My Photo

From the
Fascist's Mouth

What I'm Reading

Answers

« Report: Al-Qaeda Strength Safely Back to Clintonian Levels | Main | Hillary to Grow Back Monobrow for Gay Debates »

Comments

aha

You know, you and your snot nosed arrogance are just exactly what you claim to detest about Americans. Lessee...you didn't know what the Colonies were, you didn't know that a compass has 360 degrees in it, and not just the cradinal points and other assorted stupidities. And you are worried about a waitress from the Midwest...worried enough to be rude, mocking and general jerk offs? This is how you express your so called concern? You are way worse than the aristocracy. This is why we detest the asshole Euroweenie trash who think they are so much better than everyone else because of a culture that is mired in peat and fueled by arrogance.
IOW, empty.

Projection, bitch. You and kb are totally full of it.

irish

"You know, you and your snot nosed arrogance are just exactly what you claim to detest about Americans."

You got that bang-on. But it's not ALL Americans. Not at all, not by a hundred miles. I mean, several dozen of them are close relatives of mine. And I have American friends online and off. But they're on the left ...

"Lessee...you didn't know what the Colonies were, you didn't know that a compass has 360 degrees in it, and not just the cradinal points and other assorted stupidities."

Will you stoppit?? My tea is going all over the floor!! You were mocked about north/south + east/west axes and where people's locations were -- in accordance with what YOU had written. And now you think *I* don't know how a compass operates? God, it's even worse than I thought.

"And you are worried about a waitress from the Midwest"

Yes. And others. Who vote. In the US.

"This is how you express your so called concern?"

The waitress, as far as I know, is well and happy. I'm worried about who the USA will bomb next. And what's going to happen to all those Iraqi refugees and orphans. For starters. I suspect they're a teensy weensy bit worse off than the waitress.

"You are way worse than the aristocracy."

Which one?

"This is why we detest the asshole Euroweenie trash who think they are so much better than everyone else because of a culture that is mired in peat and fueled by arrogance."

?? Peat? European culture en masse is mired in peat? Tee hee ... Mind you, a very ancient manuscript was dug up in a bog in Ireland not that long ago. Very interesting.

"IOW, empty."

That would be more like ... when I mentioned "culture" here, and someone posted a list of PRODUCTS such as Levis and Coke and Nike and told me it was American 'culture' which you were exporting around the world and we all couldn't wait to take up?

"Projection, bitch. You and kb are totally full of it."

I knew you didn't know what the word meant.

Now I really must go and throw some stuff into a travel bag.

aha

I guess you don't read Der Spiegel online. They have actually admitted that our military is succeeding.

...and I was right about you all along. kb and irish, one and the same sockpuppet. American culture and American products are two different things. I know what the word means and you are just
full of it. You accuse us of that which you do and are yourself.
Projection. You call names and justify it as opinion, but you have no proof; only because you say so. Sorry. Wrong as usual.

Uh, I don't think you know how anything works. And if your American relatives are on the left, please, let us know when they plan on leaving and returning to Ireland? Could it be that they
LIKE IT HERE?

Justa Joe

Filth,
I don't write 1000 word posts like some, and I also couldn't care less about Chumpsky.

I never said I read any Chomsky books. I said I read his online magazine and why. Reading is fundamental. You should try it.

stoorat

irish wrote: Posting under pseudonyms which you change as you please
Impersonating other people
Making accusations which you never back up
Mis-quoting people, and when you're asked to show where the "quote" came from, you go silent
Accusing people of being liars, with no evidence
Accusing people of being hypocrites, with no evidence
Making accusations which, when proved wrong, you refuse to retract
Relying almost entirely on ad hominem (playing the man and not the ball) and yelling "foul!" when someone else calls YOU names

Wow, kiddo, just...wow. [As engineer Montgomery Scott of the USS Enterprise] The ironymeter, cap'n...she cannae take much more o' this! She's gonna blow!

Also, stop whining about how I impersonated bren. I owned up to it immediately (which is the whole reason why you know it was me), and "bren" was an ator for you anyway. That's why I did it. Good for the goose and all that.

P.S. kb, I've managed to get my hands on a small collection of Chomsky's books and writings, but I'm out of town at the moment. Mind if I run their titles by you when I get home to see if I have what you'd consider an accurate representation of his work?

irish

"The ironymeter, cap'n...she cannae take much more o' this! She's gonna blow!"--Stoorat

My feeling precisely, Stooey.

"Also, stop whining about how I impersonated bren."

I don't give a shit about 'bren'. I was demonstrating the general ethos here. Your little game was the least of it. It's people posting as "irish" that bother me. Or when they're caught out lying and proved to be doing so, and forced to admit it, continuing brazenly to throw muck at me. That's a bit rich.

But what happens here is of absolutely no consequence to me. This place is like the no-holds-barred fights at the ancient Olympics. Eye gouging, broken bones, biting, blood. And then when someone like me or 'kb' walks in, people want us to abide by some sort of Marquis of Queensberry Rules.

Such cheek!

Now, I'm on an overdue rest and out of town like you. So have a nice day. I certainly intend to.

JannyMae

Yes, Stoorat, irish has done most, if not all of those things. Irony meter indeed!

irish's first post on this site was an insult. Then she/he whined about being insulted. That's hypocrisy.

Of course, when you have shifting standards for yourself, of what is considered bad behavior, you can always take the, "moral high ground."

JannyMae

Then, of course, there's the fact that they took things people said in jest, and pretended they were true...of everyone.

Everybody on this site is on welfare, don'tcha know?

I never impersonated you. That would have been extremely distasteful to me and I might not have recovered. Even reading your dipsh*t screeds are irritating...putting one in mind of nails on a chalkboard.

There is no moral 'high ground,' only the church of perpetual outrage.

irish

"For what it's worth, JannyMae's ators are always practically transparent."--Stoorat

----------------------

On multiple names: "I used to do it but I gave it up, because I knew it was wrong". --FannySpray

-----------------------

JannyMae wrote: "For the record, I did post under other, "aliases," on that other thread, including, "irish's left testicle," and "irish's socks."

She ALSO POSTED AS BLOGTROLL MONITOR. And when I called her on it, she accused me of "false allegation".

Now, JannyMae, could we have it straight and without all the subterfuge, please???

Didn't you post as BLOGTROLL MONITOR?" -- irish, January 20, 2007

---------------------------

"I posted as blogtroll monitor. Yes. I never denied that I did.

You, on the other hand, have now admitted that you have the ability to hack this site, which is something I have long suspected.

Thank you. Thank you, for taking my bait and admitting it.

Now, you can admit that you were the one that hacked my email, and sent me an email, supposedly from my husband, with a virus attached to it.

There is no one that I can think of, besides you, that would be vicious enough to do that. I am convinced it was you.

You're a real piece of work, irish.

Now, play innocent. It's gotten you so far up to now." -- JannyMae, January 20, 2007

-------------------------

"Aha, I, "confessed," for two reasons.

1. To get irish to admit how he, "knew," I posted as blogtroll monitor,
and

2. As you suggest, to shut him up and get him to stop focusing on me, instead of defending his own shite, because I know he will never back down.

Now, even though I disagree with him, I will do as he asks:

irish is right.

I, JannyMae am a hypocrite, who has no right to criticize irish for posting with multiple names, because I have done the same.

There, it's official. I will never again criticize irish for his sockpuppetry. That would be hypocritical" -- FannySpray, January 21, 2007

----------------------------

Aha, you owe me an apology. You wrote to me:

"irish, I grow weary of you and your inability to read or connect any dots at all except when they are pointed out to you and then you have a case of hysterics because you are not only incorrect, but miss the point. Janny Mae said she posted as a sock under only two names. She said what those names were. 'BlogTroll Monitor' was not one. You are a filthy hypocrite and a liar."

