Slashdot Mirror

Glenn Thrush, the former senior staff writer at Politico who was outed when a WikiLeaks dump revealed that he ran an article by Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta prior to publishing. He wrote "please don't tell anyone" and "I'm such a hack". His punishment? After the election he was hired as a political correspondent for The New York Times.

Wikileaks detailing how the Democrats are coordinating with the media.

Liberal media listed and named.

This journalist specifically targets the clerk with a verbal tirade that includes multiple remarks about the employee's appearance, her social class and ability to do her job. She made fun of the female clerk's education job, weight and teeth, says she's better than the clerk because she's on TV.

Because defending the law simply because it is the law is a hole you don't want to go down.

Neither is opposing government regulation simply because it is regulation.

Qualified immunity doesn't give the police carte blanche to just blast away without thinking about who they might be shooting at. Police action is more legally restricted than then actions civilians might take in self-defense cases, because police are bound by professional standards. When these standards are violated, prosecutors have a duty to act.

That is true however the courts have laid out exactly what police need to do to get away with it and police training takes this into account. That is why you see police videos with an officer straddling an unconscious suspect beating him to death while yelling "stop resisting me". It is why they are trained to yell unintelligible and conflicting orders at suspects to justify killing them. It is why they are trained to use the Reid Technique on simple traffic stops turning them into interrogations.

They are trained to create the exigent circumstances to justify any action they might take and why not? The courts laid out exactly what is necessary and legislators support it. Criminals are more honest; they do not expect the sanction of their victims.

Justice Scala's "increasing professionalism" is a joke. The only increasing professionalism is in violating civil rights and getting away with it. Civil rights which lack a remedy are not rights.

I would argue the income tax system is slavery to

So you want to enjoy a steady income made possible by living in a first world society, without having to pay for it (civilization isn't free). Just visit the libertarian paradise to see how well you can do without it.

Probably because grievance mongering is THE problem in the US. We don't have many actual problems left in America, but we've got whole generations of people inculcated with hate by fake problems, like police "genocide" of blacks. It's daily now to see video of deranged black people living in a world of fictional oppression.

"We all agree on the need to better secure the border, and to punish employers who chose to hire illegal immigrants. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected."

Agree or disagree? Make up your mind and then click through to find the answer.

"We are a nation of immigrants.. but we are a nation of laws. Our nation is rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country...

"Illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens or legal immigrants, they impose burdens on our taxpayers...

"That is why we are doubling the number of border guards, deporting more illegal immigrants than ever before, cracking down on illegal hiring, barring benefits to illegal aliens, and we will do more to speed the deportation of illegal immigrants arrested for crimes...

"It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that has occurred in the last few years.. .and we must do more to stop it."

This got a standing ovation. Not because the facts he was stating were so obvious, but because of who was stating them.

"What the commission is concerned about are the unskilled workers in our society in an age in which unskilled workers have far too few opportunities open to them. When immigrants are less well-educated and less-skilled, they may pose economic hardships to the most vulnerable of Americans, particularly those who are unemployed or under-employed."

the first black woman elected to Congress from the South.

Well, here's the citation so you can shut up about it now. In 1990, German ex-foreign minister promised the Russians than NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe. He lied.

NATO: yeah, we lied. https://www.nato.int/docu/revi...

However, it was also achieved through countless personal conversations in which Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders were assured that the West would not take advantage of the Soviet Unionâ(TM)s weakness and willingness to withdraw militarily from Central and Eastern Europe.

It is these conversations that may have left some Soviet politicians with the impression that NATO enlargement, which started with the admission of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999, had been a breach of these Western commitments. Some statements of Western politicians â" particularly German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher and his American counterpart James A. Baker â" can indeed be interpreted as a general rejection of any NATO enlargement beyond East Germany.

>> $500-$1000 quads CAN carry a bit more weight, but at a major reduction in flight time and range, as well as speed and the ability to fly in a stiff breeze. ...
>> You're probably better off just throwing the pipe bomb with your hand.

ISIS has published a highlight reel of effective attacks with the weapons you describe as ineffective or implausible.

The video is here. This shows people dying.
NSFW, NSF-Children, NSF-Snowflakes.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?...

