Helen Thomas = Bigot

[joebassin]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]joebassin wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

Now I am prejudiced…
[/quote]

It’s not so much that you’re prejudiced but rather that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve been caught with your history pants down around your ankles.[/quote]

If Charlemagne manfully denies that he is a prejudiced antisemite, he does so on his own dime. I was calling him for what he is: a spoon-fed anhistorical naif with “opinions” that preclude further thought and reflection–prejudices–which is, after all, the theme of this thread.
If he is foolish enough to cite Mearsheimer–whose work is an embarrassment to anyone who takes sociologic method seriously–he finds himself in company with others who have ready-made conclusions and seek pseudo-scientific justifications only later.
And, if he sees a world-wide Zionist conspiracy directed at poor Charlemagne, to stop him from speaking “The Truth,” he simply lets slip the thinnest veil of all.[/quote]

Are you kidding me? “The Israel Lobby” is one the most fully encompassing works ever written on the subject. It was painstakingly researched and documented. The writers have impeccable credentials. The conclusions that they draw that Israel provides neither a “strategic asset” or “shared values” to America brings everything to a logical conclusion. Why do we support them? The power of the Israeli Lobby.

I even went so far as to read Abe Foxman’s retort to the book, “The Deadliest Lies”. A poorly written diatrabe by a man consumed by his insecurities and his hate. It didn’t even address the fundamental question of why America supports Israel. It even went so far as to deny that the Israeli Lobby exists! His logical conclusion was the same as any other member of the Israeli Lobby, to not support Israel in everything it does means you are an antisemite.

And one other thing I would like to point out. I have said this over and over. If individuals want to support Israel, go right ahead. That’s your business and your right. By all means write your checks to Israel or pick up a rifle, put on some combat gear and show us all how it’s done. But don’t expect all Americans to have to go along with it.

[/quote]

What are you talking about Israel is a strategic asset.
[/quote]

It’s the most strategic of all the US’ strategic assets.[/quote]

I have to agree with that.

[John_S1]

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
What if we loaded up South Korea with weapons and they used mutually assured distruction, that would put an end to this problem really fast wouldn’t it.[/quote]

There is already mutually assured destruction.

The problem is the leader of NK is mad. Like I don’t care if 90% of my countrymen die as long as I can have a laugh kind of mad. I don’t think MAD bothers him. He is simply happy being insane in NK at the moment.

They are a huge threat and to pretend otherwise is naive. On the other hand not much can be done about it so I don’t see any need to worry.[/quote]

Give South Korea enough nukes to take care of North Korea and watch things settle down. It worked on Stalin it will work on Kim.

[weby]

whatever happened to free speech, she didn’t say anything that bad anyway

[Bambi]

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
What if we loaded up South Korea with weapons and they used mutually assured distruction, that would put an end to this problem really fast wouldn’t it.[/quote]

There is already mutually assured destruction.

The problem is the leader of NK is mad. Like I don’t care if 90% of my countrymen die as long as I can have a laugh kind of mad. I don’t think MAD bothers him. He is simply happy being insane in NK at the moment.

They are a huge threat and to pretend otherwise is naive. On the other hand not much can be done about it so I don’t see any need to worry.[/quote]

Give South Korea enough nukes to take care of North Korea and watch things settle down. It worked on Stalin it will work on Kim.[/quote]

You assume North Korea’s ruler has any logic or sense. Stalin was a tyrant, but he was cunning

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

Now I am prejudiced…
[/quote]

It’s not so much that you’re prejudiced but rather that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve been caught with your history pants down around your ankles.[/quote]

…[/quote]

…
And one other thing I would like to point out. I have said this over and over. …
[/quote]

Yes, you have. Very “consistently.” Like Dustin, you have very consistent biases and find justifications for them wherever you can. Even trashbins may have “impeccable credentials.”

But the thread, I had thought, was about Helen Thomas, and how a firmly-held–yes, consistent–bias can find its reasons, and reject the challenges of a true historical narrative.
So go right ahead, and say your conclusions “over and over.”
And thanks, again, for proving my points.

