My Photo

From the
Fascist's Mouth

What I'm Reading

Answers

« Bush's Global Warming Hits Las Vegas | Main | Paper or Plastic? When Freedom of Choice Goes Too Far »

Comments

mandible claw

"Where? I've seen no evidence that you know the first thing about Israel."kb

"Bullshit. You've seen plenty of evidence."drool

Once again, I have not seen a single sentence of evidence for anything you've tried to babble about. Nothing. I have presented you with MUCH on the other hand.

"I handed your ass to you in your inaccuracies on reguee status and Israeli history. Pretending it never happened ain't gonna work."drool

Huh? Where? You have NOT handed me anything other than a slew of nonsense easy enough for a kindergarten child to pick apart while half asleep and drunk.

You're lying, again. And you're projecting - I picked your arguments to shreds without even trying.

To review, those were:

That Palestinian "refugees" are "created in the normal way." -- False. They are classified as such using unique parameters and are the only group to be classified using that method.

That it's a fallacy to claim most Palestinians haven't had any land stolen from them. -- False. Simple demographics demonstrate that the vast majority of Palestinians were never born in Israel or have lived there. By definition it's impossible to steal something from someone who's never owned it or even used it.

That Israeli actions terrorize Palestinians and are thus terrorism. -- False. Israeli military actions are undertaken with the objective of negating threats to Israelis, the opposite of terrorism.

And so on, and so forth. You can keep ignoring these, just like you keep pretending I don't understand your arguments despite irrefutable demonstration that this is not true. It simply underscores the fact that you are a dishonest debater and you apparently have no further depth to your arguments and are unable to develop any.

mandible claw

Posted by: kb | August 13, 2008 at 04:56 AM

"...from the whole lot of nothing you just posted"

Don't know what you're referring to. I didn't see "nothing". I saw lots of something.

Yup - white noise. Repetitious and empty.

"thinking it was proving a point of some sort?"drool

Uhhh....Just because you don't understand points doesn't mean they're not there.

Er.. What's not to understand? You believe the US is forming colonies, you believe that assessment doesn't clash with the definition of the word colony, you believe Australia is a European colony that was stolen from its original inhabitants, etc. The fact that you're wrong doesn't indicate that I lack understanding. Go back and read the article I posted about incompetence.

"I'd say good idea, but it pains me to think of what you will come up with next."drool

You didn't understand the first points, so it probably doesn't really matter.

Funny, every time you claim I don't understand what you're saying I seem to be able to summarize it precisely. Are you getting an inkling that that tactic is kinda backfiring?

"Let's see, kb's dropped the Israel argument entirely"drool

"What Israel argument?"kb

"The one you conveniently abandoned when I exposed you as ignorant, bigoted and psychotic."drool

Doesn't answer my question.

You know which one. You're being obtuse to avoid getting smashed in the skull with the truth-bat again.

Also has no basis in reality as youhave never exposed me as anything.

Technically you're right - I apologize. You exposed yourself. It's wrong of me to take credit where it isn't due.

Once again, gas.

You ignore a majority of the factors influencing the conflict between the two sides; You can't even come up with a shred of justification as to how a military strike targeting terrorist infrastructure is the same as attacks on civilians; You claim that the idea most Palestinians aren't refugees is laughable - yet when demonstrated via demographics that this is the case you simpy pretend it's never happened - Oh, and your brilliant solution for solving the conflict is giving the people who are trying to kill Israeli civilians more and better weapons.

You're supposedly a qualified psychiatrist. A self-evaluation might help.

But if you have a single sentence demonstrating such fact, by all means, present it.

It's all over the shop, buddy. You can't escape it.


Otherwise keep your pretentious drooling to yourself.

I write concise, factual and logical arguments. You write convoluted, pretentious, high-handed bollocks. Projection - it's not just a river in Egypt.

"is ignoring where I demonstrated irrefutably that he's wrong when he claims I don't understand his arguments"drool

"Where? I've seen no evidence that you know the first thing about Israel."kb

"Bullshit. You've seen plenty of evidence."drool

Once again, I have not seen a single sentence of evidence for anything you've tried to babble about. Nothing. I have presented you with MUCH on the other hand.

