Isidor - this is the second time you invent what I think or will think.
Beyond this, please note that MY example was about MY statement on
Celts,
nothing to do with Rolf's.

Perhaps you have some motive for doing this which you don't share with
us?
Are we not sensible enough to understand it?

YAWN

I don't mind exchanging some views with someone with different ones, but I
am bored when people pre-suppose what I think, as if they lack a real
curiosity - what could you or I get out of this exchange that feels at all
real?

I really don't care what you conclude if you wish to proceed the same
way.

Wow, you live up to your reputation.

You raised the example of Celt/Liar in defense of Rolf's use

Not really. I am just changing the subject from an emotive Jewish/German
one, to another culture so that we could possibly see how we approach these
things.

of the
phrase "Being a Jew and Liar". It is reasonable to assume that you did
this because you believed that Celt/Liar was somehow analogous to
Rolf's phrase.

I think I have mentioned before that it is at minimum polite to ask a
question, before making 'reasonable' assumptions, which can be, [I say it
from personal experience] self-delusional.

Then you made the point that your Celt/Liar statement
was not logical.

It is logical grammatically. The contrast was really from a past tense
projected to a present one.

I demonstrated that irrespective of whether your
statement is logical, it may still be bigoted in nature.

Okay, I understand that it can still be bigoted.

Therefore, I
made the point that you are free to claim that Tueschen's phrase was
not logical (really, there is no logic to it at all), instead of
merely implying it. If you did make the pint, it would simply be moot.

Isidor, I follow you! Yes, it would be moot depending on the context of the
thing - a context that I have incidentally not seen.



~~~~~~

There are many aspects of Celtic culture that seem regressive and
destructive to me. Am I defaming Celts in saying this - am I
anti-Celt?

Perhaps, although not necessarily. It depends on the nature and
context of what you say.

Good. Agree.

.

Given that, one must conclude that the phrase is anti-Semitic.
Further eveidence can be gained for this conclusion, by examining
Rolf's comments, in his diatribe that comprised the body of his
post.

Rolf's subject header defames an entire group of people. The
individual's Jewishness is not germane to whether he is a liar or
not.

Except if it were in the sense I mention above.

I've already dispensed with your sophistry--yet, even without
having done so, there exists no exception.

But you just agreed above to something else! You wrote "It depends on
the
nature and
context of what you say."

... And based on the nature and context of what Rolf wrote, I
concluded that the phrase was anti-Semitic.

Its THAT phrase which I do not understand. --I put aside that 'Semitic' is
not synonymous with Jews, and in fact includes Arabic peoples, but is an
accepted euphemism in the USA -- Okay. I do not wish to argue with your
right to conclude whatever you wish - but since I have not seen the material
[the context] cannot agree or disagree.

It does strike me as remarkable, however, that Rolf Tueschen should make
sweepingly negative remarks about whole groups of people since, for 5 or 6
years? I have never observed him to do so, except perhaps as national
cultural comments, he seems, on the other hand, to go out of his way to
support individual expression against any herd/cultural force that may be
playing on it. I do not say that you are wrong, but I do say that of any
poster I have ever encountered RT is the least likely to have written
hate-speech especially about an entire group of people.

You will not be able to agree with me from your experience, since I have
been observing longer than you have, nevertheless, I ask you to witness my
honest comment.

I don't know if he said that he disliked some aspect of Jewish culture, or
of a particular Jewish person who was lying. If he did then I would not be
shocked, since I would also be capable of the same thing! [lol]

I cannot determine if these statements are therefore 'anti-semitic' meaning
that more serious and oppressive thing that I mentioned earlier.

~~~~~~~~~

However, I believe that it is a
reasonable inference that you implied that you are sensible by your
decision to judge the sensibility of the remarks.

Your lies are now 'reasonable'?

It was mockery of you, not "lies". Now you are inventing what I
wrote!

