potroastV2
Well-Known Member
This is comedy GOLD, Jerry!
I'm telling you, ya just can't make this shit up.
Jews and Catholics
- Thread starter ThickStemz
- Start date
I'm telling you, ya just can't make this shit up.
bearkat42
Well-Known Member
This is comedy GOLD, Jerry!
I'm telling you, ya just can't make this shit up.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yep, i'm used to your way with bullshit.
the very next thing you said after that was to imply a jewish conspiracy and jewish supremacism. see?
unless you're willing to say that Jews (and Catholics maybe) are superior to their fellow Americans, then there should be others represented on the court.
basically, you're going 100% david duke.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
I think it is pretty funny that someone so self assured attacks me for being wrong and out of my league and not knowing what I was talking about.This is comedy GOLD, Jerry!
I'm telling you, ya just can't make this shit up.
Turns out I was correct.
It's at least ironic. Which I find funny.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
It doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy not to appoint jews. We both know jews and catholics are historical democratic support groups.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i just think it's funny that you want to accuse others of believing in "jewish supremacy", which is the exact thing david duke spends his life trying to do.
oh, and also your history of sock puppetry and failure at life in general.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
Why don't we have an atheist on the court?
That's exactly what I'm saying. I just used different words than you, that's all.
There should be a bit of everyone reflected on the court.
FauxRoux
Well-Known Member
But the very act of screening for different religous backrounds would turn religion into a requisite....either it DOES play a role in who gets the job or it DOESNT....you cant pick and choose when race matters...period.
So while your opinion that you would like to see all groups better reprisented to avoid some form of bias may be valid.....the argument you put forth to achieve that end has literally the opposite effect as it makes religion a focal point.
The whole point is that there should be seperation of church and state. And if you think that this end isnt being lived up too in politics today then I cant help but agree....however if someone were to complain to me about religious bias in US politics they would be hard pressed to show me its the jews you need to be concerned about....
I mean fuck....i dare you to name 1 jewish religous teaching that has infiltrated politics. You dont hear jews going on about the fucking rapture.
Long story short. Jews seem an odd group to point at to help prove your point (American jews arent even all united on Israel for gods sake...so bias? How? Where?). With so many great examples of true religious bias in US politics you could have used, you went with this one and its probably a big part of the reason some on here take it as slightly anti-semetic.
....well....and buck likes calling people racist
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
I apologize if I've expressed myself so poorly as to give you this impression. That I'm advocating for anything. I simply meant to make an observation.But the very act of screening for different religous backrounds would turn religion into a requisite....either it DOES play a role in who gets the job or it DOESNT....you cant pick and choose when race matters...period.
So while your opinion that you would like to see all groups better reprisented to avoid some form of bias may be valid.....the argument you put forth to achieve that end has literally the opposite effect as it makes religion a focal point.
The whole point is that there should be seperation of church and state. And if you think that this end isnt being lived up too in politics today then I cant help but agree....however if someone were to complain to me about religious bias in US politics they would be hard pressed to show me its the jews you need to be concerned about....
I mean fuck....i dare you to name 1 jewish religous teaching that has infiltrated politics. You dont hear jews going on about the fucking rapture.
Long story short. Jews seem an odd group to point at to help prove your point (American jews arent even all united on Israel for gods sake...so bias? How? Where?). With so many great examples of true religious bias in US politics you could have used, you went with this one and its probably a big part of the reason some on here take it as slightly anti-semetic.
....well....and buck likes calling people racist
Then there was the endless string of attacks on me for something that turned out I was correct about. And of course there are the usual suspects on this board that wouldn't agree with me if I said water was wet.
So if reading my responses to all of this I could see how my point wasn't very clear.
I do fully support a separation of church and state. I don't want a religious test for anything.
That being said, I find it very odd that all the members of the supreme court are either Jewish or catholic. And you can even extebd this into the past, although I'm not sure off the top of my head when we had the last justice who wasn't jewish or catholic, I know all the recent ones were.
I know antisemitism is different than other forms of racism and I can appreciate how my observation could superficially resemble it. But it isn't and for that you'll just have to take me at my word.
I simply find it highly unusual that the makeup of the court is as it is and offer no explanation for it and don't advocate any means of "fixing" it.
It's a simple observation.