You've presented me with NOTHING. Where do you get off making wild claims like that - do you think everyone else is not reading the forum or something? What's your evidence been? Go on, summarize it - and no dissembling or weaseling out with "if you didn't see it that's because you're illiterate." The ONLY point you've made about Israel is that YOU PERSONALLY take the common definition of terrorism to include Israel's military actions in the territories - no why, how, wherefore - you can't even back up your definiton with logic when I call you on it. You made no attempt to even address issues like Sderot, Qassam launches, etc - or to the fact that international law explicitly states that conducting an act of aggression from within a civilian area renders the aggressor culpable for any civilian deaths that result from retaliatory action. No attempt to address the fact that the Palestinians are the only group in existence to which their specific refugee classification applies. Nothing but a bunch of bloviating bullshit about proof and evidence. You spent half as much time actually providing evidence and facts as you do saying you've provided them, you'd get along a lot better with these debate things.

"I handed your ass to you in your inaccuracies on refugee status and Israeli history. Pretending it never happened ain't gonna work."drool

Huh? Where? You have NOT handed me anything other than a slew of nonsense easy enough for a kindergarten child to pick apart while half asleep and drunk.

So do it. Pick it apart - go on. Prove how the Palestinians are refugees in "the normal way." Put your money where your mouth is, I dare ya.

"And you obviously do NOT understand my arguments because you don't even seem to be the least bit aware of what I'm discussing nmost of the time, as I've "irrefutably" demonstrated repeatedly."

Uhh....There is probably some truth to this. What you are referring to as "arguments" sort of don't really match what I would consider an argument. ANd you have irrefutably demonstrated nothing since I've been on this blog. Nothing.

Putting aside that it was you who posted the first paragraph, and you are actually replying to yourself, I have indeed irrefutably demonstrated, on this very blog no less, that I understand your arguments COMPLETELY. Since you pretended it didn't happen last time, here is a repeat:

Okay, I'm going to play your silly game. Your supposed points included, among others:
-The justifications made by proponents of preemptive war bear as much weight as would, by your analogy, a comparison of preemptive war and preemptive treatment of a medical condition;
-Those who defend preemptive war are by doing so demonstrating that they lack the understanding and/or do not see a need, or fail to understand that there may be a need, or understand that there may be a need to, but deliberately avoid, weighing the moral implications of preemptive war and its implications in the real world, making their viewpoint as informed and integral as, to use your example, comparing preemptive war with preemptive medical treatment;
-The group you designate "anti-Chomskyites" disagree with Chomsky on the basis that they think they are disagreeing with a certain political viewpoint when they are not sufficiently knowledgeable of his work to even know whether the viewpoint they are puportedly disagreeing with is in fact the Chomsky himself holds;
-These people would rather read secondary sources such as Amazon reviews and books by David Horowitz, and base their opposition to Chomsky on that material, than to read Chomsky himself;
-This is because they are either too unintelligent to understand Chomsky's works, or they are afraid that his work would prove their own political viewpoints to be misguided, or they are simply intellectually lazy, or a combination of the above;
-This and similar worldviews and the accompanying insulation from factors that would cause a rethink of the worldview in question and are in fact a part of that worldview, are symptomatic of the thought processes of many conservatives; They don't know any better whether by design or accident, they don't want to know any better, and they will not know any better unless they make the effort to do so.
Et cetera.
Posted by: mandible claw | July 15, 2008 at 04:01 AM


"Bullshit. You've irrefutably demonstrated nothing but your own stubborn refusal to accept facts."drool

I have seen you present no facts. I have presented thousands. Your projection is just gushing out like green pea soup from Linda Blair's piehole.

Name me one fact that you have presented - go on. You are so fucking pig-ignorant you actually laughed at the idea that most Palestinians weren't born in Israel and have never lived there - you know shit.

"I summarized the points of one of your satire dialogues with complete accuracy"drool

You demonstrated that you weren't even remotely aware of what the satire was even about as I demonstrated.