When are you moving?

Maybe after the CIA gives up on formenting violent unrest as a pretext for regime change. When are you?

Our founding fathers were extremely wise and understood human nature well.

They were elitist shitbags (many of whom owned slaves) who wanted to maintain aristocracy without being subjected themselves to the whims of a monarch.

So if your solution is some sort of direct democracy I don't see how giving the ignorant masses direct control of the government would turn out well.

Okay, elitist shitbag who doesn't want the proles to have a say in their own governance, name the last time direct democracy caused a global clusterfuck, as opposed to the representative democracies that caused two world wars. Just for starters.

I would argue we would be better off moving back towards the original design of a weak federal government and most issues dealt with at a state level.

So some states would be indistinguishable from third world countries? In a rush to get your cholera?

And video of some of the Ukrainian genocide after the overthrow:

From liveleak

Whole Foods staff appear to be giving a man a beat-down at the entrance to their Union Square store in NYC [Image stabilized version]

Whole Foods chain faces NYC probe after investigators found 'worst case of overcharges'

Whole Foods drops security firm after Calif. store attack

Whole Foods goes 'full mafia' on 70-year-old woman

Name one American the Russians drone murdered.

I hope, you don't insist on it being done by drones, which Russia does not really have — and what it does have, it uses for intelligence-gathering and artillery-coordination only. But, here, I'll list a few:

• Joseph Stone, an American paramedic who was killed in eastern Ukraine on April 23
• Mark Gregory Paslawsky, the sole American fighting on the Ukrainian side of the war in the east of the country, died from injuries sustained in battle in the town of Ilovaysk on Tuesday.

You can also safely chalk up a sizeable fraction of American deaths in the Middle East to Russians — but we may not know the exact details of their coordinating ISIS and other terrorists against the US for decades...

Now, why is it indicative of anything? Why don't you list the Americans killed by American government — and we'll compare that to the Russians killed by Russia... Ah, you are an American — protected by these people you despise — and not worrying about what Russians do to others? Ok, do you suppose, all an enemy can do is kill? How about spying — on your country? How about lying online with millions of "voices" through hijacked accounts?

GTMO like prisons

Darling, GITMO is a tropical paradise compared to the installations run by the enterprise formerly known as GULAG.

Tell me about the Russian detention without charges + torture program.

What exactly would you like to know?

Now explain why would you rather have the CIA on your stuff?

Because whatever abuse you may accuse CIA of was aimed at the sworn enemies of the US and our allies, not US citizens, however politically active and oppositiony...

I did see one design for a commercial passenger jet with ejectable modules for all passengers. A ticket in something like that from NY to LA would run about 50 thousand dollars.

Don't do it individually, put the whole cabin on parachutes.

This guy has an update on that old idea with rear-exit and rocket-assisted landing:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?...

I'd rather have people sending crap at a printer

You'll change your mind the moment some sick f**k sends CP to your printer.

And what is to keep the government from doing that to plant evidence and set you up? The government has tried it before.

When I read the title I thought of the scene in The Fountain when Hugh Jackman drinks from the tree of life. It's at 8:30 here.. But then I read TFS.

maybe they should dispatch an away team to analyze black people

Wild Negroes kidnap and torture special needs white man in Chicongo

Lot's of things can be described by race.

> I am really appalled at how many people don't take the Russian interference seriously and blame it on some kind of Democrat/Obama conspiracy.

Even if we believe the claims being made without any real evidence, at worst they're alleged to have revealed the truth to us, the same way the Pentagon Papers did a generation back. Remember, for all the talk of "election" hacks, there have been no credible allegations that any voting machines were tampered with by anyone.

Inasmuch as we are to worry about foreign influence on our elections, why is there no concern over the funding of Clinton by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, places with a terrible human rights record where abuses like modern day slavery can still be found? Places that fund terrorists like ISIS? You know, the people who do this sort of thing? (NSFW - graphic content)

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...

If you're having trouble making out the context, look here for a more digestable form.

I dunno about you, but I'd rather temporarily work with Russia and take out ISIS than to attempt the reverse.

