posted on December 20, 2000 06:18:48 PM new
Networker, hang on one darn minute. This is a matter of record.
Okay, I'll buy that you didn't know it, because Jesse's anti-semitism is not necessarily a top-priority matter of concern to you (although it should be, as anti-semitism and racism are not first cousins, they are twin brothers).
However, you implied that you knew exactly what I was talking about. The "oh! he meant 'Zionism', in the sense that black people who are attached to Africa go about it the wrong way", and then when the full statement is clarified the defense is "well, you must have it out of context" thing doesn't fly. Sorry, there is no "context" that makes a statement that "Zionism [read Dr. King's nice definition of Zionism] is a poisenous weed that is choking Judaism" anything but a vicious, libelous piece of anti-semitism, straight out of Mein Kampf.
I say this is a matter of record, that is of concern to Jewish people, I do not necessarily expect you to know that Jesse did say this (although from your postings it seemed that you did, even going so far as to assure us that "the speechwriter was fired" ). Suffice it to say, he did say this, among other goodies.
If you were to quote an infamous racist remark made by some prominent white guy, it would be of little import if a fan of said white guy was not aware of it. That doesn't change it, and it certainly is not appropriate to try to spin it. Jesse is a bigot. Do what you want with that.
The reason why everyone (excluding, obviously, real white supremacists, or racists) admires Dr. King is because he was as genuine as they come. See, when he said he had a dream, we all get the sense that he really did have that dream. Jesse -- he's cut from the same cloth as David Duke.
I understand your perspective, he is an important force for black America. Fine. So be it. But he is also a bigot.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Dec 20, 2000 06:20 PM ]
posted on December 20, 2000 06:19:51 PM new
networker- i accept your apology on that one statement. however, it was YOU who said that james should refer to the three sentences before and after Jackson's statement to see that it was not anti-semitic. why did you do that if you had no prior knowledge of such a defense? are you acknowledging that Jackson has made anti-semitic statements or aren't you? you made a definitive statement about him having referred to a Black Zionism(Ethiopian Hebrews?) and not Jewish Zionism. which is it? this wouldn't be checkmate would it? if it is you should refrain from further posting on these boards as your true agenda will have been revealed for all to see.
[ edited by stusi on Dec 20, 2000 06:49 PM ]
posted on December 20, 2000 07:02:09 PM new
jamesoblivion - Since I am hanging on, can I have the front three and the back three sentences. If you like I can call tomorrow and probably get a copy of the speech delivered. The writer of the speech was fired. That's a fact, in fact he's suing over it.
And the zionism view I expounded is a fact. I know being Jewish you wouldn't read the Final Call the paper of the Nation of Islam. But if you ever get your hands on a copy you can read the 10 Objectives of the Nation of Islam. Its in every edition. I took your vesion of the speech on your merits of what was said. Which is why I asked for the first three and back three sentences. I hoped you had the whole speech and wasn't the victim of someone taking one sentence out of context to make a negative point that reading the entire speech would show wasn't there. Which is why I proceeded to explain to you a possibility for such a statement.
Then I decided that it really wasn't important because I know there has been forces at work to seperate Blacks and Jews. I also know that some of these forces have totally misinformed a great many Blacks. And since you have a book of Dr. Kings letters, you see the misinformation campaign has a little age to it. You called Jesse a bigot and you are entitled to that opinion. Which is why I posted and I quote myself.
If a person thinks I am a bigot because I put the agenda of Black America first well I would just have to carry that title.
You spoke of actions that show he is a bigot. Enlighten me to these actions. But first I would like to see the three sentences that proceed and the three sentences that follow the sentence that has convinced you he is anti-semetic. Your last post has convinced me that maybe you didn't get to read the whole speech. If that has happened those forces driving wedges are now succeeding on both fronts.
posted on December 20, 2000 07:21:38 PM new
networker- let's not get so dramatic. defending him without seeing those sentences doesn't say much for your usual thoroughness. what will you do if those sentences bear out James' point? tell us now before you see them! can you not adhere to a "Black Agenda" without bigotry? or is Jackson's the only agenda you will support? what is Farrakhan's position vis-a-vis the "Final Call" and the Nation of Islam? will you repeat your denunciation of him?