I'm afraid JannyMae has already corrected you. -- irish, January 21, 2007

--------------------

"Of course, when you have shifting standards for yourself, of what is considered bad behavior, you can always take the, "moral high ground." -- JannyMae, August 16, 2007

irish

FannySpray elsewhere:

"it strikes me that the lefties will defend ANY BEHAVIOR whatsoever by their own, by screaming, “Look! Your side does it too!”

Smacks of desperation … "

-- JannyMae

irish

Now fuck off with yourselves.

kb

fannybray said:

"Wow! This thread is still going."

Why wouldn't it be? As long as there are folks like you here willingly to give me the data of the sort I'm looking for there's really no reason to go.

"Folks, if you stop responding to kb, I bet he would argue with himself."

And be able to do a much better job, too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
buggercrack said:

"bittybrain doesn't realize that I have read Chomsky's bs at zmagazine."

Why would I realize this given that you've never mentioned it before. You see, unlike you folks from the right, we lefties don't depend on palm reading for our data. But I'll go along with your little charade here pretending that you were even aware of z more than a day or two ago, and ask you which of his articles you have read? Then you can demonstrate that you've understood the words. After that you can demonstrate that you're familiar with the sources, references, etc...he has used to even come to those positions and the resulting statements. Then, after we have finished this, STEP 1, you may be able to begin making an argument. Now, think you can hadle that?

"Oooh, there's a shockandawe for you."

Especially given that I doubt that it's actually happened. But you are sort of corrct. I WILL be shocked if you have read more than one article. As far as "awe" goes, it's probably more likely that this will end up being more like "awe crap. kb caught me lying again". And just to let you know, even if ny some miracle you actually DID happen to read Chomsky which I highly doubt, especially give your resistance to even be able to discuss the basics, for obvious reasons, very rarely are there footnotes, sources, etc...in small interviews or articles, though there may be some. If all you're doing is disagreeing with his statements simply because you disagree on the spur of the moment, and have no idea what has led him to gaving such positions, you have still haven't passed Step 1. Doesn't really matter that you kneejerkedly react with revulsion to a quote such as "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." If you don't know WHY he would have made such a statement, tghen your reaction means squat. I mean, it DOES demonstrate what I've been talking about all along in the way of indoctrination, preconceived notions, pseudo-patriotism, etc...but it means little to nothing regarding the accuracy of the statement. So, if you respond to a statement such as this is simply to disagree just because you don't like it, you have failed. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate why he has made such a statement, what facts it is based on, and THEN argue with his facts, etc...THEN, perhaps, you will have done something. I'll let you know when you get this far. But we can begin here, again, with another lesson. We'll use the quote above and you can read this very short (Don't worry) paper. Then we can examine together how you'll respond. Will you just start screaming that it's wrong?(fail) Will you start calling him names because you disagree?(fail) Or any of the other many potential failures you may decide to exhibit? Anyway, here we go, again....
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm

"Why do you think the right reads the left?"

Uhhh....I don't. As far as I can tell the right doesn't read the right OR the left. I'm still looking for evidence. This is why I ask repeatedly for your references and which I've gotten none, othe than some names from stool, which ranged over a wide varity of subjects.

"We KNOW what our own people are saying"

Really? So, THAT explains it. Bythe way, who are these "our people" you're referring to? And what are they telling you? They must not be telling you much or you wouldn't be going into such convulsions over most of the uncontroversial facts I've already discussed, nor even show surprise for that matter. Perhaps you mean that you're familiar with what your people are saying then when Chomsky uses them for references to suypport his theses. So, let's take one of your own people. He supports, though he's unaware that he is, Chomsky's thesis regarding U.S. policy in the entire southern hemispere when he notes:

Civilian deaths have been estimated at tens of thousands - proportionately, a death toll "significantly higher than the number of US persons killed in the US Civil War and all the wars of the 20th century combined," writes Thomas Carothers, a leading historian of the democratisation of Latin America.

He goes onto correctly note some of the VERY basics quite honestly:

Carothers writes from the perspective of an insider as well as a scholar, having served in Reagan's State Department during the 'democracy enhancement' programmes in Central America. The Reagan-era programmes were 'sincere' though a 'failure', according to Carothers, because Washington would tolerate only "limited, top-down forms of democratic change that did not risk upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United States has long been allied."
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20040806.htm

Here, let's repeat that last passage again just to make sure it potentially penetrates a little of that granite block you have sitting there between your shoulders:

Washington would tolerate only "limited, top-down forms of democratic change that did not risk upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United States has long been allied."

Now, do you understand these very basic words? Do you know what they mean? These words are coming from Carothers, a Reagan man, and Chomsky is recognizing that they are correct. Now, if a Reagan man can recognize the bascis, why do you go into convulsions simply because Chomsky agrees with him?

"it is the schadenfrueden carp the left dishes out that we have to be aware of."

Don't know what you're referring to because you never say what IT is. What "carp" are you referring to?

"I told you; I am not a conspiracy theorist but that isn't why I disagree with Chomsky."

Never said you were a conspiracy theorist, nor should you be. See? There. You and Chomsky have something in common. But when you say "that isn't why I disagree with him" I still have seen no evidence that you even know him well enough TO disagree. How many times am I going to have to repeat this? As of this sentence you have given not a hint of indication that you know his work at all, so basically you have nothing to disagree with. Not in any serious way anyway. As mentioned earlier, you may have some kneejerk reaction based on a statement of his, and this is to be expected. But this in no way, shape, or form, means that you know WHY you're even disagreeing. THIS is what interests me most. Anyway, you have yet to demonstrate that you know ANY of his positions, so when you say you "disagree", it really doesn't mean all that much. This isn't just some sort of opinion, say, one person thinking one person is cute and another not thinking so. Nothing of the sort. You folks don't seem to be able to grasp this simple concept, though I have pointed it out repeatedly and demonstrated how worthless 'just' disagreeing is.

"I disagree with him because I don't see corporations as all that evil."

Fine. Then you can disagree with the many founding fathers, too, yes?

"I see government in that light regardless of who is in the White House."

So you don't think there are any connections between business and government? You can't possibly be THAT naive.

"I have told you this time and time again and you refuse to listen."

Well, first of all, you've not mentioned this once, so try and refrain from your time and time again nonsense. When I say time and time again, it's because it has factually been time and time again, and not just to emphasize my position. That aside, so the hell what if you said this? You haven't proven anything other than this is your position. Well, why?

"So, bugger off."

What's this supposed to mean? "Well...uhhh....I think that tree over there is too short. So, bugger off." Looks like more evidence to support my thesis that there really doesn't have to, or need to, be any reasons for your having the opinions you do, or that they may clash with the facts. If it's your opinion, it IS a fact. This IS what you think, yes?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
justablow said:

"Filth's pal is a baffoon."

Which pal? Buffoon how?

"It appears that he actually thinks that his agreement with other people's moonbat opinions"

I have never said I agreed with anything here. And yet ANOTHER example of not being able to distinguish between examining the facts as presented by someone, understanding there positions, and thinking that these are therefore ones own positions. Where have I said that I agreed "with other people's moonbat opinions"? Not only that, you haven't demonstrated there to be any "moonbat opinions". You've simply said you disagreed. This means squat. So, AFTER you've presented to us that you have understood the words written by these folks, THEN you can try and demonstrate what would make their statements moonbattish. You haven't even taken the first step. Still waiting.

"is a declarartion of their truthfulness and non-controversiality."

If you "think" there is something untruthful, then it's your job to demonstrate what it is. Your simply saying that something isn't true means nothing. So, I'll allow you the opportunity to prove yourself. You can refer to the "Nuremburg" statement above and demonstrate what's untrue about it. And I haven't really seen any evidence of anything I've said or quoted to having been demonstrated as controversial. Perhaps you think it is because you simply disagree, based on whatever(Still having difficulty discerning where this comes from), but I'm afraid I'm going to need more than a simply disgreement based on whatever.
1)Demonstrate that youhave understood the words which have been written 2)Try and demonstrate why they are false. There. We can leave it at 2 simple steps for now.

