Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (5559)	3/13/2003 10:58:08 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

I cannot comprehend a different impression. I'm not giving up yet. <g> --If it were not for refugees from El Salvador, we would not have Latino groceries all over the area. --If it were not for Nigeria, we would have an oil shortage. --If it were not for paleo-conservatives, the Republicans would not have a majority in the House. --"If it were not for Jews, we would not be following the present policy" The pattern here is that a certain critical threshold would not have been reached were it not for Jews or Nigeria or El Salvador or paleo-conservatives. I'm not saying that the paleo-conservatives are solely responsible or even primarily responsible for the House majority or that Nigerian oil is solely responsible or even primarily responsible for our having an adequate supply. The Nigerians may want to take credit for putting us over the top, but one could just as easily say that it's the Russian oil or the Kuwaiti oil that put us over the top. Oil is fungible. We have a critical mass of pro-war momentum. Withdraw the Jewish contribution to that and we probably wouldn't have a critical mass. Withdraw the Christian fundamentalist contribution and we wouldn't either. Withdraw the loyalist partisan Republicans and we wouldn't either. You could say "were it not for" any of those demographic's presence on the pro-war side, we would not have majority support in polls, which would undermine the WH's policy. Saying "were it not for the Jews" is not the same as saying that the Jews are the driving force, the largest or the most salient component, or to "blame" for the policy, only that their absence in the majority would, in the opinion of the speaker, be enough to cut the momentum. Now I don't know what Moran meant. But if you just look at what he said at that one event, you cannot with any assurance say that he's dissing Jews. He may be. And if you add this event to some history of prejudice against Jews, you might conclude that. But his statement, the one that was published, could just as easily, more easily, IMO, mean what Jewel and Chris and I suggested it meant. You are reading the Jewish conspiracy message into it. You may be correct, for all I know, but I'm trying to make you understand that he didn't say what you said he said. He may have had that in mind, but he may have had in mind something quite innocent.