Photos of Katherine — or Katrine — the young Christian girl recently murdered with her parents in Libya were recently published by Al Wafd. They are as graphic as they are necessary to document the virulent hate that animates the persecution of Christians in Muslim lands. According to forensics, the girl was shot at close range three times: twice in the head (one bullet remained lodged the other came out) and once in the back, coming out from her chest.
sad but true
The American and European Left especially the media are the best friends in the world these murderous animals have. I’m less afraid of 7th century animals murdering in the name of their god than I am of 21st century humans infected with the squeamish impulse to aid and abet these animals.
The Leftists nor any other political party anywhere in the Western world have “the squeamish impulse to aid and abet these animals”. The reality is there is an inherent difficulty in ridding the world of this kind of jihadist violence and, sadly, it is simply a fact of life that in regions where these jihadis are active, civilians of other faiths and other sects are at risk. We’ve got to find ways of moving civilians to safety before they are engulfed and murdered.
We don’t have the time or money to help the truly oppressed peoples because we are too busy importing Muslim jihadist refugees into this country so they can set up shop here and do the same thing here. We now have a fifth column which is imposing Sharia law in certain areas and have set up training camps all over the country. We also allow foreign militant Imams, who preach jihad against Americans, to come in and preach hate in their Mosques. We not only need to stop taking in all these refugees that the Muslim dominated UN assigns to this country, and revoke their citizenship and deport all Muslims who have a family member involved in this seditious movement.
exactly. ACTION NEEDED!!
Ah, the uber dummy Pete has decided that what I’ve suggested is to have mass Muslim immigration to the U.S. Is that written anywhere in that post? Once again, he simply ADDS ON HIS OWN UBER DUMMY THINKING in order to produce his own particular brand of DISINFORMATION. He seems to think that one has to participate 100% in group think rather than think for oneself. So much for not being totalitarian. Cheers, dummy dhimmi dimwit!
I agree we don’t have the time or the money to help oppressed people everywhere. This kind of political/social outreach is a strange artifact of our original American outreach — the international proselytizing Christian ministry done by so many American Christian churches — that eventually became linked w/our foreign policy because it works as a means to communicate America’s foreign policy aims at the individual level.
Americana MarilynA 2 months ago
Ah, the uber dummy Pete has decided that what I’ve suggested is to have mass Muslim immigration to the U.S. Is that written anywhere in that post? Once again, he simply ADDS ON HIS OWN UBER DUMMY THINKING in order to produce his own particular brand of DISINFORMATION. He seems to think that one has to participate 100% in group think rather than think for oneself. So much for not being totalitarian. Cheers, dummy dhimmi dimwit!
Seems like the Saudis are always needing labor. Send their brethren in their faith THERE. No jobs here.
The UN is not on our side.
Here is the answer bellow, you BLIND DUMMY ENABLER
You must agree w/Marilyn that all Muslims are jihadists, is that about right? In that case, how is it that the vast majority of Muslims aren’t involved in jihad? Not from this country and not in other countries. The Leftists aren’t the ones making the decisions on their lonesome about the demographics of immigration.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2014/10/23/59040/the-facts-on-immigration-today-3/
From the above link:
Today’s immigrant population
Foreign-born population
The foreign-born population consisted of 40.7 million people in 2012. Broken down by immigration status, the foreign-born population was composed of 18.6 million naturalized U.S. citizens and 22.1 million noncitizens in 2012. Of the noncitizens, approximately 13.3 million were legal permanent residents, 11.3 million were unauthorized migrants, and 1.9 million were on temporary visas.
The past decade saw a significant increase in the foreign-born population. Between 2000 and 2012, there was a 31.2 percent increase in the foreign-born population. During this period, the immigrant population grew from 31.1 million to 40.8 million people.
The foreign-born share of the U.S. population has more than doubled since the 1960s, but it is still below its all-time high. The immigrant population was 5.4 percent of the total U.S. population in 1960. By 2012, immigrants made up 13 percent of the total U.S. population. Still, today’s share of the immigrant population as a percentage of the total U.S. population remains below its peak in 1890, when 14.8 percent of the U.S. population had immigrated to the country.
The countries of origin of today’s immigrants are more diverse than they were 50 years ago. In 1960, a full 75 percent of the foreign-born population that resided in the United States came from Europe, while in 2012, only 11.8 percent of the immigrant population emigrated from Europe. In 2012, 11.6 million foreign-born residents—28 percent of the foreign-born population—came from Mexico; 2.3 million immigrants came from China; 2 million came from India; 1.9 million came from the Philippines; 1.3 million came from both Vietnam and El Salvador; and 1.1 million came from both Cuba and Korea.
Immigrants today are putting down roots across the United States, in contrast to trends seen 50 years ago. In the 1960s, two-thirds of U.S. states had populations in which less than 5 percent of individuals were foreign born. The opposite is true today: In 2012, 61 percent of the foreign-born population lived in the West and the South—a dramatic departure from trends 50 years ago, when 70 percent of the immigrant population lived in the Northeast and Midwest.
Today, women outnumber men in the foreign-born population. In 2012, 51.4 percent of the U.S. immigrant population was female. Until the 1960s, immigrant men outnumbered immigrant women. However, by the 1970s, the number of female immigrants had surpassed the number of male immigrants.
The foreign-born population is, on average, slightly older than the native-born population. In 2012, the median age for all foreign-born people was 42, while the median age for all native-born people was 35.
There are almost 1 million lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, adult immigrants in the United States today. The estimated 904,000 LGBT adult immigrants are more likely to be young and male compared with the overall immigrant population.
Immigrants have diverse educational backgrounds. In 2012, 11.6 percent of immigrants had a master’s degree, professional degree, or doctorate degree, compared with 10.8 percent of the native-born population. That same year, 69.4 percent of the foreign-born population had attained a high school diploma, GED, or higher, compared with 89.9 percent of the native-born population.
More than half of the foreign-born population are homeowners. In 2012, 51 percent of immigrant heads of household owned their own homes, compared with 66 percent of native-born heads of household. Among immigrants, 65 percent of naturalized citizens owned their own homes in 2012.
Less than one in five immigrants live in poverty, and they are no more likely to use social services than the native-born Americans. In 2012, 19.1 percent of immigrants lived in poverty, while 15.4 percent of the native-born population lived in poverty. Of the foreign born, the two largest groups living in poverty were the 3.2 million people who emigrated from Mexico and the 1.4 million people who emigrated from either South or East Asia. Despite of this, studies have consistently shown that immigrants use social programs such as Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income at similar rates to native households.
The 20 million U.S.-born children of immigrants are significantly better off financially than their immigrant parents. The median annual household income of second-generation Americans in 2012 was $58,100, just $100 below the national average. This was significantly higher than the median annual household income of their parents at $45,800.
U.S.-born children of immigrants are more likely to go to college, less likely to live in poverty, and equally likely to be homeowners as the average American. About 36 percent of U.S.-born children of immigrants are college graduates—5 percent above the national average. Eleven percent of U.S.-born children of immigrants live in poverty—well below the national average of 13 percent. And around 64 percent of them are homeowners, just 1 percent below the national average.
Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or to be incarcerated than native-born Americans. A 2007 study by the Immigration Policy Center found that the incarceration rate for immigrant men ages 18 to 39 in 2000 was 0.7 percent, while the incarceration rate for native-born men of the same age group was 3.5 percent. While the foreign-born share of the U.S. population grew from 8 percent to 13 percent between 1990 and 2010, FBI data indicate that violent crime rates across the country fell by about 45 percent, while property crime rates fell by 42 percent.
You are still failing at the dynamics of group psychology.
Lame
“You must agree w/Marilyn that all Muslims are jihadists, is that about right? In that case, how is it that the vast majority of Muslims aren’t involved in jihad?”
All muslims are on the jihad side: actively or silently. (!!!) Got it???
IF they wouldn’t, then they definitely mount endless protests, and more, against islamic barbarism until they are done with it. (Emphases added!) And
they would show respect to the hostess country.
They are the only ones who could solve this problem. BUT THEY DON’T!!!
“All Muslims are on the jihad side: actively or silently.
If they wouldn’t, then they definitely mount endless protests, and more, and they would show respect to the hostess country.”
Americana, the troll, will never admit this.
Her purpose is to be disingenuous & “off the chain” stupid!
All Muslims aren’t “actively or silently assisting w/jihad”. A certain percentage are actively pursuing jihadi aims, but it’s a statistical impossibility that 100% of Muslims are actively or silently assisting w/jihad. Your claim of participation en masse is belied by the fact so few Muslims are engaging in active jihad or are contributing financially to jihad. As far as showing respect to the host country, you overlook the history of immigration and just how much strife there has been between the host country and new immigrants regardless of the country and regardless of immigrant nationality. Have the Muslims posed particular issues for European host countries? Sure, and the fact there are jihadis who are in the Muslim population in most countries makes that Muslim immigrant friction even tougher to handle.
http://riotsfrance.ssrc.org
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/21/paris-riots-police-identity-check-muslim
As for Muslims dissuading other Muslims from jihad, Muslims likely realize how impotent they are in terms “of solving the jihad problem” from another country in another hemisphere. Even in countries where jihads are going on, I’m sure the Muslim population, heck the entire population regardless of faith affiliation, feels largely impotent and at the mercy of the jihadis and the armed forces. Recently, there has been a lot more vocal protest by Muslims about the viciousness of these jihads. The horrific murder of those 147 Pakistani schoolchildren who were shot point-blank in their classrooms isn’t going to be something that the Taliban is going to live down in Pakistan.
Norway: All Muslims agree Stoning is OK – Moderate Muslim Peace Conference (“Peace” Conference. “Moderate.” How comforting.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpeIS25jhK4 —
That is a very disturbing video. However, analyze it for what it is. The speaker couched the questions in a way that didn’t allow for ISOLATING the punishments one from the other. He worded his question about sharia such that all these sharia punishments were presented as a package and then he gave his remark the kiss of death by saying that Allah had chosen those punishments and they were perfect. Who’s going to raise his hand from the audience and say BS about stoning for adultery? It was also obvious he was aware there was a push about forcing the expatriation of all the Muslims on the basis they’re extremists and he played that card very effectively.
What should be the reaction to such a conference? Identify those imams who aren’t interested in imposing sharia and who don’t think sharia is the best legal system in the world. There are moderates who believe in fighting against 7th century concepts of Islam.
You are unable recognise that the muslims are actually telling us what is going to happen.
The politicians don’t want to listen for some reason and seem content to commit suicide.
I on the other hand listen and recognise that they are not kidding. Denmark is lost, demographically. The politicians are already trying to secure Danish rights to Danish culture when the islamic overlords finally take control. Sweden is not far behind, neither is France. When the muslim population exceeds 10% the trouble starts.
In the UK 1 in 10 kids under 5 are muslim. Not bad considering muslims only make up less than 5% of the population. You do the maths.
The point of no return is fast approaching.
I understand very well what the situation is. There is a certain proportion of Muslims who want their religion to become the world’s religion. There is a certain proportion of Muslims who in the meantime would like to impose sharia law because they find it preferential to Western law. In some cases, sharia might be preferential; in other cases, especially if one considers the punishments, Western law is preferable. As for imposing their religion on everyone, there’s a huge gulf between what the regular old Muslims say and what the extremists say. There’s also a huge gulf between what militant vs regular Muslims are willing to do in Western cultures to facilitate meeting the demands of their religion. Denmark is not “LOST DEMOGRAPHICALLY” though it has a large Muslim population and certain cities have reached large demographics of Muslims.
http://www.euro-islam.info/country-profiles/denmark/.
As for Muslims wishing to impose their religion on the entire world, that’s also something that is their vowed intention and I’d never disavow that. There are innumerable Muslims and Muslim clerics who state this. However, there are two things to be noted about these statements, it redounds to the CREDIT OF THE SPEAKER (the imams/Muslims) if he/she mouths off about how great his religion is and how fiercely he advocates for its adoption by the entire world population, but NO RELIGION HAS EVER ACHIEVED THIS GOAL. No religion has ever even COME CLOSE to this goal of 100% world adherence despite most of the mainstream, major world religions believing that theirs is the best world belief system and proselytizing for the adoption of their religion. Now, Muslims might eventually have a numeric superiority but there’s no sign of them coupling their numeric superiority w/a weaponized superiority that rivals that of Western civilization. They may eventually turn that corner of weaponry superiority but not in the foreseeable future. So what we are being sold is the concept that: 1) Muslims want to have the world under Islam; and 2) that they’re willing to do whatever it takes to bring the world under Islam without those points being offset by the fact those goals ARE NOT PRESENTLY ATTAINABLE.
You are therefore blind. The fifth element within our borders will only grow stronger, enabled by the leftist traitors. It happened in Lebanon and it will happen here in the UK.
Interesting that you’d bring up Lebanon which only became the home of the Palestinian jihad because those militant Palestinians needed a nearby location from which to launch their attacks on Israel. Once again, you’ve inadvertently mentioned a tie-in to the Palestinian jihad. There may be a fifth columnist element as a minor portion of Western Muslims but they’re only a fifth column because there’s an ongoing Palestinian jihad.
Im sorry but you cannot conclude that the global jihad is due to the Israeli/palestinian situation. It cannot all be pinned on Israel. Fundamentally islam is Jihad and Sharia.
No, certainly NOT ALL the global jihad can be pinned on the Palestinian jihad but quite a bit of it can be pinned on the Palestinian jihad. Certainly Osama bin Laden said that 9/11 was because of the U.S. support for Israel against the Palestinians. And Lebanon’s current situation came about entirely because of the Palestinian jihad.
Does that extend to the pogrom s in Jerusalem in the early 1900s funnily before the emergence of an israeli state.
What about the muslim brigade in the ss operating in the balkans.
Jihad is jihad and as old as islam. History does not lie
The Zionists were always seen as trying to take back Jerusalem and the Holy Land so, yes, the pogrom in Jerusalem was the direct result of Zionist reclamation of Jerusalem. It doesn’t matter that Israel wasn’t in existence because the Zionist Jews were known to be agitating for and laying the ground work for a Jewish seizure of a land parcel in the Palestine Mandate. It became increasingly clear after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after WW I that this collapse provided Zionists w/the most reasonable opportunity to persuade the British to relinquish some land to the world’s Jewish community.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/isdf/text/Maor.html
A description of the early time period of Zionist and the decision to resettle in Israel:
Practical Zionism
The idea that Palestine was essential to Zionism was not shared by all Jews. At the time of the First Aliyah, only a few agricultural settlements had been established in Argentina by Baron de Hirsch and the Jewish Colonization Association. One of the founders of the Lovers of Zion, Leon Pinsker (1821-1891), articulated the view of practical Zionists in his book Auto-Emancipation (1882). Pinsker argued that the Jewish national goal need not be Eretz Israel but rather a land large enough to include Jews who are deprived of their political, economic and social rights. Only later did Practical Zionists shift their stance and begin stressing settlement in Palestine. They refused, however, to embark upon major political offensives aimed at gaining a political commitment from the leading world powers in support of the Jewish national home. In the end, the core idea of Practical Zionism was the creation of a gradual process through which Jews, via immigration and settlement, would gain a large enough foothold in Palestine that world powers would have no choice but to grant them approval to establish a Jewish national home (Berlin, 1996).
____________________________________________________________
http://www.merip.org/primer-palestine-israel-arab-israeli-conflict-new
____________________________________________________________
As for the Muslim brigades operating under Hitler’s S.S. in the Balkans, that was in aid of Nazism and Muslim aims were somehow only vaguely addressed during the initial phase of the prosecution of WW II. Who knows what would have ultimately happened if the Nazis had successfully eradicated all European Jews and left the Muslim communities intact? I certainly don’t think the Nazis would have been able to keep the Muslims in check for century after century within Muslim enclaves in Europe unless they’d left them strictly alone. Heck, the Nazis couldn’t even keep the French Resistance in check for 5 years. And look at what happened when the Russians tried to keep their Muslim populations in check in areas where Muslim separatists are fighting for their freedom…? Jihad is jihad. No question about that. But history can be made to lie if one wants to misdirect the appreciation for what the HISTORICAL PICTURE PRESENTS AS INFORMATION and FACTS.
All very good information and i will wade through your tomes in time. But we are digressing from the original point which is violent jihad is part and parcel of islam. Not all muslims participate, but a significant minority does , supported by an even larger number of inactive jihadists be that financially, materially or just praising their actions
There are many instances where we have extra-legal judiciaries operating in other communities like the Jewish fundamentalists. It’s no shock that there is that sort of legal option for Muslims when there is an identical legal option for Jews — the rabbinical courts. As for “British children being force fed halal meat”, I’d worry about halal meat if there was something nefarious about the slaughter practice. The halal slaughter and the kosher slaughter methods are IDENTICAL aside from halal also requiring a prayer dedicating the animal to Allah. The “Muslim raping and grooming gangs” aren’t anything more than MUSLIM PROSTITUTION. These men aren’t raping girls and leaving them by the roadside w/their clothing torn. They’re befriending these young girls, then they’re seducing them and then they TWIST THEIR RELATIONSHIP into one of SUBJUGATION TO THEIR MUSLIM PIMPS. This is what PIMPS HAVE ALWAYS DONE TO THEIR PREY. As for Muslims being responsible for violent crimes in the U.K., of course immigrant groups that don’t have adequate means of livelihood will turn to crime. It’s the age-old pattern.
Liberal progressives don’t have a darn thing to do w/the fact prostitution is one of the cheapest business models there is. Nor do liberal progressives have anything to do w/the fact Muslim prostitution gangs have slid under the radar in the U.K. for so long. The reason they were able to do so is because most of these girls wanted the sexual contact w/their Muslim boyfriends and, afterward, when they were shown what their Muslim boyfriends were truly up to, they didn’t always take the most aggressive actions against these Muslim men out of fear and because of threats made against them and their families.
Sorry, I’m confused. Are you condoning all of this. You’ve not refuted any of what i said but rather reinforced it.
1. Halal/kosher slaughter is inhumane. I do not wish to have either foisted on me without my consent.
2. Alternative legal systems have no place here.
3. Grooming gangs are violently raping young girls some only 11. In the eyes of the law they are not capable of making the decision of wanting sexual contact or not. It is the responsibility of the adults not the child.
4. Liberal progressives have an awful lot to do with it. They protect their pet project in the guise of social cohesion. They are criminals
So again what exactly is your point?
I’m not condoning the jihadists or any of their actions nor do I believe in Muslim supremacy. But you are mighty confused as to what some of the cultural overlaps are between Judaism and Islam. The slaughter methods of the two cultures are identical when read about under Judaic law and Islamic law. The fact the jihadist Muslims are making a caricature of halal slaughter by murdering so many of their enemies via beheading is enabling propagandists to depict halal slaughter in a totally different light. There certainly may be less knowledgeable slaughterers but those animals who are slaughtered by the most humane halal slaughterers are using the identical technique that kosher slaughterers are doing. As for underage prostitution, underage sex crimes is a UNIVERSAL WORLD PROBLEM right now and it has been for decades. Surely, you’re not going to ignore what the sex tourism trade involves and has involved in Southeast Asia for decades since the war in Vietnam, are you? It should be pretty clear what my problem is w/various posters and various posted information. Information that is unimpeachably accurate is the way to influence situations and guide people to the correct solutions.
Kosher slaughter:
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/practices/Ritual/Kashrut_Dietary_Laws/Kosher_Food/Meat/Slaughtering.shtml
From the above link:
3. Shehitahmust be done by means of a swift, smooth cut of a sharp knife whose blade is free of any dent or imperfection.
4. Shehitah entails severing the trachea and the esophagus in accordance with the oral tradition, which requires that five improper procedures be avoided, lest they invalidate the shehitah and render the animal unfit to be eaten. They are (a) hesitation or delay while drawing the knife, (b) excessive pressure or chopping, (c) burrowing the knife between the trachea and the esophagus or under the skin, (d) making the incision outside the specified area, and (e) laceration or tearing of the trachea or esophagus, which would result from an imperfect blade. An animal or fowl that is improperly slaughtered (or, as already noted, that is not slaughtered, but dies of itself) is considered carrion(nevelah) and unfit for food.
_________________________________________________________________________
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-is-halal-slaughtering-done.htm#didyouknowout
From the above link:
Halal slaughtering itself is done via cuts to the jugular veins and also to the carotid arteries of the animal in question. This is done to both cows and sheep, but also to chickens. Any land animal, including birds, that can be eaten under Islamic law must be slaughtered in this fashion. This cut must be administered with a sharp knife and must be done by a son of Adam; meaning someone who is of Muslim, Jewish or Christian faith. The blade doing the cutting must be hidden until the last moment so the animal is not distressed.
The blood must be allowed to completely drain because Islamic law states that meat from halal slaughtering must be free of blood or blood products. For this reason, the animal is allowed to die at its own pace before being strung up so blood can drain. This process takes longer than non-halal methods of slaughtering and may also require more space.
Dhabihah does not apply to seafood, fish, camels and locusts. It does not include pigs either. This applies to fish and other seafood because laws have not been set out on how to kill them. The Quran simply states that all seafood is halal for Muslims, although some disagree. This means the seafood can be killed in any manner.
Will you remove your head from your sr$e!
I do not give a flying fig how halal is the same as kosher. I want neither. I disagree with it wholeheartedly. I choose not to eat it, therefore, establishments should clearly label if they use such products. Then i can boycott them.
Muslim rape gangs are a problem in my city. That’s my focus, not asia. They are able to operate with impunity due to the leftards inability to apply the rule of law regardless of colour or creed. The multi culti bs is hurting our kids, obviously not yours.
Muslim rape gangs don’t MAKE MONEY IF THEY DON’T HAVE JOHNS willing to BUY TIME w/their young girls. Don’t simply ignore the facts that: 1) underage sex is a worldwide plague right now, and 2) that johns are the crux of the issue. You want to put those Muslims out of business, go ahead and do it. But be prepared there might be a whole lot of your friends and neighbors who get put away right alongside the Muslim pimps.
Sorry you are misinformed. All the ‘Johns’ as you put it have been muslim men from many backgrounds, many married with children. They probably just see it as another temporary marriage.
So no, I won’t be seeing any of my friends being caught up in that.
This practice of sex enslavement is accepted within islam and you know it.
No Muslim would BOTHER pretending it’s a “legal marriage” if they’re aware the girls are SEX SLAVES and they’re paying cash for sexual services. Right then and there, they’re aware of the line they’ve crossed. There has been a certain push by Western anti-Muslim web sites to make the Muslim temporary marriage theory fit into prostitution only because this is the Muslim theological work-around to enable Muslim men and women in Muslim countries to get together. See where your theory begins to fall apart when all the moving parts don’t line up to keep the theory on the track?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22354201
From the above link:
The temporary marriage, or nikah mut’ah, is an ancient Islamic practice that unites man and woman as husband and wife for a limited time. Historically it was used so that a man could have a wife for a short while when travelling long distances. So why are young British Muslims adopting the practice now?
“It allowed us to meet without breaking the bounds of Sharia [Islamic law]. We both wanted to date, to go out for dinner or go shopping and just get to know each other better before getting married, which we wouldn’t have been able to do otherwise,” says Sara.
She is a 30-year-old pharmacist from Birmingham, a Shia Muslim of Pakistani heritage.
‘It’s basically a contract’
Sara was temporarily married for six months before committing to a full marriage to her partner.
“It’s basically a contract. You sit down and stipulate your conditions – for a girl who hasn’t been previously married, you do need the father’s permission,” she said.
__________________________________________________________________________
It’s not sex enslavement if these men are seducing and then PROSTITUTING these girls, no matter what their ages might be. It’s simple prostitution and it’s prostitution that’s encouraged under the very same terms of engagement that white and black pimps have been using to acquire suitable girls since forever in the United States. The pimps look for suitable girls. They seduce those girls. They accustom them to thinking of themselves as their girlfriends. They introduce them to zexx and then they turn the tables on the girls and sexually humiliate and subjugate them by sharing them and/or raping them among the group of Muslim pimps. After that, it’s generally anything goes because the pimps make threats against the girls’ families and their families’ businesses.
**As for who the ‘johns’ are, please produce an actual web site that addresses those figures as factual and based on arrest reports.**
“There has been a certain push by Western anti-Muslim web sites to make the Muslim temporary marriage theory fit into prostitution only”
So you concede that it is used for prostitution, just not always?
All forced prostitution is sex slavery. All those girls thought they had A boyfriend, not many, before they were drugged beaten and raped. Your view is quite uninformed and quite disgusting to be frank.
For the Johns, search yourself, its all there. Not a single english name.
Type grooming gangs with any of those cities mentioned. Rotherham, oxford and manchester will be good bets.
Keep on defending islam, it makes no difference to me. I know what we are up against.
Do you just not know that ALL PIMPS have grooming gangs and grooming behavior and tactics? So, when you SPECIFICALLY CLAIM THAT this is MUSLIM SEXUAL SLAVERY, you are crossing the line between fact and fiction. This is prostitution and it’s being prosecuted as prostitution and crimes against children where and when it’s appropriate. Give us a listing of the johns. That’s what you were asked to do. Provide facts that prove the majority of the johns are Muslims and are not citizens but instead are unwelcome immigrants. You can’t get away w/assertions like “this is Muslim sexual slavery” when it’s PROSTITUTION. The fact it’s underage prostitution being committed by Muslims doesn’t change the character of the crime overall.
Muslim sexual slavery is when one man takes a woman for his own sexual pleasure. These Muslim immigrants are raping and having sex w/their marks a few times to break them in and then the girls are being treated like walking cash machines. Muslim sexual slavery is nowhere described as a cash on the barrelhead type of deal where a woman is sold multiple times daily to other men… It’s one man who gets a hankering for one woman or more than one woman and he takes them into his household for sexual pleasure whenever he desires. He doesn’t send them out on the street to make money via prostitution for him. As for my attitude being disgusting while your attitude is laudable, it may be laudable to disparage prostitution but it’s ridiculous to buy into the whole Muslim sexual slavery claim. That propaganda is simply dredging up inappropriate and inapplicable Muslim sharia tenets in order to create another black mark against Islam. There are plenty of black marks against Islam that Western societies don’t need to lie and make this sort of spurious cultural claim. This is a lot like the claims about halal and kosher slaughter where the identical methods are used by
I’d like to believe that you are just a naive soul trying to pass themselves off as some sort of intellectual. Seeing as google is obviously your best friend considering the speed at which you dredge up your durge, look up the names yourself. I’ve given you some cities where this is occurring. Fill your boots.
You then have the audacity to define what you think muslim sex slavery is giving me the impression you condone it. I suppose you think it’s the childrens fault for letting themselves be taken in. Call it propoganda if you wish but whilst you try to deflect any criticism of islam, i am quite aware what is going on around me. You are obviously not in a northern town in England are you? It is predominantly muslim men, mainly taxi drivers and takeaway workers. I’ll leave you to explore the background.
OK, I read that entire story. All the data referred to those WHO WERE THE PIMPS. There were no references to the JOHNS, the men who buy time w/these girl prostitutes. so, please, when you’ve got time, dig up the names of the JOHNS, the men who PATRONIZE THESE PROSTITUTES. Because as far as I’m concerned, the crime is PROSTITUTION and the people who are responsible for it are the PIMPS WHO PROVIDE IT and the JOHNS WHO BUY TIME w/PROSTITUTES.
Just FYI, but you do know that prostitution is illegal in Islam, right? And that the jihadists who took over Mosul raided a house of prostitution and killed all the girls and several of their johns? So, there most certainly are Muslims who hate prostitution and there most certainly are Muslims who intend to profit from prostitution. Gee, sounds just like the rest of humanity; some are for it and some are against it.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/07/14/At-least-31-killed-in-raid-on-Baghdad-brothel-.html
As for blaming the children for being taken in, I’ve NEVER said anything like that. What I have said is that they are captivated by the fact they’ve got an exotic BF and they like being given trinkets and thinking they’re going to have a shot at a snazzy adult life w/these men. That ends once the stuff hits the fan and they’re raped by the pimp’s friends and cohorts and then told that they’ll be working for a living. That’s PROSITUTION. It’s not Muslim sexual slavery.
https://kafircrusaders.wordpress.com/muslim-grooming-paedo-map/
Here you go for starters. Can you not see they ate not following your classic model. The pimps are often the johns, there are that many of them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-21125565
What is clear they lovingly keep it in their own community. It is a big muslim problem my friend. A sex lust as well as a blood lust. Everything is cheap in islam, life, women. But then again they are only following the way of Mo.
You wade through that first link that someone has kindly collated and tell me there is not a pattern. Thats just the UK. Search for similar in Sweden, Denmark, France. It is irrefutable regardless how much you will try.
Good night
PIMPS ARE NOT JOHNS. Why do make that claim? I thought you’d get around to making such a facetious claim but that doesn’t change the dynamic of pimp and prostitute. You’re claiming they’re JOHNS ecause they’re having zex w/their girls? Ah, but that’s what pimps DO around the world. So, either you’re terribly, terribly, woefully, dreadfully ignorant of the dynamics of prostitution or you’re going to keep trying to pitch this insane business model of Muslims running prostitution gangs because they’re NOT INTERESTED IN MAKING MONEY IN THE SEX TRADE.
Sorry, I’ve gotta go grab a beer and have a good laugh over that claim of yours…. Muslim pimps don’t want money. Heck, I bet you’ll claim that these Muslim pimps are PAYING their OWN prostitutes for sex. Yep, they’ve got sooooo much money lying around, they can afford to pay their prostitutes for the zex that they get for FREE WHEN THEY RAPE THEIR PROSTITUTES. Please, get back to us when you’ve straightened out your business model.
Firstly in you rush to reply you really need to learn how to read. I said the pimps are often the johns, for their own pleasure. Of 45 links i gave you only 8 had any mention of payments made received or offered. Your assertion therefore, does not stand up. They may not be following the business model you use in your enterprise but they are all muslim nonces all the same
Oh, believe me, when I read posts like yours, I read them very, very carefully. Pimps in every prostitution culture around the world have sex w/their girls. That doesn’t make the PIMPS into JOHNS. Just FYI, that’s the business model of prostitution right there, to make money off the sexual exploitation of women and girls and men and boys. Let’s have you call up those newspapers where the stories didn’t mention the profit angle and ask the journalists why they didn’t say whether there was any money that changed hands. They’d laugh you off the phone. Prostitution involves payment. The fact most of the stories are focusing on the GROOMING and how many men did the grooming and who’s being prosecuted doesn’t mean the journalist wouldn’t eventually get around to talking about the cash flow. The fact is the stories don’t have to mention the cash flow because it’s a given since the Muslim men were running prostitution gangs.
Your assertion is simply designed to ignore the fact that once this is seen for what it is — GOOD OLD FASHIONED PROSTITUTION — then the whole Muslim sexual slavery thing falls apart.
FFS I’m not even sure what your argument is anymore. You obviously don’t believe this is a rape jihad emulating sex slavery in muslim battle. I really don’t care. It’s fairly obvious there is a problem in the muslim community whether you like it or not. I don’t give a toss if they are pimps or johns paying for it or not.
Obviously you don’t feel the need for clarity on the issue. However, clarity is what’s important here. Muslim sexual slavery is what’s being done in Nigeria where Boko Haram has begun to sell non-Muslim women as slaves and sex slaves and has even gotten around to declaring that non-Muslim women can be raped.
What’s being done in the U.K. and elsewhere in the E.U. is MUSLIM GANG PROSTITUTION. It’s been adopted as a business by the Muslim community because it makes MONEY, it’s INEXPENSIVE to set up such a business, and it takes no real “training” to get the workforce up and running. So, you might not care if they’re pimps or johns but there’s a difference between the two, and so you can’t write whatever the heck you want and expect anyone else to take it seriously if you outright lie about what’s happening where and why.
I don’t need clarity. Both are happening. Some a sex traffickers, some just do it for the hell of it. Regardless of your opinion it is a form of sex slavery, whether working for a pimp or not. Just because it doesn’t fit your academic thesis, doesn’t mean it isnt true. The rape jihad is real
No, it’s not MUSLIM SEXUAL SLAVERY which is what you persisted in calling it through this entire conversation. Now that you’ve been called out on that, you’ve changed your tune and decided that you CAN STILL GET AWAY w/calling it something that’s attributable to Muslims and so it’s still heinous. Well, prostitution may be heinous but it’s legalized in several countries in the E.U. including in the U.K. There are a few stipulations that must be followed which I won’t get into here. Is the lowish risk why the Muslims decided to try to run these prostitution gangs? I doubt it. To me, it’s far more likely that they know prostitution is a relatively minor legal punishment if you’re prosecuted but it’s got a pretty substantial payoff if you’re NOT PROSECUTED.
You’ll also get an argument from me about the whole “rape jihad” BS. There is NO RAPE JIHAD going on in Western societies, it’s PLAIN OLD FASHIONED RAPE. A rape jihad could certainly happen if we were conquered by a Muslim jihad horde but since that’s unlikely to happen for at least say 75 years and only if and when our population is so aged, we don’t have a respectable standing army. There are a few other scenarios but I won’t get into those. Regardless, you can rest assured the rape jihad is not happening for a long, long time and it’s not happening because these Muslims are anxious to perform jihad rape. They want sex and they’ll get it however they can get it. It’s sad this situation exists but it’s the reality.
Have you heard of any of these LEGITIMATE JIHADIS being identified as being PIMPS on top of being SUICIDE BOMBERS? You called it Muslim sexual slavery for a very pertinent reason because it further degrades the reputation of Muslims and of Islam viz women which is exactly why Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer ALSO try to demonize it w/a particular Muslim attribution and use the Muslim sexual slavery texts to confirm it. However, that’s a significant theoretical flaw on their part since the Muslims are selling these girls and women on a daily basis so it’s not Muslim sexual slavery. It’s prostitution.
In fact, Robert Spencer foolishly has the nerve to continuously include the Muslim sexual slavery texts in every story that’s he writes about this “Muslim sexual slavery” issue but then it turns out the column is ACTUALLY ABOUT the Muslim prostitution gangs. THEY’RE NOT IDENTICAL CRIMES. THEY’RE TOTALLY DISTINCT ANIMALS from each other. You won’t get an argument from me that it is a “form of sexual slavery,” which in that case can’t be attributed just to the Muslim demographic since it’s practiced everywhere in the world.
Whilst i really can’t wait for your next essay i find it quite funny thst you think that forced prostitution is not sex slavery. You have your opinion in which you are trying dismiss my argument, bit i also think your opinion is total bollox so i guess we are at an impasse.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest this is more than run of the mill prostitution as you seem to think.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2325185/The-Oxford-sex-ring-preachers-teach-young-Muslim-men-white-girls-cheap.html
And here’s a snippet.
In the misguided orthodoxy that now prevails in many mosques, including several of those in Oxford, men are unfortunately taught that women are second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority.
That is why we see this growing, reprehensible fashion for segregation at Islamic events on university campuses, with female Muslim students pushed to the back of lecture halls.
