"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."

This is precisely the kind of level the 2 of you are at.

You stated:

"I did call you a homophobe; then I offered an olive branch in which I said it might have been my own misperception..."

Yes then in the same breath called me an anti-semite and homophobe again. Lol.

"but then you admitted openly to being a homophobe, making my original assertion a plain observation with which you agree."

The above shows once again how you try justify your name calling. What I did state is all of us have ignorance and hatred towards others. Your comments are absurd. The fact that I admit honestly that I like you have ignorances, biases and hatred, did not justify your comments. Your comments equated my challenging the QUIAA and using certain sarcastic references of both being homophobic. You claimed the 2 gave you grounds to smeer me and say I hate homosexual peoples. That is what makes you a dispicable low life as does this latest attempt to weasel your way out of the smeer and say its accurate.

The more you respond the more you make it clear why I consider you and Bloody two faced righteous hypocrites. You want to continue spinning I am against gay people because of what I said, go ahead. My words and yours speak for themselves.

You stated:

"I called you an anti-semite based on the very criteria you used against myself: zero."

You again pathetically attempt to justify your name calling. I clearly stated that if you support the QUIAA's platform against Israel it can be challenged as anti-semitic. No matter how many times you try mis-state what I said and then say it justifies you name calling it doesn't change the fact that while I am crystal clear and specific in providing a basis for my opinions you provide no basis, just the name calling as you do now.

You stated:

"As i stated clearly earlier. I was exposing your foolishness, nothing more."

No you demonstrated you refused to defend the QUIAA platform and instead feel you can simply state they are not anti semitic and leave it at that and then call me personal names.

Black Dog has engaged in the exact same exercise. Neither of you addressed the QUIAA platform and still won't and instead simply keep avoiding the topic instead trying to switch it to justify calling me names and not providing bases for your positions.

You stated:

"Finally, I tried to debate the platform, notably your insistence that the group "calls for killing Jews" and "in the open."

To date you haven't. To date your words do not debate the platform of the QUIAA and its words that it has stated both in public and in private. To date you continue to refuse to refer to its platform and continue to instead name call me trying to pass that off as debate.

You stated:

"You're the one who has refused, no doubt because it's hard to offer evidence for stuff you make up out of whole cloth."

My positions were clearly stated on the this series of threads. You have yet to respond to them instead doing what you did in the above sentence-name call.

Bloody all you have evidenced once again is you came on this forum to name call me when I challenged the QUIAA's platform.

No amount of name calling changes what I have stated about the QUIAA nor can it substitute for you refusing to explain how their call to dismantle Israel with violence is not

terrorism.

Put up or shut up. Prove the QUIAA does not believe in violence. I provided the passage which says they support any means necessary to rid the Middle East of Israel. You have yet to respond to that reference.

What next Bloody, will you again call me a homophobe, an anti-semite, or chirp in with Bloody that he never referred to me as a pedophile and like you the name calling was to

"teach me a lesson"?

What a joke. Your rationalization of calling me names is to teach me a lesson?

Lol. Yes I know. Demonize and insult the Jew to teach him a lesson. You do realize the more you spew the more you manifest the most basic kind of hatred?

Say now Bloody do you think calling this Jew a pedophile, homo-phobe and anti-semite because I challenge the anti-semitic platform of QUIAA to be new? Do you think I am the first Jew to be the target of the venom of trendy leftists like you? Lol. You think you are putting this Jew in his place with your name calling and teaching me a lesson? Lol.

Oleg come get this albino baboon off my lawn before he slips on the feces he's throwing and wedges even further up his lesson teaching buttox.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Rue

[bloodyminded]

Bloody I am responding to your latest attempts to bait me personally.

Your ongoing victim-complex about people trying to "bait" you, added to your parodic insistence that I'm the Goy Oppressing the Jew, might be amusing to some, but I think it's sad. It's also boring, incidentally.

For the record I accused Black Dog of referring to me as a pedophile and you referring to me as an anti-semite.

Oh, you don't like being unfairly called an anti-semite? I hear that, brother. I don't care for it either.

"I did call you a homophobe; then I offered an olive branch in which I said it might have been my own misperception..."

Yes then in the same breath called me an anti-semite and homophobe again. Lol.

Wrong. An outright lie. I certainly did not. Some people would consider this type of in-your-face dishonesty to be ballsy; personally, I think it's the opposite.

The more you respond the more you make it clear why I consider you and Bloody two faced righteous hypocrites.

You're confused; you now don't even know to whom you're responding.

You do realize the more you spew the more you manifest the most basic kind of hatred?

I don't hate you nor anybody else.