You're a fucking liar. For the edification of those reading this, and to demonstrate to them just how much of a liar you are, here is the passage in question, once again:

Okay, I'm going to play your silly game. Your supposed points included, among others:
-The justifications made by proponents of preemptive war bear as much weight as would, by your analogy, a comparison of preemptive war and preemptive treatment of a medical condition;
-Those who defend preemptive war are by doing so demonstrating that they lack the understanding and/or do not see a need, or fail to understand that there may be a need, or understand that there may be a need to, but deliberately avoid, weighing the moral implications of preemptive war and its implications in the real world, making their viewpoint as informed and integral as, to use your example, comparing preemptive war with preemptive medical treatment;
-The group you designate "anti-Chomskyites" disagree with Chomsky on the basis that they think they are disagreeing with a certain political viewpoint when they are not sufficiently knowledgeable of his work to even know whether the viewpoint they are puportedly disagreeing with is in fact the Chomsky himself holds;
-These people would rather read secondary sources such as Amazon reviews and books by David Horowitz, and base their opposition to Chomsky on that material, than to read Chomsky himself;
-This is because they are either too unintelligent to understand Chomsky's works, or they are afraid that his work would prove their own political viewpoints to be misguided, or they are simply intellectually lazy, or a combination of the above;
-This and similar worldviews and the accompanying insulation from factors that would cause a rethink of the worldview in question and are in fact a part of that worldview, are symptomatic of the thought processes of many conservatives; They don't know any better whether by design or accident, they don't want to know any better, and they will not know any better unless they make the effort to do so.
Et cetera.
Posted by: mandible claw | July 15, 2008 at 04:01 AM

You thought they were about my thinking Chomsky was right and everyone else was wrong. Nothing of the sort. You're illiterate.

You are referring to a completely different post to the one I am talking about. You know, the one you are trying to pretend doesn't exist. For the record, here it is for a third time:

Okay, I'm going to play your silly game. Your supposed points included, among others:
-The justifications made by proponents of preemptive war bear as much weight as would, by your analogy, a comparison of preemptive war and preemptive treatment of a medical condition;
-Those who defend preemptive war are by doing so demonstrating that they lack the understanding and/or do not see a need, or fail to understand that there may be a need, or understand that there may be a need to, but deliberately avoid, weighing the moral implications of preemptive war and its implications in the real world, making their viewpoint as informed and integral as, to use your example, comparing preemptive war with preemptive medical treatment;
-The group you designate "anti-Chomskyites" disagree with Chomsky on the basis that they think they are disagreeing with a certain political viewpoint when they are not sufficiently knowledgeable of his work to even know whether the viewpoint they are puportedly disagreeing with is in fact the Chomsky himself holds;
-These people would rather read secondary sources such as Amazon reviews and books by David Horowitz, and base their opposition to Chomsky on that material, than to read Chomsky himself;
-This is because they are either too unintelligent to understand Chomsky's works, or they are afraid that his work would prove their own political viewpoints to be misguided, or they are simply intellectually lazy, or a combination of the above;
-This and similar worldviews and the accompanying insulation from factors that would cause a rethink of the worldview in question and are in fact a part of that worldview, are symptomatic of the thought processes of many conservatives; They don't know any better whether by design or accident, they don't want to know any better, and they will not know any better unless they make the effort to do so.
Et cetera.
Posted by: mandible claw | July 15, 2008 at 04:01 AM

"in one of these threads, and I know you saw it because I mentioned it to you dozens of times and you never claimed to have missed it."drool

I've responded demonstrating each time that you have no idea what you were talking about. Period.

Bullshit. You have NOT ONCE responded to that post - you have pretended it doesn't exist since I first posted it. Just so you can't miss it, here it is again:

Okay, I'm going to play your silly game. Your supposed points included, among others:
-The justifications made by proponents of preemptive war bear as much weight as would, by your analogy, a comparison of preemptive war and preemptive treatment of a medical condition;
-Those who defend preemptive war are by doing so demonstrating that they lack the understanding and/or do not see a need, or fail to understand that there may be a need, or understand that there may be a need to, but deliberately avoid, weighing the moral implications of preemptive war and its implications in the real world, making their viewpoint as informed and integral as, to use your example, comparing preemptive war with preemptive medical treatment;
-The group you designate "anti-Chomskyites" disagree with Chomsky on the basis that they think they are disagreeing with a certain political viewpoint when they are not sufficiently knowledgeable of his work to even know whether the viewpoint they are puportedly disagreeing with is in fact the Chomsky himself holds;
-These people would rather read secondary sources such as Amazon reviews and books by David Horowitz, and base their opposition to Chomsky on that material, than to read Chomsky himself;
-This is because they are either too unintelligent to understand Chomsky's works, or they are afraid that his work would prove their own political viewpoints to be misguided, or they are simply intellectually lazy, or a combination of the above;
-This and similar worldviews and the accompanying insulation from factors that would cause a rethink of the worldview in question and are in fact a part of that worldview, are symptomatic of the thought processes of many conservatives; They don't know any better whether by design or accident, they don't want to know any better, and they will not know any better unless they make the effort to do so.
Et cetera.
Posted by: mandible claw | July 15, 2008 at 04:01 AM

"Plus, I know you read all of my posts addressed to you. You're flat out lying and STILL trying to push the ignorance angle despite the fact I've proven to you irrefutably that it's utterly false."drool

Uhhh...If you can show a lie I've told, then do it. I can show MANY that you have. In fact, I just have again. You asserted that you did something regarding a Chomsky satire and you didn't. Nothing.

