PA-Sen: Supporter Launches “Ready for Shapiro”

Ready-for-Josh-ShapiroReady for Josh Shapiro?

A growing group of Pennsylvania Democrats are and one of them created a Facebook page to advocate for the Montgomery County Commissioner to jump into the 2016 Senate race.

The page “Ready for Josh Shapiro” was launched yesterday. One of its first posts referred to our reader poll showing Shapiro leading a prospective field of candidates.

“We are grassroots supporters who want to elect Josh Shapiro as the next United States Senator from Pennsylvania!!,” explains their Facebook description.

While the page is young, it has already attracted over 150 likes, including some prominent local Democrats.

We spoke to the creator of the group, a 28-year old from South Central PA named John.

“Ready for Josh Shapiro is not about me, an organization or an agenda,” he told PoliticsPA. “I created this grassroots movement with a little graphic design skill and a laptop with the simple purpose of encouraging Josh Shapiro to run for the US Senate in 2016 and in doing so create a platform to organize a 100% grassroots support base and share positive ideas for the future. This is about people driving the conversation, not party bosses, not ‘inevitable candidates’, not special interests.”

“I’m supporting Josh because I believe he is an exceptional candidate at an extraordinary time,” John continued. “He is, in my view, the candidate to defeat Pat Toomey and in doing so help elect a Democratic majority in 2016.”

“Josh is a breath of fresh air. He has the ability to motivate our base and especially younger voters like never before,” he concluded. “Josh’s resume is above and beyond anything you could dream of for a Democratic candidate. His record is a winning one. Like many young people today, Josh is pragmatic. He’s a proven bipartisan leader who gets stuff done!”

John also noted that the group is not affiliated with Shapiro in any way and that he hasn’t even spoken with anyone on Shapiro’s staff. He’s just hoping to lay a grassroots foundation should Shapiro chose to run.

November 14th, 2014 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Senate, Top Stories | 40 Comments

40 thoughts on “PA-Sen: Supporter Launches “Ready for Shapiro””

  1. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    You again exhibit ignorance regarding the fundamental forces at-play in the Middle East; you should consider reading the hyperlinks that are generated daily @ the “Daily Alert” website.

    You are retreating from rejecting the past to claiming one must “understand” the past; this is a distinction without a difference, for one gains an “understanding” only after having studied history.

    Arafat’s death is not irrelevant, for his legacy lives-on; furthermore, nothing he said/did has been repudiated by current PA-leadership.

    I am not assuming a “permanent supply of Islamists,” although you should know “Tens of millions of Muslims all over the world sympathize with the goals or tactics of terrorist groups – or both.” [Before you recoil @ the fact that this is a Breitbart piece, note the dozens of hyperlinks therefrom to primary-data, providing a country-by-country tabulation that undermines the theory that there are just a few Islamists.] Recruitment is burgeoning in Iraq/Syria, as well, exceeding prior American projections.

    breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/09/04/myth-tiny-radical-minority

    My efforts to confront you have again borne fruit, as you have been forced to manifest your moral-equivalency by typing a lie [“Israeli children are taught to hate/fear Arabs as well.”] You will not be able to prove this claim.

    You have also pronounced the religiously-faithful to be “delusional”; yes, regardless of whatever you may cherry-pick from the 613 Commandments in the Torah, you are attacking the Judeo-Christian Ethic.

    And, finally, through it all, you remain adamant in your refusal to condemn Hamas for its missile attacks and plan to infiltrate Southern Israel on Rosh Hashanah to kill/kidnap Jewish Children; your postings are a Shanda.

  2. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    1) It’s not a question of remembering the past, but rather a question of understanding it, and the present to produce the future. You are trapped in the past.

    2) Arafat is dead. He’s irrelevant.

    3) You assume a permanent supply of Islamists, but that’s an insufficient reason to delay peace, as existence and control are separate questions.

    4) Israeli children are taught to hate/fear Arabs as well. There will always be haters on both sides. But, the majority want peace. Pakistan and India have problems too (as well as nukes) but they are able to manage.

    5) Of course they are all delusional in their believe of the supernatural. I’m ‘sensitive’ to their right to self-delusion, but I’m not going to pick sides based on preferring one delusion to another.
    I don’t “despise” the Judeo-Christian ethic. I just don’t agree with the basis that it comes from a deity (particularly one that designates eating shellfish as a sin, or cares if you mix meat and milk).

    6) The Toomey campaign is probably a lot more interested in your cash than your advice.

    7) Your “theme” is insanity to claim Obama is anti-Semitic. The “silence” is likely an attempt to avoid wasting time on your delusions.