[Rue]

Black Dog stated:

"In practice, however, the "new antisemitism" is used as a cudgel to beat down opposition to Israeli policies by invoking the spectre of ethno/religious bias. In short, it's handy way of calling someone a Jew-hater without actually saying as much. That's what makes it so mendacious a construct."

The above is classic Black Dog debating style. He offers no point. What he does is simply name call.

What Black Dog refuses to respond to and instead tries to substitute as debate with the above name calling is how it is he feels Jew should be the only group in the world who should not be allowed a state. He does not apply the above standard to Christians or Muslims who have nations that do the exact same thing for their religious followers with the state. He does not explain how by providing a fast track for consideration for Israeli citizenship, this discriminates against non Jewish Israelis any more that law of returns do the same for the Irish, Japanese, Croatians, Czechs, Italians, Chinese, and on and on.

Its only Israel that is accused of ethno-religious bias. No other people in the world and their countries when they provide fast track laws of return for identified groups of people are defined this way.

No where does Black Dog explain how it is Muslim states can practice dhimmitude and institutionalized discrimination that renders non Muslims inferior second class citizens

while the same Muslims when citizens of Israel live with the highest standard of living in the Middle East and unlike Jews in Muslim countries, have access to the same schools,

hospitals, government services as Jews do. Where is the explanation from Black Dog how if there is ethno religious discrimination this explains why Muslims have their own courts for religious and family matters, elect their own knesset members and are guaranteed beings served by the government in Arabic. Nowhere does he explain how if there is discrimination Israeli Muslims refuse to renounce their citizenship and move to Arab countries.

The silence from Black Dog speaks for itself. It is typical of the leftist b.s. he spews. It simply name calls and asks people to assume Israel discriminates against non Jews because it was created to protect Jews from world discrimination. It simply assumes and asks you to assume and applies an assumption and standards of correctness it does not apply to any other people-and for this reason it is by me and others challenged as anti-semitic-precisely because it postulates that if Jews care to express their group identity through universal sufferage this is wrong but if Muslims, Christians or any other people does the exact same thing-Black Dog will say nothing-his comments are saved only for Jews.

Why the double standard? Why does he select out only Jews as the only people in the world he says should npt be able to express themselves through universal sufferage?

That is what Black Dog will not discuss or debate. No instead he name calls with the same

pathetic, shallow, pop trendy leftist names.

Oh but wait, here's another comment from Black Dog:

"As opposed to passing off quotes and references from noted Israel apologists like Alan Dershowitz as gospel truth?"

The above once again manigests the classic Black Dog approach. He name calls and smeers. He offers no substance in response to any position he challenges, just name calling. More to the point he once again lies deliberately which he has done since he started responding to me. Nowhere in any of my responses did I pass of Alan Dershowitz as gospel truth. That is a lie. I am actually tired of having to point out that Black Dog spews subjective opinions as to what he thinks the opinions of others are, as fact and in this case the fact that I believe Dershowitz speaks the gospel truth. Nowhere did I say that or argue that and that is par for the course with Black Dog-engage in name calling, and deliberate mis-statement and categorization of the references I have used to impugn their context and intent to try

debase them and me personally without having to debate them.

Or how about this statement:

"Or using your own biased interpretation to claim QuAIA is a supporter of terrorism?"

More name calling. Again Black Dog does not respond to my references and positions-simply calls me bias which is as meaningful as me saying the same about him. Of course I have a bias and so does Black Dog. The difference is he spews sanctimonious presumptions about it to suggest I am the only one with the bias. More to the point, he has yet to offer any

arguement to suggest the words of QUIAA support peaceful co-existence with Israel because he knows he can't.

Now Black Dog you asked:

"What constitutes fact in this case?"

The fact you have yet to provide one word from QUIAA to suggest they support the right of Jews to live in a Jewish state and be free of terrorism and violence to try remove them from their country. The fact you refuse to address the issues I addressed above or explain what the QUIAA means by saying they support any means necessary to resist the existence of Israel.

I state again for me it is fact that when someone says on a web site they support any means necessary to overthrow Israel and support "resistance" and "liberation groups" in their stuggle against Israel and attend parades where they scream out, fist by fist blow by blow Israel has to go-is not calling for mutual respect, co-existence and tolerance of Jews as a people with a right to universal sufferage and calls for violence against Jews who choose to express universal sufferage.

Black Dog you stated:

"For someone who was whinging and bleating about how you were being told to be silenced, I find your choice of words here to be rather amusing."

You find it amusing? Oh really dear. How nice. There we go again with the holier then thou snot faced, arrogant, presumptious superiority complex. That bwana in you just can't resist putting on its pith helmet and telling the Jew how amusing he is. Tee hee. Haw haw. The Jew is funny. Look at the silly Jew. Tee hee hee.

