The Goat Pen

I haven't noticed that the Democrats are more supportive of Israel than the Republicans.

Dora wrote:I haven't noticed that the Democrats are more supportive of Israel than the Republicans.

Well Dora, I'm not sure that Democrat Congressmen ARE more supportive of Israel. But Republican congressmen (who get far LESS dollars from AIPAC) are much MORE influenced by the irrational "guilt" (particularly the much older congressmen) than are the Democrats.

The AIPAC campaign contributions to certain, key, Democratic Congressmen, prevents any serious discussion in Congress (on the part of the Democrats) about the rights or wrongs of the $10,000,000,000 annual aid subsidy the US sends Israel. The "guilt" that too many Republican Congressmen feel, keeps them in line. But Dora, if you put both of those issues aside for just one moment (the money and the guilt) and you look at just one issue (the actual land), can you honestly say that you don't think the Israelis are at least "entitled" to that pathetically tiny strip of land in between the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East? And before you answer that remember, you can be Israeli and be Islamic. You don't have to be a Jew.

innocentbystander wrote:[ut Republican congressmen (who get far LESS dollars from AIPAC) are much MORE influenced by the irrational "guilt" (particularly the much older congressmen) than are the Democrats.

Here is the 2010 list. There are a whole lot of Republicans in with those Democrats getting large amounts of money. It may be that Dems overall get more, but Republican congressmen aren't that far behind

http://www.dailypaul.com/136306/2010-ai ... f-congress

Owlman wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:[ut Republican congressmen (who get far LESS dollars from AIPAC) are much MORE influenced by the irrational "guilt" (particularly the much older congressmen) than are the Democrats.

Here is the 2010 list. There are a whole lot of Republicans in with those Democrats getting large amounts of money. It may be that Dems overall get more, but Republican congressmen aren't that far behind

http://www.dailypaul.com/136306/2010-ai ... f-congress

Quick eyeball count, 53 Republican, 104 Democrat.

WAYYYYY more D's than R's. And WAYYYYYYYY more dollars for those D's. That is my point.

It isn't even close. And that is using your link.

its not just the democrats.

I saw McCain AND Obama wearing yamukas on their suckup visit to Israel as candidates.

Sarah Palin was a guest speaker at the AIPAC convention last year. RINOs are clearly in bed with AIPAC as are the faux tea party folks.

Ron Paul? Fucking over Israel would be on his top 3 list of agenda items day 1. He'd have to because the Mossad would assassinate him 6 months into his presidency.

I saw tell Mexico and Israel to STFU and deal with their own problems. Any Mexican caught running across the border illegally, shoot on site.

Israel can do the same thing or pack up and leave.

Too many fucking problems in our own country right now to deal with other people's bullshit that is 2000 years old.

BigRedMan wrote:Too many fucking problems in our own country right now to deal with other people's bullshit that is 2000 years old.

Unfortunately, the "guilt" (much that it is) stems from something that was absolutely NOT bullshit (was horrifyingly REAL and we all wish it wasn't) and is less than 70 years old.

eCat wrote:its not just the democrats.

I saw McCain AND Obama wearing yamukas on their suckup visit to Israel as candidates.

Sarah Palin was a guest speaker at the AIPAC convention last year. RINOs are clearly in bed with AIPAC as are the faux tea party folks.

That is the "guilt".

eCat wrote:Ron Paul? Fucking over Israel would be on his top 3 list of agenda items day 1. He'd have to because the Mossad would assassinate him 6 months into his presidency.

Ron Paul is not a serious GOP candidate for President.

well I can't argue that.

eCat wrote:itRon Paul? Fucking over Israel would be on his top 3 list of agenda items day 1. He'd have to because the Mossad would assassinate him 6 months into his presidency.

He wouldn't make it that far.

innocentbystander wrote: Quick eyeball count, 53 Republican, 104 Democrat.

WAYYYYY more D's than R's. And WAYYYYYYYY more dollars for those D's. That is my point.

It isn't even close. And that is using your link.

Actually, the point I was making that both parties are given enough to effect policy. From a business standpoint, that would only make sense. Otherwise, there could easily have been drastic diminishment of influence in the first 6 years of the millenium. That didn't happen because AIPAC (and others) makes sure to spread enough money to both parties to have significant influence.

Owlman wrote:

innocentbystander wrote: Quick eyeball count, 53 Republican, 104 Democrat.

WAYYYYY more D's than R's. And WAYYYYYYYY more dollars for those D's. That is my point.

It isn't even close. And that is using your link.

Actually, the point I was making that both parties are given enough to effect policy. From a business standpoint, that would only make sense.

That's fine. But the policy AIPAC is trying to effect, is a policy that most/almost-all Congressional Republicans are (largely) going to want to effect for them, anyway. So, why give them money if they already have them? (That "guilt" is strong.)

Sidebar: I'm not even convinced the President believes half of what he has said about Israel surrendering the land to return to pre-1967 borders. I'm not even sure this President could identify or draw those pre-1967 borders on a map. I think President Barack Obama said that in order to appeal to the tiniest of minorities in the true-moderates category (that minority being the white, self-sufficient, atheist/religion-is-stupid, Palestine WAS a country, and never-been-to-Israel-and-never-going-there-either crowd) that the President had in 2008 but might not have in 2012. I think he said this for votes because those comments can ONLY get him votes. It wont cost him any in 2012. It will just make the people who hate Obama, hate him even more.

And no, American Jews who support Israel (totally and whole-heatedly) are NOT going to suddenly vote for Romney in 2012 just because Obama made those comments about Israel. There are a myriad of links on the internet explaining why Judaism is tied so closely to the Democratic Party (tradition being the most common element) and they help explain why slightly over 90% of American Jews vote Democratic, line. That will not be changing, unless this President suddenly starts becoming a Holocaust denier.

Actually, the point I was making that both parties are given enough to effect policy. From a business standpoint, that would only make sense. Otherwise, there could easily have been drastic diminishment of influence in the first 6 years of the millenium. That didn't happen because AIPAC (and others) makes sure to spread enough money to both parties to have significant influence.

It seems to me that if AIPAC is buying off our politicians to effect a pro Israel policy, opponents of this policy just have to up the ante. No biggie.

except that AIPAC is one of the 3 largest PACs out there.

It's large because these people are committed to their cause & willing to pay for what they want. If their opponents feel as strongly as they do, they will pay too. If they don't wanna pay... well, that's the way it goes.

eCat wrote:except that AIPAC is one of the 3 largest PACs out there.

Israel learned a long time ago, the best money that nation spends on "defense" is buying off American politicians.

Dora wrote:It's large because these people are committed to their cause & willing to pay for what they want. If their opponents feel as strongly as they do, they will pay too. If they don't wanna pay... well, that's the way it goes.

no that's not the way it goes. you just elect someone who doesn't suck up to Israel

no that's not the way it goes. you just elect someone who doesn't suck up to Israel

Yeah, that would work. Go for it.

What I like about this forum is that is doesn't even measure up to 'frat house' status. Its really low class dorm smack and cheap seats in the bleachers mostly. And I don't even think most of the posters deserve seats in the bleachers, really. Its damned depressing really.

And IB posts here, and you take him seriously. Imagine that.

Thank you for submitting your self-righteous and arrogant opinion. We thank you for your feedback.