  3. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    A Toomey-Shapiro race would predictably produce a high-level debate, based both on political ideology and ethical practicality; although I would support Toomey [as has been done for two election-cycles, c/o Guzzardi], I would not cringe [unlike a potential reaction to Sestak, with whom I disagree profoundly] were Josh to be elected.

    The theme of my input on this webpage has been, however, that Josh should distance himself from BHO’s brand of anti-Semitism; he and Marcel Groen [MontCo Dem-Chair] have been publicly and privately berated during the past half-decade for their silence.

    I recognize that such stridency may appear premature; nevertheless, Josh has a war-chest and has already accrued sufficient fiscal-achievements to allow him to anticipate re-election next year [although, as a Republican, I’ll want to assess our Courthouse slate disinterested].

    He presents himself well although, when we were confronted with a voting-machine that had not registered a vote of an individual [who had entered and left without choosing anyone], he ignored my input [based on having read the updated instruction-book provided to the Judge of Elections] that a blank write-in vote could be cast to even-up the stats [preferring to follow input from the county elections-officials, delivered via ‘phone]; he was, on the one hand, not an “active listener” but, on the other hand, determined to accomplish a focused-goal expeditiously.

    It should be recalled that he worked for Hoeffel and, thus, has DC-experience; with AG-Kane facing investigations of allegedly-politicized behavior and with Treasurer-McCord bowing-out, it would seem he wouldn’t be perceived as leap-frogging more senior individuals, were he to enter the race.

  4. Kathleen3, you forget that there’s this thing that goes on for months before an election called a “campaign.” And Shapiro has shown he is a relentless and effective campaigner. Toomey, on the other hand, has shown he knows how to debate Joe Sestak and then hide for six years. I’d be delighted, too.

  5. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    Your irreverence knows no bounds…save for your ignorance.

    Although you continue to eschew providing authorities to support your opinions, your rejection of history is contravened by Santayana, who wrote (in The Life of Reason, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Israel doesn’t have the luxury to err even once.

    Thus, “the past is relevant as a claim that peace can’t be achieved” because Arafat failed to counteroffer after having been given ALMOST the entire “store” [with the rest proffered @ Taba by Clinton as he exited]; you demonstrate again your arrogance for, although you “don’t care if Hamas drops its Covenant,” everyone else in the neighborhood does [and other Islamists would rapidly fill the vacuum].

    You may not care “what their opinion is of King David,” but their denial of the archaeological record [that they haven’t destroyed, try as they might] bespeaks the inability to create trust [notwithstanding their instruction in anti-Semitism within their schools, media and mosques].

    One would hope that, even an individual who denies “the existence of ‘God,’ and consider[s] the Bible to be a work of fiction laced with a few historical characters and [a] distorted take on events” would be able to muster a sense of sensitivity to the billions of people who think otherwise; your secular-progressive religiosity precludes even keeping the “door” of alternative views open even “ajar,” so sad.

    That you despise the Judeo-Christian Ethic explains your obeisance to Hamas.

  6. Kathleen3 says:

    Pat Toomey would be delighted if Josh Shapiro challenged him. Shapiro would be to Toomey what Strouse was to Fitzpatrick.

  7. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    More than half of Gazans are under 25 years old, and most of the other major players are new, as well as changes in the mid-East, and an overall fatigue with the status quo.

    So, the past is not relevant as a claim that peace can’t be achieved (except to people like you who are the enemies of peace and look for any excuse to avoid it).

    I don’t care if Hamas drops its Covenant as they will be marginalized to the point of no power in a peaceful two-state solution. Stopping the process over their ravings is like countries not signing treaties with us because we allow the KKK to have marches. Hamas will become the new Palestine’s KKK, hateful but toothless.

    Who the f*ck cares what their opinion is of King David? You deny global warming and basic science.

    I deny the existence of “God”, and consider the Bible to be a work of fiction laced with a few historical characters and distorted take on events.

    Hamas has no useful purpose in a two-state solution, without occupations, settlement expansion, blockades, etc. to rally their support.

  8. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    Camp David II disproved your assertions for, after 8 years of Oslo, the PA couldn’t enact a definitive peace-treaty; again, you have failed to disclaim support for the missile-attacks by Hamas, plus its admission that it has used humans as shields.

    You can postulate to your heart’s content regarding the empty promises that could be proffered – and that Hamas would abrogate its Covenant in the process – but Israel should not be expected to base its continued existence upon such pledges, particularly in light of the track-record of those promulgating them [such as denying the existence of King David, etc.].

    Cite one authority for your underlying assumption [“Once a two-state solution is reached, elements like Hamas will be crushed to keep the hard-won peace and state for Palestine”] or retract it.

  9. Hugh Jwone says:

    Would you two get a life already?

  10. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    You keep referring to Netanyahu as BB, when his nickname is Bibi, and his initials are BN. It just makes you look even dumber.

