T. Belman. They sold us the communist Muslim Obama who became president twice. They sold Americans Obamacare. They sold us the Muslim Brotherhood as a worthy partner. They sold us the non-existing Iran deal. They have rammed political correctness down our throats. They are pushing a genderless world, that Islam is a religion of peace, that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, that Islamic terrorism does not exist, that the Syrian refugees, are refugees and are not a danger to our society, that the Arab/Israeli conflict is the cause of the ME turmoil, that it must be solved, that it is causing US soldiers to be killed etc. That settlements are an obstacle to peace. And now with the aid of our military and leftist leaders, that Israel is fascist. All with lies.
Soros-Backed Group that Helped Sell Iran Nuclear Deal Funds Media, DC Think Tanks
A group that advocates a nuclear-free world and that was identified earlier this month by the White House as central in helping to market the Iran nuclear deal to the news media has funded National Public Radio since 2005, an Associated Press investigation has revealed.
Think tanks funded by the Ploughshares Fund include the Arms Control Association, Brookings Institution, and the Atlantic Council, the AP reported.
Unmentioned by the AP is that the Ploughshares Fund is financed by billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute.
The involvement of Ploughshares in selling the Iran agreement to the public was revealed in an extensive New York Times Magazine profile of Obama’s deputy national security advise Ben Rhodes titled, “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru.” The article contains interviews with Rhodes and scores of top Obama administration officials.
Robert Malley, senior director at the National Security Council, explained the genesis and execution of the marketing plan to sell the Iran deal.
Malley explained “experts” were utilized to create an “echo chamber” that disseminated administration claims about Iran to “hundreds of often-clueless reporters” in the news media.
In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
Rhodes told Times reporter David Samuels that the marketing strategy took advantage of the “absence of rational discourse” and utilized outside groups, including Ploughshares.
When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America’s future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. “In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this,” he said. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.” He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal. “We drove them crazy,” he said of the deal’s opponents.
Now the AP has revealed the extent of Ploughshares funding to NPR and to influential foreign policy U.S. think tanks.
Besides $100,000 to NPR last year, the AP reports:
Ploughshares has funded NPR’s coverage of national security since 2005, the radio network said. Ploughshares reports show at least $700,000 in funding over that time. All grant descriptions since 2010 specifically mention Iran.
“It’s a valued partnership, without any conditions from Ploughshares on our specific reporting, beyond the broad issues of national and nuclear security, nuclear policy, and nonproliferation,” NPR said in an emailed statement. “As with all support received, we have a rigorous editorial firewall process in place to ensure our coverage is independent and is not influenced by funders or special interests.”
Ploughshare’s president was interviewed on NPR, the AP reports:
Another who appeared on NPR is Joseph Cirincione, Ploughshares’ president. He spoke about the negotiations on air at least twice last year. The station identified Ploughshares as an NPR funder one of those times; the other time, it didn’t.
Cirincione was an adviser on nuclear issues to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Ploughshares documents show funding last year to other groups to “advance its nonproliferation agenda,” according to the AP.
The Arms Control Association got $282,500; the Brookings Institution, $225,000; and the Atlantic Council, $182,500. They received money for Iran-related analysis, briefings and media outreach, and non-Iran nuclear work.
Other groups, less directly defined by their independent nuclear expertise, also secured grants.
J-Street, the liberal Jewish political action group, received $576,500 to advocate for the deal. More than $281,000 went to the National Iranian American Council.
Princeton University got $70,000 to support former Iranian ambassador and nuclear spokesman Seyed Hossein Mousavian’s “analysis, publications and policymaker engagement on the range of elements involved with the negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear program.”
Ploughshares says it has awarded hundreds of grants “whose aggregate value exceeded $60 million.”
A previous investigation by this reporter showed Ploughshares has partnered with a who’s who of the radical left, including Code Pink, the pro-Palestinian J Street, United for Peace & Justice, the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and Demo, a progressive economic advisory group where President Obama’s controversial former green jobs czar, Van Jones, has served on the board.
The group says its mission is to support the “smartest minds and most effective organizations to reduce nuclear stockpiles, prevent new nuclear states, and increase global security.”
Ploughshares is in turn financed by Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Buffett Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Another Ploughshares donor is the Tides Foundation, which is one of the largest funders of the radical left. Tides is funded by Soros.
Ploughshares has donated to the Institute for Policy Studies, which calls for massive slashes in the U.S. defense budget.
It has also financed the International Crisis Group, a small organization that boasts Soros on its board.
terjeber Said:
LOL, your entire anal retentive discusion focuses on psychology as a science… which for some reason appears to be your only source for an “explanation”. You might be surprised to know that even scientists are aware that they do not have a scientific explanation of all phenomena and that there might be valid explanations for phenomenon which do not meet the criteria of scientific method.
what is amusing is that your behavior exactly meets the examples given in psych 101 textbooks… especially those related to “rationalization”. LOL, there are folks today successfully navigating life using scientifically proven knowledge and scientifically unproven knowledge… obviously you are unaware of such efficacious behavior. E.G. I used psychology in evaluating your behavior and “arguments” and it worked perfectly.. predicting your every move and argument. I’ll bet you were unaware of the predictable patterns of your behavior. Quite often in life one finds that the “argument” presented is NOT the real issue to be evaluated but rather the explanation behind the facade. I expect that you are also unfamiliar with those concepts too. Hence it is clear as to why your arguments range from non existent disguised ad hominems to patently transparent “rationalizations”. Your application of “logic” borders on the banal.
terjeber Said:
I said you are clueless about zionism, judaism and Israel. If you were not clueless and were aware of the intertwined history you would know that the modern incarnation of Israel is only the latest incarnation. There is no Israel apart from zionism, there is no judaism apart from Israel and there is no judaism apart from zionism… if you knew the history of the Jews, the history of judaism, the history of Israel you would know that none exist without zionism. Stockholm syndrome jews notwithstanding. You have demonstrated that you like to speak about that which you do not know except in the most superficial of ways. I will not educate you, if you are interested in knowledge you will seek it but my suspicion is that you are only interested in the sound of your own voice.
