OT Is anyone really surprised?

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" wrote in message
news:ACJjj.10442$ac7.3112@trndny03...

I don't have the information before me, but you are right. After the
liberation of the camps there were plenty of displaced people--not
only Jews but gypsies and others "undesirables" to the Nazis. Problem
was, the western countries didn't want a flood of these "undesirables"
either, and finding a homeland for them was a handy way out.

It would be nice if you were to know what you were talking about before
you said it.




Wouldnt it be nice if we were older
Then we wouldnt have to wait so long
And wouldnt it be nice to live together
In the kind of world where we belong

You know its gonna make it that much better
When we can say goodnight and stay together

Wouldnt it be nice if we could wake up
In the morning when the day is new
And after having spent the day together
Hold each other close the whole night through

Happy times together weve been spending
I wish that every kiss was neverending
Wouldnt it be nice

Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true
Baby then there wouldnt be a single thing we couldnt do
We could be married
And then wed be happy

Wouldnt it be nice

You know it seems the more we talk about it
It only makes it worse to live without it
But lets talk about it
Wouldnt it be nice

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

"Bill C" wrote in message
...
On Jan 17, 11:00 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" wrote in
messagenews:ACJjj.10442$ac7.3112@trndny03...

I don't have the information before me, but you are right. After the
liberation of the camps there were plenty of displaced people--not
only
Jews but gypsies and others "undesirables" to the Nazis. Problem was,
the
western countries didn't want a flood of these "undesirables" either,
and
finding a homeland for them was a handy way out.

It would be nice if you were to know what you were talking about before
you
said it.

Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?

For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we had
no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it so that
they would seem even more pitiful. I'm not saying that I blame them but the
fact is that today we're seeing the result of uncontrolled massive
immigration into this country.

In the 1940's the US departments controlling immigration weren't allowed to
just open the doors as Steven and you seem to imply. The USA had quotas and
they stuck to them AS THEY SHOULD HAVE.

This absolutely was NOT a case of turning away those who were
"undesireables" since my grandfather hadn't any trouble entering and he was
a lower class Jew. My father's family had also entered the country, some
legally (grandmother) and others illegally and they were considered low
enough low-lifes that my father and uncles were not allowed to attend public
school in Oakland. By the 1940's Oakland had started allowing Slavs,
Portuguese, Italians and others scum into the public school system. By that
time Jews were considered to be a step above these other groups.

BTW, it wasn't until 1957 before the New York Yacht Club would allow Jews
into their membership and even then they wouldn't talk to them.

Tom Kunich wrote:
Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?

For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we
had no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it
so that they would seem even more pitiful.


That's pretty pathetic, Tom. I was actually referring to the Allies'
lack of incentive to repatriate these people to their countries of
origin. Nothing to do with throwing open the doors of the US to immigrants.
Unfortunately, I failed to find the article discussing this, despite
looking for quite some time. I really shouldn't have bothered.

Steve

On Jan 17, 6:55*pm, Steven Bornfeld
wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?

For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we
had no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it
so that they would seem even more pitiful.

* * * * That's pretty pathetic, Tom. *I was actually referring to the Allies'
lack of incentive to repatriate these people to their countries of
origin. *Nothing to do with throwing open the doors of the US to immigrants.
* * * * Unfortunately, I failed to find the article discussing this, despite
looking for quite some time. *I really shouldn't have bothered.



Dumbass -

Even if you weren't talking about that - "flood of immigrants" is a
lame excuse not to take those people in.

The United States had 50% of the world's GDP after WW2, mainly because
this was the only industrialized country that didn't have it's economy
physically devastated by the war. The war never touched our economic
infrastructure.

Instead, we created an intractable problem. We helped out the
oppressed Jews, but unfairly penalized the Palestinians in the
process. We could've afforded a better solution w/ a little more
generosity and foresight.

The price for that decision is still to be fully paid.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

In the interests of brevity, I'm putting three posts/replies in one.

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

On Jan 16, 11:11*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:

* *Would you mind telling me exactly who these "anti-Israel, anti-US"
people are that you think I'm supportive of?

It's not worth the effort.