    The recognition of Israel is a false precondition because there will always be elements opposed to it, at the same time there will be elements in Israel opposed to the Palestinians having a state.

    This false precondition is purposeful to prevent a solution and perpetuate the current situation of Israel’s occupation and expansion.

    If Hamas disbanded, disarmed and announced full support for Israel tomorrow, Netanyahu would manufacture a different excuse to delay a two-state solution.

    It’s all a land grab, where the formerly oppressed gain near absolute power and transform into the oppressors.

    Once a two-state solution is reached, elements like Hamas will be crushed to keep the hard-won peace and state for Palestine. So, the precondition is really a post-condition that will enforced by beneficiaries of their own state.

  11. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    I support BB, when he concurs with one AFTER Israel is recognized.

    Your negative-mindread failed, once more.

    Did you watch the video?

    Do you still support Hamas?

  12. David Diano says:

    Robert

    So, you are saying that you are opposed to a two state solution, and you are for denying Palestinians their own state.

    This is why the fighting goes on.

  13. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    Before you hear Josh rebuke you [and debunk your paradigm of the Middle East], you may wish to watch the following brief [spoon-fed] video on the history of the Middle East conflict; you will then appreciate why you generate so many “Defects” in your postings [now, including the phrase, “I’m fine with the existence of a the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland, but not at the expense of the Palestinians prevented from having their own state.”].

    viral.buzz/muslim-conflict-video-all-you-need-to-know-in-5-minutes/

    In the process, you will be reminded of the overarching legality of the ’48 Partition, which Arabs have consistently opposed [militarily, diplomatically, etc.] thereafter; you will also be reminded of the pre-’67 posture that existed among those you condone [opposing Israel’s existence before the defensive war that yielded expanded Israeli control], when your two-state solution existed [but didn’t satisfy the Arabs’ desire to wipe-Israel-off-of-the-map].

    Excerpts from the Hamas Covenant might prove enlightening:

    Article Seventeen:

    [After praising Muslim women, notwithstanding the enslavement thereof by Islamists worldwide]….[Y]ou find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs. These organizations have ample resources that enable them to play their role in societies for the purpose of achieving the Zionist targets and to deepen the concepts that would serve the enemy. These organizations operate in the absence of Islam and its estrangement among its people. The Islamic peoples should perform their role in confronting the conspiracies of these saboteurs. The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated.

    Article Twenty-Two:

    [After having claimed Jews “were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there]….With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

    Article Twenty-Eight:

    The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

    avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

    You are lying [note double entendre] with this organization and, thus, you have “fleas.”

  14. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ The Reader:

    DD has admitted he condones terrorism against Israeli Jews: “The Hamas rockets are the result of Israel’s policies.”

    One would hope that all Dems who are public figures and/or who advocate for the Dem-Party would repudiate his oeuvre [here and elsewhere].

    http://www.politicspa.com/anthony-williams-to-run-for-mayor-of-philly/61826/comment-page-1/#comment-922710

  15. David Diano says:

    Robert-

    No. You’ve incorrectly equated any opposition to Israeli policy as anti-Semitism, without any distinction. I’m neither pro-Israel nor anti-Israel. I’m fine with the existence of a the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland, but not at the expense of the Palestinians prevented from having their own state. So, “Zionism” is okay as part of a two-state solution, but not a one-state solution that continually takes land from the Palestinians and occupies them.

    My position is that I support a non-aggressive Israel, and not it’s current policies and leaders. I believe these people are actually hurting Israel by working against peace and engaging in war crimes against innocent Palestinians. They are working against peace and promoting a cycle of violence with disproportionate responses.

    I feel that the U.S. should not support them and their military policies, until/unless they make real progress on a two-state solution. This may require new leaders and a peaceful direction for Israel.

    People like you are actually the most dangerous to Israel because your bigotry against non-Jews in the mid-East prevents progress and blinds you from accepting peace from former adversaries.

  16. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    Therefore, are you an anti-Zionist?

  17. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    You seem to be confusing anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism

    http://www.rense.com/general48/zntiz.htm

    I found an essay on the subject, and here are the pertinent arguments to demonstrate your problem:

    “The Anti-Semite hates the Jews because they are Jews, irrespective of their actions…That is in the nature of all kinds of racism and chauvinism: One hates someone for being a Jew, Arab, woman, black, Indian, Muslim, Hindu. His or her personal attributes, actions, achievements are
    unimportant. If he or she belongs to the abhorred race, religion or gender, they will be hated.

    The answers to all questions relating to anti Semitism follow from this basic fact. For example:

    Is everybody who criticizes Israel an anti-Semite?

