Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander
I concede that calling the group you describe appeasers may be like pulling out a .44 Magnum revolver when all that's called for is a spritz of pepper spray.
|
Well, the diff to me is that the pro cons are sellouts. Calling them appeasers is technically correct - it's exactly what they are. They knuckle under for fun and profit, and find ways to rationalize what they're doing. To cover their self-interested cowardice, they are doubly vicious toward those who stick to principle - see Wm F. Buckley on Joe Sobran. Like James Garner said to a bad guy on Rockford Files, lo these many decades ago: "Do you know what you are? (pause, then softening into grin) You do, don't you." Well, these tuffskins call anyone who puts America ahead of Israel a coward, an appeaser, a placater of terrorists, a genuflecting dhimmi-dummy. "Israel appeaser," "kike-ass-licker" are two good uses against them. By contrast, WHINOs are likely simply to be stupid, more than anything. They get stiff-nippled, like Starr, when they see that elegant sheen on Marse Turdston the III, for AmRent. If they like someone, that's good enough. He's on their side. He's one of us. If his actions are inconsistent with our beliefs, that fact is outweighed by their personal feelings. This way does not work. It allows jews and jew-excusers into our midst, leading to takeovers, like a kike daring to insult David Duke at the conference. But of course Duke himself dedicates his book to a jew, which is a good example of exactly the error I'm talking about.