Antisemitism rising in the US

[clarkatticus]

I find it hard to believe Openmind could be accused of antisemitism, merely because she proposes a logical solution to the current crises in Israel and points out the cynical musings of American Jews. We have politicized the subject into a lose-lose paradym where the answer to the issues cannot be openly debated. We cannot ask the Arab world to join us in cooperation if we cannot get Israel to do the same. This constant refrain the Israel is blameless in all actions is counter productive, and, as Openmind pointed out, many Jews in Israel feel the same. How can she be accused of antisemitism when she shares the same view of many Jews?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I find it hard to believe Openmind could be accused of antisemitism, merely because she proposes a logical solution to the current crises in Israel and points out the cynical musings of American Jews. We have politicized the subject into a lose-lose paradym where the answer to the issues cannot be openly debated. We cannot ask the Arab world to join us in cooperation if we cannot get Israel to do the same. This constant refrain the Israel is blameless in all actions is counter productive, and, as Openmind pointed out, many Jews in Israel feel the same. How can she be accused of antisemitism when she shares the same view of many Jews?

I don't its the Right wings First response not just being against Israel policy, but for just not being pro it enough for them.

 

[Pandora]

The Unions are supplying the site for the Occupyers in Riverside, as is the nature of the Democratic party, they accomodate the homeless and the drug addicted the same as all there. I do not remember the Tea Party even addressing the issue. I mention the drug addicts with a bit of derision but I too had a problem in the 80's for about 5 years. My feelings are mixed but I am realistic toward both their plight and their intentions. The amount of Jew hating in the world is probably quite low if one were to compare it to the world view prior to WWII. The issue comes up every time we have to make a policy change with Israel which I find disingenious. I am also surprised to find that Duke voted for Obama.

Why would the homeless and drug addicted issue come up during the Tea Party's? The people who went to the Tea Parties believed in personal responsibility not another richer group than them should pay their way. The homeless and drug addicted shared the belief as the occupiers of... someone with more than me should pay my way. So there was a natural attraction

Also put yourself in the shoes of a homeless person. Every time they try to camp someplace the cops kick them out, then all the sudden a bunch of spoiled college kids come camping illegally and the police turn a blind eye. Well if you were a homeless person wanting to be able to set up camp without anyone harassing you about it, it only makes sense to go where the spoiled college kids go and are not being harassed.

Pretend you were drug addicted and you wanted a place to go where you could smoke dope openly and maybe even get a toke off someone’s pipe. The occupiers are a perfect place to go. There was no drug use that I know of at any of the Tea Parties so there again was nothing to attract the drug addicted.

The Tea Party people never tried to break rules about camping and never expected anyone to overlook their rule breaking so there was nothing attractive about them that drew the homeless or the drug addicted. And I think that is why the Tea Party never addressed the subject.

It seems that anti-Jewish statements have been on the rise lately. I saw a number of things said by the occupiers about Jewish banker’s exc. But it is not just the occupiers, there just seems to be a rise in anti-Jewish statements from all groups. No, it’s not as bad as pre WW2 but it’s still on the rise and concerning

 

[clarkatticus]

Well, Pandora, I guess it's a view of the glass being half full or half empty. We progressives ( admittedly often tilting at windmills) believe in the inheirant goodness of our people and would try for the benefit of society as whole not just our own immediate gratification. We believe that it is money well spent building infrastructure, educating all children, and providing health care to all-especially the disenfranchised of our nation. We see a failure as a challange to double down and look for new ways to tackle a problem, not just hide in a hole and say "mine is mine". Most of all we look for a nation to come together, not polarize in the face of the continuing crisis we have today. To say that the millions out there right now without jobs are listless and lazy is saying that you are too, because at this rate of inaction that is the future.