Black Dog the attempt to pull that snot nosed act with me, it clearly doesn't work now does it. I just keep up this habit of shoving your head in your buttox. Its no wonder of course Bloody shares the same perspective.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog stated:

"In practice, however, the "new antisemitism" is used as a cudgel to beat down opposition to Israeli policies by invoking the spectre of ethno/religious bias. In short, it's handy way of calling someone a Jew-hater without actually saying as much. That's what makes it so mendacious a construct."

The above is classic Black Dog debating style. He offers no point. What he does is simply name call.

Who am I calling names here? Did you even read the bit you quoted?

What Black Dog refuses to respond to and instead tries to substitute as debate with the above name calling is how it is he feels Jew should be the only group in the world who should not be allowed a state.

I have said no such thing.

He does not apply the above standard to Christians or Muslims who have nations that do the exact same thing for their religious followers with the state.

Name those other states that offer citizenship on religious grounds.

He does not explain how by providing a fast track for consideration for Israeli citizenship, this discriminates against non Jewish Israelis any more that law of returns do the same for the Irish, Japanese, Croatians, Czechs, Italians, Chinese, and on and on.

The policy gives a Jew from Omsk more right to Israeli citizenship than a Palestinian with direct and tangible connections to the land. It's discriminatory on that basis.

Its only Israel that is accused of ethno-religious bias. No other people in the world and their countries when they provide fast track laws of return for identified groups of people are defined this way.

The basis of how those groups are defined is the issue. Most countries give the right of return to citizens or descendants thereof. I know of no other country that does so on the basis of religious belief.

No where does Black Dog explain how it is Muslim states can practice dhimmitude and institutionalized discrimination that renders non Muslims inferior second class citizens while the same Muslims when citizens of Israel live with the highest standard of living in the Middle East and unlike Jews in Muslim countries, have access to the same schools, hospitals, government services as Jews do.

Sorry, what am I supposed to explain here?

Where is the explanation from Black Dog how if there is ethno religious discrimination this explains why Muslims have their own courts for religious and family matters, elect their own knesset members and are guaranteed beings served by the government in Arabic.

Well gee, I guess that means there is no discrimination, then.

Nowhere does he explain how if there is discrimination Israeli Muslims refuse to renounce their citizenship and move to Arab countries.

Isn't part of your argument that Israel treats its Arabs much better than its neighbours do?

The silence from Black Dog speaks for itself. It is typical of the leftist b.s. he spews. It simply name calls and asks people to assume Israel discriminates against non Jews because it was created to protect Jews from world discrimination.

Israel's institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country’s Arab citizens and the Palestinian population is a matter of record. Here's just one reference from the U.S. State Department's 2010 Human Rights Report:

Citizens of Arab origin and Palestinian residents of the West Bank and East Jerusalem living in the country faced discrimination in public and private life.

...

Arab and other minority residents of the country faced official and societal discrimination in a number of areas, including employment, education, land ownership, and naturalization.

There's a number of specific references under "National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities".

It simply assumes and asks you to assume and applies an assumption and standards of correctness it does not apply to any other people-and for this reason it is by me and others challenged as anti-semitic-precisely because it postulates that if Jews care to express their group identity through universal sufferage this is wrong but if Muslims, Christians or any other people does the exact same thing-Black Dog will say nothing-his comments are saved only for Jews.Why the double standard? Why does he select out only Jews as the only people in the world he says should npt be able to express themselves through universal sufferage?

You really need to stop talking about universal suffrage, as you obviously don't know what it means.

That is what Black Dog will not discuss or debate. No instead he name calls with the same

pathetic, shallow, pop trendy leftist names.

It doesn't look like you understand the concept of irony either.

The above once again manigests the classic Black Dog approach. He name calls and smeers. He offers no substance in response to any position he challenges, just name calling. More to the point he once again lies deliberately which he has done since he started responding to me. Nowhere in any of my responses did I pass of Alan Dershowitz as gospel truth. That is a lie.

You were complaining about me not prefacing my statements with some disclaimer that the content was "subjective" which is about the dumbest thing I've seen on a discussion board. What else are we talking about here but opinions? My response referencing Dershowitz was pointing out that you fail to provide such a disclaimer when you present your views and those of others that support your view point. Why the double standard?

More name calling. Again Black Dog does not respond to my references and positions-simply calls me bias which is as meaningful as me saying the same about him. Of course I have a bias and so does Black Dog. The difference is he spews sanctimonious presumptions about it to suggest I am the only one with the bias.

I don't care that you're biased towards Israel. It's really only an issue in that your bias is actually colouring your interpretation of QuAIA's platform and informing your opinions on the matter.

Take this as an example:

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".