[ edited by stusi on Dec 20, 2000 07:24 PM ]
posted on December 20, 2000 08:07:44 PM new
stusi - First off Black Zionism has nothing to do with Jews or Black Jews or Black Isrealites. The Black Zionist movement is the long standing view that all Blacks in the New World Both Continents unite and return to Africa. Not only are they to return but they are to take all their riches with them. Once there work to remove the imperilist and then build the continent as a unified nation similar to this one. I know a bold theory and given some of the problems of people African Descent world wide an impossibility. Which is why I don't and won't support it or anyone off on that nonsense. Because it requires that our people do something that my military training teaches me is a no-no, surrender.
Next off it wasn't a defense it was asking for the text to see was it anti-semitic which I doubt. Or some radical isolating one sentence to discredit. which I suspect. I'll go even further to say that jamesoblivion read that sentence somewhere and that somewhere doesn't reference nothing else in the speech, to whom it was given, it just grabbed that sentence and spewed the Jesse Jackson is anti-semetic from that point forward.
It is a known fact that Jesse has reservations about current United States 100% pro Isreal Foreign Policy. That doesn't make him anti-semetic it makes him aware that we don't have a real foreign policy as it relates to Africa where over 15% of our Nations population comes from. How radicals manage to turn that FACT of US Foreign Policy to Jesse is anti-semetic is beyond me.
And finally since you asked, I will support any organization that is working towards the empowerment of Black Americans in America; Provided their mission and theories fall within the FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
That is why Farrakhan gets no support he talks of succession under Islam. I am a Christian, I beleive in the teachings of the Nazarene. And since I also have some other far reaching beliefs about God, can't buy into those positions about women Muslims and some Christian faiths hold either. Next I am an American and I beleive that America is as good as it gets.
Because as you know from another thread I beleive that our Constitution is a document of principle and not morals. So can't buy into someone building a new nation out of some warped moral value subject to change at a minutes notice. I'll stick to the one built on fundmental principles of freedom and accept the fact it took some of the people a while to figure it out. Ignorance based on warped morals tend to take a awhile to undo. I am a patient man born into a race of patient people. I have faith that it will all work out. So I hope that answers your question.
[ edited by networker67 on Dec 20, 2000 08:36 PM ]
posted on December 20, 2000 08:15:04 PM new
Jesse may well be right about our African policies. and yes, just questioning our policy re Israel does not make anyone an anti-semite. you once again have danced around the question, however. if a blatantly anti-semitic statement by Jackson is shown to you, will you denounce him?
posted on December 20, 2000 08:49:45 PM new
stusi - Think about what you ask. You want me to pull support of an Organization based on your or anyone elses ability to grab one sentence from a speech without the total context of the speech. One statement from a conversation without the preceeding question. Or follow up discussion, that's insane.
Sorry show me the whole speech, present the entire discussion. And if the entire speech shows the message was anti-semetic, I'll work to get Jesse out of the leadership chair at Rainbow. Show me a complete conversation where Jesse is on the record as being anti-semetic I'll do the same. But you can't show a speech where the complete message is anti-semetic. You can't transcribe a conversation or interview where he is anti-semetic.
I know you can't, you know you can't and that should about wrap this up. Now show me that conversation or that speech. So I am not the one dancing. You are the one hoping I would allow you or anyone else let a random sentence in a speech, or random words in a conversation convince me that a person is what I know they are not. Now where's the complete speech or that complete conversation. Or are you still trying to harp on one line taken out of context. Notice jamesoblivion hasn't surfaced with that speech. stusi do try and remember that I am also a military officer. Some of my training and military education includes subversive propaganda and spreading of it.
What codasaurus tries to do and what jamesoblivion did are both tools of the trade. Want to enrage someone against someone take random words spoken and take em out of the context they were spoken in. Even worse do like codasaurus tried to do say you are taking excerpts but leave the begining and end off. Heck pull something out of the middle seperate it from its context and you can make anybody look like anything you want.