There was a telling incident in the trial when it was revealed that one of the thugs heated up some metal to brand a girl, as if she were a cow. ‘Now, if you have sex with someone else, he’ll know that you belong to me,’ said this criminal, highlighting an attitude where women are seen as nothing more than personal property.
The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent and sleazy — sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs or non-believers.
Also this
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3846/britain-child-grooming
highlighting an attitude where women are seen as nothing more than personal property.
Smacks of slavery to me.
And this
http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/391814/isis-and-rape-jihad-andrew-c-mccarthy
And this
http://m.christianpost.com/news/islamic-rape-gangs-a-global-phenomenon–126107/
Sounds like a rape jihad to me.
Can I have 2000 words this time?
I’m pretty sure you need to read at least 2,000 words to rectify your knowledge of just how recently it’s been that women were chattel in the U.S. and Europe. There is much reprehensible behavior under Islamic law, but I think you forget that we Western societies abided by many of those very same gender-related rules of a patriarchal society. Where we differed w/Islam viz women’s history was that we in Western society didn’t force our women to remain cloistered in their homes (although some religious sects DO insist on this such as extremely orthodox Jews), purdah murders have never been an accepted part of our culture though they do occasionally happen, education was **eventually extended** to girls as well as boys after activists agitated for it, and our dress was not as stringently enforced under religious edict as is dress for Muslim women, etc. but you seem to fail to understand that it was ONLY AFTER THE EUROPEAN ENLIGHTENMENT that women in Western society even came close to being considered as sharing the equality of rights w/men. I may hate what’s going on under Islamic law but I consider their conditions to be mutable just as women in Western societies changed their situations. It will take as much social activism as it did in the West, likely at different levels of society since these are religious edicts. However, there is enough diversity in dress among all Muslim societies that it’s clear that ONE FORM of dress is not the only dress code to be allowed. Indian Muslims don’t dress like Saudi Muslims and so on. In that cultural diversity lies the seeds of reformation and change.
__________________________________________________________________________
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1097.html
From the above link:
In 1840, the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London may have been the spark of a blaze, when two American delegates,Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, were refused permission to speak. Stanton said later, “We resolved to hold a convention as soon as we returned home, and form a society to advocate the rights of women.” Eight years later, Stanton and Mott organized the first women’s suffrage convention in the United States at Seneca Falls, New York; the proceedings provoked much public discussion. The meeting’s Declaration of Sentiments, modeled on the Declaration of Independence, spelled out many demands for equality.
That declaration spread the fire of a revolution that would reach every facet of society. With reason, women regarded themselves as second-class citizens; in addition to not having the vote, they had few property rights, faced educational andemployment barriers, and had no legal protection in divorce and child custody cases. Women’s rights leaders were convinced that suffrage would be the most effective means to reconstruct this unfair social structure. In 1850, Lucy Stone organized the Women’s Rights Convention at Worcester, Massachusetts; its distinction lay in being a national assembly of women and men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_education_in_the_United_States
From the above link:
Coinciding with the beginnings of the first wave of feminism in the 19th century came the attempt by women to gain equal rights to education in the United States. Women’s rights organizations focused on adjusting and increasing women’s place in the public arena by arguing that the only fundamental differences between women and men were socially created ones, and thus women should be offered the same extensive and practical education that was offered to men. After long battles against gender oppression women finally obtained the right to be educated through several government acts/conventions, the opening of facilities willing to educate them, and the opportunity to continue into higher education.[1]
1930s[edit]
Coeducation was a controversial topic in the 1930s,[3] and sex-segregated school systems protected “the virtue of female high school students.”[4] Home economics and female industrial education were new elements of the high school curriculum designed for unmistakably female occupations.[5] These classes taught women practical skills such as sewing, cooking, and using the new domestic inventions of the era; unfortunately, this “formal training offered women little advantage in the struggle for stable work at a liveable wage.”[6]
The 1930s also saw tremendous changes in women’s education at the college level. In 1900, there were 85,338 female college students in the United States and 5,237 earned their bachelor’s degrees; by 1940, there were 600,953 female college students and 77,000 earned bachelor’s degrees.[7] This increase was partially explained by the “contemporary discourse that reinforced the need for higher education for women in their positions as wives, mothers, citizens, and professionals.”[
http://www.peabodyawards.com/award-profile/murder-in-purdah
From the above link:
In Pakistan, men kill their wives, mothers, daughters and sisters with impunity while women wait on death row for killing their husbands in self-defense. Women simply suspected of sex outside of marriage or who are merely disobedient are burned, tortured and murdered—justifiably, say their own fathers, brothers and sons—in the defense of family honor. Murder in Purdah, presented by BBC News’ superb Correspondent series, bears witness to the tragic stories of these women in stark detail. BBC reporter Olenka Frenkiel and senior producer Giselle Portenier traveled throughout Pakistan to reveal the terrible injustices perpetrated upon these women and to interview the men who committed the acts. Everywhere it is shownMurder in Purdah is making a major impact on so-called “honor killings.” In Britain, lawyers used the film as evidence to help prevent the deportation of two women to Pakistan. The European Union officially condemned the practice. Most important, the government of Pakistan announced new measures to protect women, including a proposal to finally treat honor killing as a crime and a promise to set up a commission for human rights. For a television news report causing change at the international level, a Peabody to BBC News forMurder in Purdah.
___________________________________________________________________________
http://www.heretication.info/_womensrights.html
From the above link:
As Gratian put it “The woman has no power, but in everything is subject to the control of her husband”.) In the words of the marriage service a married couple were one flesh and the canon lawyers held them to be a single person: erunt animae duae in carne una.
The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband.
It was this legal doctrine that gave rise to Dickens’ observation, put into the mouth of one of his characters, that the law is an ass . The doctrine enabled an Englishman to lock up his wife and not be liable for the tort of false imprisonment. He could beat her and not be guilty of assault. The same principle permitted him to rape her without the law recognising it as rape. A wife could not proceed against her husband, nor be called to give evidence in court against him. Most such constraints were done away with in Britain by Acts of Parliament in 1935 and 1945 in the teeth of fierce opposition from the organised Churches. In England it remained impossible for a man to be charged with the rape of his wife until the 1990’s. Civil remedies are still in general unavailable to wives against their husbands. Thus for example, a wife who is locked up by her husband would have to rely on a writ of habeas corpus, like a medieval vassal .
Unmarried women were also inferior beings, or as the Bible puts it weaker vessels (1 Peter 3:7). Fathers were free to treat them as their personal property and swap them for other goods or for political advantage, which is what arranged child marriages often amounted to. Unmarried adult women were not permitted many of the privileges allowed by law to men, nor thought capable of fulfilling the duties expected of men. Like married women, they were prohibited from practising all professions and all but a few trades. In 1588 Pope Sixtus V even forbade them to appear on the public stage within his dominions. Soon the whole of western Christendom had banned actresses and female singers.
Well into the twentieth century women were debarred from sitting on juries, and were permitted only a few selected jobs such as school teaching and nursing, and even these they were generally obliged to give up when they got married. Women were so little regarded that until this century they were often excluded from Church membership rolls. No one knows with certainty how large some denominations were until recently because they did not count women in their membership statistics.
Throughout their histories, the Churches have consistently opposed women’s right to the franchise. Only after the Church’s influence had seriously weakened did women obtain the vote. In England this happened in 1918, when the franchise was extended to women over the age of thirty. Even now women do not enjoy equality in all spheres of life. In England, for example, the taxation laws and laws of inheritance still discriminate against them. At the time of writing there are areas of Europe where traditional Christian values prevail and women still do not have full voting rights . There is one area in the European Community, Mount Athos, where for religious reasons women are not even permitted to set foot.
The traditional position of the Church, that women were mere chattels of their husbands was challenged by the usual selection of freethinkers such as Thomas Paine (1737-1809) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). The atheist Mary Wollstonecraft published her Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792. Her husband the philosopher William Godwin (1756-1836) was a campaigner for women’s rights, and so was their atheist son-in-law, the poet Shelley. Other prominent proponents included the unbelieving Mary Anne Evans (George Eliot, 1819-80), and Harriet Law (1832-97). The Utilitarian J S Mill launched the women’s suffrage movement in England with a petition to the House of Commons on 7 June 1866. He attempted to amend the 1867 Reform Bill to extend the franchise to women, and to stop discrimination under the infamous Contagious Diseases Acts. He published the Subjugation of Women in 1869. Other active campaigners included the atheists Holyoake (1817-1906), Bradlaugh (1833-91) and Besant (1847-1933). In France the argument for women’s rights was led by enemies of the Church like Denis Diderot and Condorcet, and much later in the USA by atheists like Ernestine Rose, Matilda Gage, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan Anthony.
Ah, the but look at what you non muslims have done argument. You really did step up to the challenge. What a nob.
Forced prostitution is sexual slavery. It’s not rocket science.
The only saving grace is i must be wasting far more of your time than you are of mine.
The only saving grace is that you’ve finally given up your shameful attempt to roll everything about Muslim sexual behavior into this whole Muslim sexual slavery business.
Nope, you couldn’t be further from the truth. I wholeheartedly disagree with you and stand by my assertions. I couldn’t care less if it doesn’t fit with your textbook business model. Muslims are targeting non muslim white girls in the UK for sexual slavery.
If you want to sit up until 4am arguing the toss that’s up to you. Maybe you’d see a similar pattern in Dearborn, Michigan seeing as that has a high muslim population.
The Muslims may be targeting white girls but why are they doing so? Because white girls are accessible, they’re seducible, they may feel an attraction to a foreigner as opposed to a British male, etc. There are many sociological factors that play into the ability of the Muslim men to seduce these girls into a life of prostitution. **That doesn’t change the ultimate aim of their endeavors which is to have a stable of white girls engaged in prostitution.**
If you want to change the description to being sexual slavery rather than prostitution, fine, do so because it’s somewhat applicable. But calling it Muslim sexual slavery that applies in very specific situations and has explicit theological language and ramifications is NOT OK. Prostitution is theoretically forbidden in Islam so though this Muslim sexual slavery appears to be a form of subterfuge, of hiding the intention of the action, it doesn’t cross the line into providing prostitution services for long lines of customers.
Sorry, i beg to differ again. If you care to go through those links again. Of course some are being pimped. But others are being used by a group repeatedly for their own gratification was i think the term used. You may want to neatly put everythinig in its iwn box but i think that says more about your own ocd personality than the reality of what is actually happening.
You’ll be telling me next that islam is the religion of peace
Nope, none of the instances I’ve ever read about have been other than Muslim pimps. You produce a SINGLE LINK to a SINGLE GUY who’s indulging in Muslim sexual slavery. If that guy then follows a TREND where multiple Muslims are doing the identical thing, then and only then, would I consider that Muslim sexual slavery has come to the West. As it is, we’ve had how many instances of sexual slavery at this point by a German man (Natalie Kampusch), an Ohio man (three different women entrapped and kept enslaved and incarcerated in his home, etc. so I’m very sure I know what it is. Need I write more about cases where the distinction is clear between what sexual slavery is and what Muslim sexual slavery is?
It’s got nothing whatsoever about me wanting to put things in their own box but rather it’s the factual reality. You are trying harder than I am to make the claim stick that it’s Muslim sexual slavery. It’s simply NOT. It’s PROSTITUTION. What’s being done in Nigeria by Boko Haram is Muslim sexual slavery. What we’ve got here are Muslims who’ve found they can sit around while they make women work. On their backs and in sundry other positions.
I will not concede to you I’m afraid, just because you swallowed a few textbooks and stay up until 4am regurgitating them
http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2014/03/26/muslim-child-slavery-gangs-rampant-in-uk/
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4226/uk-child-sex-slavery
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=ZA-0VP6sJ6ev7Ab_z4DQDg&url=http://lawandfreedomfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Easy-Meat-Multiculturalism-Islam-and-Child-Sex-Slavery-05-03-2014.pdf&ved=0CDAQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNFMVKit7KPemp9DNrUWzF8n4sPA7Q&sig2=fLkALBjjaB1zlRiCTwDS9w
Like I said muslim sex slavery.
I’m not sure you can make the claim that you are. The fact these Middle Eastern and Asian men are being tried for sexual exploitation of children might be hampered by the fact the girl was coached by her pimp to say something that would make her actions more legally acceptable, from your link: “She told jurors the man said he was going to “bring another man in”, adding: “They told me if they ask, to say I was 16.”
As for them “not following your classic model”, oh, on the contrary, I’d say they’re merely following the latest craze in prostitution which is the younger the better. Oh, and w/that statement of yours, you’re basically making an admission that they are adhering to the prostitution model of yore.
The girls was also force fed alcohol and force injected heroin to make them compliant. So the responsibility stll rest with the men not the girl. Cannot believe you are suggesting she had a choice.
These girls are GROOMED to eventually enable the man/men to SEDUCE HER and then use techniques to ultimately make her compliant whether that be gang rape or drugs or alcohol or beatings or whatever else they feel is needed to control each girl. This is what happens in prostitution. And it happens often enough in prostitution situations that the process was named to describe its purpose — GROOMING BEHAVIOUR.
Don’t PRETEND that this is not STANDARD PIMP BEHAVIOUR just because you want to put the emphasis on the fact the pimps are Muslims. The sex is the same, the demands for payment are the same, the way the girls are forced to work are the same. Voila, it’s child prostitution. The fact the pimps are of a particular religion doesn’t change the rest of the equation.
This seems to be what happens when you allow uncontrolled muslim immigration. That is all. They are all dirty dirty muslims
I’m not blind at all just as you’re not blind to the fact it serves your purposes to make the claim that there is a fifth column of Muslims in the U.S. And, wow, those traitorous Leftists are in league w/those Muslims. Not only is this not the case NOW, it’s also not likely to be the case EVER IN THE FUTURE.
As for Lebanon, you make the mistake of bringing up yet another instance of the Palestinian jihad creating an international aspect to Palestinian irregular warfare against Israel that proves that Israeli aggression and militarism aren’t always the solution some Israeli factions would like to believe they offer.
__________________________________________________________________________
Here’s a description of some of the background on Lebanon (the Israeli invasion and the actions and reactions among the various players are fairly clear in terms of what the Israelis hoped to gain; the fact their efforts backfired is notable):
The invasion had several goals. By expelling the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), removing Syrian influence over Lebanon, and installing a pro-Israeli Christian government led by Bachir Gemayel, Israel hoped to sign a treaty which Menachem Begin promised would give Israel “forty years of peace”.[13] Ariel Sharon, who had planned the invasion a year earlier and ran the campaign, aimed to destroy Lebanon’s refugee camps and bring about the mass expulsion of 200,000 Palestinian refugees.[14][15] Begin and Sharon thought a successful operation would give Israel a free hand to secure or gradually annex[16] the West Bankand Gaza for Greater Israel by depriving Palestinians there of the symbolic presence of a Palestinian army in a contiguous country, and thus a basis for their nationalism, which, it was imagined, could be solved by creating a Palestinian state in Jordan.[17][18]
The long occupation that followed Israel’s 1982 invasion had repercussions for Israel, since Hezbollah arose as a Shiite rebellion against the Israeli occupation. It may also have, unexpectly, pushed the PLO into entering into the peace negotiations that, from the 1990s, revived Palestinian national aspirations in the West Bank.[18]w/realistically by avoiding the realities of the political circumstances of the relevant parties.
Issues in Lebanon started before the Israeli invasion. In the mid 70s persecution was along religious lines against christians, culminating in tit for tat sectarian violence on both muslims and christian sides. The persecution against christians continued and increased in the 2000s when Hezbollah started cleansing the region of christians. So whilst the israelis may have had a hand in providing the conditions for this to occur, once again the muslims used this smokescreen as an opportunity to persecute and ethnically cleanse the region of non muslims.
https://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/index-of-countries-on-the-security-council-agenda/lebanon.html
There was persecution of Christians because of penetration of the government by Muslim Lebanese who wished to support the Palestinian jihad. So, your view that (LRRH) “Israelis may have had a hand in providing the conditions for this to occur, once again the Muslims used the smokescreen as an opportunity to persecute and ethnically cleanse the region of non-Muslims” is INCOMPLETE. Because you’re refusing to acknowledge the Christian Lebanese would have prevented Lebanon remaining a stronghold of pro-Palestinian forces. Therefore, those Christian politicians and the Christian political faction were seen as being a political obstacle that must be removed from political power as well as perhaps purged from Lebanon.
Whatever you say.
Nothing further to claim? Misrepresentation doesn’t change the total sum of the equation.
How am i misrepresenting anything? Muslims are slaughtering non muslims, mainly christians across the middle east, south asia and north africa. Lebanon happened to be one place which may have a more complex political situation but it still happen there non the less.
Evil prevails when good men do nothing. Now when will the good muslims stand up and be counted?
They won’t. It’s not in their best interests.
The good Muslims are already standing up and trying to be counted. Obviously, in Western societies, it’s to their best interests to stand against this Caliphate jihad movement that is responsible for the killings of so many innocents otherwise they look like savages. You likely aren’t delving into enough media to become aware of those Muslims. Mainstream media are only one source of information for knowledge, you must avail yourself of the other conduits available. Interact w/Muslims on social media, post your opinions on their web sites rather than simply posting your opinions on web sites that are ALREADY AGAINST JIHAD. Make them see that they must assist in fighting jihad.
As for those poor children, the insanity of these unspeakably inhumane and idiotic ideologues killing such children simply because of their religion is sickening. Justice usually catches up to those who so abominable and their fate is already written because of these crimes.
Sorry no. It is not worth conversing with muslims on their own turf because they persistently lie. History does not lie even though muslims are constantly trying to rewrite it. I’m afraid the history of islam has been nothing if not consistent.
I trust my instincts on this and my instincts tell me that islam needs to be consigned to the historical dustbin. What we are seeing now is just the beginning unless we wake up and take action.
http://www.islam-guide.Com/ch3-16.htm
“The Five Pillars of Islam are the framework of the Muslim life. They are the testimony of faith, prayer, giving zakat (support of the needy), fasting during the month of Ramadan, and the pilgrimage to Makkah once in a lifetime for those who are able.”
http://www.shariahfinancewatch.Org/blog/2010/10/25/great-work-by-money-jihad-blog-on-the-zakat-terror-finding-nexus/
Hmm yes but muslim first and everything else second. Between 15 and 25% of muslims have a fundamentalist view that is not compatible with civil society. Your own government figures.
The muslim fundamentalist wants you as a non muslim dead. The “moderate” muslim will stand and watch you die.
You must not have read the book “Lone Survivor,” or watched the movie “Lone Survivor” which was based on the book. The headman of an Afghan village came across a wounded American SEAL who was hiding from the Taliban forces who were in hot pursuit of him. The Afghan took the SEAL to his village and hid him. The Taliban show up shortly afterward and the Afghan headman must threaten the Taliban at gunpoint in order to make them leave and surrender the American SEAL to the Afghan villagers. The Afghan headman then sends one of the village elders to go to an American army outpost which is miles and miles away to tell them they have a wounded American they must rescue. The village is subsequently attacked and the Afghan villagers put a vain fight against the better equipped Taliban who have RPGs and so on. Read the book, watch the movie… Either way, there are Muslims in the world who have a higher human calling than to be simply a Muslim.
Wow, you found one. Cancel the war, it’s all going to be fine.
Since most of the village men took part in the firefight to defend this American SEAL, there was definitely more than one Afghan Muslim who qualifies as having honor. You think this SEAL would have written this book if he felt less than grateful to all those villagers who helped to save his life?
That battle didn’t involve “just one Afghan Muslim”. The entire village protected that badly wounded U.S. SEAL at the risk of their lives and the risk of continuing Taliban targeting of their village as being American-sympathizers. Let’s not have you refuse to acknowledge the guts that took for those Afghan villagers to act when the Taliban commander said to them they were all going to die for having prevented the Taliban from beheading that SEAL.
Granted I was being a little flippant and i know there are plenty of peaceful muslims out there. However, it does seem to me that when/if they are significant minority/majority they are still likely to stay silent whilst atrocities transpire around them, even when the ‘moderates’ are in the majority. Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Sudan, Bosnia, Albania, Lebanon, the list goes on. Only the muslim community in these areas can stop the nutters, we can’t. But they don’t and i can’t fathom why.
You can’t fathom why poor villagers can’t fight a vicious army of zealot militants? You can’t fathom (LRRH) “why atrocities transpire around them, even when the moderates are in the majority”? This is similar to all situations where a well-armed military faction takes control of a region and forces the compliance of civilians. Those civilians who see their existence tied to allying w/the victor will do whatever they have to to remain alive along w/their families. Use some reason and you’ll understand perfectly well HOW and WHY this has happened. The civilians in these areas that have been overrun need someone to come and organize them and teach them how to fight against ISIL and ISIL fighters.
You make it sound like overnight radicals turn up in the community with guns. The radicals were there before the guns but were unchallenged. They then progress to guns
Why is it the world has been following the INVASION of ISIL across Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria if they’re not invaders but are the regular old population of these Iraqi villages and Syrian towns, etc., etc.? Why is it there are European Muslim sympathizers who have been taking planes and trains to get to the Middle East to fight jihad in Syria and Iraq if the radicals “were there before the guns but were unchallenged”? Of course, ISIL radicals are MOBILE INVADERS and they are INVADING these countries.
You are looking in the short term. The radical narrative has been propagated for decades if not centuries
Sure, the underlying ideology of jihad “has been propagated for decades, for centuries really” and NO MUSLIMS had been taking it seriously. Gee, you’ve got to wonder why not, RIGHT? Or are you going to say simply that because the Palestinian jihad has finally reached the stratospheric size it has where there are individuals who’ll act anywhere in the world on its behalf that it’s “just Islam”? If you say it’s Islam then there has to be a greater number represented as jihadis for your premise to hold water. If there aren’t enough jihadis then your premise — that ALL MUSLIMS are JIHADISTS at heart — simply falls apart on the face of the evidence.
The person who really started popularizing the Palestinian jihad (and the international jihad in support of the Palestinian jihad) was Osama bin Laden and he only dedicated himself to it as a cause after familiarizing himself w/the Palestinian situation and what was going on in Afghanistan against the Russian forces. Most Muslims are content to simply allow the normal working out (or not) of regional issues and national issues in the context of their countries’ systems.
You are talking rubbish. Jihad is not a recent thing. Try 1400 years of it with a body count of several hundred million. Over 80 million hinus alone. The jews are not reaponsible for everything you know.
No, that’s right. The Israelis and the Jews are only responsible for the proliferation and further flowering of the Palestinian jihad. They broke it, they should fix it.
It’s the joooooos.
No my friend, its the muslims. It always has been.
Although you’d like to rewrite history I’m afraid you can’t. Life is cheap in islam, it always has been
Your statements are only part of the truth. Like your sales pitch that Muslim prostitution is Muslim sexual slavery, you’re willing to misrepresent the Palestinian jihad because that’s your world view. Well, your world view is not the historical perspective.
My God, palistinian jihad is current yes, but if you want to deny violent jihad is as old as islam thats fine, but it in the real world it is a historical fact. End of conversation.
Ah, so you’ve given up trying to claim that Muslim prostitution is Muslim sexual slavery and you’re going to shift your tactics and simply condemn all Muslims on the basis that SOME OF THEM are committing jihad? There are quite solid reasons for seeing the initial Muslim expansion as being the most self-serving expression of jihad but that is not the sole definition. There’s no reason to distinguish between the early Muslim conquering and expansion and what’s going on now in Palestine other than the Palestinian jihad is what the concept of jihad as a military endeavor is meant to address — the defense of one’s homeland.
http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9
From the above link:
In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), “jihad” has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam.
If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents – such as women, children, or invalids – must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.
Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: “This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad,” which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment.
In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of “just war” is very important.
The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam.
Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims’ defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.
Nope i haven’t, but there is no point in arguing with you.
Oh, you can argue w/me. But you’ll have to produce actual Muslim pimps (doesn’t matter their nationality) who make no money from their prostitutes and instead maintain a vast stable of underage prostitutes just for their own personal use. You’ll also have to prove that there are no JOHNS among the host populations taking advantage of these girls. There’s a reason the girls were coached to say “they were older than 16” if they were asked by the johns about their age. (That detail was from your original story link.)
What the hell are you talking about. ‘produce muslim pimps’? Have you bothered to read the 45 links i sent? Some are groups trafficking girls as prostitutes, some are just the groups of muslim men abusing the girls themselves. Others are just you opportunist rapists. Makes no odds they are ALL muslim.
Prove there are no non muslim johns, well no non muslim johns are mentioned in ANY of the articles.
Your last point may be true in some cases. Still dirty muslims though
I’ve never read a story where the Muslim men are abusing the girls just among themselves. It’s always been for purposes of PROSTITUTION. You produce some stories that say what these men are doing w/these girls and if the story link EXCLUDES OTHER MEN from paying for the privilege of dallying w/these girls, then I’ll be willing to entertain other concepts. “Opportunist rapists” are JUST RAPISTS. They may be Muslim rapists but they’re not likely to be rapist jihadis. If there were such a thing as a RAPE JIHAD, we likely would have heard the jihadis boasting about being selected for the rape jihad because they’re “really good at getting girls into bed” or they’ve “got a big tool” or something… The jihadis wouldn’t remain mute if there were a rape jihad going on. They’d be overrun w/volunteers considering the risks are a lot less in a rape jihad than what they’d be facing in Iraq and Syria where they might have all their equipment blown off their bodies. There may be demographic reasons for these crimes to be high among the Muslim demographics but they’re likely unemployment and business reasons. Till you prove otherwise, it’s PROSTITUTION and it’s RAPE.
You obviously haven’t looked at the 45 links i. Sent.
See my other response, i really have better things to do than trawling through parallel tomes from you in the same thread.
I didn’t see 45 links; I saw some story links, NONE of which cited the Muslim men as being other than pimps who were prepping these girls for prostitution. You seem to think that ANYTHING done by Muslim men as regards sexual trafficking or sexual exploitation somehow makes what they do RADICALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WHITE MEN or ANY OTHER ETHNICITY DOES. It’s NOT.
To produce a prostitute, the pimp has to overcome the natural inhibitions of the girl or appeal to her sense of wanting to become a mature woman w/a man of her own. After he’s begun that seduction process, it’s only a matter of the pimp deciding which is the most effective way to ensnare the girl further so she won’t back out of the relationship. Some pimps seduce their women slowly and carefully, other pimps seduce the girls/women fairly rapidly and then force other men on them to degrade their sense of self-worth so they won’t back away from a life of prostitution. This is a KNOWN PROCESS in PROSTITUTION, in GANGS of various ethnicities around the U.S. and that’s why it’s called ‘grooming.’ So, I’ve read your links and none of them so far have proved anything like what you claim — that these Muslims are seducing girls simply for their own use. That is what Muslim sexual slavery is. Seducing women in order to sell them sexually to clients is what prostitution is. There’s really no need for all the confusion you seem to trying to produce around the issue. Produce a list of Muslims who’ve seduced girls and kept them only for themselves and I’ll be fine w/calling it Muslim sexual slavery. Until you do that, if those girls are SERVICING A BUNCH OF CLIENTS as a MONEY-MAKING OPERATION, it’s PROSTITUTION.
I can summarise in fewer words than you.
Forced prostitution, is sexual slavery, full stop.
You should watch a uk doco called undercover mosque from 2007. See what is being preached in UK mosques.
(LRRH) “Forced prostitution is sexual slavery, full stop.”
Well, you won’t find me disagreeing w/that concept you just presented in many cases despite the fact there are women who work as sex workers of their own volition. However, that concept is not what you were selling as your original premise. Since you seem to have absorbed the distinction between what is prostitution vs what is Muslim sexual slavery, I don’t expect in future that you will confuse one for the other or vice versa.
My, aren’t you up late.
On your last point I still disagree with you. You are looking for a textbook answer, there isn’t one. Very few if any if the girls in these cases worked as sex workers through their own volition. Virtually all the girls targeted were non muslim and just because they haven’t been sold to a person to be married or whatever does not mean this is not muslim sex slavery. All the users were muslim from the evidence so far.
So no I’m not letting get away with it either.
Muslim sexual slavery has one man acquiring one or more women for HIMSELF for his PERSONAL USE and they are maintained as part of his household retinue.
Prostitution involves a pimp acquiring a stable of girls to sell off as many times daily as he can find them customers.
They’re different animals. You’ve admitted as much by finally deciding to call it only “sexual slavery”.
I’ve not admitted any such thing. A number of those articles highlighted that the girls were groomed and enslaved to share amongst the group. The same group. Not random johns muslims or otherwise.
Muslim sexual slavery is still on the agenda im afraid.
You’re a little confused. The “sharing” that occurred was to prepare the girls to go out and perform sex acts on strangers. That is part and parcel of the grooming behavior they undergo; in order to roil their emotions and disconnect them from their real lives, they are raped by friends of their pimp.
Oh is it now, sounds like another of your opinions. Or do you have evidence that it was just a preparation phase.
Muslim sex slavery. End of story love.
If the girls are seduced, have a short interlude where their Muslim BF brings them up to speed sexually and then he turns them over to his friends for the final coupe de grace of stripping them of their dignity before selling them to multitudes of men daily on the street, then it’s PROSTITUTION. The fact you are such a worshipper of Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer that you choose not to understand the difference between Muslim sexual slavery and PROSTITUTION is your problem. But I’ll certainly point it out each and every time you attempt to argue they’re engaged in Muslim sexual slavery because in that case, any pimp is engaging in WHITE SEXUAL SLAVERY or BLACK SEXUAL SLAVERY or FILIPINO SEXUAL SLAVERY or THAI SEXUAL SLAVERY…
Or MUSLIM SEXUAL SLAVERY.
At last we agree. All is right in the world.
TTFN
No, you’re hopelessly dedicated to the Pam Geller/Robert Spencer trope that EVEYRTHING and ANYTHING SEXUALLY ABUSIVE is Muslim sexual slavery. It’s not. Either have some honesty about the realities of prostitution or don’t. But if these Muslim men from Europe were in Mosul w/their merry bands of girl prostitutes, they’d be executed for PROSTITUTION. The fact extremist Muslims would readily identify the crime and you cannot because you’ve pulled your black shades down over your eyes and your intellect doesn’t mean anything in the scheme of things.
I wonder what LRRH thinks about “Christian” sexual rape: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bosnian_War
Boy! We should certainly stop Christian immigration into this country. Wouldn’t want those Christians coming in this country and trying to implement the Law of Moses, with stoning, slavery and all. Oh, but only the Muslims “follow” their religion when they rape, and the Christians don’t. That is patently false. The Serbs, like the Nazis, were drawing inspiration from their faiths and felt that God was on their side.
Americana, the difference between you and LRRH is that you can see beyond the social constructions. To you, rape is rape. For LRRH, there is Muslim rape and non-Muslim rape; the former is an urgent issue which is taking over the Free World, whereas the latter is just an awful part of everyday civilization that we should deal with calmly and rationally – without tacking on a religious label even if the person claims religious inspiration like Joseph Kony of the DRC.
Where are all those silent Christians on Joseph Kony? I haven’t seen any protest in my side of town of Christians condemning Joseph Kony. That means either there are either rotten Christians like Kony, or silent ones who are secretly complicit. Did LRRH ever follow a protest march in my side of town where I can see her? Guess she’s then one of those secret Christian fifth columns in our Free American Society, and that’s why it’s an urgent issue to stop Christian immigration! I heard those coming through the South of our border are a particularly nasty sect called Catholics, that are anathema to the Real Christians who follow the Bible – The Protestants. This is an urgent issue taking over the Free World. Wake up people!
Obviously this line of reasoning is extremely simplistic and foolish. But it is precisely the line of reasoning of those like LRRH.
The Muslim world is in turmoil. It doesn’t know where it will go, but the medium-term future is certainly not for ISIL or their ancestor ideologues (who also happen to be our best friends): The Saudis.
Until the Muslim World finds its place in the modern world, no one can really speak for it, and this is especially true of Spencer and his ilk. It is on Muslims like myself to battle against ISIL, and we need the help of our non-Muslim brothers and sisters. The only problem is that our government is getting in the way by protecting the Saudi Monarchy, which proselytizing the Wahhabi ideology, which is the ideology of ISIL. They do this for geopolitical reasons. A quick buck and medium-term control of oil, if I’m allowed to simplify things so crudely.
Anyway, I really do not wish to debate as I see debate is pointless. The monsters of ISIL and their Saudi co-ideologues are wreaking havoc in the ME (so are the Israelis) and “speaking” for Islam. That’s all we the Westerners hear. There are many who condemn them, and refute them using the texts of Islam, but it’s certainly an uphill battle.
Yes, I’d agree w/your assessment. What branch of Islam are you, JS? if you don’t want to answer, don’t. I’d fully understand why you wouldn’t want it to be known. My sister taught in Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and several other places in the Middle East and she found all the Muslim cultures to have different but similar problems. I do feel modernity is looming but I worry that it won’t come soon enough and that it won’t necessarily grapple w/all the interrelationships of civic and religious life. I’ve always wondered when the first push for an Islamic Reformation would come from and from whom it would come and whether or not the right person(s) would come along to champion a Reformation w/enough persona to carry it through to fruition.
Well, I did overlook one link that she had put up that involved a Muslim paedophilia ring. But I still believe that the Muslim sexual slavery trope is being abused by many thanks to the publicity efforts of Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and other bloggers who’ve become fascinated w/the concept. This may not be Muslim sexual slavery they’re practicing in the one link that she reposted (please check those links out) but it is paedophilia and they deserve long sentences.
It’s as if they’ve never heard of the Interpol Sex Crimes Unit. Here’s just ONE INVESTIGATION into an international paedophile ring:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42108748/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/massive-online-pedophile-ring-busted-cops/#.VLWxB15M68o
From the above link:
An Internet pedophile ring with up to 70,000 members — thought to be the world’s largest —has been uncovered by police, a security official said Wednesday.
The European police agency Europol said in a statement that “Operation Rescue” had identified 670 suspects and that 230 abused children in 30 countries had been taken to safety. More children are expected to be found, Europol said.
It said that so far 184 people had been arrested and investigations in some countries were continuing. Most of those detained are suspected of direct involvement in sexually abusing children.
They include teachers, police officers and scout leaders, AP reported. One Spaniard who worked at summer youth camps is suspected of abusing some 100 children over five years.
Europol director Rob Wainwright said Wednesday the ring, which communicated using an Internet forum, was “probably the largest online pedophile network in the world.”
Getting a little snippy? I don’t follow either of those people you mention. The sexual slavery I am talking about is based largely on the mentality of the muslims in our communities (using that word loosely). What they are taught in the mosques and what they do on our streets. They believe they hold the whip hand over our girls and can do anything they want with them. Some do for money, others shared amongs friends and often brothers. The mentality is exactly the same when it comes to white non muslim girls. The same mentality spouted in the quran when it comes to muslim sex slavery, i.e. take them, you posses them.
