Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

er that should read:
My whole point was coulter insinuating that the Libs who believe that the depiction of Jews as Christ killers, could incite anti-semitic violence know nothing about Christianity.

Ann Coulter is a propagandist who seems to act as if she has 20 pounds of sand permanently lodged in her genital area.
She seems to think that if she makes her various speeches and books more outrageous, then more people will take her seriously. I personally disagree with her on most things, and wouldn't trust anything she said. Ever.

So it's pretty safe to say I hate her.

At 12/29/07 06:10 PM, therealsylvos wrote: er that should read:
My whole point was coulter insinuating that the Libs who believe that the depiction of Jews as Christ killers, could incite anti-semitic violence know nothing about Christianity.

If you're interested, totally on your side here. Sheesh. I'm actually a little offended by Wolvenbear. There are still Christians who use that as a reason to hate the Jews. And Muslims.

At 12/29/07 06:08 PM, therealsylvos wrote: If by ancient history you mean...18 days ago, then yes.
"He said, 'Happy Hanukkah, that's when the Jews killed Jesus,' " said Adler.

That just REEKS of bullshit, on all sides.

Jews simply don't wish non-Jews Happy Hanukkah...EVER. That's the first bullshit part. That's a holiday for Jews. Not outsiders. Jewish faith is insanely private.
After two weeks, there has been no real update. All stories posted have been kept quiet (no major coverage), and have run off the original article. The media LOVES hate crimes stories. Ao, for this not to be run, it stinks even more to them than it does to me.
I'm so sure that some dude had a tattoo of Christ and decided to show it before beating a Jew. Yawn. Next you'll give me a story of a Jew showing a tattoo of Moses before engaging in adultery.

Nothing in that story is credible.

If you looked at what I said. I made it clear that I believed that, the "I admit..." part. My whole point was coulter insinuating that the Libs who believe that the depiction of Jews as Christ killers know nothing about Christianity.

Of course they don't.

They are harping on about one movie in a fad of movies that protray Christ killed. None of these movies has produced anti-Semitic outrage. So, to prove me wrong you:
Provided me with a link to a single incident, where the only ties to Christianity are the claims of a victim. This link has nothing to do with Gibson's movie (therefore proves nothing), and hardly convinces me that a CHRISTIAN beatdown of a Jew, occured. The two men shown in the pics are clearly white supremecists.

Of course anti-Semitism still exists. Racism is still around.
But you're not going to convince me that Gibson's movie affected a single Jew.

And you're just being a dumb prick now. Using an incident with dubious connections to Christianity, if any, to link to incidents hundreds of years ago, to prove all Christians are racist.

I'm starting to lose my patience here. I speculated that you were just trying to paint all Christians in a bad light out of jest to show how foolish your argument was, but you're starting to confirm it.
It's seeming like you have an anti Christian bias.

At 12/29/07 08:33 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: She's the one who said that Canada sent troops to Vietnam? Haha.

There were Canadian soldiers in Nam. Next?

At 12/29/07 08:44 PM, Earfetish wrote: If you're interested, totally on your side here. Sheesh. I'm actually a little offended by Wolvenbear. There are still Christians who use that as a reason to hate the Jews. And Muslims.

Well, then, Ear, provide something to prove me wrong.

Do I care if I offend you? Of course not. I'm absolutely right and my case is tight.

And with the Muslims comment, what are you talking about there?

At 12/30/07 06:31 AM, WolvenBear wrote: And with the Muslims comment, what are you talking about there?

Middle Eastern Muslims use the Christ-killer charge against Middle Eastern Jews.

kinda suck with the proof:

I heard a Jew being called a "Christ-Killer" by a Muslim to applause from a black audience
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/to bin103098.asp

At 12/30/07 06:28 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 12/29/07 06:08 PM, therealsylvos wrote: If by ancient history you mean...18 days ago, then yes.
"He said, 'Happy Hanukkah, that's when the Jews killed Jesus,' " said Adler.

That just REEKS of bullshit, on all sides.

