BERNIE SANDERS IS A RABID ANTI-SEMITE!

[JTZ]

What part didn't I read?

[David Smith]

What part didn't I read?

The part specifying that nobody is bringing the Holocaust into the discussion of Bernie Sanders.

[JTZ]

The part specifying that nobody is bringing the Holocaust into the discussion of Bernie Sanders.

You have no faith. I have read enough threads to know how these progress. Most would have thought Hitler would not have been brought into this discussion but you took care of that. 

[Freddie]

Interesting. I'm gonna try that in real life next time I'm having a conversation with anybody about anything. I'm going to wait for them to pause and then I'm gonna say, "By the way, I am not bringing the holocaust into this discussion..." When they ask me to explain, I will answer, "No, that's all. Really, I am not bringing the holocaust into this discussion. It really has nothing to do with what we are talking about and that is why I would never bring it up. I just wanted to let you know."

[JTZ]

Let us know how it turns out.

[good sam]

Well there you go. Don't vote for the guy because he's old. Nice.


  And yes, I don't hear anything remotely anti Semitic in this speech.

Which doesn't mean he's not.

Meanwhile... he sure doesn't have my vote.

As other's have said, the idea of "proportionality" is just another concept the anti-semites have latched onto to veil their anti-semitism.

Fundamentally it makes no sense. You agree Israel has the right to defend itself but not when the only means of defense is to take out a disproportionate amount of Palestinians?

And they consistently ignore the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields. And that Israel warns the civilian population before striking.

Proportionality is the new "I'm not anti-semitic, just anti-Israel" because it's no longer politically expedient to be anti-Israel.

[JTZ]

Just go 1945 on them and be done with it.

[Aaaron]

As other's have said, the idea of "proportionality" is just another concept the anti-semites have latched onto to veil their anti-semitism.

Fundamentally it makes no sense. You agree Israel has the right to defend itself but not when the only means of defense is to take out a disproportionate amount of Palestinians?

And they consistently ignore the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields. And that Israel warns the civilian population before striking.

Proportionality is the new "I'm not anti-semitic, just anti-Israel" because it's no longer politically expedient to be anti-Israel.

Again, your statement has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism. 

[good sam]

Again, your statement has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

Not outright, but veiled. If masses of people are latching on to an unreasonable policy position, there's likely an underlying motive.

[JTZ]

Not outright, but veiled. If masses of people are latching on to an unreasonable policy position, there's likely an underlying motive.

Proportional response is not a new or unreasonable position to many.

Another question should be is what does proportional response mean? Are we talking 1-1, enough of a response to stop the attack or something else?

[000]

Can someone ask Bernie if its proportional to kill innocent civilians just to destroy ISIS money http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/us-bombs-millions-isis-currency-supply/ not to attack someone shooting rockets at civilians how come he does not raise a hue and cry about what his own liberal BHO is doing in Iraq/Syria?

[JTZ]

Maybe this can be a yardstick going forward.

"U.S. commanders had been willing to consider up to 50 civilian casualties from the airstrike due to the importance of the target."

[jj1000]

I think Bernie would do the same if America was attacked. 

Was he ever asked if he would of invaded Afghanistan after 9/11?

[JTZ]

I think Bernie would do the same if America was attacked. 

I knew he was anti-American. 

[good sam]

I think Bernie would do the same if America was attacked. 

Was he ever asked if he would of invaded Afghanistan after 9/11?

I suspect he would not, which makes him a very dangerous president.

[ExGingi]

I suspect he would not, which makes him a very dangerous president.

I don't think it is likely that America would vote someone with his ideas as POTUS. However, in the extremely unlikely scenario, I think congress moves to the right and severely restricts his ability to implement his agenda.

[JTZ]

Was he ever asked if he would of invaded Afghanistan after 9/11?

“I will vote for this resolution because I believe that the use of force is one tool that we have at our disposal to fight against the horror of terrorism and mass murder. One tool but it is not our only tool, and it is something that must be used wisely… and with great discretion.“

[Aaaron]

I suspect he would not, which makes him a very dangerous president.

Why don't people do an iota of research before speculating.  He voted FOR the invasion (although it was retroactive since W authorized it anyway).

"I will vote for this resolution because I believe that the use of force is one tool that we have at our disposal to fight against the horror of terrorism and mass murder. One tool but it is not our only tool, and it is something that must be used wisely… and with great discretion."

ETA:  JTZ beat me to it 

[good sam]

Where's that from?

[JTZ]

Then as the war dragged on:
“This country has a $14.5 trillion national debt, in part owing to two wars that have not been paid for. We have been at war in Afghanistan for the last 10 years and paid a high price both in terms of casualties and national treasure. This year alone, we will spend about $100 billion on that war. In my view, it is time for the people of Afghanistan to take full responsibility for waging the war against the Taliban. While we cannot withdraw all of our troops immediately, we must bring them home as soon as possible. I appreciate the president’s announcement, but I believe that the withdrawal should occur at significantly faster speed and greater scope.”