There's your lie, right there. Here's my proof, again:

Okay, I'm going to play your silly game. Your supposed points included, among others:
-The justifications made by proponents of preemptive war bear as much weight as would, by your analogy, a comparison of preemptive war and preemptive treatment of a medical condition;
-Those who defend preemptive war are by doing so demonstrating that they lack the understanding and/or do not see a need, or fail to understand that there may be a need, or understand that there may be a need to, but deliberately avoid, weighing the moral implications of preemptive war and its implications in the real world, making their viewpoint as informed and integral as, to use your example, comparing preemptive war with preemptive medical treatment;
-The group you designate "anti-Chomskyites" disagree with Chomsky on the basis that they think they are disagreeing with a certain political viewpoint when they are not sufficiently knowledgeable of his work to even know whether the viewpoint they are puportedly disagreeing with is in fact the Chomsky himself holds;
-These people would rather read secondary sources such as Amazon reviews and books by David Horowitz, and base their opposition to Chomsky on that material, than to read Chomsky himself;
-This is because they are either too unintelligent to understand Chomsky's works, or they are afraid that his work would prove their own political viewpoints to be misguided, or they are simply intellectually lazy, or a combination of the above;
-This and similar worldviews and the accompanying insulation from factors that would cause a rethink of the worldview in question and are in fact a part of that worldview, are symptomatic of the thought processes of many conservatives; They don't know any better whether by design or accident, they don't want to know any better, and they will not know any better unless they make the effort to do so.
Et cetera.
Posted by: mandible claw | July 15, 2008 at 04:01 AM

You proved that you didn't understand the words.

Bullshit. I proved that I understand them perfectly. I got nuance from that satire that you probably don't even realise is there. But hey, keep on keeping on with the lie that I proved nothing - The proof's riiiight here for everyone to see. All it does is reinforce how badly you actually lost.

Sad. Really sad. But you're young. With a little shock therapy, a lobotomy, and a few weeks sitting in the middle of the freeway, you MAY be helped.

You're projecting, again. I've been there, done that, bought the shirt when it comes to your claptrap liberal world view. I know more about liberalism than you do, and you know a hell of a lot less than you think. I grew out of it because I am fundamentally incapable of reconciling gross logical and factual errors - you're still throwing up flimsy clouds of chaff to blind your own intellect - and that intellect appears to be of poor enough quality that the tactic is still succeeding when you're almost double my age. If one of the two of us needs help, it ain't me.

mandible claw

"Plus, I know you read all of my posts addressed to you. You're flat out lying and STILL trying to push the ignorance angle despite the fact I've proven to you irrefutably that it's utterly false."drool

Uhhh...If you can show a lie I've told, then do it. I can show MANY that you have. In fact, I just have again. You asserted that you did something regarding a Chomsky satire and you didn't. Nothing.

There's your lie, right there. Here's my proof, again:

Okay, I'm going to play your silly game. Your supposed points included, among others:
-The justifications made by proponents of preemptive war bear as much weight as would, by your analogy, a comparison of preemptive war and preemptive treatment of a medical condition;
-Those who defend preemptive war are by doing so demonstrating that they lack the understanding and/or do not see a need, or fail to understand that there may be a need, or understand that there may be a need to, but deliberately avoid, weighing the moral implications of preemptive war and its implications in the real world, making their viewpoint as informed and integral as, to use your example, comparing preemptive war with preemptive medical treatment;
-The group you designate "anti-Chomskyites" disagree with Chomsky on the basis that they think they are disagreeing with a certain political viewpoint when they are not sufficiently knowledgeable of his work to even know whether the viewpoint they are puportedly disagreeing with is in fact the Chomsky himself holds;
-These people would rather read secondary sources such as Amazon reviews and books by David Horowitz, and base their opposition to Chomsky on that material, than to read Chomsky himself;
-This is because they are either too unintelligent to understand Chomsky's works, or they are afraid that his work would prove their own political viewpoints to be misguided, or they are simply intellectually lazy, or a combination of the above;
-This and similar worldviews and the accompanying insulation from factors that would cause a rethink of the worldview in question and are in fact a part of that worldview, are symptomatic of the thought processes of many conservatives; They don't know any better whether by design or accident, they don't want to know any better, and they will not know any better unless they make the effort to do so.
Et cetera.
Posted by: mandible claw | July 15, 2008 at 04:01 AM


You proved that you didn't understand the words.