[ edited by networker67 on Dec 20, 2000 09:06 PM ]
posted on December 20, 2000 09:06:57 PM new
First of all, I did not call you a bigot. Your priorities are where they should be; if everyone was interested in protecting and aiding their own community with a whole heart, a lot of good would get done. I know that some people think that allegiance to one's community is anti-American, so I'll point out that you have repeatedly made references to yourself as an American patriot, and one who believes strongly in the U.S. Constitution. I don't think your patriotism is in question. I think I reiterated that I do not think you are a bigot, several times, and if that wasn't clear enough, I'll say it again. I do not hold you accountable in any way for Jesse Jackson's personal views. Obviously you have some sort of personal relationship with him and his family, and based on that you have a positive view of him. It's great to be able to develop your opinions of a person on first-hand experience.
However, Jesse is a public man, unlike you and I, and what that means is anything he says is a matter of public record. The same way there are folks with pencils and papers jotting down every misspoken sentence President W utters, the same is done with Jesse, as the same is done for Madonna, and everyone else who is a public figure.
Now, Jesse Jackson apparently feels a kinship with no less a personage than Yasser Araft. For clarity, to those who do not recognize the name, Arafat has the distinction of being the man who has killed more Jews than any other since Adolf Hitler (he's killed plenty of American citizens too, folks). Now, perhaps you will argue, Arafat is a Statesman -- he has been rehabilitated from his international pariah status! Granting that point (however weak and BS it is), Jesse's ties to and flattering statements about Arafat go back to the 1970s when Arafat was universally acknowledged to be the murderer and terrorist he is. This has nothing to do with Jesse's perception of US policy toward Israel versus Africa. One thing has nothing to do with the other; neither is dependant upon the other even in the slightest amount.
I thought initially that I would not mention "Hymietown", as it seemed so trivial, especially when a "Zionism is a poisonous weed..." statement should be quite enough. However, generally speaking Presidential candidates have enough savvy not to say things like that, even if they think it.
Perhaps, "I’m sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust" is ambiguous to you.
Perhaps his reference to the Democratic party's support for Israel being because of "the Jewish element in the party... It is a kind of glorified form of bribery." is ambiguos.
Then there was that good one, only a few months ago, when Joe Lieberman was chosen to run for Vice President. While most of the country was applauding an obviously positive development in the history of the United States, regarding the opening of doors that where previously closed, Wilburt Tatum, another notorious anti-semite (with impeccable credentials -- his wife is Jewish), in his Amsterdam News editorial asserted that "the Jews" bribed Gore for the appointment. Jesse was asked to condemn it, and he pointedly refused.
You'll condemn Farrakahn, and that's wonderful but prominent black leader Jesse Jackson will not, despite being asked repeatedly to do so. See, since Jesse is so influential, his words, condemning Farrakahn would be very beneficial, because the black community considers Jesse's words very carefully.
I'm sorry that I can't pull out for you six additional sentences that will supposedly clarify that Jesse did not mean that Zionism is a poisonous weed that is choking Judaism, when he in fact really meant..... "?". Those words are unambiguous. Now you doubt that he said them. Next time you speak to Jesse, ask him if he did. Jesse Jackson is an infamous anti-semite, one of the most well-known in America. And sorry, you don't get to decide who is the anti-semite, leave that to the Jews. We know one when we see one.
What I have done, by the way, is shown a pattern.
No such pattern emerges when we examine Dr. King. No such pattern emerges when we examine, well, anyone who is not an anti-semite.
One final thought, in case you missed it. There is no context whatsoever that could justify "Zionism is a poisonous weed that is choking Judaism" as anything but anti-semitic, at least not by a Jews' definition, and not by Dr. King's definition. See, the word "Judaism" clearly illustrates that the thought had nothing whatever to do with blacks and Africa.
posted on December 20, 2000 09:47:27 PM new
jamesoblivion - I appreciate your last post it reassured me that you weren't engaging in the ploys of another famous poster. You raised some very interesting points and I am waiting for stusi to inject whatever he wants to say and will address each of your concerns. You might call it spin but I am informed enough to know it as fact. In fact I will reveal a few other things that I hope won't hurt your feelings. One of things I am going to reveal when I reply brought tears to my eyes about the sentiments of many otherwise Good Americans.