"Sorry... Nobody is buying your BS."

You have yet that there has been any "bs", so I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to. But if you wish to make a list, feel free to do so in your next comment. ((Any bets on there being a list in his next comment?))

"We've already been treated to opinion pieces from many a leftwing website by Filth already."

Don't know what you're referring to. And I'm personally not awfully interested in opinion pieces unless I can see whatthey're basing their opinions on. This is why for you to read a few Chomsky opinions and think you know something is inadequate at best. If person X makes assertion Y, and I just say "I disagree", this may be true, I may disagree, but this means in no way, shape, or form, that Y is incorrect. And for someone interested in even thinking about looking for truth in anything, the FIRST thing to do is to examine what has led the person to having made or come to the position Y. THEN, after I know what X is basing his position Y on, may I be able to make an argument. When Copernicus asserted that the earth went around the sun and not visa versa, do you think a good argument against his assertions would be "I disagree" and that's all? I hardly think so. As a matter of fact, the truthfullness of his assertion came about precisely from one, getting rid of all of the empty opinions of disagreements given for no reason(That would be you). The next step would be to take on the reasons posed by those disagreeing to see how well they held up in an argument. They didn't. They were forced to give up their misbeliefs, and, as usual, this did NOT come easy. But they at least tried to understand the arguments he was making, or at least honest and less indoctrinated ones did.

"the (CIA)organization was counterproductive of United States national security and harming a lot of people in its "secret wars" overseas."
- commie stooge Stockwell

So, let me get this straight. A guy who worked in the government fighting against communists for all those years tells what he had participated in, why, etc...and now he's a commie stooge. Any evidence to support this dumbass assertion of yours, or was it just another one of those gaseous feelings which seem to influence most of your statements. As already mentioned, as well as listed, there are more patriotic Americans who recognize the same basics. That you're unaware of such basics shoud make you angry, but not hardly at those educating your dumb ass to them facts finally, but rather at the charlatans, pseudo-patriots, and, well, basically idiots, who have kept this knowledge from you in the first place. THIS is the part which fascinates me. Someone comes along to teach some poor uneducated fool something for the first time, and rather than getting down on his knees and thinking the teacher, he attacks the teacher, instead of going after the liars who he has unwittingly been spoonfed fairy tales by for the better part of his life. Sad and pathetic. Indoctrinated little lemmings. The perfect citizen for a totalitarian system as well.

"Hebegay has pronounced that the above statement is a FACT and non-controversial."

Well, if you think it isn't, prove it. Your simply saying "It isn't" means nothing. Also, if I said something was uncontroversial, then it's probably not. Like, folks don't really argume much anymore about the world being a spherical shape instead of flat, and nothing I've mentioned thus far is much different that this. But if you THINK there is something, then prove it. Your simply saying it's wrong just doesn't do the trick. Doesn't even come close.

"The CIA is/was counterproductive of United States national security."

THIS is an issue? Screwing around in other folks countries, causing the vast majority of the populations of those countries to despise the U.S. because, as mentioned earlier, "Washington would tolerate only "limited, top-down forms of democratic change that did not risk upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United States has long been allied.", which would, of course, and for elementary reasons, make the country less secure thereby being counterproductive of national security, is an issue of some sort? Of course I guess if other countries were carrying out all of the same things within the U.S. that the C.I.A. is known for carrtying out in other countries, it wouldn't really be much of a big deal, huh, Hypocrite?

"That's very interesting."

To anyone interested in looking for the truth it most certainly should be interesting. This is why folks like us "lefties" like to go to the sources themselves rather than depending on propagandists to spoon feed us with feel good drool and fairy tales. You wantto know what the C.I.A. has been up to, well, go find as many agents as you can and read what they've written, or been allowed to write, as much stuff is simply censored out as potentially being harmful to the country. So, those folks I'm depending on are actually way UNDER-reporting what they could probably actually be telling had they 100% free reign. Anyway, that aside, there is still plenty enough to give good ideas about who was doing what, when, how, where, etc...If you choose to stay ignorant, that's your choice.

"Since this according to hebegay is an undisputed fact where is the movement to disband or even halt the activities of the CIA?"

There have been people wishing to disband the C.I.A. since it's inception. Anyway, you can find out about these folks as well if you're interested. But this illustrates another point as well. I doubt seriously that you ever even considered the question before. You can read here while you're doing your other research:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/In_Search_Enemies.html

"The CIA as far as I can tell is considered by all sane Americans to be a vital and necessary part of national security and isn't going away."

Well, there we have it. "Is considered by all sane Americans". This alone demonstrates that you haven't a clue. You can begin your education with these folks:
CIA insiders and "whistleblowers"
Theodore Shackley - former CIA agent involved with the Phoenix Program
Philip Agee
Robert Baer
A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard
Mary O. McCarthy
Ralph McGehee
Victor Marchetti
Lindsay Moran
L. Fletcher Prouty
Frank Snepp
John Stockwell

I'm sure they're ALL commie dupes. Actually, the C.I.A. has a horrendous record. But for those uninterested in the real world I guess this would be irrelevant.

"The statement, "couldn't have been a better commie plant," does not mean that Stockwell was in fact a commie plant although he may have been."

Talking out your butt. He wasn't, nor has anyone ever even inferred as much. It IS quite amusing to sit here and see your indoctrination come flooding out though. We have the very people who have participated in doing what they were doing, and your indoctrination immediately distrusts them. Never even considerd questioning or distrusting the Great Leaders. Yes, there are a couple of other countries where you'd fit in just right. And ona side note, just out of curiosity, is this is government which you need all of those assault weapons around to protect yourselves from? You know? You folks always give this argument for your pro-gun dribble. Just curious.

"It means that an actual commie plant could not have done a better job than Stockwell at undermining US securtity and furthering communist expansionism."

He was no plant, though I'm quite well aware of the fact that your perceiving him would probably go in this direction, which, itself, is also evience of your own indoctrnation. Not really much different that Manson's followers making excuses for him, even if he DID come out and tell the truth. Your indoctrination prevents you from even being able to grasp something as simple as the notion that there are other folks who actually have concern for the U.S., but have differing ideas about what to do with that concern. Yours is the path of the blind cheerleader. I like to here from the folks who were there and doingthe job. Also, there's more evidence to demonstrate that the U.S. was expanding more than the "Soviet Empire". Thought you would have heard of the Rotten Apple Theory by now. What do you think this was? I mean, in a way there were movements to the left, as a reaction against those "limited forms of top down government" mentioned earlier, and some of these were even supported by the Soviets because I doubt that those supporting the "top down forms of government with which the U.S. has long been allied" would have helped support the very people that their clients were suppressing for obvious reasons. THIS, dumbass, is the Rotten Apple Theory. The fear that more and more countries would move to the left as a rteaction against western control. What di you think it was about? You weren't under some dumbass impression that the Soviets were hell bent on world conquest or something, were you? If so, I'm afraid THAT particular propaganda was exposed decades ago.

"FYI: Stockwell was not born in the USA, and his father was Belgian."

Oh, and this supposedly means what? His suceptibility to becoming a commie dupe are greatly inhanced? Perhaps it means he got a better education.

"This doesn't make him a bad person per se, but it is nonetheless factual."

And what is this jingoistic and rascist implication. Not "a bad person per se"? What the hell is that, you fatass rasicst pseudo-patriot?

"The CIA never came to my door, but GreenPIECE did come to my door."

Not that you know of anyway. But why would they? You are so indoctrinated already that the only reason they'd come to your door would be to try and get you to enlist. Actually, I'm afraid that even they would see how pathetic you are, and are probably more appreciative of criticism against them than you are.
And I hope you gave money to GreenPeace.

