Reign of Error
-
No, not that part.. wiping out civilians.. if you had read my posts you would know that. Now, heres a frolic for you to.. O
Roger J wrote:
wiping out civilians
Well lets just use highly emotive language to describe what is not going on, shall we?
Roger J wrote:
if you had read my posts you would know that.
I read your posts and it's hard to not see you as anti-semitic as that's exactly how you come across. There's no mention of the countless hundreds of Israelis murdered by homicide bombers. There's no mention of the constant trickle of kidnapped soldiers. People like you have my absolute pity: you live in a small, dark, cowardly world and still can't bear it without finding an innocent target to shoot your biased barbs at. Perhaps if the muslims (form whatever part of the middle east) would stop using Israel for target practice Israel would be free to exist without walls and tanks and planes. For the moment we put those down is the moment we disappear from history.
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next door -
digital man wrote:
How many ohter countries have ever given up land won by war or have even been asked to
Russia, Great Britian, France, Germany, etc etc etc.
digital man wrote:
any citizen of Israel, regardless of ethnicity, has exactly the same rights under the law as every other citizen.
In theory, but in practice? Did you look at the B'Tselem yet? Open your eyes to the truth man. And the settlers are worse then the IDF.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
Great Britian
How do you think the USA was formed?
fat_boy wrote:
Germany
Remember East Germany?
fat_boy wrote:
France
Like Britain, France was also once an empire. They lost Vietnam during WWII.
fat_boy wrote:
Russia
The USSR ate up numerous nations after WWII, then spit them back out after Reagan brought them down. So yes, this sort of thing is very common.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Roger J wrote:
wiping out civilians
Well lets just use highly emotive language to describe what is not going on, shall we?
Roger J wrote:
if you had read my posts you would know that.
I read your posts and it's hard to not see you as anti-semitic as that's exactly how you come across. There's no mention of the countless hundreds of Israelis murdered by homicide bombers. There's no mention of the constant trickle of kidnapped soldiers. People like you have my absolute pity: you live in a small, dark, cowardly world and still can't bear it without finding an innocent target to shoot your biased barbs at. Perhaps if the muslims (form whatever part of the middle east) would stop using Israel for target practice Israel would be free to exist without walls and tanks and planes. For the moment we put those down is the moment we disappear from history.
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next door>>I read your posts and it's hard to not see you as anti-semiti Can you direct me to one of my own posts where I say something bad about Jews or your religion? As Ive stated countless of times, I condemn the actions Hizbollah, and I think Israel has all rights to defend itself. I just think it does so in a very clumsy manner with no respect for the innocent. You can say that they are free to leave, and that its their own fault if they are bombed because they have been warned. Then the exact same argument can be applied to israel, if they dont want suicide bombers , they can move elsehwere.. (to be clear, I do _NOT_ think you should, Im just pointing out that your argument is weak) //Roger [edit] >>I read your posts and it's hard to not see you as anti-semitic as that's exactly how you come >>across. There's no mention of the countless hundreds of Israelis murdered by homicide bombers. >>There's no mention of the constant trickle of kidnapped soldiers. How about : http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=1599951&forumid=2605#xx1599951xx[^] and http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=1596168&forumid=2605&mode=all&userid=75761#xx1596168xx[^]
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Of course, if the likes Krugman and the New York Times were not such shameless shills for the democractic party and all things leftist, perhaps there would have never been a market for Limbaugh and Fox. The left's long misuse of its media monopoly created the current state of affairs. If we cannot have honest reporting, at least we can have a diversity of dishonesty.
Strange thing then that egregious misinformation regarding current events seems to be so concentrated on the right.
John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
Strange thing then that egregious misinformation regarding current events seems to be so concentrated on the right.
No it isn't. Just take the example that Krugman mentions - the weapons recently discovered. There were tons of them, they were WMDs, they were the very weapons Hussien was supposed to get rid of. Now, perhaps the notion that these justified Bush's invasion is invalid, but they are a big deal. To dismiss them as meaningless as Krugman does, is a perfect example of why we need Fox Limbaugh, etc, in the mix. Otherwise, no one would have ever even known that any thing at all had been found. Krugman would have happily covered up the truth, just as his buddy Cronkite purposefully covered up the truth about the Tet offensive, and its conseguences in 1968. Too bad we didn't have a Limbaugh and a Fox in 1968 to counter that kind of propaganda.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
More one-sided propoganda. I can see why you'd be as virulantly anti-semitic as you are if all you read is this nonsense. Why not take a trip to Israel, meet the people, find out their side of the story because they do have a side. Course, I'd love to visit Gaza or the West Bank. I wonder how long I'd live once I told them I was a Jew?
