I would if I ever found one.  But alas all I find are people too stupid to know they are ignorant.

You talking to me?  Shock!  And it would behoove you to learn the difference between rhetorical and loaded.  As clearly my questions where rhetorical (since the the evidence is even within these comments, so no searching is necessary).  Let's start simple in defference to your learning abitilty.  R-h-e-t-o-r-i-c-a-l starts with an R.  L-o-a-d-e-d starts with an L (el).  Once you get that part, we can proceed to the next step.

As far as who I am, there goes the omniescience MF again!  So do we need to google your claimed omniscience?  Or are you going to just go back to ignoring me (while reading and seething at the truth)?  Hmm, good test.  now is the previous question loaded or rhetorical?  Oh, I am sorry, we have not gotten that far in your lesson yet.

Ok, go back to being your same conceited omniscience, ignorant self.  I will try not to trip you up with any more tough questions like "How do you spell C-A-T?".

Undoubtably.  How about we ask him what you are thinking as well?  I love a good fortune teller.  Unfortunately, he is not good at anything except being wrong (and insulting - he does have the school yard taunts down pat).

So OK the bagger term is verboten on the site. Good to know. How about Teahadist? As in Hannity calls Teahadists 'Tim McVeigh wannabes': and the audience cheers!

The point is that I am not personally making up these terms, they're scattered all over the internet and the MSM. The same internet and MSM that is at least equally full of derogatory terms for liberals, terms which are freely repeated on this forum without question or concern and terms that are freely applied *personally* as opposed to just generically. That is only a fraction of the double standard that exists on the site, assuming your bias allows you to see it.

I make up my own funny terms for liberals, thank you very much.

What derogatory terms for liberals are used by the MSM?

You're close with the 'sucking of the scrotum' understanding, Mumble - expand your imagination just a bit more & you'll divine the full meaning.  An elite Massachussetts intellectual like you should be able to accomplish the necessary mental gymnastics.

Oh, wait.  'Elite Massachussetts intellectual' may be one of 'those terms' scattered all over the internet, so I apologize.

Five minutes on Daily Kus and you realize this site is as tame as kindergarten by comparison.  Since not a single derogatory term referring to the left & used here routinely has been identified for us, I've been trying to come up with a short list from memory - socialist, Communist, Nazi (apparently an 'equal opportunity' epithet), statist, idiot & fascist have come to mind so far.  I'm sure I missed a couple.

I called a subset of them "NASPAs" ("non-anti-Semitic peace activists").

OT Leauki, I think you would have found the guest spot with former NYC Mayor Ed Koch on Neil Cavuto's show the other day telling. As you probably well know Koch is a Jew and prominent Democrat. I was pretty surprise at the change of heart he has had for Obama. He's definitely having "buyers remorse" with the current administration. Ed is a likable guy, and I was a bit surprised by his comments, mainly dealing with this administrations treatment of Israel. Of course I never could understand why so many Jewish folks vote democrat to begin with, anti-business (large and small) and marginally pro-Israel.

Also Happy Easter to all, if not your faith, have a good weekend.

I like Ed Koch. I bet that doesn't surprise you.

I think American Jews vote Democrat for five reasons:

1. Jewish secular culture is very left-wing. Israel was founded by socialists. Zionism is a secular left-wing ideology that grew out of German socialist movements.

2. Jews always fight assimilation into other religions and in the US Democrats are seen as the more secular party.

3. In the past Democrats (and other left-wingers) have been very pro-Israel. It's only in recent years that American conservatives are beginning to see the common enemy (and that American Christianity has grown so strong as a motor for that). And it's only in recent years that racists have begun to defend traditionally left-wing agendas.

4. Jews are all about tradition. We have always voted for social-democratic parties (because of point 1) and we tend to stick to what we do as a group (because of point 2) and that has worked for a while (because of point 3).

5. American Jews are safe and therefor often don't see a need for a strong military and a strong Israel. In Europe Jews are usually more right-wing. That's the sad part. It's good that they are safe, it is sad that most Jews are not, especially if one counts those who died in Europe or the Middle-East in the last century.

Don't forget that Ed Koch originally supported Hillary Clinton. She was the preferred choice for Jews all over the world. (Of course, as we found out in another discussion here, that was when everybody thought she was a female Bill Clinton rather than a female Barrack Obama.)

It's Passover. That means no bread products for me.

For one week.

Just because the Jews left Egypt for Sinai and Israel.

Those damn Zionists!

http://www.jewfaq.org/holidaya.htm

Ok, so you want to provide proof that anyone sucks scrotums that posts on this site?  That is the analogy you are trying to make.  Providing proof for calling an INDIVIDUAL stupid or an idiot is easy.  Just quote their own words (as I just did).  However those terms are being directed at IN-DUH-VIDUALS, not a group of folks, as you freely admit.  And if the worst thing you have been called in your life is stupid or an idiot, count yourself lucky.  You have called others on this site far worse for merely pointing out your stupidity.

Now back to your ignoring what you cannot respond to.

I would like to comment on your points.  Not saying as I disagree, as the reason for this anomoly is curious at best.

Very telling.  I guess you could label American Democrats as "When Socialists go bad"

A common misconception as "republicans" are basically the same.  They do have a strong conservative Christian faction, but then Eric Cantor has not converted and neither have I.  But I guess with the rhetoric (by the democrats and their Mouthpieces in the MSM) here, it is one not likely to go away soon.

