She said what!!?!?!?!?!

2

Comments

  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited June 2010
    unlost dogs wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    She's simply one more irrelevant, self-important, arrogant talking head with nothing better to do than make inflammatory remarks.

    Do you even know who she is?

    electric delta has this right. I know exactly who she is, I once was a reporter for UPI and can tell you that this is how people felt about her 20 years ago.

    You don't have to have worked for UPI to know who she is. I never worked for UPI and yet I know who she is.

    And she wasn't a talking head. She worked in print media as a columnist.

    And as for 'people', what does that mean? Some people? All people? You and your right-wing buddies?
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    She's simply one more irrelevant, self-important, arrogant talking head with nothing better to do than make inflammatory remarks.

    I suppose you'd prefer White House correspondents to just toe the line and not rock the boat by sticking to innocuous, unchallenging questions?
  • unlost dogs
    unlost dogs Greater Boston Posts: 12,553
    Byrnzie wrote:
    unlost dogs wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:

    Do you even know who she is?

    electric delta has this right. I know exactly who she is, I once was a reporter for UPI and can tell you that this is how people felt about her 20 years ago.

    Except she wasn't a talking head. She worked in print media as a columnist.

    And as for 'people', what does that mean? Some people? All people? You and your right-wing buddies?

    You should consider switching to decaf and curbing your tendency to jump to completely unwarranted conclusions. And dial down the hostility while you're at it.
    15 years of sharks 06/30/08 (MA), 05/17/10 (Boston), 09/03/11 (Alpine Valley), 09/04/11 (Alpine Valley), 09/30/12 (Missoula), 07/19/13 (Wrigley), 10/15/13 (Worcester), 10/16/13 (Worcester), 10/25/13 (Hartford), 12/4/13 (Vancouver), 12/6/13 (Seattle), 6/26/14 (Berlin), 6/28/14 (Stockholm), 10/16/14 (Detroit)
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited June 2010
    unlost dogs wrote:
    You should consider switching to decaf and curbing your tendency to jump to completely unwarranted conclusions. And dial down the hostility while you're at it.

    I'm not the one slagging off an 89 year old woman on the internet.

    She also happens to be a highly respected columnist with a history of showing integrity, and taking a stand by asking the questions that most people are too spineless to ask. But never mind that; she insulted Israel, so she's now fair game for abuse and villification. And certain people are now getting off on trashing her entire career.

    But I'm the one with a problem? :?
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • Electric_Delta
    Electric_Delta Posts: 977
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    She's simply one more irrelevant, self-important, arrogant talking head with nothing better to do than make inflammatory remarks.

    I suppose you'd prefer White House correspondents to just toe the line and not rock the boat by sticking to innocuous, unchallenging questions?

    No, I'd prefer impartiality and responsibility from a White House correspondent as opposed to a woman who clearly has no problem inciting hatred.

    Things are much bigger than your point of view. Go back to your Noam Chomsky books.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    No, I'd prefer impartiality and responsibility from a White House correspondent as opposed to a woman who clearly has no problem inciting hatred.

    Asking probing questions was her responsibility, and by all accounts she did a very good job of it.

    And when did she incite hatred? She suggested that the Jews living in the occupied territories go back to where they came from. How is that inciting hatred? The settlers have absolutely no right to be there.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    No, I'd prefer impartiality and responsibility from a White House correspondent as opposed to a woman who clearly has no problem inciting hatred.

    Asking probing questions was her responsibility, and by all accounts she did a very good job of it.

    And when did she incite hatred? She suggested that the Jews living in the occupied territories go back to where they came from. How is that inciting hatred? The settlers have absolutely no right to be there.

    It sounds like her comments were far more sweeping than that ... If she was just talking about illegal settlements, there would have been some concerns expressed but not like this. She did what a lot of us do from time to time ... Had an emotional outburst without thinking it through first. I don't agree with the whole all the Jews should go back to Poland thing but I am not sure that she should lose her job either. We should all be permitted some less than illustrious moments.
  • Electric_Delta
    Electric_Delta Posts: 977
    If the way she responded to the questions presented to her is acceptable to you, you need to reevaluate what is acceptable rhetoric from someone in her position.

    Given the situation in the Middle East at present, she should've been more responsible. It was very brash and careless.

    By the way, the Jews were there a LONG time before anybody else. A Jewish element in that region has never been fully purged - and should never be.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited June 2010
    rebornFixer wrote:
    It sounds like her comments were far more sweeping than that ... If she was just talking about illegal settlements, there would have been some concerns expressed but not like this. She did what a lot of us do from time to time ... Had an emotional outburst without thinking it through first. I don't agree with the whole all the Jews should go back to Poland thing but I am not sure that she should lose her job either. We should all be permitted some less than illustrious moments.