Now most people with passing familiarity with leftist causes would recognize that "radical" in this sense is a buzzword that certain lefty types have adopted to show their anti-capitalist/anti-imperialist bona fides. It's pretty meaningless, really. But your stance seems to be that this is a code for violence (flamboyantly gay suicide bombers perhaps?). That's bias at work.

More to the point, he has yet to offer any arguement to suggest the words of QUIAA support peaceful co-existence with Israel because he knows he can't.

I don't need to because that was never part of the discussion. The claim (made by you) was that QuAIA is antisemitic and supports terrorism. It's on you to make the case and, in my subjective opinion, you have failed.

The fact you have yet to provide one word from QUIAA to suggest they support the right of Jews to live in a Jewish state and be free of terrorism and violence to try remove them from their country.

Again, the discussion is about what they have said, not what they have not. I'd offer an analogy here, but it would probably sail over your head and you'll just spend the next dozen posts crying about some imagined insult.

The fact you refuse to address the issues I addressed above or explain what the QUIAA means by saying they support any means necessary to resist the existence of Israel.

Citation? You have only provided one direct reference to QuAIA's platform and it did not include this statement.

I state again for me it is fact that when someone says on a web site they support any means necessary to overthrow Israel and support "resistance" and "liberation groups" in their stuggle against Israel and attend parades where they scream out, fist by fist blow by blow Israel has to go-is not calling for mutual respect, co-existence and tolerance of Jews as a people with a right to universal sufferage and calls for violence against Jews who choose to express universal sufferage.

Again: cite? I'm talking about a primary source here.

You find it amusing? Oh really dear. How nice. There we go again with the holier then thou snot faced, arrogant, presumptious superiority complex. That bwana in you just can't resist putting on its pith helmet and telling the Jew how amusing he is. Tee hee. Haw haw. The Jew is funny. Look at the silly Jew. Tee hee hee.

Tissue?

Black Dog the attempt to pull that snot nosed act with me, it clearly doesn't work now does it. I just keep up this habit of shoving your head in your buttox. Its no wonder of course Bloody shares the same perspective.

The surest sign of someone losing a debate on a forum like this is when they start talking about winning it.

Say now Bloody do you think calling this Jew a pedophile, homo-phobe and anti-semite because I challenge the anti-semitic platform of QUIAA to be new? Do you think I am the first Jew to be the target of the venom of trendy leftists like you? Lol. You think you are putting this Jew in his place with your name calling and teaching me a lesson? Lol.

Your insistence on harping on these so-called personal attacks loses a lot of steam when you consider:

1) No one actually called you a pedophile

2) You admitted to being a homophobe in just those very words.

3) You continue to freely bandy about accusations of antisemitism against bloodyminded and myself, as well as QuAIA (based on a spurious redefinition of the term antisemitism).

At best, you are a hypocrite.

Black Dog has engaged in the exact same exercise. Neither of you addressed the QUIAA platform and still won't and instead simply keep avoiding the topic instead trying to switch it to justify calling me names and not providing bases for your positions.

I've already addressed your issues with QuAIA when I pointed out your arguments were premised on what I regard as logically flawed and outright mendacious redefinition of antisemitism. All your arguments flowed from that point, as well as your subjective interpretations of certain phrases pulled from the platform, some of which you picked up and ran with god only knows where.

[bloodyminded]

Now most people with passing familiarity with leftist causes would recognize that "radical" in this sense is a buzzword that certain lefty types have adopted to show their anti-capitalist/anti-imperialist bona fides. It's pretty meaningless, really. But your stance seems to be that this is a code for violence (flamboyantly gay suicide bombers perhaps?). That's bias at work.

Yeah, that one's a real red herring. "Foster cultures of radical queer organizing" is, as you say, a common kind of leftist rhetoric. And while I find such phraseology a bit on the empty side, ultimately it means exactly what it says. There's nothing at all sinsiter about it. Tea Party activists (sans its corporate and political overseers) have precisely and unambiguously the same approach, once you subtract the word "queer." They wouldn't use the same rhetoric (they have their own trite phraseology to contend with), but the overarching substance is identical.

Evidently it's the word "radical" that threw him for a loop. He must think it connotes (or maybe denotes) "Islamist radicals."

[The_Squid]

"In practice, however, the "new antisemitism" is used as a cudgel to beat down opposition to Israeli policies by invoking the spectre of ethno/religious bias. In short, it's handy way of calling someone a Jew-hater without actually saying as much. That's what makes it so mendacious a construct."

The above is classic Black Dog debating style. He offers no point. What he does is simply name call.

OK... I'll bite... who and how did he "name call" in the statement that you quoted? I saw no names mentioned and no insults thrown.... what did I miss???

[bloodyminded]

OK... I'll bite... who and how did he "name call" in the statement that you quoted? I saw no names mentioned and no insults thrown.... what did I miss???