Your links about Russia basically say that they might be trying to fund people they agree with--so if you don't think the above is also harmful, that's literally hypocritical. I'd personally take a more nuanced view that it matters what they have the politicians in question do with that money, whether they follow the relevant laws, etc.

And it's not like elections can be straight up bought. Let's not forget that Hillary spent twice as much as Trump on this election and lost badly where it counted. It's doubly ironic that it's exactly the same kind of loss she suffered to Obama in the DNC primaries in 2008, where he was focused on delegates and she was focused elsewhere as anyone who watched 538's coverage back in 2008 should remember.

Facebook only cares about numbers, not if they're real people or the reasons.
When people realize that Facebook is a house of cards, the soul-less pit of hell made for narcissists, sycophants and stalkers it will crumble.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fa...

I think the technology exists (at least somewhere on this planet) but it's being held back to extract as much money as possible in the meantime on current technology. I have no direct evidence of this of course but when you think of what kinds of things humans can accomplish when they put their minds and copious amounts of funding toward it, you'd have to believe it's out there, even if only in a lab somewhere or in some military only role held in secret. This is going completely off topic (and I know I'll going all conspiracy theory and tin-foil hatter on ya) but consider the "non-battery tech" X-10 drone for example http://www.liveleak.com/view?i... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... That sucker was swirling around the skies in 1953! It went over Mach 2 too. Re-read the year again and it will sink in. You don't just magically design and build something like that in a few years either. Stuff like that takes at LEAST 10 years to plan, build and test. Wikipedia says preliminary design was completed in 1951 and first flight was in 1953. So where are we now...approximately 1943 when they were drawing it up? Think about other technologies of that time frame...then it becomes more almost unicorn and Apple'ish magical! You could say similar things about German technologies of WW2. Like it's so far out there compared to earlier times and other countries offerings as to be mind blowing! Anyhow, back on topic...I'd be really surprised if 10x longer next-gen batteries have not existed for quite some time. DARPA funds crazy things like this all the time and they send people all over the world regularly to sit in on the latest University breakthroughs. If they don't have it, then no one has it - publicly at least.

You think there is a lack of government? I think there is too much. Especially regarding the federal government.

Then you're another Randian who's completely lost touch with reality. Socialized medicine produces better outcomes for a fraction of the cost, and that's just a fact you're going to have to deal with.

Build your nirvana; your ideal state.

Can't. Do to folks who love themselves some corporate corruption - like yourself and our current president - states can't yet pass their own single-payer programs, as they were banned for seven years by Obomneycare. And even after that, they will require a waver from the HHS secretary - good luck getting that from either a Trump or Hillary nominee for the agency.

For the sake of comparison, though, we don't have to wait for the ideal Randian state to be created, as that's already happened.

Yes black people are such good and peaceful people.

No no, that's been shown to actually improve road safety.

You mean given Western Exceptionalist Bullshit? For every drop of western blood spilled by "isliamic terrorists", entire swimming pools are filled with the blood of muslims, from predator drones and imperialist wars. The same month as the attack on Nice, a single U.S. attack slaughtered 85 innocent people in Syria.

If the rest of the world responded to western imperialism the same way western imperalists respond to their own blowback, the United States, France and the UK would be radioactive craters carved deep into bedrock.

Helicopters firing into crowds and the intelligence building http://www.liveleak.com/view?i... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i... Tanks running over people, killing many - crazy stuff..

Helicopters firing into crowds and the intelligence building http://www.liveleak.com/view?i... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i... Tanks running over people, killing many - crazy stuff..

Without warning, a third soldier emerged from inside the tank and started shooting at the three girls and then also at their grandmother.

This may or may not have been a horrible war crime, but it was not an Act of Terror. There is a fairly clear definition: civilians must be the targets (not bystanders) of calculated (not accidental or mistaken) violence for the purpose of intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

The IDF refused to let an ambulance bring them to the hospital

Hamas has uses ambulances to transport troops and ammunition. They also use children for suicide attacks — a common practice by Islamists in Palestine and world-wide. Children are also used as human shields — because it works on impressionable useful idiots like yourself. Whether the women, who stepped out, were innocent, or were about to throw a tank-disabling bomb under the tracks, may not have been obvious.