Jews simply don't wish non-Jews Happy Hanukkah...EVER. That's the first bullshit part. That's a holiday for Jews. Not outsiders. Jewish faith is insanely private.
After two weeks, there has been no real update. All stories posted have been kept quiet (no major coverage), and have run off the original article. The media LOVES hate crimes stories. Ao, for this not to be run, it stinks even more to them than it does to me.
I'm so sure that some dude had a tattoo of Christ and decided to show it before beating a Jew. Yawn. Next you'll give me a story of a Jew showing a tattoo of Moses before engaging in adultery.

Nothing in that story is credible.

If you looked at what I said. I made it clear that I believed that, the "I admit..." part. My whole point was coulter insinuating that the Libs who believe that the depiction of Jews as Christ killers know nothing about Christianity.

Of course they don't.

They are harping on about one movie in a fad of movies that protray Christ killed. None of these movies has produced anti-Semitic outrage. So, to prove me wrong you:
Provided me with a link to a single incident, where the only ties to Christianity are the claims of a victim. This link has nothing to do with Gibson's movie (therefore proves nothing), and hardly convinces me that a CHRISTIAN beatdown of a Jew, occured. The two men shown in the pics are clearly white supremecists.

Of course anti-Semitism still exists. Racism is still around.
But you're not going to convince me that Gibson's movie affected a single Jew.

And you're just being a dumb prick now. Using an incident with dubious connections to Christianity, if any, to link to incidents hundreds of years ago, to prove all Christians are racist.

I'm starting to lose my patience here. I speculated that you were just trying to paint all Christians in a bad light out of jest to show how foolish your argument was, but you're starting to confirm it.
It's seeming like you have an anti Christian bias.

First of all, you have nothing to base this conspiracy theory on besides a new jerk reaction. Was the Muslim man who helped the couple a plant too? Were the marks and bruises on the Jewish mans face simply makeup? If you look at the pictures from the story, the man is not wearing a traditional Jewish skull cap, indicating he is most likely not a practicing Jew, or at the very best very liberal. He wished them a Happy Hanauka because they wished him a Merry Christmas, so instead of saying he doesn't celebrate Christmas he said Happy Hanuka in order to convey the same message in a more friendly way, as if he really believed that the men celebrate Hanuka. The holiday is not even in the Old Testament, and it certainly is not such a unspeakably holy holiday that even the most liberal jew cannot wish someday a happy Hanuka. The tradition of blaming the Jews for the death of Christ actually comes from the Gospels, where the Jews beg Pilate to kill Jesus, and Pilate not wanting to do so, tells the Jews that the death will be on their heads, to which they give him to a reply that is paraphrased to 'let it be on our heads and on the generations that follow us".

So what did the man who was involved say really happened, surely he cannot deny attack this Jewish man. He goes and says that the Jewish couple were yelling "WE KILLED JESUS AND WE'RE PROUD" while drunk... in the Subway station. Yes, that is perfectly plausible. Sounds like a certain video of two drunk Jewish boys yelling at at reporters who were next to their house in Israel, weird huh? I can't believe you would defend an asshole and his friends for attacking a Jewish man for wishing them a Happy Hanuka.

The Christ Killer attack is still popular today. I wouldn't deny it.

well i am a fan of angry bondage sex so yes i do like her. lol

At 12/29/07 08:33 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: She's the one who said that Canada sent troops to Vietnam? Haha.

And she keeps insisting too--

At 12/30/07 09:55 AM, Earfetish wrote: Middle Eastern Muslims use the Christ-killer charge against Middle Eastern Jews.

kinda suck with the proof:

I heard a Jew being called a "Christ-Killer" by a Muslim to applause from a black audience
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/to bin103098.asp

Who cares? That's not terribly relevant to the debate.
You tend to not understand the whole argument here.

At 12/30/07 10:11 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: There were Canadian soldiers in Nam. As peacekeeping forces. Not combatants. Coulter said Canada sent troops in as an ally, that Canada fought in the war. Next?

No, there were Canadian soldiers in Nam as warriors.
http://www.canadiansinvietnam.ca/index.h tml

You have no clue what you're talking about. Next?

At 12/30/07 03:08 PM, ShadowNetMerc wrote: rabble rabble rabble

It's called not passing the smell test. The entire story reeks of bullshit.

