Tuesday, August 4, 2009

That idiot, VOX POOPULI should read THIS article from the Jpost

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277865693&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Just as I suspected, he was wrong. Obama is trying to tell the Jews they can't live wherever in Jerusalem. He is trying to halt building on land purchased from the Arabs to a Jew over a century ago. You see who's side he's on... Yeah, we know who's side he's on.

Incidentally, a muslim tried to run me over this morning while I was on my way to work. Uh, huh! You see how they are? That's how they are.

19 comments:

  1. Oh, Poopuli, that's clever. You know, it seems unfair that you will post insulting comments about me, but not my responses to your posts, simply because we disagree. It seems intellectually dishonest to me.

    Secondly, I don't know why you believe that Wikipedia is not a valid reference, even when it sources its information (as in the case when I cited it earlier), but op-eds from right wingers qualify as "articles" which "prove" things. It's a bit of a double standard.

    Third, I don't know what I'm "wrong" about. I never asserted that President Obama was uninterested in halting development in East Jerusalem. Indeed, if you read my previous posts, you will come away with the understanding that East Jerusalem would naturally come under the same rubric as the rest of the West Bank. It is disputed territory (according to every country except Israel), and it is expected that peace negotiations will probably divide the city somewhat, with at least part of East Jerusalem becoming the capital of the new Palestinian state. Therefore, all the legitimate reasons that apply to halting the expansion of settlement in the West Bank would apply in East Jerusalem.

    Fourth, I am sorry for your traumatic experience this morning, but I think it is wrongheaded of you to assume that such intentions apply equally to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. Imagine if someone made such an observation about the entire Jewish people because a Jewish person almost ran them over? Or because a Jew defrauded people of $50 billion dollars? Or illegaly trafficked in organs? You see, it's a slippery slope. I urge you to keep a more open mind, and be less racist in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Oh, Poopuli, that's clever."

    Yes, it is.

    "It is disputed territory (according to every country except Israel), and it is expected that peace negotiations will probably divide the city somewhat, with at least part of East Jerusalem becoming the capital of the new Palestinian state."

    Actually, according to you, all of Israel belongs to the Palestinians. Peace negotiations? The PLA is not interested in Peace. East Jerusalem is not a proper capitol for Palestinians. How about Mecca? That seems an appropriate option.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Vox Populi,

    You can NOT use Wikipedia to reference information, let alone cite and/or use it as a referencing source. Any University Professor will tell you this. You don't see academics citing from Wikipedia now do you??

    Wikipedia is neither scholarly nor peer reviewed by a Governing Academic Body. Anyone can edit the information provided. Which therefore deems Wikipedia to be considered by many as a non credible source.

    ReplyDelete
  4. >Actually, according to you, all of Israel belongs to the Palestinians.

    No, I never said this. I think we're talking past each other. You seem to have conjured up this image of me as some sort of Israel-hating, terrorist-loving "Arab". Needless to say, I am not. The political opinions you imagine I subscribe to are not held by me.

    Here is my understanding of your opinion: All of Israel (from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, and probably more) of course belongs to the Jews, and all Arabs and Muslims are antisemitic liars who are just out to kill Jews, and have no right to live in Israel, and are illegally squatting on your land. Any attempts to make peace by giving up land is wrong. Anybody who argues with any of your views must be some sort of moronic antisemite to whom the rules of polite discourse need not apply. I hope this is a caricature of your beliefs, but from what I've read, I seriously doubt that is true.

    All I'm asking for is a little nuance. A lot of what you think about this issue is, quite frankly, wrong and/or misguided - or is significantly more complicated than what you think. I urge you not to take differences of opinion personally, especially when you have adopted particularly strident and absolutist beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. >East Jerusalem is not a proper capitol for Palestinians. How about Mecca? That seems an appropriate option.

    Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. The Palestinians are not. That does not seem an appropriate option at all. Unless, of course, your plan for Mid-East peace involves transporting 5.1 million Arabs to Saudi Arabia.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Are you certain it was religiously based? I find that many people in private cars have no regard for pedestrians and run red lights.

    Makes me wonder if it was an SUV, or as I also call them terrorist training vehicles.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous,
    Thank you. It's just too bad the old poop here will probably think that I posted that becuase it's under Anonymous.