So you keep on wiling away the wee small hours believing you are of superiour intellect. I know what I mean. If it does not fit your preferred definition of muslim sex slavery.. Sorry love. Tough sh!t.
I’m sure it will be coming to America soon.
These Muslim men believe they hold the whip hand only because they’re able to seduce these girls. If parents took care to warn their children sufficiently, these men, Muslims or not, wouldn’t be able to seduce them. As for your baloney about these men seducing them just to “share amongst themselves,” I’ve never heard of such a gang and I’ve read anything about such a gang so I question what your sources are. So far, NONE of your sources have produced a gang that uses these girls solely among themselves. These girls are treated just like any other prostitution ring’s girls and women around the world.
You produce sources that say unequivocally that many, many Muslim men are indulging in “Muslim sexual slavery” where they kidnap/seduce women (or even buy them) and keep them in their homes solely for their own use, I’ll certainly be intrigued to hear more about it. Until then, you, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and all the rest who are flogging this “Muslim sexual slavery” trope are simply not accurately representing the situation.
At least one of those cases was described by the judge as using these girls for their OWN gratification. I sent the links i suggest you check again.
It’s interesting in your previous comment that you mention ISIS. Their treatment of the Yazidis is not exactly your textbook definition of muslim sex slavery, yet sex slavery it is.
“Some are sold to individual men. Others are kept by [Islamic State] in rest houses and face multiple rapes by fighters returning from the battlefield.”
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Yazidi-women-dragged-by-their-hair-sold-into-sex-slavery-by-ISIS-for-25-385394
So not sold to individual men but just fcked by whoever whenever they like.
Kinda fails your own test eh?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10061217/Imams-promote-grooming-rings-Muslim-leader-claims.html
Clearly says driven by race and religion. Therefore, muslim sex slavery. Who gives a sh!t if money changes hands.
If you want to maintain that everyone is wrong unless it fits your definition fine. But you are wrong or sick or both.
It’s pretty sick that sex slavery is enshrined in islamic law fullstop.
Where is the link to the case you claim where the girls were SOLELY for PERSONAL USE?
As for your claim about ISIL and their abuse of Yazidi women, why wouldn’t that fall under Muslim sexual slavery? They were seized under Muslim edict by Islamic forces and they’re being used as sexual “comfort women” under that very same Muslim edict though there is no money changing hands because they’re captives. I’d say that’s simply a TWIST on Muslim sex slavery by the ISIL forces. I’ve never denied there are instances where these jihadists are reviving the practice of Muslim sexual slavery to suit themselves. In fact, I was the ONE WHO FIRST MENTIONED those instances of Muslim sexual slavery in Nigeria by Boko Haram so even though I didn’t mention the Yazidi women, it should be obvious where I consider those women to fall within the parameters of Muslim sexual slavery.
sigh.
I knew you hadn’t read them
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20046781
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235658/Sex-abuse-gang-suspects-held-dawn-raids-High-Wycombe-girl-tells-police-attacked-years-age-12.html#ixzz2Cobs2Lmt
https://kafircrusaders.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/2-muslim-nonces-on-trial-for-repeatedly-raping-1-girl-and-the-rape-2-others-in-keighley/
Prosecutor Michelle Colborne QC told the court on Tuesday: ”They acted together travelling from their various home addresses in Leeds and Halifax to the Keighley town centre where they specifically targeted vulnerable girls, all underage.”
……..
Miss Colborne said Mr Rehman boasted to a woman they could get any girl they wanted and described them as ”fresh meat”.
”He said they had no reputation and if they got them young enough they could KEEP THEM FOREVER,” she told the court.
https://kafircrusaders.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/thames-valley-police-arrest-4-for-child-exploitation-more-paedostanis/
The men, aged 19, 20, 21 and 22, are alleged to have committed “various sexual offences” against the girl and are currently in police custody.
https://kafircrusaders.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/middlesbrough-grooming-gang-jailed-victims-harassed-by-paedo-defenders/
Passing sentence Judge John Walford told Shakil Munir, 32, 19-year-old Sakib Ahmed and Ateeq Latif, 17, that they had regarded the girls – all aged between 13 and 15 – as objects for their own sexual pleasure.
https://kafircrusaders.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/another-muslim-grooming-gang-found-guilty/
Four Buckinghamshire men have been found guilty of twenty sex offences against one girl.
https://kafircrusaders.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/another-muslim-grooming-gang-busted-12-perverts-from-leeds-to-appear-in-court/
There. From the links that i supplied before. All for personal use. Now please shut the door on the way out.
I thought I had read all the links you provided. But, I’ll say again this is not “Muslim sexual slavery” just because it’s committed by Muslims. You must live a very sheltered life if you’re unaware of the enormity of the child sexual trafficking and porn businesses. From the article, this is a paedophilia ring similar to what happened in France…and Belgium and the U.S. and elsewhere around the world 70,000 individuals are involved w/this ONE SINGLE WEB SITE which shared child porn among their members. Members would create videos from children they were abusing and post the videos on line. Interpol would disagree w/your characterization of this abuse as Muslim sexual slavery and they’d also like you to know that not all sex crimes against children are committed by Muslims. I don’t disagree this is a sex crime but it’s paedophilia.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jan/25/worlddispatch.dutroux
From the above link:
The victims’ parents think they have an answer – a cover-up and many Belgians agree with them. Dutroux was not acting alone, they say, but was part of a wider paedophile ring which included policemen and senior members of the establishment. Why else would there be such a delay in going to trial?
This week Dutroux himself said as much although possibly for his own reasons. “A network with all kinds of criminal activities really does exist,” he told VTM, a Flemish TV station. “But the authorities don’t want to look into it.” And there is no doubting that things do look odd.
The original investigating magistrate was dismissed after sharing a meal with one of the victim’s families and several prosecutors, policemen and crucial witness have committed suicide. Important evidence has also disappeared.
So maybe Dutroux is being protected from on high. What other explanation can there be for such a disgraceful chain of events? But one thing is certain – the entire credibility of the current reformist government of Guy Verhofstadt and Belgium’s very reputation as a normal civilised country is on the line. Further delay is unacceptable.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42108748/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/massive-online-pedophile-ring-busted-cops/
From the above link:
The European police agency Europol said in a statement that “Operation Rescue” had identified 670 suspects and that 230 abused children in 30 countries had been taken to safety. More children are expected to be found, Europol said.
It said that so far 184 people had been arrested and investigations in some countries were continuing. Most of those detained are suspected of direct involvement in sexually abusing children.
They include teachers, police officers and scout leaders, AP reported. One Spaniard who worked at summer youth camps is suspected of abusing some 100 children over five years.
Europol director Rob Wainwright said Wednesday the ring, which communicated using an Internet forum, was “probably the largest online pedophile network in the world.”
Cori Bassett, a public affairs officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in an email that there had been five arrests and four convictions in connection with Operation Rescue in the U.S.
“Arrests so far have been made in Georgia and Connecticut. ICE continues to pursue the leads provided by Europol,” she added.
The website was shut down following the three-year investigation, Europol said.
“The website operated from a server based in the Netherlands and, at its height, boasted up to 70,000 members worldwide,” it added.
“It attempted to operate as a ‘discussion–only’ forum where people could share their sexual interest in young boys without committing any specific offences, thus operating ‘below the radar’ of police attention,” Europol said.
“Having made contact on the site, some members would move to more private channels, such as email, to exchange and share illegal images and films of children being abused. Computers seized from those arrested have harvested huge quantities of child abuse images and videos,” it added.
___________________________________________________________________________
So, does the above sound similar to what is written below? Sex crimes are sex crimes. There is official Muslim sexual slavery and then there is pedophilia and sundry other forms of sexual abuse. There is pedophilia in white European society as well as Muslim societies. If you’d like to claim that the Muslims are the worst, well, the international sex crimes unit of Interpol likely would beg to differ w/your opinion.
From your very first story link: “She told how she was groomed by a man who she believed to be her boyfriend before he callously passed her to other men in the paedophile ring.”
And the other stories? Don’t try to broaden the scope of this. I’m sorry you cannot admit that these cases reflect a attitudes across the whole muslim world to non muslim women and girls and I’m specifically focussing on muslims because they are a significant problem in the Uk. They are not dirty old men sitting behind their computer screens looking at kiddie images. These are muslim groups specifically targeting predominantly white, non muslim girls based on race and religious lines.
They are making it clear that they consider themselves supreme over non muslims and abusing our girls is a way of reinforcing that. They believe they own these girls which is slavery, muslim sex slavery and an act of supremacy over the kuffar.
4% of the total uk population are muslim and they make up 13% of our prison population, over represented? Ya think?
In the uk we rarely heard of child sex crimes before the massive influx of muslims in the country. I’m not saying it never happened, but no where near as often.
This surge in sex crimes in the UK is clearly linked to muslim immigration.
You may be sheltered from the muslim onslaught on our society and unwilling to accept that this is a serious problem, but I’m not and for the sake of my daughter I will call it as it is. Muslim sex slavery as outlined in those links.
I’m not “broadening the scope of this”, I’m merely pointing out that there is a VERY EXPLICIT DESCRIPTION of Muslim sexual slavery and this does not fit. It fits the description of paedophilia. I well understand the attitude toward non-Muslim women and girls and how some Muslim men do treat kaffir/infidel women. But there are far more sociological elements to this than you’re willing to analyze. The fact i put things in a far larger number of categories than you do isn’t me avoiding the issue of Muslim sexual slavery; it’s me adhering to a . I had no issue w/the Yazidi women or the Boko Haram captives being called Muslim sexual slaves if that’s what became of them.
You thought the paedophile ring I posted about only LOOKED AT IMAGES of child porn? Then you didn’t read the story closely enough. These men and women were CREATING THE CHILD PORN by having sexual relations of various kinds w/children and videotaping themselves. They’d then post the videos on line. The paedophile ring had all sorts of aspects to it from linking men up w/children they could abuse (in their own countries as well as internationally) to inviting people to ask for what they wanted to see a la carte to serving as a conduit for all sorts of information about how to avoid being entrapped by the police. There were 70,000 plus individual from all around the world on that site. What percentage do you possibly think could have been Muslim? You’d like to see the sexual degradation that’s currently running rampant world wide and attribute it much of it to Muslims. That’s hardly the case. I see our present state of affairs as being a function of the internet and its immense trove of endless sexual titillation as well as the fact that Western societies have made many third-world countries sex tourism destinations. We’ve got a WORLDWIDE Sodom and Gomorrah going on.
Rape in India:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/03/16321396-india-gang-rape-victims-father-hang-the-monsters-responsible?lite
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/01/india-guru-rape-bapu/2752709/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/13/world/asia/india-gang-rape-sentence/
For instance, there’s been an enormous gap between the number of girl babies and the number of boy babies born in India which has resulted in an enormous lack of marriageable young women. You don’t recall the multiple horrific Indian rape cases that have made the news? The young woman who was out for a movie w/her BF and she was savagely gang-raped on a bus, suffering perforated bowels and internal bleeding. She subsequently died of her injuries.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/03/16321396-india-gang-rape-victims-father-hang-the-monsters-responsible?lite
Here’s a little Hindu hanky panky by a guru who likes young teenage girls:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/01/india-guru-rape-bapu/2752709/
You are broadening the scope. I am talking about a specific issue in the uk, where, as i provided in my last links evidence that YOU REQUESTED showing how these groups if men were using the girls for themselves rather than pimping them.
They mention nothing of trafficking for money or pimping for money, the girls are classed as property. I’m sorry this doesn’t fit your explicit description but because this is targeted based on race and religion this is nothing but muslim sex slavery.
I’ve provided the evidence. If you don’t like it or disagree that’s your prerogative, i can’t change that.
This is reaching epidemic proportions, never seen before in the UK. These are muslim men using and abusing non muslim white girls, largely underage. They are not pimping them on the streets, they are for their own use.
I am not denying the wider problem of peadophile rings or online titillation as you put it, but this is not what I am referring to here, of which you are well aware.
I will not concede so I see little point of us continuing
Well, I disagree it’s targeted on race and religion in the sense you seem to mean rather than on EASE of PREDATION. White girls are not veiled, so the attractive girls are readily identified. They’re out and about and readily approached and you can tell instantly if your tactics are working and you’re going to be able to likely seduce the girls because you can see their facial expressions and body language. That’s not targeting someone because they’re Christian for the sake of screwing an infidel. That’s targeting a girl that you have a reasonable chance of seducing. As the Muslim male, you’ve got certain things on your side, possibly you’ve got an exotic appeal, you’ve got your willingness at least initially to lay out money for a few seduction sessions of eating out or movies, and then you’re in like flynn. I’d hardly call it what you’re calling it which is Muslim sexual slavery and rape jihad. Most of the guys who are doing this don’t come across as devout Muslims who’d do something like this on behalf of their faith vs doing it because it’s for their own pleasure or their own bank accounts. I think we’ve both had our say. I certainly don’t need to write more. But if more is posted along these lines then I most certainly will speak up again.
As is your right. It’s your opinion and seeing you don’t even live in the UK I really don’t see how you can comment on the psyche of muslim men here. The problems haven’t reached the same levels in the US as they have here and other parts of Europe. Although, it is only a matter of time, if Obama gets his way. I’m afraid this is what you get when you import misogynistic inbreds en masse from failed muslim states, backed up by their backward belief system
It’s laughable and somewhat arrogant that you make the assertion that they are not very devout muslims. Who are you to say who is devout or not? That is the crux of the so called religion of peace isn’t it? The difficulty of finding a correct interpretation. They follow the example of Mo who seemed to have a revelation to suit his latest lust, and since no one is allowed to question and there is no higher authority at the head if that abomination of a religion is it any wonder you get wildly different interpretations about what constitutes a devout muslim.
But we’ll leave it there. I’m quite sure any Brits who live in cities with a significant muslim population will agree with me rather than you.
I have hundreds of relatives in the U.K. My mother was British and I both visit frequently and have lived there in London, in the northwest in Lancashire, and in Scotland.
Who am I say whether they are devout or not? Because there are plenty of Muslims who ADMIT THEMSELVES they are not very devout or they don’t take their religion seriously and are basically secular. Somehow I very much doubt that Muslim pimps are all that different from American or French or Italian or Yugoslavian pimps. Pimps are likely to exhibit pretty much of a muchness of the same character flaws. People are people and human flaws will out. The fact you’d attempt to describe the differences among the different Muslim sects as being the source for the Muslim pimps which likely wouldn’t have ANYTHING to do w/sexual instruction is quite funny and telling.
Like I said, conjecture. Devoutness cannot be determined from any of these articles. It is purely your opinion. It would be difficult for you to define what it is considering the spectrum of interpretation.
Oh, it’s not conjecture. There are lots of secular Muslims who are Muslim by birth only. They’re not interested in being a functioning devout Muslim and THEY ADMIT IT. I don’t have to “conjecture anything” if that’s what they’ve said. They no more want sharia than the rest of us. Just as it would be your opinion as to them being functionally “Muslims” or not. The fact you claim this is either Muslim sexual slavery or sex jihad when jihad is a moral imperative in Muslim warfare when these men are satisfying carnal desires makes your thesis laughably inaccurate. Where sexual slavery and sex jihad are applicable is when they’ve been declared and they’re being practiced as in Nigeria and Iraq et al.
There are Muslims who are heinous in their behavior. However, this is human behavior and for you to claim that the Muslims are exclusively the worst of the worst is either ignorance or something else speaking. The fact you claimed I was unfairly broadening the discussion by mentioning that 70,000 people have been caught by Interpol in an international paedophile ring is you not wanting to recognize just how universal these sexual crimes against children are. There are an enormous number of sexual crimes going on amongst all ethnicities and cultures. There have to be larger sociological explanations for those rates of sexual crimes and reasons for the different categories of sexual crimes and their rates. I attribute a huge amount of this growth to SEX TOURISM and the SEXUAL GRAB BAG that one can find on the internet.
Oh but it is conjecture with regard to the links I provided and therefore, just you being opinionated. I provided the info, showing what you stated couldn’t possibly be the case and now you are trying to talk your way around it.
So as i said before it’s pointless continuing because you’ll just attempt an alternative angle to try to disprove the evidence I have already provided.
I think we’re done. Over and out.
I’m “not talking my way around it” at all. You claim that is Muslim sexual slavery OR sex jihad. I forget which you eventually thought was more compelling and more “provable” but Muslim sexual slavery is a VERY SPECIFIC term and it requires that ONE MAN seize one woman, claims her for his own and takes her into his home for his own sexual pleasure or perversion or whatever you want to call it.
That is NOT what those men were doing. They were operating a paedophile ring. It’s a well-known sex crime that’s reportable and is prosecuted UNDER THAT TERM. There are tons of paedophiles around the world who are doing exactly what the latest man I posted about has done. The fact they may be Muslim or Christian is immaterial to the nature of the crime. You simply refuse to think outside the ethnic and religious boxes.
Ha, you accuse me of not being able to think outside the box while you cling to your specific definition of what muslim sexual slavery is.
Pot, kettle , black
We’re done.
Goodnight
Not at all. I’m quite willing to say that there’s Muslim sexual slavery going on. I’m just not willing to confuse it w/paedophilia. Nor should you.
Americana LittleRedRidingHood • 5 minutes ago: “Not at all. I’m quite willing to say that there’s Muslim sexual slavery going on. I’m just not willing to confuse it w/paedophilia. Nor should you.”
Moron,
Pedophilia is a part of Islamic sex practices according to sharia and our definition of pedophilia. Two different worldviews. You’re the one that’s confused.
Paedophilia is a part of HUMAN SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR as shown by the 70,000 individuals alone from all around the world who were caught in that Interpol sting. EVERY SEX BEHAVIOUR is represented in all branches of humanity. We have Warren Jeffs and a bunch of LDS guys who are practicing paedophilia on a grand scale here in the U.S. right along w/polygamy. You’re going to attribute that to the LDS guys secretly being Muslims?
You’re an idiot. You can’t handle nuanced conversations.
People resist doing bad things all the time because they recognize that these things are wrong. It’s much harder to resist human impulses when your totalitarian religion has created a framework for organizing those horrible behaviors with Allah’s approval. That is (arguably) unique to Islam at least in terms of what Westerners consider to be bad behavior.
It’s humans combined with religions and idealogical frameworks that we’re looking at.
Oh, I see, you like to believe that religion plays the largest part in control over one’s behavior. Well, I pretty much beg to differ. The components that play the greatest role in pushing someone toward paedophilia would be emotional and sexual and I dare say most people would ignore their religious upbringing entirely in order to allow their emotions and sexuality full play in exercising their sexual desires. As far as I know, Christians, Hindus, Muslims and all religions have the full range of sexual behavior being demonstrated. They also all have issues coping w/tolerating certain sexual behaviors. Why? Likely because most human constructs are always choosing the MEDIAN BEHAVIOUR as being the CORRECT, MOST DESIRABLE BEHAVIOUR and attempting to encourage that within the societal framework through every format of influence: home life, religion, etc.
“Oh, I see, you like to believe that religion plays the largest part in control over one’s behavior. ”
No dumbass. I never said largest part. It can be influential. Dismissing this idea is more than childish. It’s totally idiotic.
“Well, I pretty much beg to differ.”
Because, as we have clearly established after reading all of your poop droppings, you are a robotic neo-Marxist propagandist.
“The components that play the greatest role in pushing someone toward paedophilia would be emotional and sexual and I dare say most people would ignore their religious upbringing entirely in order to allow their emotions and sexuality full play in exercising their sexual desires.”
It’s way too complicated to discuss comprehensively here, but essentially what you have are the ordinary human factors before cultural effects, cultural effects on behavior, and ideological (including religious influence). All of these work together when people are dealing with controlling impulses. Nobody said that Islam, by the act of praying to Allah 5 times a day or something like that, makes people want to rape young girls. The claim is that the set of values and exhortations in Christianity and Judeo Christian societies create frameworks for impeding those impulses before actually acting on them. Whereas in Islam you have stories about “the prophet” and many others that go ahead and partake as long as sharia is respected. Therefore Islam and Christianity are at opposite ends of a scale if we want to look at how higher thought processes help people to control their own base impulses.
Obviously some Muslims restrain themselves and some Christians don’t. Pretending that therefore there is no reason to look for differences is to deny the value in pretty much any kind of analysis of human behavior at all. In the case we’re discussing, it looks like pious Muslims were ignored when they should have been investigated. Somehow these institutions concluded that Muslims are lower risk than others.
These things need to be discussed objectively. Your knee-jerk defense is just more cow poop like you drop everywhere else you go.
These things DO need to be discussed objectively. That’s why you don’t ever qualify for discussing them objectively. If you discussed things objectively, none of us would find quite so much that is objectionable in your diatribes. The fact is religion seems to be one of the last signifiers of what someone’s sexual history will be based on the worst mass murderers and the worst sexual criminals we’ve had in the world.
“The fact is religion seems to be one of the last signifiers of what someone’s sexual history will be based on the worst mass murderers and the worst sexual criminals we’ve had in the world.”
You retard. That seems that way to you because “we” in the West focus most of our analysis on people we have the best access to in the Judeo Christian world. We’re far more critical, especially since the “atheist enlightenment,” of our own civilization, groups and individuals. We have a lot more information and “we” tend to think it’s more appropriate to focus attention where the dominant culture will theoretically learn and lead by example. It’s not because religion and culture don’t matter at all. It’s because you don’t understand civilizational views versus global views and how those views can be easily distorted, especially since Marx and his oppressor oppressed paradigms. You just blindly accept “explanations” that feel right to you because that’s how you were programmed in your own cultural bubble.
And the word you’re looking for is deterministic. We don’t really fully understand how deterministic any of these things are, but clearly it’s not just about ideology, religion and so forth. There will be materialistic factors too. Nonetheless, investigators need to have a very clear understanding of the spectrum of possibilities when they decide if they want to rule out investigating “pious” religious people on the assumption that suspicions and accusations are driven by “unjust Islam-o-phobia” and so forth.
That’s why we’re discussing it here. We’ve been doing the opposite form what we should be doing. We’re treating them like an “oppressed class” that need to be left alone when in reality, if we do solid, objective work on looking at risks and profiles it seems (based on what I’ve observed so far) that pious Muslims are at higher risk as a group for sexually abusing minors than just about any other religious group I know of. But in many communities in the West they’re protected by stupid PC pressures.
“That’s why you don’t ever qualify for discussing them objectively. ”
Shut up. Communists are hardly considered objective or able to judge non-communists. I understand your ideas and their origins infinitely better than you do.
I DID NOT WRITE THAT SENTENCE which you chose to PRETEND is my thinking. Retract that quote and don’t you DARE PRETEND AGAIN that you’re quoting me when you’re quoting someone else. You scumbag. I cannot believe how low you’re willing to stoop.
Idiot, this is your comment. Own it:
Americana objectivefactsmatter • 17 minutes ago: “These things DO need to be discussed objectively. That’s why you don’t ever qualify for discussing them objectively. If you discussed things objectively, none of us would find quite so much that is objectionable in your diatribes. The fact is religion seems to be one of the last signifiers of what someone’s sexual history will be based on the worst mass murderers and the worst sexual criminals we’ve had in the world.”
I don’t have a problem w/that quote about objectivity and sexual behavior. What I do have a problem w/is the quote about evaluating cultures against one another. That is not my quote.
Americana objectivefactsmatter • 17 minutes ago
I DID NOT WRITE THAT SENTENCE which you chose to PRETEND is my thinking. Retract that quote and don’t you DARE PRETEND AGAIN that you’re quoting me when you’re quoting someone else. You scumbag. I cannot believe how low you’re willing to stoop
Who wrote it? Sure looks like you.
Americana objectivefactsmatter • 3 hours ago
“These things DO need to be discussed objectively. That’s why you don’t ever qualify for discussing them objectively. If you discussed things objectively, none of us would find quite so much that is objectionable in your diatribes. The fact is religion seems to be one of the last signifiers of what someone’s sexual history will be based on the worst mass murderers and the worst sexual criminals we’ve had in the world.”
I mistakenly replied to a post of yours where you’d inserted two quotes, one of mine and one from someone else. Why didn’t you identify the author of the second quote?
Americana 26 minutes ago: “I mistakenly replied to a post of yours where you’d inserted two quotes, one of mine and one from someone else. Why didn’t you identify the author of the second quote?”
You need to map out what you’re talking about. It’s on you if you F’ed up.
It’s up to you to acknowledge that you did this and you do this as a regular practice. It’s not legitimate and you’ve been told it’s not legitimate to do it. Stop the practice.
Prove it or shut the F up.
Crazy, delusional psychopath.
It is proved by virtue of the two quotes appearing in a POST under YOUR BB HANDLE. If you can’t find the post containing the second quote you claim is mine w/my BB handle on it then I didn’t write the second quote. Capisce?
Retard,
I wrote what I wrote. The question is why anyone would believe your comments about what I wrote? There is no good reason to believe anything that YOU write.
There is “now no good reason to believe anything that YOU write”. To be absolutely CLEAR, THIS SENTENCE BELOW BELONGS TO objectivefactsmatter (because, after all, objectivefactsDOMATTER):
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
Stop spamming or I will report you.
You’ve already made it enough of a habit that you don’t like being called out about it. You pull more of that spamming jamming w/me and I will more than return the favor. Just so things are absolutely crystal clear between us.
I don’t give a flying F what you do. I have never reported anyone as a spammer. You’re the worst spammer around. If I do report anyone I’ll warn them – and you are warned. I’ll clearly weather the storm better than some argumentative moron that does nothing but spam users by following Jerry around.
I think we should discuss it over and FPM. I’ll see how others feel about your “contributions.” It seems like you are a nuisance and nothing else. If anyone sees any value in your contributions then I’m OK with it. If you only have the support of other hostile trolls because they support you creating chaos, that’s another story.
Oh, that’s big of you! Once again, objectivefactsmatter is trying to close ranks so he doesn’t have to listen to anything besides himself and his own opinion. Bringing this possibility up again because you’ve been proven to be an underhanded debater by the woman you keep claiming is the dumb bunny in the crowd?
It is big of me. It would be selfish to just try to take you out for my own selfish reasons. Maybe someone actually gets some value from your cow pie comments.
You don’t actually recognize altruism when you see it. That’s why you lobby for government mandated altruism.
“Bringing this possibility up again because you’ve been proven to be an underhanded debater by the woman you keep claiming is the dumb bunny in the crowd?”
I think I’ve reached my limits when you accuse me numerous times of marking your comments as spam and then you start spamming my comments with repetitious replies all on the same day.
You’re a hybrid between a spammer and a troll. Although I know you think you’re just another “helpful” member of “MENSA” spreading your forum fertilizer.
To be honest I would (if I was involved in moderated the site) look seriously at other conversations and then probably just block you. I don’t see any value in what you offer. I’m being sincere. And there are other pretty nasty trolls here that seem useless but at least they’re expressing their views without trying to get up in anyone’s face that calls them on their bullshit. And I understand that you have mental issues but that’s for you to solve on your own. You can’t expect a web site to tolerate crap like yours just because you’re ill.
Those aren’t “spamming replies” from me. I don’t want you posting a DIFFERENT EXCULPATORY EXPLANATION multiple times as to how that QUOTE got into a post of yours. The more you deny the purpose of that quote, the more I’ll point out its purpose. You want to let this controversy die a natural death now that you’ve ADMITTED WHAT YOU DID — you INVENTED A QUOTE and then RESPONDED TO IT as if you were responding to me — that’s fine by me. Just stop posting your supposed CLARIFICATIONS as to HOW and WHY it happened and we’ll be done. You continue to play devil’s advocate when you know you’re in the wrong and I’ll have you for breakfast all over again. Over easy.
“Those aren’t “spamming replies” from me. I don’t want you posting a DIFFERENT EXCULPATORY EXPLANATION multiple times as to how that QUOTE got into a post of yours. ”
So…you can read the future too, and you preempted my comments from the future. That’s interesting. Why not just reply to…you know…what you’re replying to?
This comment has nothing to do w/”reading the future,” dumbkopf, and everything to do w/”reading the present” and demanding that you stop inventing bogus explanations about how it is that you wrote that quote and inserted it into a post of yours in the hopes it would be seen as having been written by me. Sheesh, your behavior simply beggars belief and it’s getting funnier and more wacky in successive post.
Americana a few seconds ago: “This comment has nothing to do w/”reading the future,” dumbkopf, and everything to do w/”reading the present” and demanding that you stop inventing bogus explanations about how it is that you wrote that quote and inserted it into a post of yours in the hopes it would be seen as having been written by me. Sheesh, your behavior simply beggars belief and it’s getting funnier and more wacky in successive post.”
You wrote an identical, simplistic reply 5 times within a few minutes. That’s spamming.
And furthermore, you integrated in to your wild accusations about my intentions the additional accusation (how many times?) that I reported your comments as spam. Which is false. Knowing that it’s false helps me to gauge your delusional paranoia as you continue to repeat the false accusations.
Listen, Bubba Bizarro, if you create “identical posts denying what you did, then I’m going to feel compelled to rebut most of those posts of yours. You keep your denials to the minimum and I’ll keep my rebuttals to the minimum. You keep spewing out excuses for your craptastic cheating debate behavior and, yup, I’m going to continue to shoot those replies down. You’ve threatened to label my posts as spamming, one post about the Elders of Zion WAS LISTED AS SPAM when IT WASN’T. I’d say your threats are being carried out. Not sure why you feel you’ve got to defend that kind of behavior by yourself.
“You’ve threatened to label my posts as spamming, one post about the Elders of Zion WAS LISTED AS SPAM when IT WASN’T. ”
Moron,
URLs are automatically classified as spam. I don’t consider relevant links to be spamming. Spamming is pointing to irrelevant links and or repeating incessantly to dominate a page.
“I’d say your threats are being carried out. Not sure why you feel you’ve got to defend that kind of behavior by yourself.”
Because you’re stupid and perpetually confused.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/21/boko-haram-claims-baga-massacre-and-threatens-nigerias-neighbours
If you’re talking about an URL on this site, evidently they don’t want to point to notorious libels against Jews.
Well, then that’s a pretty selective perspective, isn’t it? **You can throw** the Elders of Zion label at someone but the person cannot respond by outlining their perspective and allowing others to compare it w/the Elders of Zion crud which is MARKEDLY DIFFERENT than what is contained in the Elders of Zion bullpuckey BS.
As for your claim of not having URLS be permitted at all on this site… Doh, this site allows some URLs and doesn’t permit other URLs which are, or SHOULD BE, entirely legitimate if there weren’t Zionists who didn’t want those URLs and that information in circulation. Of course, that then gets back to whether or not there are those who are misusing the spamming function for their own purposes.
Retard,
Elders of Zion is about taking historical characters and events and revising them to create a cast of characters in the background as puppet masters to explain, for example, the success of the “Jewish Banksters” and other stereotypes.
You riffed off of that form of narrative by taking a single character that any rational person would identify as an oppressed freedom fighter and made him some kind of puppet master in your stupid narratives. You followed the same form.
It’s just a relatively modern form of malicious gossip. You don’t have to quote from the Elders of Zion to see that unless you’re totally unfamiliar with it.
I’m not accusing you of plagiarism – you dipshirt. I’m accusing you of the same kind of paranoid, nasty, anti-Semitic (due to envy) bigotry.
Oh, so Ze’ev Jabotinsky was merely “an oppressed freedom fighter”? The man who devised the new form of political terrorism — the bombing of buildings, the bombing of public facilities, the bombing of buses, the bombing of markets? That guy was just an “oppressed freedom fighter”? It wasn’t even his country in which he could be an “oppressed freedom fighter” and it certainly wasn’t within his religion’s tenets that he was allowed to kill and maim in order to facilitate the revival of a Jewish state in the Middle East. Or is it?
Nobody here cares about your mendacious libel narratives.
Oh, yes, your spotless-as-the-driven-snow narratives about Jewish freedom freighters are so much more historically accurate. Not quite, the white is not snow, rather it’s 3M WHITE OUT THAT YOU USE TO DELETE the nasty, incompatible historical details that don’t quite match up w/the narrative as you’ve written it.
I simply started with the timeline you silly moron. You tried to demonize groups and individuals and I kept reminding you how stupid you are.
Yes, you did suggest the timeline on which there was a mention of Ze’ev Jabotinsky founding a militia in 1925 that was organized in order to seize territory for a Jewish state. That indicates that the Zionists didn’t intend for diplomacy to continue to its rightful end; they were going to do whatever suited them and their desired aims viz seizing land in Palestine. That’s not demonization; that’s history. Live it up a little and celebrate the history of Israel.
Again, retard, it indicates what it indicates in context. Not what you say. First and foremost they organized to defend themselves when British “rule of law” and promises failed to protect them. That happened years earlier.
Is this more of your parody of an imbecile? Because what’s funny about you is how stupid you are. Is that intentional?
Ze’ev Jabotinsky announced his militia w/its aim being forcing the British to transfer land to the Zionists by military force or seizing land by military force, if necessary. The fact the militia also served a defensive purpose is neither here nor there viz the other reason for the formation of Jabotinsky’s militia. The first aim doesn’t prejudice the second aim but neither excuses Jabotinsky’s announced plan that he would take territory in Palestine by force of arms. That’s a pretty cut and dried expression of militarist aims toward land that the Jews did not have the right to claim. Given that he announced this militia and this plan for forced land seizure in 1925, it makes it even less likely that it was anything but an opportunistic move because of a power vacuum in the region and fears that the British wouldn’t find a way to placate the Palestinians and the other Arabs and follow through on creating a Jewish homeland.
Americana 6 minutes ago: “Ze’ev Jabotinsky announced his militia w/its aim being forcing the British to transfer land to the Zionists by military force or seizing land by military force, if necessary.”
Independent sovereignty. Not “stealing land” from legitimate owners. Gee…how many times have we discussed this distinction? Agitprop writers hate inconvenient precision.
You and your evasion! The Zionists merely wanting “independent sovereignty” certainly took a strange turn then what w/borders and all and refusing to share Jerusalem w/the Palestinians. Whatever the case, the Zionists didn’t have the right to ramp up their terrorism or their colonization in order to force the issue of Israel’s creation.
Agitprop writers such as yourself hate inconvenient precision.
The original offer from the 1940s does not remain frozen. They could perhaps in the future have sovereignty over part of Jerusalem. But these people asking for it have not earned it. They don’t deserve it in any sense and still the Jews are trying to share sovereignty with them. I sure would not.
These are not really even the same people. It’s just been about jihad with a few dupes thrown in. Not to mention moronic dupe liars like you. But that’s another story.
The Jews are NOT WILLING TO SHARE JERUSALEM. I love how you suggest — (objectivefactsmatter) “They (the Palestinians) could perhaps in the future have sovereignty over **part of** Jerusalem. But these people asking for it have not earned it.” That’s one of the biggest bugaboos of the entire diplomatic brouhaha. The fact that you make this entirely facetious claim that the Palestinians “must earn the right” to use Jerusalem as their capitol when it’s just expected by the Israelis that they’re entitled to use Jerusalem in its ENTIRETY as the JEWISH CAPITOL is one of the most ridiculous sovereignty claims the Israelis could make.