I don't disbelieve the man's bruises, no do I disbelieve that a Muslim saved him.

What I don't believe is that there was some huge religious debate, that no one else has come forward to back up, and that these guys beat him up over religious reasons. (Ignoring the whole Muslim/Jewish skism) The guy was saved by a stranger who didn't feel he deserved to have his ass beat.

And the fact that I have disproved Real and yet you're both trumpeting this one event as a trump card is moronic.

At 12/31/07 02:02 AM, fli wrote:

At 12/29/07 08:33 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: She's the one who said that Canada sent troops to Vietnam? Haha.

And she keeps insisting too--

The distinction between "Canada sent" and "Canadians served" is a thin one indeed.
Canada sent peace keepers over in 1973. And yet about 40,000 troops served in combat roles.

So, Canada sent troops, and Canadians served in war. Anyone who can't see this as a simply misunderstanding....isn't being honest.

At 12/30/07 06:28 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Jews simply don't wish non-Jews Happy Hanukkah...EVER. That's the first bullshit part. That's a holiday for Jews. Not outsiders. Jewish faith is insanely private.

Thats just crazy, any Jews would, since we do don't celebrate christmas, that is the reply, that or Happy Holidays

After two weeks, there has been no real update. All stories posted have been kept quiet (no major coverage), and have run off the original article. The media LOVES hate crimes stories. Ao, for this not to be run, it stinks even more to them than it does to me.

What are you looking for them to update already, this is the post after all.

I'm so sure that some dude had a tattoo of Christ and decided to show it before beating a Jew. Yawn. Next you'll give me a story of a Jew showing a tattoo of Moses before engaging in adultery.

Eh what? Obviously the guy was a not too bright guy who was big on Jesus, its not unheard of you know.

Nothing in that story is credible.

Just because you have never heard of something like it doesn't mean its not credible, there are lots of crazy fuckers in NYC

Of course they don't.

They are harping on about one movie in a fad of movies that protray Christ killed. None of these movies has produced anti-Semitic outrage. So, to prove me wrong you:

This is ridiculous, are you even reading what I'm writing? lets go back, you said:
"What fool thinks this movie will inspire violence? The last 80 Christian movies that showed the crucifiction didnt. Jacob's Ladder didn't inspire anti-German hate crimes. Munich didn't cause anti-Muslim hate crimes. Etc.

The whole premise is insane."
I said, " I'll admit that, that it was just a movie, but the stance she took was that it was laughable that depicting jews as christ killers would incite anti-semitic violence, and if you thought that, you clearly know nothing about Christianity."

Let me break it down, this means I agree the movie didn't and won't result in an anti-semitic violence, what I didn't like about her point was her insistence that the equation of Jews=Christ killers could not possibly lead to anti-semitic violence.

Provided me with a link to a single incident, where the only ties to Christianity are the claims of a victim. This link has nothing to do with Gibson's movie (therefore proves nothing), and hardly convinces me that a CHRISTIAN beatdown of a Jew, occured. The two men shown in the pics are clearly white supremecists.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Of course anti-Semitism still exists. Racism is still around.

And I gave you one article where it was absolutely clear the motivation. However anti-semitic crimes are absolutely rampant, hell something like 11% of all hate crimes are against Jews, and you would have to be a fool if you thought that the image of Jews as Christ killers has no part of that.

But you're not going to convince me that Gibson's movie affected a single Jew.

I never tried to

And you're just being a dumb prick now. Using an incident with dubious connections to Christianity, if any, to link to incidents hundreds of years ago, to prove all Christians are racist.

What the fuck? I know not all christians are anti-semitic, In fact I bet only a small fraction are, I don't know how you turned me showing an incident of a single lunatic christian who hates Jews into all christians hate Jews,

I'm starting to lose my patience here. I speculated that you were just trying to paint all Christians in a bad light out of jest to show how foolish your argument was, but you're starting to confirm it.

Please explain how I tried to put all christians in a bad light?

It's seeming like you have an anti Christian bias.

If you think so.

At 12/31/07 08:17 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: If you take the context she's talking about it in, she says "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" after talking about them previously being one of your "most loyal friends". We have to take the education deduction here that Coulter was claiming that Canada sent troops to serve on the US side as combatants.