Bullshit. I proved that I understand them perfectly. I got nuance from that satire that you probably don't even realise is there. But hey, keep on keeping on with the lie that I proved nothing - The proof's riiiight here for everyone to see. All it does is reinforce how badly you actually lost.

Sad. Really sad. But you're young. With a little shock therapy, a lobotomy, and a few weeks sitting in the middle of the freeway, you MAY be helped.

You're projecting, again. I've been there, done that, bought the shirt when it comes to your claptrap liberal world view. I know more about liberalism than you do, and you know a hell of a lot less than you think. I grew out of it because I am fundamentally incapable of reconciling gross logical and factual errors - you're still throwing up flimsy clouds of chaff to blind your own intellect - and that intellect appears to be of poor enough quality that the tactic is still succeeding when you're almost double my age. If one of the two of us needs help, it ain't me.

Posted by: mandible claw | August 14, 2008 at 02:15 AM

mandible claw

Shit.

mandible claw

Plus, I know you read all of my posts addressed to you. You're flat out lying and STILL trying to push the ignorance angle despite the fact I've proven to you irrefutably that it's utterly false."drool

Uhhh...If you can show a lie I've told, then do it. I can show MANY that you have. In fact, I just have again. You asserted that you did something regarding a Chomsky satire and you didn't. Nothing.

There's your lie, right there. Here's my proof, again:

Okay, I'm going to play your silly game. Your supposed points included, among others:
-The justifications made by proponents of preemptive war bear as much weight as would, by your analogy, a comparison of preemptive war and preemptive treatment of a medical condition;
-Those who defend preemptive war are by doing so demonstrating that they lack the understanding and/or do not see a need, or fail to understand that there may be a need, or understand that there may be a need to, but deliberately avoid, weighing the moral implications of preemptive war and its implications in the real world, making their viewpoint as informed and integral as, to use your example, comparing preemptive war with preemptive medical treatment;
-The group you designate "anti-Chomskyites" disagree with Chomsky on the basis that they think they are disagreeing with a certain political viewpoint when they are not sufficiently knowledgeable of his work to even know whether the viewpoint they are puportedly disagreeing with is in fact the Chomsky himself holds;
-These people would rather read secondary sources such as Amazon reviews and books by David Horowitz, and base their opposition to Chomsky on that material, than to read Chomsky himself;
-This is because they are either too unintelligent to understand Chomsky's works, or they are afraid that his work would prove their own political viewpoints to be misguided, or they are simply intellectually lazy, or a combination of the above;
-This and similar worldviews and the accompanying insulation from factors that would cause a rethink of the worldview in question and are in fact a part of that worldview, are symptomatic of the thought processes of many conservatives; They don't know any better whether by design or accident, they don't want to know any better, and they will not know any better unless they make the effort to do so.
Et cetera.
Posted by: mandible claw | July 15, 2008 at 04:01 AM

You proved that you didn't understand the words.

Bullshit. I proved that I understand them perfectly. I got nuance from that satire that you probably don't even realise is there. But hey, keep on keeping on with the lie that I proved nothing - The proof's riiiight here for everyone to see. All it does is reinforce how badly you actually lost.

Sad. Really sad. But you're young. With a little shock therapy, a lobotomy, and a few weeks sitting in the middle of the freeway, you MAY be helped.

You're projecting, again. I've been there, done that, bought the shirt when it comes to your claptrap liberal world view. I know more about liberalism than you do, and you know a hell of a lot less than you think. I grew out of it because I am fundamentally incapable of reconciling gross logical and factual errors - you're still throwing up flimsy clouds of chaff to blind your own intellect - and that intellect appears to be of poor enough quality that the tactic is still succeeding when you're almost double my age. If one of the two of us needs help, it ain't me.

mandible claw

Third time's a charm, or so it would appear.

mandible claw

Posted by: kb | August 13, 2008 at 04:43 AM

"Wow, that's a.. um .. LOT of crap kb has posted. If it takes that much backup to justify belieeeeeving in Castro, wouldn't you think that indicates there's something wrong?"drool

Uhhh....Don't know what this is referring to. "Lot of crap"? Where? No evidence given of anything I've said being incorrect.

