Ya, that, or the quoted, cited, objectively verifiable words of the video’s creators where they say what their intentions were and when they describe the use they wish the video would be put to.
So maybe it’s all that objective and verifiable evidence… or their imaginations.
Could go either way.
And in performing due diligence you missed all the specific quotes that have been provided and instead decided folks here must be making things up, eh? :dubious:
Then again, I guess you have yet to retract your mistake on why a group that most often translates state-sponsored, state-controlled (often state-created) media is comparable with cherrypicking individual drunk kids and using them to stand in for the American Jewish community, Zionism, and Israeli politics/opinion. I suppose, though, that an argument which responds to the facts that show why this video is deliberately deceptive with “But MEMRI!!!” isn’t really all that cogent anyways.
So how does that confirm your cherry-picking theory?
As for whether the disappearance of the video is “censorship,” I alluded to the semantic problem in my second post. (You have read the thread, haven’t you, FinnAgain?) Is government the only body capable of engaging in censorship? What about corporate censorship? But hey, let’s not quibble over semantics. Call it “suppression” if that helps you.
Suppression, censorship, whatever, the point is that there seems to be a concerted effort to cause a video that is politically inconvenient for Israel to disappear from the internet.
The guy can’t even help from lying about the length of the raw video. Of course, as he and his compatriot admitted that their goal all along was to set out to craft a deceptive hack job designed to use the fallacy of composition to make their claims about the American Jewish community, Zionism and Israel, this shouldn’t be much of a surprise.
What is a surprise is that you actually think that the video wasn’t cherrypicked, when American Jews overwhelmingly voted for Obama, somehow one hour (or two, depending on the fiction) contains nothing but 100% Obama haters and racists. Gee, how very coincidental. Also surprising is that given the dishonest nature of the video itself, you’ve decided that its creator’s words can be trusted, even when he can’t even decide if he shot a certain length of raw footage, or double that.
Private sites not showing things that you, spoke, want them to?
Censorship! Book burning! Ayieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
To the battlements! There’s some anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic dishonesty out there, and spoke demands that someone (else) pay for it to be seen!
Believe it or not, but realizing that your argument is bombastic, inflammatory bullshit designed to paint your belief in your entitlement to other people’s money, as a free speech issue, doesn’t mean I somehow didn’t read the thread. That’s kinda silly of you to allege, dontcha think?
Come on spoke, as long as you’re engaging in bombastic bullshit, really cut loose.
Private individuals deciding not to spend their own money on bandwidth isn’t suppression, it’s fascism! It’s not fascism, it’s Stalinism! It’s not Stalinism, it’s kitten-eating baby-seal-clubbing Nazism!
Sorry, but no.
You can get all upset that private individuals aren’t spending their own money on bandwidth to show certain videos, that’s your call. At least phrase it accurately and just say that you believe that you’re entitled to have other people support, out of their own pockets, your desire to see certain videos. None of this silly faux “free speech!” stuff, (beyond the fact that it’s outside of the scope of the thread and the OP has asked you not to keep bringing up these silly inflammatory nuggets of silly).
If you’d like to debate why you believe that private companies have some sort of obligation to publish absolutely everything that comes over their desk, at their own expense and with absolutely no editorial oversight at all lest they be ‘censoring’, ‘suppressing’ nogoodniks , you should probably start another thread for that as the OP has requested.
Interesting. You do know that the prime point of fact is that the video’s creators deliberately set out to create a deceptive politically motivated piece whose purpose was conflating some American Jews with the American Jewish community with Zionism with Israel with Israeli politics-and-culture via some sort of alchemical transitive property o’ stupid?
Right?
I trust that you just misspelled “is not politically inconvenient at all because it’s based on slimy logical fallacies and malicious deception.” Because, surely after being clubbed solidly with a clue-by-four, nobody could actually go on to argue that this bit of dishonesty reflects poorly upon anybody but those who made it, those specific people who were in it (and possibly the people who raised them) and those who’d use it to try to argue that it somehow reflects poorly on Israel, Jews, American Jews, etc…
Well that’s weird, because here’s Blumenthal interviewing some pro-Obama Israelis (who I gather are part of Israel’s far left). What is that crazy self-hating Jew Blumenthal up to now, the sneaky bastard?
Hmmm. Maybe he just wants to help find a way to peace by exposing the right wing of Israel and its supporters for what they are.