Which considering what I pointed out is a pretty honest mistake.
Canada DID send troops as "peacekeepers.
Canadians did serve in Nam as soldiers.

It's all about context. Next? *snort* RHYMING ONE! AHA! *snort

I'm sorry, I pretty well lined out my case. Feel free to offer something substantiative to disprove me or shut the fuck up.

It's an understandable mistake. I was a hell of a lot more generous with D2k when it was obvious he was lying his ass off. And yet you want one spot to be held against her, for a common misunderstanding. (Full disclosure: My father, a nam vet, thought the Canadians were officially sending WAR troops.)

At 12/31/07 11:28 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Thats just crazy, any Jews would, since we do don't celebrate christmas, that is the reply, that or Happy Holidays

Bull. They do not. I work for a Jew. And I do the Jewish parties (minus ...Mitzvahs). They don't wish us Happy Chaunakah, becuase it's a uniquely Jewish experience.

What are you looking for them to update already, this is the post after all.

You know. Actual info. Something that says it happened/

Eh what? Obviously the guy was a not too bright guy who was big on Jesus, its not unheard of you know.

Sure. Some thug who's posed on the net in gang garb will randomly chose a Jew to beat over a Christian endevor. It's all bullshit and you know it.

Just because you have never heard of something like it doesn't mean its not credible, there are lots of crazy fuckers in NYC

There are lots of crazy fuckers everywhere. If something doesn't make sense, it's not true. Period.

This is ridiculous, are you even reading what I'm writing? lets go back, you said:
"What fool thinks this movie will inspire violence? The last 80 Christian movies that showed the crucifiction didnt. Jacob's Ladder didn't inspire anti-German hate crimes. Munich didn't cause anti-Muslim hate crimes. Etc.

And you didn't prove this wrong...sooooo

I said, " I'll admit that, that it was just a movie, but the stance she took was that it was laughable that depicting jews as christ killers would incite anti-semitic violence, and if you thought that, you clearly know nothing about Christianity."

And she was correct. And you STILL have provided nothing to the contrary.

Look, I'm trying to be civil here.
But you're providing an incident which has nothing to do with a movie (and I doubt even the people involved are Christian), to prove that movies kill Jews.

I have proved you wrong. Move on.

Let me break it down, this means I agree the movie didn't and won't result in an anti-semitic violence, what I didn't like about her point was her insistence that the equation of Jews=Christ killers could not possibly lead to anti-semitic violence.

It cant. MOVE ON.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Nor does it prove that they did this out of Christian belief.

And I gave you one article where it was absolutely clear the motivation. However anti-semitic crimes are absolutely rampant, hell something like 11% of all hate crimes are against Jews, and you would have to be a fool if you thought that the image of Jews as Christ killers has no part of that.

No, you gave me one article which is complete and utter bullshit.
I don't believe for one second EITHER mans account. Since neither account makes sense, both are lies.

What the fuck? I know not all christians are anti-semitic, In fact I bet only a small fraction are, I don't know how you turned me showing an incident of a single lunatic christian who hates Jews into all christians hate Jews,

Because, when the argument was rightfully put into the context of "this doesn't cause violence", you produced your link. Your original point was grasping at straws, and when I called you on it, you originally said "NO Christian violence to Jews is common." I called BS and you produced your link.

Hate her. I hate her and her right-wing views.
Damn her.

Now, now, you can't get away with just saying that.

Reasons?

At 12/30/07 09:55 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 12/30/07 06:31 AM, WolvenBear wrote: And with the Muslims comment, what are you talking about there?

Middle Eastern Muslims use the Christ-killer charge against Middle Eastern Jews.

kinda suck with the proof:

I heard a Jew being called a "Christ-Killer" by a Muslim to applause from a black audience
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/to bin103098.asp

Why should they care? jesus made more infidels then the number of jews who struck him down; so to speak.

At 12/25/07 11:36 PM, Christopherr wrote: She's too pretty to be taken seriously. I may be able to understand her, but looks seem to sway the opinions of idiots.

She's not pretty.
She's even uglier on the inside.
And she has the opinion of idiots.