[Charlemagne]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

Now I am prejudiced…
[/quote]

It’s not so much that you’re prejudiced but rather that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve been caught with your history pants down around your ankles.[/quote]

…[/quote]

…
And one other thing I would like to point out. I have said this over and over. …
[/quote]

Yes, you have. Very “consistently.” Like Dustin, you have very consistent biases and find justifications for them wherever you can. Even trashbins may have “impeccable credentials.”

But the thread, I had thought, was about Helen Thomas, and how a firmly-held–yes, consistent–bias can find its reasons, and reject the challenges of a true historical narrative.
So go right ahead, and say your conclusions “over and over.”
And thanks, again, for proving my points.[/quote]

What points would those be? It’s pretty obvious that even the mountain of evidence staring at you in the face regarding the power of the Israeli lobby in America is not going to convince you otherwise.

Helen Thomas was fired for daring to speak out against Israel. If she had called America a racist/fascist state, that how many people in our own media would have applauded her on her “courage” to speak out. But no,no,no don’t you dare criticize Israel or you’ll get fired. Yeah, bunch of real tough guys, let’s all gang up on this 90 year old lady. You sure showed her.

[pat]

[quote]weby wrote:
whatever happened to free speech, she didn’t say anything that bad anyway[/quote]

This has been asked and answered. Pay attention if you want to play. I think it’s on page 2.

[Rockscar]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]weby wrote:
whatever happened to free speech, she didn’t say anything that bad anyway[/quote]

This has been asked and answered. Pay attention if you want to play. I think it’s on page 2.[/quote]

Under that reasoning I should be able to tell my boss “Fuck You Jew…” and be ok with keeping my Job! After all free speech is free speech right?

You are free to say what you want, but you are subject to that speech’s social and economic concenquences.

[pat]

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]weby wrote:
whatever happened to free speech, she didn’t say anything that bad anyway[/quote]

This has been asked and answered. Pay attention if you want to play. I think it’s on page 2.[/quote]

Under that reasoning I should be able to tell my boss “Fuck You Jew…” and be ok with keeping my Job! After all free speech is free speech right?

You are free to say what you want, but you are subject to that speech’s social and economic concenquences.[/quote]

Yeah, you are protected by law to go in to the middle of South Central Los Angeles and yell “Spic-Niggers!” at the top of your lungs…But you’re pretty much a dead man. The law protects your freedom to say anything, but you still earn the consequences.

[Dustin]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

So lets see. This thread was about Helen Thomas, and the carefully hidden bigotry of the media. Some posters–JoeGood, Jewbacca, myself–offer historical perspective, points that may be refuted.
You do not have the historical mind-muscle to argue.
[/quote]

For fuck sake, it has nothing to do with “historical mind-muscle”. You simply aren’t reading my posts. I said flat out that I wasn’t arguing against any of the historical record presented by Jewbacca, you or anyone else. If you are going to discuss this with me, you need to refute what I’m actually saying.

Instead, you offer “opinion.” Opinion based on The Received Wisdom. Not one refutation by point or counterexample, only the self-righteousness that comes from a closed mind.

???

I have been quite reasonable actually. The only self righteousness I have seen is from you and Push who say, “you are wrong”, and then post pictures of fish, which I guess constitutes as debate in this forum.

So being consistent–consistently close-minded, consistently deaf, consistently unable to question one’s premises, consistently biased, “for many years”–being consistent is not necessarily a rare and great and commendable virtue, Dustin. And you have shown it so consistently.

I might just have to stop responding to you in this thread. You aren’t even responding to what I’m saying.

1. I object to the U.S giving monetary and military aid to Israel (or any foreign nation, for that matter), that intern uses it to kill its neighbors. This conflict is none of the American government’s business so stay out of it.

If you want to donate to the Israeli cause, whatever that might be, knock yourself out.

2. There are multiple news sources that paint a different picture on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the corporate American media machine. I provided Push with a handful of sources from varying political backgrounds, which back my above statements.

It’s that simple. Please address these two points, which I have already stated a couple of times in this thread.