Except that the Cuban emigres to a man disagree with you entirely. I guess you must have figured out some way of convincing yourself that's not evidence.

And YOUR saying that something is "a lot of crap" hardly makes it so. But if you have any evidence, please let's have it.

I already gave it to you. Go read what the Cuban emigres say.

"And? Why not discuss the places YOU have annexed? These are the ones YOU are responsible for. Jeez! For a group who likes to pretend that people should be responsible you folks sure have no idea how to do it.kb

""Yeah guys, let's have a brainstorm over all the different colonies of the AmeriKKKan empire we can think of. Lolz.."drool

"Uhhh....Are you going to try and say there aren't any?"kb

"First of all I'm going to point out your fundamental failure to grasp reality."drool

Uhhh....No, you are not. You haven't yet, and you will not now. But it will be amusing to watch you try. Sort of like asking Mike from Monster's Inc. say that he's going to tell me about reality. You know, from a created animation character.

This has what to do with what? I have, in fact, demonstrated repeatedly and so often your fundamental failure to grasp reality that it's getting tiring. Exhibit A - your incredulity when I pointed out that most Palestinians weren't born in Israel and have never lived there; Exhibit B: Your insistence on comparing a simple mathematical equation to a discussion on academic standards; Exhibit C: The fact you keep harping on about me failing to understand your satires - when I demonstrated quite clearly to you that I understand them perfectly; Exhibit D: Your claims that "it's been demonstrated" I'm not a journalist - despite me never having claimed to be one, or denied being one, and the fact that you have nothing in the way of evidence to even support your position either way, yet claim that something has been "demonstrated." Et cetera et cetera, I think we all get the point.

"You rattle on about the places "you" (ie. me) have annexed"drool

You know what I mean.

Yes, I do. You are implying that I am culpable for the US supposedly annexing countries, despite the fact that I have never even been to the US, let alone influenced its foreign policy in any conceivable way, shape or form.

That being said, you annexed Australia if I remember correctly.

Yes, me personally. Never mind that my grandparents moved there from Europe about 50 years ago.

"in reference to supposed American colonies, apparently ignoring the fact that YOU are American and I'm not."drool

Why would I ignore this fact? Never for a second.

I'm not sure. Why would you imply that I am somehow responsible for the US' foreign policy? I think it's a fairly safe bet that you've had some contribution to the US economy and political process over the years - I've had none, and there's really none I conceivably could have, unless for some odd reason I decided to send a cheque to a US political campaign.

ANd given that you're pretty much arguing the same line as any rightwing nutcase from the U.S. I will go ahead an assume that you will try and make the same dumbass arguments they would.

Right, because you understand conservatives sooooo well.

Therefore, you ARE a U.S. drooler by proxy, if ou don't mind, and I will refer to you as one if I so desire.

Go right ahead. Given that you've taken issue with others commenting on John Edwards' infidelity, I have as much basis to refer to you as a cheating bastard as you do when referring to me as a US rightwing drooler - so I'll return the favour.

You don't wish to be lumped together with them, and I sure as hell wouldn't, then quit acting like them and saying the same dumbass things.

I don't have a problem with being lumped together with them. It's just a little odd that you'd blame me, personally, for your own country's foreign policy. If you're so opposed to that policy, and yet it's still in force, that means you've failed to change it. It says nothing about me.

It's not all that difficult, unless of course your indoctrination prevents you from doing so.

My supposed indoctrination, which you constantly refer to but seem curiously unable to prove, is what makes me find it odd that you'd personally hold me responsible for the foreign policy of a country I've never been to?
I think what you might have done is mixed up the words "logic" and "indoctrination" - it seems what you're referring to is actually my logic, which would explain why you are able to identify that it's a trait you lack yourself.

"Besides that, I wonder if you could point out some of these colonies? You know, since you're always on about how hard it is to prove a negative."drool

Already have. They're all over the place. Iraq probably being the newest one.

Er.. You do realise, of course, that Iraq has a democratically elected government comprised of Iraqis, who set their own policies, and doesn't even have a permanent U.S. population, right?