    Absolutely not. Somebody who criticizes Israel for certain of our actions cannot be accused of anti-Semitism for that. But somebody who hates Israel because it is a Jewish state, is an anti-Semite. It is not always easy to distinguish between the two kinds, because shrewd anti-Semites pose as bona fide critics of Israel’s actions. But presenting all critics of Israel as anti- Semites is wrong and counter productive, it damages the fight against anti-Semitism.

    Many deeply moral persons, the cream of humanity, criticize our behavior in the occupied territories. It is stupid to accuse them of anti-Semitism.

    Can a person be an anti-Zionist without being an anti Semite?

    Absolutely yes. Zionism is a political creed and must be treated like any other. One can be anti-Communist without being anti-Chinese, anti- Capitalist without being anti American, anti-Globalist, anti-Anything.”

    So, Robert, you are damaging the fight against anti-Semitism with false definitions, illogical conclusions and blind bigotry.

  18. David Diano says:

    Robert-

    All you are doing is continuing to remind everyone of how delusional you are. Please continue.

    You posted nonsense about how people who support Obama would have Jewish blood on their hands if attacks on Israel occur.

    By that logic, the blood of hundreds of Gaza children is on your hands for supporting Netanyahu.

    You are a shameless anti-Arab bigot who fails to see any mistakes by Israel nor any suffering of those who are not Jewish.

  19. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    I never concluded that all supporters of BHO are anti-Semites; on the other hand, your postings [and misrepresentations, absent facts…such as when you unilaterally decided the iron-dome defense wasn’t “cost-effective”] place you into that category, as well.

  20. David Diano says:

    Robert-

    Keep repeating that you think Obama is an anti-Semite and that anyone who supports him in any capacity is one also. Under your delusions, there are a lot of anti-Semitic rabbis.

    Since you are a Republican (tea-party, nutjob), you don’t get to vote in the Dem senate primary, so none of this matters to you until the Summer/Fall of 2016. And, you’ll just pick Toomey anyway.

    BTW, ask Toomey to come out and claim that Obama is an anti-Semite and see if he agrees with you.

  21. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    I will continue to remind you of your deceit [and support for anti-Semite BHO], if for no other reason than because you have not defended your [blatantly false] assertions; these issues are directly relevant to how Josh will handle his relationship with the guy whom he endorsed early-on…the POTUS.

  22. David Diano says:

    Robert-

    PLEASE keep cutting/pasting/re-posting/double-posting/cross-posting the same old crap that doesn’t relate to the current thread until the moderators ban you from the site.

    However, about your complaint… “judicial delay” was not the reason that your complaint was “a rambling and disjointed narrative of [Appellant]’s opinions, theories and surmises, as opposed to material allegations.”, even after you had the opportunity to amend it.

    Your ramblings here are no more worthy of consideration than those in your complaint.

  23. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    [To elaborate a bit further on my freedom-of-speech litigation, I could have filed a streamed-down Complaint, but the situation was so remote [due to many episodes of judicial delay] and the change-of-party was so definitive [no remedy remained] that the point had been made…but the situation was mooted.]

    It is desirable to recap on this page the posting that has led to your having claimed Israel “occupies” Gaza, despite the fact that [1]–No Israelis are on the premises and [2]–Gazans have access westward to Egypt. You are again reminded that this is the tip-of-the-latest-iceberg of disparate undocumented claims you have made on this page:

    “THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles and tunnels.”

    You wrote, “The attacks from Gaza are completely justified as a response to Israel’s occupation and blockades, just as the American revolutionaries fought the injustices of British rule.”

    Defect #1: The Israelis are not “occupying” the Gaza Strip; Sharon pulled-out unilaterally almost a decade ago.

    Defect #2: The Israelis have tried to restrict the import of matériel carrying military import; after the relaxation of such limitations [c/o BHO], the steel used to reinforce the tunnels was permitted to be imported, yielding a sophisticated network that was to have been employed to invade hundreds of Southern-Israel communities [including schools], through which innocent Jewish civilians were to be slaughtered/kidnapped.

    Defect #3: Most people would consider the plan [to use the tunnels to invade Southern Israel on Rosh Hashanah] to be “terroristic,” although you would probably continue to side with the Islamists [“Hamas”], in this case, thereby again affixing upon your breast the identical label of “anti-Semite” being sported by BHO [for having aided/abetted this scheme ahead-of-time, forcing BB to relent after the Flotilla incident].

    Defect #4: This strategic defensive-move has absolutely no relationship to British policy in Colonial America; England wasn’t imposing restrictions in self-defense and, thus, to attempt to wrap yourself around the flag of “patriotism” recalls that infamous phrase that labels that rhetorical-claim to be “the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

    Retreating, somewhat, you added a disclaimer: “However, the attacks are completely misguided because they are ineffective and don’t advance their cause. So, tactically, they aren’t justified, only their right to fight their oppressors is.”