So you actually cite a video that he made only after controversy from his first video (whose aims I notice you are still studiously avoiding actually addressing) entitled “save us from ourselves”. *Save us from ourselves? *
Yah… the first video you’re offering up an apologia for was deliberately used to further an anti-semitic agenda to reinforce an anti-Israel one, and your ‘defense’ against this is a second video that alleges that Israel is so corrupt that only Obama can save them from themselves. Bonus points for adding a video that alleges that Israel uses its “bag of tricks” to get AIPAC to “extort” the US government.
Of course, Blumenthal sets up the nice little dichotomy whereby we’ve either got evil racist Jews, as proven by a cherrypicked non-random sample who can stand in for the American Jewish community, Zionism and Israel and who will be used by, go figure, people like you to ‘prove’ conclusions that you’d already arrived at, or the “good Jews” who recognize the “facts” that Israel extorts the US government through evil AIPAC and that Obama must save Israel from itself. One that makes a point of quoting a guy who claims that “most” Israelis “don’t care” what goes on as part of the occupation and another who claims that without their plan being implemented, Israel hasn’t (and presumably won’t) recognize Palestinians as people with full human rights. (aint enough rolleyes, especially since we’ve already done this debate to death complete with what the 4th GC actually allows an occupying force to do) And what nuanced positions they held. Why, I was amazed at the gradual, step by step process they advocated that would have seen peace with security rather than simply ending the occupation and seeing rockets fired by Hamas landing on Tel Aviv. Oh wait, that didn’t happen.
So, yeah, other than its substance, context, factual and intellectual failings and the use it’s put to, great video there.
It’s almost as if you’re deliberately ignoring the fact that the entire point of the first video was based on bigoted fallacious deception designed to conflate individual American Jews with the American Jewish community and the “Zionist program” and Israeli politics. And then you set about ignoring it in order to make the same false-to-facts point that we’ve been hammering on all through the thread. And now you’re repeating it, just like you pretended that such malicious deception on Blumenthal’s part was somehow embarrassing politically for Israel. (Never did explain that one, did you? Fleshing out the fallacy of composition does look kind of silly, I’d imagine)
And, why, here it’s almost as if you’re deliberately ignoring the fact that the entire point of the first video was based on bigoted fallacious deception designed to conflate individual American Jews with the American Jewish community and its evil “indoctrination”.
What a coincidence. What’re the odds???
I do have to give you credit though. It takes a certain kind of person after a thread spends considerable time analyzing, debunking and shining the disinfecting light of sunshine on malicious bigotry to come in and champion it. Tell us again how a cherrypicked group of drunk Americans shows us about the Israeli right wing and the American Jewish community.
Bonus points if you can use the word “Likudniks” more than seven times.
As I see it, we have two possible ways of reading Blumenthal’s motives:
A. Blumenthal is concerned about Israel’s rightward lurch and wanted to expose to the world the bigotry and hatred that drive that side of Israel’s political spectrum and that are being fomented both in Israel and among Israel’s American supporters. (Whether he chose the best way to do that is another question; we’re talking about motives here.)
or
B. Blumenthal is a self-loathing Jew, who gleefully and maliciously created a deceptive piece, the better to further his agenda of encouraging and spreading anti-Semitism. (Mwah ha ha!)
…and you really want us to accept that B is the most logical possibility?
It’s almost like rather than actually proving any such thing with valid statistical data, you’ve just gone and made something up and then used it to rationalize Blumenthal’s deceptive, fallacious, anti-semitic and anti-Israeli bigotry.
Interestingly enough, in order to justify a bigoted fallacy, you’re reduced to creating your own fiction that the right side of Israeli politics is driven by “bigotry” and “hatred”. Oh, and also among Israel’s American supporters. How great a coincidence, the people who disagree with your politics do so because they’re driven by hate and bigotry, which you know because, well, you just know it. That’s as good as a valid scientific study, right?
It’s almost like all the counter-factual bigotry that just happens to align with your politics and can’t be proven by the actual data becomes the justification in your mind for Blumenthal’s deception.
Indeed, what luck!
And yet, you still refuse to address any of Blumenthal’s fallacies, how he deliberately used them to slander the American Jewish community (which is okay because it’s anti-Jewish bigotry being used in the service of anti-Israel bigotry) etc, etc, etc.