Disagreeing with Rue constitutes "name calling" in this fascinating paradigm to which we have unaccountably subjected ourselves.

Disagreeing with Rue also strongly suggests that we are Goy trying to keep the Jews out of our country clubs...a metaphor which Rue promiscuously uses here, presumably believing it clever.

Edited July 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Rue]

blackdog stated the followin3 things he attributes to me.

1) No one actually called you a pedophile.

2) You admitted to being a homophobe in just those very words.

3) You continue to freely bandy about accusations of antisemitism against bloodyminded and myself, as well as QuAIA (based on a spurious redefinition of the term antisemitism)"

In regards to 1, in post 387, Black Dog stated:

" 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."

Blackdog claims the above does not mean he was calling me a pedophile. I will let readers decide the intent and context of the comments in post 387. What I will now say is Black dog shows what I consider is classic passive aggressive behaviour. He utters the accusation but then tries to couch it as an analogy to suggest my position of the QUIAA being anti-semitic

has the same basis.

I state this-Black Dog is a coward. This is the kind of debating style a coward uses. They insult and belittle and then pretend the intent of their words is innocent. It is precisely why I challenge Black Dog on this board and in particular have taken so much time responding.

To me Black Dog epitomizes the insulting, abusive bigot he claims to challenge. To me he exemplifies with his words the very things he accuses others of.

I state that his comment in 387 was part of a series of personal name calling he initiated and then tries to avoid taking responsibility for and holding himself accountable for.

The analogy was petulant. Something I full expect from Black Dog given the comments he has made in these threads and I will throw them back in his face.

In regards to 2, again for someone so quick in his responses to demand quotes and citations, again Black Dog engages in his favourite exercise-the mis-statement of alledged comments I made. He does not site them because he knows they do not exist. Instead he chooses to be intellectually dishonest and present his comment as if I came on this board and stated a position I hate gays.

Black Dog shows once again the substance and credibility of his positions-he provides no citation from me and I say again-this makes Black Dog a passive aggressive coward-someone who throws out the personal attacks and then is the first to accuse others of being a bigot and hateful when he does nothing but manifest smeering those he disagrees with, with personal attacks.

In regards to 3, you will note Black Dog now qualifies himself from his previously false allegation and has inserted that I challenge him as being anti-semitic based on a "redefinition of anti-semitism".

Of course I do. I have from the very first post. That was the very point of one of my arguements-that to single out only Jews and no one else at a gay pride event or any other event or time and place because they choose to express universal sufferage while remaining silent when other groups take for granted universal sufferage and he does not criticize them is anti-semitic.

Black Dog tried to lie and mis-state my position and said I claimed any criticism of Israel was anti-semitic. Never did I say such a thing.

Finally Black Dog again shows his ignorance of Jews, Jewish history and the pith and substance of his anti-semitism.

He asked me, what other country in the world defines citizenship by religion when he is aware alll Sharia law nations in the Middle East do, the United Kingdom does and the Vatican does.

More to the point Black Dog's attempt to infer the fast track rule law of return for eligibility for citizenship in Israel is simply based on religion is in itself knowingly uttered by him as a mis-statement.

Defining who is a Jew is not just based on one's religious belief. It has never simply been restricted to relgious belief. Black Dog is well aware of that and all one has to do is go on the inter-net and read the Law of Returns for China, Taiwan, Belgium, Ireland, Japan, the Czech Republic, the Ukraine, Lativa, Estonia, Lithuania, Germany, Italy to see examples of how other people are defined as elgible for fast track citizenship status based on their blood lines.

The ignorant comment Black Dog made to me stating I do not understand what universal sufferage is again manifests his continued pathetic attempts to insult me personally and pull this arrogant act of trying to presume to tell me what it is to be a Jew and express myself through a state.

This is precisely why people like me world over whether we are gay or straight, Jew or gentile laugh off people like Black Dog and when they try tell us to know our place will assist them perform yoga.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Rue

[Oleg Bach]

The g button on my keyboard sticks once in a while. Sue me. But listening to a lecture from you about forum rules is pretty rich. Told anyone to die in a fire recently?

What - we are going to have a forum cook out? Is their beer involved?

[Rue]

OK... I'll bite... who and how did he "name call" in the statement that you quoted? I saw no names mentioned and no insults thrown.... what did I miss???

You'll bite? What you think you are going to bait me? Lol.

Hey genius you want to play.

Go back and read the following threads: 120, 123,125,126,140,142,143,149, 1155-6, 171-172, 174-6, 195-6, 199, 204, 231-2, 244-5, 261, 285-5, 286, 290, 293,303, 317 333, 336-7,355,361,363,366,368,369,384,405-7,

and in particular 411-414, 417-419, 422-3, 429 and 432.