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next doorGo on then look at http://www.btselem.org/english/Testimonies/index.asp[^][^] I dare you to take your head out of the sand and look at what an Israeli Jewish Human rights group are saying about what their people are doing to Arabs.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Reign of Error: Paul Krugman, NY Times: "Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda. "At one level, this shouldn’t be all that surprising. The people now running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the memory hole. "But it’s dismaying to realize that the machine remains so effective. "Here’s how the process works. "First, if the facts fail to support the administration position on an issue — stem cells, global warming, tax cuts, income inequality, Iraq — officials refuse to acknowledge the facts. "Sometimes the officials simply lie. 'The tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive and reduced income inequality,' Edward Lazear, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, declared a couple of months ago. More often, however, they bob and weave. "Consider, for example, Condoleezza Rice’s response a few months ago, when pressed to explain why the administration always links the Iraq war to 9/11. She admitted that Saddam, 'as far as we know, did not order Sept. 11, may not have even known of Sept. 11.' (Notice how her statement, while literally true, nonetheless seems to imply both that it’s still possible that Saddam ordered 9/11, and that he probably did know about it.) 'But,' she went on, 'that’s a very narrow definition of what caused Sept. 11.' "Meanwhile, apparatchiks in the media spread disinformation. It’s hard to imagine what the world looks like to the large number of Americans who get their news by watching Fox and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I get a pretty good sense from my mailbag. "Many of my correspondents are living in a world in which the economy is better than it ever was under Bill Clinton, newly released documents show that Saddam really was in cahoots with Osama, and the discovery of some decayed 1980’s-vintage chemical munitions vindicates everything the administration said about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. (Hyping of the munitions find may partly exp
I don't get it. He basically made a lot of politically-motivated statements without backing them up, and much of what he suggests is untrue is actually complete factual. -It's not unreasonable to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD shortly before we invaded. After all, we sold it to him! -The economy is better than when Bill Clinton was president. GDP growth rates are higher and better sustained by real economic data (whereas Clinton's term was ruled by irrational exhuberance, much like the 1920's). -He suggests that the tax cuts had nothing to do with reduction of economic inequality. I have not read anything about this, but the tax cuts did actually increase government revenue to levels higher than when Clinton was president. That has turned liberals on their heads and caused serious confusion. -It seems to be that he's suggesting that Bush didn't invade Iraq because of their refusal to comply with UN resolutions which is completely untrue. This has always been a clear fact and this Krugman is guilty of attempting to rewrite history here. -The "climate of intimidation" in the media has obviously suppressed such stories whose secrecy was important to the war on terror like wire-tapping and financial tracking. :rolleyes: Anyway, this story is just another Democratic Party paid-for political ad and a perfect example of why most Americans don't trust leftist news outlets like the NYT. It's pretty funny to read his claims that the Republicans Party controls news outlets while being such a transparent Democratic shill. I expect this and more over the next couple months, however, because it's an election year and Democrats need to get around their 1st-amendment-destroying McCain-Feingold bill.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
John Carson wrote:
It’s hard to imagine what the world looks like to the large number of Americans who get their news by watching Fox and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I get a pretty good sense from my mailbag.
Of course, if the likes of Krugman and the New York Times were not such shameless shills for the democractic party and all things leftist, perhaps there would have never been a market for Limbaugh and Fox. The left's long misuse of its media monopoly created the current state of affairs. If we cannot have honest reporting, at least we can have a diversity of dishonesty. And after all, isn't diversity a liberal goal? -- modified at 8:40 Friday 28th July, 2006
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
>>I read your posts and it's hard to not see you as anti-semiti Can you direct me to one of my own posts where I say something bad about Jews or your religion? As Ive stated countless of times, I condemn the actions Hizbollah, and I think Israel has all rights to defend itself. I just think it does so in a very clumsy manner with no respect for the innocent. You can say that they are free to leave, and that its their own fault if they are bombed because they have been warned. Then the exact same argument can be applied to israel, if they dont want suicide bombers , they can move elsehwere.. (to be clear, I do _NOT_ think you should, Im just pointing out that your argument is weak) //Roger [edit] >>I read your posts and it's hard to not see you as anti-semitic as that's exactly how you come >>across. There's no mention of the countless hundreds of Israelis murdered by homicide bombers. >>There's no mention of the constant trickle of kidnapped soldiers. How about : http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=1599951&forumid=2605#xx1599951xx[^] and http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=1596168&forumid=2605&mode=all&userid=75761#xx1596168xx[^]
Roger J wrote:
I just think it does so in a very clumsy manner with no respect for the innocent.