I've read Al Franken's book which totally smashes Ann Coulter as a lying sack of shit. Her sources are baloney, and she only has a shit-ton of opinions with no basis.

At 12/31/07 08:17 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:

At 12/31/07 06:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote: No, there were Canadian soldiers in Nam as warriors.

You're using technicalities As far as I'm concerned those lads were fighting as Americans in 'Nam, since they did it under the U.S flag.

;
IF you take some time to look into it a bit further, you might find that during the Vietnam war, Canada reduced the size of its military by tens of thousands & many of these men went to the U.S. & fought.
Even though they were breaking the law, no one was charged & convicted when they came home (at least I couldn't find any.)

As well your both neglecting or unaware that Canada who was supposedly not involved , allowed the U.S. to practice things like carpet bombing in Alberta & Saskatchewan . there was over 3 billion dollars in trade of War materials to the United States .
Plus Canada's own peace delegates actually worked for the CIA.

We were never officially involved.

That does not mean we were not involved.

At 1/2/08 08:49 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
Bull. They do not. I work for a Jew. And I do the Jewish parties (minus ...Mitzvahs). They don't wish us Happy Chaunakah, becuase it's a uniquely Jewish experience.

OK... so because some Jews don't every single Jew would never do it?

You know. Actual info. Something that says it happened/

I can play that also, if it a lie, why have they not updated the story saying that the two guys made up a story?

Sure. Some thug who's posed on the net in gang garb will randomly chose a Jew to beat over a Christian endevor. It's all bullshit and you know it.

Let me get this straight, you don't believe the christ killer label can harm jews, I show you a link with a story where it does, and you don't believe because it doesn't sound too faked... do you see a problem here?

This is ridiculous, are you even reading what I'm writing? lets go back, you said:
"What fool thinks this movie will inspire violence? The last 80 Christian movies that showed the crucifiction didnt. Jacob's Ladder didn't inspire anti-German hate crimes. Munich didn't cause anti-Muslim hate crimes. Etc.

And you didn't prove this wrong...sooooo

Why would I, if I don't believe it to be wrong?

I said, " I'll admit that, that it was just a movie, but the stance she took was that it was laughable that depicting jews as christ killers would incite anti-semitic violence, and if you thought that, you clearly know nothing about Christianity."

And she was correct. And you STILL have provided nothing to the contrary.

Ok, lets assume that this story is a complete fantasy, for whatever reason. She inferred that INTRINSIC in Christianity is the idea that the Jews have done nothing about which to be hated for, and anyone who is christian could not possibly hate a Jew for being a Christ killer. However this is clearly untrue, since this was a charge used by the clergy to incite a hatred of Jews, so how can you say that to depict jews as christ killers, it is impossible for a Christian who knows his religion to harbor hatred for Jews?

Look, I'm trying to be civil here.
But you're providing an incident which has nothing to do with a movie (and I doubt even the people involved are Christian), to prove that movies kill Jews.

Seriously, I don't know how much clearer I have to be on this:
I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE MOVIE.
I know a movie is just a movie and is highly unlikely to cause any anti-semitic violence, however to say that the christ killer label could cause anti-semitic violence is foreign to christianity, is fallacious.

Let me break it down, this means I agree the movie didn't and won't result in an anti-semitic violence, what I didn't like about her point was her insistence that the equation of Jews=Christ killers could not possibly lead to anti-semitic violence.

It cant. MOVE ON.

Even though it CLEARLY has in the past and probably today adds to anti-semitic feelings which will lead to anti-semitic crimes.

Because, when the argument was rightfully put into the context of "this doesn't cause violence", you produced your link. Your original point was grasping at straws, and when I called you on it, you originally said "NO Christian violence to Jews is common." I called BS and you produced your link.

??? When did I say its common? The only time I made any reference at ALL to the volume was after I quoted the article and that didn't say anything about Christians.

At 1/3/08 04:52 PM, morefngdbs wrote: IF you take some time to look into it a bit further, you might find that during the Vietnam war, Canada reduced the size of its military by tens of thousands & many of these men went to the U.S. & fought.
Even though they were breaking the law, no one was charged & convicted when they came home (at least I couldn't find any.)