You strike me as well rounded and very intelligent. I ask that we move this to email when I do reply. My reply will take this thread on a turn that I know the average Auction Watch poster isn't capable of grasping and certain other posters will place unwarranted innuendo into the thread. But before I reply answer this how knowledgeable about United States Foreign Policy are you? And can you accept that America operates from the basic premise of certain beliefs and will do whatever it takes to protect those beliefs.
Answer those questions and when stusi injects whatever he/she has to say. I'll post my reply to your last post. And none of it will be opinion. That I promise.
posted on December 20, 2000 09:55:10 PM new
I have a *feeling* I know the direction this is going to go. I'll be happy to take it to email; click on my name on the left. I don't pretend to know all things about everything, but I do know some things. I feel I can hold my own, am open to spirited debate, I'm sure you are. Let's stick to email, I agree.
posted on December 21, 2000 07:37:10 AM new
jamesoblivion - After thinking about my reply and some of the places I was prepared to go. I have thought things over and decided to not go there. Too many people in this world get their opinions handed to them from the mainstream media and they are the biggest purveyors of propaganda in the Western World. Besides one thing I have learned about my fellow Americans. They wouldn't beleive the truth if God himself brought it down from heaven.
I agree as a public figure everything is scrutinized. And I agree that Anglo media tends to engage in selective statements to create something that doesn't exist.
Being Jewish its hard to accept that The PLO is and always was an Organized Group dedicated to the creation of a Palastinian Homeland. Please keep in mind that comes from a purely military perspective. You call it terrorism, when since they have a standing Army, it is actually Counter Subversive Warfare. To call the PLO terrorist one would have to say the Viet Cong were terrorist. Well they won the darn thing so those terrorist had better Generals which are only found in Armies. Being Jewish I know you vehemently disagree and I respect that. With Americas official Foreign Policy being pro Isreal and a lot of Americans happen to be Arab. Aren't you glad someone recognizable in America reached out to them to talk. Its not like Jesse helped them get guns, provided them any arms or money. He served as a diplomat speaking outside of the Department State that the Department of State just so happens to listen too. Helps keep those Arab Americans content that someone in America remembers that some Americans happen to come from the other places in the Middle East. You know places like Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.
Hymietown - I know nothing about this one nor its context won't even try to understand it.
"Sick and tired of the holocaust", although I don't think it is ambiguous. I do happen to know that the holocaust was prophecy and had to happen. Being Jewish you should know that but I have discovered that a lot of Jewish Congregations leave that out of the history. But the prophecy has an interesting ending, once it was fulfilled Isreal would rise again never to fall at the hands of another empire. When I first learned of this prophecy I falsely assumed that jews knew and were playing to World sympathy about the holocaust. I have discovered that most Jews were never told of the prophecy. However, I find it hypocritical of America to act like we as a Nation should have so much guilt with the rest of the World for the holocaust. And not have the decency as a nation to apologize for Slavery. Sick and tired of the holocaust is a statement not to jews but in reply to White America's I am sick and tired of everything being racism. At least with racism they contributed to that. With the holocaust America had nothing to do with it and couldn't have stopped it. If you are sick of the one you did, you have to be sick of the one you had nothing to do with. A lot of people in this country feel this way
The Democratic Party, Jesse Jackson and Election 2000 are bitter issues with me over something that I hoped my political party and country were bigger than. Discovering that it wasn't disappointed me as well as Al Gore. Parts of America lost what faith that I was tyring hold that they had changed. Seems those folks still can't grasp the concept of principles of freedom and equality over ignorance from warped morals. That's a shame...and that's bigger than Jesse and you know that yourself.