Well, that's a letdown. But you did redeem yourself in the course of these three
posts by variously stating that I support Stalinism, Maoism and FARC. I may have
missed one or two.

It'd end up like the Castro discussion, where you wouldn't say he's ever done
anything wrong, but wouldn't say you support him, but did say you "support the Cuban
people".

That discussion was about "the Left's" support of Castro. A fairly common view of
the Cuba situation by liberals is that the US policy is harmful to the Cuban people
and empowers Castro. Hence, it's counterproductive.

Which I should've answered with "Which ones?

How about the rest of them?

* *Bill, the fact that I think you have a kneejerk level of support for certain
things does not mean that I have the same level of support for the opposite
things.

Howard I don't see it as knee jerk. I see my positions as well
founded, researched, and constantly re-evaluated.

Just because you feel your positions are well founded, researched and constantly
re-evaluated, it doesn't mean that you can't have a kneejerk reaction involving that
position. The leap you made from my indicating that goodwill toward the US has
dropped worldwide to it being all about Israel sure indicated that to me,
particularly when you followed up your own post with the one about Ben and the SS
dude.

You do the name calling thing, keep moving the argument,
etc...without making your case for us to see. I've repeatedly asked
you to provide the background on your positions, the thinking behind
them, and the resources you use. None of which has been forthcoming,
except for a few articles and links you've sent me in the past to
pretty obscure stuff.
That I appreciated, because that's stuff, even I, would never
normally stumble upon, except for the Salon stuff.
You accuse me of things, but then I can lay out my argument, and you
either can't, or won't shoot it down based on the merits. You resort
to genteel name calling.

Hmm, over the years I have shown plenty of links that would explain a position
that I'm arguing - the Pew study, for example. But you seem to think those are all
"obscure", hence not worthy? "Genteel name calling?" Such as??? (And is the "genteel"
part just a way of saying that I'm engaged in "elitist talk?")

It amounts to everything I read is wrong, Fox is biased and evil, any
publication owned by a corporation is part of the vast right wing
conspiracy, etc...

You're really good at jumping to conclusions and catastrophising, Bill.

That's not the reality, at least not to most people. Some are pretty
middle of the road, some are biased one way or the other, that's why I
have sources from all points of view that I read.

Apparently you think I don't.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

On Jan 16, 11:11*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article
,
*Bill C wrote:

Trying to convince people that genocide, wholesale torture, brutal human rights
violations are bad is a good thing.

* *How do you justify that sentiment when the US has supported governments that
do those things, like Rios Mont, Saddam Hussein, Mubarak or the Somozas?

Pragmatism. We have some influence over "our" scumbags as opposed to
those who hate us.

I think that's a poor rationalization. I believe that the US has rarely actually
influenced "our" scumbags to not do the things that you listed above as being "bad."
The influence has been more in the area of getting them to do stuff that is seemingly
beneficial to US national interests. That's the point I'm making that you won't see:
supporting a government that is engaged in vile acts against its citizenry, while
knowing that they're doing that and sometimes even participating in it (by supplying
weapons or training), just so we can have a military base, have access to their
resources or keep that government from taking aid from someone else is crap and
hypocritical. In the long run, it certainly doesn't engender much good will from the
citizens, does it? I'm not sure that the people who've been killed by, say, Rios
Mont would see it as quite such a good deal: "Well, at least the Stalinists didn't
get a foothold..."
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

Howard you conntinually accuse me of only holding one side
responsible, especially when you are pushed. I have NEVER seen you
hold anyone on the left responsible for anything other than not being
far enough left.
I think the US has helped a lot of those places despite the miserable
record. The record under the Stalinist folks you support would be
worse. How's FARC on human rights?
You're really good at the game, and get your points in without giving
anything back. Seems in everyone elses responses/comments over the
years they understand what I'm saying, and I'm sure you do to.
The difference is that I have a point of view, I make it plain and
open. I own it. Your positions and how you got to them are like a
blizzard in the air, always shifting, hard to see through, but pile up
anyway, then melt away under the pressure of the sun.
I'm chaising my tail with you, I've known this for a long time, but I
keep doing. Stupid Pavlov.
If you don't work for the SF Democratic party, or other progressive
groups you really should. You are incredibly good.
Bill C