"This is just a simple fact."

And? Were the GreenPeace folks damn commie foreigners, too?

"Are you suggesting GreenPIECE don't come to people's door with their hands out?"

Not nearly enough. They should do it much more often. But what's pathetic is that there is even a need for some such group. Were folks actually acting as some sort of moral agents, and had the least bit of concern for thier planet, groups such as GreenPeace wouldn't need to exist. However, and unfortunately, there are lots of dumbasses like you who make them necessary. Same thing has gove on with pretty much every other moral step towards progress there has been. Those who desire to make things better, rid the world of slavery, make rights for women, minorities, save tghe planet, etc...versus the pseudo-cynical, pseudo-dissident, pseudo-patriots who fight against it tooth and nail. What do you think the majority of the left/right conflict has always been about?

"I never knew that GreenPiece was the sole benefactor and protector of the environment?"

Oh, there not, nor has anyone said they are. There are many other groups who fight against folks like you in order to try and save your planet from you, in spite of your being unappreicative. They're quite well aware that it's like trying to persuade a baby that candy is not good for them, and are aware of the arguments the babies will try and use to support their positions. You know, like "It tastes good. That's my opinion, and is therefore the truth." and other such infanitle notions as you anti-enviromentalists always spew.

"Perhaps I should heve given them a buck."

Given that they're probably going save your ass I think a buck isn'T really enough. That being said, perhaps you're only worth a buck, so I guess they should take that much into consideration when deciding who cares the most.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
justabadjoke said:

"hebegay, Please feel free to write another 1000 word post on how Mikey Moore is actually a conservative."

If I feel like it I will. Nothing more really to write though. Most every position he has is nothing but conservative.

"The last effort was less than convincing."

Wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. Nothing to convince. I gave a list of those things which he supports which are nothing BUT consevative positions. Oh,perhaps you aren't aware of what the term conservative means. Well, that's a possibility. But if you'd like to give some examples of some position of his which you believe aren't conservative, by all means, provide the data.

"If you write it long enough maybe Mikey Moore himself will stop refering to himself as a "leftwing populist.""

What does him referring to himself as a left-wing populist have to do with his positions being conservative? Was there supposed to be some relation here? Ron Paul is conservative and probably agrees with most of what Chomsky says regarding foreign policy. So what? And in this sense Chomsky is as conservative as Paul, which is pretty conservative on these issues.

"Remember, quantity over quality and try to sound real tough."

When you have both it's better. You should try for at least one of these two at some point alontg the way.

"While you're at it you can write a 1000 word post explaining to your pal, Filth, what the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty is."

Why? I'm sure she's probably aware of what it is, as most folks from most other countries are familiar with what it is, unlike the population of the U.S. who probably think it's a reality TV show. Was there some sort of evidence somewhere that she doesn't know what it is? If so, please tell me where I can find it. It's really not all that complicated to find out about, though for folks like you who depend on the Natioanl Enquirer for your information it may be a little more difficult. Basically, it's this, as recognized by one of the thousands of people who know the basics:

"At the center of the nonproliferation regime is the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). What most Americans don't know is that this treaty is based upon an important tradeoff. The nonnuclear weapons states agree not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, and the nuclear weapons states agree to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament.((You, justjoke, are one of the "most Amercians" he's referring to here. I mean, in case you didn't know. But then again, had you known, you wouldn't be one of them))

"Every five years, the parties to this treaty, now 188 countries, meet at the United Nations to review progress. At the 2000 Review Conference, the parties agreed by consensus to 13 practical steps for nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, the nuclear weapons states, and particularly the United States, seem to have made virtually zero progress in the past five years. Despite its pledges to do otherwise, the United States has failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; opposed a verifiable fissile material cutoff treaty; substituted the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which is fully reversible, for the START treaties; scrapped the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, opening the door for deployment of missile defenses and moves toward placing weapons in outer space; kept nuclear weapons at the center of its security policies, including research to create new nuclear weapons; and demonstrated no political will toward the elimination of its nuclear arsenal.
The only small glimmer of hope in U.S. nuclear policy was Congress' cutting the funding requested by the administration in the 2005 budget for "bunker buster" and low-yield nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the administration is already back seeking the inclusion of this research in the 2006 and 2007 budgets."
http://www.counterpunch.org/krieger03052005.html

So, there you have it. An easy to read recognition of the basics. Was there something to discuss here?

"We tried, but alas our word count must not have been high enough."

Perhaps if you wrote more you'd eventually get to saying something correct, even IF it was just accidental. Then, at some point in the distant future, you can get both length AND quality as the left usually does.


Yes, kb, you could argue with yourself and win. irish, screw yourself, dear.
I am not even reading the kibblebrainedidiot's flatulence because it is a waste of
my time to respond to moronic conspiracy contradictions. The CIA is bad, but there is no conspiracy in government! Make up your mind...oh, that's right. You can't because
you are a schizo.

Length and quality? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...long, yes. Quality output? Hardly. Learn to write and learn to spell.

Perhaps if you wrote more you'd eventually get to saying something correct, even IF it was just accidental. Then, at some point in the distant future, you can get both length AND quality as the left usually does.-kb attempts at 'humor' and 'wit.'

Projection by kb. kb's bloviations are reminiscent of monkeys tapping at the keyboard attempting to write Shakespeare.

kickedinthebrain wants to know what articles I've read at z mag. I have been aware of it for six months. Aaah, that was NOT when I discovered Chomsky. I have a limited budget and will not buy books unless they are required for a course. When you can say please and get rid of the gratutious insults and behave, I might deign to answer your
questions.

kb

buttcrack said:

"JJ,
He would also think that it was terrible that Alger Hiss was outed as a communist."

What is it with you and this communist crap? I don't know any communists, have never been one, or anything else. I guess it's the old "Well, if you don't "think" like me, you're a communist" theory. And if this is all it takes to qualify for being one, then I'm most happily and proudly a member, even if I don't agree with most of what they say. You know, sort of like I'll vote for Hillary even if I don't like her much simply because I know how much you hate her. Yes, I'm quite well awarte that this is childish, but given that this is your usually mo I thought you'd understand a little easier.

"After all, if Chomsky says there is no conspiracy, then why the CIA conspiracy?"

The C.I.A doesn't say that there's a conspriacy and more or any less than Chomsky does. Given the nature of the structure, if the C.I.A. decides to covertly, meaning doing so without the population being aware how their money is being spent, overthrow a leader of a country, pay for an assassination, etc...it's just business as usual. He often uses the example of mocking tho9se who thinks it's nonsense to consider a huge corporation which is trying to maximize profits and lower costs as a "conspiracy". This is just the way they work. If you wish to call having a few people making decisions which will lead to the getting rid of X percentage of workers so as to make more money for those remianing, you can call it a conspiracy if you want, or you can just say that this is how the institutional structure works. There is no disagreement between Chomsky and the C.I.A. folks many of whom he refers to for his data.

"You see, my biggest disagreement with the professor from MIT is not what he says about corporations"

Nor should there be.

"it is what he isn't saying about government"

And so now you know what he does and doesn't say about governemnt by reading a few small pieces from zmagazine? Let's see if you know his postions as well as you're inferring that you do.

"corporations and government have always been in a state of rubbing each other's backs."

Yes, this is exactly Chomsky's thesis, and this is at the root of most of his arguments. He knows the entire history of this connection quite well and has written about it a lot. Once again, see the film, "The Corporation" for a small, but informative account of this connection.

"But since he hasn't changed or cleaned the kitty litter in his brain you get these
idiot statements"

Huh? The only idiotic statment here that I can see has been yours? You have all but paraphrased Chomsky's exact position regarding the connection between the govenrment and corporations and aren't even aware of it. Of couyrse this has to do with you're not beinbg remotely familiar with his work at all, as you keep willingly demonstrating.