terjeber Said:
although I agree on the role of media in the lies, the euros have particularly and irrationally sought to propagate the side of the story emanating from honor killers, suicide bombers, schoolgirl kidnappers, infidel rapers, christian crucifiers… instead of propagating the narrative of the Nobel prize winners. They have made a choice which syncs with their cultural character. I dont believe that they believe their own bullshite… but that they are fanatically driven by irrational motivations which may even lie within their DNA or has become a subliminal habit of culture. I will point out to you that same propensity in yourself later. Its has been demonstrated that habit and experience can alter DNA
Knowing you, and just for fun… i give you this archaic assertion in biblical language which appears to attest to that perennial affliction…
Esau incites Ishmael to murder Jacob
enjoy 🙂
terjeber Said:
Perhaps you should read the history, even of the modern state to see that Israel did not collapse when it did not have strong allies. Phenomena arises sometimes with no apparent prior explanation or justification, unexplained by prior events which reorganize the world.. here is an odd phenomenon which was predicted a long time ago:
today israel sits in the eye of the hurricane of fury while its neighboring enemies slaughter and cannibalize each other…. those enemies were funded and supported by the perennial esau in europe… how odd that they are now flooding europe to cannibalize their employers who funded and instructed them to kill the Jews. so now we have the prospect of the jew killers slaughtering each other in an insane and irrational frenzy…. confounded and confused. None of this is related to anything Israel has done… in fact, it is a demonstration that the events are related to what the jew killers have done. Those aware of the covenant find these events interesting….. perhaps it is that “simulation” you were talking about… LOL.
here is where I point out your same propensity as I described earlier. To a normal rational person it should be obvious that there is absolutely no relationship or analogy between the Jews you described and the honor killer throat slitting adherents to the political military mind control cult. Europe faced none of the dangers from the jews that they face from the muslims today. And yet you, like others, in spite of the obvious, seek to find a “logical” equality…. a congruence borne of wordsmithing…. an analogy that can only exist in the most superficial of thought on a generic level obviously contradicted by the specific reality. Your mind operated apart from reality and found the rationalization for your absurd argument. those jews did not threaten rape, pillage, murder, head chopping, etc etc etc…. in order to make that absurd analogy you must first take flight from reality. Its a rationalization whereby you attempt to explain reality according to your warped perspective. What I see in your “argument” is the seed of the lie which indicates the esau principle. Your lie is very small but it is the beginning of the set of lies which lead to murder. Perhaps you cant help it, an irrational and subconscious force driving you to make absurd assertions which form the basis of murderous lies.
terjeber Said:
thats nice, but anti semitic propaganda and lies always led in the past in europe to the pogrom and genocide of jews. the link is 2000 years old. If you lie about jews then I see it as an attempted murder and genocide of my family and believe that those who spread the lies need to be liquidated in order to protect my family. when you call me apartheid or say i burned babies a muslim slaughter a jewish child in paris repeating those lies as his motivation… therefore it is imperative that the liars are brought to justice. What we are now witnessing in europe and the ME is the bringing to justice of the liars and the most just solution is that they execute each other. Democracy is ok until you tell lies which murder my children… and then all bets are off.
it seems that you are a liar and a fake whereby you equate anti semites spreading murderous lies with the jews of europe. There is a world where murderous liars receive their rightful justice and their wordsmithing explanations prove futile… one of those places is under the scimitar of the muslims.. who have no interest in explanations…. and that makes sense. Zoabis lies murder jewish children and for that there should be justice. no rocket science here.
@ bernard ross:
>> a psychologist can explain
No, actually, a psychologist can’t. As I said, psychology is not a science, or even close to a science. Some psychologists will use scientific tools, such as statistics, to have an opinion on something, but anything that comes out of psychology is opinion and nothing else.
Why is psychology not a science? Because it doesn’t meet the definition of a science. Simple as that. Let me elaborate. A field is scientifically rigorous if it satisfies the following five criteria: a clearly defined terminology, can show quantifiability, controlled experimental conditions, can show reproducibility and can create scientific hypothesises and theories, this means it must be able to show predictability and testability in its work.
Nobody has, to my knowledge, ever produced a single scientific hypothesis within the field of psychology. Ever. Nobody has ever designed a repeatable experiment to test a hypothesis. You can not measure or quantify any aspect of psychology.
It’s an interesting field, and it can some times produce interesting statistics, but science, no, it’s not. It’s mostly mumbo-jumbo. I do understand your problem now though. Your faith in psychology is proof positive you do not use reason when forming your “arguments”. Not that you have provided many arguments, opinions are not arguments.
@ bernard ross:
>> your interpretation of whats good for Israel
Sigh. If you don’t know the difference between “Israel” and “what’s good for Israel” you don’t speak English, and any communication attempted in English is pointless. What you or a Jew think in regards to what Israel is is irrelevant.
>> absolutely and utterly clueless
So you are saying that a political idea, Zionism, is the same as a nation state? If you do, my comment about English is strengthened.
>> the world and europe know that Israel is not an apartheid state
That’s incorrect. The vast majority of anti-Israeli Europeans genuinely believe Israel is an Apartheid state. When Haaretz, Jewish Press also publish from Jews that genuinely believes this.
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/yes-israel-is-an-apartheid-state/2016/03/10/
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/1.671538
Before you go and assume a lot of nonsense, I do not agree with these authors, but they voice an opinion a vast majority of the European left genuinely subscribes to. Dismissing that is counter productive to securing Israel as a nation state, something that, in the long run, will be impossible for Israel to do alone. Without strong allies, Israel will collapse eventually, so doing nothing to dispel myths that pushes allies away is counter productive.
Again, Zoabi is just an irrelevant nutcase, but parading her will dispel any notion that Israel is an Apartheid state, and the notion that Israel is an apartheid state has SIGNIFICANT and genuine support in Europe.
>> there should be zero tolerance of anti semites in Israel
I don’t think Zoabi can be anti-Semitic, she’s Arab? A Semite. Here’s the problem with your statement. Speech isn’t free until people who hold opinions that some think are repugnant are also allowed to voice them. Free speech is a requirement for a democracy, no free speech, no democracy possible. You are saying people with opinions you find repugnant should have no right to free speech. So, you are arguing Israel should seize to be a democracy and rather move towards totalitarianism. OK, you have to right to want that, but then how does that make your political views any different than any other totalitarian dictators? Your views are certainly shared by the likes of Mao, Stalin, Assad, Mussolini and Hitler. Are you comfortable in such company?
>> they are dangerous to Jews
Now, the interesting thing here is that your argumentation is moving towards one that was used a lot in Europe in the 19th century. There were countries in Europe where Jews were banned from living according to the constitution of these countries. Because Jews were dangerous to the people in these countries. Same argument as you just used.
In my opinion, people should be judged by their actions, not their ideas. This is something I share with others who find Democracy to be a good solution to the issue of running a country.