Well, you sail very close to the wind compared to your own complaint,
Isidor. Tell me, when is mockery by invention or projection onto others, not
a defamation? In this case no harm is done - and I ask you to consider that
males will argue and butt heads with each other - sometimes just for fun!
eh? And if it doesn't happen then maybe we are not sure of other people
beyond their nervous expressions, even about allies.

As a chess player I even expect it! Look at what we do over the board, we
are not content to marvel at the other guy, we try to make an even better
idea of our own game, eh?

You truly are a nut case [Yes, that is officially an insult]

Good. I'm glad you feel free to express yourself without fear

However, it means so little. Think a moment - even if I wrote something
palpable numb, without any sense or sensibility to the subject, or blindly
felt obliged to rant about something, that would not make me a nut-case. It
would just be naive and confused behavior on my part - even so, I might
learn something from it.

Next time I might behave better.

So I ask you to consider that the person is different from the instance of
behavior. In this case perhaps I am nuts, but not because you just happen to
say so because it is a convenient rhetorical way not to notice what I am
saying. I may be behaving in a truly nutty way, but in order to be
objectively truthful, that would need explaining beyond any obvious
advantage to your own case, wouldn't it?

Will you say it is only rhetorical, or something? Wasn't your intent
to
diminish someone else - not based on what they said,

It was based ONLY on what you wrote.

No. You invented what I wrote, and then apply terms such as
'reasonable',
'inference' and [negatively] 'sensible'. You duck the question whether
you
intended to diminish your invented correspondant.

Liar. I wrote what I wrote. I never wrote that you claimed that
you were sensible. Indeed, clearly you are not.

***Or maybe Phil Innis simply isn't as "sensible" as he'd like to
think he is!***

Notice that nothing in the sentence that I wrote refers to what
you wrote,

!!! dis an sich !!!

........... is this the basis of your disagreement with Tueschen? Is it
nothing that he wrote, but....

except for the direct reference "sensible", which I put
into quotes to indicate that I did not agree with your (mis) usage of
the word "sensibly".

Yes. I understand your construction, which is a trifle mannered, however - I
do get it.