I neglect nothing. I understand the complex role. If Canada officially sent forces, and if Canadians fought in the war, its an honest mistake to say "Canada sent troops to fight". End of story.

At 1/3/08 06:04 PM, therealsylvos wrote: OK... so because some Jews don't every single Jew would never do it?

Yea, cause every Jew walks around saying Happy Chaunaku! It's a Jewish holiday, that is far from mainstream.

Muslims don't walk around saying "Enjoy Rammadan." HIndus don't wish everyone a "Merry Shavia."

I can play that also, if it a lie, why have they not updated the story saying that the two guys made up a story?

Oh ok. Gotcha. My skepticism can't be proven. Therefore I'm wrong.

I've told you why I don't buy it. BOTH stories sound idiotic. And i dismiss both sides.

Let me get this straight, you don't believe the christ killer label can harm jews, I show you a link with a story where it does, and you don't believe because it doesn't sound too faked... do you see a problem here?

I said that the Passion of Christ did not cause any anti-semetic violence. I'm 100% correct. You, to prove me wrong, showed a single instance of violence years later, that cannot be connected to the movie. I correctly called you a jackass who was trying to paint all Christians as extremists.

Your case consists of: Christians were means to Jews a millenia ago (or 7-9 centuries), and a (at face value) Christian attacked a Jew in 2006. MAN. What a rock solid casE!

Why would I, if I don't believe it to be wrong?

THIS, is the entire premise of your idiotic reason to hate Coulter!

"She laughed at the idea that the Passion could cause Jews to die...AND IT DIDNT!"
She said it wouldn't. It didn't. And you hate her for being correct! Or am I missing something?

Ok, lets assume that this story is a complete fantasy, for whatever reason. She inferred that INTRINSIC in Christianity is the idea that the Jews have done nothing about which to be hated for, and anyone who is christian could not possibly hate a Jew for being a Christ killer. However this is clearly untrue, since this was a charge used by the clergy to incite a hatred of Jews, so how can you say that to depict jews as christ killers, it is impossible for a Christian who knows his religion to harbor hatred for Jews?

She laughed at the idea that the movie would cause anti-Semetic violence today.
The idea that it would is as much Jewish fantasy as the idea that "United 93" would cause anti-Muslim violence.

No Pope (and I'm not Catholic) ever endorced the idea of anti-Jewish violence. That some Christians were evil doesn't invalidate the Christian ideal. I know you'd be pissed off about me pointing to Jewish bombings of Palestine and Lebanon that killed more innocents than Christian persecutions of Jews....so let's move on.

Seriously, I don't know how much clearer I have to be on this:
I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE MOVIE.
I know a movie is just a movie and is highly unlikely to cause any anti-semitic violence, however to say that the christ killer label could cause anti-semitic violence is foreign to christianity, is fallacious.

It's idiotic to say it could. That you can provide one incident proves nothing.

Stop being a jackass.

You're one of the few people I even semi-respect on this board, and I dislike having to point out you're being a dick.

Even though it CLEARLY has in the past and probably today adds to anti-semitic feelings which will lead to anti-semitic crimes.

Past=500 years ago.

Show me a current trend, or REALLY, just give it up.

??? When did I say its common? The only time I made any reference at ALL to the volume was after I quoted the article and that didn't say anything about Christians.

Look, you got pissed that she (rightfully) laughed at the idea that the movie would cause violence. It didn't. So you produce a single case of violence and pronounce her wrong.

I'm not denying that some clergy used to be anti-semetic. But that means nothing today.You're pointing to a different time, in a different continent to make the allegation (though subtly) that Christians hate Jews. And it's dispicible.

At 12/26/07 05:12 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 12/26/07 05:10 PM, Michel123 wrote: Do even hard-line conservatives defend this wench?

ah, way to post on my little brother's profile :S

At 12/25/07 11:36 PM, Christopherr wrote: She's too pretty to be taken seriously

uh, dude

jesus christ, i'll bet when she dies, her adams apple will be worth 5k!

I read her last book, Godless. It was a decent book, some points she made were good, and some were just like, "Jesus Christ, why would you say that?". Although a lot of the book was totally overexagerrated by the media.