>> anti semites and inciters like zoabi should not be
>> tolerated in the jewish homeland
This is exactly the same argument that was used to discriminate against Jews i Europe. Seems like you and the anti-Semites in Europe share the same ideals. That’s sad. Seems you haven’t learned anything about recent Jewish history.
Bear Klein Said:
it made me wonder whether the economic value which accrued to the state was taken into account when they cut subsidies… not all economic value is able to be measured and not all value can be distilled to economics. Bear Klein Said:
according to my anti virus a malicious high severity instrusion was attempted to a re direction from this link.
terjeber Said:
reason is irrelevant to your behavior… you assert that you are not calling people insane…because you refer to their statement rather than their person. LOLROFLMAO
You cannot understand why your patently transparent lie is not accepted because you know nothing of psychology… think of the emperor with no clothes…. all his logical arguments don’t do the trick…. just like you… can you figure out why yet? you are pretending to wear clothes while being naked… and you think folks wont notice and will buy your “logic” instead of reality.
terjeber Said:
a psychologist can explain but I did not say you could understand. Its obvious that your education and experience is limited and provincial otherwise you would not be flaunting your psychological and educational defects. this also explains why yoou continue to compulsively and irrationally expect those who behave irrationally to accept logical arguments and change their behavior. If you knew anything about psychology it would be an obvious error… but its just one more area in which you are clueless…like Jews, Judaism, Zionism and Israel. Reading might help you a little.
terjeber Said:
wrong again.. your interpretation of whats good for Israel is what others think of her whereas most jews are aware that others thinking about jews has nothing to do with jews. they will continue to think what they think regardless of what jews do.
terjeber Said:
like I said, a person who is absolutely and utterly clueless about that which he discusses. Ill leave it to you to figure out why.
terjeber Said:
LOl, attempting to render rational that which is irrational… the world and europe know that Israel is not an apartheid state… the facts are irrelevant to their behavior.
terjeber Said:
there should be zero tolerance of anti semites in Israel, all anti semites should be deported, they are dangerous to Jews. the opinions of the world which spent 2000 years libeling and slaughtering jews.. and continuing the same today… has nothing to do with rational thought or facts… they commit their crimes irrationally… facts make no difference… they already know the facts.
terjeber Said:
rational individuals who have experience know that irrational behavior is not motivated by logic or arguments… Its a pity that you are so ignorant of the world and human irrational behavior, especially as there is 2000 years of data to inform you.
I am saying that anti semites and inciters like zoabi should not be tolerated in the jewish homeland simply to impress the europeans and their irrational behaviors. Jews need to stop jumping through hoops to prove things to the gentiles. I would prefer and support the death of anti semites.
terjeber Said:
appealing to authority is irrelevant to my point…. it matters not how many support an interpretation… it is still an interpretation… an interpretation of an event is NOT a description of the event or experiment.
before the big bang theory it was considered by most not to be.
before galileo everyone thought ptolemy was the cats meow.
Oh, and I thought that the Dr. whom you based your interpretative comments on …… was a woman…
@ bernard ross:
>> psychologist will explain it to you
I would not be surprised if one did. Psychology is science in the same way that astrology, reading tea leaves and homeopathy is science. Astrology is superstition. Through and through.
When three psychologists examine a patient the only surprise you’ll get is that they ONLY come up with three different diagnosis, one would, given the quality of their “science” expect at least five.
@ bernard ross:
>> similarly, the people that you were intending to call insane
I have not, as I have shown, intended to call anyone insane. Try to use reason, logic and arguments, rather than hysterical outbursts.
@ bernard ross:
>> you support your interpretation of Israel
Have you forgotten your medications again? I don’t have an interpretation of Israel, neither do you. There is no “interpretation” of a nation state. Such as:
Nation state:
a sovereign state of which most of the citizens or subjects are united also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent.
The concept of a nation state is well defined everywhere but inside your mind.
>> I think you are bad as you appear to dismiss a part
>> of our culture and history
Sigh. You really have serious problems being rational don’t you? Here is a clue for you. I think communism is bad, does that mean that I have voiced any opinion on Russia today? No. Israel is not Zionism and Zionism is not Israel. Zionism is a political idea, Israel is a nation state. Try to understand the difference.
>> I take this as a personal insult…
Zionism is a political idea. If you can not handle criticism of a political idea as anything but a personal insult, then your brain simply doesn’t function in a rational sense. Sorry, people who disagree with your political ideas are not trying to insult you. The very notion is infantile. Grow up!
>> your rationalization is based on what image you want
>> the Jews to project
No, I am not asking any Jew to do anything. Here is some logic for you:
1/ The world, and Europe in particular consider Israel an Apartheid state.
2/ Zoabi proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Israel is NOT an Apartheid state
Conclusion – as long as Zoabi is allowed to do what she does, she PROVES with her very existence that everybody who says Israel is an Apartheid state is WRONG. PROVES it. Beyond any doubt. It also proves that Israel is not only the only democratic state in the Middle East, but that Israel is probably the most democratic state IN THE WORLD.
If you want to PROVE that the anti-Jewish movement in Europe is simply an extension of Nazism, you keep Zoabi in the news in Europe as often as you can. If you want to support the people who hate Jews, you kick her out.
So, who do you want to support? Israel or the anti-Jewish crowds of Europe? Use your BRAIN before answering, and please construct a LOGICAL argument for why it is better to remove her from the Knesset than parading her as an example on how exceptionally democratic Israel in fact is. Again, stop reacting with EMOTION, use LOGIC and form arguments. That’s what rational individuals do.
>> your “rational thought” is entirely self serving drivel
So, are you saying that when the Supreme Court says that Zoabi can run as a politician, they do NOT prove that Israel is a country run by law and that Israel is NOT an Apartheid country? Try arguments for once. Not just emotional outbursts that one would expect from a slightly retarded 13 year old girl. Form logical arguments.
terjeber Said:
not at all, its just that my experience and education allow me to recognize the difference between rational and rationalization… which is what you do with all your beleifs you enumerated here. Dont worry, most folks like you are unaware of what they are doing too. Its Psy 101
terjeber Said:
similarly, the people that you were intending to call insane were also not insane… its just you ranting as usual and then pretending you are not ranting, its called rationalizing….. not rational.
terjeber Said:
poor thing, did you think ad hominem is rocket science?
terjeber Said:
LOl, no what you did is attempt to obfuscate your transparent MO with more BS, its quite amusing…. a psychologist will explain it to you clearly as you fit right into psy 101 textbook.
terjeber Said:
your analogy is not analogous because it does not take into account what you did… call names with no argument to support. Hence you made an ad hominem covered by a fig leaf.
terjeber Said:
its amusing to watch you continue with your twists and turns, its obvious that you dont beleive your own BS.