Condeming Minister Farrakhan, sorry James our leaders have no business in causing a split among our people. I am sorry but I place maintaining Black unity with my Muslim brothers over popular appeasement. Besides all who practice Islam aren't particular about Jews so why should Black Muslims be any different. And a point could be made that Isreal hasn't exactly been friendly towards the Black Isrealites who want a peice of that zionist pie.
Now for "Zionism Is A Posinous Weed Choking Judaism". Without the three sentences in front of it and three sentences behind it. It could be taken to be anti-semetic. But jamesoblivion without reading the speech and knowing who it was written to address and trying picture Jesse saying it. I see this please keep in mind I am giving this the most liberal view possible and viewing it from a purely American Sense. To go purely American you have to seperate religion, race, ethnicity, culture, and hatred of anything and look at the words.
Zionism - relocation of the flower.
posinous weed - Well weeds kill flowers.
Judaism - A flower growing in a garden.
jamesoblivion if zionism is the relocating of all jews back to Isreal. And since it is a known fact that jews are found everywhere sort of like people of color. And it is also a known fact that ignorance of anything comes from not knowing about it. Couldn't that single sentence minus its front three and back three be construed to mean.
"How can Judaism exist and hold place with other religions in this world if everyone who practices it returns to Isreal. No one would have an understanding of Judaism unless they happen to be in Isreal. Minus any one who practices it other faiths around the world could invent any lie they choose about judaism and those who practice it."
So all the Jews returning to Isreal would cause Judaism to only be practiced in Isreal. Unless jews multiply faster than other religions you would be a shrinking as opposed to growing as a religion. There would be no more converted Jews.
Zionism can be construed to mean the isolation and nationalizing of all Jews to the Jewish State. I enjoy having people of all faiths around. I enjoy my experiences learing about other cultures. If all the Jews had of left and went to Isreal, I wouldn't have my friends from summer camp. Heck the camp since it was jewish wouldn't have been there. Since Jesse is a Minister. I think he should be given the greatest latitude of interpretation. Since ministers are supposed to bring the word of a God of Love.
posted on December 21, 2000 08:07:08 AM new
networker67, & james. I have high regard for both you, james & all AW posters in all the threads of this nature in the way the have conducted themselves.
I have a problem with this paragraph & the reason you both agreed to it.
"You strike me as well rounded and very intelligent. I ask that we move this to email when I do reply. My reply will take this thread on a turn that I know the average Auction Watch poster isn't capable of grasping and certain other posters will place unwarranted innuendo into the thread.
It, gentleman. blows my mine that the words "I know the average Auction Watch poster isn't capable of grasping and certain other posters will place unwarranted innuendo into the thread" The agreement of taking it to email, based on these words, places the intellect of not only the average AW poster in doubt, but the average American Citizen too! Networker67, These words are offensive to me,sir! as a average AW poster, American Citizen & may be a voliation of the Military Oath you took!
posted on December 21, 2000 08:47:36 AM new
networker- as a supposedly knowledgable person are you publicly saying that you are unaware of the infamous "Hymietown" comment by your good friend Jackson? i for one do not believe you!!!! if you want to be truly honest why don't you just admit that you will respect him regardless of his well-established anti-semitism. you never responded to my question as to whether or not you have told your Jewish "friends" about your admiration for this anti-semite. you have checkmated yourself! your remarks about Farrakhan say that you are at odds with him "splitting" the Black community but no mention of being at odds with his anti-semitism either!
posted on December 21, 2000 10:56:32 AM new
I, for one, would like to see the entire text of that speech. Three sentences before and after might not do justice to the context in which the remarks were made. Indeed, if they were even made.
Networker67,
You say that the speech writer was fired over this speech? So I assume you can obtain the text of the speech and provide it to those interested in analyzing the context of the remarks. As we are all reasonably intelligent people here I find no need to have you interpret the speech for us.
You claim to be a personal friend of the Jackson family and a supporter of the man so it should be relatively easy for you to locate the speech and post a link to it.