    Thomas,
    It was weird. All the sudden, I had this inclination to turn around and check traffic and this car was coming up way to side slowish, but steady trying to force me to the side. It was right on Jewel before the bridge where all the pot holes are. I'm sure they saw a girl riding a bike in a skirt and "Jewish double shirt" and figured "Jackpot!"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Poop,
    Actually, I figure you are an American who reads the media here and not all Arab. You are probably a cliche white suburbanite gentile.

    "Mecca is in Saudi Arabia." Sounds good to me. That's where they face when they pray, they can go there or America... The arabs like New Jersey....

    ReplyDelete
  9. >You can NOT use Wikipedia to reference information, let alone cite and/or use it as a referencing source. Any University Professor will tell you this. You don't see academics citing from Wikipedia now do you?? Wikipedia is neither scholarly nor peer reviewed by a Governing Academic Body. Anyone can edit the information provided. Which therefore deems Wikipedia to be considered by many as a non credible source.

    It is true that you cannot use Wikipedia in an academic setting (usually). However, if you wanted to know something - something that is pretty easy to find out - Wikipedia is a great place to look. This blog is not an academic paper. It is a forum. If I were arguing with you about whether the capital of Tanzania was Dar es Salaam or Karthoum, and I showed you Tanzania's Wikipedia page, would you seriously not accept it, and wait until you had proof from a printed Atlas?

    In this instance, I made an assertion - that Israel receives $3 billion per year from the United States in military aid. Michal asked for some citations - and I linked to the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article, in turn, linked to its source for the information, which is what most important Wikipedia pages do. In this case, the citation was from a reputable publication, Forbes magazine. Forbes magazine may definitely be cited in an academic setting. This particular fact is available in numerous publications, and is a figure that is frequently used and mentioned. I don't know if Michal has information to the contrary, but I doubt it - it's a pretty widely accepted figure. She has yet to dispute the figure, in point of fact.

    My point in this thread, was that Michal had no problem using an opinion piece from a newspaper as "proof" of something, but scorned a sourced Wikipedia article. That still seems a double standard.

    As an interesting aside, I believe studies have been done to compare the reliability of Wikipedia versus that of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. My understanding is that it emerged that Wikipedia was no less reliable.

    ReplyDelete
  10. >Actually, I figure you are an American who reads the media here and not all Arab. You are probably a cliche white suburbanite gentile.

    Really? You think I'm not Jewish? I thought it was obvious. Who else comments here? I imagine that most of your posts would be largely indecipherable to a gentile.

    (You know, 80% of us voted for Obama. Jews who don't like Obama are really in the minority.)

    I'm not sure why you think I'm a suburbanite. Are my views particularly suburban? Is my reading of the Balfour Declaration evocative of big front lawns and minivans?

    ReplyDelete
  11. You voted for Obama. You think he is great. You are a fool. He is doing whatever he can to destroy the Jews.

    I just think you sound like a typical run of the mill who reads the American media and believes everything you hear.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You know this ain't the Doha debate.

    Anyone who goes near Wikipedia to cite information, let alone use in any shape of form can not be taken seriously.

    You mentioned "studies". So elaborate on this notion, back this statement up with some actual proof. If you are going to state a fact, then back it up.

    Besides the majority of people looking for anything scholarly would at time(s)use Google Scholar and/or a reputable database to gather information from and would most certainly not go anywhere near Wikipedia. You have heard of Google Scholar now haven't you?

    The fact of the matter is, this post has now morphed into a debate which can not be deemed credible on your behalf. Why? for the simple fact of where you are sourcing information from and uncredible source.

    Regardless of the fact that Wikipedia has (references/footnotes) is not the point. The fact is that someone who would like to convey a point is referencing from uncredible sources.

    It would be like using articles as references from the BBC. Now everyone knows how Pro-Palestinian and how Anti Israel the BBC is not to mention how extremely bias they are when covering any stories regarding Israel.

    This blog represents an assortment of people from numerous socio economic backgrounds and from within different groups within the Jewish community. There is no 'double standard' here.

    You mentioned that "You know, 80% of us voted for Obama. Jews who don't like Obama are really in the minority".

    Show me the proof of this. And all of us? Do you speak for the entire Jewish community? Of course not. Don't make such assumptions.

    Therefore we can all reach the conclusion that the main disagreement in which you indeed have is in regard to the stance and perspective from which this blogger writes from.

    ReplyDelete
  13. >You voted for Obama. You think he is great. You are a fool. He is doing whatever he can to destroy the Jews.