but making up something
they said in order to rubbish them a bit?
~~~~~~

O. I agree. However, lets be more honest connecting what is singular
and
what is plural, and their inter-relation. Otherwise it is so easy to
invent
what people think, isn't it?

I would definite;y encourage intellectual honesty on your part.

My God! And this is the same basis that you evaluate Sloan/Tueschen!

Are you implying that slaon and Tueschen are the same people?

Ha! No. Sorry - I again admit a private amusement - this is no insult to
you.

I
don't bother evaluating Sloan. There are more than enough people on
usenet who make an avocation out of doing so.

Sam Sloan is fascinated by Rick in Casablanca, isn't he? Rick the Rake. I
don't know if this is a universal metaphor, 'no Paul without Saul' however
the movie suggests a [spiritual] right-of-passage doesn't it? I posted some
views by Umberto Eco about it in the appropriate thread. Maybe this is Sam's
Quest?

Maybe it is not our own - even a bit frightening to us that such characters
can be loose on the Earth! But maybe our own quest is equally strange and
fraught for others. It is a attitude of spirit to acknowledge these things -
can you not entertain this idea intellectually Isidor? Even if not from your
own experiences to date?

I remind you, in case you are merely bored by old [farts!] [lol] people,
that they are the real pioneers, and are more liley to truly shock by their
behavior than some surface hair-do. Should you wish to call them 'Fools'
then who could object?


You
defame other people a little bit because you think they defame you? I
suggest to you that what IS reasonable is to ask questions - see how
many
questions I ask! Then there is less likelihood of misunderstanding and
maybe
we can all learn to appreciate something about each other.

Sure, OK, Pollyanna. In there real world, words sometimes have
meaning. People manage to communicate without parsing every sentence
and deconstructing every word. Very rarely does one have to ask what
the defintion of "is" is...

You reside in a miasma of miscommunication, while others seem able
to gain some glimmer of understanding.

You must be some psychological marvel; a poster boy for Asperger's
syndrome.

Very good. Don't be afraid. If you don't understand any of the above it is
my personal preference that you remain sceptical, rather than submit to a
seeming falseness.

Or, maybe you are just a troll.

What irony! To take to task Tueschen and myself, two Europeans almost
twice
your age, about hate-speech, by inventing hatred in them 'by reasonable
inference'.

Just how old are you and Tueschen?

I don't know exactly how old he is - he offered a URl with his picture on
it, which makes him look like Tuesday Lobsang Rampa, whereas I still look
like Tom Cruise. Hard to think we can be close in years.

Hey! Cordially, Phil

"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...

I don't know exactly how old he is - he offered a URl with his picture on
it, which makes him look like Tuesday Lobsang Rampa, whereas I still look
like Tom Cruise. Hard to think we can be close in years.

He's 50ish.

"Bob Musicant" wrote in message . net...
"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...

I don't know exactly how old he is - he offered a URl with his picture on
it, which makes him look like Tuesday Lobsang Rampa, whereas I still look
like Tom Cruise. Hard to think we can be close in years.

He's 50ish.

What's his name?

"Bob Musicant" wrote in message
et...
"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...

I don't know exactly how old he is - he offered a URl with his picture
on
it, which makes him look like Tuesday Lobsang Rampa, whereas I still
look
like Tom Cruise. Hard to think we can be close in years.

He's 50ish.

I was joking about what I knew, Bob [the joke is on Rampa, an obscure
reference]. I was born in the same year as Robin Williams, Tony Blair,
Howard Stern (sp?) and Ken Burns. Phil

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
.
Clearly, the juxtaposition of Rolf's words is meant to imply that a
person's Jewishness is correlated to a tendency to lie.


Congratulations: you have missed the entire point of Mr. Tueschen's post --
no small feat, that.


Far from asserting that any such "correleation" exists, Mr. Tueschen noted
that his criticism was *automatically* branded as "anti-semitic," merely
because the liar in question was a Jew, while Mr. Tueschen was (ever so
conveniently) a German.

Hey look, I don't know whose post you were reading, but I was
commenting on the subject header thar Tueschen wrote. I'm not
claiming that Tueschen is anti-Semitic; I'm claiming that the phrase
"Being a Jew and a Liar" is bigoted.

I never made any mention of Tueschen's German heritage; in any
case, it is Tueschen's own self-serving and rather paranoid claim that
he is "automatically branded" as anti-Semitic, because he is German.

In fact, what we see here is indeed bigotry, but not of the sort claimed.