    Defect #5: Charming. So you claim the thousands of missiles that rained upon Israel [extending not only to Tel Aviv, but also to Jerusalem] were “ineffective” in killing enough Jews, despite their having spread terrorism among the civilian population; Jewish life is so cheap in your mind that being traumatized over the years [and having to reside in bomb-shelters] really was an insufficient inconvenience to suit your tastes, eh?

    Then, grudgingly, you admit “Hamas shouldn’t use human shields,” but then quickly add what you mistakenly perceive as a neutralizing counterclaim [lest you subject yourself to the charge that you relented in any shape or form] thusly: “However, Israel shouldn’t blame the deaths all the non-shield humans that Israel indiscriminately kills on Hamas.”

    Defect #6: Find a quote where this posture was ever struck by the IDF, as it resolutely acted to defend its citizenry [channeling its name].

    Finally, you lapse into the classic defense used episodically by the Arabs [in-between triumphant claims]: “Israel’s response to missiles and tunnels was overkill and not justified, due to its disproportionate nature. Israel had a right to respond, but their response was wrong.”

    Defect #7: Who the HECK are you to reach that determination, when you [functioning in your familiar “Ugly American” capacity] reside comfortably in PA [which, thus far, has been relatively free of terrorism]?

  24. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    The “oppression” in Gaza is due to the policies of Hamas, which surely Israel [NOT an “occupying power”] haven’t been able to alter; do you also condone the terror-tunnels as another method of protesting Israel’s existence?

  25. David Diano says:

    Robert-

    You “dropped the effort”? Looks like you got your ass handed to you in court. By “dropped” do you mean that you decided not to fight to the Supreme Court? LOL.
    Nothing tops: “the Amended Complaint is “a rambling and disjointed narrative of [Appellant]’s opinions, theories and surmises, as opposed to material allegations.”

    Nothing has changed about you.

    The Palestinians in Gaza are fighting against not only their own occupation, but the overall occupation of ALL the Palestinian territories.

    My statement that the attacks from Gaza were “a response to Israel’s occupation and blockades” was not limited to Gaza alone. Surely, you won’t deny the occupation of the Palestinians outside of Gaza and a two-state solution would include occupied Palestinian terror and Gaza.

    But, I still stand by my statement (and official position of the UN) that Israel is an occupying power over Gaza. Human Rights Watch views Israel as a “defacto” occupying power, which is also good enough. Others refer to it as a “siege” instead of an occupation. All distinctions without difference.

    http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked

    “Despite removing 8,000 settlers and the military infrastructure that protected their illegal presence, Israel maintained effective control of the Gaza Strip and thus remains the occupying power as defined by Article 47 of the Hague Regulations. To date, Israel maintains control of the territory’s air space, territorial waters, electromagnetic sphere, population registry and the movement of all goods and people.”

    If you wish to engage in a point-by-point of the article, please do so in the provided comments section of ‘The Nation’ where the article is from, not here.

    My point in referencing the article, and opinion of UN, Human Rights Watch, etc. is that I have a reasonable basis for my statement that Israel is an occupying power, despite its claims to the contrary. So, while the semantics are disputed, the effect is that of an occupation.

    I do not give a f*ck if you agree with the assessment. I genuinely consider the situation to be an occupation (and I am not alone in this evaluation), therefore my statements are not disingenuous as you claim.

    Since we disagree on this fundamental point, and neither is convinced by the other’s arguments, there in no point in continuing this argument.

    The oppressive conditions in Gaza are intolerable and the citizen there have a right to fight for their freedom.

  26. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    As Reagan used to say, “There you go again”; ad-hominem doesn’t work [because I dropped the effort after I no longer had a remedy after the party-control switch of the Commissioners [and no one challenged the points that were included in the provision of “context” that this document contained].

    Elsewhere [and here], I disposed of your attempt to defend the indefensible, namely, that Israel is “occupying” the Gaza Strip, notwithstanding the unilateral withdrawal therefrom in ’05; again, the other numbered-“Defects” in your posting remain operational, particularly your reprehensible [and, again, counter-intuitive] effort to invoke the American Revolution to swath Palestinian Terrorism in “Patriotism.”

  27. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    You’re the guy who [unjustifiably] complained that I didn’t scrutinize the hyperlinks I had cited; you are guilty of this behavior for “the UN still considers Gaza ‘occupied’ even though Hamas admits it’s not, given that Israel hasn’t been there since 2005.”

    blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2012/01/27/un-we-still-consider-gaza-occupied-by-israel/

    In fact, the comments illustrate the convoluted lingo that led to the UN’s having reached this conclusion; further, the UN’s anti-Israel bias has been a pattern that has led to retractions, even by their authors [re: Goldstone Report].