But, again whether the IDF soldier had justifiable suspicions in his shooting of the family, or committed a war crime, it was not an act of terror.

And I did ask for three examples — certainly, a country labeled "terrorist" by detractors would have at least three acts of terror to its name...

Hamas averages dozens of such acts every year — their whole strategy is based on targeting Israeli civilians, because they are impotent at targeting IDF. And yet, you'd like to pretend, Israel is "worse" or "just as bad". Fail.

Well, atheism isn't a religion (which involves a lot of ceremony and ritual). But it is a faith - an irrational belief in something without proof. Atheism (belief that there is no deity) is based on the rationale that because you cannot prove a positive statement to be false, the burden of proof should be upon those purporting that the statement is true. Fine up to this point, but atheists take it a step further. In the absence of such proof, they believe the negative must be true.

That's a reasonable line of thinking if the only possibilities are true and false. False then becomes your base state, and only things proven true are then not-false. Simple and tidy.

Except it's wrong. Goedel proved with his Incompleteness theorems that all logical systems are incomplete. That is, not everything can be classified as true or false. Some things must fall into a third category - cannot be determined. "This statement is false." Is that true or false? It's neither. What exists in a black hole? I can say unicorns and dragons, you can say they don't. According to our understanding of physics, no information can escape from a black hole, and thus it's impossible for us to ever know which of us is correct.

So the correct base state is actually uncertainty. Experiments can only prove positive statements to be true, and only increase the likelihood that negative statements are true. So the logical, rational belief is agnosticism - uncertainty that there is a deity. A theist is certain there is a deity, but admits that his belief is based on faith. An atheist is certain there is no deity. But best case it's a faith - a belief without proof that the existence of a deity does not fall into this "cannot be determined" category, and thus must be false until proven true. Worst case it's a logical error because the atheist didn't know until reading this post that this third category always exists.

That's why Penn Jillette's analogy with stamp collecting doesn't work. He's incorrectly cast the analogy into something with only two possibilities - stamp collecting or not stamp collecting. The proper analogy needs all three possibilities. e.g. You're sampling random members of the population to find out if they collect stamp. So far nobody sampled as of yet is a stamp collector. The atheist thinks, ergo, there must be no stamp collectors in the population. The agnostic thinks it is still uncertain if there are stamp collectors. The theist believes there must be stamp collectors, even if one hasn't been found yet.

I'll point out it's this same reasoning which causes lay people not to trust the things scientists say. Because scientists who reason like atheists will state with certainty that something is false. Then some experiment shows otherwise, and they suddenly say with certainty that the same thing is true. Regular people have a hard time trusting scientists because they'll tell you one thing with certainty, then tomorrow they may tell you the opposite thing with certainty. And when pressed to explain the flip-flop, they'll say "that's just how science works." Which sounds terribly confusing, if not batshit crazy.

If instead you were to take the agnostic approach to explaining science, the process makes a lot more sense to lay people. First you simply say you're uncertain whether something is true or false. As experiments fail to prove that something, you say it's likely the thing is false but you still can't be certain. But then if an experiment shows that something is true, and you can say with certainty that the thing is true. (This is also why engineers tend to be religious more often than scientists. Engineers deal with uncertainties all the time in their work - they're unavoidable in real-life design tasks - and they're forced to make a best guess based on the data they do have. But scientists try to categorize everything as true or false, and abhor if not outright deny the concept that there are some things which can never be determined.)

Thank you liveleak: Spear that drone.

"In one scenario, a user is represented by an African-American female avatar who is being angrily harassed by a white avatar." ref

How would Stanford University’s diversity department deal with this scenario: link

Plagiarism, or syndication?

Have you been living in a hole and missed the Pasdaran fighting in Syria? They have not only lost a large number of soldiers but a bunch of commanders as well. They lead from the front. The survivors are now war heroes. Movie makers are making adoring movies about them. Imagine something like that in America - Tarantino or Oliver Stone making their own countrymen into heroes for taking sides in someone else's civil war.

This is why these stories keep showing up. Tone deaf geeks don't understand the difference between harmless socializing and stalking/harassment

Of course we do.

That's okay, because migrants are filling up the void thanks to Merkel!