Bigotry against Germans, who are automatically suspected of anti-semitism as
well as fascism, because of their nationality.

Well, if Mr. Tueschen is a bigot, I would only conclude so on the
basis of what he writes, says, or does. His nationality is not a
determining factor. Perhaps it is that case that Germans may tend
toward Fascism, anti-semitism, and other forms of bigotry. However,
this is not specifically due to their Nationality.

Specifically, the ever escalating opprobrium directed against
Israel has been a catalyst for some people to gain external validation
by adopting extrem political stances. Rolf wrote what he wrote NOT
because he is an Anti-Semite, but because he craves attention. In
other words, he is just a Usenet flake who likes to argue, and who
makes provacative posts in order to bring about such arguments.




Jews (and other groups) should not be condemned because of the
supposed misdeeds of a few individuals; Likewise, individual Jews
should not be maligned because of the actions of a group of Jews (e.g.
the State of Israel)


I wish this would equally apply to the issue of maligning Americans based
upon what our government has done (and is still doing).
It is not that we Americans refuse to accept responsibility for our
government's actions, it is more a recognition of the fact that a small
minority of Americans have all the decision-making powers, and those who make
the political decisions are the ones directly responsible for their outcomes,
not those who happen to also reside within the same political borders, by
accident of birth.

No, it is precisely the case that most Americans refuse to accept
responsibilty for their Government's actions. Half of the eligible
Americans don't bother to vote; the other half vote between two
parties that only represent a narrow corporatist interest. The people
vote for the candidate who make the most egregiously unrealistic
campaign promises of providing the maximum government benefits, while
at the same time giving out the biggest Tax Breaks. As long as the
economy is going well, and no caskets of American soldiers are shown
on the TV, it is business as usual.




Mr. Tueschen's crime (apart from using the word "liar" in the same sentence
with the sacred word, "Jew"),

Why dismiss what he wrote so quickly and easily?




was in taking strong exception to a clear
misstatement of facts.
A German, you see, is not *allowed* to be offended by anything uttered by a
Jew, no matter how absurd, because the sins of the (German) fathers are visited


The German can be offended at whatever he wants. However, if he
articulates his feelings in an offensive manner, he can be expected to
be called on it.

He could have made his points without resorting to bigoted
phraseology.

upon his children, to the seventh generation. They are so visited, if not by
some higher power, then at least by the bigots of this world.





I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism'
should not be confused and indeed diminished by
such trite objections as are made here.


Note well how the "discussion" has tended to surround Mr. Tueschen himself.
"Kill the messenger," the King ordered! "This will teach them not to send me
any more bad news," he muttered....

..
You have merely repeated the same errors as before, adding nothing new
(except for a very broad swipe at Americans).


Again, Mr. Tueschen's point was that, because he criticized a Jew, he was
*automatically* branded "anti-semitic," and the fact that the man he called a
liar *was lying,* was summarily dismissed via the unsound, yet ever popular
argumentum ad hominem. This is where the writers go at the messenger from
every angle, while trying their level best to completely ignore the actual
message. Irrational.





Now, as for Americans and their responsibility for their government's
actions, you have missed quite a bit.

The current issue of tax breaks has not always been an important issue in the
election.
Nor do the "half" of Americans which vote always go for the most unreasonable
promises, made by the bigger liar of the two main candidates (one Democrat and
one Republican).
In fact, even if we are still at war in the Middle East when election time
rolls around, the incumbent president, who BTW is the one primarily
responsible, will still have an excellent chance of being reelected, despite
pictures of or stories about dead or wounded American soldiers on TV. If you
understood how things work a little better, you would already know that when a
female American soldier was captured by the Iraqis, severly injured and raped,
this "news story" in no way harmed the president. In fact, she was depicted as
a heroine, and this was used for war propaganda purposes -- see how evil the
Iraquis are? They do this sort of thing, even to our women! We bravely
rescued her from the hands of villains, etc.
I'm told that Clinton's wife, Hillary, is waiting to run for the presidency
until after this coming election, presumably because it is nearly impossible to