I don’t care what you think. You’re a nasty communist jew hater. The Jews are absolutely justified in everything they do to protect themselves from the jihadis. It’s unfortunate that the jihadis are able to hurt individuals all over the world, including innocents in their own camp. Attacking and lying about Jews only enables the jiahd.
You’re a moronic communist jihadi. It’s common for communists to cultivate groups with “revolutionary potential” so it’s clear to see why your programmers installed those scripts in your memory banks.
See: United in Hate by Jamie Glazov for examples.
I’m not a Communist and I’m not a Jew hater and I’m certainly not a jihadi. Lordy, but you do begin to go off the deep end when your little world gets some shaking! But I don’t see any point in Israel persisting in the colonization she seems intent on completing. Israel has citizens who are advocating a two-state solution and they’re not ignorant of the situation on the ground or the necessity of coming to grips w/the Palestinians. You obviously believe you can forestall any diplomatic solution until that colonization is complete by trying to label everyone in opposition to you w/any and all fear-mongering labels you can possibly throw at them. As for me “cultivating groups w/revolutionary potential”, nope, I’m fine sticking w/my status of Independent and I’m certainly not interested in driving a Communist agenda. Jamie Glazov is not an authoritative voice who is broadly educated in various relevant fields. He holds an opinion. That’s the extent of it.
You’re a confused, scared moron. Your ideas come from communists. The communists use groups of allegedly persecuted people to foment revolution. Some of those “oppressed” people outsmart people like you.
In the end, you are fighting the communist jihad because you think it will make housing prices more “sustainable” or something like that. You’re a confused twit that has nothing but nonsensical narratives that do not actually make sense as you use them.
It’s not my fault that you’re so confused and have no idea where these “narratives” come from. It is what it is.
Are you simply INCAPABLE of discussion without conflating all the various bogeymen you believe in from infesting each and every single issue? They’re not all related and, besides, some of the boogeymen are your own highly vaunted capitalists. We wouldn’t have had a housing bubble if the financiers at the mortgage companies had suggested homes that WERE AFFORDABLE for the people who were given the opportunity to purchase homes courtesy of the U.S. government. If the mortgage brokers had insisted that a janitor in Chicago only look at homes that were in the neighborhood of $50,000 rather than $350,000 then would we have had the same housing bubble? I don’t think so.
The government may have mandated extending mortgage support to an underserved demographic in the U.S. but the government didn’t say what the PARAMETERS of the loans should be nor did the government suggest that a janitor should buy a home fit for a CEO. Those sorts of decisions were the PURVIEW OF THE MORTGAGE LENDERS and the BANKS and they did it because they COULD PROFIT FROM THE ORIGINATING of the loans. But you don’t want to discuss that PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ASPECT OF THE HOUSING CRISIS BUBBLE, do you? Because that doesn’t fit into your narrative. Well, one way or another, I’ll be bringing it into ANY and EVERY mention of the housing bubble because that is part of that event just as much as the UNSUITABLE NEW HOMEOWNERS.
“Are you simply INCAPABLE of discussion without conflating all the various bogeymen you believe in from infesting each and every single issue? ”
Of course I’m capable of making many choices that may not meet your expectations.
“They’re not all related and, besides, some of the boogeymen are your own highly vaunted capitalists.”
OMG. Everyone involved in capital can be characterized as “capitalists.” Even the interventionists.
“But you don’t want to discuss that PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ASPECT OF THE HOUSING CRISIS BUBBLE, do you? Because that doesn’t fit into your narrative.”
What? Wow. In essence everything that I’m saying is that it is down to the lender and borrower to determine what is best and to take care of their own mistakes. Don’t be surprised if interventions cause many people to do the same stupid things in waves that cause bubbles and crashes because stupid people like you vote for demagogic pols that reward stupid behavior.
I’m for EVERYONE being held accountable for stupid behavior. Even stupid voters like you.
“Well, one way or another, I’ll be bringing it into ANY and EVERY mention of the housing bubble because that is part of that event just as much as the UNSUITABLE NEW HOMEOWNERS.”
You are shockingly stupid. The interventions are what draw virtually all “unsuitable” homeowners. That’s the essential point. You’re unbelievably dense.
You’re unbelievably dense if you believe that the “unsuitable homeowners” weren’t finding the REALTORS who helped them falsify their applications and the BANKS that accepted the ludicrous applications in order to take the money from the transaction. ANY ONE of those professionals could have shut down inappropriate homeowners at ANY POINT DURING THE TRANSACTION by checking on their bona fides. Voila, no inappropriate homeowners make it through the system, no inappropriate homeowners would have had to be evicted at the other end of the crash and no inappropriate packages of DERIVATIVES would have been sold around the world. But, no, none of those professionals wanted to do that because they BENEFITED from each transaction that they completed.
Stalin could have made the policies work. Anyone too weak won’t be able to. We need a stronger police state and more control, not less.
Because Utopia is possible if people >>just stop being greedy<< and let the spiritual ancestors of Uncle Joe take over our nation. Heck, take over the world. Just be nice.
What a jerk brain you are… Who’s talking about Stalinists making this tactic work? We had capitalists who made it work because it would work as a capitalist scheme until it DIDN’T.
What? The early problems in “capitalism” in the USA were “legitimate” interventions like the government investing in new technologies. If they planned that better they would not have had to turn to fascism and they would not have crashed markets and banks.
Oh, you’re not getting off that easy. Let’s see some legitimate proof of your above claims and the specific time periods about which you’re writing. As for fascism playing any role in the U.S., again, let’s see your proof. I am not finding such in the list of the greatest busts the U.S. has faced. Here’s a list of the U.S. greatest busts and the factors influencing them:
http://247wallst.com/investing/2010/09/09/the-13-worst-recessions-depressions-and-panics-in-american-history/
From the above link:
One of the features in recessions since the Great Depression, which is not common with those that came before, is government protection of bank deposits. Banks would become insolvent along with their depositors in many cases during “runs on the banks”. The creation of the FDIC shifted the burden of insolvent financial firms from depositors to member banks, with the federal treasury as the last backstop. The pattern was extended further by the creation of TARP during the current recession. It placed almost the entire burden of the rescue on the American financial system with those who pay taxes.
Most economists believe that recessions are started by discreet events. These are very often based on asset bubbles. Rapidly rising values of gold, land, real estate, or equities draw an increasing number of investors into whichever market is experiencing a boom. Those investors call on banks and other institutions for credit to increase both their ability to invest and the scope of their investment. That draws both investors and banks into assets or commodities which are rapidly rising in value. More often than not, the late-comers find that they have borrowed to buy at the peak of a boom, after the value of whatever created the boom has begun to fall. Too much money has chased too little opportunity. Investors and banks suffer as the once-promising market deflates, or “deleverages” as economists have enjoyed saying recently.
Read more: The 13 Worst Recessions, Depressions, and Panics In American History – 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/investing/2010/09/09/the-13-worst-recessions-depressions-and-panics-in-american-history/#ixzz3PoFgosUd
Follow us: @247wallst on Twitter | 247wallst on Facebook
Americana an hour ago: “Oh, you’re not getting off that easy. Let’s see some legitimate proof of your above claims and the specific time periods about which you’re writing. As for fascism playing any role in the U.S., again, let’s see your proof.”
http://www.amazon.Com/Three-New-Deals-Reflections-Roosevelts/dp/0312427433
Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal is regarded today as the democratic ideal, a triumphant American response to a crisis that forced Germany and Italy toward National Socialism and Fascism. Yet in the 1930s, before World War II, the regimes of Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler bore fundamental similarities. In this groundbreaking work, Wolfgang Schivelbusch investigates the shared elements of these three “new deals”–focusing on their architecture and public works projects–to offer a new explanation for the popularity of Europe’s totalitarian systems. Writing with flair and concision, Schivelbusch casts a different light on the New Deal and puts forth a provocative explanation for the still-mysterious popularity of Europe’s most tyrannical regimes.
OMG, so now, you’re going to claim that Roosevelt implemented FASCIST tactics in order to keep America going through an intensely dark economic period simply because what he chose to do for economic redemption bore similarities to what was done in Europe. We didn’t have the same social dynamic going on nor did we pursue Fascism as did the Fascist parties in Europe other than in some smaller demographic outlier groups. There will always be similarities in systems and structures, it doesn’t mean they are what another consists of right down to the bone.
Americana 9 hours ago: “OMG, so now, you’re going to claim that Roosevelt implemented FASCIST tactics…”
You’re a joke.
You’re an idiot whose intellectual bias doesn’t allow him to grasp straightforward facts.
That has to be it. Thanks.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 23 days ago
You’re an idiot whose intellectual bias doesn’t allow him to grasp straightforward facts.
Your posts are needed for context. But that’s not the point of this exercise of yours, is it?
“There will always be similarities in systems and structures, it doesn’t mean they are what another consists of right down to the bone.”
Oh, the old “down to the bone” conundrum. I see. So we should not worry that FDR set up the same kind of market controls as the other fascists and we should not worry that some of the same problems are being caused.
Don’t worry. Be happy! Because really the problem with the Germans was iNsaNe NATIONALISM – said every communist that ever lived. Kill the nationalists and economic fascism is just fine. Or put them in labor camps. Problem solved! Nothing like those cray-cray Germans!
There were problems that arose in entirely free markets in the early years of the U.S. Free markets DON’T SOLVE ALL FINANCIAL ISSUES. Free markets facilitate specific aspects of capitalism but that’s about it. The fact the government has handled an issue in such a way as to facilitate a shorter recovery doesn’t mean the government has handled the problem in a fascistic manner. What makes the difference is the intention behind the solution.
Americana a minute ago: “There were problems that arose in entirely free markets in the early years of the U.S. Free markets DON’T SOLVE ALL FINANCIAL ISSUES.”
Free markets make sure that only unwise people suffer from ill-advised behavior.
“The fact the government has handled an issue in such a way as to facilitate a shorter recovery doesn’t mean the government has handled the problem in a fascistic manner. What makes the difference is the intention behind the solution.”
The Germans, Italians, Japanese, Soviets, Chinese, all had good intentions. Huh. No more fascism. Weird.
(objectivefactsmatter) “Free markets make sure that only unwise people suffer from ill-advised behavior.”
Oh, really? Where did you get that little bit of wisdom? Certainly not from those early Americans affected by the ill-advised behavior or the pre-ordained behavior of others in the system whose ripples eventually rocked the entire system. What free markets do is allow for the setting of prices and the unfettered flow of goods and services based on the financial evaluation of those people involved in the transactions. That’s it. But since there have always been economic boondoggles that have affected every single complex society and that these same boondoggles have migrated through the different tiers of various global societies until the economic purge is completed, I have to believe it’s nearly impossible to design an economic system that operates without flaw.
http://www.usagold.com/reference/panicsmaniacrashes.html
“Oh, really? Where did you get that little bit of wisdom? Certainly not from those early Americans affected by the ill-advised behavior or the pre-ordained behavior of others in the system whose ripples eventually rocked the entire system.”
It’s not Utopian. Do you know what Utopian means?
“But since there have always been economic boondoggles that have affected every single complex society and that these same boondoggles…”
You can pass laws against fraud and so forth without restricting free markets. Free markets are like free people. It doesn’t mean you’re free to break laws. It means you’re free to compete on a level playing field, not without a referee. Get it? Make laws, but don’t screw with the scoreboard once the games begin.
Get it?
Referees and rulebooks are good. Selectively interfering with the scoreboard, handing out deflated footballs, putting tar on baseballs, those kinds of things are bad.
Get it? Do you? Tell me if you get it…
Americana objectivefactsmatter 23 days ago
(objectivefactsmatter) “Free markets make sure that only unwise people suffer from ill-advised behavior.”
Oh, really? Where did you get that little bit of wisdom? Certainly not from those early Americans affected by the ill-advised behavior or the pre-ordained behavior of others in the system whose ripples eventually rocked the entire system. What free markets do is allow for the setting of prices and the unfettered flow of goods and services based on the financial evaluation of those people involved in the transactions. That’s it. But since there have always been economic boondoggles that have affected every single complex society and that these same boondoggles have migrated through the different tiers of various global societies until the economic purge is completed, I have to believe it’s nearly impossible to design an economic system that operates without flaw.
Boondoggles, it’s what happens.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 23 days ago
“There were problems that arose in entirely free markets in the early years of the U.S. Free markets DON’T SOLVE ALL FINANCIAL ISSUES. Free markets facilitate specific aspects of capitalism but that’s about it. The fact the government has handled an issue in such a way as to facilitate a shorter recovery doesn’t mean the government has handled the problem in a fascistic manner. What makes the difference is the intention behind the solution.”
Obviously, you’ve got a problem w/this.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 24 days ago
OMG, so now, you’re going to claim that Roosevelt implemented FASCIST tactics in order to keep America going through an intensely dark economic period simply because what he chose to do for economic redemption bore similarities to what was done in Europe. We didn’t have the same social dynamic going on nor did we pursue Fascism as did the Fascist parties in Europe other than in some smaller demographic outlier groups. There will always be similarities in systems and structures, it doesn’t mean they are what another consists of right down to the bone.
Can’t argue w/you when you pull this kind of stunt.. But, that’s not the point of this entire exercise, is it?
The analysis you refer to doesn’t contradict anything that I wrote. If you just assume that historical interventions are “reality” or if you comment from the perspective that there is no question that interventions are part of modern life and the thing to do is to figure out how best to intervene you’re not going to be looking at the entire issue. Interventions are seen as absolutely necessary by some for the good of the collective. For those people, one just does not question whether but only how.
In that context there are some interesting observations but they’re not looking at the criticisms of interventionism itself and how some of the assumptions might be both risky and something that needs to be considered when putting together education policies for example. But the whole culture of our country is shifting towards elitism where the little guy is not expected to really understand the big picture. Someone like me is just as welcome as atheists are in Catholic Communion. These people are faith believers in interventionism.
If you want to understand the non-Marxist arguments and ideas you have to read Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman if you want someone from the modern era. That’s the only way you’ll ever hope to have a comprehensive understanding of economics and the criticism / caveats of interventionism. You’re too far gone in reading nothing but various flavors of Marxists and progressives. I’m actually not quite as “liberal” as Friedman. But he’s smarter than anyone else aside from Sowell. Both of those guys are brilliant. Just about everyone else that you read about today is a dunce compared to those two. Seriously. There is also Friedrich Hayek but you might see him as dated. Read him last after you get a primer from Sowell.
This might be easier to digest. It features Friedman and Sowell also sits in for discussions within the series.
http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.Com
https://www.youtube.Com/watch?v=f1Fj5tzuYBE
Americana an hour ago: “What a jerk brain you are…”
Obviously I am a jerk brain.
You know you’ve hit a nerve when the target tries to hit a nerve.
That’s right.
What a Catch-22 in which we find ourselves!
My reading is that it’s more along the spectrum of a Catch 31 to 35 or so. But as always I defer to your much better judgment.
It would be great if you developed some judgment never mind look up to me for mine.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 23 days ago
“It would be great if you developed some judgment never mind look up to me for mine.”
Clear? Not clear?
“You’re unbelievably dense if you believe that the “unsuitable homeowners” weren’t finding the REALTORS who helped them falsify their applications and the BANKS that accepted the ludicrous applications in order to take the money from the transaction.”
Again, morons don’t learn no matter how patient you are when trying to teach them. The interventionist policies led to lowering of lending standards. Those people would not have gotten loans without the interventions. And if they (a few) did. they would not be in such great numbers to cause a bubble and burst cycle. The bank could not point to the laws forcing them to lower standards and they’d have no choice, it would be just ordinary business, other than to eat their own failures.
Of course the banks had a choice. The bill to enable homeownership didn’t MANDATE THE FINANCIAL TERMS of what these homeowners were supposed to be able to qualify for as far as loans. The loans themselves was something that was left up to the REALTORS, to the BANKERS and to the INVESTMENT HOUSES to determine how to manage these lower income homeowners. Certainly, in Detroit and many other rust-belt cities, there were plenty of lower priced realty up or grabs. There was no need to encourage people to take out ARMs and/or go well outside their income bracket in order to become a homeowner. Except for MONEY, of course. All those folks were making money hand over fist by selling these homes to unsuitable buyers and they weren’t looking further down the pike than the deposits they were making in their own bank accounts. Certainly, plenty of people in the investment houses were aware they were not being above board when they first created the international investment packages of derivatives.
“The loans themselves was something that was left up to the REALTORS, to the BANKERS and to the INVESTMENT HOUSES to determine how to manage these lower income homeowners. ”
They could develop their own policies but they had to solve the “disparate outcomes” claims with those policies. They absolutely were forced to lower their standards even if they were allowed to come up with their own “magic” policies to achieve the end that was demanded. And that’s only the most recent set of interventions.
No, that’s a dishonest assessment of the program. The program was meant to include more people in homeownership but the program didn’t encourage people to buy homes beyond their means. The point was not to have everyone be in expensive homes that didn’t suit their income level. The mortgage banks weren’t supposed to lower standards by mismatching the price of homes w/the incomes of individuals purchasing those homes.
“No, that’s a dishonest assessment of the program. The program was meant to include more people in homeownership but the program didn’t encourage people to buy homes beyond their means.”
Of course the point is to attain Utopian standards of social justice. At least nominally. That’s what most constituents expect. But…you are completely unfamiliar with the criticism of Marxism and interventionism. So all of my comments sail way over your head.
“The point was not to have everyone be in expensive homes that didn’t suit their income level.”
Again, the driving factor ended up becoming how to remedy the collectivist accusations of redlining and disparate outcomes. Some times the policy “worked” if you just cherry pick for case studies. On the whole it caused this bubble and explosion.
So the fact is that either they needed to attract “unqualified” people or they would be in violation of their settlement agreements. The hope was that overall, unqualified people would more or less manage the storm based on historical real estate pricing and that everyone would be OK. Everyone doubled down on this idea of (relatively smoothly) ever increasing real estate prices and wages to pay for everything.
But the critical point that you need to understand is that interventions homogenize policies and place the government in the market as a partner. It doesn’t really matter how good the intentions are.
You and other “communists” cause moral hazard problems and then the blame game starts just like now. In fact you’re playing the blame game now. You want people accountable but you’re actually working as a dupe to cover up stupid policies. You want some people accountable but you’re not willing to do enough research (other than neo-Marxist analysis) to understand the most important criticism that would allow you to see the true costs of interventions. Interventions are going to be necessary at times, but not for social justice aims. It doesn’t matter how sincerely you want to help people if you don’t know truly how to do it. And you do not know.
Watch or read the Milton Friedman series or books that I linked to. Otherwise following you is like sitting and watching a hamster on a wheel. It gets very boring.
(objectivefactsmatter) “Again, the driving factor ended up becoming how to remedy the collectivist accusations of redlining and disparate outcomes. Some times the policy “worked” if you just cherry pick for case studies. On the whole it caused this bubble and explosion.”
There was no need to push for these prospective homeowners to be encouraged to take on homes w/mortgages or types of mortgages they could not afford. There was plenty of housing in their income bracket available in the areas hardest-hit by the bursting of the bubble. They could have been suitably housed in far less costly homes for prices which might have allowed them to weather the economic downturn. It was the price of the homes and the types of mortgages they were given that really sunk their boats.
(objectivefactsmatter) “So the fact is that either they needed to attract “unqualified” people or they would be in violation of their settlement agreements.”
Again, their agreement was to no longer automatically discard lower-income homeowners out of hand. That doesn’t suggest in any way that the realtors and banks should turn around and red-line them into demographics w/ludicrous claims of income brackets they’ve never reached in their lives. This was CRIMINALITY on the GRAND SCALE by PROFESSIONALS who knew exactly what they were doing and they did it w/CAPITALIST AIMS of PROFIT MOTIVES before their eyes. Social justice schemes can work if they are not abused by criminals.
“There was no need to push for these prospective homeowners to be encouraged to take on homes w/mortgages or types of mortgages they could not afford. There was plenty of housing in their income bracket available in the areas hardest-hit by the bursting of the bubble.”
Oh Lord. Help this woman.
“Certainly, plenty of people in the investment houses were aware they were not being above board when they first created the international investment packages of derivatives.”
Yes, and when doing rational risk assessment that is how this “too big to fail” formulation came to be. It was because the government was in bed with the “the market.” That’s why the derivatives were bundled the way they were. I’m not alleging conspiracy, but simply crunching numbers led to those logical conclusions about risks. IOW, the government would have to act to keep things from going too wobbly because the government was in effect the major partner.
But it really is boring talking to stupid people that pretend to be smart by reading stories that they don’t understand.
The government DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO w/the CHOICES OF THE INVESTMENT FIRMS as to the packaging of those derivatives investments. As for the government being aware that the realtors and the banks were mishandling mortgages and then the investment industry was having to find some way to swallow those bad investments, as far as I can tell, it was more of a classic clusterf*ck than anything else. Certainly, everything that was done was improvised at each new step in the process until the system reached breaking point. Still, if the realtors and the mortgage bankers had behaved ethically, there would have been no bubble of this nature.
“The government DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO w/the CHOICES OF THE INVESTMENT FIRMS as to the packaging of those derivatives investments. ”
Yes. It did. The government was seen as on the hook and this became part of the risk calculations.
“As for the government being aware that the realtors and the banks were mishandling mortgages and then the investment industry was having to find some way to swallow those bad investments, as far as I can tell, it was more of a classic clusterf*ck than anything else.”
Again, it doesn’t matter because the root problem is shift of moral hazard or shift of accountability. If people do stupid things in a free market they soon learn to change their behavior. As it is now it’s just an endless cycle of stupid behavior with blame and accountability shifting. What I want you to know is that you’re helping propagate blame-shifting narratives.
“Still, if the realtors and the mortgage bankers had behaved ethically, there would have been no bubble of this nature.”
You mean if we equip them all with magic forecasting crystal balls and teach them criticism of Marxist economics that they all support at the polls? Um…that will not happen. I mean…>if< we do teach them to behave ethically the very first thing they'll do is vote out all of the Marxist morons from office. I'm all for that. That's actually what I'm trying to do here. You're in my way.
(objectivefactsmatter) “Yes. It did. The government was seen as on the hook and this became part of the risk calculations.”
Ah, then it was a CAPITALIST ECONOMIC RATIONALE that was underlying the whole scheme — I will profit if i do this — and the criminality became more and more popular through word of mouth. That’s got exactly nothing to do w/Marxism and everything to do w/professionals acting in the most unscrupulous manner. The fact the government was “on the hook” should have made them act even more scrupulously but they didn’t. They were acting exactly like the capitalists who choose to charge the government $1,500 for toilet seats than can be bought for $125 at Home Depot.
“Ah, then it was a CAPITALIST ECONOMIC RATIONALE that was underlying the whole scheme — I will profit if i do this”
We should outlaw “capitalist rationale.” That should work.
It’s got nothing to do w/outlawing capitalism. It’s recognizing illegal, criminal intent within the capitalist framework of which we must be beware. If there had been no realtors and bankers who’d facilitated inappropriate home sales, would we have had to face the housing bubble in the shape that it took? We wouldn’t have seen the grandiosity of the housing bubble reach the heights it did. There’s nothing wrong w/recognizing there was criminal intent and criminal actions undertaken by capitalists who happened to be realtors and bankers. I’m sort of surprised you’re so reluctant to admit ALL ASPECTS of THIS EQUATION. It’s as if you’re drawing up an equation and you’re leaving out half of it because you don’t like to see the proofing of the equation happen. But the fact is, you can’t avoid the proofing of the equation. Without the illegal, criminal actions of the realtors and the mortgage bankers, those quasi-qualified homeowners wouldn’t have gotten anywhere in the system. It’s kind of bizarre you wish to put all the blame on the government. I guess to you there really is no private sector and there is no such thing as PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I thought that was a big mantra of the Republican party though — PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY — it isn’t one of their big mantras?
“It’s recognizing illegal, criminal intent within the capitalist framework of which we must be beware.”
Sue 0’Bama.
“PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY — it isn’t one of their big mantras?”
I don’t have mantras. I have principles and you have confusion.
You have principles you obviously believe are highly flexible given the right opportunity. As for not having mantras, “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” is the mantra of the Republicans and theTea Party.
I suppose you think that makes sense.
Oh, it does “make sense.” You’ve claimed that these people shouldn’t have bought houses above their price range. Or bought houses at all, perhaps. If they had not bought houses, that would have been an instance of taking personal responsibility as I understand you to be claiming personal responsibility. The Republican party is always trumpeting about taking personal responsibility for one’s life. In fact, most conservatives of all stripes across all continents have echoed my sentiments about personal responsibility and ethics as they must intersect w/one’s business endeavors.
___________________________________________________________________________
http://conservamerica.org/conservativequotes/
Here are some quotes from Edmund Burke, British statesman and philosopher:
(His bio introduction: Burke was an Irish-born English statesman who is generally regarded as the founder of “true” conservatism and the greatest of all modern conservative thinkers. Burke’s intellectual criticism of the French Revolution entitled Reflections on the Revolution in France provided conservatism its most influential statement of views.)
“One of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and its laws are consecrated, is lest the temporary possessors and life renters in it, unmindful of what they have received from their ancestors, or of what is due to their posterity, should act as if they were the entire masters; that they should not think it among their rights to cut off the entail, or commit waste on the inheritance, by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society; hazarding to those who come after them a ruin instead of a habitation…No one generation could link with another. Men would become little better than flies of a summer.”
Reflections on the Revolution in France, page 44
“Society…is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”
Reflections, page 96 (114)?
“Men have no right to what is not reasonable, and to what is not for their benefit.”
Reflections on the Revolution in France, page 335
“Knowledge of those unalterable Relations which Providence has ordained that every thing should bear to every other…To these we should conform in good Earnest; and not think to force Nature, and the whole Order of her System, by a Compliance with our Pride, and Folly, to conform to our artificial Regulations.”
A Vindication of Natural Society, 1757
“Prudence is not only the first in rank of the virtues political and moral, but she is the director and regulator, the standard of them all.”
Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs: In Consequence of Some Late Discussions in Parliament, Relative to the Reflections on the French Revolution, 1791
Americana 8 hours ago: “Oh, it does “make sense.” You’ve claimed that these people shouldn’t have bought houses above their price range.”
Trying not to call you a moron…
The point here is that we can only say it was “wrong” when we look back and we failed. Lots of people in the exact same circumstances are living well and have enhanced positions. It’s only “wrong” when you fail. Who determines what their price range is? It’s not you. I can offer an opinion but I have zero moral or legal authority to tell others how much they should pay for a house. As long as they don’t lie…
But it’s like voter fraud. People pretend it does’t exist and then if (when) it turns out that it does…watch the blame games begin.
And none of your URLs support your point. You’re arguing against a straw man of your own creation. You’re trying to defeat my alleged position that diminishes personal responsibility when what I’m talking about are government policies that cause moral hazard complexities beyond what most people can possibly comprehend. We create systems that compel people to do stupid things. We have a web of legislation, policies and case precedents that force these corrupted frameworks. These are not flawed “capitalist” frameworks. They’re flawed legal frameworks. The “immorality” is rewarded. People are legally entitled to partake, unless you have clear examples of illegal misrepresentation.
But you only know narratives. You don’t understand them. You recite. You don’t comprehend.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 23 days ago
“Oh, it does “make sense.” You’ve claimed that these people shouldn’t have bought houses above their price range. Or bought houses at all, perhaps. If they had not bought houses, that would have been an instance of taking personal responsibility as I understand you to be claiming personal responsibility. The Republican party is always trumpeting about taking personal responsibility for one’s life. In fact, most conservatives of all stripes across all continents have echoed my sentiments about personal responsibility and ethics as they must intersect w/one’s business endeavors.”
Burke and more Burke…and more BURKE!
Americana objectivefactsmatter 23 days ago
You have principles you obviously believe are highly flexible given the right opportunity. As for not having mantras, “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” is the mantra of the Republicans and theTea Party.
Flexible principles. Good in principle, bad in practice.
Oh, no, I’ve got some clarity on “personal responsibility” as it intersects w/society from a long ago conservative thinker. Though he is British, I’d hesitate to say this first quote of Burke’s admirably strikes at the heart of the sub-prime crisis.
http://Conservamerica.org/cons…
Here are some quotes from Edmund Burke, British statesman:
(His bio introduction: Burke was an Irish-born English statesman who is generally regarded as the founder of “true” conservatism and the greatest of all modern conservative thinkers. Burke’s intellectual criticism of the French Revolution entitled Reflections on the Revolution in France provided conservatism its most influential statement of views.)
“One of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and its laws are consecrated, is lest the temporary possessors and life renters in it, unmindful of what they have received from their ancestors, or of what is due to their posterity, should act as if they were the entire masters; that they should not think it among their rights to cut off the entail, or commit waste on the inheritance, by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society; hazarding to those who come after them a ruin instead of a habitation…No one generation could link with another. Men would become little better than flies of a summer.”
Now you’re pretending that I’m arguing against personal responsibility. You can’t actually follow what people say to you.
Interventions create complex webs of real and theoretical accountability. They create massive confusion on moral hazard.
http://www.investopedia.Com/terms/m/moralhazard.asp
Moral Hazard
DEFINITION OF ‘MORAL HAZARD’
The risk that a party to a transaction has not entered into the contract in good faith, has provided misleading information about its assets, liabilities or credit capacity, or has an incentive to take unusual risks in a desperate attempt to earn a profit before the contract settles.
INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS ‘MORAL HAZARD’
Moral hazard can be present any time two (local edit: or more) parties come into agreement with one another. Each party in a contract may have the opportunity to gain from acting contrary to the principles laid out by the agreement. For example, when a salesperson is paid a flat salary with no commissions for his or her sales, there is a danger that the salesperson may not try very hard to sell the business owner’s goods because the wage stays the same regardless of how much or how little the owner benefits from the salesperson’s work.
Moral hazard can be somewhat reduced by the placing of responsibilities on both parties of a contract. In the example of the salesperson, the manager may decide to pay a wage comprised of both salary and commissions. With such a wage, the salesperson would have more incentive not only to produce more profits but also to prevent losses for the company.
——-
You still might not fully understand the point, but if you wanted to learn, this would give you a path to understanding. Will you drink the water offered? I doubt it.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 23 days ago
“Oh, no, I’ve got some clarity on “personal responsibility” as it intersects w/society from a long ago conservative thinker. Though he is British, I’d hesitate to say this first quote of Burke’s admirably strikes at the heart of the sub-prime crisis.”
Burke and more Burke…
“It’s recognizing illegal, criminal intent within the capitalist framework of which we must be beware.”
Among the problems with this sentence, you don’t even know what capitalism is.
Oh, please. If you had any real gumption, you’dve taken on the papers and reference material we all supplied you with but, no, you’d rather simply sneer at me again. That’s the simpleton’s approach to the discussion.
I’ve already discussed all of those points with people here. More than a few times. In significant depth. I owe you nothing. I certainly am NOT going to encourage nasty, moronic filibuster behavior.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 23 days ago
Oh, please. If you had any real gumption, you’dve taken on the papers and reference material we all supplied you with but, no, you’d rather simply sneer at me again. That’s the simpleton’s approach to the discussion.
And???
Americana objectivefactsmatter 24 days ago
(objectivefactsmatter) “Yes. It did. The government was seen as on the hook and this became part of the risk calculations.”
Ah, then it was a CAPITALIST ECONOMIC RATIONALE that was underlying the whole scheme — I will profit if i do this — and the criminality became more and more popular through word of mouth. That’s got exactly nothing to do w/Marxism and everything to do w/professionals acting in the most unscrupulous manner. The fact the government was “on the hook” should have made them act even more scrupulously but they didn’t. They were acting exactly like the capitalists who choose to charge the government $1,500 for toilet seats than can be bought for $125 at Home Depot.
Can’t argue w/you when you pull this kind of stunt.. But, that’s not the point of this entire exercise, is it?
I’ve never suggested the interventionist policies didn’t lead to lowering of lending standards. What I’ve written is that NONE of those involved in facilitating homeownership by these less capable earners needed to encourage those people to look at INAPPROPRIATE HOMES. If they’d kept those less financially-well off folks looking at lower category house prices, they would never have gotten them into deep water. Nor would the banks and the world investment markets have gotten into deep water.
“…INAPPROPRIATE HOMES.”
That’s right. We need a central plan to decide which homes are appropriate. We need more wisdom from the top. No more housing bubbles. No more misery and injustice.
Must you always play the idiot in each and every scene? If the realtors had said, “This is the house price range for which your income bracket makes you eligible. You don’t want to find yourself house rich and cash poor,” it would have gone a long way toward dissuading people from taking on more than they could feasibly handle. You really think people would have looked at $400,000 homes if realtors didn’t say they could handle the mortgage? And you call that “intervention”? That’s more like ETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICE, to me. That doesn’t require any wisdom from the top. That’s BASIC WISDOM that’s ALREADY SUPPOSED TO BE IN PLACE IN THE TRENCHES in those professions.
Americana 26 minutes ago: “Must you always play the idiot in each and every scene? If the realtors had said, “This is the house price range for which your income bracket makes you eligible. You don’t want to find yourself house rich and cash poor,” it would have gone a long way toward dissuading people from taking on more than they could feasibly handle.”
Priceless advice from Ms. CC.
“You really think people would have looked at $400,000 homes if realtors didn’t say they could handle the mortgage? And you call that “intervention”?”
Well, no, but…never mind.
“That’s more like ETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICE, to me. That doesn’t require any wisdom from the top. That’s BASIC WISDOM that’s ALREADY SUPPOSED TO BE IN PLACE IN THE TRENCHES in those professions.”
I think we need a stronger police state to keep people from doing bad stuff. Obviously.
No, we just need people to realize that when they’re in positions that require them to perform ethically, they perform those jobs ETHICALLY.
Behaving ethically means refuting Marxism and running Marxists out of office. That’s what I’m doing.
You’re not helping the good cause. You’re on the side of bad ethics and personal sovereignty attacks.
Behaving ethically means IDENTIFYING THE FULL TRUTH and RAMIFICATIONS OF FAILURES in our neck of the woods. We would not have had the housing bubble crisis if ALL THE BUSINESS SECTORS INVOLVED HAD BEHAVED ETHICALLY and SENSIBLY.
As for not helping the good cause, oh, I’m pretty sure I am. I’m not letting you get away w/blaming the government for something that is equally the fault of the people who are governed and who chose to undermine the intent of the government in order to ENRICH THEMSELVES.
“As for not helping the good cause, oh, I’m pretty sure I am.”
Naturally.
Yes, and, naturally, you leave off assigning any personal ethics and responsibility in assessing blame to the realtors and the bankers. Because, after all, they were only trying to maximize their profits and the government was screaming eff the government and take what you can off the government dime. However, anyone w/their head screwed on and facing front knows that those professions were 1/2 the equation, IF NOT MORE.
