The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[Caduet]

Who is the "them" in "Most of them"?

man you know who. i get banned if i specifically mention them so that's why i say "israelis", they are functionally synonymous anyway.

[Infidel144]

man you know who. i get banned if i specifically mention them so that's why i say "israelis", they are functionally synonymous anyway.

It was Papay who said "Most of them", and I asked Papay. Not you.

[Caduet]

It was Papay who said "Most of them", and I asked Papay. Not you.

so what, we all know the goddamn answer already. its not arab-israelis or druze or whatever that are far and away the most likely to hold american-israeli dual citizenship. this pedantry is so dumb.

Being eligible for something, tends to suggest that she has not done that thing she is is eligible for. So she has not pursued that eligibility. That would make her both de facto and de jure not an Israeli citizen.
https://www.google.com/search?q=patr...w=1536&bih=752
Looks pretty white to me. But I will admit to needing a new pair of glasses...

Clearly, white is more than just a skin tone. As the Pollard example proves, just because they haven't finished filing their paperwork does not mean de facto israelis aren't working for their home country. Spreading hatred against the majority ethnicity of the United States is the act of an enemy and they should be treated as such, no matter what citizenship they hold for the sake of convenience. This is already US policy when it comes to muslims, as we saw when Obama vaporized American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. The same should apply to israeli sayanim.

[mongrel]

People with an IQ sufficient for basic pattern recognition. I don't think the Protocols mentioned Twitter at all so I'm not sure what relevance you think they have here.

Antisemitism and IQ. A bit of an oxymoron.

[Caduet]

Antisemitism and IQ. A bit of an oxymoron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer
IQ doesn't mean "things mongrel agrees with".

[Infidel144]

so what, we all know the goddamn answer already. its not arab-israelis or druze or whatever that are far and away the most likely to hold american-israeli dual citizenship. this pedantry is so dumb.

So what? The so what is that I asked Papay who Papay was referring to. Unless you are Papay your answer for him means nothing.
Even here with your who is "most likely to hold american-israeli dual citizenship" does not answer the question. He did not say 'they are most likely', he said "most of them" are. Still want to know who this mysterious them is.

[Caduet]

So what? The so what is that I asked Papay who Papay was referring to. Unless you are Papay your answer for him means nothing.
Even here with your who is "most likely to hold american-israeli dual citizenship" does not answer the question. He did not say 'they are most likely', he said "most of them" are. Still want to know who this mysterious them is.

Make a public post, expect a public reply. You only want papay in on this? PM him or invite him to the fight club. Besides, your question is specious. As the Pollard example proves, anyone with the ability to make aliyah is a de facto israeli citizen. It does not matter if they openly declare loyalty to israel. Pollard didn't and look how that ended up. He CHOSE not to declare his loyalty to israel in order hurt America as much as he could for israel's sake.

Some more evidence from israelis proving they are not white (extreme cringe alert):

[sumskilz]

Rosanna isn't even white. She is israeli. This is one of their favorite twitter tactics.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

These Ashkenazi people (or half Ashkenazi in the case of Arquette) are sorely mistaken if they believe they'll be able to choose to be not white when extremist identity politics becomes mainstream. They aren't really much different than the various white "allies" enabling the same BS. They're all about as ridiculous as an Iranian white nationalist.

As the Pollard example proves, anyone with the ability to make aliyah is a de facto israeli citizen. It does not matter if they openly declare loyalty to israel. Pollard didn't and look how that ended up. He CHOSE not to declare his loyalty to israel in order hurt America as much as he could for israel's sake.

You're using the wrong stereotype to characterize Pollard. Pollard sold information to China, Taiwan, South Africa, and Israel. He was motivated by money, not loyalty to Israel. He only came up with his being worried about Israel defense as a way of trying to gain leniency and advocates. Pollard was sentenced to life (though with the possibility of parole obviously) via a plea deal. No American citizen has ever been so harshly sentenced for passing information to an ally, but it all makes more sense once Ronald Olive the lead investigator published the full story in 2006.

[The spartan]

They're all about as ridiculous as an Iranian white nationalist.

You mean JonTron?

[Basil II the B.S]

We had a terrific movie to talk about and you guys ruin it with Jews. Lame and sad.

[Papay]

Who is the "them" in "Most of them"?

Most of influential American Jews

Based on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return created by Israel in 1950, all jews can apply and become Israeli citizens. Many American Jews have dual nationality because of that law.

[Infidel144]

Most of influential American Jews

Based on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return created by Israel in 1950, all jews can apply and become Israeli citizens. Many American Jews have dual nationality because of that law.

So when you say "Most of them have dual nationality both American and Israeli. And have houses in both countries"

Is what you mean: "Most influential American Jews have dual nationality both American and Israeli. And most influential American Jews have houses in both countries"

Or did you mean: "Most American Jews have dual nationality both American and Israeli. And most American Jews have houses in both countries"

[Prodromos]

I don't really watch new releases anymore, but judging by the trailer it seemed like the "deplorables" were actually the heroes-victims. What am I missing?

[Basil II the B.S]

They ed it up. Essentially, they presented the ''deplorables'' as a bunch of unsalvageable racists that someone might want to get rid of. They didn't realize that for pretty much who's not a liberal, saying mean things of twitter is not a crime that should be punished with a brutal murder by moralistic elites.

Kinda why I wanted it to be released. It reminds me of the Cathy Newman interview, where Channel 4 released the whole thing thinking it'd make her look good, while she actually looked like a bigger moron.

[mongrel]

They ed it up. Essentially, they presented the ''deplorables'' as a bunch of unsalvageable racists that someone might want to get rid of. They didn't realize that for pretty much who's not a liberal, saying mean things of twitter is not a crime that should be punished with a brutal murder by moralistic elites.

Kinda why I wanted it to be released. It reminds me of the Cathy Newman interview, where Channel 4 released the whole thing thinking it'd make her look good, while she actually looked like a bigger moron.

Where is the source for this assumption in your evidence-free post?

[Heathen Hammer]

The recent antifa terrorist attacks kinda prove Basil's post - perhaps these attacks would never happen if Hollywood and groups like SPLC or CNN have not radicalized the terrorists, that believed that majority of country is populated by "racist nazis" against who physical violence is justified.

[The spartan]

The recent antifa terrorist attacks kinda prove Basil's post

It's funny how mosque shootings never prove your opponent's posts, huh?

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't recall mainstream media outlets giving positive coverage radicals on the right like they with the ones on the left.

[The spartan]

I don't recall how that actually responds to what I said given how it had nothing to with the media, but ok.

[Heathen Hammer]

I guess having you jump into a discussion about influence of liberal media on leftist/liberal terrorism with no intention to discuss the subject matter is somehow someone else's fault.