If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The fact that you avoid the truth at all costs and have been doing so regardless of the documented facts presented time and again over the years, is all an intellectually honest mind needs to see you for the blinkered ideologue that you are, Wendy.
As for use of the English language, do enlighten us with your vast experience.
edited to add: I might remind you that these boards and others like them are outlets for one's personal views, not professional endeavours. If tThe Site wished to pay me for posting, you might have a case to make.
Are you actually disagreeing with his content or his presentation, on this thread?
You keep referring to "uncredited sources" from the past, but you haven't really put up any significant argument against what he has to say about neo-cons on this thread which is, after all, about neo-cons.
It seems to me that he has summed up the neo-con position very adequately......
But then dumbing down is in fashion.
STRAWMAN!!!!!
And a bad one at that.
Sorry can't do. My English is nothing to boast about. And I have never done so. Just state that your structure and rhetorics weih down any extraordinary vocabulary you might have. As if you try too hard.
And no, I don't avoid a truth. I rather embrace another one than you do.
This is like in Symposium, where Sokrates criticises Agathon for his empty rhetorics (in your case vocabulary), and where Eryksimachos is just plain arrogant - Then again I am no Plato nor Sokrates
Thats true - you didn't put up an argument - you just dishonestly presented something that you said was a trabslation of what he said - and of course it wasn't.
You didn't even try to deal with his criticism of your styleee either.
Did you?
Disagreeing with his content, which is only worsened by his presentation
And no, you are right, I haven't commented on anything regarding the neo-cons as frankly my knowledge about them is very basic, and I didn't involve myself in the points about Zionism being a factor etc etc etc as I don't really feel for it now, if that is what you're refering to.
Bias is not a basis for attacking the substance of an argument. But then Neocons delight in such strawman exercises so as to avoid facing the lack of historic legitimacy behind their ideological positions.
Well i wasn't going too because i found it funny. I never actually said i disagreed with anything he said (besides peak oil in another thread), infact he is spot on about the neo cons*. He is also right about "But then dumbing down is in fashion". I said "Stauss" he farted half a dozen paragraphs explaining it all, so I just left it as one insulting criticism against mine.
*and Israel
So you have patented reality?
As for reality, no i dont hold the patent. I merely recognise it for what it is rather than revising it to fit some hand-me-down ideological preference.
Sadly I don't hold the patent on that either. I might be obscenely wealthy otherwise.
Explain please - in my "strawman" thread for preference.
Now this a good fucking idea. I could make trillions from resale rights alone!!!
Did you mean reality reality or perceptive reality? Doesn't matter, that's $5 to me!!!
I was just intending on being rude/derailing the thread but it is a strawman. Freethepeople is correct.
Wendy/Jacq/God, your choice...
Obviously you don't recognise reality for what it is, when you don't include the factor which is perceptions that gives reality a whole lot of facets.
You'd be a fool to believe that you sit with the universale truth of how reality is.
Small test really...
What color is the dress on the right?
Well, right of who?
And you have fucked up already, because colour isn't a property of the dress, it's a property of your perception of the dress. Oh and it's not a dress, it's an image of a dress.(And so forth...)
I used to work as a color-matcher and metamerism is one of those wacky things that makes all racism look like the toy of fools.
Now, explain all that to Clandestine.
My Chemistry teacher always used to go crazy when we had to state what color whatever blend had turned into. He said that was the reason girls shouldn't be allowed entrance to the lab
What are their aims/illicit ends? Please answer concisely, and briefly if you can.
I read your rant, no mention of aims. Sure getting rid of constitutional protections etc, but why?
Your dual-loyalty smear is not suprising to hear, Pat Buchanan likes talking about that as well. More neocons who are not jewish: Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, and Max Boot.
Once again, shall we we resume discussion of the topic to which this thread was intended or shall we have three more pages of your diversionary blather?
And yes, there are many non-Jewish Neocons, however the central binding aspect they share is a deeply rooted adherence to Zionism (or must we remind you that Zionism is equally subscribed to by many fundamentalist "Christians" as well).
The control and intimidation exerted by the Zionist lobby in Washington has been documented for decades, Neoconservatism and its control of all but the Judicial Branch (though soon enough to be accomplished as things are going) is merely the coming of age of that behind the scenes manipulation.
Even your hero Ariel "The War Criminal" Sharon can acknowledge that reality:
I was joking about ZOG but do you believe in ZOG clandy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Occupied_Government
What is a Likudnik Zionist? Is that a Likudnik who voted against disengagement, or a Likudnik like Sharon who pushed it through against the majority wishes of the Likud?
Again, those documents are built on perception. Are they not? I mean, yes some things have without a doubt happened, but the eyes we choose to observe these with can vary all according to the chosen source. Get the drill?
So no, I have merely tried to prove a point to deaf ears and closed eyes. Maybe it's time YOU began to open your eyes? Not with the meaning of accepting others point of view, but just as much as ackowledge that they are as legitimite as yours? Or are you taking the totalitarian stand here?