"we have swallowed the msm kool-aid or we haven't drunk enough of it."

Both.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"irish, you know, I detest you and you know why."

I'd like to know why you detest her. I haven't seen a thing yet to detest.

"The moronic idiocy of your posts"

Evidence?

"your sockpuppetry when people here were telling YOU to grow up"

Coming from you folks this should be taken with a grain of sand from your head.

"and you just had to be nasty no matter what."

Where has irish been nasty? I haven't seen this side at all, but I'd like to. She's been overly civil since I've been here, almost bending over backwards not to call you dumbasses like I do.

"You are still a troll."

I have seen no evidence of "trolling". Where is it? What do you mean when you make this assertion? You mean, a troll is anyone who comes along who disagrees with you, and even a worse troll of they actually present evidence and infomation to back up their arguments? And you think that my referring to you folks as "cheeleaders" is an ad hominem attack of some sort? This is the textbook defintion of a cheerleader.

"kb is an obnoxious self aggrandizing twit."

But is he correct? This should be of what's of concern to you, dillhole. Who cares of I'm "obnoxious" or "self aggrandizing" or a "twit"? You can either make the arguments or you can't. So far you can't. Also, I feel that it's quite obnoxious of you folks to keep coming here day after day, making dumbass assertions like the ones here, and not providing any evidence for them. Personally, I'd rather have the truth from a supposed "obnoxious self aggrandizing twit", than a non-obnoxious, non-self aggrandizing, non-twit dumbass.

"The fact that you have *koff koff* somehow decided to post under a name and a location doesn't speak a whole lot for your integrity now."

Uhhh....I think she's sort of mocking your dumbasses by doing what you've already been doing. Once again, you folks do it regularly, and then when someone does it to you, even if it IS to poke fun at you but you're too dense to see it, it becomes some major issue. You folks have no game, just face it. Now which books of Chomsky's did you say you've read?

"when kittylitterbrain starts acting like a human being, I will treat it/you/him like one."

Sorry, but when kb came here you folks were alredy drooling up one side and down the other. YOU, dumbass, are the reason kb consciously decided to whip ass at your own game, which he has done, and which you have lost. You act like a person and I will decide if you're worthy. So far, nothing.

"One of my friends actually tried to be nice and kb shat all over it."

Well, THAT was sure clear. Who? Where? When? What about? Could you possibly be any more vague. "Yeah, a guy by a pole, somewhere, once, said buttcrack was a buttcrack." And THAT was all the eivdence I needed.

"So, you won't mind if I return the favor to both of you: Bugger off."

Are you still drinking? This sounds like the same slurred speech and disoriented thought that you were using before my short trip to Nikko.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mybuttcrackitchesagain said:

"Oh..kb is collecting data and intends to publish?"

Said I was from the very beginning, have never hidden the fact, and have been doing so for several years. Care to try and take back any of your idiotic statements or positions before I do?

"Is that why you have become an honest woman? Why am I not surprised?"

You folks keep saying these things about irish, but when I ask for evidence you have never provided any. where is it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~buttcrackpretendingtobesomeoneelsesoastonothavetoanswerthequestionshimself said:

"So which of you has read Chomsky again? Is it Ms anonymous or Ms anonymous? Or is it Mr anonymous back in from the cow patties?"

Yes, buttcrack, which of his books have you read?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
justajoke said:

"Anyway, there was at least something the communists did right, you know, besides fighting most of the war:"

"In April 1945, Mussolini attempted to escape to Switzerland, only to be captured and executed near Lake Como by Communist partisans." - hebegay

Actually, this statement was NOT made by me, but rather quoted from the source I provided. You should learn to get these things straight. That being said, it IS correct. I made the top statement though.

"Wow, I'm impressed some communist bandits executed a fleeing powerless Mussoulini and his girlfriend well after the Americans & Brits have defeated the Axis in N. Africa and the west."

Yeah, you should be given that an entire army was unable to do it, but a few "communist bandits" had little problem.

"That ranks right up there with how the communists murdered Princess Anastasia and the rest of the Romanov family in terms of military cunning and bravery."

Didn't need to use much bravery to take out the criminals and shoot them. Butthen again it probably takes MUCH more bravery than dropping "smart bombs" from thousands of feet in the air and killing hundreds, or thousands, of innocent civilians. Now THAT'S bravery.

"Maybe we'll get a 1000 word post about the Nazi Soviet non-aggression pact, The Nazi Soviet occupation and partition of Poland, The Soviet attack on Finnland, the Soviet Katyn Forest massacre of the Polish officer corps, and ultimately the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe."

Why? Do you need one? What do you want to know? What's your preoccupation with Soviet crimes? You're not them, are you? You need to be a little more worried about your own crimes. I mean, act like an adult for goddess's sake. It's like the fanatic basketball fan who constantly sees the "other" team fouling, thinks the refs are calling the game for the "other" side, etc...and completly ignoraing the fact that it's is HIS team who are actually doing much or most of the fouling, etc...I think YOU right-wingers call this selective perception, partiotism. We honest lefties call it dishonest, pseudo-patrioic, dumbassedness. Now, were you going to mention any of the crimes the U.S. has ever committed, or is there no such thing? Please tell me that you think the U.S. has never committed a crime.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~irish said:

"Maybe JustaJoke will do a 1000 word post analysing Chomsky's writings."

I believe it's more likely that the sun will rise in the west". I'd settle for any evidence at all that he's even understood a single position of the man. This would be almost evidence of some sort of god.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
irish said(after observing more of the obvious):

"That's why we worry about you and your type, your insularity, isolation, and ignorance -- and what your Texan president thinks the word "diplomacy" means."

THIS, perception, irish, is correct. You and the rest of the world should be afraid of these folks. There not much more than Branch Davidians with suits, and they are scary. There pathetically weak in actual fact, but have managed to wriggle a few folks into a few high positions. And it doesn't take much to persuade them that a square is a circle. Just look at who voted for Bush and their reasons for doing so. What'S REALLY more scary and which should probably receive much more attention is the religiously fundamentalist Christianity of some of these folks who believe that the world is going to end in flames anyway, and are hell bent on taking the necessary steps which could potentially cause this to happen. And I'm not saying that they are consciously doing this either. This is just an implicit part of many of their belief systems. And most folks, well rational folks anyway, are aware of how self-fulfilling prophecies can come about. You believe it, you have the perceptions, you interpret things via these perceptions, and you act on these perceptions according to what you "think" is happening, thereby causing the very thing you anticipated. Not only that, then they'll take credit for being right just as their house is blown away by a nuclear blast.

"But I suppose being from the left we're supposed to act differently to everyone else. You want to throw shit all over the carpet and then insist that WE'RE making the mess when we arrive at the door?"

Correct observation.

"You think this place is your private club, where you can throw nasty crap around about anyone and everyone, under the guise of "satire" (which is never remotely clever or funny)."

Correct again.

"You write your 'funny' posts about (your) Democrats, or gays, or some other crowd you feel like bashing (stuff that would often be libellous elsewhere) with particular racism and bigotry reserved for Muslims and/or Arabs (because it's what Daddy told you, dontcha know.)"

Correct again. ((Damn! irish is good.))

"kb, I could email you. But I'm wondering how you'll know that it's definitely me."

Just say a few words and I can probably tell. Anyway, I have nothing much which I would say to you that I mind them knowing. Actually, it would be kind of good if they DID try and pull something off like this. I could use that material as well. Anyway, it's up to you.

"Since people here would have no compunction about pretending to be me, as they've done in the past."