“However, anyone w/their head screwed on and facing front knows that those professions were 1/2 the equation, IF NOT MORE.”
You’re taking a “radical” approach. You can look superficially and assign half the blame. They worked the system as they were instructed. It was not up to them to “discriminate” if the polices allowed high risk borrowers to buy property. It would be “white supremacy” (seriously) to say that you can’t buy this house because only whites are allowed highly leveraged positions. You’re black so we must act like your parents while defending your “rights” to “equality of outcome.” They could have been sued as well. I bet I can find cases were lawsuits were filed for exactly that reason. They have fiduciary duties in a lot of cases, but they don’t have crystal balls.
You just don’t see that your expectations are delusional. You don’t really understand these realities coherently. Or even at all.
These prospective homeowners were not “instructed to work the system” beyond their level of FEASIBLE participation. There were plenty of affordable homes for them to buy that were within reasonable range of their incomes. Small ranch homes are everywhere in the U.S. because they were the largest housing sector being built after WW II.
I’m not taking a “radical approach,” rather, I’m taking the approach that it takes two to tango. This was a perfect instance where the American financial services thought they could create a new financial vehicle and make a bundle for themselves in the process right alongside the corrupt realtors and the suspect banks. As for there being instances you could find of “blacks suing because they weren’t allowed to buy particular house”s, I DOUBT IT. Everyone knows that buying particular houses is dependent on having a particular level of income. NO ONE CHALLENGES THAT PREMISE. What these prospective black/Latino/etc. homeowners were challenging was whether they were to be allowed to buy any homes at all. My expectations are that you argue honestly and you appreciate ALL THE INGREDIENTS TO THE SUB-PRIME CRISIS and the GREAT RECESSION. It was not just the fault of the demographics you’d like to blame. The financial services from stem to stern played a role in the downturn that is second to none.
Stalin would have been your hero if you hadn’t been informed he was a tyrant.
Stalin was never a hero of mine. Neither have any of the other communists or fascists ever been heroes of mine. Political concepts arise because of human circumstance. Political concepts are abused by individuals for various reasons but where there have been extraordinary abuses, as in the case of Stalin or Hitler, there have been other underlying, contributing reasons for the extremity of their individual manipulation of a particular political schema in order to achieve their aims. Your syllogism is not tenable as applied to me.
syl·lo·gism
ˈsiləˌjizəm/
noun
an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs ).
You miss the point again. The point is you can’t come to logical and rational conclusions on your own. You respond to propaganda. You learn by memorizing scripts and you try to riff off of the scripts rather than deeply understand WTF you’re talking about. Therefore I can rationally make comments about what someone like you would support in a particular time and place in history even though today, decades later, those people are now “demons” according to the dominant views that are propagated today. That’s only a minor point though.
The major point I was making was that you’d need a strong tyrant to enforce the kind of unified vision about what certain people can afford for housing and so forth. You’re promoting this idea of “ethical” centrally planned federal interventions. You can’t do that by committee. You need a Stalin or someone like him with a nice big smile who is politically correct. But you need his behaviors, whether you can see that or not. I know that you can’t see it. That’s why it’s amusing to point it out. You think there is only one view of affordability and ethics beyond rule of law. You think it’s possible to actively intervene with a coherent vision of “social justice” so that you can parse who acted unethically.
You need Stalin. Go ahead and object, forever. Go ahead and miss the point. But make an appointment with your doctor and talk about Zoloft. Please.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 23 days ago
Stalin was never a hero of mine. Neither have any of the other communists or fascists ever been heroes of mine. Political concepts arise because of human circumstance. Political concepts are abused by individuals for various reasons but where there have been extraordinary abuses, as in the case of Stalin or Hitler, there have been other underlying, contributing reasons for the extremity of their individual manipulation of a particular political schema in order to achieve their aims. Your syllogism is not tenable as applied to me.
Don’t tell me you need clarity on this?
“There were plenty of affordable homes for them to buy that were within reasonable range of their incomes. Small ranch homes are everywhere in the U.S. because they were the largest housing sector being built after WW II.”
Stalin could have made it work. The capitalists are at fault.
Your problem might be in not understanding that we’re all capitalists.
“The financial services from stem to stern played a role in the downturn that is second to none.”
Yes. As slave to the fascist policies if its governing masters.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 23 days ago
Yes, and, naturally, you leave off assigning any personal ethics and responsibility in assessing blame to the realtors and the bankers. Because, after all, they were only trying to maximize their profits and the government was screaming eff the government and take what you can off the government dime. However, anyone w/their head screwed on and facing front knows that those professions were 1/2 the equation, IF NOT MORE.
Principles. It’s funny principles can affect principal in such a radical fashion.
I just want to make sure I preserve this:
—
Americana 9 hours ago
Behaving ethically means IDENTIFYING THE FULL TRUTH and RAMIFICATIONS OF FAILURES in our neck of the woods. We would not have had the housing bubble crisis if ALL THE BUSINESS SECTORS INVOLVED HAD BEHAVED ETHICALLY and SENSIBLY.
As for not helping the good cause, oh, I’m pretty sure I am. I’m not letting you get away w/blaming the government for something that is equally the fault of the people who are governed and who chose to undermine the intent of the government in order to ENRICH THEMSELVES.
Good, it’s worth preserving.
You might want to have a look through this report. It might help you resolve some of your confusion.
Of course you can look back and blame people for doing what they’re told. That’s the Marxist way. Otherwise you have to accept accountability for your own stupid policies and ideas.
This has been >throughly< covered before. I never accused her of inventing anything.
This has to be psychological projection on your part:
“It might help you resolve some of your confusion.”
You seem to have so much respect for human institutions that it never really occurs to you that they can be wrong and still retain popular support – even with elites. You really have an arrogant approach to history and can’t appreciate the lessons we discussed from the pre-Luther Enlightenment…er…excuse me…early roots of the enlightenment when people started to look beyond the dominant institutional dogmas of the day…you might have been one of those who advocated arresting and punishing Luther. That’s what your thinking reminds me of. You might consider yourself a child of the Enlightenment, but you do not have the spirit of enlightenment. You have the spirit of a rigorous and disciplined student of “great” human institutions. Which is not a horrendous attack on you. The glass is mostly full. It’s just not full enough for you to be helpful in a lot of the places where you try.
There were lots of “elite” thinkers on the side against Luther. Obviously.
It’s foolish of you to trust institutions as much as you seem to. As long as they’re “secular” institutions, you’re all in.
I do appreciate the effort though.
And to show some measure of respect for critics, if you just assume that social justice interventions are essential, the next logical step is to focus on the next stage of things that are supposedly controllable. The criticism is understandable from that POV. It’s legitimate as POV when placed in proper context but does not refute ANYTHING that I said.
“… but does not refute ANYTHING that I said.”
The link to the report is to help your research or refresh your memory on the significant elements of the crisis that you seem to be leaving out of your viewpoints when you focus on “Marxist” interventions as the root of the problem. You seem to attribute the subprime crisis to interventionist policies resulting in a larger number of loans to bad prospects in pursuit of social justice (which I read as CRA and related policies), but there are a couple of points that need to be considered beyond that limited viewpoint. In re-evaluating your position, should you choose to do so, you can take a sharper look at the performance of CRA loans in the subprime market and note that they actually performed well, both in the decades prior to the crisis, and in comparison to other subprime loans in the decade of the crisis.
Of more significance is the shift in institutional behavior that seems to have been largely a function of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. In a nutshell, this allowed commercial banks to behave more like investment banks, and encouraged a sharp increase in the bundling and sale of mortgages. When a traditional commercial institution intended to hold a mortgage for the life of the loan, it tended to vet its borrowers carefully. However, once the bulk of mortgages were bundled and sold immediately after they were issued, the incentives became perverted, and far from being encouraged to vet customers carefully, commercial institutions were encouraged to increase the volume of loans and to make as many and as large loans as possible. After all, any risk of default was assumed by others and diluted among them. When these institutions were mailing out mortgage fliers that read “BAD CREDIT? NO PROBLEM!!!” they were not being driven by CRA, but by financial incentives to write more loans.
It’s certainly fair to examine the effects of interventions such as CRA, but your ‘lessons’ as offered so far suggest that you are either unfamiliar with, or choosing to ignore, a parallel dynamic that resulted, not from more intervention but by deregulation, and consequent faulty risk-taking on the commercial side.
In short, instead of deriding Americana, you should be considering that she’s made some valid points, and that unethical behavior within the financial institutions played a significant role in the crisis, and that it’s not at all obvious that the interventions you cite were more significant.
At any rate, enjoy the reading material.
“The link to the report is to help your research or refresh your memory on the significant elements of the crisis that you seem to be leaving out of your viewpoints when you focus on “Marxist” interventions as the root of the problem. You seem to attribute the subprime crisis to interventionist policies resulting in a larger number of loans to bad prospects in pursuit of social justice (which I read as CRA and related policies), but there are a couple of points that need to be considered beyond that limited viewpoint. In re-evaluating your position, should you choose to do so, you can take a sharper look at the performance of CRA loans in the subprime market and note that they actually performed well, both in the decades prior to the crisis, and in comparison to other subprime loans in the decade of the crisis.”
Fundamental point number 1) My view is not limited when I see how all of the pieces fit together and you don’t. You don’t have a comprehensive understanding of what a bubble is. A bubble is something that is overinflated and subject to correction. Anything that contributes artificially to higher prices contributes illicitly to the “bubble.” It doesn’t matter whether those transactions were “ethical” or not. It’s a matter of being aware that those policies lead to instability that is not predicted by investors. An example here would be lots of “successful individuals that didn’t hurt the market” when they artificially raised prices and brought speculators in? I’m not the myopic one here. I’m not saying you’re stupid, but I’m not offering the myopic view.
Fundamental point number 2) The general area of intervention is intended to move people up from lower economic positions. And then because the early interventions statistically helped whites more, that was deemed “unjust” based on “disparate outcomes” arguments, which are underpinning by historical materialism arguments. So ways “had to be” found to remedy that. Therefore lending standards had to be lowered overall in order to balance competing, contradictory laws protecting both individuals, equally, and classes, with favoritism. See the conundrum? Therefore when you discuss “ethics” it comes laughable because there is no consistent, uniform set of ethics that can be applied beforehand in order to get what you want and then allow you to apply afterwards to make law abiding people the good guys according to this Marxist worldview. IOW, it Marxist theories fail in the real world but people resist seeing that because the Marxist ethic is to assume that progress is organic ans solutions can be found with new thinking and new technology. Focus on criticism of the status quo, not the fundamental ideology. Because criticism of Marxism is driven by the need of the oppressors to stay in power and false consciousness of the oppressed. Ignore criticism of Marxism itself. That’s the circular logic built in to Marxism.
Fundamental point number 3) When the government imposes rules that shift moral hazard around, they become a partner. If you have X number of banks that all know they’re not forcing this bubble creation, and you know that the banks are in compliance with regulations, that puts the government on the hook and changes risk assessment which also means that derivatives become more valuable and more speculators are going to be drawn in. This is NOT unethical! The government created this “synthetic ecosystem.” If the government changed gravity somehow, would you blame this guy over here for adjusting to it because the government didn’t think he needed this new level of force? If he gets hurt will you blame him for his “unethical” adjustment?
Supporting point: Value judgments beyond the law, especially when it comes to economics, need to remain theoretical. They’re purely POV. You can’t regulate against people looking after their own interests without making it explicitly against the law. You can’t say “we want better ethics” when writing interventionist policies and then later when it all goes belly up saying “see what those greedy people did?” You’re counting on people looking after their own interests adn then blaming them when you’re incentives framework turns out to be ill-advised.
“Of more significance is the shift in institutional behavior that seems to have been largely a function of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. In a nutshell, this allowed commercial banks to behave more like investment banks, and encouraged a sharp increase in the bundling and sale of mortgages.”
That’s an amplifying factor, not a root problem. We’re driving recklessly here but you need to put your seatbelt on. If you get hurt we’re going to try to make you forget about the reckless driving.
“When a traditional commercial institution intended to hold a mortgage for the life of the loan, it tended to vet its borrowers carefully. However, once the bulk of mortgages were bundled and sold immediately after they were issued, the incentives became perverted, and far from being encouraged to vet customers carefully, commercial institutions were encouraged to increase the volume of loans and to make as many and as large loans as possible.”
It doesn’t matter that they bundled and sold the paper. What matters is that their risk assessment was grossly distorted by government policies and moral hazard shift. Therefore toxic loans were considered having greater value than they should because the government was ultimately seen as on the hook should some great disaster happen.
And guess what? They called it. Didn’t they? the government created “too big to fail” long before the term was propagated widely. These investors are not stupid. Being smart in a complex system is not the same thing as being “unethical” just because some policy wonk wants to blame them. And if they behave “ethically” like they were retroactively chastised to do, they’re competition would destroy them. They’d be out of business. Get it? The government, intentionally or not, forced these professionals to perform their fiduciary duties in seeking profits for investors. That’s another contradiction in “ethics” that I think you don’t appreciate. You’re asking a defendant’s lawyer to be loyal to the judge before his client just because some guy (you allege) got away with murder. That is not how our system works. Most people know that. You find the same kinds of “conflicts” in economics.
You guys just don’t understand the “collective” groups because you don’t have a comprehensive understanding of the various systems and obligations of the individual actors. You just chalk up bad results to “greed” if that seems to sum it up. And that is a very popular method of blame-shifting. We just need some scapegoats now. Where do we turn for that?
“It’s certainly fair to examine the effects of interventions such as CRA, but your ‘lessons’ as offered so far suggest that you are either unfamiliar with, or choosing to ignore, a parallel dynamic that resulted, not from more intervention but by deregulation, and consequent faulty risk-taking on the commercial side.”
I gave lessons before that apparently never stuck. I said many times that the official reports do accurately discuss amplifying factors but they (for political reasons) are not looking at the greater scope of criticism.
“In short, instead of deriding Americana, you should be considering that she’s made some valid points, and that unethical behavior within the financial institutions played a significant role in the crisis, and that it’s not at all obvious that the interventions you cite were more significant.”
The points can be valid in the right context. She’s just not following what I’m saying. If I say 7 is greater than 5 and you respond with, “No way, 5 is greater than 3 and here is my proof!” and similar kinds of illogical presentations of popular narratives, I’m going to be objecting to that kind of bad logic.
“When these institutions were mailing out mortgage fliers that read “BAD CREDIT? NO PROBLEM!!!” they were not being driven by CRA, but by financial incentives to write more loans.”
Yeah, it sucks. But this was virtually required. Perhaps not verbatim, but it’s like objecting to the space programs for using rocket fuel. They had to get the job done or face penalties.
As a matter of fact in my family the very first thing that sparked these discussions about the danger of bubble was seeing these ads start to pop up. My brother and I more or less tracked it in ~real time. He was counseling hyper-vigilance with home real estate purchases even in prime areas of California (SF Bay Area). I was slightly more bullish. He was closer in terms of accurately predicting overall market performance but I had a better handle on local markets. It’s not to say we’re geniuses – it’s just that our maternal grandfather taught us to pay attention to these things when we were kids. He didn’t force us – we just sat at his feet showing obvious interest when he offered lessons. He had a lot of holdings in one of those “too big to fail” institutions and sold most of it. But my brother and I gained broader experience that allowed us to track risks more closely and accurately. It’s interesting but sad that so many people get hurt and there’s so much controversy about even trying to learn the true fundamentals of real world economics.
“But this was virtually required. Perhaps not verbatim, but it’s like objecting to the space programs for using rocket fuel. They had to get the job done or face penalties.”
Most reports and studies I’ve read suggest that the surge in subprimes, and more significantly, the surge in poorly vetted subprimes, far, far exceeded anything remotely demanded by CRA, and tended to occur in markets where CRA wasn’t really an issue.
Again, it appears that the relevant shift in moral hazard was not based on the government’s apparent willingness to back CRA loans, but the deregulation-fueled market in bundled mortgages, which shifted risks to others. In a broad sense, it turned the real estate market into a giant Ponzi scheme, with the last purchases of the securities being the last line of suckers.
This is still debated, of course, but my point is not that your position can’t be argued, but that it can’t be argued authoritatively. You should back off of your “teaching the morons” rhetoric and acknowledge your biases.
“Again, it appears that the relevant shift in moral hazard was not based on the government’s apparent willingness to back CRA loans, but the deregulation-fueled market in bundled mortgages, which shifted risks to others. In a broad sense, it turned the real estate market into a giant Ponzi scheme, with the last purchases of the securities being the last line of suckers.”
It doesn’t seem like you’re quite following here. Did you look at the various policy changes and lawsuits following the CRA?
“This is still debated, of course, but my point is not that your position can’t be argued, but that it can’t be argued authoritatively. You should back off of your “teaching the morons” rhetoric and acknowledge your biases.”
It can be debated. Morons can also make nuisances of themselves with narratives that are non-responsive to the actual debate. I’m not saying your a moron, but you’re heading ever so slightly in that direction when you simply double down on this repetitive (albeit nuanced) “no it isn’t” tactic. You have not dealt with the policies and lawsuits (see “red lining” to get started on that) that caused the worst of what people identify as “unethical” loan making. It was not the banks idea to throw out lending standards.
I get your point. But you actually need a far more complete understanding of the issues and an objective, complete tracking of this absurd conversation I’m having with her before you can decide to offer judgment on just how over-the-top my reactions are.
“In a broad sense, it turned the real estate market into a giant Ponzi scheme…”
That’s a very good point to end on. The policies that created this “scheme” were all shaped by government action and lawsuits based on alleged requirements and “rights” granted by various existing laws.
This also ties in by my frequent refrains about the need to interpret the Constitution more rigorously, paying attention to all slippery slopes…not just worrying about people that might want to marry a rock. Believe it or not, it’s the same underlying controversies in some cases.
“Most reports and studies I’ve read suggest that the surge in subprimes, and more significantly, the surge in poorly vetted subprimes, far, far exceeded anything remotely demanded by CRA, and tended to occur in markets where CRA wasn’t really an issue.”
I said not explicitly. I covered this a few times.
Full Definition of IMPLICIT
1 a : capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed : implied
b : involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/Redlining
Then search: redlining lawsuit implications
What you end up with is that combining all laws, regulations and consent decrees, it turns out that strict credit standards are “racist” and de facto illegitimate. You can’t take collectivist approaches to justice and then fix with surgery. You have to throw out collectivism entirely or you’re going to conflict with various laws of some kind and every remedy will cause unlawful injustice to some other group. What you conclude is that credit standards in housing are “racist” (disparate outcomes) until you find some equilibrium, which means unnaturally low standards. This shifts moral hazard and puts the government on the hook along with inviting in a lot of people who would not otherwise participate.
Their incompetence and lawful (as well as totally understandable) “greed” are some of the natural consequences that can somehow supposedly be massaged out of the policies?
Think about this…
“…they were not being driven by CRA, but by financial incentives to write more loans.”
Look at the various policy changes as people started complaining about “red lining.” Red lining is an allegation that sounds a lot like irrational racism. But red lining is just as much about rational risk assessment. In order to comply with various policies and legal agreements, they ended up being more or less forced to put out signs with declarations along the lines of”no credit, no problem.” They needed those clients in order to comply with the laws, regulations and bindign stipulation agreements because they were required to get the certain specific demographic results.
“But red lining is just as much about rational risk assessment.”
Robbing banks may be the rational way for a given individual to make money. It may have the highest cost to risk ratio of his available choices. Doesn’t mean that we condone it.
“They needed those clients in order to comply with the laws…”
Part of the point of posting that first report, and in encouraging you to read further, is to challenge the easy answer that the CRA was responsible for those mailers.
By way of response to this and your much lengthier comment, you insist that CRA set the conditions and shifted the moral hazard, and that Gramm-Leach-Bliley, other deregulation, and mortgage bundling merely ‘accelerated’ the problem. However, that’s not obvious from the timelines – CRA loans performed well over most of the life of the CRA, and the surge in bad subprime loans correlates with deregulation, not with implementation of CRA. Correlation is not proof of causation, of course, but that makes it singularly bad form to assert that “Marxist” government policies are the cause, and the other elements merely exacerbating an existing problem, when it seems likely that those roles are reversed.
Now, if we take the view that deregulation is the primary driving factor, one can still argue that it is government policy-making and interference that is shifting the playing field and causing the disturbances, and we still can’t fault the players for seeking their maximum line of profit according to the rules of the game. Two short comments there:
1. Laissez faire doesn’t work, either. Some degree of regulation is necessary. We learned this from the various panics of the 19th century, as successive panics swung more widely from the norm and private capital and private intervention proved unable to calm the markets. It’s important to note that after regulations were put into place after the 1929 crash, there were no threats of similar crashes – until those regulations were diluted. That’s not a partisan-politics observation, by the way – the deregulation, as I recall, might have got underway under Reagan, but really hit its stride under Clinton. So from a policy perspective, if you’re claiming that any sort of government involvement is bad, history doesn’t support that. If you’re suggesting that what you call “Marxist” intervention – by which you seem to mean any legislation intended to address social or racial discrimination – was harmful in a way that other regulation or intervention was not, that’s a remarkably controversial statement, and an argument you make, not history you “teach.”
2. It doesn’t follow that any route to profit one can find withing the ‘rules of the game’ are ethical. As a specific example, anyone writing a mortgage was responsible for ascertaining the borrower’s ability to pay. That government ‘intervention’ made it profitable to write as many mortgages as possible, and reduced or shifted the impact of default, doesn’t relieve the writer of being truthful and complete. If you’re arguing that it makes it understandable that he would choose to behave unethically, sure – but that doesn’t make the behavior less ethical.
It’s a bit like arguing that CBS and NBC are responsible for Jose Conseco taking steroids. After all, if television receipts didn’t make baseball so profitable, then the incentive to hit more homeruns wouldn’t be so great. Increasing the stakes increases the likelihood of cheating, but it’s still cheating.
So if your argument is that we need to find a better balance of regulation, enforcement, and socialization, such that all players are more likely to fulfill their responsibilities, I’m with you. If you’re arguing that the government should abandon any attempt to address social or racial problems because it’s hard to do right, I can’t agree with that. And I particularly disagree with your attempt to paint any of the latter as “Marxist.” That’s just silly.
“So if your argument is that we need to find a better balance of regulation, enforcement, and socialization, such that all players are more likely to fulfill their responsibilities, I’m with you.”
Not only do we need to do better, we need to refute the most dangerous bad ideas that make people feel live victims without any basis.
“If you’re arguing that the government should abandon any attempt to address social or racial problems because it’s hard to do right, I can’t agree with that.”
We need to reach consensus on what justice is and what it is not.
“And I particularly disagree with your attempt to paint any of the latter as “Marxist.” That’s just silly.”
That’s because apparently you do not understand the implications. Which is, again, one of the fundamental problems we’re having. You’re not hardcore, but you do help the evangelists without realizing it.
“1. Laissez faire doesn’t work, either. Some degree of regulation is necessary. We learned this from the various panics of the 19th century, as successive panics swung more widely from the norm and private capital and private intervention proved unable to calm the markets. It’s important to note that after regulations were put into place after the 1929 crash, there were no threats of similar crashes – until those regulations were diluted.”
I’m not arguing for zero regulations. I’m trying to fight this worship of elites that bundle regulations that are part rational and part pandering to Marxist sentiments and just plain old populism. Progress comes from continually advancing education, not bending ever more complex systems in ways that get the support of the broadest cross section of voters.
Now this point about how things went well up until regulations were peeled away, that’s an OK place to start a conversation. But it’s a very simplistic (and please don’t be offended when I add ignorant) view. The economy expanded at such a fantastic rate for reasons completely unrelated to regulations. This is why you have to have a comprehensive view of history >and I demand evidence when anyone suggests coercive interventions.
And PS: I’m huge on saving energy and cleaning up the environment. It’s probably what sets me apart. I try to take a comprehensive approach and bring together all of the various professionals to teach them how to work strategically together for better business strategies and compliance with the need to work on “sustainability” and cost / quality control issues. I also point out that this allows them to build a brand for themselves as the “Mercedes of_____.” Mostly what we need are leaders who are willing to try to lead by example, and smart, well-informed and vetted consensus not “smart” (pandering to populist worldview) ideas. It needs to come mostly from grass roots movements and it would be most helpful IMO if we debunk some of the dumbest ideas from Marx.
“Robbing banks may be the rational way for a given individual to make money. It may have the highest cost to risk ratio of his available choices. Doesn’t mean that we condone it.”
It was not illegal activity that led to these trends of getting people in to houses that they previously would not have qualified for. It is illegal to rob banks. It is not illegal to ignore credit risks. It is arguably —>illegal,— to enforce strict credit standards according to rational risk assessment at this point. Where are the thresholds? It depends more on how “inclusive” the standards are, not how rational it is to lend to any given applicant.
Let me try another way. If organic credit standards are used and banks are the ones that decide, you will have established clients that do well and people with less developed skills and lower access to resources will be left out. That’s natural. But it can also be characterized as racism when you use statistics in certain ways. Therefore organic, rational formulas to determine who qualifies for a loan are racist. Lowering standards only for certain demographics would also be racist. Lowering standards without regard for race up to the point that somehow the standards are deemed properly “inclusive” is the only legal choice they have. Therefore the implications of rule of law in the USA required them to lower lending standards. They were even compelled to advertise these lower standards in certain markets because failure to do so would expose them to lawsuits and penalties. Unless of course they had some magic economics available.
And now you know why I scoff at people about their magical expectations. Because when we take all of your expectations, it would require magic to make you happy in every respect that you demand. What you’re agitating for is equality of outcome, which is delusional. People are not organically equal. In America, they are equal before the law. The law is not here to make them equal in every respect or even ever economic aspect. Collectively (by ethnic class) or individually.
That’s the downside of collectivism. And whenever I mention this word you have a visceral reaction to it, just as you don’t want to discuss why some people are tainted by Marxism while strenuously denying it.
I don’t believe in magic. A lot of atheists do. Which is weird. Because…never mind.
• We conclude there was a systemic breakdown in accountability and ethics. The integrity of our financial markets and the public’s trust in those markets are essential to the economic well-being of our nation. The soundness and the sustained prosperity of the financial system and our economy rely on the notions of fair dealing, responsibility, and transparency. In our economy, we expect businesses and individuals to pursue profits, at the same time that they produce products and services of quality and conduct themselves well.”
Hello? Why do you think wise economists discuss moral hazard so frequently? You Marxists corrupt accountability to pursue “the agenda” thinking that you can legislate altruism and “economic justice” of some kind that doesn’t exist. Then you’re shocked when people look after their own interests…just as you in fact told them to do. As collectives. But no, see, the “rich” are supposed to know who they are and help “the poor” just like the policy intended.
Hey, you didn’t not conduct yourself well! We will legislate “doing well” next. If those stupid conservatives weren’t so greedy our laws would be just about perfect by now! Stupid banksters! Stupid 1%! Stupid Zionists!
https://www.google.Com/search?client=opera&q=wall+street+zionism&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
That may not represent perfectly what the elites and policy makers think. But it does represent the common ethos of their constituents. Think about it.
” You Marxists…”
Oh, dear.
I don’t understand this reaction of yours. What is your objection? I’m not accusing you of being “pro-Soviet” or a Chicom plant, or planning a violent revolution. It would be like me objecting to you referring to my thinking as influenced by Christianity. I never said that I was a Christian! How dare you demonize me in that way!? You’re trying to shut down the conversation, aren’t you!
You’ve said before that you think certain words are used to shut down conversations. I think the opposite. I think this reaction, like yours, is intended to shut down examination of the validity of the terms.
Marxism protects itself from criticism in a number of ways. Among them is this idea that accusations or even just “use of labels” is all about “irrational demonizing” and the ones who use these words are trying to shut down conversation? Really? Why is it always the “accused” that are running away from the rational examinations?
If you’re sympathetic to “social justice” arguments distinct from Constitutional justice arguments, that makes you sympathetic to Marxism. Unless we’re talking about slavery or Native American reparations of some kind there really is no other framework to organize a legitimate complaint regarding “social justice” today. When you start talking about government policies that deal with “income disparity” and similar issues, especially if you start talking about remedies as entitlements….oh boy. There is no other way to come up with that. You’re attacking personal property rights (which are in the Bill of Rights) in order to satisfy a nebulous and Utopian vision. Where else could it come from?
I agree with a few things Joseph Smith said about God and Jesus and stuff, but I’m no Mormon. Don’t call me a Mormon. I don’t agree with Smith – I mean not really – but – he wasn’t exactly wrong and it’s OK, perhaps even good some times, to take his ideas and use them for improving governance.
OK, fine. How about “Smithist?” Is that better?
“Oh, dear.”
Neo-Smithist?
The Pope just hinted that Jesus was divine. Joseph Smith thought that Jesus was divine.
The Pope is a Mormon! No?
He’s a Neo-Mormon! But the Pope doesn’t accept any of Smith’s departures from or additions to the Catholic canon.
The obvious problem with your sloppy use of language – and let’s note that your use of the term “Marxist” included neither lowercase or scare-quote escape clauses – is that a Marxist is not merely someone who taps into a viewpoint or philosophy to which Marx was sympathetic. The world is not divided into laissez-faire capitalists and Marxists.
“…a Marxist is not merely someone who taps
into a viewpoint or philosophy to which Marx was sympathetic. The world is not
divided into laissez-faire capitalists and Marxists.”
I
would agree. You must of course also consider that I don’t address you as
Marxist unless you’re defending an explicitly Marxist worldview. It’s just that
simple. If I consider your “personal identity” or some fundamental
aspect of your being to be “Marxist” I would instead refer to you as
a communist. But what you do is (probably without awareness) defend some
Marxist views. I could also modify my labeling by using “dupe” a lot
more, which in theory softens the accusation, but tends to get people even more
upset. And that’s the real issue. People get upset when they’re challenged. And
that’s a shame. It’s an imperfect world in many ways. And anyone that
argues interventions are needed to dynamically boost (make constant corrections
in) social mobility in America
is a Marxist or is a dupe of his flawed thinking.
And
while Marx was inspired by others (and I have said this to you before, very
clearly) none of those other thought leaders had any kind of complaints that
would make sense in terms of rectifying today’s social problems in the USA.
Only Marx came up with a framework for constant agitation towards destruction
of private property rights, up to 100%, that allows followers to ignore any contrary
evidence. And if you slip in to that habit (or are attracted to those tainted arguments)
I’ll say that’s Marxist. If you align yourself with Marxist views for a
particular argument, I’ll refer to “you Marxists” and then you’ll be
the one to decide of the shoe fits.
By the
way I have some sympathy for Marx’s ideas, a few of them at least, in terms of
dealing with nations that clearly have a lot of public property held in the
name of cultural preservation, or as in the UK with a monarch that retains vast
holdings. Saudi Arabia
(as just another example) gets so much wealth from oil that really they should
have some kind of active offset program because the oil wealth drives their
economy and creates an oligarchy no matter what political system they arrange.
Those are truly legitimate issues for demanding some kind of >rational<
offsets. Because preserving those institutions actually does limit social
mobility. The key to any meritocracy is a system that makes social
mobility possible for those willing to contribute and compete against the
establishment to become part of the establishment.
I just
remembered something I've tried a few times to test whether anyone can define
thresholds of Marxist thinking. I ask people if they can identify rational
reasons for asking for adjustments other than slavery or Native American
claims. Nobody has ever come up with anything. Nobody mentioned the railroad
land grants giveaways or anything like that. The
next go to citation after slavery is almost always “banksters” who allegedly
create this oligarchy. Nothing could be further from the truth. It takes
Marxism to demonize banks unless you’re leaning on ancient Christian prejudice regarding
money lenders (essentially Jews). So…I’m actually being very kind to people.
They just can’t appreciate it without understanding it.
The
bottom line is that I demand a rational approach. And because Marx created this
comprehensive, circular theory that really proves itself based on its own
testimony -and while some of it valid – it's dangerous that it also teaches
that people who argue against Marxism are either trying to maliciously defend
their dominant oppressor status or are caught up in some mysterious "false
consciousness." IOW, this Marxist worldview propagates the idea that
dissenters are stupid or malicious. To me this also explains why people are
often far more interested in repeating accusations than learning more about how
non-Marxists see the world. You very rarely find very talented entrepreneurs
that lean towards Marxist thinking. Even guys like Bill Gates consider
themselves to be extraordinarily lucky rather than understand that there are
lots of humans that could have done the same thing, and it's probably better in
my view to stand up as a role model than sort of lean too much on fatalism as
an explanation for success.
As for
Marxism, it's not like I'd like to see his utterings stricken from history. I'd
like to have him seen as a critic that raised important points but for whatever
reason went a little nuts in trying to turn his criticism in to a worldview or…almost
a religion.
Once
everyone is clearer about all sides of these criticisms I think we can come up
with MUCH better solutions to these controversies. The USA should be a
model for the world for political and economic institutions. And here we are
apologizing for being greedy thieves. I know that's not verbatim from any
particular professor or politician (though it probably is) but that is how a
lot of people hear it by the time it get's translated. Domestically and around
the world. Americans should be evangelizing Americanism. But at least half
don't even know what that means.
“He’s a Neo-Mormon! But the Pope doesn’t accept any of Smith’s departures from or additions to the Catholic canon.”
Then there is no rational reason to refer to that pope as neo-Mormon. And they don’t agree on much of anything aside perhaps the English spelling of Jesus.
There you go.
Believe me, I hear what you’re saying. But…I don’t think you’re fully grasping the criticism. What is your discrete label for yourself? Maybe that will help sort this out.
“The world is not divided into laissez-faire capitalists and Marxists.”
If you believe that historic materialism is justification for government interventions rather than allowing organic social mobility in America, you’re testing strongly for Marxism. If you believe that the establishment as a class is somehow organized to restrain upward mobility (in America or without citing evidence), you are almost certainly a dupe of Marx. If you believe that American citizens have legal entitlements for the sake of social justice remedies, you’re also testing strongly for potential Marxist taint.
Your complaints strike me as parallel to a guy that objects strongly to a Geiger counter registering indicators of contamination because he doesn’t feel sick. Well, there’s more to it than that.
Your complaints strike me as parallel to a guy who diagnoses people with radiation poisoning every time he hears a click because he once read about Geiger counters.
Look, your posts are studies in misplaced condescension. You seem to have read a book or two on Marxusm, perhaps some Ayn Rand, and you have sunsequently convinced yourself that it is Dr OFM’s job to sniff out and expose Marxism wherever it lurks.
First off, your basic underlying logical structure is ludicrously flawed. “If A, then B” does not in any way imply “if B, then A.” Marx employed historic materialism, but historic materialism is not unique to Marx. There are Marxist and non-Marxist approaches. You are, as you mentioned in another context, both simplifying to the point of ignorance, and basing your entire approach on fatally flawed logic. “If Marxist, then historic materialism” didn’t support “if historic materialism, them Marxist.” It doesn’t even support a weasel end-down “if historic materialism, then probably Marxist.”
