jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggest y'all watch that link I posted above.

The general gist:

A Swedish reporter decided to undergo a social experiment–seeing what would happen if he wore a Jewish yarmulke and Star of David necklace and strolled around the streets of Malmo, Sweden.



According to The Algemeiner, he “received direct threats as he walked through the city.”......

Equipped with a hidden camera and microphone, Lindgren documented his activities. One man who saw what he was wearing called him a “Jewish shit” and demanded he leave immediately. Another yelled, “Satan Jew” at him as he harmlessly walked around the city.....

The Algemeiner also reports that as Lindgren walked into the city’s Muslim areas, the threats increased to the point where swarms of gangs would confront him.

If I understand this correctly, the reporter encountered hostility before he even got to the Muslim areas. That suggests that both Muslim and non-Muslim parts of town were inhospitable to him. Therefore, that is not exactly a 'no-go zone" in any sense that we have been discussing them (though I do realize your interest in expanding the definition of "no-go zone" so that it no longer reflects its initial usage).

You are correct. He wasn't talking about Muslim no-go zones. He was talking about no-go zones in general, and this case, Jews were distinctly unwelcome. I know the video is an hour long, but I suggest you watch it. Why? Because with all the progressives here trying desperately to separate hatred of Israel with hatred of Jews, it's pretty clear to see that anti-semitism is indeed on the rise.

I am not interested in targeting Muslims, no matter how you'd like to paint my statements. I am simply pointing out that when people are distinctly unwelcome in an area, and feel in danger simply by being there, it is certainly a no-go zone. You can feel free to nitpick all you want - I choose to see the reality of what's going on in Europe at the moment.

Remember, everyone thought Churchill was crazy too. Perhaps those 'right wing nut jobs' are onto something.

Anonymous wrote:I suggest y'all watch that link I posted above.

The general gist:

A Swedish reporter decided to undergo a social experiment–seeing what would happen if he wore a Jewish yarmulke and Star of David necklace and strolled around the streets of Malmo, Sweden.



According to The Algemeiner, he “received direct threats as he walked through the city.”......

Equipped with a hidden camera and microphone, Lindgren documented his activities. One man who saw what he was wearing called him a “Jewish shit” and demanded he leave immediately. Another yelled, “Satan Jew” at him as he harmlessly walked around the city.....

The Algemeiner also reports that as Lindgren walked into the city’s Muslim areas, the threats increased to the point where swarms of gangs would confront him.

If I understand this correctly, the reporter encountered hostility before he even got to the Muslim areas. That suggests that both Muslim and non-Muslim parts of town were inhospitable to him. Therefore, that is not exactly a 'no-go zone" in any sense that we have been discussing them (though I do realize your interest in expanding the definition of "no-go zone" so that it no longer reflects its initial usage).

I suggest y'all watch that link I posted above.

The general gist:

A Swedish reporter decided to undergo a social experiment–seeing what would happen if he wore a Jewish yarmulke and Star of David necklace and strolled around the streets of Malmo, Sweden.



According to The Algemeiner, he “received direct threats as he walked through the city.”......

Equipped with a hidden camera and microphone, Lindgren documented his activities. One man who saw what he was wearing called him a “Jewish shit” and demanded he leave immediately. Another yelled, “Satan Jew” at him as he harmlessly walked around the city.....

The Algemeiner also reports that as Lindgren walked into the city’s Muslim areas, the threats increased to the point where swarms of gangs would confront him.

How many went through a long siege and attack?
How many killed an ambassador?
How many had questionable talking points?

They forgot about the 13 Benghazis that happened on George W. Bush's watch - 13 terrorist attacks on US diplomatic facilities abroad, resulting in the killings of 60 US diplomatic personnel and support staff, along with hundreds more injured and disabled...

And, here we go again! How many were blamed on a video?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And again, where is the smoking gun? There still isn't one. Gowdy has been working on this for almost a year now and still hasn't come up with a blessed thing.

so, you have been in the closed meetings?

