Every other nation...like.....Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc...etc....with non freely elected governments. Why the hell should the US give a rats A$$ what they think? They don't even represent their own people. The number of nations voting is irrelevant.....what matters is taking the right stance, and the US has done it. DD
Cohen, that's been announced... but what action has been taken? How big of a "hit" is Israel getting in dollars for continuing to ignore us on this issue? So far, I have heard a lot of talk from the Administration, but not much in the way of action. Meanwhile, Israel has built, what, 93 miles of this "new Berlin Wall"? And we are just now supposedly calling them to task on it... in a way they can't ignore? Again, I haven't seen a dollar amount.
Ah...I see...you insinuate that I'm racist for no reason...I give you the chance to get past it, and you repeat it...then when I call you on it, I'm being hypersensitive....Nice equivocation; you were 'pantsed' as the saying goes, and you know it...don't try and turn around and blame a resentment of unfounded anti-Semetic inferences on my fragile nature, I doubt many other posters in here would have even been as restrained in their response to same, including yourself. And the question was an honest one. As I'm sure you're aware, whenever subjective data analysis is included as support for a position the first question that should occur to anyone listening to it is 'what's the source of the analysis?' It had occured to me that it might or might not be a credible, objective source...I honestly hadn't theorized so far as to conclude who I thought it was, let alone did I suspect it was as biased a source as one of the two parties in question themselves. The famous example I use is that I personally don't believe that the CIA wasn't involved in the assassination of JFK just because the CIA says that the CIA had nothing to do with it...and in this case I would not guve any credit to the kind of subjective analysis you used were it to come from any of the parties involved; I'm surprised that you would...or a little surprised, anyway. An interesting combination of elements in this passage...on the one hand you suggest that I only welcome responses which praise my intellect, thereby painting me with the brush of intellectual arrogance...but on the other hand you have no problem assuming the capacity to both understand and interpret another's philosophy, and meet out your monoploy on what is reality, and how it works. I am perhaps somewhat pleased with myself at times, by I doubt I have ever aspired to such lofty heights as to assume to tell another what their philosophical stances 'would look like in reality.' Obviously you don't find it odd or, shall we whisper it, arrogant for you to assume that you have a greater grasp on reality than mine based on the fact that according to your bias mine fails to make the grade... And I'm smug and condescending? Fascinating...let's take a look at this thread, as a sample case, shall we? I entered into this thread by quoting the statement of Lil's " But hey, it must be the ENTIRE WORLD that's on the wrong side, not us! " by responding with these words: "Sadly, there are many people in this country and on this board who won't see anything wrong with thinking that...again and again..." Now oddly enough, despite all the angst we have seen since this apparently controversial statement, I have yet to see anyone deny it. I said it in earnest, and many have already admitted it...In fact many who have criticized me have also defended the position I ascribed to them...despite this, following it, and my subsequent defense of this position, wherein I did, admittedly, say that I thought that supposing this defied logic,these terms/words have since been directed at me... "bullcrap...moronic logic...simply misguided...silly...foolishly...lunatic fringe...embarrassed...If we want an in depth analysis of medieval warfare, we'll certainly ask you. Other than that, stick to what you know...I am seriously about to barf...I was about to put you on my ignore list for talking down to every conservative person on this board, but have decided against it so I can hang around and make sure you don't propagate your filth to unknowing, impressionable suspects around here..." etc. Now maybe it's me, Hayes, but my understanding of terms like 'smug' and ' condescending' have to do with assuming a position of superiority to another, no? Well, these comments strike my plebian wit as being indicative of just such an assumption, and you might recognize some of your own in there, HS. So see if you can stay with me while I struggle to catch up to your superior thought process...you say that me disagreeing with others and pointing out why is smug and condescending...but others doing the same to me, complete with personal insults isn't...and what's more, you yourself have no problem in assuming a position of superiority to me, be it to explain the inherent fallacies in my philosophies in the real world, calling other positions "simply misguided'...etc.? Have I got that right? So basically what you're saying, if I've caught up to you, is that it's wrong for me to presume to know more than others ( I don't agree I have done this, just following your laid out pattern)..in fact it's more than wrong, it's smug and condescending...but for you to do the same is, presumebly, just common sense? You dismissing another's position as "simply misguided" it is assumed, is not a reflection of your belief that you are superior, gasp, but is merely your read of things based on what you know, yes? Interesting that you allow yourself that freedom, else it might strike some as being..well, you know...smug and condescending, not to mention making your criticism of me because you feel I do likewise appear just a tad hypocritical. Let's look at another passage of yours, one which includes this seeming contradiction... "And I doubt I'll get a serious answer to this, but its worth asking: MacBeth, did you ever consider that people who disagree with you HAVE thought about their decisions, and simply do not agree with you? I don't think you have, because you repeatedly make your smug little comments that are just as irritating and unwarranted as those you condemn on a repeated basis." See, again, to me is appears that in this very passage you have criticized me for being so arrogant as to make 'smug' comments at others condemning them for what you axcribe to be my feeling that they are wanting...while at the same time judging mine as worthy of such condemnation. So, again, it would appear that you feel no compunction for doing the very thing you feel ( innacurately, but another argument) that I do. Or maybe it's just me...I'm sure that to you your actions are justified, whereas mine aren't...for your own reasons. Something about eyes, slivers, and boards seems appropriate about now, but why get Biblical? P.S. I fully welcome you taking the time to peruse this thread and find examples of my use of insulting, condescending language as I sampled in reverse. At one point I described the connection between America's power and her being right as 'arrogance defying logic', which is hardly par for what I quoted you, but feel free. I'm sure, if I'm as smug and condescending as you claim, this thread must be crawling with it...right?