BTW you have never shown how the statements were moronic, fundamentally retarded, fundamentally insane, childishly absurd…. there is nothing rational in that behavior… certainly nothing scientific… and yet you keep spending time like an anal compulsive trying to show how calling a statement fundamentally insane is not the same as calling the person fundamentally insane. How is a sentence insane.. just a collection of words.
keep it up, its funny to watch your gymnastics.
@ bernard ross:
>> I do understand the experiment but unlike you I have
>> not attempted to fix its ramifications within the
>> limits of my understandin
My comments above are based on, among other things, the works of Xiaosong Ma and friends, not the more popular-science versions of their research.
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v8/n6/abs/nphys2294.html
https://www.coqus.at/people/xiaosong-ma/
You can check some of his work related to Wheeler delayed choice here: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1221
Slightly simplistic “summary” here (but I recommend the actual work they have done in the past few years): http://www.livescience.com/19975-spooky-quantum-entanglement.html
terjeber Said:
where is that theory espoused?
terjeber Said:
you dont support Israel, you support your interpretation of Israel, Israel is irrelevant.
terjeber Said:
I think you are bad as you appear to dismiss a part of our culture and history…. and our desire to return to our homeland after being hounded and slaughtered by the euros and muslims for 2000 years and continuing today.
terjeber Said:
looks like you are one of those folks coming here to beat their drum in our parade. Surely you can find folks of your own ilk who will agree with you, you can even find many stockholm syndrome jews who agree.
terjeber Said:
I take this as a personal insult… and a personal danger. anti zionism is merely a fig leaf for anti semitism, and we already know you gravitate to fig leafs in your MO. I think that folks like you are very bad and a grave danger to the world and should be kept in cages to prevent you causing more damage than you have already.
hows that for a thought.
terjeber Said:
no, you are a fierce rationalizer who rationalizes his pathologies into a flag waving behavior.
terjeber Said:
of course you do and your subsequent reasoning proves why…. your rationalization is based on what image you want the Jews to project to the other. Mine is simple, zoabis lies murder jewish children and anti semites do not deserve to live. It is not important what the world thinks and it drains the energy needed to liquidate enemies. the world like you will continue to make the jews jump through hoops until the jews change their mo.
terjeber Said:
your “rational thought” is entirely self serving drivel… with no relation to Israel and the jews needs. You also demonstrate once more you very limited thought envelope with your typical put down of “moronic feelings”. it is moronic feelings which come up with your pretend rational thought… like most who are unaware… you cant see it. All of your beliefs are grounded in ignorance and provincialism… basically you are clueless about the things you discuss.
@ bernard ross:
>> I first learned ad hominem in a basic logic and language
>> course in 1964
Really? I doubt it. I have given you an example of a rational, very, very rational, person holding an absurd belief. Einstein was, in my opinion, not retarded.
Now, here’s your problem. Einsteins opinion on the static state universe was OBJECTIVELY absurd. Even Einstein thought so, and he seriously derided his younger self for having a moronic opinion (not using that word, it wasn’t popular at the time).
So, here’s the problem with your assumption. If I calling someones opinion moronic, I am calling that person a moron, then objectively, and admitting it him self, Einstein was a moron. He wasn’t.
Sadly, since you are apparently ruled entirely by your opinions, you have seemingly lost the ability for rational thought.
@ Bear Klein:
>> Jewish Religious Zealot? What is it you do not approve
>> of them for?
Religion and most political “isms” are ideas that are rooted in collectivism. One finds “one self” not in one self as a person but as a part of a larger group. In all ideas descended from collectivism, at some point in time, atrocities will be committed. Even in an idea as peaceful as Buddhism, which is amazing since there is nothing in Buddhism that could motivate atrocities. In Judaism, Christianity, Communism and not the least Islam, you can find many justifications for atrocities. The words “for the greater good” or “for our Lord ” will frequently be used to justify atrocities. No you say?
Imagine (no, I don’t think it is probable, that’s why I say imagine) Trump taking total control of the US, he’ll do so well in defending the US against some massive outbreak of terrorism that people will actually accept that he suspends democracy. Absurd you say? No, in many circumstances anyone is willing to give up democracy for some other benefit (usually security). Germany anno 1933-36 is an example. The US after 9/11 is another.
So, Trump has full control, he’s thrown out most of the Mexicans, but he keeps a few hundred thousand as slaves for him self and other members of his inner circle. One day the Mexican president comes to visit and ask Trump to mend his ways. Trump tells him to buzz off. He comes again and asks a couple of times, with more and more convincing justification, but Trump doesn’t care. So he goes back home.
In Mexico the Mex prez goes out and finds the biggest, baddest nark baron in the country, and he asks him to fix the problem. “How” the mafia boss asks. Take a few of your best killers with you to the US, and find every boy in the country that is the first-born in his family, and kill him. “Huh” says the mafia dude. “Just do it” says the prez. The US is a Christian country, and as such they have sanctioned such behavior already. They all think it is OK when some state head holds our people as slaves.
Now, I don’t know anyone in the US who thinks this is a good thing, I don’t know anyone who would. HOWEVER, people who believe the stuff in the Christian Bible actually happened, and that the actions of their God are all good have in fact indirectly sanctioned such behavior. You can’t claim it was OK for someone to do it to free the (imaginary by all means) Israelite slaves in Egypt, but the same behavior is unacceptable from others.
The astonishing thing is that the collectivism of, in this case, these Christians (and Jews who cherish the same story as a good, and benign story) has made them go absolutely insane. The Exodus story is a story about a unspeakably evil being doing unspeakably evil things over and over and over. And they cherish this monster. The God stories describe an entity that makes the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and Adolf H, seem like slightly irritating neighbors. Anyone today who would cherish the stories of any of the mentioned characters would be deemed insane by his peers. However, in the fog of religious collectivism, that simple reality is lost, even on presumably rational people.
@ terjeber:
really, why waste energy on such a transparently pathetic explanation. I first learned ad hominem in a basic logic and language course in 1964… you tried to hide your ad hominem behind a transparent fig leaf and like any disingenuous character you cant fess up to what is obvious to everyone. I will tell you again: when you call a persons statement “fundamentally insane” or “childishly absurd” with no argument submitted to support your statement you have simply committed an ad hominem in hiding behind a dishonest presentation. I can see how your tricky mind works… its just that all your attempts at argument do not replace your transparent MO. If you want to be taken seriously then make your arguments but insulting folks without argument immediately is a red flag pointing to your incompetence and dishonesty. what I notice is that you rarely make an argument which is not easily and simply ripped to pieces.