I agree that it appears clumsy. But, as you know, appearances can be deceiving. Israelis are no different to anyone else (well, almost anyone): they, like you and me (I hope), are brought up to respect life. But they're at war. Innocent people are going to die no matter how much care either side take. It doesn't make it right. But instead of moaning about how terrible Israel are how about also condemning Hezzbollah for hiding amongst the civilian population to begin with and for starting the whole thing to begin with. Or has everyone conveniently forgotten that Israel didn't start this?
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next door -
dennisd45 wrote:
so he is a lying leftist
That's not just a blind claim. Much of the content of the article is demonstrably false. Instead of accepting whatever people tell you, try challenging it and you're more likely to come to the truth.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Of course, if the likes Krugman and the New York Times were not such shameless shills for the democractic party and all things leftist, perhaps there would have never been a market for Limbaugh and Fox. The left's long misuse of its media monopoly created the current state of affairs. If we cannot have honest reporting, at least we can have a diversity of dishonesty.
Strange thing then that egregious misinformation regarding current events seems to be so concentrated on the right.
John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
Strange thing then
Its a strange thing when the democrat's house organ, the once venerable NYT, and its constant barrage of biased reporting has no effect after 6 years of drum beating and pure treason. Realize that every newspaper in the country uses NYT as the news lead every day of the week. The fact that their crap is now ignored says a lot, and it is all positive. Thank God for talk radio and FoxNews.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
-
Roger J wrote:
I just think it does so in a very clumsy manner with no respect for the innocent.
I agree that it appears clumsy. But, as you know, appearances can be deceiving. Israelis are no different to anyone else (well, almost anyone): they, like you and me (I hope), are brought up to respect life. But they're at war. Innocent people are going to die no matter how much care either side take. It doesn't make it right. But instead of moaning about how terrible Israel are how about also condemning Hezzbollah for hiding amongst the civilian population to begin with and for starting the whole thing to begin with. Or has everyone conveniently forgotten that Israel didn't start this?
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next door>>also condemning Hezzbollah for hiding amongst the civilian population The only reason you do not see any such posts is because, They wont stop doing what they do no matter what the world opinion is, they have to be exterminated. But they need to be exterminated w/o affecting those who have nothing to do with them. Children, no matter how retarded their parents are, do NOT have a choise to leave.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
so he is a lying leftist
That's not just a blind claim. Much of the content of the article is demonstrably false. Instead of accepting whatever people tell you, try challenging it and you're more likely to come to the truth.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
It is a blind claim. It seems to be the standard response to any criticism of the current administration.
espeir wrote:
Much of the content of the article is demonstrably false
So you say, but saying is not the same as demonstrating.
dennisd45 wrote:
It is a blind claim. It seems to be the standard response to any criticism of the current administration.
He actually gave a specific example and I gave several. That's demonstrable. Your accusatory "I'm right, you're wrong" claims don't work here. If you're going to accuse someone of making "blind claims", you need to provide something to back up your argument or it winds up being as useful as fat_boy's rants*. *Not that anything here is actually useful. -- modified at 9:17 Friday 28th July, 2006
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
And you do like what he says, so Bush is a lying neocon.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
It is a blind claim. It seems to be the standard response to any criticism of the current administration.
He actually gave a specific example and I gave several. That's demonstrable. Your accusatory "I'm right, you're wrong" claims don't work here. If you're going to accuse someone of making "blind claims", you need to provide something to back up your argument or it winds up being as useful as fat_boy's rants*. *Not that anything here is actually useful. -- modified at 9:17 Friday 28th July, 2006
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
-It's not unreasonable to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD shortly before we invaded. After all, we sold it to him!
The author was talking about what people believe now, not what they believed in 2003. So your statement is irrelevant. We can have a separate debate about what the administration knew about the falseness of the intelligence. Your statements on the state of the economy are debateable, but if you want to demonstrate something, actually provide some numbers.
espeir wrote:
It seems to be that he's suggesting that Bush didn't invade Iraq because of their refusal to comply with UN resolutions which is completely untrue
What he was saying was the Bush claimed he had to invade because of non-compliance. But at the time of the invasion, there was movement to let the inspectors back in.
espeir wrote:
If you're going to accuse someone of making "blind claims",
On numerous threads both you and Stan have done this - dismiss by claiming leftist bias.