I must confess to not studying the history of support for the Jewish state among the parties, just what has occurred in my lifetime.  And in my life time, we have had 5 democrat and 6 republican presidents.  I was too young to remember, first hand, the polices of one republican and 2 democrats in regards to Jewish issues, but since then have seen 100% support from the republicans for Israel, but (at best and in defference to you), only 33% support from Democrats.  Now I have been around over 50 years.  perhaps it is time they re-evaluated the current reality and archived pre mid 20th century realities to the history books.

Yes, Tradition!  I can see that, but would think reality would at least make people think about a modification.  After all, the KKK was not only after blacks (or any race other than Caucasians), but non-Christians as well.  And it was always associated with the democrats. (at one time the democrats were no more socialist than republicans - until FDR).

This one is unfortunately the reason Obama got a majority as well (among all Americans).  Before 1990, no democrat could come within a stone's throw of the whitehouse unless they were very hawkish (Carter being the exception and that was due to Watergate).  Now, there are no hawks left in the democrat party (they tossed out Lieberman).  Why?  Americans feel safe (it is one thing to blow up a plane - it is another to blow up a city or state).

Also, do not forget that Koch was a supporter of Bush after 9-11.  Koch is a Lieberman Democrat in that regard.

It is said that tradition caused the Jews not to ask for directions or ask the women which way to turn, and that is the real reason they wandered 40 years in the desert!

That's exactly the right description!

Anyway, Jewish secular society was traditionally socialist (but not communist). Jewish religious society was apolitical. That's why it took religious Jews so long to become Republicans.

Democrats simply don't have a wing that supports (Christian) Creationism. This is a major issue for most Jews, secular and religious.

One reason I supported George W. Bush was that, after the 2000 elections where I supported Al Gore (again because of his association with Bill Clinton), it became clear to me that he was not a fundamentalist Christian and not a Creationist either. (For some reason liberals insisted he was both, but Bush never said or did anything to confirm that theory.)

This article points out a few things about George Bush Senior which explain how Jews viewed American conservatives before Reagan (and, in Bush's case, after Reagan): http://www.slate.com/id/2064424/

The Kennedys were understood to be good friends of Israel and you can find old newspaper articles written by Kennedys about Israel that are really most interesting.

Generally Reagan was a friend of Israel but only a pragmatic friend. George Bush 41 was downright hostile. Bill Clinton was the great friend of Israel and so Bush 43 turned out to be.

But the liberal media have made it so difficult even to admit that there was something good about George W. Bush, how do you expect a population group to consider him in a decision for a party?

Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats were very different before the 1960s. In the north, Democrats became left-wingers, in the south, they remained racists. There was non constituency for a racist Democratic party in the north, where everyone was either an immigrant, a member of a minority, or already Republican.

Carter recently apologised for his life work. But apart from that I find few redeeming features. His work made Reagan the first Republican to get a majority of tje Jewish vote, which perhaps shocked those Republicans who believed in a Jewish conspiracy. Carter was the great Jewish experiment with voting for a Christian fundamentalist. It didn't pay off.

The fact that Carter called "friends" the same group that murdered Anwar Sadat and that he actually accepted a Nobel Peace Price for Anwar Sadat's efforts makes him a most despicable human being.

Koch woke up, like many Jews did.

Ed Koch was a left-winger of the type Jews imagine to vote for when they vote for any left-winger. Joe Lieberman, Michael Bloomberg (although he ran as a Republican) and Ed Koch are the type of left-wing politicians that I (and probably most American Jews) support.

And I think most American Jews see those traits in other left-wing politicians too. And in the past that was often a safe assumption. Jews could vote for Bill Clinton and get a socially liberal president who wasn't an anti-Semite. The Carter shock was not enough yet. Maybe the Obama shock will be.

I doubt that. I have met Israeli women.

That is because they try to equate the 2.  If you are a conservative (or fundamentalist) christian, you MUST believe in creationism.

I assumed that kennedy was (and Johnson was indifferent), but I was still a tad then.  I am surprised by the evaluation of Bush 41.  But then I must confess to not really paying that close attention as that was the time of the fall of the Berlin wall, so yes my attention was elsewhere.

I have to disagree.  But perhaps only in what is northern and southern.  Clearly JFK was more not a racist, but Byrd is and was.  And Stoop Jackson was not, but both Kennedy and Jackson were big hawks.  One from NE, but the other from Washington.  And all 3 are from northern states.

Now the fact that most southern democrats were just one step above the KKK I do not disagree with. But I do not think that was limited to the south pre 1960.  Still, the old saying "lay down with dogs and get up with fleas" would seem to apply.  You do not join hands and sing kumbaya if you do not want to be associated with those that do preach racism.

He only did that to help his son win in Nevada.  Which I understand has a large jewish Population relative to size as well.

Actually I did not know Bloomberg was a Jew.  But support?  He is just a whack job!  His policies are just too socialistic, and very few are supportable out side of the city (his Gun Control shenanigans, TransFat, salt, etc.).  He is the reason I am glad I do not live there! (But I do get your point).

Well, one of the things that I have stated before is that if you are slavishly obedient to one party, then you have no pull with either party.  If they remain solidly democrat, the democrats will not take them seriously.  I think republicans are in sync with many of their key issues not out of trying to win them over, but because of core ideals.  But then swinging between parties is the way to make the parties sit up and take notice of YOUR issues.

Yea, they did not have GPS then (my wife can get lost driving on a straight road without it! - Literally!  She did once!)