Never mind that they may not speak English, or their ability to work is vastly reduced, or that 'moderate' Islam isn't so moderate after all or that sexual assault is ingrained into their culture....

Everything's going to okay...

No need, those Sky-Rats we call seagulls can't burp; just toss some alka-seltter on the tarmac and the problem goes puff!

It's an invasion in slow motion - here's a video on the topic:

With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations

(It's propaganda sure, but its general point is illuminating imo)

Youtube censored the original video when it was posted on Slashdot yesterday (and scored 4 points) after it reached over a million views. But here is the Liveleak version and a taste of what Europe is in for if we persist with this slow motion invasion.

(A lot is exaggerated, but the basic idea stands).

Liveleak version: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...

Perhaps this video will help.

And that sort of shit is really what burns my ass (and I`m not Muslim). Yes, some Muslims did stupid, terrible shit. In more recent ``Christian`` history, we have Kim Davis getting a standing ovation to fucking eye of the tiger after being jailed for multiple instances of contempt because she refused to marry gays like her fucking job says to (apparently it`s against her religion, while her 4 marriages and infidelity weren`t somehow)

And we conveniently forget that in Iran, the major reaction to 9-11 was not celebration but actually this, because they recognize that - regardless or religion - all lives are valuable and a terrible thing had happened. Despite that, some people still want to put Iran in the same camp as ISIS (guess who was fighting ISIS before the rest of us got involved), and major outlets like the New York Times had articles that advocate an unprovoked bombing of Iran as a better alternative than a peaceful settlement.

I`ve met some pretty terrible Muslims in my life. For the most part they were holier-than-thou assholes that thought that praying twice a day made them ``good people`` in spite of their conduct. I see the exact same shit from certain members of Christian churches, as well as Jews, etc. There will always be bad people out there, and there are plenty who would use their so-called religion or beliefs to pretend they are good whilst actually doing evil.

So what do we have to make out of this? These people are safe in Hungary.

As to your notion that infantry can fight without tanks or air cover or all the other elements of combined arms... I categorically disagree.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I didn't say that infantry can fight without air cover in general. I said that when we're talking specifically about tanks and infantry, with nothing else in the mix, tanks cannot fight alone successfully, while infantry can.

The tanks can shell at over 2 miles away.

The tanks can't shell what they don't know is there. They need a target. The problem for them is acquiring said target, and with their limited visibility vs extreme mobility of infantry (not in terms of top speed, but in terms of how easy it is to change direction and advance across non-flat terrain) they will lose this game against infantry every time, excepting a large flat field with no vegetation. In other words, the reverse of what you claim - the tank needs ideal circumstances to win against infantry in a solo fight (either the complete lack of efficient AT weaponry, or the lack of any means of concealment that said infantry can use).

If I had a choice of being a tank commander on the battlefield, or an infantry with Kornet or Javelin on the other side on the same battlefield, I'll pick the latter every single time - because my odds of survival would be so much better. A tank cannot hide and lay low; and infantryman can, and should, until the moment where the tank presents a ripe target (i.e. not observing that direction) - and then it's gone in a matter of seconds.

I really think that you do not truly appreciate just how much limited the vision is for the tank crew when all hatches are closed. It seems to be a common perception, and probably inflicted largely by video games that mostly ignore or patch over this.

Can you cite any situation where infantry were taking down tanks with reasonable casuality figures and as close to an apples to apples supply/tech base? Because I can't think of one.

It's pretty hard to find definitive casualty figures, but one well-known example of infantry, without armor of their own (or in vastly smaller quantities), delivering heavy damage to enemy tank forces, are IDF engagements, starting with Yom Kippur War (when Egyptians got the first shipments of guided AT missiles from the USSR, and used them to great effect). Later, Hezbollah also done the same to IDF in Lebanon. Some reading:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mid...
http://www.aaj.tv/2006/08/anti...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...

There have also been a lot of tanks destroyed in Ukraine in the ongoing fighting, on both sides, and most of them are destroyed by AT infantry (the only massive tank-vs-tank engagement that I heard of was at Debaltsevo).

As I think I said previously... men with spears can hold against nuclear weapons, robotic terminators, and genetically engineered plagues if you have enough men with spears. Unless you're willing to take the attrition though, you can't hold if you have the wrong forces.