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

    I have no problem with Israel’s having exerted its right to control movement across its borders in the face of terrorism [and one wishes BHO would uphold his constitutional responsibility in like-fashion]; per your citation [which, although it arises from a leftie-source, I do not reject out-of-hand as you do when the word “Breitbart” is either mentioned or conjured in your mind], Israel reacted to what this surgeon had said and, thus, probably felt he would enhance the danger facing Israel from Gaza were he to go there … and there is no reason why he couldn’t enter Gaza via Egypt [unless, of course, he wanted to provoke Israel into doing something that could be politicized against Israel, eh?].

    One resource contains a disinterested summary of these issues noting, for example, how the UNRWA violated [for “operational” purposes] the UN’s definition of a “Refugee”; perhaps you may wish to apply your critical thinking-skills, for a change, instead of adhering to polemics.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict

    The bottom-line point is that Israel’s policy towards Gaza does not meet the definition of “Military occupation,” for Israel intuitively is not able to exert “effective provisional control of a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign”; you cannot assert otherwise [even invoking the “twisted” section of your mind] for, otherwise, you would have to account for the ascendancy of Hamas and other Islamists [and it’s counter-intuitive that Israel would control a region from which thousands of missiles would have been launched against Israel’s population centers].

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

    THEREFORE, “Defect #1” remains operational, and you have yet to tackle the others; THEREFORE, your disingenuousness remains exposed.

  28. David Diano says:

    Robert-

    Apparently, your reputation as a crank precedes you. Last year the commonwealth court threw out your nuisance lawsuit against Abington Township (and its board members) “with prejudice”. (Note: the legal kind, not the kind of prejudice you usually demonstrate)

    http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/23CD13_12-30-13.pdf

    You are the “Appellant”. My favorite part is:

    “the Amended Complaint is “a rambling and disjointed narrative of [Appellant]’s opinions, theories and surmises, as opposed to material allegations.”
    The Amended Complaint includes various instances of immaterial allegations, multiple allegations within one paragraph, and opinion and conjecture instead of factual allegations. ”

    I also liked: “These allegations are entirely unrelated to the December 17, 2009 meeting, but instead concern Appellant’s own actions and state of mind in the
    thirteen years prior to the meeting.”

    Finally: “Appellant was provided an opportunity to amend the Initial Complaint after it was dismissed, and the Amended Complaint failed to remedy the pleading
    deficiencies contained in the first pleading….. Appellant argues on appeal that if allowed to replead, he would be able to delete the portions of the Amended Complaint determined to be
    “objectionable.” (Appellant Br. at 9; Appellant Reply Br. at 9, 13). However, the critical flaw in the Amended Complaint is not a few superfluous allegations, but rather the wholesale failure by Appellant to set forth a comprehensible factual and legal basis for his claims. “The judicial role must be to adjudicate coherent claims, not to assume the burdens of the advocate or litigant.” ”

    LOL !! 🙂 This is EXACTLY what you do here.

    As for “refuting” you, I did so at 3:15pm 8 hours before post here (after your original 7:15 am post on the thread about the senate poll).

    I wrote, Regarding occupation:
    “Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in September 2005, and declared itself no longer to be in occupation of the Strip. However, as it retains control of Gaza’s airspace and coastline, it continues to be designated as an occupying power in the Gaza Strip by the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly and some countries and various human rights organizations.”

    So, yes, they still are occupiers. From that, all else follows.

  29. Robert Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    Refute what I wrote or admit error

  30. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    Stating that Obama is an anti-Semite is a lie (and thinking you’ve proven it shows how delusional you are). You are in the same league with the “birthers”.

  31. idratherbefishingwithric says:

    Ric Santorum will win the race with write-ins from Ds!

  32. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    Lest anyone think DD [and BHO] can shake the appellation “anti-Semite,” fact-check this cross-posting [and weep]:

    *

    @ DD:

    I really cannot feel sorry for you, nor can I cover-up your ignorance; after having evaded the central query, you finally [partially] confronted the central-question regarding the Israeli incursion into Gaza:

    “THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles and tunnels.”

    You wrote, “The attacks from Gaza are completely justified as a response to Israel’s occupation and blockades, just as the American revolutionaries fought the injustices of British rule.”

    Defect #1: The Israelis are not “occupying” the Gaza Strip; Sharon pulled-out unilaterally almost a decade ago.

    Defect #2: The Israelis have tried to restrict the import of matériel carrying military import; after the relaxation of such limitations [c/o BHO], the steel used to reinforce the tunnels was permitted to be imported, yielding a sophisticated network that was to have been employed to invade hundreds of Southern-Israel communities [including schools], through which innocent Jewish civilians were to be slaughtered/kidnapped.