You’re not going to address how someone could be quite so mistaken in a way that just happens (what luck!) to support their political agenda, are you? Other than maybe to try to handwave them away since you’ve already accepted the false-to-facts conclusions that he used deception to achieve anyways? And rather than addressing why using dishonesty to slander the American Jewish community is both wrong and anti-Semitic, you’ll continue to avoid the issue and ask us to ignore the facts we actually have so we can conclude that someone who uses deception to slander the American Jewish community can’t possibly be doing something anti-Semitic. Slandering the American Jewish community is the least anti-Semitic thing there is, after all. At least as long as it’s being used to slander the Israeli community, I guess.
And, of course, you’ve also studiously ignored the fact that rather than fomenting anti-Semitism for its own sake (which luckily nobody has claimed but you’d like to argue against anyways) he’s fomenting anti-Semitism to further anti-Israeli bigotry.
Because, of course, that someone would cherrypick datapoints in order to slander a Jewish community is fine in your book as long that, too, is used to slander the Israeli political community.
Well, considering that A is something you made up that bears no resemblance to reality and B is a strawman you’re using to avoid addressing what we’ve been discussing all thread, I’d chose C.
And still haven’t retracted your silly claim that Blumehthal’s deception reflects poorly not on Israel, but on him, the people who he interviewed, and *those who would use it for their own political purposes *.
You going to do that any time soon?
Or do we just get your belief that, yeepers, Blumenthal’s deception reflects really poorly on the people he’s trying to deceive us about, and you’ve got nothing to retract, right?
That, too, is a lucky coincidence especially since it just so happens to be useful (if we ignore all the deceptive fallacies and such) for your political purposes too.
Truly, coincidences travel in packs.
What luck!
Well, I think Blumenthal believes that. I’m willing to take Blumenthal at his word…that he supports immediate withdrawal from the occupied territories and believes that Israeli society has become radically right wing racist, and that the Israeli right wing is abetted by the American Jewish organizations, which, he believes, provide unconditional support to the Israeli right.
Well, sure he really believes that. But then again, David Duke also really believes that there’s a pernicious program of “Jewish Supremicism” at work in the US, too. The fact that Blumenthal believes in his bigotry doesn’t make it any less bigoted. Nor does it mean that the methods he used to ‘prove’ it are any less deceptive.
It doesn’t mean that when an American Jew to uses deceptive fallacy to advocate for why the American Jewish community is morally abhorrent (as he really believes) that that’s not a bigoted position or that it doesn’t represent some sort of ‘Jewish guilt’ and that he believes that his membership in the American Jewish community can only be redeemed by showing how very morally abhorrent it is. Or that “The American Jewish community is morally bankrupt and the vast majority of Israelis are really evil racist hate-freaks (except me because I totally hate those dirty American Jews!)” is any less of a bigoted position in and of itself. We’ve had this discussion before where some people seem to think that it’s okay if someone is ‘only’ bigoted against a country rather than a racial group. It’s the perennial dodge from many in America, the line “I dont’ hate Jews, I just hate all the Zionists!” is not all that uncommon, really. Although it boils down to “That’s insulting and untrue! I’m not a racist, I’m a bigot!”
Likewise, it doesn’t mean that someone who holds such bigoted beliefs and then uses deception (and the fallacy of composition, division and fallacious fungibility are all acts of deception) is not engaging in deception just because he believes in the bigoted conclusion. Just like when David Duke compiles all of his ‘evidence’ of 'Jewish Supremicism" he’s engaging in deception even if he really believes that there’s an evil Jewish Plot afoot. Much like someone who went to an inner-city school and filmed students with behavior problems/violent tendencies and used that to claim “See, blacks are inferior creatures to whites.” would be using deception to support bigotry even if they really did believe that whites are innately superior to blacks, who are likewise innately inferior to whites. Or someone who filmed a gay-pride march and focused only on the most outre/shocking/sexual behavior to ‘prove’ that all homosexuals are really out of control lust crazed monsters, and oh yeah, they want to ‘convert’ your children to their hedonistic sinful ways what with the ‘gay agenda’ and such. Or someone who filmed a dozen girls who were bad at math in order to claim that women’s minds are inherently less adept than men’s and women are made by God to cook, clean and make babies and they should leave the important stuff, (ya know, outside the house), to men.
