T Nation

Is the Term Racism Used too Freely

[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
[Barry was almost falling over himself trying to be painted as a friend of Israel, even waxing on about Yad Vashem.
[/quote]

Obama’s opinion of us Israelis – “colonialists” as his Reverand calls us, is well known in Israel.

To me, the highpoint of the debate was, Romney listing the middle eastern countries Obama went to ---- and noting that Obama skipped Israel.

I have no doubt a second term of Obama will result in a a full-fledged attack by emboldened muslim countries on Israel, resulting in nuclear war.

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
[Barry was almost falling over himself trying to be painted as a friend of Israel, even waxing on about Yad Vashem.
[/quote]

Obama’s opinion of us Israelis – “colonialists” as his Reverand calls us, is well known in Israel.

To me, the highpoint of the debate was, Romney listing the middle eastern countries Obama went to ---- and noting that Obama skipped Israel.

I have no doubt a second term of Obama will result in a a full-fledged attack by emboldened muslim countries on Israel, resulting in nuclear war.[/quote]

I don’t think that sentence could be any more hyperbolic if it tried. Reelecting Obama is tantamount to voting for nuclear war in the Middle East. No doubt in your mind, huh?

By the way, George W. Bush didn’t visit Israel until the last year of his second term. And can you guess how many times Reagan visited as President?

[quote]smh23 wrote:
By the way, George W. Bush didn’t visit Israel until the last year of his second term. And can you guess how many times Reagan visited as President?[/quote]

Neither Bush, nor Reagan, is on the ballot. Only Romney and Obama.

Romney has not only visited Israel, but met with our equivalent of President (and didn’t make him walk out the back door by the trash). He even visted Sderot and saw the damage from rockets.

Little trivia: Romney and Netanyahu worked at Bane together.

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
By the way, George W. Bush didn’t visit Israel until the last year of his second term. And can you guess how many times Reagan visited as President?[/quote]

Neither Bush, nor Reagan, is on the ballot. Only Romney and Obama.

Romney has not only visited Israel, but met with our equivalent of President (and didn’t make him walk out the back door by the trash). He even visted Sderot and saw the damage from rockets.

Little trivia: Romney and Netanyahu worked at Bane together.[/quote]

I have no doubt that Romney is committed to Israel, and I do believe that if commitment to Israel is a voter’s top concern, Romney is probably the logical candidate.

But I don’t think it’s exactly fair to predict a complete abandonment and consequent nuclear war if Obama is reelected. In a time of true need I don’t see Obama or any other American President turning his back on one of our closest allies and an absolutely vital source of aid in the global counterterrorism effort.

That said, I suspect that Obama and Netanyahu don’t like each other. He isn’t the first: Bill Clinton is said to have shouted “who the fuck is the superpower here” after his first meeting with Bibi.

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
[Barry was almost falling over himself trying to be painted as a friend of Israel, even waxing on about Yad Vashem.
[/quote]

Obama’s opinion of us Israelis – “colonialists” as his Reverand calls us, is well known in Israel.

To me, the highpoint of the debate was, Romney listing the middle eastern countries Obama went to ---- and noting that Obama skipped Israel.

I have no doubt a second term of Obama will result in a a full-fledged attack by emboldened muslim countries on Israel, resulting in nuclear war.[/quote]

Yup, not sure about nuclear conflict but the Kenyan is definitely seen as a soft touch, Iran’s behaviour can attest to this. Also breaking bread with black people isn’t usually high on their list of priorities.

[quote]theBird wrote:
Im probably going to get flamed for this thread, but so be it… especially if I learn something.

Anyway, I was thinking about the real meaning of racism. I believe if you are discriminated against for your race, for example you miss out on a job because of your race, then one may call it racism. This type of discrimination will probably always exist, some people don’t like bald people, some don’t like females and some don’t like people who who wear white shoes etc etc.

However I think the term “racism” is used too often and freely, especially on sporting fields, for example as players are exchanging insults. Consider the following scenario;

Player A: Your a stupid green skinned loser
Player B: Oh! Thats racism!