@ Ted Belman:
>> I have enjoyed your jousting but find the issues you
>> are discussing secondary
I totally agree. We agree on the premises this site mostly talks about. The right of Israel to exist and defend it self against going on 100 years of Arab aggression. There are many things we can disagree on, for sure, but they are secondary.
My point with the original post is that if you want to be taken seriously by the world as such, espousing tin-foil hat conspiracy theories is counter productive.
To be seen as a serious participant in opinion forming, one has to try to be reasonable rational. You can’t stick to your guns no matter what happens on the ground. Let me use an example:
Assume extremist Jews come to power in Israel (it isn’t entirely unthinkable). Assume they are as extreme as many other extremists, and conflict drives them to commit atrocities. For example, let’s say they start seriously limiting the liberties of non-Jewish Israelis.
If that happens, I can no longer justify supporting Israel. I support Israel because it is a beacon of light in a dark part of the world. If that beacon of light dims, so does my support. I think Zionism is bad. Judaism (and Islam, Christianity, communism, nationalism, and all other ideas that are founded in collectivism) are bad ideas. REALLY bad ideas. Collectivism is the greatest threat to personal freedom in the world. Irrespective of its guise.
I am also fiercely rational. For this reason I probably differ from many other supporters of Israel in many areas. I do, for example, find the idea that Haneen Zoabi should be either kicked out of Knesset or even punished in some way, to be totally absurd. At the moment, no citizen of Israel can do more good to Israel’s cause internationally than Haneen Zoabi. Sadly the vast majority of people use their emotions, not their brains, to look at the issue. I am gobsmacked that the Israeli government has not engaged a major PR company in the world to parade her around. She is proof positive that every single person who ever called Israel an Apartheid state is either clueless or severely brain damaged. Sadly, as I said, rational thought comes hard for most people, and it is usually shouted down by moronic “feelings”.
terjeber Said:
On the contrary, you added your interpretation of observed phenomenon… I saw no indication that your inference was a necessary inference of the observed phenomenon… there was no reason to assume your interpretations as being exclusive of other interpretations.
terjeber Said:
nothing you wrote in the quote above was the description of observed events, what you wrote is your opinion and interpretation of what the observed event meant, you needed to explain it to yourself in ways that you could understand and fathom. Therefore, you took the step of revising the event as if your interpretation was the actual event.
I can understand with your computer background, your need to explain events within the context of your apprehended reality… but that has nothing to do with science.
terjeber Said:
I also understand your need to cover up your errors and ignorance by defaming me… I do understand the experiment but unlike you I have not attempted to fix its ramifications within the limits of my understanding. You appear to have a reliable MO of insulting folks when you make ludicrous assertions, you would make a good politician.
terjeber Said:
LOL, attacking me does not relieve you of the obligation to discern observed events from your very limited imagination. Waving degrees in peoples faces is usually the mark of an incompetent. Try to stick to the points as your repetitive insults only make you a cartoon character. Its quite pathetic to watch you do this.
@ bernard ross:
>> i simply make the next logical assumption
Let me relay a small piece of information you might not know. Einstein, a Jewish genius, believed that the Universe was in a steady state. Given what Einstein knew and what he could observe, that belief is FUNDAMENTALLY RETARDED. If I told an average intelligence eight grader what Einstein knew about the universe, and that Einstein actually believed in a steady state, he would immediately conclude that Einstein was wrong.
The fact that Einstein had an opinion that was fundamentally retarded, does not mean that Einstein was fundamentally retarded. It meant that Einstein held too hard to a belief he had developed while not having the information he had later in life, while still holding on to his belief.
Honestly, to me, anyone who can not separate opinion from person is severely lacking intellectual capacity. I criticized your non-factual opinion, I said nothing about you. Remember:
1/ The first syllable of assumption is ass
2/ Assuming something that is not stated is just dumb
3/ You are struggling with the concept of “logical”
@ bernard ross:
>> you postulate a causal link but assume that the past
>> cannot be altered by a different future action OR that
>> an entirely different universe of options arises
I only relate to what was observed in the experiments from 2014 and 2015. If you did not understand them, please ask, or get at least a bachelor in physics with a focus on sub-atomic physics. I assume, based on your misunderstandings, you do not have a degree of that kind.
@ bernard ross:
I found an interesting article on some successful Kibbutzim
http://nocamels.com/2016/03/successful-israeli-kibbutzim-industry-technology/
@ terjeber: Tevor said the following.
What is a Jewish Religious Zealot? What is it you do not approve of them for?
1. Do they try and convert people to Judaism? (Could not be because Jews do NOT proselytize).
So what are you suspicious of and what do you base this on?
@ bernard ross: Bernard asked,
Yes there have been many advances made in kibbutzim (plural of kibbutz in Hebrew) in agricultural areas and some others.
I did not mean to disparage people on the kibbutzim. There are and were great Israeli leaders and soldiers, Mossad members, etc. At times way ahead of the city people proportionally to the population.
terjeber Said:
interestingly, in spite of all your long story which changed no facts… in spite of yourself… you were still able to arrive at an actual solution to the problem…. you out trumped Trump who said:
“lets ban muslim immigration until we can figure it out”
but you went a step further… you stumbled on the answer without realizing it.
kids say the darndest things… out of the mouths of babes
🙂
Ted Belman Said:
Ted Belman Said:
frankly, I find discussing obama to be a waste of time at this point. He was just a puppet.. more importan are his enablers and handlers… like george soros, etc. its obvious that there was no opposition to his agenda politically… Israel need be concerned about what he will do between november and january after the election… although I have never fully bought the drama we have been fed.
more important is that the jewish communist trying to change the dem platform has picked 3 of his five delegates to be anti semitic anti israel BDS niks. It appears that his main agenda and platform is not workers, unfair trade, national health, etc…. looks like his problem is israel
he seeks to change the democratic party into an anti israel party… or as he might call it a pal rights party…. thereby showing his subscription to the bevy of lies produced by the muslims through their paid ivy league academia donations.