    Yeah, she should have clarified her points. She could have expressed herself better. Although she did mention the occupation at the outset so for people to then presume that she was referring to all the Jews in Israel is a bit of a stretch, as is supposing that she was deliberately trying to be insulting by referring to Germany and Poland - though she did also mention 'America and everywhere else'. If she'd been talking about any other country her comments would probably have been brushed aside as being thoughtless, or untactful, but because they involved Israel she's now lost her job along with having to endure a shit-storm of abuse.
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Byrnzie wrote:
    rebornFixer wrote:
    It sounds like her comments were far more sweeping than that ... If she was just talking about illegal settlements, there would have been some concerns expressed but not like this. She did what a lot of us do from time to time ... Had an emotional outburst without thinking it through first. I don't agree with the whole all the Jews should go back to Poland thing but I am not sure that she should lose her job either. We should all be permitted some less than illustrious moments.

    Yeah, she should have clarified her points. She could have expressed herself better. Although she did mention the occupation at the outset so for people to then presume that she was referring to all the Jews in Israel is a bit of a stretch, as is supposing that she was deliberately trying to be insulting by referring to Germany and Poland - though she did also mention 'America and everywhere else'. If she'd been talking about any other country her comments would probably have been brushed aside as being thoughtless, but because they involved Israel she's now lost her job along with having to endure a shit-storm of abuse.


    you are right, no one else has ever been fired for making comments about other groups of people
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    By the way, the Jews were there a LONG time before anybody else.

    Not just arguable, but slightly irrelevant. The fact that some Jews may have lived in that region for a few decades, or even for a few hundred years, approx 2000 years ago has no bearing on todays world, and certainly doesn't give the Zionists any right to dispossess the present inhabitants of their land.


    'One account of recent findings can be found in 'The Bible Unearthed: Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the origin of It's sacred Texts'. It's authors are Israel Finkelstein, director of an archeological institute at Tel Aviv Uuniversity, and Neil Asher Silberman, director of a Belgian archeological institute and a contributing editor to 'Archeology' magazine...

    One of Asher and Silberman's more devastating findings is that:

    "The Biblical borders of the land of Israel as outlined in the book of Joshua had seemingly assumed a sacred inviolability...the Bible pictures a stormy but basically continuous Israelite occupation of the land of Israel all the way to the Assyrian conquest. But a reexamination of the archeological evidence...points to a period of a few decades [in which Israel existed], between around 835-800B.C.E..."

    In other words, they find that the "Great" Jewish Kingdom existed in something like their fabled extent for a tiny fraction of the period traditionally alleged. Even then, their boundaries never came close to the "Greater Israel" of contemporary Jewish fundamentalism. The rest of the time. Judah and Israel are thought to have been, for the most part, very primitive entities, devoid of literate culture or substantial administrative structure, extending to only a small, landlocked part of what is now called Palestine. The great structures of the Biblical era are, all of them, attributed to Canaanite cultures. Moreover, the inhabitants of Biblical Israel and Judah seem to have, for most of the time and for the most part, practitioners of Canaanite religions rather than Judaism, or of various synthetic cults. These "Israelites" were not, that is, "Jewish" in one important sense of the term. The authors refer to the Biblical Kingdom at it existed as a "a multi-ethnic society." The idea that such a past could validate a Jewish historical claim to Palestine is simply ludicrous, even if it could be shown - which it cannot - that today's Jews are in some legal sense, heirs to the ancient Israelite Kingdoms.'
  • yosi
    yosi NYC Posts: 3,180
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    No, I'd prefer impartiality and responsibility from a White House correspondent as opposed to a woman who clearly has no problem inciting hatred.

    Asking probing questions was her responsibility, and by all accounts she did a very good job of it.

    And when did she incite hatred? She suggested that the Jews living in the occupied territories go back to where they came from. How is that inciting hatred? The settlers have absolutely no right to be there.

    Dude, the settlers didn't come from Poland and Germany. Normally you just twist the words of people you disagree with, but now in your utter derangement you're twisting the words of people who agree with you. How is it that you can't even understand the plain meaning of what someone says?
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    yosi wrote:
    Dude, the settlers didn't come from Poland and Germany. Normally you just twist the words of people you disagree with, but now in your utter derangement you're twisting the words of people who agree with you. How is it that you can't even understand the plain meaning of what someone says?

    are you referring to another post he made because in the one he quoted - he is simply regurgitating what helen thomas said ... he doesn't say they came from poland or germany ...

    i sure hope you are referring to another post because it could be that you are not understanding the plain meaning ...
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris_x wrote:
    are you referring to another post he made because in the one he quoted - he is simply regurgitating what helen thomas said ... he doesn't say they came from poland or germany ...

    i sure hope you are referring to another post because it could be that you are not understanding the plain meaning ...