If player B is proud of his own heritage, then why would he be insulted by the remark of player A? Wouldn’t it be more of a compliment than anything?

Discuss.

tweet
[/quote]

If it wasn’t racist and wasn’t insulting then Player A would not have said it. Just because you are proud of your heritage or your accomplishments or whatever doesn’t mean other people are or that their insults won’t hit.

[quote]orion wrote:
…[/quote]

So sad, so true haha.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
By the way, George W. Bush didn’t visit Israel until the last year of his second term. And can you guess how many times Reagan visited as President?[/quote]

Neither Bush, nor Reagan, is on the ballot. Only Romney and Obama.

Romney has not only visited Israel, but met with our equivalent of President (and didn’t make him walk out the back door by the trash). He even visted Sderot and saw the damage from rockets.

Little trivia: Romney and Netanyahu worked at Bane together.[/quote]

I have no doubt that Romney is committed to Israel, and I do believe that if commitment to Israel is a voter’s top concern, Romney is probably the logical candidate.

But I don’t think it’s exactly fair to predict a complete abandonment and consequent nuclear war if Obama is reelected.[/quote]

I wouldn’t be so quick to declare that one. The more Obama appeases Israel’s enemies the more emboldened they become the great the chance that they will try something. Such as Syria building a nuclear weapon.

Obama began his administration with an apology tour and has gone down hill ever since. Treating foes like friends and friends like foes.

This will never lead to anything good.

[quote]RampantBadger wrote:

Yup, not sure about nuclear conflict but the Kenyan is definitely seen as a soft touch, Iran’s behaviour can attest to this.[/quote]

Lol…you called Obama a Kenyan.

This is how I feel about it. If I am acting like a piece of shit and a person says hey youre a white piece of shit…racist. Hey that white guy was a piece of shit…not racist. The first one youre attaching a race to a negative feeling about them. The second one you are stating the race of a negative person.

[quote]mbdix wrote:
This is how I feel about it. If I am acting like a piece of shit and a person says hey youre a white piece of shit…racist. Hey that white guy was a piece of shit…not racist. The first one youre attaching a race to a negative feeling about them. The second one you are stating the race of a negative person. [/quote]

Exactly.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
By the way, George W. Bush didn’t visit Israel until the last year of his second term. And can you guess how many times Reagan visited as President?[/quote]

Neither Bush, nor Reagan, is on the ballot. Only Romney and Obama.

Romney has not only visited Israel, but met with our equivalent of President (and didn’t make him walk out the back door by the trash). He even visted Sderot and saw the damage from rockets.

Little trivia: Romney and Netanyahu worked at Bane together.[/quote]

I have no doubt that Romney is committed to Israel, and I do believe that if commitment to Israel is a voter’s top concern, Romney is probably the logical candidate.

But I don’t think it’s exactly fair to predict a complete abandonment and consequent nuclear war if Obama is reelected.[/quote]

I wouldn’t be so quick to declare that one. The more Obama appeases Israel’s enemies the more emboldened they become the great the chance that they will try something. Such as Syria building a nuclear weapon.

Obama began his administration with an apology tour and has gone down hill ever since. Treating foes like friends and friends like foes.

This will never lead to anything good.
[/quote]

You believe that Obama wouldn’t act if Iran were to attack Israel in an open, conventional war?

I found the article regarding Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu. One interesting part was this below…

"In a telling exchange during a debate in December, Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Gingrich for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians, declaring: ?Before I made a statement of that nature, I?d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ?Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?? ?

Fascinating how small the world can be.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
By the way, George W. Bush didn’t visit Israel until the last year of his second term. And can you guess how many times Reagan visited as President?[/quote]

Neither Bush, nor Reagan, is on the ballot. Only Romney and Obama.

Romney has not only visited Israel, but met with our equivalent of President (and didn’t make him walk out the back door by the trash). He even visted Sderot and saw the damage from rockets.

Little trivia: Romney and Netanyahu worked at Bane together.[/quote]

I have no doubt that Romney is committed to Israel, and I do believe that if commitment to Israel is a voter’s top concern, Romney is probably the logical candidate.

