Being True To Yourself...

[The Question]

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. You never present "evidence." You just talk about it a lot. :roll:

You're alone in that assertion, there, buddy boy.

You haven't made any points.

Still all by your lonesome.

You asked me to explain AIPAC, but didn't even attempt to do it yourself.

I asked you to explain it because I don't believe you will -- the reason I don't believe you'll explain AIPAC's nature and function is because in order to do that, you'd have to take your head out of your ass and stare right at it. So far, you refuse.

I've explained my position on Israel in detail, but you have yet to explain yours.

Link. Where have you explained your position in detail? You love links, put one up for this.

This is your typical MO: make lots of noise, but never make an argument.

Again, you're the only one here who thinks this is the case.

 

[WordInterrupted]

Link. Where have you explained your position in detail? You love links, put one up for this.

Post #56 in this thread. :roll: If you want a point-by-point discussion, you can start by either (1) responding to my points with coherent arguments or (2) make points of your own.

As usual, however, you aren't interested in a discussion. You expect me to make my own arguments, and then make your arguments for you. You're nothing but a vortex of bluster and posturing.

 

[The Question]

Post #56 in this thread. :roll:

You mean this:

I don't agree with U.S. foriegn policy in the mid east, but I approach the issue rationally. The U.S./Israel alliance grew up not because of some spoooooooky conspiracy, but because the U.S. wanted a strategic ally in the Mid-East during the Cold War. Fundamentalist Christians, not Jews, have been the most numerous and influential proponents of the relationship. I don't think current Israel policy serves the interests of peace and stability, but, as an educated, well-informed person, I don't resort to paranoid conspiracy theories to explain it.

I thought you said you'd explained your position in detail. What I see there is you explaining an extremely rudimentary position of your own while blindly flailing at my position.

Explain AIPAC.

If you want a point-by-point discussion, you can start by either (1) responding to my points with coherent arguments or (2) make points of your own.

By that definition, I started a long-ass time ago. I'm waiting for you to catch up.

I'm waiting, Fauntleroy.

 

[WordInterrupted]

I thought you said you'd explained your position in detail. What I see there is you explaining an extremely rudimentary position of your own while blindly flailing at my position.

You don't have a position. You're asking me to explain your argument for you. ("Explain AIPAC," says TQ) This sort of childish posturing may work with your kind, but it doesn't work with me. If you want to have a discussion about Israel, you need to actually make an argument. I'm not going to do it for you.

 

[The Question]

You don't have a position. You're asking me to explain your argument for you. ("Explain AIPAC," says TQ)

Wrong. I'm asking you to verify your understanding of my true position by first establishing that you have an objective understanding of its foundation. You can establish your objective understanding of its premise by explaining what you understand the nature and function of AIPAC to be. Your continued refusal to establish your objective understanding isn't having the effect you want; what it is doing is obviating the fact that you are aware of Zionist influence over U.S. foreign policy, but refuse to acknowledge it because it destroys every ad hominem you've tried to employ up to this point.

This sort of childish posturing may work with your kind, but it doesn't work with me. If you want to have a discussion about Israel, you need to actually make an argument. I'm not going to do it for you.

You're really not gaining any ground, nimrod. With every post in which you ignore not only my points, but the fact that I've made points, you increasingly destroy your own credibility.

 

[WordInterrupted]

I'm asking you to verify your understanding of my true position

You haven't taken a position. All you've done is ask me to explain things for you.

You make it so easy, TQ. Other posters actually make arguments that I am then obligated to refute, but you sit there frothing about "evidence" and never actually say anything of substance. You're a ferocious paper tiger!

 

[Ishcabittle]

Good thread.

 

[The Question]

You haven't taken a position. All you've done is ask me to explain things for you.

You make it so easy, TQ. Other posters actually make arguments that I am then obligated to refute, but you sit there frothing about "evidence" and never actually say anything of substance. You're a ferocious paper tiger!

And yet... you're the one refusing to further the discussion by explaining your understanding of AIPAC. Bullshit talks, Wordin, and so far, all you're doin' is talkin'. Well, I guess that makes you... huh. Ain't that somethin'.

 

[WordInterrupted]

And yet... you're the one refusing to further the discussion by explaining your understanding of AIPAC.

There's isn't any discussion until you actually make an argument.

I have to hand it to you, TQ. You've pulled some idiotic stunts in your day, but this "you're killing the discussion if you don't explain my own position for me" nonsense is just about the stupidest tactic I've ever seen you pull.

 

[The Question]

There's isn't any discussion until you actually make an argument.

I have to hand it to you, TQ. You've pulled some idiotic stunts in your day, but this "you're killing the discussion if you don't explain my own position for me" nonsense is just about the stupidest tactic I've ever seen you pull.

I've already told you this, but I'll say it just one more time to see if it sinks through.