defeat an incumbent like Bush, unless he is really, really, really screwing
things up.
With the economy and the stock market on the rebound, unemployment falling,
and with the sizeable tax cuts, the only major strike against Bush is the war
in the Middle East -- and that can be brushed aside as a necessary response to
the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, pretending for a moment that Saddam Hussain
and Iraq make excellent scapegoats (I still recall how, even as the Twin Towers
were still standing, the finger was hastily pointed at Saddam by the news
media, without any substantive evidence whatsoever).


If anyone can show (using reason, that is) how ordinary American citizens are
responsible for the actions of others, please feel free. Obviously, we as a
group do elect our politicians to office hence giving them such power, yet no
single (non-electoral) vote
has any particular significance. For example, I voted *against* Slick-Willy
fourteen times, in seven different states, but to no avail.... :-)

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
.
You have merely repeated the same errors as before, adding nothing new
(except for a very broad swipe at Americans).


Again, Mr. Tueschen's point was that, because he criticized a Jew, he was
*automatically* branded "anti-semitic," and the fact that the man he called a
liar *was lying,* was summarily dismissed via the unsound, yet ever popular
argumentum ad hominem. This is where the writers go at the messenger from
every angle, while trying their level best to completely ignore the actual
message. Irrational.


I simply don't buy Tueschen's paranoid interpretation, OK?
What is offensive is not that he criticized a Jew, but the way in
which he criticized the Jew. He criticized his "victim" by using
bigoted phraseology.
His bete noire's Jewishness has nothing to do with whether that
fellow is a liar, or not. The irony is that whatever "message" that
Tueschen wanted to convey has been overshadowed by his decision to use
bigoted language.





Now, as for Americans and their responsibility for their government's
actions, you have missed quite a bit.

The current issue of tax breaks has not always been an important issue in the
election.

However, in the past 20 years, it has been of extreme importance in
Presidential elections.



Nor do the "half" of Americans which vote always go for the most unreasonable
promises, made by the bigger liar of the two main candidates (one Democrat and
one Republican).

I simply disagree. Politicians have become more craven, and more
brazen. They pander to the electorate more than ever before.


In fact, even if we are still at war in the Middle East when election time
rolls around, the incumbent president, who BTW is the one primarily
responsible, will still have an excellent chance of being reelected, despite
pictures of or stories about dead or wounded American soldiers on TV.

Of course. Especially if he expands the war into Syria, or starts
bombing Iran. Being a wartime President is a major trump for Bush,
since that distracts debate from his even more dismal domestic record.

If you
understood how things work a little better, you would already know that when a
female American soldier was captured by the Iraqis, severly injured and raped,
this "news story" in no way harmed the president.

I agree...

In fact, she was depicted as
a heroine, and this was used for war propaganda purposes -- see how evil the
Iraquis are? They do this sort of thing, even to our women! We bravely
rescued her from the hands of villains, etc.

Lynch has had her 15 minutes of fame; I wish her well.
But, she is alive. Show some pictures of a mutilated corpse of a US
service woman, and the narrative will not be so inspiring.


I'm told that Clinton's wife, Hillary, is waiting to run for the presidency
until after this coming election, presumably because it is nearly impossible to
defeat an incumbent like Bush, unless he is really, really, really screwing
things up.

Bush IS really, really, really screwing things up. But the bill
from the deficits and pork barrel projects, and prescription drug plan
won't come due until after the election.


I'm no great Hillary fan. If she wants to serve as a Senator
representing NY, fine. If she has ambitions to use it as a springboard
to the Presidency after only 2 years of experience holding Electoral
office, then that is absurd.


With the economy and the stock market on the rebound, unemployment falling,

The recovert will be brief, and by next Summer, the economy will be
trending downward, with the Stock Market taking a nose dive, and
unemployment increasing.



and with the sizeable tax cuts,

Which only help the wealthy...

the only major strike against Bush is the war.


My, but you are optimistic.


in the Middle East -- and that can be brushed aside as a necessary response to
the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, pretending for a moment that Saddam Hussain
and Iraq make excellent scapegoats (I still recall how, even as the Twin Towers