    Defect #3: Most people would consider the plan to be “terroristic,” although you would probably continue to side with the Islamists [“Hamas”], in this case, thereby again affixing upon your breast the identical label of “anti-Semite” being sported by BHO [for having aided/abetted this scheme ahead-of-time, forcing BB to relent after the Flotilla incident].

    Defect #4: This strategic defensive-move has absolutely no relationship to British policy in Colonial America; England wasn’t imposing restrictions in self-defense and, thus, to attempt to wrap yourself around the flag of “patriotism” recalls that infamous phrase that labels that rhetorical-claim to be “the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

    Retreating, somewhat, you added a disclaimer: “However, the attacks are completely misguided because they are ineffective and don’t advance their cause. So, tactically, they aren’t justified, only their right to fight their oppressors is.”

    Defect #5: Charming. So you claim the thousands of missiles that rained upon Israel [extending not only to Tel Aviv, but also to Jerusalem] were “ineffective” in killing enough Jews, despite their having spread terrorism among the civilian population; Jewish life is so cheap in your mind that being traumatized over the years [and having to reside in bomb-shelters] really was an insufficient inconvenience to suit your tastes, eh?

    Then, grudgingly, you admit “Hamas shouldn’t use human shields,” but then quickly add what you mistakenly perceive as a neutralizing counterclaim [lest you subject yourself to the charge that you relented in any shape or form] thusly: “However, Israel shouldn’t blame the deaths all the non-shield humans that Israel indiscriminately kills on Hamas.”

    Defect #6: Find a quote where this posture was ever struck by the IDF, as it resolutely acted to defend its citizenry [channeling its name].

    Finally, you lapse into the classic defense used episodically by the Arabs [in-between triumphant claims]: “Israel’s response to missiles and tunnels was overkill and not justified, due to its disproportionate nature. Israel had a right to respond, but their response was wrong.”

    Defect #7: Who the HECK are you to reach that determination, when you [functioning in your familiar “Ugly American” capacity] reside comfortably in PA [which, thus far, has been relatively free of terrorism]?

    Your posting was a Shanda, and the second question posed to Josh by a thinking-reporter [after he is asked to disclaim BHO’s Iranian-Nuke behavior] should be whether he concurs with anything an individual such as yourself [running-interference for him, here, on PoliticsPA] has posted.

    *

    DD’s ignorance cannot be blamed on lack of knowledge, for he has faithfully typed the vile that spews forth from Arabs who would continue to deny Israel’s right to live, corrupting the “David” and “Goliath” roles in the process; look @ a map, DD.

    Rather, DD’s exposure to the label “anti-Semite’ links him to BHO’s [for the ADL’s definition he employed includes adopting a political posture that would demonstrably yield “deaths of groups of Jews”].

    Some would claim that having tracked him across numerous pages of PoliticsPA [albeit having ignored following-up on numerous C-R-A-P he has posted] constituted a monumental waste-of-time; to the contrary, having “assisted” him to have exposed his prejudices has served to protect PoliticsPa readers, for he will continue to be stalked [and this page will be cited regularly in the process], lest anyone consider him to serve as a credible evaluator of the passing-scene.

  33. David Diano says:

    Robert-

    Stating that Obama is an anti-Semite is a lie (and thinking you’ve proven it shows how delusional you are). You are in the same league with the “birthers”.

  34. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    By demonstrating the double-whammy of failed-blogging [typing lies and not being able to document assertions], you ultimately show that I’m correct and you’re wrong; by injecting invective, you reveal your own prejudices.

  35. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    Get accustomed to people realizing that you are a bigot. By tying your whole premise to claiming Obama is an anti-Semite (and by extension any supporter of his is one) you reveal the depths of your prejudices and irrationality.

  36. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    “Check…and Mate!”

    [When a debater has neither the facts nor the law, he/she argues ad-hominem.]

    DD, get accustomed to noting this hyperlink, for it will follow-you around….

    “www.politicspa.com/pa-sen-supporter-launches-ready-for-shapiro/61843/#comments”

    Anyone who appears to believe you will be reminded that you have “0” credibility.

  37. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    You are just a bigot. Your posts and attacks calling Obama an anti-Semite show how much you have lost your mind. Seek help.

  38. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    Lest anyone think DD [and BHO] can shake the appellation “anti-Semite,” note this cross-posting [and weep}:

    *

    @ DD:

    I really cannot feel sorry for you, nor can I cover-up your ignorance; after having evaded the central query, you finally [partially] confronted the central-question regarding the Israeli incursion into Gaza:

    “THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles and tunnels.”