And finally, my inevitable questions to you. If the writer was fired over that speech, has The Reverend Jackson repudiated those statements? Has The Reverend not admitted his responsibility in not reviewing the speech before giving it? Has not The Reverend forgiven the speech writer for putting words in his mouth?
posted on December 21, 2000 11:05:10 AM new
All that needs to be said is that I agree with Fred about the following paragraph:
""You strike me as well rounded and very intelligent. I ask that we move this to email when I do reply. My reply will take this thread on a turn that I know the average Auction Watch poster isn't capable of grasping and certain other posters will place unwarranted innuendo into the thread."
In truth, it was late and it was after a long day of working my ass of with FLD, as well as playing in the RT, I hadn't really read it as carefully as I do now. My apologies to any AW poster who feels that I agree that "the average Auction Watch poster isn't capable of grasping...". If it seemed I was agreeing to it, I was not. I did think a discussion of the type ot was heading towards (Networker thoughtfully posted it here instead of emailing me) would not be a good thing to get into publicly.
Regarding the rest, Networker, it is possible to debate, debate, debate, clearly you are capable of debate, and your modus is not to give any ground ever. It makes for fun mental gymnastics, but to engage in something entirely circular would be a waste of time. Suffice it to say I could write a hundred pages rebutting each and every point you have made in that last post, quite lucidly in fact, for all to see. I will not take the bait though.
posted on December 21, 2000 11:20:08 AM newSince Jesse is a Minister. I think he should be given the greatest latitude of interpretation. Since ministers are supposed to bring the word of a God of Love.
Sorry, I can't resist. That one was the biggest load of bulls.hit blathering I have seen written anywhere in a long time.
posted on December 21, 2000 11:52:16 AM new
amen, James. one would think that a minister, pastor, or rabbi would not need a great deal of "latitude" in preaching the love of God as they would have plenty of clear, definitive references for their sermons! isn't asking for latitude the same as asking either not to always be taken seriously or to be allowed to make mistakes? i would assume in the latter case that a fairly quick correction would be made! networker has been MIA for several hours-perhaps doing some soul-searching or on the phone with Jesse getting the spin or revealing his questionable alliance to his semitic "friends".
[ edited by stusi on Dec 21, 2000 11:55 AM ]
posted on December 21, 2000 12:01:15 PM new
Similarly, a "man of God" is to be an arbiter of Truth, if he is indeed a "man of God".
Truth dictates that the very reverend Jesse would loudly denounce Farrakhan, irrespective of cost. Truth does not hide behind lame excuses. Dr. King did not hide behind lame excuses, but proclaimed Truth. Doesn't the very reverend Jesse know that in his Bible it states that the truth sets us free?
In fact, he is not a truthful man, and he is a bigot. Although I would not presume to speak for God (unlike the very reverend Jesse, "man of God" ), it would not surprise me if this "man of God" makes God sick, anthropomorphically speaking, of course.
Just a little reminder to those folks out there who are far from the issue, the very reverend Jesse coddles Yasser Arafat, who has killed many American civilian citizens.
edit:UBB thingy
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Dec 21, 2000 12:02 PM ]
posted on December 21, 2000 12:05:44 PM new
I don't have the entire context of the speech..."Zionism is a poisonous weed that's choking the flower of Judaism."
Was this comment by Jesse Jackson made in reference
to the resignation of U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young in 1979. Jackson
thought that this resignation was a "capitulation to Jewish pressures."
posted on December 21, 2000 12:08:45 PM new
BTW- in a previous post networker said that his "military education includes subversive propaganda and spreading of it". that about says it all, doesn't it?
posted on December 21, 2000 02:17:01 PM new
HJW- can you find that speech somehow? i expect the netster will be showing up here soon. i will be out most of the night but will catch up later.
posted on December 21, 2000 02:56:21 PM new
stusi/james - Since the truth is Farrakhan is a Muslim and Muslim and Jews for some strange reason don't share religous philosophy although they share geography. Why should a Black Chirstian leader denouce a Black Muslim leader because the Black Muslim leader shares the same views that his brothers in Islam share.