-
And you do like what he says, so Bush is a lying neocon.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
espeir wrote:
-It's not unreasonable to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD shortly before we invaded. After all, we sold it to him!
The author was talking about what people believe now, not what they believed in 2003. So your statement is irrelevant. We can have a separate debate about what the administration knew about the falseness of the intelligence. Your statements on the state of the economy are debateable, but if you want to demonstrate something, actually provide some numbers.
espeir wrote:
It seems to be that he's suggesting that Bush didn't invade Iraq because of their refusal to comply with UN resolutions which is completely untrue
What he was saying was the Bush claimed he had to invade because of non-compliance. But at the time of the invasion, there was movement to let the inspectors back in.
espeir wrote:
If you're going to accuse someone of making "blind claims",
On numerous threads both you and Stan have done this - dismiss by claiming leftist bias.
dennisd45 wrote:
The author was talking about what people believe now, not what they believed in 2003. So your statement is irrelevant. We can have a separate debate about what the administration knew about the falseness of the intelligence.
Not irrelevant at all. I also believe (correctly, as Stan pointed out) that Saddam Hussein had WMD when we invaded. We sold him those weapons and even found stashes of it. If Krugman were actually digging for the truth, he would check to see how many people believe that Hussein had active WMD production programs (something sold to the American public before the invasion). I'm guessing few people believe that.
dennisd45 wrote:
Your statements on the state of the economy are debateable, but if you want to demonstrate something, actually provide some numbers.
Everything economic is debatable, but the fact of government revenue[^] increases is not. You might argue that the increased government revenue (which is a result of increased production and therefore tax base) is not related to the tax cuts, but Alan greenspan[^] and the correlation disagree with you.
dennisd45 wrote:
What he was saying was the Bush claimed he had to invade because of non-compliance. But at the time of the invasion, there was movement to let the inspectors back in.
As I recall, Saddam Hussein changed his mind days before we went in. Too little, too late. Krugman quite clearly states "Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t let U.N. inspectors in*". The entire case for the invasion of Iraq was based on the fact that for 6 months, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the world in allowing inspections of what he had going on. Krugman flat out lied here...and not simply because he's a leftist, but because his statements contradict facts.
dennisd45 wrote:
On numerous threads both you and Stan have done this - dismiss by claiming leftist bias.
There
-
He is actually making a case that Bush is a liar. You, are the other hand were simply asserting that the NY Times is unreliable.
dennisd45 wrote:
the NY Times is unreliable
Yup.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
John Carson wrote:
Strange thing then
Its a strange thing when the democrat's house organ, the once venerable NYT, and its constant barrage of biased reporting has no effect after 6 years of drum beating and pure treason. Realize that every newspaper in the country uses NYT as the news lead every day of the week. The fact that their crap is now ignored says a lot, and it is all positive. Thank God for talk radio and FoxNews.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Thank God for talk radio and FoxNews.
You'll do fine as Exhibit A of right wing delusional thinking.
John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
I don't get it. He basically made a lot of politically-motivated statements without backing them up, and much of what he suggests is untrue is actually complete factual. -It's not unreasonable to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD shortly before we invaded. After all, we sold it to him! -The economy is better than when Bill Clinton was president. GDP growth rates are higher and better sustained by real economic data (whereas Clinton's term was ruled by irrational exhuberance, much like the 1920's). -He suggests that the tax cuts had nothing to do with reduction of economic inequality. I have not read anything about this, but the tax cuts did actually increase government revenue to levels higher than when Clinton was president. That has turned liberals on their heads and caused serious confusion. -It seems to be that he's suggesting that Bush didn't invade Iraq because of their refusal to comply with UN resolutions which is completely untrue. This has always been a clear fact and this Krugman is guilty of attempting to rewrite history here. -The "climate of intimidation" in the media has obviously suppressed such stories whose secrecy was important to the war on terror like wire-tapping and financial tracking. :rolleyes: Anyway, this story is just another Democratic Party paid-for political ad and a perfect example of why most Americans don't trust leftist news outlets like the NYT. It's pretty funny to read his claims that the Republicans Party controls news outlets while being such a transparent Democratic shill. I expect this and more over the next couple months, however, because it's an election year and Democrats need to get around their 1st-amendment-destroying McCain-Feingold bill.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
I don't get it. He basically made a lot of politically-motivated statements without backing them up, and much of what he suggests is untrue is actually complete factual.
And you'll do fine as Exhibit B of delusional right wing thinking.
John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