Marx also employed a very specific sort of historic materialism, in which he filtered all historical events through the lens of economics and class struggle. It’s flawed reasoning to imply that any worldview that takes into account material effects on politics is therefore equivalent to a Marxist class-struggle orientation involves misunderstanding Marx’s version of historic materialism or distorting your opponents’ positions.
One example of the flawed direction your background drives you in would be in misdiagnosing most schools of IR theory. You are concluding, for example, that if one does not share your view of the primacy of ideology in motivating and shaping human events, that you have found evidence of Marxist materialism. The realist, on the other hand, almost universally reject ideology as cause. Most Realist schools of thought see the state as a black box, driven to act variously by the national interest or by geopolitical necessity, depending on the approach. Similarly, in conflating any material approach with Marx’s, you essentially condemn any positivist approach to IR as “Marxist.” That’s simply silly.
I’m afraid I must be off to work. On your latter points, I don’t think that anyone has discussed limitations on upward mobility in the U.S. without providing evidence, and I don’t think anyone here has provided a class-structural framework for analyzing it.
Bottom line: your “testing for Marxist taint” strikes me as the approach of an individual with an obsession. To the man with the hammer (!), every problem is a nail.
Yes, I know. I understand you. The question is whether you know how to run the Geiger counter. I’m thinking that you don’t.
“First off, your basic underlying logical structure is ludicrously flawed. “If A, then B” does not in any way imply “if B, then A.” Marx employed historic materialism, but historic materialism is not unique to Marx.”
You’re forgetting that all of these things were said in context. If you read all of what I wrote and you digested it, you’ll notice that I do acknowledge rational “historic materialism” claims. Which is why I mentioned older European countries.
“If Marxist, then historic materialism” didn’t support “if historic materialism, them Marxist.” It doesn’t even support a weasel end-down “if historic materialism, then probably Marxist.”
If you apply historic materialism to claims made today regarding “wealth disparity” in America, I can think of no non-Marxist logical framework for that to make sense. Can you? If you can, you’re simply not aware of Marx’s influence. I guess you could be inspired by the same people he was and come to the same conclusions, but I’m still entitled to put you in the same class if that’s the case. For God’s sake, it’s not a penalty. It’s for opening conversations. Justify your positions. Justify your worldview. If you don’t care where your ideas come from then you should not care if people associate them with Marx. What’s the complaint really about? You’re not being rational here.
“You are concluding, for example, that if one does not share your view of the primacy of ideology in motivating and shaping human events, that you have found evidence of Marxist materialism.’
No. All of the feedback is considered in context. I was a non-Marxist materialist for most of my life so you just gave a bad example.
“I’m afraid I must be off to work. On your latter points, I don’t think that anyone has discussed limitations on upward mobility in the U.S. without providing evidence, and I don’t think anyone here has provided a class-structural framework for analyzing it.”
The evidence is based on certain formulations. I won’t say more because you’re freak out. The evidence is based on assumptions like materialistic determinism. They hit all of the “evidence” Marx would use and then they don’t want to listen to “oppressors” explain the errors that arise from their flawed economic models.
But you know what? You’re trying to look at the logic form the top down. You’re confusion is to you evidence that I’m wrong. You haven’t absorbed and processed the implications of what I’ve been telling you.
You’re way to sensitive about these associations like you’re being assigned a permanent label. And you’re resisting it impulsively rather than considering all of these things.
“Bottom line: your “testing for Marxist taint” strikes me as the approach of an individual with an obsession. To the man with the hammer (!), every problem is a nail.”
How can you say that the Western world is dominated by cultural Christianity? No way! These are all discrete movements. Secular humanism has nothing to do with Christianity! Nothing!
If that’s how you want to look at the world, that’s for you. But remember I’m not alleging that you’re some kind of radioactive heavy metal. I’m saying you are showing signs of radiation exposure. And we’ve all been exposed. You just don’t know how to isolate it. I’m helping you isolate it but you don’t want my help.
“If you apply historic materialism to claims made today regarding “wealth disparity” in America, I can think of no non-Marxist logical framework for that to make sense. Can you? If you can, you’re simply not aware of Marx’s influence. ”
Or you’re unwilling to acknowledge influences other than Marx. For example, the Freiburg School and Germany’s later ordoliberalism are rooted in Catholic social teachings, and call for government intervention in specific circumstances while rejecting socialism. The ordoliberals, for example, are convinced that laissez-faire capitalism leads to monopolies, and that the government has a legitimate role in intervening to prevent that sort of accumulation of power. That’s not inherently Marxist.
“I’m helping you isolate it but you don’t want my help.”
I’m sure you think you are. When I consult a doctor, it’s because I’m sick, and because I have checked his bona fides and am convinced he knows his business. When some fellow comes along, tells me I’m not feeling well, and tries to shove a pill down my throat, I’m not going to thank him, regardless of how many times he shouts “you’re welcome!”
“Or you’re unwilling to acknowledge influences other than Marx.”
Why would you think that? The term “neo-Marxist” was coined to group these ideas while acknowledging that they are built on the implications of Marxism though not taken directly from his writings.
“I’m sure you think you are. When I consult a doctor, it’s because I’m sick, and because I have checked his bona fides and am convinced he knows his business. When some fellow comes along, tells me I’m not feeling well, and tries to shove a pill down my throat, I’m not going to thank him, regardless of how many times he shouts “you’re welcome!””
Well, the sad thing is that you don’t really have the ability to establish credentials along these lines because you’re trying to perform surgery on yourself already convinced you’re the best surgeon. You’re too busy hacking and defending yourself to even pay attention to the validity of what you’re being told.
If we had the time and inclination, I could take you through your disqus history and tell you where you register as “neo-Marxist.” You might not acknowledge it for whatever reason, but just because some intermediary thinkers are the ones you got your ideas from doesn’t purge the Marxist fallacies. You have to have a truly comprehensive understanding of the implications of your ideas before you’re actually qualified to defend any of them as unaffected by Marx’s ideas.
Mostly it’s how these various ideas are combined. Most of the neo-Marxist ideas are valid in proper context. It’s when they’re used inappropriately to promote the Marxist worldview that people start emitting “radioactivity.”
I think I said yesterday (maybe this morning for you) that Jared Diamond’s work could be considered neo-Marxist only because it is used by lots of neo-Marxists. But I don’t consider that he’s done that because he hasn’t crossed that threshold in my mind. In the end I’m a lot more rigorous than you realize, it’s just difficult to show my work here on these comment pages. Especially to hostile interlocutors. Especially when I’m juggling so many conversations…but it is what it is.
When you suggested that I had read Rand’s books, that reflected your conscious or subconscious assignment of a tag to my thinking. That’s all I’m doing. I did not object to you characterizing my thinking as “Randian” because it might have some validity. It’s OK.
I don’t think she’s very impressive and on one level it’s slightly insulting…but it’s rational, and it makes sense for you to organize your thinking in this way at least as part of an ongoing process. What I’m basically suggesting is doing it more consciously.
“Look, your posts are studies in misplaced condescension. You seem to have read a book or two on Marxusm, perhaps some Ayn Rand, and you have sunsequently convinced yourself that it is Dr OFM’s job to sniff out and expose Marxism wherever it lurks.”
I’ve never read any of Ayn Rand’s books. I they’re like fairy tales for adults. Or something. They don’t work for me. It doesn’t bother me that some people get something out of them. Other books critical of Marx? I’m not sure I’ve read any. My criticism comes from reading Marx and reading how people have built on his theories and experience through my working life. My brother is an economist. We grew up discussing the theories and until a few years ago I thought Marxism was dead except to lunatics. I thought the allegations against this president were silly too. When he made some foreign policy moves that I thought were stupid and reminiscent of Jimmy Carter, I revisited the Carter years (historically) and read books critical of him. I suppose it would have been natural for me to assume that he was just looking to Carter for inspiration.
Anyway, I don’t have time to take you step by step. But I started 2009 and even 2010 as a guy interested in history way more than politics of the present. But as I saw stupid things I began to take the “right wing” critics more seriously. And I thoguht back to my sister, now an MBA, and the bouts she had with this silly Marxist ideas that my brother and I used to laugh about. The thing is that my sister is not stupid and there are lots of people like her. When I started challenging 0’Bama supporters in subtle ways to defend his policies, I paid attention to the patterns without looking for anything. I wanted to see if they could come up with better than “racism.” Their arguments were weak and based on circular logic with a lot of ignorance. My brother and I (who votes DP) at least acknowledges my observations and kind of shrugs. He’s somewhat fatalistic about it. We are all fatalistic about things we feel have no control over.
I need to cut this short. I’ll try to think of some other way to explain but my sense is that you’re too defensive to consider these ideas. Maybe I would be too. Just saying. But how about if you make your own Geiger counter for Marxism. What are the thresholds you would use to identify people that are influenced by Marxist thinking? It seems like you are totally opposed to this idea of making “hostile ID” on someone. But really I don’t want to turn this in to an accusation that I care about. The major motive is to force people to talk about the fallacies. And Marxism leads people to build closed worldviews that rely on false assumptions. It’s a problem that needs to be dealt with. The label thing is just a rhetorical tool. It’s just using language to get things done.
“But how about if you make your own Geiger counter for Marxism. What are the thresholds you would use to identify people that are influenced by Marxist thinking? It seems like you are totally opposed to this idea of making “hostile ID” on someone. ”
I am. I believe that the best way to approach an issue is on its merits. Getting “hostile ID” on someone, trying to apply a label, is a transparent shortcut to ad hom by association. Under the guise of “trying to understand where they’re coming from,” or “trying to explain to them the source of their ideas,” you’re basically trying to shift the argument away from the topic and onto the person.
You seem to approach the topic with the zeal of the converted, not the confidence of the master. I cringe whenever I hear someone (including myself) preface a set of comments with “I used to believe X…” or “I used to do Y…” Whether it’s smoking cigarettes, coming to Jesus, leaving Jesus, or, in your case, discovering the Perils of Marxism, such individuals bring to their pet topic a fanaticism that will not rest until their partners in conversation are as enthusiastic as they.
Since you’ve revealed something of yourself, I’ll explain one thing as well. You asked in another post what label I’d apply to myself, and the short answer is that I wouldn’t. I’m the sort of person who is brought up short when people, simply making small talk, ask “what’s your favorite X?” I don’t have a favorite color, a favorite movie, a favorite book, a favorite city. I have colors I like in certain circumstances. I have books that speak to me for different reasons. I don’t trust labels and I don’t trust facile answers. I’m conscious enough to identify the threads or strands of my thinking that are common to various schools of thought, but I don’t feel that any useful purpose is served by announcing that I am most nearly a neoliberal or a structural realist.
“I am. I believe that the best way to approach an issue is on its merits. Getting “hostile ID” on someone, trying to apply a label, is a transparent shortcut to ad hom by association.”
It’s not like that. I know it feels that way.
Humans are not machines. People operate with unspoken and even unconscious motives and assumptions. The reason we as a society are still so divided in spite of what a few decades ago would have been considered Utopian communications capabilities is that “we” (flawed humans) don’t really understand how to be fully truthful about our own thinking.
I’m not trying to gratuitously attack anyone. I’m trying to attack fallacious ideas that are often subconsciously expressed. Now if I’m wrong I’m exposing myself to counterattack and also helping advance the discourse by looking at these issues. If I’m right, I’m doing all of that in an even more valuable direction. Cooperative discourse is good and progressive. It’s always my preference to have cooperative conversations.
So this “hostile ID” is not the same in discourse as in war where the enemy must be immediately destroyed if he threatens you. In discourse, it helps to identify hostile, hidden >ideas< that are preventing the discourse from actually progressing. The fallacies are the ultimate target.
And this is also my only motive for being brutally truthful about Islam. I make friends with most Muslims that I meet. Almost all of them. I'm not against the people until they become an explicit threat as individuals. But I see it as crucial to understand the implications of holding certain worldviews base on theistic religion like Islam or any other hostile worldview like theistic or atheistic Marxism.
One more parting thought:
Again, these are not discrete labels. They're meta tags. If you talk about X, it's part of the larger discourse on Marxist worldview. It matters that you don't like it in polite society. But…it doesn't change the reality that you're promoting Marxist fallacies, or fallacies that are part of the larger discourse on Marxism. That's how people get tagged if not collated. You're not assigned to a bucket. You're file is marked with a little note. It's really OK. You can take it.
“Again, these are not discrete labels. They’re meta tags. If you talk about X, it’s part of the larger discourse on Marxist worldview. It matters that you don’t like it in polite society. But…it doesn’t change the reality that you’re promoting Marxist fallacies, or fallacies that are part of the larger discourse on Marxism. ”
You’d do better to identify the specific ‘fallacies’ that you allege to have arisen in conversation as they arise and show them to be such.
I’ll assume that you are being forthright about your intentions, but the effect is still that of an ad hom by association.
“Since you’ve revealed something of yourself, I’ll explain one thing as well. You asked in another post what label I’d apply to myself, and the short answer is that I wouldn’t. I’m the sort of person who is brought up short when people, simply making small talk, ask “what’s your favorite X?” I don’t have a favorite color, a favorite movie, a favorite book, a favorite city. I have colors I like in certain circumstances. I have books that speak to me for different reasons. I don’t trust labels and I don’t trust facile answers. I’m conscious enough to identify the threads or strands of my thinking that are common to various schools of thought, but I don’t feel that any useful purpose is served by announcing that I am most nearly a neoliberal or a structural realist.”
I understand. If I have to assign you to a “bucket” I would simply put you in the materialist category. Structural realist works. I don’t like “buckets” or discrete labels that exclude nuanced views. I’m assigning meta tags to indicate cross-relevance, not putting you in a discrete container.
My brother is a lot like you in personality but he has different life experiences. Plus he lived with me most of the time as well. Even today you would get along perfectly with him. It takes him a long time to understand me when I push him. In the end, he always agrees with me. He just doesn’t have an intuitive confidence in the kind of ideas I suggest.
He also recognizes that personality-wise, I’m a much more successful leader. He won’t admit that out loud. But when he has problems I’m pretty much the only person he can trust.
He’s my brother. I recognize that he doesn’t intuitively trust what I say. We have to hash things out over long periods of time. Some times weeks or months. He’s an economist and CPA and he still, in the end, gives me credit for understanding business operations and market realities better than he does. I have a wider scope of experience and training and it doesn’t hurt my depth. That’s what I’m told. He got a few of his clients from me, his “little” brother.
How much do you really have in common with him? I don’t really know. But the style of discourse, the rigidity, is almost identical. I’m used to it. For the most part it’s good. I’m not attacking you personally.
“He also recognizes that personality-wise, I’m a much more successful leader. He won’t admit that out loud. ”
Sounds like an interesting family dynamic you fellows have.
“I’m not attacking you personally.”
I’m not worried about that. I like to keep conversations topical, and metaconversation is rarely so.
“…metaconversation is rarely so.”
I think most people come here to understand connections. Which of course includes debunking false ones. So even if you don’t appreciate (some specific aspect of) the process, you probably would appreciate the progress once you have seen it. Ultimately it is a humanizing process. I realize that it appears to be the opposite at times.
Kind of an aside this, but all that kind of reminds me of a conversation I had some time back with a friend who asked me if I was an atheist. My response then as now was that I thought there was an excellent case for atheism and that I hadn’t as yet encountered any compelling arguments for the existence of gods: end of the day however I had simply no way of knowing that there was no god & what does it matter anyway. (think I may also have ventured the Sagan-esque approach of ‘well give me a definition God first’) To which I got the impatient response “so….what- you ARE an atheist then?…or just an agnostic…or what?” Having had a highly structured & compatmentalised view of the world, he seemed annoyed that I hadn’t ‘ticked the box’, so to speak. “Why do you have to be any one of those things” was my own response. On the question of metaphysics I still veer occasionally from dogged certainty (there is nothing beyond the physical world) to deep uncertainty: all depending on the mood of the day.
Good to see you’re still around!
Still around & in good health! Good soldiers never die 😀
My Disqus activity is generally confined to reading rather than offfering comments. I’ll occasionally pipe up if I feel I’ve something worthwhile to add.
“First off, your basic underlying logical structure is ludicrously flawed. “If A, then B” does not in any way imply “if B, then A.” Marx employed historic materialism, but historic materialism is not unique to Marx. There are Marxist and non-Marxist approaches. You are, as you mentioned in another context, both simplifying to the point of ignorance, and basing your entire approach on fatally flawed logic. “If Marxist, then historic materialism” didn’t support “if historic materialism, them Marxist.” It doesn’t even support a weasel end-down “if historic materialism, then probably Marxist.””
Even Jared Diamond is not someone I would classify as Marxist unless he tried to argue that his findings are evidence that interventions are needed in order to…etc. Or depending on how he defended accusations that his views on materialistic determinism. But I’m open minded. I didn’t see anything from him that I considered explicitly Marxist even though Marxists love to use this kind of analysis.
“It’s flawed reasoning to imply that any worldview that takes into account material effects on politics is therefore equivalent to a Marxist class-struggle orientation involves misunderstanding Marx’s version of historic materialism or distorting your opponents’ positions.”
You’re the one making flawed assumptions about my analysis. It’s not if A or B or C. It’s if A and B and C. It’s how you formulate solutions. None of the Marxist analysis is inappropriate as a paradigm for certain kinds of limited analysis.
If you start to use those flawed paradigms inappropriately, and or for planning or predicting the future—>>> Marxist radiation exposure.
The test is just more complicated than you apparently understand. You are the one jumping to conclusions. Calling large, powerful corporations “corporate fascists” is definitely an indicator, but it takes more than that.
“The test is just more complicated than you apparently understand. You are the one jumping to conclusions. “‘
So you keep saying. I just work off what you post, not what you intimate you could post if you had time.
“So you keep saying. I just work off what you post, not what you intimate you could post if you had time.”
You don’t take the aggregate of what I say over time. Which is understandable. But…some people find it useful to ask clarifying questions before jumping to conclusions.
I don’t always have time to repeat at any given moment everything that I’ve said already. Although I try to cooperate with ad hoc recaps when I sense that it will be worth the time.
In any event, language disputes aside, the report is about blame-shifting. It’s not the policies that incentivized these transactions, it’s the flawed character of our citizens.
Don’t policy shapers think about those things as they’re coming up with their plans? Of course they do. Some times. But it doesn’t really matter because it’s useful for scapegoating to suddenly remember that you can always look back and accuse someone or some group of bad faith even when those actors in most cases had fiduciary duties to do exactly what they ended up doing. But wait, find a few criminals to represent the entire class and then the policies won’t be blamed by the gullible constituents.
That’s the driving ethos: Defend the policies based on political considerations.
OTOH, put in proper perspective, the report is not useless. It’s just incomplete.
“In any event, language disputes aside, the report is about blame-shifting. It’s not the policies that incentivized these transactions, it’s the flawed character of our citizens.”
Well, no. It’s isolating which policies incentivized which transactions. You take it as a given that intervention has a particular effect, but you can’t make that claim without more rigorously testing that. Rather than ‘testing for Marxism,’ you should be offering the evidence that a particular policy had the effects you claim.
For example, if I’m not mistaken, you recently posted to someone an article asserting that Obama had submitted a lawsuit on behalf of something over 150 individuals; the article then asserted that over half had defaulted as of 2012, and some small number were current on their debts. This sort of thing is nearly meaningless at the offered level of detail. Of those who defaulted, when did they default, and for what reasons? If they defaulted before the crisis, then that suggests that such borrowers contributed to the crisis, and if the lawsuit can be tied to the CRA, you could form a chain of logic to that effect. On the other hand, if they defaulted as the recession took effect, one would infer that their defaults were effect, not cause.
It’s hard to argue that anyone had fiduciary duties to poorly vet loans or fail to properly turn over mortgages during the securitization process. The extent of the robosigning scandal demonstrates that the executives and employees of the institutions in question were decidedly not committed to carrying out their responsibilities. The falsification of documents during the foreclosure crisis is prima facie evidence that banks were willing to ignore their duties in pursuit of income. Those problems arose as a result of the volume of mortgages being securitized; the mortgage documents were supposed to be transferred with the changes in ownership, and these companies were so eager to increase the volume of the transactions that they were unable or unwilling to commit the resources to properly execute them. Hard to claim that this represents those who “had fiduciary duties to do exactly what they ended up doing.”
“Well, no. It’s isolating which policies incentivized which transactions. You take it as a given that intervention has a particular effect, but you can’t make that claim without more rigorously testing that.”
You doubt the fundamental laws of supply and demand? Agreeing to write more risky loans to people that had not been in the market (due to bad credit and or insufficient funds to establish equity) will have what effect on pricing? And if the quality of those loans is lower than before, what does that do when prices start to collapse? Even if we can isolate something like increasing retail gasoline prices as a main trigger for loan default, you still can show that these toxic loans and moral hazard shift caused craziness in the derivatives market. You can blame any of that. But who has the right to do what? You either have to go back and restore accountablity where it belongs or you have to establish more government control over what all humans do if you want to help people that have fewer resources with top down planning.
“Rather than ‘testing for Marxism,’ you should be offering the evidence that a particular policy had the effects you claim.””
It’s not hard to do. It’s just clumsy and time-consuming to go over every fundamental law and theory of market economics along with presenting sample data – all here on disqus.
“For example, if I’m not mistaken, you recently posted to someone an article asserting that Obama had submitted a lawsuit on behalf of something over 150 individuals; the article then asserted that over half had defaulted as of 2012, and some small number were current on their debts. This sort of thing is nearly meaningless at the offered level of detail. Of those who defaulted, when did they default, and for what reasons? If they defaulted before the crisis, then that suggests that such borrowers contributed to the crisis, and if the lawsuit can be tied to the CRA, you could form a chain of logic to that effect. On the other hand, if they defaulted as the recession took effect, one would infer that their defaults were effect, not cause.”
That was just a sample. Banks across the country changed their policies in response to the settlement. That settlement was used as a precedent to indicate how the various laws might be interpreted in other claims.
It would be interesting to drill down. But the point is clear that the government policies first drew more people and more funds in to the marketplace, driving up prices, and then it turns out that the quality of borrower was worse than expected, contributing to instability and fear as prices started to crash.
Why would you think that people with poor credit history and low equity were at the tail end of a crisis that was driven by toxic loans? That’s a weird assumption. The point is not to blame those people. The point is looking at policies and consequences. Generally speaking, anything that drags down the quality of borrowers and thus quality of the loan contracts is going to drag down assessments.
I mean all of these conversations involve assumptions. Assumptions are driven by worldview and fundamental knowledge about the subjects. This is why worldview matters and also why when discussing complex analysis there has to be some fundamental agreement on these assumptions.
If you can’t wade your way through at least a little of this on your own you probably need to start over with some kind of primer on market economics and then build on that. I already suggested this to Americana and I doubt she bothered to take me up.
Milton Friedman did a video series with PBS in the 1980s and then updated it in the 1990s.
http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.Com
You really should get through something like that or it’s equivalent or we’re going to be going in circles here for a long time. Especially since you seem more interested in playing Devil’s advocate than in actually understanding what the major forces have been that carried us to this point.
“It’s hard to argue that anyone had fiduciary duties to poorly vet loans or fail to properly turn over mortgages during the securitization process.”
Again, you miss the point. Every transaction has factions dealing with each other with conflicting interests. Taken as a whole, you can’t just look back and say there was a failure of ethics without meticulously looking at each deal, especially since the government directed banks to loan to high risk clients in high risk neighborhoods and with high risk financial backgrounds. Why is this point so difficult to understand?
The government has this entire program designed to get people in high risk situations in to homes. Now you’re blaming professionals after the fact because they didn’t save your favored policies? That’s not how it works. This is exactly like blaming OJ’s lawyers because you feel some injustice was done or the system failed. Some blame the judge. Who is right?The system didn’t fail. It worked as designed.
“The falsification of documents during the foreclosure crisis is prima facie evidence that banks were willing to ignore their duties in pursuit of income. ”
Yeah, but to what extent is that the cause? And again we have moral hazard issues. But what you need to remember is that fraud did not suddenly come in to existence recently. Unless you want to blame the rise of nihilism or something how can fraud / risk management not be part of the risk calculations and policies? Part of the policy objective was to “be nice” so that applicants would be “more honest?”
It’s very naive thinking. It just seems like a convoluted narrative that in the end goes back to blame “capitalism.’ Because “capitalism” is messy and not Utopian. Yes. I know. You’ve either got to blame “humanity” or “Americans” or just blame “capitalism” which really means blaming private property rights.
“Those problems arose as a result of the volume of mortgages being securitized; the mortgage documents were supposed to be transferred with the changes in ownership, and these companies were so eager to increase the volume of the transactions that they were unable or unwilling to commit the resources to properly execute them.”
So the government did “good stuff” and that brought out more “bad people.” Well that’s shocking. It sounds like this archaic private property paradigm has to be strongly revised. Oh, what should we do?
“Well, no. It’s isolating which policies incentivized which transactions.”
That’s almost right. Some times we call it cherry picking and deflection away from root causes.
Yes, you do, more often than “some times.”
It’s a special focus of mine. You’re in favor of “cherry picking?”
That question was an excellent demonstration of the real rhetorical purpose behind labeling.
Language is not Utopian. I’ll go along with that.
Generally speaking cherry-picking as a pejorative in an analytical context means inappropriately avoiding context and using isolated facts to draw erroneous or incomplete conclusions.
Yes, it does mean that. Very good.
What is your question? Why are you supporting this idea of “cherry picking” and then, from my POV, implying that I’m the “cherry picker” and you’re the “rectifier” when I’m the one trying to place facts in proper or rational context?
I think this is why people some times accuse you of being obtuse.
“I think this is why people some times accuse you of being obtuse.”
If by “this” you mean completely failing to follow the conversation, then I agree.
“Why are you supporting this idea of “cherry picking””
That’s your narrative and your posture. If you’re being sincere, then you’re the one being dense. If you’re not, I don’t really have the energy to play that sort of game – which, perhaps, is the extent of your intent.
OK then. One final point: The interventions affect the entire market on a dynamically unstable and persistent basis! Hey, that’s ok though. Social justice and stuff.
It’s not mendacious rhetorical cherry picking for me to describe unstable soil conditions if >you< only look at the spoiled cherries and blame the farmer for something you see because you don't want to deal with more important factors that are beyond your understanding.
But have it your way. It's a free country.
Good lord – did you say something about not being as smart as one believes? You really are struggling with this one, so let me help you.
OFM:” Some times we call it cherry picking…”
H: “Yes, you do, more often than “some times.””
[Read that carefully; it agrees that you ‘call it’ that. Think about it.]
OFM: “You’re in favor of “cherry picking?””
[note that your response is a non-sequitur; the response to which you respond doesn’t indicate that any such thing is favored, simply that you do, indeed, call it that.]
H: “That question was an excellent demonstration of the real rhetorical purpose behind labeling.”
[Your response indicated that your comment was intended to discredit, rather than analyze]
OFM: “Generally speaking cherry-picking as a pejorative in an analytical context means…”
H: “Yes, it does mean that.”
[You offered a gratuitous definition; it was acknowledged as correct.]
OFM: “Why are you supporting this idea of “cherry picking” and then, from my POV, implying that I’m the “cherry picker” and you’re the “rectifier” when I’m the one trying to place facts in proper or rational context?”
[Nobody has suggested that you are a cherry picker. What began as an observation that you ‘calling’ something cherry picking doesn’t make it so has now somehow become a counter-accusation. Such an argument wouldn’t be without merit, but it wasn’t advanced.]
You habitually accuse others of being unable to track conversations, but you’re not displaying a great deal of that skill yourself. Perhaps a bit of sleep is in order.
Because in your mind I’m just supposed to accept this without forcing you to articulate WTF you’re talking about:
hiernonymous objectivefactsmatter • 16 hours ago:
“Yes, you do, more often than “some times.”
So spit out your objections more clearly. No rational person expects others to read minds. You’re deliberately obtuse so that you can then complain about poor conversation tracking.
The term’s meaning (cherry picking) is very clear. You’re acting like a child.
“The term’s meaning (cherry picking) is very clear.”
Nobody has suggested otherwise. You’re acting like a moron.
You said “we call that cherry picking.”
I agree – you call it – that is, make the claim – frequently. Calling something cherry picking doesn’t make it so. The problem is not uncertainty about the definition, but the inappropriateness of the application.
“No rational person expects others to read minds.”
No, I expect you to read posts, not minds. It wasn’t a terribly difficult implication to follow.
Evidently you’re deluded about things you that you think you’ve made clear. It’s fascinating. Or you’re just full of crap trying to make a point.
Still interesting.
Some times you end up behaving like some of the folks Orwell warned us about. You have a tendency to get very upset about violating your rules on language. Rather than just arguing for another view, it actually upsets you when people don’t conform to your expectations.
No wonder you’re so worried about incitement. You seem overly-sensitive to that kind of effect.
“You have a tendency to get very upset …”
Oh.
“No, I expect you to read posts, not minds. It wasn’t a terribly difficult implication to follow.”
I should have just ignored it. But there was always a possibility that you were trying to make a relevant point. Now I know that you were not.
“I agree – you call it – that is, make the claim – frequently. Calling something cherry picking doesn’t make it so. The problem is not uncertainty about the definition, but the inappropriateness of the application.”
I explained why I used the term. Your objections and fussiness point to some kind of instability on your part or an agenda separate from discovering how all of the pieces of the puzzle fit in terms of macroeconomics and causes. You’re not going for illumination of the relevant facts and consensus based on rational analysis.
But that’s the problem with hostile interlocutors. Some times you just have to break out the fillet knife.
Anyway, if you support the interventions rationally, you must use “social justice” arguments that attack private property rights. That’s why so many people squirm and look for magic “win win” situations that don’t in fact exist.
I’m trying to expose these fundamental issues. If you’re for “social justice” interventions, support them with your eyes wide open and do it honestly.
“[Your response indicated that your comment was intended to discredit, rather than analyze]”
No it didn’t. That’s your reading. And it’s also deflection. You don’t like taking “rabbit trails” (which is a term you use) then you shouldn’t manufacture fake controversies to deflect while discussing complicated topics. If at all.
“[Your response indicated that your comment was intended to discredit, rather than analyze]”
And look how much effort it took for me to get you to actually articulate (and commit to) your false accusation.
“[Nobody has suggested that you are a cherry picker. What began as an observation that you ‘calling’ something cherry picking doesn’t make it so has now somehow become a counter-accusation. Such an argument wouldn’t be without merit, but it wasn’t advanced.]”
It’s pretty obvious that the guy that is pointing to fundamental causes and who accuses the other guy of fixating on proximate events only is not “cherry picking” or looking at a narrower data set. If that (excluding my explanations) is justified, go ahead and explain why you think so.
It’s almost like you don’t understand the relationships between the various changes. So you think that your narrow focus is more rational. And I upset the entire apple cart with the term “cherry picking?” When it wasn’t even the first, second or third time I pointed out the fallacies in your thinking?
Are you really clueless about how all of this fits together?
You are focused on proximate causes. I don’t deny proximate causes. I deny that the proximate causes that you cite are the ultimate cause. None of that could have happened with much simpler and easier to understand interventions that didn’t force banks to play around with credit risk and so forth.
Sure, in theory, you can come up with the magic mix of policies so that derivatives won’t be allowed to amplify toxicity in the way that they did. That’s just a distraction from the needed discussions we need to have about social justice interventions.
Flipping out because I rotated the term “cherry picking” in to the conversation is not productive.
And I have since given you URLs to a Thomas Sowell article that might make it easier for you to understand the other causes I’m trying to explain. For weeks now.
Here it is again:
http://www.nationalreview.Com/articles/227468/housing-boom-and-bust/thomas-sowell
And I only just read it today. He says many things that harmonize with what I’ve been saying for weeks.
If you want to understand more, you should pick up a copy:
http://www.amazon.Com/The-Housing-Boom-Bust-Revised/dp/0465019862
The guy is pretty smart. It doesn’t seem that hard to understand to me.
“And I upset the entire apple cart with the term “cherry picking?””
Why, no. Though it’s interesting that you think so.
“When it wasn’t even the first, second or third time I pointed out the fallacies in your thinking?”
It must be terribly frustrating when people don’t accept your arguments as correct the first three times. (I can only sympathize with the frustration you’re about to endure as it takes you five or six patient explanations before I realize that I didn’t find the adhan beautiful, after all.)
“Sure, in theory, you can come up with the magic mix of policies so that derivatives won’t be allowed to amplify toxicity in the way that they did. That’s just a distraction from the needed discussions we need to have about social justice interventions.”
No, it’s a distraction from the discussion you want to have about social justice interventions. Don’t get frustrated because the framework you want to impose on the topic isn’t universally accepted.
“The guy is pretty smart. It doesn’t seem that hard to understand to me.”
I don’t think anyone has accused Sowell of being stupid. He’s got a pretty strong bias, of course, and as it coincides with yours, it’s not hard to understand that you’d find the book sympathetic. I’ve read the Sowell article, thanks.
“It must be terribly frustrating when people don’t accept your arguments as correct the first three times.”
It’s one thing to demonstrate competence and understanding and then articulate your disagreement in a rational way, and another to just pivot away as if you have some undeclared reason for avoiding dealing with it directly.
“No, it’s a distraction from the discussion you want to have about social justice interventions. Don’t get frustrated because the framework you want to impose on the topic isn’t universally accepted.”
That’s what they are. It seems like you want to avoid that discussion for irrational reasons. The framework I try to impose is rational analysis. It’s not easy to do without some measure of cooperation.
“I don’t think anyone has accused Sowell of being stupid. He’s got a pretty strong bias, of course, and as it coincides with yours, it’s not hard to understand that you’d find the book sympathetic. I’ve read the Sowell article, thanks.”
That’s some nebulous dismissiveness that goes along with precisely the problems I’ve been complaining about. His “bias” is towards a methodical, rational and comprehensive analysis. This leads to the next series of questions regarding what you might dispute about his explanations. If you disagree with him you might find it helps your cause by actually explaining why.
Is he a “demagogue” or something because he also tries to make this comprehensive and rational analysis understandable at retail level?
” It seems like you want to avoid that discussion for irrational reasons.”
I think that you have a topical and conversational comfort zone and try to steer most conversations in that direction, and you get frustrated when others won’t ‘cooperate’ with that.
“His “bias” is towards a methodical, rational and comprehensive analysis.”
Oh, nonsense. That’s a bit like suggesting that Krugman’s only bias is toward rational and comprehensive analysis.
“If you disagree with him you might find it helps your cause by actually explaining why.”
My “cause” is no more or less than demonstrating that your certainty that CRA and related interventions were the primary cause of the subprime crisis is not a universally accepted explanation, and in fact represents a specifically conservative position. It’s not clear how citing a famously conservative writer who agrees with the CRA-as-cause model contradicts that argument, or requires any elaborate counterargument.
There is no question at all that without the CRA the banking crisis would not have happened. There might have been some other banking crisis, but without the CRA it would not have happened with these excessive quantities of toxic loan contracts. Without the forced changes in response to the CRA, it might have been OK.