Don't play with me o.k. I have responded each and every time specifically as to what my positions are and which serve as the basis from which Black Dog, Bloody and Shwa tried to mis-state what I actually said. Its there. Its there on the threads just like their comments are.

You want to play?

Here is the string of personal snitty little comments Black Dog throws out but pisses his pants at when someone throws them back in his face, word for word:

Response to 120

..as far as I can gather from the pro-Israel contingent here, the time is never and the place is nowhere (for criticizing Israel).

127

So why the fuck are you banging on about gays fleeing to Tel Aviv in the first place? talk about misdirection. Or in this case, pink washing.

Check your facts, son.

Bullshit. You and many like you seem to crave some kind of ritual denunciation of places like "Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morrocco, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Jordan, Yemen, Iran".

130

In my extensive experience on this issue, here on this board and elsewhere, Ive seen criticism of Israel met with accusations of anti-Semetism. Ive seen criticism met with the usual misdirection about why Israel alone is singled out. Basically, Ive yet to see any of the reflexive defenders of Israel so much as acknowledge a single issue around Israels human rights record: if anything, its been given a carte blanche. If you havent witnessed this yourself and if you dont understand how this works to freeze discussion on the subject you havent been paying very much attention.

141

Taking some contrarian pride in producing nigh-illegible posts is a bit weird, but go nuts.

146

Cite oR GTFO.

"Yes, let's instead look at them as you do: cool accessories there to give fashion tips and romantic advice to clueless straights. And above all: be fabulous!"

Holy shit. Do you know nothing about the history of Pride? About the history of the gay rights struggle as a whole? Do you actually know any queer people?

151

Oh fuck off.

Wow. Mature.

"Learn to read, douchebag."

152

Rue, you are such a faux faghag.

347

You've been presenting a garbled mess of ad hominems, personal attacks, lame attempts at humour and mangled syntax.

387

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

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.

412

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're a terrible debater espousing an untenable position. That's really all I need.

What you want to play?

Oh golly gee I can't understand why anyone would say Black Dog engages in name calling. Not Black Dog. Gee tee hee. Black Dog? Oh no. He's very nice. Why I read all his threads and he's just a very nice young man.

Tell you what Squid oh you bite-and guess what, you want to engage in such a pathetic attempt to advocate on Black Dog's behalf chime in. Chime away.

I am sure you adore his tautology like Bloody as well.

I am sure he makes you bwahahaha like Shaw as well.

Guess what. He flings his shit, I throw it back in his face. Its a debate board.

Oh do try read all the threads before you ask me a question.

Either that or just spit it out-you agree with him. Good for you.

Lord Oleg he bites.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Rue

[Oleg Bach]

Lord Oleg does not bite - he bludgeons with his dull broad sword.

[Black Dog]

blackdog stated the followin3 things he attributes to me.

1) No one actually called you a pedophile.

2) You admitted to being a homophobe in just those very words.

3) You continue to freely bandy about accusations of antisemitism against bloodyminded and myself, as well as QuAIA (based on a spurious redefinition of the term antisemitism)"

In regards to 1, in post 387, Black Dog stated:

" 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."

Blackdog claims the above does not mean he was calling me a pedophile. I will let readers decide the intent and context of the comments in post 387. What I will now say is Black dog shows what I consider is classic passive aggressive behaviour. He utters the accusation but then tries to couch it as an analogy to suggest my position of the QUIAA being anti-semitic has the same basis.

It was pretty obviously an analogy along the lines of the old "have you stopped beating your wife?" line. I trust people get that, but if you're so riled up, report me to the board facilitator and let him rule on it.

I state this-Black Dog is a coward. This is the kind of debating style a coward uses. They insult and belittle and then pretend the intent of their words is innocent. It is precisely why I challenge Black Dog on this board and in particular have taken so much time responding.

tell me: what would I possibly have to gain by accusing you of being a pedophile? Think about it.

To me Black Dog epitomizes the insulting, abusive bigot he claims to challenge. To me he exemplifies with his words the very things he accuses others of.

I state that his comment in 387 was part of a series of personal name calling he initiated and then tries to avoid taking responsibility for and holding himself accountable for.

Sunshine, if I was going to insult you, you'd know it, because there would be no ambiguity.

The analogy was petulant. Something I full expect from Black Dog given the comments he has made in these threads and I will throw them back in his face.

Petulant? There you go again, using words you don't understand.

In regards to 2, again for someone so quick in his responses to demand quotes and citations, again Black Dog engages in his favourite exercise-the mis-statement of alledged comments I made. He does not site them because he knows they do not exist. Instead he chooses to be intellectually dishonest and present his comment as if I came on this board and stated a position I hate gays.

Of course I am a homophobe.