And don't you even thing for a second that when, or IF, we ever pull out, which I have said will be never, that this means that we're not still there for a reason.

Since apparently your definition is predicated solely on military personnel being or having been present in a country, does that mean Germany and Japan are American colonies as well? Presumably the Palestinian territories are now American colonies too - weren't some U.S. personnel there training security forces a while back?

Sure the facade may appear as if someone else is n charge, this is where the term "puppet" comes from, but you can rest assured that the U.S. WILL probably be in control.

I would ask you to present something in the way of "evidence" suggesting Iraq's government is a puppet regime. But I get the feeling that might be a waste of time and result in a 10,000 word opinion piece by some liberal hack being copy-pasted, and a glaring lack of facts or evidence.

"Perhaps we need to define "colony"."kb

"You mean REdefine colony, to mean something that it doesn't mean"drool

No, or I would have said this. I mean define what colony means. You know, like Hawaii is a colony of the U.S.

Fine - as long as you also classify Germany and Japan as U.S. colonies. South Korea, too.

"but that fits the way you want to use the word."drool

It fits because it is accurate. Has nothing to do with my "wanting" anything. STILL getting these things confused.

Oh but you do want it. You want it so badly that you mangle syntax, logic and about a dozen other fundamental debate tools to try and make it so.

"Similarly to your "definition" of terrorism."drool

Don't know what you're referring to. I use the same definition of terrorism as Chomsky does, as Reagan did, and as the U.S. military has used.

Maybe you do. But you apply it to things that it doesn't cover. Things that it specifically excludes. And you think this proves something other than the fact you are logic-challenged.

The only problem is that if we use these definitions that the U.S. ends up being one of the biggest terrorist countries in the world, as has been noted all over the place.

Maybe - when using the definition in the incorrect fashion that you tend to employ. The US ends up being one of the least terroristic countries using the definition accurately.

Well, it would appear that YOU/U.S. government needs to sort of make a new definition whereby this inconvenient fact isn't so obvious.

I'm fairly certain the US government would have done so, if it was actually a problem. The fact that they haven't appears to demonstrate how looney fringe your opinions actually are. How sad.

"That being said, perhaps you really ARE from Australia, because ANY American would surely be aware of dozens of these."kb

"You're hallucinating, again."drool

No evidence. Just another gush of gas.

Referring to non-existent U.S. colonies is, in fact, an indication of hallucination.

"But then again being from Australia you should know that it, too, is a European colony stolen from it's inhabitants through the usual methods, though perhaps a little less bloody than usual."kb

"Make that "was," several hundred years ago."drool

And? Out of the entire history of that land mass where Australia now sits, a couple of hundred years is nothing.

Er.. And? Like I said - you got a problem, take it up with the British monarchy 200 years ago, not me.

But I'm sure most of the aboriginal people would agree with you and balk at what I'm putting forth, namely the truth, albeit ugly.

Wow, the ugly truth - white people first migrated to Australia a couple hundred years ago. I'm sure while you're getting the Aboriginals on board with your anti-imperialist sentiment you could offer to relieve them of the free access to world class healthcare and education, free housing and welfare that the evil white man has burdened them with, and offer to set them free into the bush.

"And if you have a problem with that, you may want to consider taking it up with the British monarchy at the time."drool

Oh, I would. I do.

You personalluy convey your grievances to monarchs who have been dead for over a hundred years? Wow, you really are talented.

Don't have much love for any monarchy. Don't believe in them. Never have, never will.

Well then, I'm not entirely sure why you don't have more sympathy for the people they banished to a far-off boiling desert, then.

"Not that those new "guests" weren't the bloody types to begin with. If you know what I mean."kb

"Yeah, all those bloodthirsty crooks who were sent there for stealing loaves of bread and such, how horrific."drool

Uhhh...You know as well as I do this is not all who were sent there.

I know a lot better than you do that a disproportionate number were sent in order to relieve prison overcrowding, and the low threshold for the death penalty in those days meant that a very high proportion of the crimes they'd committed were extremely minor. Don't fuck with me on Australian history, please.

mandible claw

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Attendee: Brought peace?

Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!

Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.

Dissenter: Uh, well, one.

Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there's one. But otherwise, we're solid.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Fair Trade
Gift Shop

  • fairtradelogo.jpg

Sites I'm Banned From