were still standing, the finger was hastily pointed at Saddam by the news
media, without any substantive evidence whatsoever).

It will get harder and harder to sweep Iraq under the carpet.

Don't forget that al-Qaeda could always pull off another attack.



If anyone can show (using reason, that is) how ordinary American citizens are
responsible for the actions of others, please feel free.


The politicians are elected because they reflect, project, and even
magnify our own selfish agendas.

Can you imagine a President getting elected saying that we must
tighten our belts, and conserve energy, so that we will not be
dependent on foreign oil? Clearly, that would be in the best interest
of the US, but Americans want cheap oil...

Obviously, we as a
group do elect our politicians to office hence giving them such power, yet no
single (non-electoral) vote
has any particular significance. For example, I voted *against* Slick-Willy
fourteen times, in seven different states, but to no avail.... :-)

Mass protests influenced US Government policy on Civil Rights, and
the Viet Nam War...In order to have a mass protest, you must have a
lot of individuals who are willing to speak out.

..
Many Tueschen ad hominists like to point out that his English is far from
perfect, which it is. But is there any direct connection between Tueschen's
imperfect English and the unwelcome criticisms he posts? I think not.
So then, those posters who go after this weakness are arguing to-the-person.
Such discussions should take place in a seperate thread, where no other issues
are discussed, just to avoid confusion.



What is offensive is not that he criticized a Jew, but the way in
which he criticized the Jew.


Many Tueschen ad hominists very conveniently "forget" that Mr. Tueschen's
unwelcome criticisms, in this case of one man's lies, were the direct result,
not of any so-called "anti-semitism" on his part, but rather the result of the
original lies themselves. Note well that in the above sentence I could easily
have substituted another word for "man's," such as "Jew's," "propagandist's,"
or "person's," and in each case there is no actual
anti-man/anti-Jew/anti-propagandist, just an accurate description of the person
being referred to. To inject anti-ness into this is called "projection," or
perhaps, paranoia.








The irony is that whatever "message" that
Tueschen wanted to convey has been overshadowed by his decision to use
bigoted language.


On the contrary, his message was perfectly clear: someone has been permitted
to lie, simply because he is artificially protected by this "anti-semitic" WMD!
Without this artificial protective device, the same man would have been
exposed as a boldfaced liar, and his lie (about some German being a fascist)
cut down.




However, in the past 20 years, it has been of extreme importance in
Presidential elections.


A few years ago, a man named Perot ran for office, promising to deal with the
ever-growing budget deficit, which puts a drag on us all via the interest we
must pay to maintain our massive debt. Contrary to the above claim, his
responsible fiscal policy (of debt reduction, and therefore a future tax-cut,
in effect) came to naught. The other candidates left him far behind, as other
issues took precedence.
Damn if I can go back twenty years and recite the primary issues of each
presidential campaign, but I do know that tax-cuts are not always at the top of
the list. And your choice of looking at just the last twenty years was very
arbitrary, for the issue was and is American's responsibility for their
leaders' actions, which has no such arbitrary time limit.





Bush IS really, really, really screwing things up.


I think you misunderestimate him. He would have to practically shoot
himself in the foot -- with a cannon -- in order to eradicate the advantage he
has as the incumbent. Even if he were to debate Dean on national TV, and lose
badly (because he is a moron), he still would have a decent chance of being
re-elected, for there is a multitude of voters who cannot see just how
"misoverestimated" he really is. :-)





The recovert will be brief, and by next Summer, the economy will be
trending downward, with the Stock Market taking a nose dive, and
unemployment increasing.


So then, I should sell in May, then stay away?
:-)





and with the sizeable tax cuts,

Which only help the wealthy...


No, no, no! It "trickles down," AKA voo-doo economics (Ronald Reagan)! I'm
still waiting for some of the stuff to "trickle" my way.





Don't forget that al-Qaeda could always pull off another attack.


This explains your prognosis for the stock market. But then, how did you
know the exact time of the next strike, Al? :-)





Can you imagine a President getting elected saying that we must
tighten our belts, and conserve energy, so that we will not be
dependent on foreign oil? Clearly, that would be in the best interest
of the US, but Americans want cheap oil...


