I was checking the only reliable part of the newspaper today, the funnies of course, and noticed Dagwood.
There he sits watching a TV food show of some sort when one of the unseen television voices says;
"Listen, I'm fed up with pro-pimiento activists wanting to shove their seasonings right down my throat!!"
To which the other unseen voice responds ending with;
"...You tomato-hugging anti-garlic whacko extremist!"
I found it pretty funny; my wife rolled her eyes.
However cliche, it's true that many a truth is told in jest.
Maybe we should work on a little civility, a little more often...unless of course it concerns that Scott MacLean.........................just kidding.
17 comments:
"You know.... that SOB drank the last beer in the fridge in 1985!!!!"
You want to keep using neo-con and expect people to think you're not an anti-semite?
Gosh, and I thought Dagwood was funny today!
I use Neo-con and I am a semite.
Me too...
ACR, can you explain to me why people would assume that anyone who uses the word 'neo-con' is anti-semitic?
Is David Cameron, leader of the Conservative party in the United Kingdom anti-semitic when he says, "I am a liberal Conservative, not a neo-conservative"?
(ref: Cameron: I'm no neo-con in the Guardian.)
Or perhaps Anne Applebaum of the Telegraph is an anti-semite, for writing stuff like
And all of this was before Afghanistan, before Tony Blair was tainted by his friendship with George Bush, and before anyone knew the word "neo-con", let alone felt the need to claim not to be one. in her column, Stop blaming America for terrorism.
Perhaps what is happening is a redefinition of the phrase 'anti-semite' to refer to anyone who does not subscribe to a virulently militaristic Zionism.
>>I use Neo-con and I am a semite.
You must have just loved Matt Hale, huh?
Deny it all you like, it's nothing less than hate speech of the most vile kind, as far I'm concerned.
I'm not prone towards political correctness, however anything that smacks of some direct or subtle racial or ethnic slur really drives me bats.
ACR said... "Maybe we should work on a little civility, a little more often...unless of course it concerns that Scott MacLean.........................just kidding."
You're not kidding, you hate MacLean. People often use humor to hide their real feelings. So i guess we should all be civil, except you, who has said that violence is acceptable when it's used against people you disapprove of.
I really say this with sincere confusion...
Are you saying that we are self-hating? Or just stupid? Because I can't seem to find another conclusion.
>>Perhaps what is happening is a redefinition of the phrase 'anti-semite' to refer to anyone who does not subscribe to a virulently militaristic Zionism.
I would agree that anyone who does not subscribe to a militaristic Zionism would be an anti-semite.
However your use of the word virulently in that context gives me pause and reason for concern as well.
Frankly it reads like something from davidduke.com
From a 2004 Wall Street Journal Editorial:
Others have gotten in trouble for pointing this out, but let's give up the charade. When a member of the enlightened classes, or Pat Buchanan, makes reference to a "neocon," what he's saying is "yid." That's right, "neoconservative," particularly in its shortened form, when employed by a nonconservative (or by Buchananites) and therefore meant derogatorily, is the modern, albeit more specific, word for "kike" that the left can say--and it has been doing so liberally (no pun intended) ever since American conservatism became yet something else that Jews have managed to benefit from--the conquered, final frontier of that famous Jewish manipulation
>>who has said that violence is acceptable when it's used against people you disapprove of.
Slave owners?
You have a problem with John Brown killing slave owners and freeing human beings?
Geesh!
Hey Ghengis-see what you created when you gave him front page status? Is this what CLP has become?
I think that while a small number use "neo-con" in the way you suggest, ACR, the vast majority of people don't. I've seen and know the people who use this word, and believe me, thay don't have anti-semitism even remotely close to their thoughts when they say it.
ACR said..."You have a problem with John Brown killing slave owners and freeing human beings?"
Geesh yourself...IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!!!That's domestic terrorism. Even back then they knew that. John Brown was hung for his crimes. We are a nation of laws. The vigilate mindset you advocate is just what we are trying to convince the Iraqui's to stop doing. And you want to do it here...
What a strange discussion! It seems like the real line needs to be, why can’t everyone be more civil to me? We don’t need to become more civil. We need everyone else to become more civil.
This becomes even more clear when we start talking about neo-cons and liberals. Years ago, everyone started abandoning the word ‘liberal’ because of previous failed liberal policies. It became a term of condescension. Now, with certain neo-con policies likewise failing, it too is becoming a term of condescension.
It is not surprising that ACR feels it is uncivil to refer to him as a neo-con and it is justifiable to refer to TBCT as an anti-Semite for doing so.
Yet in doing this, ACR only furthers making neo-con a pejorative term. Don’t call me a neo-con sounds too much like a child saying don’t call me a retard on the school ground. ACR’s choice in equating people who use neo-con as a pejorative term with anti-Semites only further reinforces the negativity, since many people see the biggest failings of the neo-conservative policies being in the Middle East.
So, just as liberals have rebranded themselves with the old moniker of progressive, I cannot help but wonder when the neo-cons will follow suit. Perhaps they will start calling themselves Tories or Monarchists.
ACR writes, ”I would agree that anyone who does not subscribe to a militaristic Zionism would be an anti-semite.”
For a different perspective, I would encourage people seriously interested in the topic to read JEWISH CRITICISM OF ZIONISM by Edward C. Corrigan. It was written back in 1990 and traces historical opposition to Zionism by many Jews.
He quotes Nahum Goldmann as saying, "When Zionism first appeared on the world scene most Jews opposed it and scoffed at it. Herzl was only supported by a small minority." (From Nahum Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox, translated by Steven Cox (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978), pp. 77)
There are many Jewish rationales to oppose Zionism, and especially a militaristic Zionism. Some of the more orthodox oppose Zionism based on the view that Israel should only be founded by the coming of the Messiah. At the other end of the spectrum, there are Jews that feel that Israel must show greater Justice and move away from too strong a militaristic stance.
I must admit, I am not well versed in the arguments for and against Zionism, but it does seem naïve to suggest that those who do not subscribe to militaristic Zionism are anti-Semitic.
What a shame this topic is lost in an arguement with everyone else against ACR. I have found his past posts confrontational and was surprised to see he is now posting as "staff." ACR, I hope you rise above this type of give and take and give us real information. Some of us like interesting, enlightening posts, and now I'll leave.
"Neo-con" as hate speech?? LOL, you really must be an "Authentic Republican", since you obviously are not concerned about basing your comments in reality.
Post a Comment