Gregor Eisenhorn
Well-Known Member
Does ones religious view cloud his judgment when he has a whole set of do's and don'ts called "the law" that he has to utilize? This isn't Sharia Law mate, judges don't accuse other people because of their religious views. I mean, why would an atheist do any better?
Sure, it's funny coincidance (or is it?) that the judges are either Catholic or Jewish, but that doesn't change anything?
Unless I'm missing somthing big here.
Sure, it's funny coincidance (or is it?) that the judges are either Catholic or Jewish, but that doesn't change anything?
Unless I'm missing somthing big here.
bearkat42
Well-Known Member
Have you ever been to Texas (or anywhere in the south for that matter)?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
only because you are worried about "jewish supremacy", just the same as david duke is.
you spelled this out quite clearly in your previous posts, you KKK loving shitbag.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
Please explain to me your reasoning for thinking I love the kkk.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
maybe it is the fact that you are worried about "jewish supremacy" in the same way that KKK grand wizard david duke is.
bluntmassa1
Well-Known Member
Why not? Jews are pretty well educated and in the government not sure about Muslims I never even heard of a Muslim in the government pretty much just Jews and Christians. Should we get a Buddhist and Hindu too??
FauxRoux
Well-Known Member
I hear ya, and I'll say if you aren't racist in any way simply don't worry about it...if its not true then its not true and I wouldn't go worrying who online may wrongly believe it.
I would thank you for the apology, but if its true there's no need for it and I'll simply thank you for the clarification.
I would also like to point out when I gave the opinion that Christians were potentially waaaay more influential ( in a destructive way IMO) to US politics than almost anyone, no one batted an eye (granted probably cause very very few would argue that point (the first part anyway)..and I seriously doubt ANYONE could do much to disprove the notion) ....but you get the idea...popular opinion always holds some sway over how far you can explore a premise without backlash.
If I were to go out on a limb and re-word the OP...
It isn't that he has a problem with Jews in office, he is mearly concerned to see so many of ANY one denomination controlling a majority of any branch of government.
Personally I can respect that sentiment in general even though given the separation of church and state the point SHOULD (ideally) be made moot.
But having declared this as a stand alone statement it has left some questioning its intention, as it could easily be construed as leading, given how it was all presented.
Then hilarity ensued.....So ya,know....RIU stuff
Last edited:
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
I didn't bat an eye to the christian stuff you said becuase I'm not one. I'm an atheist. And I have nothing but disgust at the fake show all of our politicians have to put on claiming to believe in a god. I'm sure some do. But there isn't one openly non believing member of Congress. Statistically that's impossible out of that many college educated Americans.I hear ya, and I'll say if you aren't racist in any way simply don't worry about it...if its not true then its not true and I wouldn't go worrying who online may wrongly believe it.
I would thank you for the apology, but if its true there's no need for it and I'll simply thank you for the clarification.
I would also like to point out when I gave the opinion that Christians were potentially waaaay more influential ( in a destructive way IMO) to US politics than almost anyone, no one batted an eye (granted probably cause very very few would argue that point (the first part anyway)..and I seriously doubt ANYONE could do much to disprove the notion) ....but you get the idea...popular opinion always holds some sway over how far you can explore a premise without backlash.
If I were to go out on a limb and re-word the OP...
It isn't that he has a problem with Jews in office, he is mearly concerned to see so many of ANY one denomination controlling a majority of any branch of government.
Personally I can respect that sentiment in general even though given the separation of church and state the point SHOULD (ideally) be made moot.
But having declared this as a stand alone statement it has left some questioning its intention, as it could easily be construed as leading, given how it was all presented.
Then hilarity ensued.....So ya,know....RIU stuff
With your rewording of my OP I can't see any problem. But I would clarify one thing.
Concern... it isn't concern that all the best legal jobs are going to the jews. It isn't concern that the jews are hogging all the power. I don't even know that I would have used the word concern. But it isn't inappropriate.
I think I would have said curiosity if given hindsight to rewrite it myself. And perhaps a little opposition to appointing any more jews or catholics for a while.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
The question isn't why not... it's why all...
bluntmassa1
Well-Known Member
(I don't have any dislike for Jews. I just see no reason why such a small minority should make up 4/9ths the people of our high court)
No, it's why not? Why does someone's religion matter to you? You get your news from the Aryan Brotherhood? They must hate having to sit in front of Jews with them gay ass SS bolts on their neck.