I don't think you saying the Jews are biased toward their themselves in the struggle with Palestinians/Arabs makes you anti-Semetic. You are enough of a pinhead to assume I was saying that, and so are being hypersensitive. I didn't 'get past it' when given the chance because I thought it was pretty damn funny you got your panties in a wad when I didn't even mean it that way, and figured I'd goad you a little bit more for the fun of it. I was merely getting right to the point of your 'coming' bias argument with my comment 'the ******* Jews.' Actually that really isn't the case. Certainly you might consider the source, but that isn't indicative of the truth or falsity of a position. After all, yourself and others have ballyhoo'd quotes from Herman Goering, among others, right? And as I said after your first response, the summary I give further qualifies how they got their conclusion by examining languague within resolutions. I invited you to provide some counterdata, which you haven't. I invited you to provide a counterargument, which you haven't. Saying 'subjective data can be subjective' is not a counterargument. Further, I invited you to argue that when comparing condemnation by resolution (either attempted SC or General Assembly), the majority by a wide margin condemn Israel and only a smattering condemn the other side. This suggests inherent bias against Israel (assuming we agree both sides in the conflict have blame) and goes straight to the heart of the 'General Assembly must be right because they are the GA argument.' As YOU said earlier: "Add to that the fact that with this issue we have repeatedly shown, unlike many of the 133 nations which supported it, a predisposition to automatically take one side in the Israel/Palestine dispute, and a rational person would be at least given pause as to the validity and/or objectivity of (the) position. " An interesting response. You deny you are arrogant by calling me arrogant. Hardly effective. As for me, I never said I wasn't arrogant. As my grandma used to say 'those of you out there who think you know everything irritate those of us who do.' The only reason I started examining your philosophical stances etc is because what may sound reasonable on the surface can breakdown quickly when applied to actual situations. I find you often take two different and contradictory views depending on what your argument is at the time. I find your arrogance particularly offensive when posters are discussing opinions, as you often present yours as fact. I don't, as a matter of course, find my arrogance offensive, although I have tried to tone in down in most people's case. You and TJ might be the exception. Mainly because I NEVER see either of you change your position, no matter what arguments are made to you, unless you are faced with a FACTUAL discrepancy, if then. We shall. . Boo-hoo. What other people call you has no bearing on this discussion. And as I'll point out below, saying 'simply misguided' is hardly a harsh critique. Ironically, however, some of those responses (my own excluded of course) are the main reason I feel compelled to respond to you in a lot of these threads. While some of these guys do capture the feelings of the opposition to your philosophical outlook, I find they do not often enough enunciate the warrants for their claims. I think really its your language that denotes your arrogance. Even your positioning in this argument is pretty annoying and disingenous. Let's examine how you portray yourself. You say that pointing out a flaw in an argument doesn't make you arrogant, right? Is that what I said? I don't think so. But I see this careful construction in many of your posts. Exaggerate or distort and then accuse the other person of doing exactly that. Pretty damn funny. Hey we agree. You're right on the last part. Let's take a sample, but we don't have to go too far. We can stay right in this post. Or maybe it's just me... So basically what you're saying, if I've caught up to you gasp So see if you can stay with me while I struggle to catch up to your superior thought process... my plebian wit Fascinating or, shall we whisper it I'm surprised that you would...or a little surprised, anyway. Now lest you claim some parody, I'll draw a few from other posts than your last: you're a treat. your knee jerk responses never even bothering to consider for a second it's not worth answering Okay...I thought that it was pretty apparent...but obviously it needs addressing; Sadly for those making this argument we live in the real world dellusional off the wall conclusions You actually believe that? The main reason I changed from calling you a jackass, to saying you're simply misguided, is that calling you misguided leaves room for your formidable intellect (and accompanying big head). You can be smart and wrong.
Here's how Macbeth votes for President: Macbeth stands outside voting booth, and asks voter as they exit, "who'd you vote for?"... ... another voter exits, and Macbeth asks them, too.... ... this process repeats several times.... ... after a few hours, Macbeth says, "Ok. That settles it. The vast majority of people are voting for xyz. They must all be right, so that's who I'm voting for! I mean, after all, xyz got 133 votes and the opponent only got 4, so that's a no-brainer, right? xyz must be the right choice. -- droxford
Lol! If only we were talking about a matter of support instead of a matter of what's right, you'd almost have a point. Maybe, maybe if I had the slightest suspicion that the US ever gave voting against Israel any serious contemplation and decided against it, I'd say that at least we were standing up for what we believe is right instead of what's in our best interests. But the fact that we ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION vote this way on the Israel/Palestine situation, and the fact that we have used the exact same methods, kind of rationalization, etc., and the exact same callous disregard for what's right to block UN resolutions against people like Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Marcos, the Shah etc. when they were our 'friends'...
Well, Macbeth, I gotta at least salute you for replying with a LOL when someone makes a slight jab at you! (FYI - I don't take BBS threads too seriously - I've got enough things in my life to make my blood pressure rise!) -- droxford