——–>>>The point is to try to understand the implications of each change. The point is to recognize the actual risks of these kinds of ideas and demands. But never mind because guys like me are just selfish oppressors trying to stop social justice and stuff.
For others, the agenda is to salvage certain policies with the idea that the right mix of regulations is going to somehow lead to greater “justice” beyond how our Constitution defines this concept. So really we’re not even having the same conversation. Your agenda truly is different than mine.
“Oh, nonsense. That’s a bit like suggesting that Krugman’s only bias is toward rational and comprehensive analysis.”
Krugman and others are biased towards magic solutions and experimentation, thinking that progress is innate to passage of time if you just keep trying “scientific” things and they don’t really understand what science is versus speculation and agenda driven analysis. If you’re stuck in the middle not really understanding the issues I guess I can see why you consider them all biased because you don’t really know how to identify when they’re talking about complicated but verifiable formulas versus plain old speculation that can often be debunked because they’re not including factors known to easily refute their suggestions.
At this point this is just useless argument because you don’t want to spend the time or energy proving it one way or another. And this is not a forum that I can use to force you to acknowledge anything. There are probably other more useful things I can do with my time anyway.
“Oh, nonsense. That’s a bit like suggesting that Krugman’s only bias is toward rational and comprehensive analysis.”
You’re willing to refer to a guy as “biased” on the basis of your disbelief that you don’t even understand. That’s just lame. It’s sad.
Krugman’s popular too, so they must both have biases because there really is no such thing as objective reality. That’s really smart. Truth is when everyone agrees. Like when 97% of all scientists believe we need international socialism to keep the planet from melting this summer. Or political correctness. PC is “unbias.”
Got it!
“Got it!”
You say that far more often than you demonstrate it.
If you don’t recognize that Sowell and Krugman both have some very strong biases, and that both write to influence, rather than simply to analyze or inform, then you don’t read or think as critically as you pretend. Not my problem.
Everyone can be characterized as biased. Of course anyone can have a view different than your own. The point is that you hypocritically used a (subtle) pejorative term without qualifying it in any useful way.
If I say this car is “biased,” what use is that? If I say it pulls to the right at speeds above 35 MPH then we can look at suspension damage, tire wear and so forth.
So Sowell is biased. Great. That’s just deflection.
“If you don’t recognize that Sowell and Krugman both have some very strong biases, and that both write to influence, rather than simply to analyze or inform, then you don’t read or think as critically as you pretend. Not my problem.”
You mean when they write columns they’re “biased” in selling their own view? Well, yeah. The columns are not their actual work. The columns are not even primers really. I just don’t know what you really expect to figure out if you’re not willing to spend the time investigating. They’re callings are at best a low resolution map of their thinking. Just a starting point.
Is it your point that Krugman and his ilk have “valid” views because it’s hard to isolate and expose their fallacies? I know that! They’re valid in the sense that they are popular. When it comes to policies at a high level, especially at federal level in the world’s largest (maybe) national economy…we should try to do better. We should try to isolate and expose fallacies rather than blindly supporting (or coopting) populism and pandering to it.
I’m not against “the little guy” at all. I’m against the liars that try to coopt their interests.
The best analogy I can think of is that Krugman and others think that it’s OK to learn to fly and use experimental ideas without learning how to land because if you’re really good and really positive about it you won’t have to worry about landing. If you crash, you blame the subcontractors and so forth to draw attention from the fact that you never even considered that flying something means you will eventually have to land it.
But future interventions can always fix it, evolution determines that we’ll be smarter, it’s “selfish” or “negative thinking” that causes those biased conservatives to worry so much about all of the forces of nature and assume that what goes up must come down at some point.
Being conservative means learning all of the lessons of history and moving away from that towards “progressive” politics, especially in economics, means havign “faith” that change will always drive progress and that if ideas seem risky, it’s OK because evolution will always enable us to solve problems. Never mind the crashes along the way.
So, OK. Crashes are no problem. Stop deflecting when you phuck things up and then I won’t mind as much. Take the hit like an adult. The thing that you miss is that these risks and events were predicted by the conservatives and denied by the progressives – even after they happened.
So that’s a factor I think. Never mind that Sowell is biased. He’s also correct. He doesn’t play with magic, so it’s easier for him to be correct.
“Being conservative means learning all of the lessons of history”
No, that’s not what “conservative” means. If you want a one liner, a better summary would be ‘defender of the status quo’ or ‘resistant to change.’ That’s not pejorative – there’s value in both – but no particular point of view has a special claim to learning the lessons of history.
“So that’s a factor I think. Never mind that Sowell is biased. He’s also correct. He doesn’t play with magic, so it’s easier for him to be correct.”
Thank you. That wasn’t so hard, was it? That’s what I said in the first place. His point of view aligns with yours, so of course you are going to think of him as ‘correct.’
Suggesting that one read Sowell on this topic is like recommending Behe as a primer for evolution. He’s an active participant in the controversy. He’d be useful only if one didn’t understand the position he supported in the controversy. That’s not the case here; Sowell’s position has been made abundantly clear.
As far as your various comments on Krugman go, well, he’s a Nobel-winning economist who made the top of the survey of economics professors as the single most respected living economist under age 60, a survey on which Sowell did not turn up on any category (it was entirely write-in, so that wasn’t a result of surveyor bias). Plainly, those in the field of economics don’t dismiss Krugman as a crank or magician. That both Keynes and Hayek appear on the list of 20th Century economists suggests that their political biases are not so strong as to lead them to dismiss important figures simply for their politics. That said, I think your reaction rather nicely illustrates my point: Krugman is brilliant, but you are hardly likely to accept him if presented as a good source of basic ‘education’ on the underlying principles of the crisis – nor would I ask you to.
Time is (obviously)short this week, so I’ll read your response with interest (if you can limit yourself to one!), and I’ll respond if you introduce any new and interesting ideas.
“No, that’s not what “conservative” means. If you want a one liner, a better summary would be ‘defender of the status quo’ or ‘resistant to change.’ That’s not pejorative – there’s value in both – but no particular point of view has a special claim to learning the lessons of history.”
It’s what conservative means in America. Anyone can go post the etymology. Obviously the root word is conserve. It’s not that you’re wrong but that you’re offering a critical view from the outside.
It’s not that you’re wrong, but you don’t understand why the status quo is defended when it is and why change for the sake of change is resisted. Conservatives are not resistant to all change nor do they try to preserve every aspect of the status quo. They want evidence. Evidence comes largely from history when answering political questions. We don’t assemble Congress around realtime experiments while voting live on bills.
“Suggesting that one read Sowell on this topic is like recommending Behe as a primer for evolution. He’s an active participant in the controversy. He’d be useful only if one didn’t understand the position he supported in the controversy. That’s not the case here; Sowell’s position has been made abundantly clear.”
So basically everyone that warned you about the bubble is disqualified from comment without being accused of bias. What about the numbnuts who said no problem until after it was too late? Why are they more credible because they got it wrong and suddenly had to find unexpected illicit behavior? Your judgment is highly suspect here.
“As far as your various comments on Krugman go, well, he’s a Nobel-winning economist who made the top of the survey of economics professors as the single most respected living economist under age 60, a survey on which Sowell did not turn up on any category (it was entirely write-in, so that wasn’t a result of surveyor bias).”
And our current president is probably the expert on peace by your reasoning. Krugman is a salesman. He’s selling fantasy. I guess people that want to hear that kind of thing think that he’s really impressive. Telling you the truth over and over gets dull. Not as sexy.
But if you’re super impressed by institutions and have to weigh opinions solely on that…that’s just how it goes.
“That both Keynes and Hayek appear on the list of 20th Century economists suggests that their political biases are not so strong as to lead them to dismiss important figures simply for their politics. That said, I think your reaction rather nicely illustrates my point: Krugman is brilliant, but you are hardly likely to accept him if presented as a good source of basic ‘education’ on the underlying principles of the crisis – nor would I ask you to.”
Keynes was a non-Marxist Marxist. He thought he was a lot smarter. And he was. But still didn’t quite get it. His ideas have been discredited but his theories are interesting. The truth is that Keynes had some useful ideas as a starting point to learn more from history. He helped organize some of this top down way of looking at macroeconomics. But he was for the most part wrong because his approach was too simple.
There are lots of people that hope that some technology or set of technology will help the Keynes or Marx vision of central planning somehow work the way that modern jet fighter is controlled by community even though aerodynamically the planes are “dynamically unstable.” Well, it’s not like that. It’s like trying to run a program that anticipates every dogfight the pilot will get in to and then allow a computer to replace him. Computers can be used to make massive calculations in virtual real time. Reading the future and reading the minds of others is way beyond what is feasible. We can create models that are still flawed by our inability to control for unknowns, not the least of which, especially in macroeconomics, is human behavior.
My sense is that you don’t even understand what Keynes’s foundational theories were. That’s why you think this modern leftist economists are Keynesian just because they don’t want to acknowledge they’re really Marxists. If you understood Keynes, you’d understand what Krugman is and what he isn’t.
The real question is why it’s a battle over names? I simply offered you an article and a book by a respected (and non-delusional) economist that explained the topic. And what he said does not really conflict with other findings. He puts it all in to greater perspective. That’s what economists are supposed to do.
Krugman is a salesman. He can’t offer you a single rational reason to ignore what Sowell has to say. Certainly not the data that Sowell uses. I think it’s lame that you took this path rather than to surrender and admit that it’s beyond the scope of your understanding but you trust the “Keynesian” because some institutions you like also like him. The truth sounds lame when laid out that way. But it’s still better to face it than to run.
“Time is (obviously)short this week, so I’ll read your response with interest (if you can limit yourself to one!), and I’ll respond if you introduce any new and interesting ideas.”
If you truly are interested in an online bit by bit primer of the issues so that you can make up your own mind I’ll explain Keynes for you. His work was important, but perhaps for different reasons than you realize. I don’t know of any truly Keynesian economists. Actually some conservative economists will offer some of the same advice when it’s valid, not because it’s Keynesian. But his approaches are risky. And if you don’t communicate those risks…that doesn’t seem Keynesian either. It seems like even Keynes would have learned a lot more from his own ideas if he’d have lived longer.
This really should not have been so controversial. If you read Sowell you’ll understand the “Keynesian” approach a lot better. You might still believe in some interventions. I think even Sowell says “it’s not up to me” kind of thing. Maybe I’m projecting a little. But what Sowell and other conservative economists do is lay it out straight and explain the risks and the problems. It’s best to be exposed to both sides.
“It’s not clear how citing a famously conservative writer who agrees with the CRA-as-cause model contradicts that argument, or requires any elaborate counterargument.”
Some basic knowledge of classic economics is required. If you’re not picking at up as we go then you need to do your own study. Or perhaps you really are not interested in trying to understand opposing views.
“Some basic knowledge of classic economics is required”
Sure. And I got mine the old-fashioned way. I completely understand your posture, and appreciate it as an indispesible component of your posting style, but it’s pretty silly to try to sell a partisan advocate as a source of basic economics education.
And, of course, your comment doesn’t actually respond to the substantive point. Citing a famously conservative author who sees CRA as relevant would serve well as a response to an argument along the lines of ‘no credible economist thinks X,’ but that was quite explicitly not the contention.
“Sure. And I got mine the old-fashioned way. I completely understand your posture, and appreciate it as an indispesible component of your posting style, but it’s pretty silly to try to sell a partisan advocate as a source of basic economics education.”
Who in your mind is nonpartisan?
“And, of course, your comment doesn’t actually respond to the substantive point. Citing a famously conservative author who sees CRA as relevant would serve well as a response to an argument along the lines of ‘no credible economist thinks X,’ but that was quite explicitly not the contention.”
This is not true. The article was not evidence. The article gave you a very simple overview. The guy has published dozens of books, including one that was used to pull excerpts for that column. The article I cited gave you an introduction to his research on the very topic we were discussing with great specificity.
http://www.amazon.Com/The-Housing-Boom-Bust-Revised/dp/0465019862
And by the way, your arguments and citations are useful in understanding “root” causes of the derivatives crisis, not the housing crisis. Let’s just consider unstable housing prices as the acceptable cost of interventions (or at least as an unrelated discussion) and figure out how we can make things safer for the banks that are following the law. If all you care about is preserving the interests of banks and certain politicians it makes sense to look only at that. If you care about how the consumers fare, you really should look at the greater scope of what is going on.
“I think that you have a topical and conversational comfort zone and try to steer most conversations in that direction, and you get frustrated when others won’t ‘cooperate’ with that.”
That’s an interesting way of looking at it. It projects your own values for being “comfortable” rather than looking for useful and verifiable information.
It seems like you often forget why people come here because your own motives are different.
“Oh, nonsense. That’s a bit like suggesting that Krugman’s only bias is toward rational and comprehensive analysis.”
This really makes me laugh. For one thing, it is you that failed to qualify your pejorative use of “bias.” I’m not sensitive about any particular word. But when you use derogatory language (which can always be acceptable if supported) with zero substance to back it up, especially coming from a guy that seems to rail on others with that accusation…it just makes me wonder where you think you’re coming from.
For another thing, it also reveals just how little you understand the controversies in various economic approaches. I know this seems weird to you, but it really is not the Marxists that are rigorously scientific. Keynes tried to be rigorous in his experimental theories but that was many decades ago. Most Keynesian economists are simply trying to ride the wave of credibility that Keynes once had. Decades ago.
If you want to promote these interventions you have to do it with rational arguments. But doing that won’t make you popular. Anywhere. It will make you “biased” towards rigorous and balanced analysis. And that would make you “conservative.”
I’ve even bent over backwards clearly indicating that if there are rational arguments for interventions that I have no philosophical objections. But because people are unwilling to lose their beliefs in magic, they don’t want to stick with rigorous analysis. if you deny the magic, certain political and social factions will run you out of town on a rail with tar and feathers for keeping you warm. It’s “negative thinking” and “selfish conservatism” driven by a desire to “preserve the status quo” and “maintain the oligarchy.” The entire point of conservative, free market economic models is to preserve the meritocracy via the dynamic upward mobility opportunities created by free markets that also police potential power imbalances that might rationally lead to stagnation of upward mobility, like labor laws, again, created rationally, antitrust laws and so forth.
But…whatever, man.
Krugman is a politician that has some facility with modern economic theories.
“I don’t really have the energy to play that sort of game – which, perhaps, is the extent of your intent.”
I don’t recall coming to you and asking for your counsel on the effects of malice or incompetence in the banking crisis. Those are interesting topics in their place but from my perspective it’s you causing problems here.
I’m trying to help. You don’t want my help. You want to “win” with our preselected, dogmatic views because of your heavy reliance on institutions and your weak ability to criticize official institutional views.
Perhaps, just as a guess, you don’t understand what an economic “bubble” is. The bubble would have been exacerbated by fraud, because those are additional “illegitimate” transactions. Fraud has always been a known problem. You can’t blame ordinary levels of fraud when your plans go awry unless you’re out to get justice and enforce the law. That’s good. But trying to point to “fraud” as an explanation that avoids looking at the underlying problems of far greater scope would be “cherry picking.”
You also mentioned something to the effect that these interventions led to higher levels of fraud and more economic activity. No kidding. That’s the point.
And furthermore, this lowering of creditworthiness standards also contributed to “fraud” because other than saying that rational risk calculations were unlawfully bigoted, there were no new rational guidelines to replace it. There were “pressures” to take higher risks. The programs some times did specify and support very low down payments for example. That affects price and drives “bad” speculators in. The programs also forced offering loans in high risk “red lined” areas.
You’re being deliberately argumentative and / or you’re not tracking well how these pieces fit together in reality. And by the way, that’s also a point to remember because few retail banking clients understand any of this either. Therefore they simply follow the trends and miss the “go slow” signs until we have panics and huge swings in selling patterns and price crashes are exacerbated. These chains of complex interventions make it difficult to assess risk and track what is likely to happen. Even for the highly educated and experienced experts that understand derivatives. Even they can only speculate what might happen in the markets organically, what the government will do to keep the bubble rising, and how it will ensure that there is a soft landing.
It’s so easy to look back and fixate on certain unsavory characters (according to pop culture), like defense lawyers or “banksters” when you don’t have the patience to go in and understand complicated things that play out over the course of many decades.
It’s also easy to fixate on some proximate (versus ultimate) cause(s) in order to distract from the ill-advised government policies if you simply want to defend the state’s right to intervene when it wants. This is a destruction of private property rights. This is shifting sovereignty of private property in to the hands of government beyond Constitutional taxation.
“But trying to point to “fraud” as an explanation that avoids looking at the underlying problems of far greater scope would be “cherry picking.””
Good thing nobody’s doing that. At issue is what policy contributed to the shift in behavior, and there’s more than one candidate. You have one you favor; there’s a great deal of disagreement. My intervention, so to speak, was to point out that you’re taking as a given something that’s still quite controversial. The subprime crisis correlates with two sets of legislation, and it correlates temporally more closely with the relaxation of restrictions on institutional activities than it does with CRA.
The introduction of ‘fraud’ into the conversation, if you’ll track a bit more carefully than you’ve done to date, was not to suggest that fraud was at the root of the subprime crisis, but that a specific contention you’d made about the essential appropriateness of the lines of behavior exhibited within the industry was highly questionable.
“It’s so easy to look back and fixate on certain unsavory characters (according to pop culture), like defense lawyers or “banksters” when you don’t have the patience to go in and understand complicated things that play out over the course of many decades.”
Again, it’s a good thing I haven’t done that. And, frankly, some folks with stronger backgrounds than yours disagree pretty strongly with you, so don’t overplay the condescension card. You might consider reading the report available at this link.
It’s a pretty damning and thorough workup that notes, among other factors, that there have been three periods in U.S. economic history when mortgage securitization has been attempted, and each time it collapsed. Professor Simkovic suggests that it was competition among mortgage securitizers for loans that was the proximate cause of the crisis. Beginning at p. 257, he evaluates government policies and pressures, including the CRA specifically, and comes to the opposite conclusion that you have. Presumably, he had the patience to go in and understand complicated things that play out over the course of many decades, as he’s taken the time to track similar prior events to the 19th century. (One might hope that this would discourage you from your reliance on posturing, but we both know that I’m not an optimist when it comes to human nature.)
“It’s also easy to fixate on some proximate (versus ultimate) cause(s) in order to distract from the ill-advised government policies if you simply want to defend the state’s right to intervene when it wants.”
Well, yes, you make it obvious that it’s easy to fixate on a particular cause in order to advance a particular point of view.
“The subprime crisis correlates with two sets of legislation, and it correlates temporally more closely with the relaxation of restrictions on institutional activities than it does with CRA.”
Perhaps you don’t understand that the relaxation was based on “entitlement” or “rights” claims for excluded classes of people to participate. This is, yet again, you not understanding the implications of slippery slopes in legislation and case law.
And on top of that, I’m not trying to pin it all on the CRA particularly, which was just another intervention layered on to previous ones. IOW, we keep messing with the proverbial soil and environmental factors and when things go wrong we look more at proximate causes than a more rational and comprehensive view that would lead to questioning the propriety of these complex interventions in the first place.
The funny thing is I don’t mind interventions that are clear and easy to see when there is broad consensus to do so. But political realities make these “social justice” interventions complex and therefore more dangerous in the effects on pricing, which therefore leads to speculators and “bubbles” bursting. And for this reason I argue strongly against interventions except when there are very strong rational reasons for them. I’m not so delusional that I think it’s possible to have a huge, powerful nation with absolute “hands off” economic policies. I’m just realistic about the effects and the need to keep things simple and rational.
“Beginning at p. 257, he evaluates government policies and pressures, including the CRA specifically, and comes to the opposite conclusion that you have.”
I’ll take a look but I’m not convinced that you understand my conclusions at all.
“Well, yes, you make it obvious that it’s easy to fixate on a particular cause in order to advance a particular point of view.”
My “fixation” is to look at the entire history of banking interventions. Whereas you focus on local proximate causes and an apparent misunderstanding of my assertions.
Competition and Crisis in Mortgage Securitization
Michael Simkovic
Fordham University School of Law; Seton Hall Law School; Harvard Law School – John M. Olin Center for Law and Economics
October 8, 2011
Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 88, p.213, (2013)
Abstract:
U.S. policymakers often treat market competition as a panacea.
> Holy cow! Start your abstract with a straw man. Nicely done.
However, in the case of mortgage securitization, policymakers’ faith in competition is misplaced.
> I’m listening…
Competitive mortgage securitization has been tried three times in U.S. history – during the 1880s, the 1920s, and the 2000s – and every time it has failed.
> This is an argument that basically is going in exactly the direction I mentioned before. Once you regulate something and problems happen, you can either question entirely whether it’s a good idea to intervene, or just assume that problems are caused by not having enough regulations. This is a natural force in politics that drives many slippery slope movements. You can’t go back up the hill, can you? No way! Blasphemer!
What I’m saying is that rather than just assume that “progress” means always going forward, always “fine tuning” to preserve the good (of failed policies) some times you have to look at possibly returning back “up the slope” by backing away from the interventions rather than only looking “forward” (or down the slope) to see how more interventions and “better” regulations can really save the programs. No way does anyone regard “hands off” as a universal problem solver.
Most recently, competition between mortgage securitizers led to a race to the bottom on mortgage underwriting standards that ended in the late 2000s financial crisis.
>Well, it was not an unregulated market. It was a “race to the bottom” because of moral hazard problems already in place. I described that earlier.
This article provides original evidence that when competition was less intense and securitizers had more market power, securitizers acted to monitor mortgage originators and to maintain prudent underwriting.
>Sure. That’s normal.
However, securitizers’ ability to monitor originators and maintain high standards was undermined as competition shifted market power away from securitizers and toward originators. Although standards declined across the market, the largest and most powerful of the mortgage securitizers, the Government Sponsored Enterprises (“GSEs”), remained more successful than other mortgage securitizers at maintaining prudent underwriting. This article proposes reforms based on lessons from the recent financial crisis: merge the GSEs with various government agencies’ mortgage operations to create a single dedicated mortgage securitization agency that would seek to maintain market stability, improve underwriting, and provide a long term investment return for the benefit of taxpayers.
>I don’t disagree. Furthermore, although it discusses things from views we have not discussed here, my views are not actually in conflict with anything in the abstract. I think I even mentioned this last year some time. It makes sense to argue for better regulations in derivatives markets if the other interventions and policies are “sacred cows.” See, for political reasons, we might be a secular republic but we do in reality have quite a few taboos and sacred cows. Unofficially of course. I’m not afraid to “blaspheme.”
Read what Sowell has to say if you want to understand more or less what I’m getting at.
http://www.nationalreview.Com/articles/227468/housing-boom-and-bust/thomas-sowell
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is adapted from Thomas Sowell’s new book, The Housing Boom and Bust.
Let us go back to square one to consider the empirical consequences of policies in the housing market. Politicians in Washington set out to solve a national problem that did not exist — a nationwide shortage of “affordable housing” — and have now left us with a problem whose existence is as undeniable as it is painful. When the political crusade for affordable housing took off and built up steam during the 1990s, the share of their incomes that Americans were spending on housing in 1998 was 17 percent, compared to 30 percent in the early 1980s. Even during the housing boom of 2005, the median home took just 22 percent of the median American income.
What created the illusion of a nationwide problem was that, in particular localities around the country, housing prices had skyrocketed to the point where people had to pay half their income to buy a modest-sized home and often resorted to very risky ways of financing the purchase. In Tucson, for example, “roughly 60% of first-time home buyers make no down payment and instead now use 100% financing to get into the market,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Almost invariably, these locally extreme housing prices have been a result of local political crusades in the name of locally attractive slogans about the environment, open space, “smart growth,” or whatever other phrases had political resonance at the particular time and place
Follow the URL to finish the online article and or read the book:
http://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/The_Housing_Boom_and_Bust
http://www.amazon.Com/The-Housing-Boom-Bust-Revised/dp/0465019862
Labeling is rarely a problem in cooperative discourse.
“You and I have a different assessment of your ‘test.'”
Of course. Because your reaction is visceral and you don’t want to accept the possibility that you have your own flaws in your impatient and myopic approach to challenging the testing procedures.
You know, I gave you an URL to a ~3 hour video of a lecture / book (video presentation) that follows this kind of analytical form using a (obviously far) more nuanced approach. You declined to look at it because the author was “Randian” or something like that. So you blame me because you’re not really that interested in understanding how others think. You are not comfortable wandering off the intellectual reservation.
You don’t even need to watch the whole thing. It was a segmented analysis of our German Socialist friends. The conversation we were having at the time was whether Nazism could rationally be considered more to the political right than the left. I simply took the position that if you feel the need to put it on some universal spectrum of left versus right politics that fascism is to the right of communism, not right of center. They hated the communists in part because they had to distinguish themselves and justify their overt nationalism versus the international goals of the communists and their covert nationalism / imperialism.
Anyway, it’s all interesting stuff. But if you’re not tracking the conversations well over time and you’re totally unfamiliar with this kind of analysis it’s easier to just blame people that you intuitively disagree with. If you don’t understand a formula, the formula must be flawed. That’s the kind of thinking that prevents productive discourse between contending groups.
“If you don’t understand a formula, the formula must be flawed.”
It’s your argument to make. “Watch this 3 hour video” isn’t an argument. I judge “the formula” by what you present. So far, it’s remarkably vague.
Skeptics can always win that way.
Nah, you can wear the skeptic down by haranguing him until he gets too exasperated to keep arguing.
Skepticism is good if well-directed. Skepticism is bad if it’s just a kind of rhetorical tool or defense shield. I definitely try to wear down defenses when people are attacking productive (from my POV) discourse.
…or too bored.
Sure, that too.
I’m sorry about that. YMMV. If you want to discover more and become a more informed voter I suggest you spend the time. If not, throw in the…group that you find most persuasive.
Thank you for posting that report, hieronymous.
(I realized I write your BB handle incorrectly. It’s because I like hieronymous bosch’s paintings so much. I’ve got your BB handle typed before I can make myself add the extra ‘n.’)
Please, be my guest and preserve it. I don’t have a problem w/recognizing the role the private sector played in the housing bubble in buying securitized debt. I also don’t have a problem w/recognizing what role individual homeowners had in thinking they’d come upon a golden goose when encouraged by unscrupulous realtors. And, god forbid, we all forget what role the financial sector had in expanding the mortgage securities market or what role it had in spreading this American financial contagion around the world.
Oy vey. The private sector is subject to the interventions. Of course “the private sector” played a role. Sheesh.
“And, god forbid, we all forget what role the financial sector had in expanding the mortgage securities market or what role it had in spreading this American financial contagion around the world.”
Oh Lord. “Capitalists” build it, you destroy it, and then you blame the capitalists, because, supposedly, the markets are too free or capitalists are greedy or something.
Circular reasoning: Capitalists are by definition greedy. It must have been the greed. It was the fault of the capitalists! The rest of what you have is just about narratives that you don’t even understand.
How could I possibly be on the side of bad ethics when I’ve said those realtors and bankers exhibited TERRIBLE ETHICS? Sorry, buster, you’re barking up the wrong flagpole.
You apologize and cover up for the policies that created these “unethical” choices. And not only that, you’re so…unaware of reality that you think those transactions can be viewed as “unethical” in retrospect. If those transactions did indeed set people up for life, and many of them did (maybe even most), how can you now…ahem…cherry pick and look at the losers in retrospect and say that those were unethical transactions while at the same time you’re not denouncing “unethical” choices where it happened to work at and create this upward mobility that the policies intended to create? The entire reason for the policy is to stimulate upward mobility in spite of these targeted people being in a state that would make it normally “unethical” to lend to them.
Get it? The polices are to intended to modify the “ethics” in order to re-engineer our economic demographics and use principles of deterministic materialism for social justice. When that fails, you blame…who? You can’t have one without the other by shifting blame. You can try. That’s what makes you a neo-Marxist dupe.
It’s not like the banks are forced to be “smarter” or more “just” on an individual basis. The problem is that they were being smart. And this was “unjust” because of the principles of historical materialism. You can’t have it both ways. Really. And maybe here you will understand why Marxism is so ultimately futile and it must be refuted and purged. Because you create these conundrums where “justice” is served by doing “smart” injustice. By doing stupid things that are proved to be only useful for taking a look at history but NOT for planning any future outcomes. And given that the whole thrust of Marxism is that it’s about enabling smarter planning, you should be able to find the problem here.
Read Adam Smith, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. If you want to go in chronological order, go with Smith, Hayek, Friedman and then Sowell. Sowell is the only guy still alive today among those 4 greats.
Oh, I’m glad you’re finally admitting that there were “UNETHICAL CHOICES” made by other than the homeowners. I don’t know about you, but all the realtors I know can pretty much tell where someone ranks on the socioeconomic scale just by a cursory glance at their clothing and their car. As for this policy effort being meant to “set someone up for life,” no, I don’t think that buying a little shotgun shack or a tiny ranch is going to “set anyone up for life”. That is the level of homeownership the program was meant to facilitate, and if the realtors and the banks hadn’t pushed the program in another direction entirely, that’s what those folks would be living in today.
As for “smarter planning,” yes, there was certainly some “smarter planning” going on during this period. Oh, my mistake, I should have typed “SMARTER PLAYING” going on during this period and it wasn’t just playing being done by those seeking homeownership. I certainly agree it was a program meant to facilitate homeownership by a demographic that wasn’t in the homeownership game previously. But homeownership was something within their grasp if they had remained purchasing the lowest tiers of homes. Would there still have been a housing bubble bust? Likely, there always is a periodic bust. But it would not have had NEARLY THE RAMIFICATIONS that this one did because this was coupled w/the slowdown of the entire U.S. economy and many layoffs of middle-class homeowners who could no longer afford their homes. This was, in other words, the PERFECT FINANCIAL STORM that rocked everyone’s boats even those who’d never had their boats rocked before. So, the sub-prime mortgage crisis might have triggered the sequential crisis but the fact the U.S. had allowed itself to permit sub-prime mortgage securities to play any kind of serious financial role in the American economy is the fault of cynical investment companies that designed the bundling of sub-prime mortgages in order to find themselves driving a new investment vehicle. Ethics will out.
http://fisher.osu.edu/supplements/10/10402/financial-derivatives-lessons-from-the-subprime-crisis.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security
You do rattle on. You’re not making any more sense than before. These are just circular rants of yours.
Talk about circular rants! You cannot remain free of particular rants. You insist on throwing in Marxism and Communism into every discussion as if you’re on auto-pilot. Oh, you are on auto-pilot.
Well, there’s some truth to that. I can do what I want, but I am on autopilot with you because you’re unable to learn. And pretty much everyone else likely to read the comments at this point has already heard what I have to say on these topics.
This is just amazing:
“I don’t know about you, but all the realtors I know can pretty much tell where someone ranks on the socioeconomic scale just by a cursory glance at their clothing and their car.”
I bought my first Rolex, a Submariner Day Date, when I was 20. I stopped wearing it because of idiots like you. I liked it because it’s an amazing, strong steel watch. Great design.
But jackasses like you ruin the pleasures of wearing a fine watch. I gave it to my dad. He’s a “liberal” leftist. He loves wearing it.
Hahahaha, what a touching story! You’re saying that now that you’ve stripped yourself of your watch you’re no longer identifiable as the haute demographic that you claim?
I didn’t buy it to be stereotyped. Idiot. I know you can’t understand that. For you a brand is only about identity. But those watches are excellent and have an interesting place in history.
Of course you didn’t “buy the watch to be stereotyped”, however, such paraphernalia is often the indicator of substantial wealth. You’re going to pretend otherwise? Certainly, if those poor non-homeowners had come into a realtor’s office bedecked w/Rolex watches and fur coats, there would have been some evidence of them being able to buy their $350,000 homes that the realtors and the bankers said they could afford. Why would you be such a nitwit to say I’m only interested in brands for brands sake? I’ve got a dive watch that I wouldn’t want to rely on if it were another brand. Stop it w/your stupid slurs. Sheesh.
What you are pretending is that wealth isn’t blatantly displayed and that those realtors and mortgage bankers should have recognized those homebuyers couldn’t afford what they were being persuaded to buy by those very same realtors and mortgage bankers. But since it was often the realtors and mortgage bankers who were encouraging these lower-tier homebuyers to go upscale, often w/encouraging remarks about the unlikelihood of ARMs going up for X-number of years, it didn’t matter what those families could **reasonably afford.** Because, guess what, it didn’t matter to the banks. Why? Because the banks considered that they’d be making money coming and going — from the original sale and then from the bank foreclosure. Trouble is, the economic downturn was sooooo huge and lasted for so long it didn’t just hit the housing market, it hit the entire economy so even homeowners who were initially fine were often eventually swamped if one of the breadwinners lost their job.
“Of course you didn’t “buy the watch to be stereotyped”, however, such paraphernalia is often the indicator of substantial wealth. You’re going to pretend otherwise? ”
It’s unprofessional to give it any consideration at all. Period. And it might be unlawful in some cases if your judgment leads to any harm coming to anyone because of your stupidity. You think scammers don’t know about retarded people like you?
OMG. You…are very naive. Whatever “professional” that advised you this is a thing is correct that it’s a thing – but it’s unprofessional and potentially illegal.
It’s UNPROFESSIONAL to NOT GIVE WEALTH A GANDER when you’re allowing someone to buy a $350,000 house. You’re supposed to check the BONA FIDES of any prospective homeowner, NOT COACH THEM on how to lie and falsify responses on their applications! I’m not saying glancing at their car or their clothes or their jewelry is the definitive assessment of their wealth status but it’s definitely part of the realty profession just as DEEPER CHECKING on the wealth/credit status of prospective clients is required before anything is agreed upon and then signed. OMG, you are…. VERY NAIVE. No, I’d change that to you’re unable to explain the housing crisis by assessing the RELEVANT BLAME AS IT ATTACHES TO ALL ROLES in this debacle. Good luck carrying on w/your lies and obfuscation.
Americana an hour ago: “It’s UNPROFESSIONAL to NOT GIVE WEALTH A GANDER when you’re allowing someone to buy a $350,000 house.”
Sorry, you’ve been “gonged.” Stop fighting with the stage hook!
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
Once again, there were an awful lot of US Attorneys whose workloads revolved around mortgage fraud of various kinds.
And again:
objectivefactsmatter a few seconds ago
Retard,
The banks crashed. Got it? The fault is in the policies. That’s not a defense of normal human behavior when laws are violated, especially laws that go unenforced with a wink and a nod.
Like I said earlier, if law and order failed, we need to get back to fundamentals before implementing complex home loan and banking interventions.
Give it up. Your spin has been spun. You’re just an empty spool. Nobody is buying what you’re selling. Exit the state. Clown.
There wasn’t any “complex home loan and banking interventions.” It was a very straightforward request by the government for realtors and mortgage originators to help enable homeownership among a demographic that wasn’t represented in the market. That’s hardly a yahooooo call for setting these people up w/ARMs mortgages they couldn’t tackle.