My perception of a lot of the stuff we've discussed in here recently and via email
(such as the stuff toward the end of '07) has been that it wasn't much of an attempt
to understand my views - more you trying to get me to stand up and accept blame on
behalf of "the Left" for the numerous things you seem to want to blame on "us", or
say that "the Left" was wrong to have supported certain bad people. It starts to feel
like you want me to repudiate, renounce and denounce my leaders (whoever they may be)
and admit that "we" are, in fact, trying to destroy the United States, as well as
take your stuff. I enjoy a friendly exchange of ideas but that started to seem not
very friendly.

The trouble is, I don't happen to believe that "the Left" is responsible for the
things you want to you want to say "we" are. A couple of examples are the Cambodians
killed by the Khmer Rouge, or "our" support of Robert Mugabe's destruction of
Zimbabwe.

I simply have a very difficult time reconciling your description of "the Left" and
"our" activities with my own experiences. In these three posts, you've flatly
assigned me as a supporter of Stalin, Mao and the FARCers. Recently you stated in
here that "at least a large minority" would cheer on a communist takeover in this
country [1]. That statement is, quite bluntly, crazy talk. But you can only arrive at
that point of view if your concept of what "the Left" is about is seriously
distorted. I shouldn't have to point out that what you like to call "the Left" is not
a single unit made up of a bunch of people who have the same positions and support
the same things. Judging from your statements about "us", we all have little
monuments to Stalin and Mao in our homes and PayPal accounts with FARC.

[1] Interestingly, you also said that at least as many would be happy for a
theocracy - you do know that a leading, mainstream GOP presidential candidate said
this week that we need to ammend the Constitution to match the word of God?

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Jan 18, 2:51*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
* *In the interests of brevity, I'm putting three posts/replies in one..
snipped
same here.

* *[1] Interestingly, you also said that at least as many would be happy for a
theocracy - you do know that a leading, mainstream GOP presidential candidate said
this week that we need to ammend the Constitution to match the word of God?

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * *Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
* * * * * * * * * * *But I've already got a pitchfork...

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes I do and he's a nutjob. What's you're point? My point on this
would be when have you ever criticized someone on the left for
anything but not being radical enough.
I do think you, and others deny responsibility and the actions of
those people you enabled and supported. I think you're being dishonest
in rationalizing the results of your actions.
I did read the study, and I still stand by my point that there was
already hostility to the US, violent in the middle east, and parts of
africa, and the americas, and that Iraq made it worse. You downplay
the pre-existing level of hostility.
You choose to excuse/ignore the Pal's past, teachings, statements and
behavior, I can't.
You haven't really volunteered a whole lot of your thinking. It's
been a moving target in response to things I've tossed out for the
most part IMO.I've had to form my opinion basedn ot on direct evidence
from you, but on your replies and reactions to stuff.
You come across a lot like a total partisan. Which "leftist" leaders
do you have problems with, and what are they? Which "leftist" leaders
do you feel haven't been supported by people here in the US?
Which "freedom fighters" don't you support, and why?
Bill C
Let's have some dsicussion.

Once again we have the language problem because these folks have
about as much in common with Euro socialism as any other dictator did.

On Jan 17, 11:09*pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:


Instead, we created an intractable problem. We helped out the
oppressed Jews, but unfairly penalized the Palestinians in the
process. We could've afforded a better solution w/ a little more
generosity and foresight.

The price for that decision is still to be fully paid.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Agree with that, but I think we would've had the "zionist" terroists
trying to reclaim the Holy sites if things had gone any other way. I
also think that those sites would be closed to those of religions
other than Islam. We're talking Saudi expanded and probably even more
fundamentalist given who was active at the end of ww2.
Like a lot of things there's no way to satisfy everyone. The roots go
back through at least the post Ottoman Euro occupation.
The UN was idealistic at that point and wanted to actually "solve"
things. They were the hope for the future and peace, and lots of
people believed it could happen through them. In retrospect ithe UN
looks as usefull, in that role, as Bush's Democracy campaign. Ill
conceived and counterproductive.
Bill C

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Jan 17, 6:55 pm, Steven Bornfeld
wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?
For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we
had no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it
so that they would seem even more pitiful.
That's pretty pathetic, Tom. I was actually referring to the Allies'
lack of incentive to repatriate these people to their countries of
origin. Nothing to do with throwing open the doors of the US to immigrants.
Unfortunately, I failed to find the article discussing this, despite
looking for quite some time. I really shouldn't have bothered.