I'm not worried. If you don't want to it's okay. Personally, I don'tthink they're clever enough to be able to know what to say which would fool me, but....I mean, if they wrote to me and pretended to be you, they'd probably just hear me calling them dumbasses there instead of here. Or, if you really want to, you can send me a mail, then I'll tell you what something like the third, seventh, and tenth characters are and you can confirn here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
blahahahaha said:

"You know, you and your snot nosed arrogance are just exactly what you claim to detest about Americans."

Where has irish been "snot nosed" or "arrogant"? I'm an American and I think she has a pretty good grasp of that small and dwindling portion of folks in America, like you, who actually think YOU are what America is all about. Sorry, but whee on earth did you get a dumbass idea like that? If anything, you folks here from the right have demonstrated that it is precisely you who haven't a clue as to some of the basic concepts and ideas of America. You are the abberations, you and your pseudo-patriotic snake oil Talibangelists. What's actually pathetic is that someone else can be more honest with you than you can yourself. But this isn't all that surprising. It's quite normal, in fact. But at some point in your life it's probably a good idea to confess that yes, you ARE an alcoholic/pseudo-patriot, look at your ugly ass self in the mirror, and grow the hell up and try and rid yourself from this disease.

"Lessee...you didn't know what the Colonies were"

It's where the mormon's were inbreeding, wasn't it?

"you didn't know that a compass has 360 degrees in it"

Yes, that sure sounds like the irish that I've seen here. Well, she proably didn't vote for Bush, which I'd consider far worse than simply not know a compass has 360 degrees. ((Don't worry, irish, I'm sure that this isn't correct)) That being said, given the narrowmindedness of the right, I'm not sure that they could see past a few degree range even if looking at a 360 degree compass.

"and not just the cradinal points and other assorted stupidities."

Why hasn't she made any of these sort fo statements since I've been here? Not even a hint of anything even close to being irrational.

"And you are worried about a waitress from the Midwest...worried enough to be rude, mocking and general jerk offs?"

Well, actually, I AM from the Midwest, Missouri to be exact, and there are folks of this sort all over the place. True, the waitress was probably being a little facitious and implying that she doesn't or hasn't traveled much, and in a self-effacing manner admitting to her own ignorance. This is the honest part. The fact is, is that she is probably aware of her ignorance, too. It would still need to be determined whether or not she allows this ignorance to stand in the way of reason and logic. I don't know much of anything about many things and have no problem admitting it.

"This is how you express your so called concern? You are way worse than the aristocracy."

Pointing out that a person has admitted to being ignorant is not bad at all. It's called being honest. The woman pleaded ignorance herself. irish's friend who happened to hear it simply relayed the story. What's the big deal? When I'm in Missouri, or most any other state for that matter, I hear equally as ignorant statements. And your attempt at calling irish aristocratic is little more than your usual trying to use the same argument back on the original accuser even though it doesn't fit. irish is in exactly a position which she is allowed to make anti-aristocratic statements. The queen and her cabal are not. Oh, incidentally, since I'm here, Fuck the Queen!

"This is why we detest the asshole Euroweenie trash"

Sorry, irish, but THIS statement here is exactly why many Europeans have correct perceptions of the Ugly Americans. This winch probably doesn't know Ireland from Iraq, and it doesn't matter. She's an indoctrinated buffoon, and should be viewed as one. If you were ever in doubt as to the accuracy of your perceptions regarding many Americans being inbred, you can put your mind at ease, as many ARE as bad as what you've seen here. And you have every right to point out the shortcomings and hypocrisy of the U.S. as anyone else. What'S pathetic is that the folks of their own country aren't doing it themselves. But then again, look at the treatment of those who actually do i.e. Chomsky, etc....

"who think they are so much better than everyone else"

I haven't met any Europeans who thought they were better than anyone else, but I have met MAAAAAANY Americans who do. But then again, given that you're ne of them, you probably don't even notice, do you dumbass? ((She's not even aware that's she's just done this again right here))

"because of a culture that is mired in peat and fueled by arrogance."

Nope, irish, as you can see the U.S. is 100% clean of arrogance, etc....What's funny is that she is evidentally clueless as to the fact that she has just reconfirmed your accurate charges and observations. SHE is a abberation, irish.

"IOW, empty."

(snore)

"Projection, bitch."

This is itself projection, bitch.

"You and kb are totally full of it."

Yeah, you folks keep saying this, but when asked for evidence you provide none. On the other hand, every time I've mentioned it, or almost every time, I've gone onto demonstrating that this exactly what was happening. My guess is that you're knowledge of Ireland is itself on par with the lady's idea from the Midwest, and that you're attack on irish is simply because you, too, are ignorant, biaaaatch.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"I guess you don't read Der Spiegel online. They have actually admitted that our military is succeeding."

Succeeding in what?

"...and I was right about you all along. kb and irish, one and the same sockpuppet."

Sorry, dumbass, but we're NOT the same, though she does sound damn intelligent.

"American culture and American products are two different things."

And that's coming from a "Right-wing blow up Barbie sold at at most porn shops near you. And if you buy now, you can get a new KY jelly which supposedly allows for a thought to slip into the head of a right-wing buffoon, though I've head that it's being recalled because it hasn't worked awfully well.

"I know what the word means and you are just
full of it."

The only person here who appears to be full of anything would seem to be you. You sound like some crank-whore who was watching Benny Hinn at 3 a.m. and decided to give herself over to the lord. I mean, after those next few lines.

"You accuse us of that which you do and are yourself."

Wooowwwowoowwwoooo! ahahahahamybuttstillitches is trying to use the concept of projection now, even though she doesn't really know how.

"Projection."

See?

"You call names and justify it as opinion"

I haven't seen her do this. I have called you folks many names, but didn't justify it as an opinion at all. In fact, I said that the names were NOT simply opinions, but rather accurate labels, and then I went onto demonstrate how and why.

"but you have no proof"

Oh, yes, buffooness, she does. She has ALL the proof any scientist could every hope to find. It's all just right here in the this post.

"only because you say so. Sorry. Wrong as usual."

And yet another text book example of projection. She accuses of projection and then projects. How dfo we know which is which? Easy. irish and I usually demonstrate and support the reasons we make the statements we do. You don't. As a matter of fact, I've been trying to help you from putting yourselves in this position from the very beginning by asking you for evidence to support your assertions. These never come. Why? Because they don't exist. There IS no support. So, being faced with how to handle this cognitive dissonance psychologically, your start projection onto her and I exactly what you are doing. Or should I say NOT doing. I provide evidence, you don't, I ask for yours, it doesn't come, I ask again and it doesn't come, I ask again and it doesn't come, and then BOOM! There it is. I'M not providing evidence and only giving opinions and am projecting. Sorry, indoc, but THESE are the facts. But of you wish to NOW provide some of that evidence which has yet to appear, I'd be most interested in looking at it.

"Uh, I don't think you know how anything works."

More projection as I have just demonstrated.

"And if your American relatives are on the left, please, let us know when they plan on leaving and returning to Ireland?"

Why the hell should THEY leave because they're on the left? This, too, is yet another dumbass statement. Where the hell did you get the idiotic notion that YOU represented America or Americans? Sorry, drooler, but despite your fairy tale illusions that YOU represent anything more than an embarrassing dingleberry dangling yourselves in public for the rational left to have to try and pluck before making even further embarrassing comments which leave the nation in a light worse than you have already, you don't.

"Could it be that they LIKE IT HERE?"

Of course it could, dumbass. But they like it in spite of you, not because of you, arrogant idiot. Couldn'T even get a job as a waitress I see.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Filth, I don't write 1000 word posts like some"

Well, that's damn goo to know. There would just be that much more nothing to have to try and wade through. You should write long screeds full of information like I do. And you can leave dozens of informative links, book references, facts about the world, etc....You know, pretty much thatthing which you've never done here to my knowledge.

"and I also couldn't care less about Chumpsky."