Is Farrakhan supposed to be worse because he is a Black Muslim? Or is he supposed to be worse because he happens to also be American. I only split with the Minister on his succesionist views. As an American he has the Freedom to practice Islam in any manner he sees fit. Now james you think an extract from whereever it came from makes Jesse Jackson anti-semetic. I showed you minus the rest of the speech that the statement alone doesn't hold that view. You have chosen to take that view. I have chosen not to take that view. You pulled up some meetings with the PLO. Heck President Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all have met with Arafat. I guess they are anti-semetic also.
You went to the holocaust, I discussed that still see no anti-semetisim. Part of the problem jamesoblivion is Jews and Blacks both simultaneously ply for the attention and resources of our Federal Government. Jews ply for consideration to anti-semetisim in America and Military Alliance in The Middle East. Blacks ply for consideration to equality in America. And ply for more consideration to equality at home which is by the way America.
Let's agree to disagree on the issue. You aren't going to convince me Jesse Jackson is anti-semetic. And I am growing tired of placing the actions of another into their proper context. I will agree that Jesse should choose his words more carefully to avoid the wrong context being construed.
Now now James he has also meet with Milosevic, Khadafy, The Ayotollah, Hussein, and everybody else that has been labeled villian of the month by America and its Allies. Heck I bet before the end of next year he meets with Bin Laden. I am waiting for that one so the State Department can get me a more current photo.
HJW - Thanks Helen for giving me a time frame and reference for the words. It also helps me place an audience. Now I can go read them. That was painful history that I have to assume that jamesoblivion has received some recent literature on. And if the words were said in 1979 and have resurfaced in the jewish community sounds like propaganda out of fear of a Foreign Policy shift. Now on that other comment to stusi thank god my skin is made of Homogeneous Steel....SMILE
Fred- Sorry you got offended but as you can see we are entering that area of personal attack as referenced by stusi and helen and for some strange reason the moderators always wait for me to entertain that direction before moderating. And then for some strange reason always jump only on me. BTW my military oath is to the Constitution nothing more nothingless. Americans fight for the principles of the constitution not the geographical boundaries of the United States nor its people. If I was fighting for its people I would have formed the conclusion long ago, why bother.
codasaurus - Its a non issue, in fact HJW has confirmed when the words were said. And since that was 21 years ago I have lost interest. Particularly since Young's Resignation was captilulation to Isreal. But then Ronny took office and set this country's priorities straight regarding foreign policy. So if Jewish Groups are still using that issue. Then they are stooping to propaganda to promote their agenda in Washington. I will assume this new rash of propaganda is out of fear of an expected Foreign Policy shift. Or maybe they are scared that Powell will recommend that Jesse handle the Middle East Peace accords....lol...lol
posted on December 21, 2000 03:36:26 PM new
net- the fact that the quote is 20 years old makes it invalid? how about the numerous other quotes referenced here? you may have homogeneous skin(whatever that means) but you also have a hypocritical indifference to anti-semitism! for the third time, have you told your Jewish friends about this or is the relationship about which you are so proud just for some political convenience? compassionate tunnel vision? is that what it means to be an American?
[ edited by stusi on Dec 21, 2000 04:09 PM ]
[ edited by stusi on Dec 21, 2000 04:10 PM ]
posted on December 21, 2000 04:10:50 PM new
Not one of those leaders you mentioned has ever embraced Yasser Arafat. Not one of those leaders you mentioned has ever called him a great statesman (20+ years ago), and most importantly, not one of those leaders, or anyone else in the Western world would so much as go near Arafat until 1993 when Shimon Peres decided to ressurect the aging international pariah dinosaur Arafat, behind his fellow Israeli's backs. You are correct, he has met all those people (Qadafi, Hussein, etc.) as well, and it is pretty damning. Some of your best friends may be Jews ( ), some of Jesse's best friends are villanous and venomous murderers who are the current scourge of mankind.
Hey, what is your opinion on his meeting, and posing for smiling touchy-feely photos with the Islamic regime in Sudan that, get this, murders 1-200 (mostly black) Christians daily, and (yessir, in the year 2000) enslaves black people? The very reverend Jesse is such a man.