But I don’t think it’s exactly fair to predict a complete abandonment and consequent nuclear war if Obama is reelected.[/quote]

I wouldn’t be so quick to declare that one. The more Obama appeases Israel’s enemies the more emboldened they become the great the chance that they will try something. Such as Syria building a nuclear weapon.

Obama began his administration with an apology tour and has gone down hill ever since. Treating foes like friends and friends like foes.

This will never lead to anything good.
[/quote]

You believe that Obama wouldn’t act if Iran were to attack Israel in an open, conventional war?[/quote]

I believe with Obama as President there is a greater chance that one of Israel’s foe’s would actually try!

Get it yet?

[quote]smh23 wrote:

You believe that Obama wouldn’t act if Iran were to attack Israel in an open, conventional war?[/quote]

Sure he’d act. He’d have a nice little chat with the Iranians and beg for an end to hostilities.


"Soon after he took office, President Barack Obama began a process ultimately designed to reestablish full US diplomatic relations with Iran, including a reopening of embassies, an Israeli daily reported Sunday. The initiative, part of a wider shift in America’s diplomatic orientation, aimed at reaching understandings with Tehran over suspending its nuclear program, Maariv claimed, citing “two Western diplomats very close to the administration.”

The initiative led to at least two US-Iran meetings, the report said. Israel was made aware of the contacts, and opposed them…

Last week, the New York Times and NBC reported that Washington has held secret contacts with Iran with the goal of holding one-on-one negotiations over their nuclear program. According to the report in the New York Times, Iran was open to the possibility, but asked to wait until after the American elections on November 6 so they would know who they were negotiating with." - The Times of Israel


More lies from those wingnuts at NBC/New York Times I see.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

You believe that Obama wouldn’t act if Iran were to attack Israel in an open, conventional war?[/quote]

Sure he’d act. He’d have a nice little chat with the Iranians and beg for an end to hostilities.


"Soon after he took office, President Barack Obama began a process ultimately designed to reestablish full US diplomatic relations with Iran, including a reopening of embassies, an Israeli daily reported Sunday. The initiative, part of a wider shift in America’s diplomatic orientation, aimed at reaching understandings with Tehran over suspending its nuclear program, Maariv claimed, citing “two Western diplomats very close to the administration.”

The initiative led to at least two US-Iran meetings, the report said. Israel was made aware of the contacts, and opposed them…

Last week, the New York Times and NBC reported that Washington has held secret contacts with Iran with the goal of holding one-on-one negotiations over their nuclear program. According to the report in the New York Times, Iran was open to the possibility, but asked to wait until after the American elections on November 6 so they would know who they were negotiating with." - The Times of Israel


More lies from those wingnuts at NBC/New York Times I see.[/quote]

I’d bet that the story is true and the negotiations will be announced after the elections.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I’d bet that the story is true and the negotiations will be announced after the elections.[/quote]

I think you missed the point. The last line was meant to be sarcastic. I bet the story is true as well, however I assumed that a reasonably informed person would see it as an idiotic and dangerous thing to try to negotiate with the Iranian regime.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I’d bet that the story is true and the negotiations will be announced after the elections.[/quote]

I think you missed the point. The last line was meant to be sarcastic. I bet the story is true as well, however I assumed that a reasonably informed person would see it as an idiotic and dangerous thing to try to negotiate with the Iranian regime.[/quote]

I’d rather try that than ignore them until they’re at the brink and then be forced to send in the bombers. If it works, great. And if it doesn’t–which is more likely–we can still turn them to dust.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I’d rather try that than ignore them until they’re at the brink

[/quote]

They are on the brink. And it’s been tried again and again and again. It failed every time and the Iranians cynically used the negotiations to buy themselves time and gain concessions. Now there’s no time left and any further attempts at negotiations are a dangerous and idiotic idea. Clearly the lessons of the Munich crisis are lost on you as are the lessons of Iranian intransigence and perfidy.