Or someone who filmed drunk American Jews in Jerusalem in order to claim that the American Jewish community was morally bankrupt and morally abhorrent which also ‘proved’ that, since American Jews are pretty much vile automatons who are indoctrinated to unthinkingly support the entire “Zionism program”, that virtually the entirety of Israeli society is also morally vile and (among other things as spoke was kind enough to point out) that the Israelis using their morally abhorrent American Jewish brethren, use “extortion” to control the US political discourse and get what they want.
How about, no. I’ve had lunch already and although that little fish looks awfully tasty, the hook is a bit of a bitch.
Instead of asking me to re-post what’s already been posted and discussed in the thread how about you try reading the thread, and then engaging with what’s been posted. Really, I can’t say enough about how awesome it is to read a thread youre posting in. We’ve already got the cited quotes by Blumenthal and Dana talking about the use they intended to put this video to regarding the American Jewish community.
Of course, if you’d like to deliberately avoid touching on any of the substantive issues/quotes, then fine. Just don’t play this little game of refusing to read a thread and then accusing me of making up the contents of the thread that you won’t’ read.
Cut your bullshit, spoke.
Having a young child close their eyes and tell you that makes them invisibile is one thing. Having you act as if cites haven’t been provided and spewing this banal bullshit about how they’ve been “made up” is absurd.
You have yet to engage with any of the substantive quotes. You have yet to retract any of your numerous mistakes. And now you’re playing this absurd game. Cut it out.
FinnAgain, I can only assume you own stock in a strawman factory, because you keep ascribing motives, and now even quotes (!) to Blumenthal that bear no resemblance to what he has actually said.
But feel free to provide a sourced quote from Blumenthal. I’ll wait.
I mean, for fuck’s sake, a good piece of evidence that clearly showed the dichotomy that Blumethal aimed at setting up between evil racist Israelis and good Israelis (the extreme minority who want America to “save Israel from itself”) was posted by you.
Not only that, but I bit on that hook took and spent an entire post detailing its factual inaccuracies, fallacious implications, etc… So pardon me if I find it hard to swallow that now you’re totally clueless as to what I’m talking about when I posted a detailed response to a video that you, yourself, brought up.
Again, luckily enough you didn’t respond to my post. And then you changed the topic to making up bullshit ‘facts’ about the Israeli right and American Jewish community, and when you were challenged on those tidbits that you pulled out of your ear, you changed the subject again.
And now you’re asking me to go over the same posts/points of mine that you’ve steadfastly refused to respond to, after simply changing the topic to something else when you were caught out.
But, surely, you’ll respond to it this time and, surely, this time you’ll retract your numerous mistakes. Much like its now ironic to see you complaining about ‘strawmen’ when I pointed out exactly how Blumenthal used his deception to slander the American Jewish community and why he was using that to slander the Israeli political community, and (what luck!) you coincidentally lacked the comprehension of what I was saying and pretended that it was an issue of Blumenthal using anti-Semitism to reinforce anti-Semitism rather than anti-Israel bigotry.
I could point out, yet again, that this game you’re playing is foolish and should end, and that we’ve already quoted and cited Blumehthal’s motives, in his own worsd and you’re deliberately avoiding them and acting as if you haven’t seen them (and ignoring the discussion we’ve had on them), but really, what’s the point?
By pointing this out now, will it make you address them? Pointing it out the last few times hasn’t, why should this time be any different?
(!!!) :rolleyes:
I could point out that you’re now acting as if you don’t understand how paraphrasing works in the English language and are really confused as to whether or not I ever claimed I was using a direct quote, but what’s the point? Coincidences simply have a way of helping your rhetoric. Suddenly, you don’t understand why someone paraphrasing someone else who isn’t posting on a message board might just put that in quotes to show that it was about someone’s comments.
What luck!
And (lucky coincidence!) you seem to have understood perfectly how paraphrases work just a few lines down when I wrote that anti-Israel bigots would complain “That’s insulting and untrue! I’m not a racist, I’m a bigot!”
There, (what luck!) you don’t go through this silly spectacle of asking for a direct cite for a paraphrase. You don’t get all upset and demand to know which specific anti-Israel bigots proudly announced their bigotry. Evidently paraphrases go from completely baffling to unworthy of comment in about three lines. There, you didn’t angrily demand “What bigots have said that? And besides, what’s wrong about deciding that the majority of Israelis and American Jews are bad without facts to back it up?” (Hint: this is not, in fact a direct quote from you. Just saving you some outrage.)