 

[dogtowner]

Well, Pandora, I guess it's a view of the glass being half full or half empty. We progressives ( admittedly often tilting at windmills) believe in the inheirant goodness of our people and would try for the benefit of society as whole not just our own immediate gratification. We believe that it is money well spent building infrastructure, educating all children, and providing health care to all-especially the disenfranchised of our nation. We see a failure as a challange to double down and look for new ways to tackle a problem, not just hide in a hole and say "mine is mine". Most of all we look for a nation to come together, not polarize in the face of the continuing crisis we have today. To say that the millions out there right now without jobs are listless and lazy is saying that you are too, because at this rate of inaction that is the future.

all that would be well and good were it not for your insistence on the wealthy footing the bill for your largesse.

you are aware that we spend money in infrastructure every day right ? billions were spent on keeping up the levies in NOLA but those funds were diverted for social programs and so was the Crescent City flooded. and do you kow that all children are offered a free education ? and that none are turned away from healthcare (without consequence) ?

the real question is when is enough enough ? when do you require accountability ? and to what extent does personal responsibility come into play ?

but perhaps more to the point, what does this have to do with antisemitism ?

 

[Pandora]

Well, Pandora, I guess it's a view of the glass being half full or half empty. We progressives ( admittedly often tilting at windmills) believe in the inheirant goodness of our people and would try for the benefit of society as whole not just our own immediate gratification. We believe that it is money well spent building infrastructure, educating all children, and providing health care to all-especially the disenfranchised of our nation. We see a failure as a challange to double down and look for new ways to tackle a problem, not just hide in a hole and say "mine is mine". Most of all we look for a nation to come together, not polarize in the face of the continuing crisis we have today. To say that the millions out there right now without jobs are listless and lazy is saying that you are too, because at this rate of inaction that is the future.

Oh I do not think the occupiers are lazy, I think even some of them have good intentions. My point is if they believe so much that those who have more should give more then why do they begrudge those below them who have the same feeling? To the homeless these occupiers are the 1 percent who have more and they would like a cut. But I have seen more occupiers complain about the homeless, even beat them up. Though I have watched interviews with some (few) occupiers who said they feel bad they were getting this exemption to camping when the homeless struggle with this every day and wanted to find a way to help the homeless on a permanent level.

 

[steveox]

This is one of the Reasons why people elected Obama. Obama has helped the Muslim Brotherhood rise in the middle east so the can gang up and invade Israel someday.Why didnt Obama rise up to IRAN when the Iranian government cracked down on protesters. But when it came to Egypt,Libya and Syria Obama ask their leaders to step down. But he didnt speak out against IRAN when the Iranian people protested.

 

[clarkatticus]

Oh I do not think the occupiers are lazy, I think even some of them have good intentions. My point is if they believe so much that those who have more should give more then why do they begrudge those below them who have the same feeling? To the homeless these occupiers are the 1 percent who have more and they would like a cut. But I have seen more occupiers complain about the homeless, even beat them up. Though I have watched interviews with some (few) occupiers who said they feel bad they were getting this exemption to camping when the homeless struggle with this every day and wanted to find a way to help the homeless on a permanent level.

Gee, what does that say? That the occupiers are a diverse group with several messages and one commonality-they are hurting and they want something done about it. they want the people responsible prosecuted and a path to solvancy. You may not want to raise taxes on the wealthy, maybe you think it is unfair that they pay a higher percent, I understand, But we are beyond what we want, we need new revenue and the middle class can pay no more, the poor cannot pay at all so the burden is left to the wealthy to restart the economy. Asking the banks to pay for their misdeeds is fair, along with restructuring the financial regulations to prevent this type of gambling in the future.

 

[Pandora]

Gee, what does that say? That the occupiers are a diverse group with several messages and one commonality-they are hurting and they want something done about it. they want the people responsible prosecuted and a path to solvancy. You may not want to raise taxes on the wealthy, maybe you think it is unfair that they pay a higher percent, I understand, But we are beyond what we want, we need new revenue and the middle class can pay no more, the poor cannot pay at all so the burden is left to the wealthy to restart the economy. Asking the banks to pay for their misdeeds is fair, along with restructuring the financial regulations to prevent this type of gambling in the future.

Why not consider instead of needing new revenue, needing to cut spending, cut programs. I wish people would consider more the idea of getting leaner and cutting back instead of getting bigger and finding a target to pay for it.

 

[Gipper]

Why not consider instead of needing new revenue, needing to cut spending, cut programs. I wish people would consider more the idea of getting leaner and cutting back instead of getting bigger and finding a target to pay for it.