QED

In regards to 3, you will note Black Dog now qualifies himself from his previously false allegation and has inserted that I challenge him as being anti-semitic based on a "redefinition of anti-semitism".

Of course I do. I have from the very first post. That was the very point of one of my arguements-that to single out only Jews and no one else at a gay pride event or any other event or time and place because they choose to express universal sufferage while remaining silent when other groups take for granted universal sufferage and he does not criticize them is anti-semitic.

Black Dog tried to lie and mis-state my position and said I claimed any criticism of Israel was anti-semitic. Never did I say such a thing.

You don't have to come right out and say. It's easily inferred from the sources you were using to redefine antisemitism (that is, Dershowitz et al).

Finally Black Dog again shows his ignorance of Jews, Jewish history and the pith and substance of his anti-semitism.

He asked me, what other country in the world defines citizenship by religion when he is aware alll Sharia law nations in the Middle East do, the United Kingdom does and the Vatican does.

Wrong.

UK citizenship

Nothing in there about the Church of England, is there?

The Vatican? :lol:OMG .

More to the point Black Dog's attempt to infer the fast track rule law of return for eligibility for citizenship in Israel is simply based on religion is in itself knowingly uttered by him as a mis-statement.

Defining who is a Jew is not just based on one's religious belief. It has never simply been restricted to relgious belief.

Jewish people throughout the world have an automatic right to Israeli citizenship under Israel's "law of return". As Bob pointed out, that applies to coverts to Judaism. So how else are they defining Jew under this law, if not on the basis of religion?

The ignorant comment Black Dog made to me stating I do not understand what universal sufferage is again manifests his continued pathetic attempts to insult me personally and pull this arrogant act of trying to presume to tell me what it is to be a Jew and express myself through a state.

None of this has anything to do with voting. Which is what universal suffrage is all about.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

You'll bite? What you think you are going to bait me? Lol.

Hey genius you want to play.

Squid didn't ask "when has he called you names". He asked "who and how did he name call in the statement you quoted?"

Once again, your lack of reading comprehension is simply astonishing.

[jbg]

Don't play with me o.k. I have responded each and every time specifically as to what my positions are and which serve as the basis from which Black Dog, Bloody and Shwa tried to mis-state what I actually said. Its there. Its there on the threads just like their comments are.

You want to play?

Here is the string of personal snitty little comments Black Dog throws out but pisses his pants at when someone throws them back in his face, word for word:

Response to 120

Sounds like you're ready to play "Simon Says" so I guess you've been on solid foods for a while.

..as far as I can gather from the pro-Israel contingent here, the time is never and the place is nowhere (for criticizing Israel).

Jews and Israel have enough enemies without the self-haters.

Lord Oleg he bites.

Woof. More childish posts.

[Oleg Bach]

Sounds like you're ready to play "Simon Says" so I guess you've been on solid foods for a while.

Jews and Israel have enough enemies without the self-haters.

Woof. More childish posts.

Snap!

[Jack Weber]

Bloody I am responding to your latest attempts to bait me personally.

You stated:

"I didn't call you a pedophile. Black Dog didn't either, actually, but rather produced an argument ad absurdum to underline your attack methods."

You both have engaged in personal attacks against me and others you disagree with-you engage in the very tactics of intolerance, bigotry and hatred you accuse me and others who disagree with QUIAA's platform of.

For the record I accused Black Dog of referring to me as a pedophile and you referring to me as an anti-semite.

You want to engage in the above bullshit attempt to deny Black Dog's words go ahead his words are clear in intent when he stated:

"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."

This is precisely the kind of level the 2 of you are at.

You stated:

"I did call you a homophobe; then I offered an olive branch in which I said it might have been my own misperception..."

Yes then in the same breath called me an anti-semite and homophobe again. Lol.

"but then you admitted openly to being a homophobe, making my original assertion a plain observation with which you agree."

The above shows once again how you try justify your name calling. What I did state is all of us have ignorance and hatred towards others. Your comments are absurd. The fact that I admit honestly that I like you have ignorances, biases and hatred, did not justify your comments. Your comments equated my challenging the QUIAA and using certain sarcastic references of both being homophobic. You claimed the 2 gave you grounds to smeer me and say I hate homosexual peoples. That is what makes you a dispicable low life as does this latest attempt to weasel your way out of the smeer and say its accurate.

The more you respond the more you make it clear why I consider you and Bloody two faced righteous hypocrites. You want to continue spinning I am against gay people because of what I said, go ahead. My words and yours speak for themselves.

You stated:

"I called you an anti-semite based on the very criteria you used against myself: zero."

You again pathetically attempt to justify your name calling. I clearly stated that if you support the QUIAA's platform against Israel it can be challenged as anti-semitic. No matter how many times you try mis-state what I said and then say it justifies you name calling it doesn't change the fact that while I am crystal clear and specific in providing a basis for my opinions you provide no basis, just the name calling as you do now.