In fact, there is a (small) incentive in place now. If you buy, instead of a
gas-guzzling SUV, a Toyota Prius or a Honda hybrid car, you get a tax writeoff.
On top of that, you also get a break every time you filler-up at the gas
station. If you buy a major gas-hog, there is a tax penalty incorporated into
the vehicle's price (paid for by the manufacturer).

More important, the emissions regulations are gradually getting tougher and
tougher, so that the car manufacturers are forced to improve the efficiency of
their engines, or else lighten their vehicles, or both. We will still be
dependent upon oil for some time, but sooner or later, technology will allow us
to break our chains.
Even now, we could all CHOOSE more fuel-efficient vehicles and thereby
mitigate the problem. But the media (not us -- THEM) insists upon making
unreasonable demands for 0-60 mph and big hp/torque numbers beyond all reason.
*One* magazine, however, broke the mold and chose the Toyota Prius as "car of
the year." I was shocked.


Mass protests influenced US Government policy on Civil Rights, and
the Viet Nam War...In order to have a mass protest, you must have a
lot of individuals who are willing to speak out.


Yes, but these same masses elected the ones responsible for jumping into that
war, and the same mentality existed then as exists now: we are not "allowed" to
voice dissent against a war we are already in. There is no such thing as
admitting a mistake, or even considering if it was one. Once you sac' your
Bishop on h7, the Knight MUST move to g5+, right or wrong. Next comes the
Queen over, and then -- if necessary -- the Rook-lift! :-)

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
.
Many Tueschen ad hominists like to point out that his English is far from
perfect, which it is. But is there any direct connection between Tueschen's
imperfect English and the unwelcome criticisms he posts? I think not.
So then, those posters who go after this weakness are arguing to-the-person.
Such discussions should take place in a seperate thread, where no other issues
are discussed, just to avoid confusion.



What is offensive is not that he criticized a Jew, but the way in
which he criticized the Jew.


Many Tueschen ad hominists very conveniently "forget" that Mr. Tueschen's
unwelcome criticisms, in this case of one man's lies, were the direct result,
not of any so-called "anti-semitism" on his part, but rather the result of the
original lies themselves. Note well that in the above sentence I could easily
have substituted another word for "man's," such as "Jew's," "propagandist's,"
or "person's," and in each case there is no actual
anti-man/anti-Jew/anti-propagandist, just an accurate description of the person
being referred to. To inject anti-ness into this is called "projection," or
perhaps, paranoia.


This changes nothing. Even if one were to stipulate that Tueschen
were correct, and the other party was "lying", then it would be
appropriate to call that person a liar. Yet Tueschen deliberately
labeled that person a "Jew and a Liar", and thereby created an
association between Jews and a negative characteristic (lying). That
is anti-Semitic, since the man's status as a Jew has no intrinsic
correlation or causal connection with the man's status as a liar.





The irony is that whatever "message" that
Tueschen wanted to convey has been overshadowed by his decision to use
bigoted language.


On the contrary, his message was perfectly clear: someone has been permitted
to lie, simply because he is artificially protected by this "anti-semitic" WMD!
Without this artificial protective device, the same man would have been
exposed as a boldfaced liar, and his lie (about some German being a fascist)
cut down.


Well, your interpretation, while perfectly self-serving, is also
manifestly wrong. Obviously, we are discussing whether Tueschen's
comment is anti-Semitic in nature (which it defintely is), NOT whether
Tueschen's bete noire has a lousy character. If Tueschen had simply
accused the fellow of being a liar, without also attaching a label of
Jew, then it is likely that Rolf's "message" would have received
greater consideration.

Whether or not Rolf's message was "perfectly clear" to somebody
like you, evidently wearing blinders, it has been overshadowed in the
minds of many others (who have unjaundiced attitides, and no ax to
grind) by Rolf's choice to resort to bigoted language.






However, in the past 20 years, it has been of extreme importance in
Presidential elections.


A few years ago, a man named Perot ran for office, promising to deal with the
ever-growing budget deficit, which puts a drag on us all via the interest we
must pay to maintain our massive debt. Contrary to the above claim, his
responsible fiscal policy (of debt reduction, and therefore a future tax-cut,
in effect) came to naught. The other candidates left him far behind, as other
issues took precedence.
Damn if I can go back twenty years and recite the primary issues of each
