There goes the Jewish vote

John Edwards is clearly attempting to attract the European vote. It was Europeans after all, who opined in large numbers that Israel is the most dangerous nation in the world. In a clear effort to attract Europeans to the polls in 2008, Peter Bart’s column reports on this gem: “Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.” For a candidate who looks like a dumb bimbo, Edwards gives a remarkably good impression, not merely of a dumb bimbo, but of an anti-Semitic dumb bimbo.

And just to keep that bimbo image fresh in your mind, a priceless moment from a past campaign:

Democratic candidates: the gifts that just keep giving.

Hat tip: The Hillary Spot, via Drudge

del.icio.us | digg it

Be Sociable, Share!
  • greg

    Identity politics at its best.

  • isirota1965

    Yet Jews (of whom I am one) will continue to vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. It boggles the mind…………

  • Danny Lemieux

    Muslim dead-enders strap bombs onto themselves. Jewish dead-enders vote Democrat and heap hatred on those that would extend them their support. Is there such a thing as a “suicide gene”?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    Book… the power of the 21st century. Not just data, no, but useful information. Collated, filtered.

    Isirota, I was having a little chat with Phil about Israel’s right to self defense. When I learned that Israel had been exchanging prisoners and retreating, I kept saying that Israel was doing enough. Phil was of the view that Israel had the right of self-defense and was using it well. But not me, I saw a distinct lack of something in Israel’s efforts. I couldn’t pinpoint it down at the time, but now I can say pretty much that Israel and Jews are too humane.

    They are like Bush, too compassionate in a way. The reason why I say this is because of my observations of how the state of Israel behaves. I look at the state of Israel to see into the character of the Jewish people, since presumably the best examples are there. And what do I see? I see a nation that when they are winning a regular war, just up and gives up the land they paid blood to take, just for a “chance” at peace. I see Israelis exchanging 1000 Palestinians for 2 Israelis and one dead body.

    The one thing I heard about Jews and Israelis were that they were brutal, violent, killing too many people. After I looked more into it, it seemed to me that they weren’t killing enough.

    In that sense, it applies to American Jews in one specific manner. They will vote Democrat because Democrats are no longer believers in peace through superior firepower, and thus their philosophy aligns them with the Jews in most cases. Even Bookworm, came from the Left, so certainly the genesis is plain to see.

    I realize there are other factors, like voting what your family and ancestors voted for. But in most cases American Jews are cosmopolitan and well off, middle or upper class. They have no excuse for parochialism. It is not like they don’t know what is going on. They just seem to believe in certain beliefs akin to helen’s beliefs, that a certain amount of force should not be used in any case.

    I know a guy from Ghana, a tribal-royalty culture. He represents the new dynamic because he believes in efficiency, in science, in how technology can better the lives of people. And yet under that civilized exterior, he still reflects the tribal nature of his roots. Meaning, once he and his friends were having trouble with thieves that were stealing their cocoa plants, so they called the police. But the police weren’t doing anything because the thieves came in the night, then went gone. So the farmers setup an ambush and killed them some thieves. Afterwards, no problems. So he applies that to the Southern border, shoot to kill. But at the same time, he is against the Iraq invasion, pre-emption, and what not.

    The point is, Jews are cosmopolitan from what I’ve observed. They do not come from parochial or tribal or kill or be killed cultural backgrounds. They do not believe in efficiency, more often than not they believe in law or the rule of law or civilization.

    They aren’t like me, in the sense that I don’t really care about high society or the perceptions of popular opinion on an action. All I care about is whether this will solve the problem or not. And there are plenty of people like me, when they see a problem like terrorists in the Middle East, that just says “we’re gonna have to kill them all”. That’s just a sentiment, not a particular policy though. Certainly someone would have to go research Iraq more to get a more specific policy. But the sentiment is the same for me and others.

    If someone poses a problem to you, get rid of him.

    Civilizations needs barbarians, for health and regeneration, and to get rid of threats. Because you know the civilized response to a problem. It is to debate, it is to talk, talk, and talk some more at the UN or the Senate. It is to enact laws, it is to sit around waiting for the problem to solve itself. That is civilization more or less. Bureacracy, inhuman paperwork and red tape. You can’t stop it. That is the price of the rule of law. If you wish to be ruled by laws, then you must accept its inefficiency as well.

    However, there comes a certain point when it is imbalanced, when the laws no longer work, when laws are no longer enforced, when laws protect the guilty more than the innocent.

    Then what do you do? Wait until Rome falls?

    European in Book’s post is synonymous to me, for “civilized” Ultra civilized. so civilized you have forgotten how to survive, how to kill, how to hunt, and how to solve problems for yourself.

    The jews to me seem like very humane people. Like Bush. They honesty don’t want to kill, they don’t wish to solve their problems by killing, and they hurt in their souls whenever they have to hurt other people.