And therein lays the crux of the problem.

The Dems will not cut ANYTHING and the Rs demand cuts. This is the impasse currently in effect with the Super Committee. The Ds want to increase taxes to solve the problem, when it is obvious that taxing by itself will not generate enough and could push the economy into a depression.

So, here we have a national debt hitting $15 trillion and one political party is not willing to CUT ANYTHING. Again, proof that the left has lost their minds...

 

[clarkatticus]

Why not consider instead of needing new revenue, needing to cut spending, cut programs. I wish people would consider more the idea of getting leaner and cutting back instead of getting bigger and finding a target to pay for it.

I get tired of people thinking small minded. The more you cut, the more revenue you lose, the more revenue you lose the bigger the budget crisis. It will have to be a balanced approach, cutting unnecessary programs, finding leaner ways to work the ones we need. Revamping the tax code without the input of lobbyists and special interests to bring in more revenue, and finally, reinvesting in the infrastructure and education for long term answers. We can complain about what happens when we cut spending or divert funding to education and infrastructure, but we have to know it's the only way and we have to compromise on a solution.

 

[clarkatticus]

Oh I do not think the occupiers are lazy, I think even some of them have good intentions. My point is if they believe so much that those who have more should give more then why do they begrudge those below them who have the same feeling? To the homeless these occupiers are the 1 percent who have more and they would like a cut. But I have seen more occupiers complain about the homeless, even beat them up. Though I have watched interviews with some (few) occupiers who said they feel bad they were getting this exemption to camping when the homeless struggle with this every day and wanted to find a way to help the homeless on a permanent level.

I think you missed the point. The protests have many issues. The one you should see is that something has to be done. Period. If some are wrong headed, that is the nature of large protests (as we saw in the tea party). And blaming the financial institutions for something they actually did is not looking for a handout, asking for them to pay reparations and fund future unsolvancies is fair. Ask yourself, how did the middle class get so small and what can be done to change it? Free trade was a bust, the middle class can no longer afford taxes and be able to support the economy, the only taxable group left is the one begging to be taxed (60%+are OK with it)

 

[GenSeneca]

And blaming the financial institutions for something they actually did...

What they "actually did" was follow the law.

Ask yourself, how did the middle class get so small...

The "middle class" is the same size it's always been.

and what can be done to change it?

Nothing. Upper class is the top 20%, lower class the bottom 20%, the middle class is a statistical group made up of the other 60%, it cannot shrink or grow.

Free trade was a bust,

Free Trade: International business not restrained by government interference or regulation, such as duties.​

The US has not, and does not, operate on a system of Free Trade... So you're blaming something we've never even used as the source of the problem.

the middle class can no longer afford taxes...

Everyone can afford to pay something in taxes.

...the only taxable group left is the one begging to be taxed (60%+are OK with it)

Two things here...
1. Those supposed 60% are free to donate any amount of additional taxation they would like, taxes do not have to be raised for that to happen.
2. The top 20% already account for about 80% of income tax revenue, so they're already taxed... Heavily.

 

[Gipper]

What they "actually did" was follow the law.


The "middle class" is the same size it's always been.



Nothing. Upper class is the top 20%, lower class the bottom 20%, the middle class is a statistical group made up of the other 60%, it cannot shrink or grow.

Free Trade: International business not restrained by government interference or regulation, such as duties.​

The US has not, and does not, operate on a system of Free Trade... So you're blaming something we've never even used as the source of the problem.


Everyone can afford to pay something in taxes.


Two things here...
1. Those supposed 60% are free to donate any amount of additional taxation they would like, taxes do not have to be raised for that to happen.
2. The top 20% already account for about 80% of income tax revenue, so they're already taxed... Heavily.

Excellent. Completely and logically refuted everything the lib stated.

The more you cut, the more revenue you lose, the more revenue you lose the bigger the budget crisis.

Absolutely and totally incorrect. How does cutting government spending cause revenue loss? Amazing how some small minded people think.

Cutting spending will result in the exact opposite of what you stated. It will result in a lessening of the deficit...NOT INCREASING THE DEFICIT.

How does anyone think otherwise?