presidential campaign, but I do know that tax-cuts are not always at the top of
the list. And your choice of looking at just the last twenty years was very
arbitrary, for the issue was and is American's responsibility for their
leaders' actions, which has no such arbitrary time limit.


The choice was not arbitrary, since the period starting 20-25
years ago marks the onset of a marked trend toward degeneration in
political discourse, from its already dismal levels.





Bush IS really, really, really screwing things up.


I think you misunderestimate him. He would have to practically shoot
himself in the foot -- with a cannon -- in order to eradicate the advantage he
has as the incumbent. Even if he were to debate Dean on national TV, and lose
badly (because he is a moron), he still would have a decent chance of being
re-elected, for there is a multitude of voters who cannot see just how
"misoverestimated" he really is. :-)


What the heck does Bush's popularity have to do with whether or not
he is really screwing things up?

You are right: If Bush were to debate Dean, and lose badly, he
would still standa good chance of being elected [The first time
around, he was selected, not elected]

In any case, Bush will avoid an open, unscripted debate like The
Plague. He will probably arrange a format just like a press
conference, where all he has to do is answer a few softball questions.






The recovert will be brief, and by next Summer, the economy will be
trending downward, with the Stock Market taking a nose dive, and
unemployment increasing.


So then, I should sell in May, then stay away?
:-)


I think that if you stayed away, it would suit us both...


and with the sizeable tax cuts,

Which only help the wealthy...


No, no, no! It "trickles down," AKA voo-doo economics (Ronald Reagan)! I'm
still waiting for some of the stuff to "trickle" my way.





Don't forget that al-Qaeda could always pull off another attack.


This explains your prognosis for the stock market. But then, how did you
know the exact time of the next strike, Al? :-)

If another major attack occurred, people would probably forget
about the stock market for a while, even if it did go down. The market
would tumble as a result of people's fears, not the other way around.





Can you imagine a President getting elected saying that we must
tighten our belts, and conserve energy, so that we will not be
dependent on foreign oil? Clearly, that would be in the best interest
of the US, but Americans want cheap oil...


In fact, there is a (small) incentive in place now. If you buy, instead of a
gas-guzzling SUV, a Toyota Prius or a Honda hybrid car, you get a tax writeoff.
On top of that, you also get a break every time you filler-up at the gas
station. If you buy a major gas-hog, there is a tax penalty incorporated into
the vehicle's price (paid for by the manufacturer).

More important, the emissions regulations are gradually getting tougher and
tougher, so that the car manufacturers are forced to improve the efficiency of
their engines, or else lighten their vehicles, or both. We will still be
dependent upon oil for some time, but sooner or later, technology will allow us
to break our chains.
Even now, we could all CHOOSE more fuel-efficient vehicles and thereby
mitigate the problem. But the media (not us -- THEM) insists upon making
unreasonable demands for 0-60 mph and big hp/torque numbers beyond all reason.
*One* magazine, however, broke the mold and chose the Toyota Prius as "car of
the year." I was shocked.

Congress has blocked attempts to further mandate greater overall
fuel efficiency. Moreover, average fuel efficiency has gone down, as
car manufacturers have been able to exploit loopholes.


Mass protests influenced US Government policy on Civil Rights, and
the Viet Nam War...In order to have a mass protest, you must have a
lot of individuals who are willing to speak out.


Yes, but these same masses elected the ones responsible for jumping into that
war, and the same mentality existed then as exists now: we are not "allowed" to
voice dissent against a war we are already in. There is no such thing as
admitting a mistake, or even considering if it was one. Once you sac' your
Bishop on h7, the Knight MUST move to g5+, right or wrong. Next comes the
Queen over, and then -- if necessary -- the Rook-lift! :-)

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message
...
.
Yet Tueschen deliberately
labeled that person a "Jew and a Liar", and thereby created an
association between Jews and a negative characteristic (lying).

I won't comment on the rest of your post, but on this point alone I believe
you are incorrect. No such association is created. If anything, it
highlights that no such association exists, for if there were such an
association, then to use the phrase " a Jew and a Liar" would be redundant,
wouldn't it?

Don't get me wrong though, his use of the term "Jew" by itself seems
questionable at best , it is just that the statement you quoted creates no
such association.

So there.