Great! Then I'll expect you to be honest and not admit to knowing anything about the topic related to him. Hey, I don't know much about knitting, so you probably won't hear me talking about it too much. And you sure won't hear me trying to debate anything about it. Besides, whyon earthwould you EVER consider reading Chomsky? He represents everything you hate; honesty , intelligence, morality, etc....I can easily understand why you'd despise every word out of his mouth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~buttwax said:

"I never said I read any Chomsky books."

Great! Then don't. I just don't want you to start. I'm doing you a favor again.

"I said I read his online magazine and why. Reading is fundamental. You should try it."

I did. I read what you had said AFTER you had implied thatyou had read his books and are now trying to lie your way out of by now saying that you read him at z, but which probably began a day or two ago as evidenced by your lack of comments, not to mention that one fews sentences you have mentioned related to the subject demonstrated that you hadn't understood the words.((How's THAT for a run on sentence?))Also, I've already addressed this comment of yours regarding having read him, supposedly. Sorry, but YOU should go back and read, again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~stoo said:

"irish wrote: Posting under pseudonyms which you change as you please
Impersonating other people...."

"Wow, kiddo, just...wow. [As engineer Montgomery Scott of the USS Enterprise] The ironymeter, cap'n...she cannae take much more o' this! She's gonna blow!"

Why on earth would you think of this as evidence of anything "blowing"? She made a simple outline of 'some' of the things you folks do here repeatedly. So, in your mind, presenting nicely organized and neat lists fo what's taling place is a sign of something about to blow? Hmmm....Yes, well, I guess my recognizing that irish is not in any way, shape, or form about to blow would be evidence of MY about to blow, too, huh? You should really stop before making these sorts of comments and see if there really IS any evidence to support saying it. I see nothing at all resembling blowing by anyone except ahahah, buttcrack, and justajoke just above here, though some more than others.

"P.S. kb, I've managed to get my hands on a small collection of Chomsky's books and writings, but I'm out of town at the moment. Mind if I run their titles by you when I get home to see if I have what you'd consider an accurate representation of his work?"

Yes, this would be the exact thing to do. The reason being that there have been may pamphlet type books thrown together by various publishers which were little more than interviews, speeches, etc..These are fine and dandy for those not wishing to get a glimpse into the reasons he has for making many statements he does, or assuming many of the positions he has. Personally, I want to know why he makes some of the seemingly outrageous statements he has made in the past. This is why I decided to study him in the first place. If I had only read one of these small pamphlets, I would have missed VERY much. This is the problem with them. What it does is gives ammo, although inaccurate, to his detractors. They can quote him as saying something, not to mention even saying he doesn't provide footnotes to support it, and they would be correct if simply referring to these books. They are highly inadequate. I'd imagine that he might think they're counter-productive to an extent because of this. He'd be the absolute first to say and often is, that you shouldn't believe anything he says more than you shuld anyone else. But rather if you think you disagree or something, look atthe evidence, challenge it, etc....THIS, is exactly why I have kept saying that it's not a matter of my thinking folks who disagree with his positions are wrong, or that I think he's right, or anything else. I'm saying that they don't even know what his actual positions are, or what they're based on, and this is essential. The response of a person to hearing something they've probably never heard before, as he points out, is the rational response given that it has never been a part of their thought process before. Anyway, I think I've already left a list above, but will again if you so desire.


kb

mybuttcrackiscakedwithmalkinsignorance said:

"Yes, kb, you could argue with yourself and win."

Uhhh....Yes, that's why I said it. I'd kick my ass good!

"irish, screw yourself, dear."

At least it would be with someone worthy. In your case, I'm afraid the great Woody Allen's philosophy on masterbation will do: The part I like most about it is the snuggling afterwards.

"I am not even reading the kibblebrainedidiot's flatulence because"

Bacause you can't respond. You have no game. Just admit it. You ass has been kicked, and you want to go crawl under some of those 10-X plaide shorts for hefty folks at Wal Mart where youhad been reading you 50cent Coulter book.

"it is a waste of my time to respond to moronic conspiracy contradictions."

I haven't mentioned conspiracy once unless in response to your ignorance. Nothing demonstrated as contradictory at all either. As a matter of fact, I explained in quite simple detail that there was no contradiction at all. Perhaps an introductory reading course. More talking out your butt.

"The CIA is bad, but there is no conspiracy in government!"

And? Did you NOT read what I had written? For the most part the C.I.A. is neither. It's supposed to be nothing more than an intelligence gathering agency. How this supposed "intelligence" is used is quite another thing. And was there supposed to be some point between the CIA being bad and the govenrment not conspiring? If you wish to refer to the attempts to kill foreign leaders as conspiring, or just doing business as usual, then fine. I mean, even though it IS
against international law, not to metnion the U.S.'s own laws.

"Make up your mind...oh, that's right."

Nothing to make up from my side. I haven't mentioned conspiracy at all. You did when youwere trying to make some fallacious point about Chomsky.

"You can't because you are a schizo."

I don't need to because there has been no contradiction. I've already pointed this out a couple of times. Have you not read a word? But of you'd like to present some sort of evidence for your mis-perceptions I'd be more than happy to correct you again.

"Length and quality? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...long, yes."

Uhhh....Yes, length and quality. But of you have evidence to prove that something wasn't quality I'd be happy to look at it. So far not a peep. Just a few gas rumblings.

"Quality output? Hardly."

Well, then demonstrate thatthere wasn't. Where? What are you refering to? As usual, you offer nothing but more emoty opinion based on your misperceptions and indoctrination.

"Learn to write and learn to spell."

Doesn't interest me. You can understand what I've written regardless of the typos, NOT spelling mistakes, dumbass. And THESE insignificant and irrelevant items should be the least of your concerns. You should be MUCH more worried about trying to defend some dumbass assertions you've made which I demonstrated to be dumbass. That you're even mentioning something so irrelevant demonstrates your deperation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~thecrackhavingnotbeenadequatelyfilled said:

"Perhaps if you wrote more you'd eventually get to saying something correct"

You haven'T demonstrated a single sentence to be incorrect, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. And when I ask, as I'm doing here yet again, for evidence to support your gas, you offer exactly nothing. Perhaps you've heard me mention this before? Well? Have you? Do you remember?

"even IF it was just accidental. Then, at some point in the distant future, you can get both length AND quality as the left usually does."kb-

"kb attempts at 'humor' and 'wit.'""

Not really. This was just a statement based on the all data and facts presented thus far.

"Projection by kb."

And once again, confirming my earlier statements regarding you folks tring to use concepts which you don'T know how. No, NOT projection omn my part as I have done little more than to provide evidence for most everything I've asserted. You have done nothing. The projection IS yours. Sorry, but this is what ANY psychologist would say who had kept up with out "conversations" for more than a few hours. Actually, tghere are terms for this phenomena, too, but this will most defintiely be getting in way over your pinhead.

"kb's bloviations"

Don't know what you're refering to as you have given no evidence of a "bloviation". Just more gas I'll assume. You can present it inyour next comment if you think you can.

"are reminiscent of monkeys tapping at the keyboard attempting to write Shakespeare."

Then you should REALLY be ashamed to keep trying to have a discussion with such moneky, much less have such difficulty responding to his requests for evidence. ((And yet ANOTHER example of crack's projecting))

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"kickedinthebrain wants to know what articles I've read at z mag."

Yes, I do. Is this a classified state secret? I mean, true, it WILL probably lose you a few of the even more indoctrinated idiots you call friends, if that's possible, I mean, as they consider it treason to even contemplate touching one, but who needs dumbass friends like those?

"I have been aware of it for six months."