Dumbass -

Even if you weren't talking about that - "flood of immigrants" is a
lame excuse not to take those people in.

The United States had 50% of the world's GDP after WW2, mainly because
this was the only industrialized country that didn't have it's economy
physically devastated by the war. The war never touched our economic
infrastructure.

Instead, we created an intractable problem. We helped out the
oppressed Jews, but unfairly penalized the Palestinians in the
process. We could've afforded a better solution w/ a little more
generosity and foresight.

The price for that decision is still to be fully paid.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.


There wasn't even much of a flood. There is also some doubt that the
majority would even have wanted relocation to the U.S. Certainly those
with relatives here did come. Others that had been dispossessed during
the Holocaust lost their countries, homes etc. It wasn't all us
either--this was the convenient solution for both western and eastern
Europe.
We tend to get into trouble when we get into this "nation-building"
thing--somthing Shrub said he wouldn't do.

Steve

"Steven Bornfeld" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement?

For one thing the majority of Jews didn't have papers. Without papers we
had no idea what countries they were from and most of them lied about it
so that they would seem even more pitiful.

That's pretty pathetic, Tom. I was actually referring to the Allies' lack
of incentive to repatriate these people to their countries of origin.
Nothing to do with throwing open the doors of the US to immigrants.
Unfortunately, I failed to find the article discussing this, despite
looking for quite some time. I really shouldn't have bothered.

Steve, you have to understand what you are talking about before you squeal
about it. I actually knew some of these Jews and they weren't all that
embarrassed to say that they didn't have any way of proving what their
nationality was and most of them didn't care to return to their countries of
origin for obvious reasons. I suggest that you talk to some Jews from
Hungary if you don't understand what I'm talking about.

Do you have any idea what happened in Europe after the war? Millions of
refugees were moving in every which direction and none of them had papers
and they were all trying to go to the places where they might get the best
conditions and the best chance of work. It was a MESS!

A very good friend of mine's wife started in what is now Lithuania and
walked all the way to West Germany as a young teenager and then did anything
she could to get work on a US Army base until she could swing coming to the
USA. She described the conditions at that time and I don't think that you'd
understand it.

Now she was very successful in the University of California system and
became a very important person but wasn't particularly liked by other board
members because she was very conservative having already seen what
liberalism could so easily be twisted into. Just read what people here post.
Better yet look at what the US Jews have been advocating which is almost a
form of suicide.

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message
...

Even if you weren't talking about that - "flood of immigrants" is a
lame excuse not to take those people in.

So you beleive that the USA didn't take in HALF of all the immigrants moving
around Europe. Tell me, is that because you're a fool and don't bother to
actually know anything before talking about it?

The United States had 50% of the world's GDP after WW2, mainly because
this was the only industrialized country that didn't have it's economy
physically devastated by the war. The war never touched our economic
infrastructure.

I wonder if you even have a small clue what the Marshal Plan was and what it
cost the USA?

Instead, we created an intractable problem. We helped out the
oppressed Jews, but unfairly penalized the Palestinians in the
process. We could've afforded a better solution w/ a little more
generosity and foresight.

And here I thought that you'd bother to actually know what you were talking
about. Before WW I the area belongs to the Turkish Empire. Between WW I and
WW II it belonged to Syria and the populations there were very light and
mosting in Gaza and the West Bank and NOBODY called themselves
"Palestinians". That word was made up by the United Nations.

MOST of the land that was "given" to the Jews was ALREADY OWNED by the Jews
who'd moved there 1850- 1920 or so.

But by all means demonstrate the sort of ignorance you're so well known for.


The price for that decision is still to be fully paid.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.