Of course, we're not talking about men with spears here. We're talking about men with modern guided missiles capable of hitting a tank from over a mile away and penetrating the armor with a single such hit.

It's generally incorrect to assume that infantry is inherently inferior to vehicles. It's a trade-off - you gain some advantages (for tanks, firepower and armor), but you also lose some (for tanks, agility and ability to quickly detect, identify and engage targets).

it's that they faked it breaking down.

Cite?

All the coverage I can find of a "fake breakdown" is simply an alternate phrasing for their "dramatization" of it running out of juice, and then being pushed into the garage.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...

That said, the drivetrain did overheat on one, and the brakes did fail on the other one. (Yes they abused them... but that's what they do. And plenty of other super and hyper cars have broken down on them too and they've taken the piss out of them too.)

Even then, Clarkson was too thick to work out how to use the charger so didn't get maximum benefit from it.

And he wasn't able to run a Reliant Robin more than a 100 yards without rolling it over either. He's Clarkson... his persona for like 15+ years is to be a bit of hooligan gorilla. Taking his on-screen and off-screen antics seriously... says more about the viewer than it does about Clarkson. Its not fair and balanced journalism. Sit back and enjoy the spectacle.

A link with no commentary? Well here's some more. NASA said recently we can't get through the Van Allen belts: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c46_1381883600

In addition, I direct your attention to the video of the spacecraft which purportedly landed on the moon, when it leaves. The camera is on the moon. The camera pans upwards as the "lander" rises.

Nowhere in NASA's documentation of the moon missions did they describe this remote-controlled (or autonomously moving) camera mechanism, not did they describe how the footage was returned to earth.

I encourage you to read http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm, and attempt to debunk the experiments carried out therein. It took me a while to wrap my mind around the cage we're in. Now, I want to explore its boundaries, as any critically-thinking human should want to do.

Leave it to LiveLeak for actual video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...

This is crazy. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i... (OK, its fake... but won't be long until one gets sucked into an engine.)

THE Halliburton who's exec Obama golfs with and to whom he gave a no-bid contract ??

I guess since it's not Bush and Cheney(aka Darth Vader) in-bed with Halliburton but now, but rather Obama and Biden(aka Jar Jar Binks), everything's A-OK!

Funny, but when Democrats cuddle with cronies like Halliburton (friends with who ever is in power, because they are crony capitalists) Republicans' big complaint is that this is hypocrisy (given the way Democrats screamed about it when it was the other team) and press (who self-identify as approx 90% Democrat) are giving it 1/10th the coverage. When Repubs huddlled with Halliburton, however, Democrats shrieked that the underlying acts were EVIL. For progreessives, the ends justify the means and there are no absolutes - and hypocrisy is just another means th their ends.

Whoa, Tonto. Hold on...

You are suggesting that i'm "anti-semitic" because I find some quotes in an old Bible scary? Seriously? Are you for real?

Firstly, you do not know me. And if you did, you would know that i'm a very easy going guy who is not racist, bigoted, or "anti-semitic" in any way. I get along with pretty much everyone.

I believe that the quality of a person's character is determined by their actions - not their skin color, race, religion or sexual orientation. In fact, I have friends who are Jewish, Arab, Asian, Portugese, Black, etc... and they are all wonderful people.

Second, "Semites" are people of middle eastern origin - which includes both Arabs and Jews.

Third, the fact that you would crawl out of the woodwork crying "anti-semite" because I found some old bible quotes scary, suggests that you are most likely one of these Zionist nutters who gets paid to troll message boards, spew hatred and create anti-semitism where none exists.

It would appear that simply having the words "Jewish", "Talmud", and "Supremacist" in the same post automatically constitutes "anti-semitism" in your mind.

I strongly suggest that you watch this Jewish made documentary about anti-semitism. You could learn something from it.

That said, I would like to think that you are man enough to realize your mistakes and short comings, and apologize for your "anti-semitic" remark.

If you are not willing to do the right thing and apologize, then please crawl back under whatever stone you crawled out from under and take your hate-mongering xenophobic attitude with you.

Your shenanigans are not welcome here.

News for nerds...