    That's a bold statement. Why would you think that? Can you back this up? For the record, I'll accept Wikipedia. ;)

    >I just think you sound like a typical run of the mill who reads the American media and believes everything you hear.

    That is because you are limited. Narrow-minded. You see someone who has a disagreement with you as, essentially, a dupe. I must be a pawn of the mainstream media. I must have been brainwashed. I must just reflexively believe whatever I hear. It's simply not possible that the issue is very important to me, and that I actually took the time to examine the issue (for years), and only formed an opinion after careful thought. It must be, because my opinion is different than yours, and lines up with your preconceived conspiracy-filled notions of the political leanings of the "American media" (honestly, you sound like a North Korean commie when you bash the media), that I lack the capacity for critical thought.

    But, ask yourself these questions. Which of us has presented his/her argument with facts and historical data, and actual attempts at logical argument? And which of us has simply responded with prejudiced ad hominems (I've been an Arab, the friend of an Arab, a gentile, and a gullible fool so far) and fanciful non sequiturs about where they would like to see Arabs take up residence - so long as it's not Israel? Which of us relies on facts that are plainly in the historical record, and which of us relies on op-eds in the Jerusalem Post?

    And are you so sure that it is you who is not gullible? That it is not you that simply believes whatever it is that your community believes? It is not you that believes whatever op-eds that correspond with their already-formed political beliefs?

    I, too, am an Orthodox Jew, with a Zionist yeshiva background to boot, and I readily accept that my political opinions put me in the minority of my community. I don't like being in the minority, and I'd much rather think as everyone else does, but in this case, everyone else is unfortunately wrong. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong (and the rest of my community is right), and that despite my best efforts to investigate the truth of the matter, I have been hoodwinked. Hey, maybe it is you who is the indomitable investigator? It's possible, and I accept it. Which is why I try to argue in good faith. All I ask from you is a little humility back in return. Maybe, just maybe, someone who disagrees with you knows what they are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Zionist, really? Not according the statements you make here. You are the one that seems to think it is the Israelis on Arab land, not me.

    Also, Zionist Orthodox Yeshivah background? What? Ramaz? You obviously run modern. Yes, many Jews voted for Obama. However, my friends are all Yeshivish and true Machmir MO (like in Boro Park types). None of those friends voted for Obama or support him because they know better they know what he is all about. On the other hand, most of the non-white converts and conversion candidates I know support Obama. Even some of the white converts and candidates. I don't know any FFBs who support him, not in the circles where I run.

    Anyhow, I'll deal with you later. I have to go to work.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In regards to what Mr. VOX POPVLI says about Wikipedia; I actually believe it's a better source (at times...I mean, about topics people care about) than the Britiannica or a textbook. Do you have any idea what nonsense the 1911 Britannica espoused? One obvious issue is the "superiority of European races compared to savage races". I mean, from a scientific perspective, even the word "race" is a big msnomer. And American texbooks, for example, use very biased language. They would never say "occupied" California or Texas..

    The advantage of Wikipedia is, besids the fact that you've got to site, is that on the editing page there're usually huge arguents on both sides of the spectrum. If the article is a bit one-sided you don't have to look far to see the opposing view.

    ReplyDelete
  16. >You mentioned that "You know, 80% of us voted for Obama. Jews who don't like Obama are really in the minority".

    Here is a proof I hope you will accept. It is from a publication that I assume you believe is reliable (but which I do not) - Arutz Sheva. Now, I didn't find it on Google Scholar, but...

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128242

    And all of us? Do you speak for the entire Jewish community? Of course not. Don't make such assumptions.

    Well, do the math. If 78-79% of American Jews voted for Obama, it's exceedingly likely that a minority of American Jews did not vote for him. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that people who voted for Obama less than a year ago do not hate him. Of course, I would expect his popularity numbers to go down somewhat, but overall, it would seem likely that more American Jews like Obama than dislike him.

    But, Anonymous, I think you missed the point I was making. Michal implied that people who think like me are not mainstream members of Jewish society. She called me a gentile in fact. But, as you can see, I am probably not in the minority of Jews who support President Obama. From my opinions, at least, there is no reason to think that I am a gentile.

    ReplyDelete
  17. >The fact of the matter is, this post has now morphed into a debate which can not be deemed credible on your behalf. Why? for the simple fact of where you are sourcing information from and uncredible source.