    That is the civilized side. The other side however…. is this.

    Violence As A Game – The Illusion Of A Fair Fight

    ******************************************************

    “One of the biggest reasons for failure on the
    battlefield is not knowing what to do next… This is
    the result of not having been trained thoroughly in
    what to expect on the battlefield.”

    General Orlando Ward

    ******************************************************

    Last week I was hanging out with a friend of mine, a
    former NFL Defensive Lineman. Chuck had a reputation
    in college as a brawler and never missed an
    opportunity to use his fists to answer any
    disagreement.

    Chuck has definitely mellowed over the years and is
    much easier to be around these days – but old habits
    die hard. The conversation drifted towards my training
    and he was giving me some feedback from a mutual
    friend who attended a TFT seminar.

    Our friend Tony loved the training and, since he
    travels to some of the more dangerous parts of the
    world, has unfortunately had to use his training. The
    results were that he survived two unavoidable criminal
    attacks using principles and methods from the TFT
    Seminar.

    Tony faced multiple attackers in one incident and a
    knife in the other. Chuck was impressed that Tony
    survived both incidents unscathed and then commented
    on the side that had it been a “fair fight” Tony would
    have lost.

    I asked Chuck to clarify for me what he meant.

    He went on to say that the three attackers were all
    larger than Tony, as was the knife wielder, and that
    in a “fair fight” Tony would have lost.

    He pointed out that if Tony hadn’t used all that
    “unfair stuff” he got from my seminar he never would
    of “won”. Chuck said he was glad that Tony knew TFT
    but that it really didn’t prove he could fight.

    Chuck went on to say that if it were just a “thumping
    contest” — “Ya know, Tim, a real fight” then the
    bigger, stronger guy would always win. He was
    disturbed by the fact that Tony had to kill the knife
    wielder and that one of the multiple attackers had his
    throat crushed by Tony.

    That to Chuck proved it wasn’t a “real fight” and the
    fact Tony effectively used deception to disarm his
    attackers before he attacked really disturbed Chuck.

    “That’s not fighting, it’s just…”

    “Violence?” I added.

    “Yeah, it proves nothing about how good a fighter you
    are,” Chuck blurted out.

    I know what Chuck was trying to say and it’s sad when
    I see anyone like him that has never gone beyond using
    violence to dominate a social situation.

    By choosing to use violence in a social situation,
    guys like Chuck always run the risk of bumping into
    someone who won’t bother fighting a bigger, stronger
    guy.

    They’ll just use violence in the only way it should be
    used… as a survival tool.

    Until next time,

    Tim Larkin
    Creator of Target-Focus(TM) Training

    Civilized folks like the Jews believe in fairness, believe that things can be reasoned out, they feel this like the Democrats do.

    Sometimes feelings aren’t enough.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    Just to fill in something, I do believe there is duality, as reminded by Book’s other post.

    Every person has his savage side and his peaceful side. But it always seems to be that how these traits are expressed differs greatly across the breath of all possibilities.

    You can have pacifists who become the most expansionist warmongers around. You can have soldiers and warriors who have fought in wars since they were 10 year olds, yearn for peace.

    There is no specific requirement for consistency in the human condition after all. A person could be for this war over here, and against that war across the ocean.

    Let’s take Hillary for example. She could be ruthless towards her political enemies, but seemingly gentle and kind towards family, children, and the victims of war or what not. Or Bush, who seems to want to crush his enemies at one time (post 9/11), but refuse to order shoot on sight order at the border or overriding the Governor of Lousiana.

    Hillary, evil to her enemies, kind to her allies. Presumably. Bush, bad to his enemies overseas, kind to his enemies at home.

    In some ways the Jews are able to harness their aggression into their religious practices. The Talmud, historical precedent, and what not. They have many reasons and stories of why being cruel is bad. Of why killing is bad.

    There are endless choices and panoramas available to be seen from how humans act. You can have varied natures such as greg’s aggression to… I don’t know, 101st Fighting Keyboardists.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Hillary kind to her friends? I don’t think that former Clintonista insider Dick Morris agrees…remember the McDougalls?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    That’s why I said presumably, for the sake of making a point. In the absence of any better example.

  • Zhombre

    I find Edwards to be rather provincial, if slick; a guy who honed his rhetorical skills swaying juries in PI cases in places like Winston-Salem and with an excess of self confidence convinced himself he’s Atticus Finch when he’s more a Snopes-like hustler from a Faulkner novel. During the 2004 election when he made his comments about how in a Kerry Administration, stem cell research would be funded, and people like Christopher Reeve would walk again, I thought that kind of hyperbole and cheap theatrics might play fine for that jury of down home folks in Roanoke Rapids, but did not qualify Edwards for the national stage.