Wow! You muct be quite the expert then. So, which articles dod you say? I'm not interested in whether it's been 6 months or 6 hours. I wantto know which articles, and then I want to know what you think you've read and understood.((For those of you who are slow, do you see what I'm doing here? I have managed to get him to admit to knowing Chomsky to a certain extent by confronting him on his earlier dumbass comments, even though he has probably just made this up to try and cover himself. Unfortunately for the liar, he is now put in the position of having to demonstrate that he understands what he's supposedly read. Now, if he can't describe the ocntents of what he has supposedly read it will either mean that he is illiterate and/or indoctinrated or both, and simply can't understand the words, or that he has lied, and he has never really read him before. If he HAS actually read him, and he HAS understood the words, then this will not be difficult at all. However, now that I've mentioned that these were the probable next steps in the sequence, he will most likely try to fight like hell NOT to have to admit to either. This menas that he will do everything possible NOT to respond as anything he does can be used against him. Nothing usual. Just another day in anti-Chomskyville.

"Aaah, that was NOT when I discovered Chomsky."

You haven't yet, right? Yes, an admission of truth would go pretty far you know. I mean, it doesn't in the right-wing world, but then again they don't know truth from lie most fo the time.

"I have a limited budget and will not buy books unless they are required for a course."

Fortunately, most of Chomsky's books can be found at just about any library. Library's are rather cheap, but how would you know. You and your friends probably burned it down while roasting your weenies, drinking PBR, swinging the Bible around, and speaking in tongues.

"When you can say please and get rid of the gratutious insults and behave, I might deign to answer your
questions."

You'll answer my questions when you stop hiding, lying coward. But it's good to see you doing exactly what I said you'd do just one comment up.

JannyMae

Oh, look! Irish doesn't like being called on his hypocrisy!

Too fucking bad.

You started it, asshole. You are the one who started off by insulting people...then whined about being insulted.

You were the one who started distorting what people said, then whined about people making, "false claims," about you.

YOU. ARE. FULL. OF. SHIT.

Now you're trying to pretend that you're just a poor, misunderstood person, who really just wants to be our friend...every other post...

YOU. ARE. FULL. OF. SHIT.

You resent the hell out of me because I called you on your bullshit from day one. That's the bottom line. You deny being obsessed with me, yet you obviously have been all over the internet looking for me, as you have posted personal information about me just to be an asshole.

YOU. ARE. FULL. OF. SHIT.

What is the saddest thing, though, is that you are lying to yourself.

kb

fannybray, returning after promising she wouldn't, as I said she would, said:

"Oh, look! Irish doesn't like being called on his hypocrisy!"

Dumbass statement #1. irish is a "her", and you haven't called her on anything that I can see. You may have called her hypocrite, but that's quite different than calling someone ON their hypocrisy. In order to do this you need to have evidence of some sort. You know, that thing you folks from the right hate like the plague? Where is it?

"Too fucking bad."

((This looks a little like a sign of someone blowing a gasket to me))

"You started it, asshole."

Na nana na naaaaa na. Yeah, irish! You started it. You and kb. This was just a peaceful tightnitwit group of inbred droolers before you two, and those two damn stinky French elitists, came her and start spoiling out cheerleading camp.(whine, whine)

"You are the one who started off by insulting people...then whined about being insulted."

Projection. I'll assume that I did this, too, right bray? It's quite easy to see when I came here what was already taking place. And I said it was time to start whoopin' ass. I did. Ask excoriatedbuttcyst. I stuck that big cross right against his forehead and watched him vomit pea soup, his head spin around, his voice change into yours, fanny, and he shriveled up and blew away light a fart from a goat. You'll do the same if we so desire. Why? Because you do NOT stick to the truth, and this will come back to bit your oversized Supersize ME Ass every time.

"You were the one who started distorting what people said, then whined about people making, "false claims," about you."

Evidence?

"YOU. ARE. FULL. OF. SHIT."

Evidence?

"Now you're trying to pretend that you're just a poor, misunderstood person, who really just wants to be our friend...every other post..."

I haven't seen her saying she wanted to be your friend, though a lefty making a gesture of this sort wouldn't surprise me. You don'T deserve to have someone like her as your friend as far as I can see. Why would she wabt a pathological liar as a friend?

"YOU. ARE. FULL. OF. SHIT."

You already said this without providing any evidence. You know, that repeating these things over and over doesn't make them come true, yes?

"A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth."
-- G. Goebbles

Sorry, bray. Eventhe Nazis were clever enough to see through your crap.

"You resent the hell out of me because I called you on your bullshit from day one. That's the bottom line."

Could you please stop whining this tired old line and direct me towards your evidence? I haven't seen a single sentence of anything which comes remotely close to sounding like this since I've been here.

"You deny being obsessed with me, yet you obviously have been all over the internet looking for me"

That's why you said you weren't going to come back here only to show up again a week later? This is evidence of her looking for you? You folks are so steeped in your own lies you can't see straight even when it's smack in front of your face.

"as you have posted personal information about me just to be an asshole."

Like what?

"YOU. ARE. FULL. OF. SHIT."

Goebbles

"What is the saddest thing, though, is that you are lying to yourself."

Projection.


stoorat

I wrote: "Wow, kiddo, just...wow. [As engineer Montgomery Scott of the USS Enterprise] The ironymeter, cap'n...she cannae take much more o' this! She's gonna blow!"

kb wrote: "Why on earth would you think of this as evidence of anything "blowing"? She made a simple outline of 'some' of the things you folks do here repeatedly. So, in your mind, presenting nicely organized and neat lists fo what's taling place is a sign of something about to blow? Hmmm....Yes, well, I guess my recognizing that irish is not in any way, shape, or form about to blow would be evidence of MY about to blow, too, huh? You should really stop before making these sorts of comments and see if there really IS any evidence to support saying it. I see nothing at all resembling blowing by anyone except ahahah, buttcrack, and justajoke just above here, though some more than others."

Um...no. Wait, what? I didn't accuse her of blowing, whatever that means...go back and read my quote again. It's my trusty ironymeter that's at the threshold of going critical. I have no problem with her neat and orderly list, just found it amusing that all those things apply so neatly to her and her past behavior here. You should really stop before making these sorts of comments and see if there really IS any evidence to support saying it.

stoorat

Here's a partial list, I'm sure that some of them are transcribed speeches or pamphlets, as you described. Let me know which you think are more important to be familiar with:

9-11
Globalization and Resistance
On Afghanistan
On Anarchy
Secrets, Lies, and Democracy
The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many
What Uncle Sam Really Wants
Year 501
Philosophers and Public Philosophy
An Exchange On Manufacturing Consent
Deterring Democracy
Keeping the Rabble In Line
Media Control - The Spectacular Achievements of Propoganda
Necessary Illusions


Okay, yeah, several of those are a far cry from full-fledged books, and I copied down the list you posted earlier, but not all of those titles were immediately available. This is what I have at the moment, so please identify those which you feel would be most appropriate to start with.

kb

stoo, here is a list for now. I'd highly recommend the Manufacturing Consent book as well as film.

Here's a partial list, I'm sure that some of them are transcribed speeches or pamphlets, as you described. Let me know which you think are more important to be familiar with:

Most of those you listed were not, in fact, the better works. I'd recommend these from the list. As mentioned earlier, you can get at least agew of these online for free. Any other folks wishing to expand your knowledge, feel free to go here as well. And remember, when I say this, I'm NOT saying that you will agree with everything or even anything, but rather that you'll know more than you do now, even if it is where Chomsky is off base:

Year 501
http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/year/year-contents.html

Deterring Democracy
http://www.zmag.org/CHOMSKY/dd/dd-contents.html

Necessary Illusions
http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/ni/ni-contents.html

Manurfacturing Consent ((Free video download))
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=138

Counterrevolutionary Violence ((Old, but informative))
http://mass-multi-media.com/CRV/

I haven't downloaded this so I'm not sure how well this works, but you might give it a try, especially if it's free!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Fair Trade
Gift Shop

  • fairtradelogo.jpg

Sites I'm Banned From