    You wrote, “The attacks from Gaza are completely justified as a response to Israel’s occupation and blockades, just as the American revolutionaries fought the injustices of British rule.”

    Defect #1: The Israelis are not “occupying” the Gaza Strip; Sharon pulled-out unilaterally almost a decade ago.

    Defect #2: The Israelis have tried to restrict the import of matériel carrying military import; after the relaxation of such limitations [c/o BHO], the steel used to reinforce the tunnels was permitted to be imported, yielding a sophisticated network that was to have been employed to invade hundreds of Southern-Israel communities [including schools], through which innocent Jewish civilians were to be slaughtered/kidnapped.

    Defect #3: Most people would consider the plan to be “terroristic,” although you would probably continue to side with the Islamists [“Hamas”], in this case, thereby again affixing upon your breast the identical label of “anti-Semite” being sported by BHO [for having aided/abetted this scheme ahead-of-time, forcing BB to relent after the Flotilla incident].

    Defect #4: This strategic defensive-move has absolutely no relationship to British policy in Colonial America; England wasn’t imposing restrictions in self-defense and, thus, to attempt to wrap yourself around the flag of “patriotism” recalls that infamous phrase that labels that rhetorical-claim to be “the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

    Retreating, somewhat, you added a disclaimer: “However, the attacks are completely misguided because they are ineffective and don’t advance their cause. So, tactically, they aren’t justified, only their right to fight their oppressors is.”

    Defect #5: Charming. So you claim the thousands of missiles that rained upon Israel [extending not only to Tel Aviv, but also to Jerusalem] were “ineffective” in killing enough Jews, despite their having spread terrorism among the civilian population; Jewish life is so cheap in your mind that being traumatized over the years [and having to reside in bomb-shelters] really was an insufficient inconvenience to suit your tastes, eh?

    Then, grudgingly, you admit “Hamas shouldn’t use human shields,” but then quickly add what you mistakenly perceive as a neutralizing counterclaim [lest you subject yourself to the charge that you relented in any shape or form] thusly: “However, Israel shouldn’t blame the deaths all the non-shield humans that Israel indiscriminately kills on Hamas.”

    Defect #6: Find a quote where this posture was ever struck by the IDF, as it resolutely acted to defend its citizenry [channeling its name].

    Finally, you lapse into the classic defense used episodically by the Arabs [in-between triumphant claims]: “Israel’s response to missiles and tunnels was overkill and not justified, due to its disproportionate nature. Israel had a right to respond, but their response was wrong.”

    Defect #7: Who the HECK are you to reach that determination, when you [functioning in your familiar “Ugly American” capacity] reside comfortably in PA [which, thus far, has been relatively free of terrorism]?

    Your posting was a Shanda, and the second question posed to Josh by a thinking-reporter [after he is asked to disclaim BHO’s Iranian-Nuke behavior] should be whether he concurs with anything an individual such as yourself [running-interference for him, here, on PoliticsPA] has posted.

    *

    DD’s ignorance cannot be blamed on lack of knowledge, for he has faithfully typed the vile that spews forth from Arabs who would continue to deny Israel’s right to live, corrupting the “David” and “Goliath” roles in the process; look @ a map, DD.

    Rather, DD’s exposure to the label “anti-Semite’ links him to BHO’s [for the ADL’s definition he employed includes adopting a political posture that would demonstrably yield deaths of groups of Jews”].

    Some would claim that having tracked him across numerous pages of PoliticsPA [albeit having ignored following-up on numerous C-R-A-P he has posted] constituted a monumental waste-of-time; to the contrary, having “assisted” him to have exposed his prejudices has served to protect PoliticsPa readers, for he will continue to be stalked [and this page will be cited regularly in the process], lest anyone consider him to serve as a credible evaluator of the passing-scene.

  39. David Diano says:

    Robert-

    Please do not spread your insane bigotry into this thread.

    During the recent war with Gaza, Josh posted on his Facebook site the same kind of Israel talking points you make against Hamas, and defended Israel’s actions 100%. So, I’d say he’s already on record as strongly supporting Israel, and if he’s a candidate he would make more and stronger statements.

    When Josh announces a run for Senate, you can ask him yourself his position on Israel.

    But, Josh agreeing with your support of Israel wouldn’t make a difference to you anyway, because you’d vote against him for his position on the domestic issues.

  40. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    This is as appropriate as any other website to link our prior colloquy:

    politicspa.com/reader-poll-shapiro-favorite-in-2016/61749/comment-page-1/#comment-921906

    You may have been running-interference for him, but anyone with federal ambitions must answer for BHO’s anti-Israel/pro-Iran posturing, antithetical both to prior policy and common sense.

Comments are closed.