terjeber Said:
see, we disagree again… I have no problem with jewish or christian zealots.. I dont see them throughout the world head chopping, honor killing ,suicide bombing, schoolgirl kidnapping and enslaving, etc etc etc
I find generic philosophizing and moralizing like yours, the type that seeks to give equality to everything… the type that wants to fight christian and jewish zealotry instead of focusing on the actual real problem of muslims and their ideological political military domination mind control cult……… I find folks spreading that sort of hopy dreamy one size fits all to be part of the problem as opposed to any solution.
terjeber Said:
It was a repetitive serial, chronic, millenial, and perhaps even congenital(cultural or genetic) libeling, swindling, thieving, slaughtering, of the Jews in europe…. a pathos so reliable that today, even though mostly secular, the euro institutions find a way to stalk the jews back to their homeland and fund the honor killers to do the dirty work. This is not zealotry… perhaps a congenital disease, or habit passed down culturally… but who cares… the main thing is to liquidate those who are up to no good.
terjeber Said:
no, the religions zealotry is the vehicle used by those wielding the power and the money. their bound clerics issue the fatwas whereby today you kill all goats and tomorrow all grasshoppers… its irrelevant as long as you do what your told while shouting allahu akbar. The saudi princes whore, gambol and get drunk in london while their paid clerics issue fatwas. they fund madrassas throughout the world to recruit the useless, servile cannon fodder… feed them, clothe them, arm them and point them to the right place. Religious zealotry is not the cause, it is the vehicle created. At this time in history we find only one group significantly threatening the globe with their lunacy… however that group has many allies in the west.terjeber Said:
I dont know why we even discuss it… there is only one superstition proving an existential danger today.. unless you want to include atheistic communism in that category… also bred a fanatacism which killed a lot of folks.
I have mixed feelings on fanatacism…. sometimes I wish the jews would become fanatics because it appears that without that focus they are suicidal even when victorious. each time I see a jewish child murdered I hope for the jews to fanatically drive out the arabs without mercy… it would save jewish lives. when the muslim fires a rocket at a jewish family I wish Israel would bomb gaza to cinders to liquidate ALL their children…. that would be a fanatacism which would bring the world back into balance. the frog boils slowly in the pot… slow without any fanatacism involved. so who is the dangerous fanatic… the one who allows the muslims to slaughter his children while sacrificing his children to save their despicable lives…. or the one who would liquidate the threat without mercy to save the lives of his children?
Was hiroshima and nagasaki an act of fanatacism or was it a love of ones own children? the generals in Israel prefer more jewish children die in order to save the lives of the honor killers and their despicable spawn. I would give them a choice… disarm or die… no choice of method.
@ bernard ross:
@ terjeber:
I have enjoyed your jousting but find the issues you are discussing secondary. Were you to ignore whether or not he was a communist or a Muslim and simply discussed his policies and whether they were good or bad for America or what his agenda is, would have been more pertinent.
Was he right to build up Iran or ultimately to support Assad?
Was he right to allow Russia a foothold?
Was he right to get out of the Middle East?
Does it serve America to force the creation of Palestine as Obama attempts to do.
Did Obama violate the US constitution? Is that a good or bad thing?
Has the IRS under Obama’s authority betrayed its duty?
So many questions. They all boil down to one question. Was Obama good or bad for America?
@ bernard ross:
>> In other words you have an axe to grind.
Zealotry, religious and political, is the most dangerous thing there is (not using the literal definition of zealots, which was a Jewish sect at one point in time). It wasn’t evil Germans that caused the Holocaust, it was a political zealotry. It isn’t evil that drives the Daesh, it is religious zealotry. Fanaticism is dangerous, even if it is based in Christian or Jewish superstition. Extremely dangerous.
bernard ross Said:
since those facts mean nothing to you then I am certain you will also miss the humor in this:
america elected a guy named hussein as their president after 911
LOL, nothing to see here, move along folks 🙂
terjeber Said:
when you call a persons comments “fundamentally insane” with no explanation or accompanying arguments i simply make the next logical assumption.. that you are calling the person fundamentally insane, notwithstanding your possible protestatiions to the contrary. the same with childishly aburd…. the same with the ownership as opposed to control issue in interpreting a communist bent…. I simply make the reasonable logical assumption that a step to further gov control is on the path to communism. Granted, obama never reached communism, but that was never the argument… go back and reread your original statement which I emboldened…. a policy which tried…. ownership is down the line… control is the key. by fixating on a minor issue you miss the substance. A step towards communism does not necessarily entail ownership in spite of the definition of communism entailing ownership.
terjeber Said:
or the observer is changing
terjeber Said:
folks tend to make models based on their own experiences.
sorry, but I did not see that proof in the experiment.. I beleive that is your interpretation.
same for the following, you take license that is not proven.. you postulate a causal link but assume that the past cannot be altered by a different future action OR that an entirely different universe of options arises. you must separate you interpretations and speculations from the fact. If the future is a cause of the past then one cannot assume that a change in a future act would not change the past act.
terjeber Said:
terjeber Said:
yes but it does not involve the gov taking complete control of a large segment of the economy… why do you think the conservatives are against the gov supplying services or taking control? you have gone on a tangent. the argument was not whether he implemented communinsm but whether he attempted a policy to lead to communism. We agree that he did not achieve communism, but that was not the argument. control is at the crux of moving in that direction. there is no sense in beating it to death… obama did not achieve communism but he tried to take a step in that direction, not in ownership but in control, and control is what counts. When someone controls what you own it is not long before you sell it to them at a song.
thats because they have achieved communism whereas obama only took a step… options exist now, but watch each step remove it. it is likely that the failure of obamacare will end up leading to a greater degree of gov control rather than a lesser.
Sorry, but your long paragraph still ended proving that Obama was registered as a muslim at the catholic school, he was allowed to register as a christian but registering as a muslim meant being required to take koran classes. A long long blah blah blah saying in the end he was registered as a muslim and took classes in koran…..duh raised as a muslim at both schools.
obama was raised as a muslim in spite of all your protestations to the contrary and your fairy tale long explanations you were never able to rebut that fact… all you can say is that it doesnt matter becuase he is a christian now…. other than his attendance at the anti semitic, anti american wright church and his inconsistent statements there is no evidence that he did not remain the muslim he and his father were raised as.
raised a muslim registered in school as a muslim, took classes in koran, prayed in the mosque…..
it only needs one sentence of those facts, your stories are unsupported by fact as compelling as those facts. You can believe obama and his opportunistic black churchgoing for political reasons, but I beleive the facts. the facts never changed, you just decided which facts you want to ignore.