You stated:

"As i stated clearly earlier. I was exposing your foolishness, nothing more."

No you demonstrated you refused to defend the QUIAA platform and instead feel you can simply state they are not anti semitic and leave it at that and then call me personal names.

Black Dog has engaged in the exact same exercise. Neither of you addressed the QUIAA platform and still won't and instead simply keep avoiding the topic instead trying to switch it to justify calling me names and not providing bases for your positions.

You stated:

"Finally, I tried to debate the platform, notably your insistence that the group "calls for killing Jews" and "in the open."

To date you haven't. To date your words do not debate the platform of the QUIAA and its words that it has stated both in public and in private. To date you continue to refuse to refer to its platform and continue to instead name call me trying to pass that off as debate.

You stated:

"You're the one who has refused, no doubt because it's hard to offer evidence for stuff you make up out of whole cloth."

My positions were clearly stated on the this series of threads. You have yet to respond to them instead doing what you did in the above sentence-name call.

Bloody all you have evidenced once again is you came on this forum to name call me when I challenged the QUIAA's platform.

No amount of name calling changes what I have stated about the QUIAA nor can it substitute for you refusing to explain how their call to dismantle Israel with violence is not

terrorism.

Put up or shut up. Prove the QUIAA does not believe in violence. I provided the passage which says they support any means necessary to rid the Middle East of Israel. You have yet to respond to that reference.

What next Bloody, will you again call me a homophobe, an anti-semite, or chirp in with Bloody that he never referred to me as a pedophile and like you the name calling was to

"teach me a lesson"?

What a joke. Your rationalization of calling me names is to teach me a lesson?

Lol. Yes I know. Demonize and insult the Jew to teach him a lesson. You do realize the more you spew the more you manifest the most basic kind of hatred?

Say now Bloody do you think calling this Jew a pedophile, homo-phobe and anti-semite because I challenge the anti-semitic platform of QUIAA to be new? Do you think I am the first Jew to be the target of the venom of trendy leftists like you? Lol. You think you are putting this Jew in his place with your name calling and teaching me a lesson? Lol.

Oleg come get this albino baboon off my lawn before he slips on the feces he's throwing and wedges even further up his lesson teaching buttox.

Bud Light presents...Real Men of Genius

"Real Men of Genius"

This Bud's for you,Mr.Internet Message Board Tough Guy!

"Mr.Internet Message Board Tough Guy"

Disregarding the fact that you are arguing with with people you've never met across a screen,you post hard-hitting comments such as "Man up or Shut up!".

"Oh you told him,bro!"

You stick to your most valued principle,that everything,especially internet political forums,is SERIOUS BUSINESS!

"Especially the Local Politics section"

After whipping up self-righteous,bleeding-heart walls of text that others have skimmed through at most,you return to your chair safe in the knowledge that you are the MAN!

"You're a star!"

So crack open a cool,refreshing Bud Light oh sage of the sanctimonious and the smug.Because no one,and we mean NO ONE,is better at forum posting than you.

"Mr.Internet Message Board Tough Guy"

[Rue]

Black Dog one thing I have come to expect from you consistently is your total lack of integrity and honesty on this board.

Here is the quote of mine you deliberately removed from its actual context:

"course I am a homophobe. One of my closet friends died of AIDS and I could not visit him in his last days because I was not good at expressing my emotions. I met the man before he came out and knew him many years after. On one level it made no difference. In fact when he announced his gayness a whole bunch of us had seizures laughing because it was such a huge thing to him and we already knew he was gay. For phack's sake he shared the top floor of a house with this knock out female room mate coming on to him and he was only concerned with a certain person on the football yeam. Lol. It was funny when he came out. Years later though no I had no clue how to show emotions with him when he was dying and he understood that. That to me was classic homophobia-I don't hide it. I don't hide as much as at one level I support and consider gays equals on another level I am just a stupid man brought up in an area where we were not taught to cry and we feel uncomfortable about certain things. It does not make us homophobes but its no big deal to gays because we don't hate them over it, it just makes us have biases over certain things. They have no problems with out biases because we are not hating them over it. You understand that?

For me, for you to say I am a homophobe is therefore not the issue. Saying I would deliberately hate gays is. They have the exact same political battle as Jews. In fact they are so similiar to us in how they have used humour, art, culture, to connect to their collective sense of oppression and turn their survival into

a display of creation and positivity. If anyone understands Jews its gays. They like us refuse to let hatred of them turn them into

hateful people and that is why this QUIAA issue has rung such a bell. It is done at a time and place where gays are try inspiring us all to just be what we are. It is not the time and place to

carry out partisan political campaigns."