If there were truly a smoking gun, it would not be staying behind closed doors. The only truth about Benghazi is that it is a way to keep the right wing nutjobs occupied, interested, and angry until 2016. There is no "there" there.

Because right wing nut jobs don't forget when some of our own men get killed.

They forgot about the 13 Benghazis that happened on George W. Bush's watch - 13 terrorist attacks on US diplomatic facilities abroad, resulting in the killings of 60 US diplomatic personnel and support staff, along with hundreds more injured and disabled...

Sometimes it's just too easy:

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/23/reporters-experiment-reveals-malmo-sweden-as-a-jewish-no-go-zone/

So the contractors that wrote the book have a conflict of interest, too.

Were their spouses on the Intelligence Committee?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

And again, where is the smoking gun? There still isn't one. Gowdy has been working on this for almost a year now and still hasn't come up with a blessed thing.


so, you have been in the closed meetings?



If there were truly a smoking gun, it would not be staying behind closed doors. The only truth about Benghazi is that it is a way to keep the right wing nutjobs occupied, interested, and angry until 2016. There is no "there" there.


Because right wing nut jobs don't forget when some of our own men get killed.

1983 Beirut ?

I listened to the night terrors of an Intel analyst who was there. Not forgotten. Part of why we want terrorists dead and all

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

And again, where is the smoking gun? There still isn't one. Gowdy has been working on this for almost a year now and still hasn't come up with a blessed thing.


so, you have been in the closed meetings?



If there were truly a smoking gun, it would not be staying behind closed doors. The only truth about Benghazi is that it is a way to keep the right wing nutjobs occupied, interested, and angry until 2016. There is no "there" there.


Because right wing nut jobs don't forget when some of our own men get killed.

1983 Beirut ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And again, where is the smoking gun? There still isn't one. Gowdy has been working on this for almost a year now and still hasn't come up with a blessed thing.

so, you have been in the closed meetings?

If there were truly a smoking gun, it would not be staying behind closed doors. The only truth about Benghazi is that it is a way to keep the right wing nutjobs occupied, interested, and angry until 2016. There is no "there" there.

Because right wing nut jobs don't forget when some of our own men get killed.

Anonymous wrote:

And again, where is the smoking gun? There still isn't one. Gowdy has been working on this for almost a year now and still hasn't come up with a blessed thing.

so, you have been in the closed meetings?

If there were truly a smoking gun, it would not be staying behind closed doors. The only truth about Benghazi is that it is a way to keep the right wing nutjobs occupied, interested, and angry until 2016. There is no "there" there.

Anonymous wrote:

conssrvatived will chuck ANYONE under the bus over Benghazi. She worked for a private security contractor. I thought those were your benghazi heroes.

conflict of interest

So the contractors that wrote the book have a conflict of interest, too.

Benghazi is to the political forum as North Arlington is to the real estate forum.

Anonymous wrote:This is such an interesting subject, because I don't believe there needed to be an apology, except to explain what was meant.

There are indeed areas that could be considered 'no go zones', i.e. places that are primarily X or Y and if you are Z, it's bad news to go there. Cabrini Green would be an excellent example. There are indeed primarily radicalized areas where you would not want to go.

It's like the term "Death Panels". If the government, an insurance company, whatever decides they will not pay for a treatment, and you can't afford it, indeed that's a death panel. When Emanuel talks of withholding care for the aging after a certain point, he is talking about a death panel.

You might not like the terms being used, but it's always best to look beyond those terms and see if the actions are consistent with how the term is defined.

So by your logic, the US has no go zones. There are plenty of places that are primarily minority and it would be bad news for me as a white woman to go there.

Also, Since when do insurance companies NOT get to decide whether they will pay for a treatment? I think that's called the terms and conditions of your policy, which of course, spell out what is and is not covered when you buy it. If I can't afford a treatment, and it's not covered by my insurance, that's a death sentence indeed. Please tell me how that's any different in 2008 and beyond vs. 20 years ago?