@ bernard ross:
At a sub-atomic level, time seems not to be linear, and yes, the past appears to be changeable (or at least depending on something that happens in “the future”). I don’t find this to be incredible in the least, but believing in fairy tales concocted by un-educated (by our standards) bronze age sheep herders to create a sense of unity is absurd.
Now, you seemed not to understand the article you referred to. You seem to have read it to mean that what you saw happening yesterday might change in the future. This is an incorrect interpretation. What the experiments show is that what I observed today may have been caused by something that HAS ALREADY HAPPENED in the future. In other words, what I observed today will not be invalidated in the future, but it may be caused by something that, in my interpretation of time, will happen in the future.
So, it isn’t that things from our past are going to change, only that “the past” and “the future” are our own mental constructs that we use to explain our observation of the world as if moving in time. Imagine if you wish, you sitting in a box with a tiny slit for observation, what you see through this slit is a forever changigng world, but the reality is that the change you see is not change at all, just altered positions on a straight line.
My explanations may be poor, my masters is not in physics but in computer science. I have proven though, that given certain pre-conditions, we all live in a simulation. Tyson recently was quoted with the same conclusion.
@ bernard ross:
>> It matters not who produces as they must produce
>> to gov directives and not to a free market
The actors in a capitalist economy must always operate within some sort of law. They do today, and they will in the future. If that law does not transfer OWNERSHIP of the means of production to the state, the law is not communist. Again, you do not define what communism is. Communism is collective OWNERSHIP, by definition. You have not shown any transfer of ownership, so you are wrong. Now, show me where Obama has attempted transfer of OWNERSHIP from the private sector to the public sector.
>> the doctors must take what they are paid at gov discretion
No, they mustn’t. They can opt not to be in. Many do. Many, many, many do. In Cuba, they do not have the opportunity to opt out. In a communist society there is no opt-out option since there are no other options. You have now been proven BADLY wrong. Still, I am sure you will stick to your beliefs. Your mind is that of a religious person and no amount of logic can change that. As science seems to have demonstrated.
>> obviusly for some reason they did not want to tell the
>> truth or they told the truth and you are the liar
I am registered as a Christian. I am an atheist. I am not hiding it. In many countries there is an official state religion, unless you are actively registered with another religion you are by default registered as the official state religion. I have to register with another faith society to not be registered as a Christian. Do I like it? No. Do I care? Not much. The fact that you are ignorant doesn’t change the reality that Obama’s father was an atheist, and he has openly said so. Claiming that he has hidden it, when he has openly stated he’s an atheist is something only a seriously retarded person can believe.
As for Obama, when he was in Indonesia, he was registered as a Muslim, but he had no choice in the matter. In Indonesia the government decides if you are a child. Obama had no say in the matter, and probably, being seven years old and younger, probably didn’t have an opinion on the matter.
>> you admit he was born a muslim according to muslim law
Either you have to stop listening to the voices in your head or you need to start taking your anti-hallucinatory medication. I have never said Obama was born a Muslim. Obama was born in the US, under US jurisdiction. In the US you are not born any religion. You are just born a human.
>> his father was born and raised a muslim
Yes, but his father was not a Muslim. His father was an atheist. In a rational world, one that you have not even glimpsed apparently, your religion is determined by you, not the state.
>> even though he attended catholic school he registered
>> there as a muslim
No, I have not admitted that, again, it’s the voices in your head. He was a child, so he didn’t register there. His mother or his step father registered Obama in the Catholic school in Indonesia, the Indonesian Government decided he was to be registered as a Muslim. By Indonesian law children and mothers are not part of the decision-making process. They register children according to the fathers religion, and nobody has ever said that Obama’s step father was not a Muslim. Again, that doesn’t make Obama a Muslim. The only person who can define what religion Obama has is Obama. In a world that is not populated by nutcases. I see you seem to think that the US is a land of nutcase morons who thinks the government should decide what your religion is. That is not the case. The US has mostly rational laws, not he kind of laws nutcases like you thinks it should have.
Why do you think it right that the US government should be the one deciding what YOUR religion is? You do know that the government deciding what religion you are is against the US constitution, right? So why do YOU think such laws are a good idea?
>> you admit that he did the same in public school
Nope. A seven year old child can not do that. The Government did it.
>> links which referred to him attending mosques for worship
Eisenhower was apparently the first US president attending a mosque. Was he a Muslim?
>> his dressing in muslim garb
Yeah, right. So, when visiting a foreign country and dressing in that country’s garb determines your religion? Seriously? I’ve worn “Muslim garb” at a party in (in fact) Indonesia. I’ve worn traditional Indian clothes when in India. I have participated in religious rites in India and among natives in Australia. Does that make me a Hindu-Muslim-Australian native or are you just really, really dumb?
>> You admit the facts
Stick to what I say, not to what the voices in your head say, they are not real.
>> ad hominems which immediately marked you as a liberal parrot
I am not even sure you know what an ad-hominem attack is. I am sure, for example, that you think a statement like “your latest statement is childish nonsense” is ad-hominem, but it isn’t. As I said, you shouldn’t use big words you don’t understand. An ad-hominem attack is an attack on a person, not the statements, ideas or opinions of a person.
Obama is a Christian, by any rational definition. Any other opinion is contrary to observed fact, reason and sense. Such opinions are, by definition, insane. Usually sane people do not hold insane opinions, but it is sadly more common than would be ideal. Religion, for example, is an insane idea shared by a huge majority of the worlds population. It’s insane all the same.
Tip: If you don’t want to appear insane, stop holding insane opinions.
Also, you have proven that you are a Muslim. Why? Because I say so. And since you have now stated that someone else can define what religion you are, I have said you are a Muslim, and therefore, by your logic, you are. Now get the fuck out of where ever you live and move to some backwards country like Saudi Arabia.
Also, your comment that I am a liberal is proof positive of your incapability of rational thought. I can guarantee you that politically I am FAR to your right. I am a libertarian. I think it is an wrong that the US military is owner and operated by the US government. Military should be a private enterprise.
terjeber Said:
Ptolemy and his followers believed similarly
what you call sky fairies might be something different… its only a few decades ago that the instantaneous creation of the universe was accepted as possible, and more recently that it expanded enormously in the first 2 seconds of its creation. When you call certain things moronic what you are actually doing is classifying your interpretation as moronic.
we already have sky fairies in the form of jet packs, we have hovercraft floating in air…. anti gravity devices are on their way and the judy wood narrative of 911 postulates the existence of a device that instructed matter at the atomic level to repel rather than attract.
terjeber Said:
I asked because you seem very invested in your narrative of magical sky fairies visiting plagues… I asked you that question not in relation to time travel but to the notion that an act today can change an act in the past… and everything that means in terms of imagination and what can be “real” Next to this I think sky fairies are quite reasonable.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-the-past-exist-yet-e_b_683103.html
@ bernard ross:
In sub-atomic physics, yes, that has been demonstrated by scientific experimentation, but on a macro level, no. For you and me, time seems to be a one-direction thing. We might be wrong though, and that would make the “go back and kill your grandfather” paradox a fun thing to try. Perhaps.