I credit Push for at least answering them. Even if he disagreed.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

So lets see. This thread was about Helen Thomas, and the carefully hidden bigotry of the media. Some posters–JoeGood, Jewbacca, myself–offer historical perspective, points that may be refuted.
You do not have the historical mind-muscle to argue.
[/quote]

For fuck sake, it has nothing to do with “historical mind-muscle”. You simply aren’t reading my posts. I said flat out that I wasn’t arguing against any of the historical record presented by Jewbacca, you or anyone else. If you are going to discuss this with me, you need to refute what I’m actually saying.

Instead, you offer “opinion.” Opinion based on The Received Wisdom. Not one refutation by point or counterexample, only the self-righteousness that comes from a closed mind.

???

I have been quite reasonable actually. The only self righteousness I have seen is from you and Push who say, “you are wrong”, and then post pictures of fish, which I guess constitutes as debate in this forum.

So being consistent–consistently close-minded, consistently deaf, consistently unable to question one’s premises, consistently biased, “for many years”–being consistent is not necessarily a rare and great and commendable virtue, Dustin. And you have shown it so consistently.

I might just have to stop responding to you in this thread. You aren’t even responding to what I’m saying.

1. I object to the U.S giving monetary and military aid to Israel (or any foreign nation, for that matter), that intern uses it to kill its neighbors. This conflict is none of the American government’s business so stay out of it.

If you want to donate to the Israeli cause, whatever that might be, knock yourself out.

2. There are multiple news sources that paint a different picture on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the corporate American media machine. I provided Push with a handful of sources from varying political backgrounds, which back my above statements.

It’s that simple. Please address these two points, which I have already stated a couple of times in this thread.

I credit Push for at least answering them. Even if he disagreed.

[/quote]
As usual, you are “consistent.” And consistently wrong in some details, and inverting the truth in others.
First, I offered history, and it was you who could answer, but only offer opinions.
Second, I was addressing the issue of this thread. If you choose to obfuscate it by introducing other prejudices, biases and notions–whether it is the Israeli cause, or the “Zionist” influence over our poor, weak government–I am under no obligation to humor you. This is not nursery school, and I do not have the time to address each absurd tantrum which you may throw.

And last, I do not choose to engage you, not out of fear, but because time is short, and I have no respect for you and your “opinions.” I suppose you have a right to them, but I am under no obligation to respect them or to coddle you for having them.

You may now oblige us: feel free to have another tantrum.

[Dustin]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

As usual, you are “consistent.” And consistently wrong in some details, and inverting the truth in others.[/quote]

You keep saying that, but yet, offer no rebuttal other than to say, “you are wrong”. Take a moment and point out where I’m wrong.

First, I offered history, and it was you who could answer, but only offer opinions.

But I never questioned the history provided by you, Jewbacca, or anyone else. You continue to argue points that I never mentioned. Go back to page 7 (I believe) where my first post is.

Second, I was addressing the issue of this thread.

Yet, you chose to respond to a post I made to Jewbacca. If you think my posts where too far from the topic of the thread then just ignore them.

If you choose to obfuscate it by introducing other prejudices, biases and notions–whether it is the Israeli cause, or the “Zionist” influence over our poor, weak government–I am under no obligation to humor you. This is not nursery school, and I do not have the time to address each absurd tantrum which you may throw.

Chill out and quite being so condescending. We are having a conversation. If you don’t want to address particular points, then don’t. It’s that simple. And really, my original posts were not directed at you anyway.

You are right, it’s not nursery school and no one ever said it was. And your self righteousness is showing again. Tantrums? Please, I’m offering a different opinion, which I backed up when Push asked me to cite media sources.

And last, I do not choose to engage you, not out of fear, but because time is short, and I have no respect for you and your “opinions.” I suppose you have a right to them, but I am under no obligation to respect them or to coddle you for having them.

More unwarranted self importance. I could care less if you respect me or not. You take yourself far too seriously. This is a discussion board, calm down.

And if time is short, quite responding. All you are doing is making drive by posts that don’t address really anything.