    I got the same meaning that yosi did ... Helen Thomas was talking about Israelis period, but Byrnzie made it sound like her remarks were meant only for settlers, which I personally think would have been a lot less controversial. Not finger-pointing, just stating what I observed.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    rebornFixer wrote:
    I got the same meaning that yosi did ... Helen Thomas was talking about Israelis period, but Byrnzie made it sound like her remarks were meant only for settlers, which I personally think would have been a lot less controversial. Not finger-pointing, just stating what I observed.

    well ... that's pure speculation ... if we look at her reporting - i believe she's asked about the occupied territories and under the context of the quote - i'm guessing it's not a stretch to think she just wasn't specific ...

    in any case - it wasn't byrnzie who said they came from poland or germany which is what appears to be rankling yosi ...
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris_x wrote:
    well ... that's pure speculation ... if we look at her reporting - i believe she's asked about the occupied territories and under the context of the quote - i'm guessing it's not a stretch to think she just wasn't specific ...

    in any case - it wasn't byrnzie who said they came from poland or germany which is what appears to be rankling yosi ...

    Why would she mention Poland and Germany, but ONLY be mentioning the settlers? She meant something to the effect of "All the illegal settlers should go back to Europe, but the rest of the Israelis can stay"? That's a stretch, IMO. If she was talking only about the settlers, she probably would have said that they should go back to Israel (which is something I could wholeheartedly agree with, I might add). I am speculating too, I admit. So is everyone in that other thread, where the issue of "self defense" vs. "cold-blooded murder" is still going round and round. I've already defended this woman; I don't think that she should have to lose her position, which I think is the same view as Brynzie's. She put her foot in her mouth, we've all done it.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    rebornFixer wrote:
    Why would she mention Poland and Germany, but ONLY be mentioning the settlers? She meant something to the effect of "All the illegal settlers should go back to Europe, but the rest of the Israelis can stay"? That's a stretch, IMO. If she was talking only about the settlers, she probably would have said that they should go back to Israel (which is something I could wholeheartedly agree with, I might add). I am speculating too, I admit. So is everyone in that other thread, where the issue of "self defense" vs. "cold-blooded murder" is still going round and round. I've already defended this woman; I don't think that she should have to lose her position, which I think is the same view as Brynzie's. She put her foot in her mouth, we've all done it.

    right ... but regardless of what she meant to say ... it wasn't byrnzie who said they should go back to poland
  • Electric_Delta
    Electric_Delta Posts: 977
    She meant what she said, I don't feel as though it were a Freudian slip in the very least.

    She just didn't expect the backlash.

    There are consequences for your words sometimes.
    rebornFixer wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    well ... that's pure speculation ... if we look at her reporting - i believe she's asked about the occupied territories and under the context of the quote - i'm guessing it's not a stretch to think she just wasn't specific ...

    in any case - it wasn't byrnzie who said they came from poland or germany which is what appears to be rankling yosi ...

    Why would she mention Poland and Germany, but ONLY be mentioning the settlers? She meant something to the effect of "All the illegal settlers should go back to Europe, but the rest of the Israelis can stay"? That's a stretch, IMO. If she was talking only about the settlers, she probably would have said that they should go back to Israel (which is something I could wholeheartedly agree with, I might add). I am speculating too, I admit. So is everyone in that other thread, where the issue of "self defense" vs. "cold-blooded murder" is still going round and round. I've already defended this woman; I don't think that she should have to lose her position, which I think is the same view as Brynzie's. She put her foot in her mouth, we've all done it.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • Pepe Silvia
    Pepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    rebornFixer wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    well ... that's pure speculation ... if we look at her reporting - i believe she's asked about the occupied territories and under the context of the quote - i'm guessing it's not a stretch to think she just wasn't specific ...

    in any case - it wasn't byrnzie who said they came from poland or germany which is what appears to be rankling yosi ...

    Why would she mention Poland and Germany, but ONLY be mentioning the settlers? She meant something to the effect of "All the illegal settlers should go back to Europe, but the rest of the Israelis can stay"? That's a stretch, IMO. If she was talking only about the settlers, she probably would have said that they should go back to Israel (which is something I could wholeheartedly agree with, I might add). I am speculating too, I admit. So is everyone in that other thread, where the issue of "self defense" vs. "cold-blooded murder" is still going round and round. I've already defended this woman; I don't think that she should have to lose her position, which I think is the same view as Brynzie's. She put her foot in her mouth, we've all done it.


    she also said for them to go back to "america and wherever else they came from" i think some people only mention germany and poland to try and stir up certain feelings
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • Electric_Delta
    Electric_Delta Posts: 977
    Agreed. Her words were laced with malice and intent.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)

Categories