Comments on: US primaries open thread

By: William Bowe

William Bowe — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:34:29 +0000

New thread open for tomorrow’s/today’s primaries/caucuses.

By: Ron

Ron — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:30:20 +0000

and I say anon for another day of happiness

By: Ron

Ron — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:23:17 +0000

My friend you are still on topic because that is the charge Obama now faces.
After formally being made the Democratic Nominee it is one but not the only swiftboat that is going to be thrown at him more strongly.
(Finn says there will be bucketloads & he’s right unfortunately)

as to the non existence of semitic & consequentially anti semitic …touche !

By: davidoff

davidoff — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:06:44 +0000

#1259
And lets not even gone down the silly slope of justifying what a semitic is because at the end of the day we will be working with a demographic that doesn’t exist. But if that is true (and it is) – one can assume (rightly by rules of pure logic) that no such thing as an anti-semetic can exist (or am I getting off-topic here)?

By: Ron

Ron — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:55:05 +0000

Davidoff , hi

your interpretation #1253 of Harry was the same as my interpretation at #1227 ie. geo political and William accepted my basis of argument in his #1244

Harry has since confirmed he was suggesting that because Kennedy opposed Israel’s nuke ambitions they had him bumped off, hence his mistake being “fatal”

Neither me , Davidoff or Harry care which interpretation Harry meant now

Harry says now “anyway, at least one little ESJ is happy about the kerfuffle he caused” and he is right

But esc any anyone else should be aware that IF they use “anti semetic” on this blog when Israel is criticised for its appalling humanitarian treatment of the Paalestinians or their abusibe lobbying of the US system or their geo political games ….such lame ‘anti semetic’ resposes will draw firm logical replys

Such tactics ARE successful in the US but not here

By: davidoff

davidoff — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:53:05 +0000

at least one little ESJ is happy about the kerfuffle he caused

Oh no – you mean there are more of them?

By: HarryH

HarryH — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:46:55 +0000

william

you are correct in what my original post suggested.

but how is this anti semitic?

by the way it was a post that flowed with the ongoing discussion at the time, it wasn’t an overt statement of all knowing fact….but …ah well

by diogenes saying in the previous post to mine that the CIA was responsible make him anti american .

anyway, at least one little ESJ is happy about the kerfuffle he caused.

By: davidoff

davidoff — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:44:45 +0000

#1255
William
I could suggest that one may be taking the context of the word fatal a little too literally with respect to singular degree of association.

By: William Bowe

William Bowe — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:30:41 +0000

Davidoff: So you think HarryH is saying JFK should have supported Israel’s nuclear ambition? I think you will find he is suggesting that because Kennedy opposed it, they had him bumped off, hence his mistake being “fatal”. If I am indeed under a misapprehension here, he has missed a number of opportunities to correct it.

By: HarryH

HarryH — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:30:05 +0000

william,

now you’re waffling.

i’ll leave it at that.