Regarding Farrakhan's supposed "Islam", the Nation of Islam is considered to be a grave heresy in ALL mainstream Muslim groups (the last Prophet of Islam is Muhammad, not "Elijah Muhammad" ). Did you know that? His group is not considered to be Muslim by either the Shi'a or Sunni Muslims, worldwide.
Now, just because the majority of modern anti-semitism stems from the Arab world does not excuse Farrakhan from subscribing to those views. As any Muslim will tell you Islamic anti-smitism is political, not religous in nature (I'm unconvinced, but that is the line the Muslims I've discussed this with laid on me). And furthermore, Jesse's refusal to condemn anti-semitism, not only is consonant with his own anti-semitic views, which I have aptly demonstrated to everyone, except you, because you choose not to admit it, it is also an absolute negation of all of his supposed goals. Indeed, you are beginning to see a picture as to why most fair-minded Americans who deplore bigotry are nauseated by Jesse, who is nothing more than a Klansmen in black skin, exploiting those he represent for personal gain, because he is given carte blanche by ostriches like you (I'm being charitable and am assuming that you "just don't see it", not that you secretly agree with him).
With regard to your laughable (cryable?) "why should a Black Christian leader denounce a Black Muslim leader because the Black Muslim leader shares the same views that his brothers in Islam share" question, it is because anti-semitism is not merely "a view that his brothers in Islam share" anymore than White Supremicism is "a viewpoint that his brothers in Christianity share". If you want racism, the White Supremacists have all the verses for you. So don't try to slide that crap out here. It behooves a "man of God" to speak the truth, and to speak up out against evil. You read the MLK quote, which both defined Zionism, and anti-semitism quite nicely. You, and everyone else, know that the words of King are almost Gospel for the Civil Rights movement in America. You, those people like you, s.hit on his memory by hauling out the bronze busts of MLK for show, and passing off racism and hate as the furtherance of his legacy. You ought to be ashamed.
Seriously, man, what the hell? Judaism is "a flower growing in a garden"? What drugs are you taking? English is English. You are an apologist for that man, nothing more nothing less. Apparently you think he s.hits gold, let me tell you, his s.hit stinks too. You are not honest, as you appeared for a brief moment yesterday.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Dec 21, 2000 04:11 PM ]
posted on December 21, 2000 04:35:16 PM new
I believe Helen asked if that statement was from the occasion when Young resigned.
I would still like to see the full speech or statement so that we can confirm if Jacksn really said those words and if so, in what context.
Networker67,
If the statement is accurate and if it is from 1979 it hardly matters that it is of little or no concern to you. That sounds like a cop out because you don't want to face the possible reality that the statement was indeed made by Jackson and never repudiated by him.
And how is it that in an earlier post here you knew the speechwriter was fired over the statement if it was from 21 years ago? And is apparently in court over the firing? It sounds as though you have your facts thoroughly mixed up.
FWIW: I wouldn't recommend a tactical withdrawal, an entrenchment, or a renewed assault. I think it's time to send in the diplomats to negotiate a peace with honor.
posted on December 21, 2000 06:51:32 PM new
Just in the event that someone decides to edit their post and deny they ever made such a statement...
"If you like I can call tomorrow and probably get a copy of the speech delivered. The writer of the speech was fired. That's a fact, in fact he's suing over it."
I would like to see a copy of the full speech or statement or whatever. So that I can be assured that the man actually said those words.
I would also like to know if he ever disavowed the statement (assuming he did make it).
[ edited by codasaurus on Dec 21, 2000 06:52 PM ]
posted on December 21, 2000 08:47:38 PM new
It wasn't made in a speech. It was in private conference, overheard, and told to a WP reporter who wrote it up. The writeup refeered to Jackson having called New York city "Hymietown" in 1984.
I doubt that any other sentences could be found or were reported.
Why, in all of this, no one has taken the trouble to do a search as "Jesse Jackson hymietown" is beyond me.
The zionism......comments are harder to find, but there's no doubt that Jackson said them.