Look, I get it. I really do.
You agree with Blumenthal. You support his politics and methods. That much is clear.
You believe that, despite having no facts to back it up, that the Israelis who disagree with you politically are, in your own words driven by “bigotry and hatred”, and that such "bigotry and hatred "is being “fomented” by those nasty, wicked, tricksy false [del]hobbitses[/del] American Jews who have the nerve to support Israeli policies that you disagree with.
Of course, since you have no facts to back that belief up (and less logic to rationalize it with), we get this sort of rhetoric.
Just say that you detest Israelis who have a political view that’s different than yours, as well as any American Jews who have the nerve to disagree with you, but that you can’t base it on facts. So instead you’ll just invent some nice fiction about how those who disagree with you must be riven by bigotry and hatred.
We’ll all understand exactly where you’re coming from, I promise.
Maybe I don’t understand how paraphrasing works. The nice folks at Merriam-Webster tell me that a paraphrase is “a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form,” but that doesn’t seem to be what you’re doing, now does it?
Okay, I’ll explain it.
Instead of dealing with what’s actually been discussed in this thread or the quotes that have been given and cited, you decided to create a strawman where one of Blumenthal’s more innocuous statements is supposedly the basis of my claim.
Hope that helps to clear up your confusion.
Yeah, I can see how you’d be confused as to why Blumenthal’s/Dana’s anti-Semitic fallacy mongering designed to slander the American Jewish community as indoctrinated drones in the service of hate might, somehow, be paraphrased as something that was designed to slander the American Jewish community as indoctrinated drones in the service of hate.
It’s pretty confusing, after all.
Yet again, we’ve already got the quotes and cites in this thread as to what Blumenthal/Dana set out to do, and you’re still studiously avoiding them.
It’s funny that when they admitted, in plain language, what their goals were that you’re doing your damndest to avoid discussing their own admissions.
Why, do you think, that is?
Why am I not surprised that you find an apologia for anti-Semitic fallacy mongering in the service of anti-Israel bigotry “eloquent”. What’s really pathetic though is that you just posted yet more of Blumenthal’s anti-Semitic rantings and you don’t even realize it.
You actually just endorsed the anti-Semitic claim that the American Jewish movement must acknowledge that racism and hatred are “the painful consequences of prolonged Zionist indoctrination”.
What eloquent anti-Semitism you found for us, spoke ol’ buddy.
Ya know how those people are. Those brainwashed American Jews… their racism is the inevitable consequences of all that “indoctrination” in Zionism. Ya know, Zionism, the political belief that Israel should exist (and the only nation on the planet that needs a special word for the radical belief that it should exist). Obviously “indoctrination” in the view that the nation of Israel should exist inexorably leads to racism. It’s a good thing that the American Jewish community has friends like Blumenthal (and you) to warn us of the horrible racist brainwashing we’re engaging in.
And of course, you evidently view the lie that Birthright has "the exclusive purpose of indoctrinating American Jews into unyielding, unthinking supporters of Israel."as just fine. Why, that’s what it’s purpose is, and we know how all those American Jews who disagree with you, I mean Blumenthal, are just brainwashed drones indoctrinated in hate and racism. Of course, despite Blumenthal’s lie and your support of it, Birthright doesn’t even conduct the tours let alone set the agenda/discussion topics/what have you. And, of course, in supporting this bizarre racist lie, spoke, you’ve got to ignore that this nutty fuck Blumenthal is alleging that everybody from Hadassah to the National Jewish Council for the Disabled run tours to Israel for the “exclusive” purpose of brainwashing children into kneejerk, brainwashed supporters of Israel (and the “bigotry and hatred” which drives the Israeli political scene, natch).
Also, without batting an eye, you seem to have totally missed the fact that Blumenthal then goes on to support his fallacious anti-Israel bigotry by claiming that there was a climate of “extremism” as evinced by the crazy extremism of wanting to defend one’s country from continual rocket attacks. The nerve of those uppity Israeli bastards! And, of course, the anti-scientific study conducted by Bar-Tal which just so happened to confirm all of his political views. I’m sure that Blumenthal isn’t full of shit and there really was a question on the survey that asked “Palestinians are fully human. Yes/No?” Surely he and Bar-Tal aren’t political hacks using deception to get their way. Surely, such a question exists on the survey that allowed Bar-Tal to claim that the Israelis who responded really do “dehumanize” the Palestinians.