I don’t know why you ask this though. I haven’t really talked much about time travel.
@ Keli-A:
>> The constitution is only as strong as the people willing
>> to roll up their sleeves and defend it
To quote Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”
He’s very right. This is why they US has the 2nd amendment. Not so the son of a a Texas cowboy can wave his fathers gun around and accidentally kill his brother, but so that the people can defend them selves against a totalitarian government. The founding fathers thought that over time totalitarianism was the inevitable result of democracy, and that when it happened, the people should be armed so as to be able to rid them selves of the tyrants.
Sadly, these days if you are a GOP member you are more than happy to tolerate a GOP tyrant, and if you are a Democrat you are more than willing to tolerate a Democrat tyrant. Party affiliation has become more important than reality. G. W. Bush headed a monstrous government, and his cabinet should basically all be behind bars. Obama, very much the same. If Clinton is elected, same thing. If Trump is elected and he actually follows through on his campaign promises, probably more so than anyone can imagine.
Sadly nobody remembers why the US actually has the 2nd amendment any more.
terjeber Said:
do you believe it is scientifically possible for an act in the present to change events in the past.
terjeber Said:
who says that it doesnt? Saudi may simply accept that he is a muslim and there is no proof that he is an apostate because his attendance at the wright church can be explained simply by taqiyya. It is permissible NOT to overtly practice Islam if one is advancing Islam with a policy of taqiyya. You are simply treating all the facts as meaning the opposite of what those facts portray. remember that obama did bow to the saudi king in front of the world… of course your explanation is that it means something other than what it actually means..
it is not that your arguments are “childishly absurd” or “fundamentally insane” it is that they are moreso in that direction than the opposite arguments.
terjeber Said:
In other words you have an axe to grind.
@ terjeber:
you brought nothing new, same story already debunked, but I will repeat as you appear hard of hearing:
terjeber Said:
I dealt with this… obama care like medicare and medicaid bring one of the largest segments of the US econonomy under gov control. It matters not who produces as they must produce to gov directives and not to a free market.
terjeber Said:
the doctors must take what they are paid at gov discretion just like in Cuba… it matters not that they own their office or stethoscope or car… what matters is who is in control of that segment of the economy… it is a step towards gov control which is a step towards communism.
terjeber Said:
this would be meaningful if the terrorist muslims who killed folks agreed with your definitions. it is the majority of muslims in the world whose definition of who is a muslim is what practically and defacto obtains. Its matters nothing what americans believe or define as a muslim… its just not fact. Muslims the world over including in america state that if the father is a muslim the child is a muslim… if a muslim converts he is an apostate subject to execution… however we have no record of obama converting and we do have records of his muslim identity and his praying in mosques. Perhaps he never converted, perhaps it is simply muslim taqiyya. Whatever is YOUR beleif or definition of a muslim, it is irrelevant as most muslims agree otherwise. Read the links I posted to see that Obama the muslim has many more proofs whereby the preponderance of evidence proves that he is more a muslim than anything else. Certainly there is more evidence for that than your statement that considering him a muslim is childishly absurd. read the links which give more evidence.
terjeber Said:
you say they were atheists but registered as muslims … obviusly for some reason they did not want to tell the truth or they told the truth and you are the liar. everything you say is speculation giving other reasons for all the evidence showing him a muslim… but your speculations are fantasy with no evidence other than hearsay or obamasay… and we are already familiar with obamasay as taqiyyasay. All your protestations and fake hearsay explanations for facts which say he is a muslim are irrelevant, just your fantasies.
terjeber Said:
you admit he was born a muslim according to muslim law (just not your american law of defining muslims)
You admit now that his father was born and raised a muslim even though you still assert the hearsay that he became an atheist (how did that fit with his polygamy and all his muslim relatives)?
You admit that even though he attended catholic school he registered there as a muslim and attended koran classes.
you admit that he did the same in public school, registered as a muslim and attended koran classes
etc etc etc what about the links which referred to him attending mosques for worship and photos of his dressing in muslim garb.
You admit the facts but you simply submit contradictory explanations for those facts which are speculative and hearsay with a lower level of evidence credibility than the facts themselves which need none of your explanations.
nothings changed…. your narratives are baloney in spite of your attempts to cover up your ludicrous assertions with insults like “absurdly childish” and “fundamentally insane”. it was your tactic and typical use of those ad hominems which immediately marked you as a liberal parrot who just keeps repeating the same wrong statements hoping something will change. The only “childishly absurd” assertions and fundamentally insane narratives are yours.
Your facts prove my case… all the facts point to muslim but you invent unsupported narratives and hearsay not to prove the facts wrong but to give those facts a slant which does not exist except in your and obama’s fairy tales.
Obama is more a muslim than anything else, obamacare although not direct ownership of the doctors or the hospitals is complete control of that segment of healthcare as all suppliers must follow their gov rules and payments. ownership becomes meaningless.
@ WB:
For the record, before anyone jumps to any more silly conclusions, I am no fan of Obama. I think he (and also Hillary Clinton) is a criminal and that he should be prosecuted for war crimes. For the record, I think the same about G. W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
However, the one thing I like a lot less than Obama, Clinton, Bush and Cheney, is the morons running around thw world concocting moronic conspiracy theories. Are 51, we didn’t land on the moon, Obama is a Muslim – they are all moronic, and I feel tremendously the fact that people who run around subscribing to such nonsense exist, and even more, have followers who believe their moronic nonsense.
BTW, I feel similar, but not as strongly, about people who believe in Sky Fairies, magical people who can walk on water and feed thousands with a couple of fish. People who actually believe the entire Jewish people were slaves in Egypt and escaped by having a magical sky fairy send plagues and divide big waters for them. I hate ignorance and those who sell it.
I subscribe to this because I am a serious fan of Israel (no, I am not Jewish, and there is only one Jewish person in my circle of friends). It’s a beacon of light in a very dark part of the world. I like the secular Israel that was created in 1947, and I am highly skeptical to the increasing power of the religious zealots.