    Seriously? This is what the debate is about? Because once in twenty posts I quoted a Wikipedia page which referenced a reputable publication? Seriously?

    What, every time I make an assertion I have to back it up with a scholarly article? How about you bring me citations that Wikipedia is not credible - after all, that's your assertion!

    Note: I'm sure you could, just as I can bring sources that say what I say. The point is, if we had to carefully source every assertion we made here unbidden, there would be no conversation.

    And seriously, it's not like anything I'm saying is way out of left field, here. If you want to find out how much military aid Israel receives - just google it. If, after some serious searching, you really couldn't find it and suspected I was lying, then fine, I would understand you needed a citation. But no one has disputed the facts I quoted, and no one has made any substantive criticism of the citation, other than just to sniff that Wikipedia is not reputable, even though the citation was not from Wikipedia, but rather was found on Wikipedia.

    >It would be like using articles as references from the BBC. Now everyone knows how Pro-Palestinian and how Anti Israel the BBC is not to mention how extremely bias they are when covering any stories regarding Israel.

    OK, this is just absurd. First of all, everyone does not know that the BBC is hopelessly biased. Indeed, for virtually the entire world, the BBC is a perfectly reputable news source. It is only to people of your relatively tiny community that the BBC is synonymous with anti-Israel feeling. So do you expect me to only provide you with sources that meet your ideological litmus test? Only Arutz Sheva and Caroline Glick and other op-eds in the Jerusalem Post? If that's the way you plan on going through life, I'm afraid you'll find that reality has a liberal bias. ;)

    >This blog represents an assortment of people from numerous socio economic backgrounds and from within different groups within the Jewish community. There is no 'double standard' here.

    It doesn't matter who is represented. It could be a veritable rainbow of peoples and cultures, for all I care. The fact is, right wing propoganda espoused by editorials in the Jerusalem Post are considered proofs, while citations to reputable sources which I found on Wikipedia which confirm an assertion I made is rejected. Double standard.

    ReplyDelete
  18. >Zionist, really? Not according the statements you make here. You are the one that seems to think it is the Israelis on Arab land, not me.

    Au contraire, I am the most Zionist poster here. I am the only one that seems genuinely concerned about the continued existence of the Jewish State. For instance, I see that the demographics of Israel will soon create an untenable position - equal Arabs and Jews. And then what? Either Zionism gets voted out of existence, is destroyed in a civil war, or has its name sullied with attachment to ethnic cleansing. I have a plan to prevent that from happening, and that ensures the existence of a Jewish, if smaller, Israel. Do you?

    Also, I'm not sure why you think that "Zionism" necessarily entails believing that the Arabs have no right to (at least some of) Palestine. All Zionism really is, is the belief that the Jews are entitled to a homeland in the area formerly known as Palestine. There's ample room here for compromise.

    The early Arab presence in Palestine was vociferously discussed by Zionist thinkers. Herzl hoped that the Arabs would eventually decide to move away, especially if Jews refused to hire them for labor. Ahad Ha'am, another early Zionist thinker, was not so optimistic. Ben Gurion and the Labor Zionists hoped to push them out gradually by buying as much of their land as possible. In short, you can be a Zionist and not pretend that the Palestinians came from the Moon.

    >Also, Zionist Orthodox Yeshivah background? What? Ramaz? You obviously run modern.

    Well, I'm liberal, I don't know if I'm modern. I didn't go to a Zionist yeshiva high school, but a regular yeshivishe one - definitely less modern than "MO machmir". I went to a Zionist hesder yeshiva in Israel.

    >None of those friends voted for Obama or support him because they know better they know what he is all about.

    Nu, so maybe I know better what he is about? ;)

    >I don't know any FFBs who support him, not in the circles where I run.

    I know some, but definitely not a lot. But voting for Obama definitely does not make you anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, or even not a good Zionist. Were you to construct a Venn diagram with one circle representing Zionists, and one representing those who voted for Obama, you would see significant overlap. Although probably not in the frum community. But, as I think there are more non-Orthodox Zionists than Orthodox Zionists (only because Orthodox Jews make up a relatively small part of Jewish people), I'm not sure how relevant that is.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Poop,
    Anon is in a country where everyone knows the BBC is not realiable Jewish news. So, she doesn't know that people may not know that in the USA.

    HA! You admit it! Liberal....


    Nah, no more comments for you, I don't like you... MY blog.

    ReplyDelete