Surely, you’ll post that very survey question in your very next post, what with your objection to inaccurate paraphrases and all.
Surely.
And, of course, Blumenthal (who certainly is an honest man) really does have a friend who gave him the nice neat package "I’m a Zionist, so of course I prefer the bloodshed on the other side.” How lucky (what luck!) that he had a friend who happened to voice such an opinion, and happened to tie it to being a Zionist. Of course, I’m sure you can ignore the fact that any nation on the planet, when faced with a war would prefer that the bloodshed be on the other side. Or maybe it’s just those “bigoted and hateful” Zionists who’d rather than during a war, the bombs fall on the other guy, eh? Eh?
And as he’s so honest, we know that he really did speak with an coincidentally unnamed woman (what luck!) who just happened to admit to him that she engaged in the willful random murder of Arabs while in the IDF. And of course, Blumenthal, not lying through his teeth even a little bit, certainly reported her to the proper authorities. And, just as certainly, you’ll be able to provide proof that he did just that, and you’ll provide it in your very next post.
Certainly.
And, of course, Blumenthal puts paid to his own lie that he’s just getting at a ‘slice’ of Israel. And, of course, he does this (and you support him doing this) via a process of deliberately lying and using fallacious reasoning to equate American Jews with Israeli policy. We’re supposed to “ask how vitriolic levels of racism are able to flow through the streets of Jerusalem like sewage”. Of course, those who are paying attention will notice that, much like your claims, Blumenthal is simply making this shit up and his claim is based on a handfull of drunk Americans who he happened to film in Jerusalem. Yes, we must really ask how ever it is that Americans who happen to be assholes are able to speak in Jerusalem. Why, aren’t the Israelis magic? Can’t they cause racist Americans to vanish?
And, the “eloquent” hate-mongering Blumenthal decides that if we don’t address the “painful question” as to why the Israelis aren’t magically able to stop racist Americans from talking, that it will lead to “the complete delegitimization” of the entire freakin’ Israeli state. Indeed drunken American assholes are that much of a problem that they can remove the legitimacy of any nation they visit. :smack:
Speaking of a bullshit: you’re still ignoring my request, yet again, that you retract, or at the very least attempt to defend, or, fuck, at least cite what you think your scientifically valid support is for your claims about Israeli demographics which are backed up by neither statistical data nor facts but only your pre-judged view of what you just know Israelis (and those dirty American Jews who support Israeli politics that you don’t like) are up to. But let me guess, you’ll ignore then some more and change the subject, again. And if you’re going to cite Bar-Tal, please save us both the embarrassment and actually cite the primary source rather than an infotainment piece glossing over it, and please make sure that when you do cite that you lead off with the (supposedly actually existing) clear question that asks respondents whether or not they think that the Palestinians are fully human.
Prove me wrong. Show me the actual studies you’ve based your view on.
Something tells me…
Probably the same thing that tells me that it’s significant that when you cited Blumenthal’s lying about even something as mundane as the length of the raw video, you mysteriously dropped the subject immediately and couldn’t remember it long enough to post a mea culpa.
It’s just one of those coincidences.
Here, I guess you’re “paraphrasing” me, in your usual style. :dubious:
So let me give you my actual sentiments, against which readers of the thread may compare your paraphrase:
I would like to see peace in the Middle East. I do not believe we will have it so long as Israel is controlled by hardliners, and so long as the US (under the influence of AIPAC) marches in lockstep with those hardliners. I also do not believe peace will be achieved so long as Israel continues to effectively colonize Palestinian territory in the West Bank via settlements. I do not “detest” the hardliners, rather I mourn that their actions (and those of their American supporters) are making the path to peace more difficult. I do detest the attitudes depicted in Blumenthal’s video, and wonder how prevalent those attitudes may be on the right side of Israel’s political spectrum. Here’s hoping for a peaceful and prosperous Israel that lives in harmony with its neighbors.
Now, Finn. “Paraphrase” that as best you can to depict me as an anti-Semite.
Still waiting, I guess you forgot, again.
Coincidentally.
Gee whiz, it’s almost like I pointed out numerous anti-Semitic lies that he used and you supported, with logical support and factual citations to prove my case, and instead of retracting your schtick you’re trying to change the subject.
And this time, with vapid and stupid ad hominem snark.