I already know what AIPAC is and what it does. I want you to prove to me that you know those things, too.

 

[Peter Octavian]

If you don't agree with TQ, then please, tell us. Nobody is forcing you to remain silent.

In that same regard, I'm not going to be verbally bullied by some pansy-ass college snot with no life experience and a trunkload of hubris, thereby forcing me to engage in a dialogue in which I've no interest.

I can defend any person whom I want without explanation to you, Fauntleroy, or anyone else. The reason doesn't have to be any more than, "I wanna", you pissant. That's the beauty of enaging in free speech. (Haven't you said that's important to you, pee wee?)

 

[The Question]

Poor Wordy -- he's getting his ass handed to him so bad in here, he might not be able to unclench enough for his professors to take his grades out in trade.

 

[Tyrant]

Of course. The Jews are lying and cheating and taking our money. This is classic anti-semitism.

Something bother me about this. If groups of Jews started to do those things (Lie, cheat, taking money) then they would be given the benefit of the doubt, since after all, the accusation itself would be taken as 'classic anti-Semitism.'

 

[The Question]

Something bother me about this. If groups of Jews started to do those things (Lie, cheat, taking money) then they would be given the benefit of the doubt, since after all, the accusation itself would be taken as 'classic anti-Semitism.'

Groups like AIPAC, for example. Oops -- I forgot, Fauntleroy doesn't know what AIPAC is.

 

[WordInterrupted]

I've already told you this, but I'll say it just one more time to see if it sinks through.

I already know what AIPAC is and what it does. I want you to prove to me that you know those things, too.

:roll:

I don't have to prove anything to you. A discussion involves each person responding to the other person's argument. You have not yet made an argment of any kind, and it is therefore impossible for us to have a discussion.

If you want to administer a test, go get your teaching credential. We could test each other until doomsday, but that wouldn't be a discussion. You only bluster on about "testing" me because you're afraid to make an argument of your own. You posture and make pompous demands, but never say anything of substance.

Something bother me about this. If groups of Jews started to do those things (Lie, cheat, taking money) then they would be given the benefit of the doubt, since after all, the accusation itself would be taken as 'classic anti-Semitism.'

If all Jews started lying and cheating, then no, it wouldn't be racism. But that's not going to happen. Jews, like most other social groups, do not act as one unified mass. Some people who happen to be Jewish may lie and cheat, but most don't.

In that same regard, I'm not going to be verbally bullied by some pansy-ass college snot with no life experience and a trunkload of hubris, thereby forcing me to engage in a dialogue in which I've no interest.

I can defend any person whom I want without explanation to you, Fauntleroy, or anyone else. The reason doesn't have to be any more than, "I wanna", you pissant. That's the beauty of enaging in free speech. (Haven't you said that's important to you, pee wee?)

Certainly, nobody can force you to explain yourself. However, if you continue to defend TQ's radical politics, we cannot help but assume that you share in his extremsim, and that your claim to be a "moderate" is nothing but empty posturing.

 

[Peter Octavian]

Certainly, you don't have to provide an explanation. However, if you continue to defend TQ's radical politics, we cannot help but assume that you share in his extremsim, and that your claim to be a "moderate" is nothing but empty posturing.

:roll:

translation:

I really have to make you look bad...I hafta....I hafta....and if I gotta make stuff up to do that, I will.

Not taking the bait, dickless. Your assumptions don't really mean anything. To anyone. Anywhere. So....assume away.....that doesn't make your assumptions about me correct.

 

[The Question]

:roll:

I don't have to prove anything to you. A discussion involves each person responding to the other person's argument. You have not yet made an argment of any kind, and it is therefore impossible for us to have a discussion.

Well, we certainly can't have any kind of discussion until you make a post in this thread, which you clearly haven't done. You're simply going to HAVE to post in this thread before we can discuss anything.

:roll:

If all Jews started lying and cheating, then no, it wouldn't be racism. But that's not going to happen. Jews, like most other social groups, do not act as one unified mass. Some people who happen to be Jewish may lie and cheat, but most don't.

And some groups, such as AIPAC and ADL, do.

 

[WordInterrupted]

and if I gotta make stuff up to do that, I will.

I'm not making anything up. It is an undeniable fact that you consistently defend TQ's holocaust denial, and you have to take responsibility for that. If you don't want to take responsibility, don't do it.

Well, we certainly can't have any kind of discussion until you make a post in this thread, which you clearly haven't done. You're simply going to HAVE to post in this thread before we can discuss anything.

I have posted.

 

[Blindgroping]

~bang head into wall~
Jesus-fucking-christ you two!!

Anything more useful you two can do?

 

[WordInterrupted]

Anything more useful you two can do?

This is what it's like to talk to TQ. He makes post after post of empty bluster, and he'll keep doing it forever. Oh well, I have to horse whip him every once in a while. Keeps him submissive.