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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (52675)	7/3/2004 2:28:07 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

Saying "it's time for the puppet show to be replaced by the peace show" makes puppeteering the opposite of peace, no? Also, Nader did not limit his comments to the Sharon government, he spoke of Israel in general. "What has been happening over the years is a predictable routine of foreign visitation from the head of the Israeli government. The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington. The Israeli puppeteer meets with the puppet in the White House, and then moves down Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the puppets in Congress. And then takes back billions of taxpayer dollars. It is time for the Washington puppet show to be replaced by the Washington peace show." This isn't the first time Nader has commented on Israel/Palestine, either. I have been googling his commentary, looking for any iota of criticism of Palestine, but maybe I missed it. All I've found so far is complaints about Israel and the US. He wants the US to force Israel to accept the 1967 line for Palestine with East Jerusalem as Palestine's capitol. Funny, I wonder how a puppet forces the puppeteer to do anything?

To: Lane3 who wrote (52675)	7/3/2004 2:28:19 PM
From: DavesM	Respond to of 793717

If it quacks like a duck...

To: Lane3 who wrote (52675)	7/7/2004 10:10:38 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793717

I'm getting confused. I'm talking about the puppeteer comment, which is what I understood LB and JohnM to be arguing. This, I find, has all become convoluted, Karen. I'm perhaps partially to blame, though I much prefer to blame Nadine. ;-) Bill posted some sentences in which he used the line that criticism of the ties between the Sharon government and the Bush folk were anti-semitic. He claims to have included a link, but no text, to the Nader quote. I don't recall the link but, should anyone be interested, I'm certain the post is still there. Nonetheless, whether link was there or not, I didn't read the pupeeter quote. As with a great many of Bill's posting of articles, I don't read them. I'm more interested in his comments about them. I skip most of them. I skipped this one. I've said this to Nadine, who is still playing gotcha. I can't stop that. LB was arguing about the pupeeter quote; I was arguing about Bill's statement, the one I quoted above. Here it is Wednesday morning and I'm probably adding flames to a fire that burned out a few days back. But I'm back from the 4th break and catching up. I don't consider, what I've now read of the Nader quote, to be anti-semitic, at least not in the historical sense of that term. But, if one created a continuum of anti-semitism in quotes, the Nader one would be slightly more so than the one from Juan Cole also cited. However, the larger issue, at least to me, is that language with serious moral import is being degraded.