Here, I figured that as soon as it was pointed out that you were supporting Blumenthal’s falsehoods, your dedication to the integrity of honest debate would cause you to immediately retract your support for such dishonesty. I never would’ve expected that rather than admit you’d tried to sell us Blumenthal’s lies, you’d change the subject.
Speaking of which, going to address the fact that Blumenthal is so comfortable lying that he evidently feels free to lie about such mundane matters as the simple length of raw video he collected? I mean it’s not like I mentioned that mistake of yours (or several others) multiple times.
I’m sure you just happened to miss that mistake, right?
Again, you sure are lucky.
Maybe you should conduct a study “People upset by blatant racist lies: why?”
Do you have any idea how transparent it is to allege that I’m full of anger and hatred because I caught you supporting verifiable lies? Yah, how horrible of me to catch you at that. I really should be ashamed of myself.
And, funny, not to any of the factual errors you’ve been caught in or Blumenthal’s lies you were caught supporting.
An innocent mistake on your part, I’m sure.
It’s okay, I understand.
If I was caught in such an egregious bit of silliness as you, I’d might try to deny my own words also. Well, no, I’d try retract my mistake and try to learn from it. But yah, here’s your quote which you’re now denying where you do indeed say that the Israeli politics that you disagree with are based on hate and bigotry and that this hate and bigotry is being fomented by the American Jewish community who has the nerve to disagree with your politics. Here, I’ll be kind enough to underline.
As defined by you.
While also alleging that those “hardliners” are driven by hatred and bigotry, based on the scientific studies which you refuse to post.
Because only scientifically valid surveys which actually exist would take so long for you to post.
Glad we can get some good conspiracy theorizing going. The US, under the nefarious influence of AIPAC (except, of course, when AIPAC can’t get its most basic demands honored, which just shows how powerful they are, after all) marches in “lockstep” with whatever the Israeli “hardliners” (all driven by bigotry and hatred) say. Except, of course, when they don’t. But that too is just proof of AIPAC’s power and how in lockstep we are.
Of course, it’s not like you said that they’re driven by bigotry and hatred or anything. Why would I have gotten the idea that you detest them?
Interesting. Spoke reserves judgment and isn’t sure how prevalent those feelings are on the right side of Israel’s political spectrum. Spoke, what do you have to say about Spoke’s claim?
Why, that’s fascinating spoke, so you’re calling bullshit on spoke’s claim that he isn’t sure that Israel’s political right are driven by those very sentiments. What have you got to say about spoke’s refutation of your claim by spoke, spoke?
Of course as I’ve done no such thing we can add that to the list of mistakes you’ll never retract, right? I’ve correctly pointed out that you’re supporting an anti-Semite and endoring his lies, but as I’ve pointed out numerous times, but that hardly makes you an anti-Semite. It’s also factual, which you’re doing your best to avoid even addressing let alone rebutting by changing the subject and using silly ad hominem diversions.
I haven’t called you an anti-Semite, just pointed out that you’re more than willing to cheerfully use (and then refuse to retract much less apologize for) one’s obvious lies if they help your political rhetoric.
Or do I need to speak louder, being that it may be hard to hear way up on the cross?
Nope, not going to get into a post-parsing battle with you Finn. I know how much you love those.
I also know how much you love using the word “lies.” Like for example when Blumenthal refers to an hour’s worth of taping on one occasion and two hour’s worth on another occasion. Really? That’s a LIE! LIE! LIE! to you? Because I suspect its more a case of Blumenthal just not closely measuring how much time he spent taping and giving a smaller estimate on one occasion and larger estimate on another.
But of course, no inconsistency, however minor, is too innocent for you to harp on for ten posts as a LIE! LIE! LIE! A good example of the sort of distortion in which you seem to specialize.
Really, all the arm-waving and distortions and quibbling over minutae don’t help your case. They only make you look silly Finn.
Like when I made the remark about the far right in Israel being driven by hatred and bigotry. Go back and look at the post. I was trying to paraphrase what I understood Blumenthal’s position (not my own) to be. (You remember paraphrasing? I’m sure you do, because you do it so very often.)
As for the influence of AIPAC on US policy, it is no theory, as you know well. Hell, they brag about it.
“Factual?” No it isn’t Finn. Neither the charge that Blumenthal is engaging in (self-loathing) anti-Semitism, nor the charge that I’m endorsing it. It’s just more arm-waving and screaming from you.