Talking about spin and who’s spun out in this discussion. It’s you, buddy.
“It was a very straightforward request by the government for realtors and mortgage originators to help enable homeownership among a demographic that wasn’t represented in the market. ”
You have no clue WTF you’re talking about. No clue at all.
Hahaha, I doubt you could identify what an intervention is if it you smacked you right between the eyes.
That makes a lot of sense. And it’s complete project since I haven’t talk about much else.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago
“Hahaha, I doubt you could identify what an intervention is if it you smacked you right between the eyes.”
Intervention! Intervention!
Your unhinged spamming has gone on long enough. Knock it off.
You’re like an annoying 3-year old that won’t go away. If you were my kid you’d never be allowed to behave this way – but I don’t know where your parents are.
Oh, isn’t this cute. You’re attempting to deflect the common sense and facts in my posts by claiming that I’m immature. What a card sharp you are. NOT. You’re an annoyance who knows he should shut up but just can’t manage it.
So you’re going to stick with this idea that you really think you know what you’re talking about.
I’ve had others supply equally damning evidence of just what collusion there was amongst realtors and mortgage bankers and then in the investment banking field. Yup, I’m good.
You’re too stupid to realize that evidence of “the human condition” doesn’t refute anything that I’ve said.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago:
“Oh, isn’t this cute. You’re attempting to deflect the common sense and facts in my posts by claiming that I’m immature. What a card sharp you are. NOT. You’re an annoyance who knows he should shut up but just can’t manage it.”
Yep, immaturity or cheap shots. One or the other.
“There wasn’t any “complex home loan and banking interventions.” It was a very straightforward request by the government for realtors and mortgage originators to help enable homeownership among a demographic that wasn’t represented in the market. That’s hardly a yahooooo call for setting these people up w/ARMs mortgages they couldn’t tackle. Talking about spin and who’s spun out in this discussion. It’s you, buddy.”
http://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago
“There wasn’t any “complex home loan and banking interventions.” It was a very straightforward request by the government for realtors and mortgage originators to help enable homeownership among a demographic that wasn’t represented in the market. That’s hardly a yahooooo call for setting these people up w/ARMs mortgages they couldn’t tackle. Talking about spin and who’s spun out in this discussion. It’s you, buddy.”
Spin. Spin. Spin. It makes certain demographics go round and round.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago
http://www.justice.gov/sites/d…
“Once again, there were an awful lot of US Attorneys whose workloads revolved around mortgage fraud of various kinds.”
It’s true.
I want to hear now if you are going to make any claims that your “Americana” account has been “hacked.” This is really the same person leaving cow pies all over the disqus comment pages. Is that right? Have you been “hacked” at any point in the last ~18 months or so?
I think I’m ready to draw some conclusions.
Anyway, the main point is that your attitude is disgusting even though it’s common. And this “intuition” SHOULD NOT be used to (dis)qualify people for considering any purchases. Housing especially. For crying out loud. Oprah would slap you if she heard you say that. It doesn’t even really make sense. I’m surprised an educated person would offer this as evidence that unethical things were done in home loan origination. It actually does shock me. Yeah, certainly people should have seen the crash because poorly groomed people were buying houses that you think are too good for them.
You are simply flailing and trying to find something, anything, in my remarks that you can use to condemn me. What a punk move…
No, I very clearly condemn your outrageous attitude about qualifying people in that way, and worse is that you expect this idea of yours to be the solution to the housing bubble problem!
It’s the most unhinged thing you’ve said. I won’t forget it.
Ah, but a cursory evaluations is NOT my total means of qualifying people. Ultimately, those people should have been vetted as to their EMPLOYMENT and their CREDIT WORTHINESS over a relatively long period of time. If that had been done correctly and completely, we wouldn’t have had janitors buying homes that cost $400,000. Believe me, I certainly won’t let you forget your UNHINGED RATIONALIZATION as to the behavior of the bankers and the realtors. That’s the stupidest rationalization you’ve ever made, bar none.
Americana 14 minutes ago: “Ah, but a cursory evaluations is NOT my total means of qualifying people.”
You can’t unring that bell. It’s simply not possible to walk that comment back. Period.
What you wrote has now disqualified you from further comment. Your opinions are worth zero. Which is what I concluded before, but now I can prove it in one paragraph with an URL to your comment.
“Ultimately, those people should have been vetted as to their EMPLOYMENT and their CREDIT WORTHINESS over a relatively long period of time. If that had been done correctly and completely, we wouldn’t have had janitors buying homes that cost $400,000. Believe me, I certainly won’t let you forget your UNHINGED RATIONALIZATION as to the behavior of the bankers and the realtors. That’s the stupidest rationalization you’ve ever made, bar none.”
I’m stupid because you think that the solution to the banking crisis would have been to have realtors check for jewelry and high ticket apparel.
This is not me of course, but Chuck is here in spirit:
http://home.comcast.Net/~steelbeard1/chuckbarris1.jpg
This represents you on these boards:
http://subdude-site.Com/WebPics/WebPicsBushLib/BushSocialSecurity/cartoon_bush_onSocialSecurityStage_theHook_423x300.jpg
Time for the stage hook. PS, if you would have checked any of the sources I gave you, you’d realize the fundamental fallacies in your statements about retroactively judging people that take on risk precisely as others did when most went on to succeed.
You’re a delusional moron. I’m not embellishing.
You’re simply a twit. objectivefactsdon’tmatter and you rarely if ever cite any objective facts correctly in your arguments. Like all my remarks, there’s nothing about that remark I feel the need to walk back. Wealth is wealth and wherever you fall on the scale, you’re aware of your status just as everyone in the realty business is OBLIGATED PROFESSIONALLY TO ASCERTAIN YOUR WEALTH AND CAPABILITY TO FULFILL the terms of that HOME MORTGAGE. Credit reports et al are the tools of their trade. They’re supposed to be able to assess the reality of a purchaser’s credit worthiness before concluding any deals. They’re not supposed to encourage people to buy beyond their means. There are calculations for various income levels as to what price level you should purchase based on how much down and what your monthly mortgage payment will be.
“Credit reports et al are the tools of their trade.”
Blatant pivot. You advocated the opposite. You advocated an irrational and superficial subjective “salesman’s intuition” to qualify buyers.
OMG, please don’t continue to PLAY DUMB. I ADVOCATED DOING ALL FORMS OF WEALTH EVALUATION. The reason I mentioned the superficial gauging of wealth is because in many cases, these realtors and mortgage bankers actually IGNORED ALL THE SIGNS ON ALL THE QUALIFYING FORMS and IN PERSON that these families/individuals couldn’t afford these homes. You’re really going to pretend I’d ever have suggested that realtors and mortgage bankers get by just on a gander of someone’s Toyota vs Lexus? (LMAO)
“The reason I mentioned the superficial gauging of wealth is because in many cases, these realtors and mortgage bankers actually IGNORED ALL THE SIGNS ON ALL THE QUALIFYING FORMS …”
That makes sense. Wait…it actually makes no sense at all.
“You’re really going to pretend I’d ever have suggested that realtors and mortgage bankers get by just on a gander of someone’s Toyota vs Lexus? (LMAO)”
I don’t have to pretend anything. What you said was stupid and disgusting. It’s a dirty little secret of bigoted salespeople. It’s not something policy planners think about. Holy cow. Then again, there are lots of morons in the halls of power. Who knows WTF kind of bullcrap they talk about when we’re not around to hear.
You can LYAO all you want. The joke is on you.
Oh, please, your foolishness is really on display tonight. First off, doing a superficial evaluation of someone’s wealth doesn’t mean the realtors and the mortgage bankers and the real estate lawyers don’t have to COMPLETE THE FULL MONTY of evaluating the credit worthiness of an individual buying a house. Here are articles by a bunch of US Attorneys on the real estate fraud committed during this period. They’re certainly not suggesting that you evaluate a homeowner simply on the basis of their Ralph Lauren jeans…
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
“There are calculations for various income levels as to what price level you should purchase based on how much down and what your monthly mortgage payment will be.”
There are rational and irrational methods for qualifying and advising buyers. You promoted the most irrational, and indeed bigoted, of all.
Stop fighting the stage hook. You’ve been gonged. Nobody will forget it either.
Repent or live with the consequences.
Not at all. I’m simply saying there’s generally a correlation w/the appearance of wealth and real wealth. Regardless, all these homebuyers SHOULD HAVE BEEN VETTED TO A FARETHEWELL given that they were first-time homebuyers in lower-income demographic parts of the country and in various lower-income cities. There are rational methods of vetting buyers and that’s NOT WHAT THESE REALTORS and MORTGAGE BANKERS DID. In lots of cases, these realtors COACHED THESE BUYERS ON LYING ON FORMS. As for repenting, no, I’ll live w/the consequences… (Hahahaha.)
You miss the implications of the red lining stipulations and a lot of the earlier complaints. They were sued for holding “exclusionary” policies. Which policies? The rational risk assessment.
“In lots of cases, these realtors COACHED THESE BUYERS ON LYING ON FORMS.”
Prosecute them for fraud. Prosecute them for speeding. Prosecute them for violating “greed statutes” but don’t whine about it years later when you need an excuse for policies that led exactly where predicted by the “conservatives.”
Pivot noted. You’re still gonged. Exit the stage.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
Not gonged at all. All the real estate professionals should have easily detected most of the fraud if they’d done their jobs.
You’re an idiot. So go and prosecute this “fraud” and take homes away, throw people in jail. You do that.
Oh, you just need a scapegoat? I see.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago
http://www.justice.gov/sites/d…
“Not gonged at all. All the real estate professionals should have easily detected most of the fraud if they’d done their jobs.”
Elucidation. It’s what you get when you read widely.
Yeah, I’ve always sneered at expensive watches when I see them on anyone’s wrist…
You are SIMPLY A HOOT AND A HALF!#!$#!@$!@$!
Whatever. The issue is that you not only try to qualify people based on appearances, you expect real estate agents and bankers to do the same thing in order to preserve the integrity of your Utopian economic interventions. Because to do otherwise would be greedy. And one of the first things agents do is look at watches if they’re interested in operating as you suggest. If you really do know any, go ahead and ask them.
OTOH if it suited the left’s agenda you’d by sympathetic to a plaintiff that sue an agent or banker for “discrimination” based on such impressions.
And you’re trying to deflect from the fact that you’ve been exposed. Again.
NO, that isn’t what you should take away from my comments at all. What you should take away is that it’s fairly obvious what the socioeconomic status is of someone once you chat w/them, ask them questions about their profession/job, ask them their past living situation, etc. ALL of THESE QUESTIONS ARE ON MORTGAGE APPLICATIONS. Most people wouldn’t have the balls to follow through on buying an inappropriately priced property unless someone in the know told them they could get away w/it.
As for the banks being ready to seize homes when these inappropriate owners were finally evicted, their hoped-for windfall of seized properties to be turned around quickly instead turned into a boondoggle when there were far too many homes for sale in a depressed market w/far too many people who would have been their buyers out of work. As for being exposed, your plumber’s crackpot thesis is showing…
“NO, that isn’t what you should take away from my comments at all. What you should take away is that it’s fairly obvious what the socioeconomic status is of someone once you chat w/them, ask them questions about their profession/job, ask them their past living situation, etc.”
Idiot,
That’s a selling technique that is relevant to discover buyer preferences, not financial qualifications.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
Here’s why those professionals whose fiduciary duty it was to perform those financial vetting duties professionally decided to perform them a lot less professionally.
objectivefactsmatter a few seconds ago:
Retard,
The banks crashed. Got it? The fault is in the policies. That’s not a defense of normal human behavior when laws are violated, especially laws that go unenforced with a wink and a nod.
Like I said earlier, if law and order failed, we need to get back to fundamentals before implementing complex home loan and banking interventions.
Give it up. Your spin has been spun. You’re just an empty spool. Nobody is buying what you’re selling. Exit the state. Clown.
“ALL of THESE QUESTIONS ARE ON MORTGAGE APPLICATIONS.”
5a) Where do you buy your clothes?
5b) Is that watch a knock-off?
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
Oh, I guess these US Attorneys are a little off on who’s really committing the real estate fraud. They’re seemingly indicting a whole bunch of real estate attorneys and mortgage bankers and so on… You know, all the professionals whose fiduciary duty it is to be on top of fraud in such transactions.
‘You know, all the professionals whose fiduciary duty it is to be on top of fraud in such transactions.”
If they were “on top of fraud in such transactions” why didn’t they prevent the crash?
Did you know that many police agencies stop enforcing marijuana laws years before the statutes decriminalized and ultimately in some cases legalized it? Why don’t you go and demand that the prosecutors get those people! Because you have no Marxist agenda in doing that.
http://scholarship.law.duke.Edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2345&context=dlj
POLICE DISCRETION AND DISCRIMINATORY
ENFORCEMENT
JOSEPH H. TIEGER*
A numbers-runner is arrested for violation of a gambling statute
while a high-stakes poker game at an upper-class gentlemen’s club goes on unmolested. A man with one marijuana cigarette in his possession is arrested, not because he more than others should be imprisoned, but simply as an exemplary warning and deterrent to 30,000 other marijuana smokers in the city, and as a token law-and-order gesture for the rest of the population. A state trooper recognizes a drunk driver as the son of the president of the local bank and decides not to arrest him. A corps of building inspectors pore over a print shop where the local underground newspaper is produced and detect a violation of an obscure code provision that previously has seldom, if ever, been enforced. A policeman stops a long-haired youth who is playing a harmonica in the park and asks him for identification; when the youth appears arrogant, the policeman arrests him for disorderly conduct.
These examples depict the reality of law enforcement under our “government of laws, not men.” The reality in the street is one of discriminatory and selective enforcement. The reality in the courtroom is not much better. Although the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly and unequivocally that discriminatory enforcement violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, many state and lower federal courts blandly withhold constitutional protection of any sort. Indeed, Supreme Court doctrine itself imposes so heavy a burden of proof that the victim of discriminatory
enforcement rarely finds vindication of his claim in the judicial forum.
The purpose of this article is not to condemn policemen. If it seeks to condemn anything, its target is the law enforcement system itself, and ultimately, of course, the society in general.
————-
Stop flopping around as if you’re actually tracking the conversation. How stupid can you get? Our policies are incoherent. The government caused the crash.
People are not perfect. Stop blaming them when your stupid plans blow up. Get your crap together if you want to be involved in policy planning.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago
http://www.justice.gov/sites/d…
“Oh, I guess these US Attorneys are a little off on who’s really committing the real estate fraud. They’re seemingly indicting a whole bunch of real estate attorneys and mortgage bankers and so on… You know, all the professionals whose fiduciary duty it is to be on top of fraud in such transactions.”
Obviously, you disagree w/the US Attorneys indicting the professionals instead of the homeowners…
“As for the banks being ready to seize homes when these inappropriate owners were finally evicted, their hoped-for windfall of seized properties to be turned around quickly instead turned into a boondoggle when there were far too many homes for sale in a depressed market w/far too many people who would have been their buyers out of work.”
Stupid greasy, greedy capitalists! Hang them all!
“As for being exposed, your plumber’s crackpot thesis is showing…”
That’s a stinging rebuke. The tears are streaming down my face.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
I think you’ll find the stinging rebuke in this series of articles by various US Attorneys. No need for me to exert myself…
Retard,
The banks crashed. Got it? The fault is in the policies. That’s not a defense of normal human behavior when laws are violated, especially laws that go unenforced with a wink and a nod.
Like I said earlier, if law and order failed, we need to get back to fundamentals before implementing complex home loan and banking interventions.
Give it up. Your spin has been spun. You’re just an empty spool. Nobody is buying what you’re selling. Exit the state. Clown.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
Just in case you don’t understand the difference between government intervention and regular ol’ CRIMINAL human behavior, better read all the articles in this pdf.
Yeah, because for all anyone can tell, you’re the one that knows all about it.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago:
http://www.justice.gov/sites/d…
“Just in case you don’t understand the difference between government intervention and regular ol’ CRIMINAL human behavior, better read all the articles in this pdf.”
Good suggestion.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago
http://www.justice.gov/sites/d…
“I think you’ll find the stinging rebuke in this series of articles by various US Attorneys. No need for me to exert myself…”
There’s really no need for me to exert myself. Not when the AUSAs have already done all the work.
“But it would not have had NEARLY THE RAMIFICATIONS that this one did because this was coupled w/the slowdown of the entire U.S. economy and many layoffs of middle-class homeowners who could no longer afford their homes.”
Duh. That’s why free markets are better. Because markets correct themselves with fewer hiccups when people are not restricted by unreasonable, unfair regulations and complex moral hazard shifts.
And…affordability itself is harmed by the interventions. Only the first wave(s) actually benefit in the long run and very few people are actually helped in to their first investment relative to the pricing that likely would have existed without the interventions.
If the government gives out 10% to every first time home purchaser, that will eventually, in a very short time, cause those affected homes to increase in value by just about 10%. All it would really do is shift costs to taxpayers. After all was said and done the only real, lasting effect would be more power in the hands of the government because now the government has increased it’s sovereignty and taken a seat in the marketplace. And it would also cause a gap in affordability for anyone that for whatever reason could not qualify for those programs. That would mean the program was causing a gap in wealth inequality and a fix would be demanded.
The cycle never ends.
Your underlying claim is that free markets never get themselves into huge economic screw-ups that would last for a loooonnnnnggg period of time and that these screw-ups self-correct without massive disruption as the screw-up works its way through the entire economy. This is belied by the fact you claim that free markets only hurt those sectors that directly influenced/created the screwed up portion of the economy which is historically not true in any way, shape or form. All sectors are injured or influenced for long periods of time by any such economic blow.
Besides which, it’s awfully strange you would suddenly think to mention wealth inequality viz these economic shocks when you weren’t addressing the subject of wealth inequality originally. Why the sudden shift in emphasis or the sudden add-on?
“Your underlying claim is that free markets never get themselves into huge economic screw-ups that would last for a loooonnnnnggg period of time and that these screw-ups self-correct without massive disruption as the screw-up works its way through the entire economy.”
You should quote me when you try to represent my thinking. What I said was that markets and nations perform better when you don’t have interventions that F up moral hazard. If moral hazard is more or less according to rule of law, then caveat emptor applies and people learn painful lessons from their own screwups. The screwup is bad but the plus side, the lesson, is good.
I know that’s totally beyond anything that you can conceive of.
“Besides which, it’s awfully strange you would suddenly think to mention wealth inequality viz these economic shocks when you weren’t addressing the subject of wealth inequality originally. Why the sudden shift in emphasis or the sudden add-on?”
What? See, you’re confused by terms. Since you don’t understand them you track conversations in nonsensical ways. Wealth inequality is only bad when innocent people suffer from things that are beyond their control. If we have a thriving meritocracy, which we do, then wealth inequality is good. Without wealth inequality you’d have no meritocracy. You’d have Utopia. Therefore in America, wealth inequality is generally not a concern. It’s only a concern if government policies cause chasms or impediments for people rising up. I suppose there was a time when “monopolistic” practices and lack of any labor regulations could have allowed it to be a problem. But that didn’t really happen unless you look at a very narrow time and place in history.
The most crucial thing to monitor with wealth inequality is whether there are artificial insurmountable chasms. If there are smooth demographics, especially in wages, it’s actually good for everyone to have very large differences between the bottom and the top. It’s the chasms that cause social stagnation and something like virtual oligarchies.
There’s no way I expect you to understand anything that I’ve said. Maybe someone else will read it.
There’s no reason why free markets can’t also be accompanied and/or supported by actions taken by governments when things go down the toilet because, let’s face reality, most crashes are not so specific they only affect ONE SECTOR of the economy. Most often, large economic crashes cause enormous disruption all the way down the pipeline. Also, major economic turmoil has never demonstrated an ability to straighten itself out without deliberative assistance attempting to right the boat and steer it back to safer waters that’s come from the central financial management.
(objectivefactsmatter) “Wealth inequality is only bad when innocent people suffer from things that are beyond their control. If we have a thriving meritocracy, which we do, then wealth inequality is good. Without wealth inequality you’d have no meritocracy.”
Ah, so you do agree that wealth inequality is bad when innocent people suffer from things that are beyond their control like housing prices and food and transportation and medical care, etc., etc? None of those things are within the control of the people. As for there not being a meritocracy without wealth inequality, you must be ignoring the whole question of the meritocracy that ranks someone’s natural gifts and god-given intellect against all others? Or is there really only one meritocracy rooted in finance in objectivefactsmatter’s little corner of the world?
(objectivefactsmatter) “Therefore in America, wealth inequality is generally not a concern. It’s only a concern if government policies cause chasms or impediments for people rising up. I suppose there was a time when “monopolistic” practices and lack of any labor regulations could have allowed it to be a problem. But that didn’t really happen unless you look at a very narrow time and place in history.”
Your writing belies the fact that there was a time, quite a long time as in nearly two centuries, when monopolistic practices and non-existent labour law allowed wealth inequality to be a concern. So, writing that it “could have been a concern” should have been written as “was a concern” which was only solved by labour activism. it certainly wasn’t solved by the generosity of the ‘meritocrats’ (inside joke) at the top of the heap. The people who truly rise up in a meritocracy are those who invent the next big things or who find niche markets for their skillets within the next big things, the rest are mere hangers on.
“Ah, so you do agree that wealth inequality is bad when innocent people suffer from things that are beyond their control like housing prices and food and transportation and medical care, etc., etc?”
Of course. Retard. What’s worse are the stupid interventions that seem to help in the short term (if at all) but set up major problems with growth, bubbles the burst, and so forth.
You’re incapable of following. All you have are scripts and riffing off of the narratives that strike an emotional chord with your selfish soul.
All you have are scripts but your scripts leave out life’s little necessities like food and so on… You’re incapable of writing out a long-winded reply without sticking your foot in your mouth and realizing you’ve done so. Oh, lord, but that was such a FUNNY LINE of yours…
(objectivefactsmatter) “Wealth inequality is bad when innocent people suffer from things that are beyond their control.” You didn’t realize quite how many things are beyond the control of most people, huh? Just where did that STELLAR bit of ofm REASONING come from?
“All you have are scripts but your scripts leave out life’s little necessities like food and so on… ”
Retard, I’m not promoting interventionism. It’s not up to the planners to tell people that they need to budget for their necessities!
What you wrote has got nothing to do w/”planners telling people that need to budget for their necessitates,” what you wrote recognizes that the necessities are NOT WITHIN THE CONTROL OF EVERYMAN.
Americana an hour ago: “What you wrote has got nothing to do w/”planners telling people that need to budget for their necessitates,” what you wrote recognizes that the necessities are NOT WITHIN THE CONTROL OF EVERYMAN.”
Keyword: Control.
So…if it’s not within the “everyman’s” control we must have the elites plan their lives. Where have I heard that before?
What I wrote is consistent with everything else. The human condition is not something you or anyone else can fully perfect. It’s a question of sovereignty. —–>>> You can’t follow the conversations…
“You’re incapable of writing out a long-winded reply without sticking your foot in your mouth and realizing you’ve done so.”
That’s actually my foot in YOUR mouth. You’re too stupid to realize.
I think I’d know if your foot was in my mouth. Besides, if your foot was doing the right thing, it’d be kicking my rear end and, so far, it hasn’t stuck pay dirt on that score yet.
“Besides, if your foot was doing the right thing, it’d be kicking my rear end and, so far, it hasn’t stuck pay dirt on that score yet.”
It takes longer for Internet clowns to respond to the stage hook. Stop fighting it.
http://cdn4.independent.ie/incoming/article30450152.Ece/b06d5/ALTERNATES/h342/krusty%20the%20clown.PNG
http://www.christart.Com/IMAGES-art9ab/clipart/974/stage-hook.png
It’s about time you exited the stage. And look, you’re even exiting “Stage Right” as is right! Hahaha!
“Hahaha!”
Ur so clever.
“Wealth inequality is bad when innocent people suffer from things that are beyond their control.” You didn’t realize quite how many things are beyond the control of most people, huh? Just where did that STELLAR bit of ofm REASONING come from?
It’s fundamental truth in economics. Wealth inequality in a society with real opportunities for upward mobility stimulates productivity. Unless of course Marxists and retards dominate the media and academias and people start screaming about Jewish bankers and Occupying Wall Street, and this and that and all of the other nonsense that you support.
But (non-lazy, educated) people (with skills and confidence) that recognize opportunity see wealthy people as proof of the high ceiling. You see it is…something to use in talking points. Because that’s how you understand the “explanations” from your “journalists.”
Oh, so, you’re the other end of the journalist spectrum, the propagandist end?
False dichotomy.
One last thing….
(objectivefactsmatter) “What I said was that markets and nations perform better when you don’t have interventions that F up moral hazard. If moral hazard is more or less according to rule of law, then caveat emptor applies and people learn painful lessons from their own screwups. The screwup is bad but the plus side, the lesson, is good.”
I’m really not sure why you wrote the above about moral hazard teaching people salutary lessons when you’ve so often **SPECIFICALLY EXCUSED** the realtors and mortgage bankers as well as the investment bankers who bundled these worthless mortgage securities and then sold them round the world of ANY BLAME FOR THE SUB-PRIME CRISIS? I mean, really, if you are so insistent on people suffering repercussions because they’ve crossed the Rubicon of moral hazard, shouldn’t you understand the sub-prime crisis better and be attributing the moral flaws to the right demographic components?
“I’m really not sure why you wrote the above about moral hazard teaching people salutary lessons when you’ve so often **SPECIFICALLY EXCUSED** the realtors and mortgage bankers as well as the investment bankers who bundled these worthless mortgage securities and then sold them round the world of ANY BLAME FOR THE SUB-PRIME CRISIS?”
Again, moron, the point is that the fiduciary duties of these agents was and is in direct conflict with your Utopian suggestions. I excuse them because they are bound by law to operate differently than you suggest.
That’s the point! It’s the laws and regulations that lead to these behaviors. Not “greed.” Everyone is “greedy.”
The “Utopian suggestion” was not to get them into housing that was beyond their capacity. The intent was to get them into HOUSING THEY COULD AFFORD. There are tons of tiny ranch houses all over the U.S. that would have met the obligation to not simply red-line these people who were trying to get into homeownership. NO ONE EVER STARTS OUT IN A QUARTER-MILLION DOLLAR HOME unless they’re highly successful and their success is generally able to be proved by lots of credit reports, etc.
The point from my perspective is that PROFESSIONALS WHO KNEW BETTER encouraged these people to take on more than they could possibly afford. And I suspect that these professionals did so in order to recoup their efforts on the other end of the transaction when the homeowner defaulted as the ARM came due and they repossessed the home and then sold it again. As far as I’m aware, the GREED was on both ends but ONLY THE REALTORS and the MORTGAGE BANKERS KNEW ENOUGH HIGH FINANCE TO MAKE THE CRIME WORTH THEIR WHILE.
The government didn’t “give out 10% to every first-time home purchaser” in this program or any other mortgage program in the past. As to your assertion that “giving out 10% of the cost” will “eventually, in a very short time, cause those affected homes to increase in value by just about 10%,” that’s an assertion that makes no sense because it’s NEVER HAPPENED and IT LIKELY WILL NEVER BE THE ROUTE THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSES TO TAKE to encourage home ownership. Besides which, anything that reduces the profit of any realty-related business sector is always attempted to be fought by the sector(s) affected by such a loss in their profit margin. That’s the free market system asserting itself.
You are confusing two issues here — the request from the government that the mortgage bankers and the realtors find reasonably suitable homes within the means of less well-off Americans and what the government could do for these less wealthy potential homeowners. The point of the program was to direct less wealthy prospective homeowners to homes they could afford instead of red-lining them out of hand. it was not to facilitate realtors and mortgage bankers COLLUDING IN CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE in order to sell homes that would then rebound to the possession of the banks holding the mortgages when the owners defaulted.
Americana 6 hours ago: “The government didn’t “give out 10% to every first-time home purchaser” in this program or any other mortgage program in the past.”
The idea is to offer examples in the hope that dimwits can follow along with the theories.
“As to your assertion that “giving out 10% of the cost” will “eventually, in a very short time, cause those affected homes to increase in value by just about 10%,” that’s an assertion that makes no sense because it’s NEVER HAPPENED and IT LIKELY WILL NEVER BE THE ROUTE THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSES TO TAKE to encourage home ownership. Besides which, anything that reduces the profit of any realty-related business sector is always attempted to be fought by the sector(s) affected by such a loss in their profit margin. That’s the free market system asserting itself.”
It won’t be, but not for the reasons you cite. But you’re so dumb I won’t bother opening in more examples that will simply confuse you more and have you RANTING in CAPS to emphasize how certain you are.
“You are confusing two issues here — the request from the government that the mortgage bankers and the realtors find reasonably suitable homes within the means of less well-off Americans and what the government could do for these less wealthy potential homeowners.”
The confusion is yours. I dealt with these issues each separately but you don’t actually follow the discourse.
More reading for those interested:
http://www.realtor.Org/sites/default/files/handouts-and-brochures/2014/nar-fiduciary-duty-032213.pdf
You’re giving an “example” that doesn’t even apply to how these houses were purchased. Why on earth would you do that unless you wished to give the impression that these inappropriate homebuyers were given 10% down in order to facilitate them buying a house on the government’s dime?
Oh, yeah, that’s a great PDF about the professional responsibilities of a realtor. I don’t believe there’s anywhere on that PDF that instructs the realtor to assist the buyer in CRAFTING LIES about their credit history, their professional work history, their income, etc. in order to purchase a property.
Americana 6 minutes ago: “You’re giving an “example” that doesn’t even apply to how these houses were purchased.”
Retard,
The example was self-explanatory.
“Oh, yeah, that’s a great PDF about the professional responsibilities of a realtor. I don’t believe there’s anywhere on that PDF that instructs the realtor to assist the buyer in CRAFTING LIES about their credit history, their professional work history, their income, etc. in order to purchase a property.”
The point is that you have to take all relevant laws and combine them to arrive at a professional code (or a kind of unified code) of conduct.
If you allege lawbreaking, show me real evidence. If they didn’t break the law WRT misrepresenting borrowers to lenders, then you have no basis for blaming them. End of story. Because their primary fiduciary responsibility is to represent the client that enters in to a contractual relationship with them. That doesn’t include scanning wrists and necks for fine jewelry or examining their custom tailored suits.
I suppose you’d say that the problem with the legal system as a whole is that lawyers and other agents are required to represent factions according to their fiduciary duties when in a Utopian state all would hail allegiance to the state and or to your benevolent dictator.
More of your pie in the sky biased statements… Realtors are NOT SUPPOSED TO LIE. MORTGAGE BANKERS are NOT SUPPOSED TO LIE. Your fiduciary duties include being professional and encouraging people to do what is within their economic power to follow through on for the life of their mortgage. You’re not supposed to encourage them to get into a house they can only afford for 6 months before the ARM rises to an unaffordable level. Of course, you must like the end run where the house is repossessed only to be re-sold again… Awwww, but in lots of cases, there weren’t buyers who were able to be encouraged to fall into the same trap as the first buyer and so lots of repossessed properties remained uninhabitate for years and the housing recovery was delayed and delayed and delayed.
Americana 21 minutes ago: “More of your pie in the sky biased statements… Realtors are NOT SUPPOSED TO LIE.”
Fiduciary duties. That’s what I said. Dumbass. How you infer that I’m supporting “lies” is stupid. They’re under similar obligations that jurists are under. They have a job that has a fairly clear set of guidelines. Predicting the future is not one of them.
I repeat my assertion that if you have any examples of agents that broke laws, not your heart, then those cases are actionable. Your opinions are worth nothing. Zero.
Many of the homeowners have stated they were encouraged to lie on the real estate forms. Considering the realtors are the first to theoretically perform a credit check and then the mortgage bankers are the second line of defense and so on, it’s rather surprising that sooooooo many times, all these classes of professionals would suddenly experience an INABILITY TO PERFORM THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTIES SATISFACTORILY where they’d always previously performed those very same duties successfully. (Note that the letter of advice about how to commit real estate fraud in this pdf was written by the US Attorney.) Pay close attention to Finding the Smoking Gun article.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
__________________________________________________________________________
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm
Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a market for subprime mortgages the lenders did not have to worry about of the soundness of the mortgage contract they wrote. Thus the lenders could write the mortgages as adjustable interest rate mortgages knowing full well that an upturn in the interest rates could easily throw the borrower into insolvency. For example, when the interest rate is 6 percent the mortgage payment for a 30-year $200,000 mortgage is $1199 per month. If the interest rate goes up to 7 percent the mortgage payment would increase by $131 per month, an 11 percent increase. For many of the subprime borrowers living on the edge of insolvency this would be enough to push them over the edge. The guilt for the subprime mortgage financial crisis lies both with the lenders who knowingly put borrowers into booby trapped mortgages and the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for making a market for such booby trapped mortgages thus giving the lenders the incentive for writing them.
The subprime borrowers were charged a higher interest rate to compensate for the higher risks. Obviously the borrower that could not qualify for the mortgage at the lower rate was going to be more of a risk at the higher rate. It seems that everyone but the dimwits running Fannie Mae (into the ground) understood intuitively that a poor risk for a mortgage cannot be made a better risk by charging a higher interest rate. Here are some illustrations of the point.
__________________________________________________________________________
And, it seems, the banking industry is still performing quite unethically viz homeowners who are seeking to refinance their loans so they can remain in their homes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/bank-of-america-lied_n_3444014.html
From the above link:
June 14 (Reuters) – Six former Bank of America Corp employees have alleged that the bank deliberately denied eligible home owners loan modifications and lied to them about the status of their mortgage payments and documents.
The bank allegedly used these tactics to shepherd homeowners into foreclosure, as well as in-house loan modifications. Both yielded the bank more profits than the government-sponsored Home Affordable Modification Program, according to documents recently filed as part of a lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court.
The former employees, who worked at Bank of America centers throughout the United States, said the bank rewarded customer service representatives who foreclosed on homes with cash bonuses and gift cards to retail stores such as Target Corp and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.
For example, an employee who placed 10 or more accounts into foreclosure a month could get a $500 bonus. At the same time, the bank punished those who did not make the numbers or objected to its tactics with discipline, including firing.
About twice a month, the bank cleaned out its HAMP backlog in an operation called “blitz,” where it declined thousands of loan modification requests just because the documents were more than 60 months old, the court documents say.
The testimony from the former employees also alleges the bank falsified information it gave the government, saying it had given out HAMP loan modifications when it had not.
Rick Simon, a Bank of America Home Loans spokesman, said the bank had successfully completed more modifications than any other servicer under HAMP.
“We continue to demonstrate our commitment to assisting customers who are at risk of foreclosure and, at best, these attorneys are painting a false picture of the bank’s practices and the dedication of our employees,” Simon said in a email, adding the declarations were “rife with factual inaccuracies.”
The horse is supposed to pull the cart. You don’t take the horse out and shoot it because some idiots crash the cart fooling around with it.
OK retard?
Failed “straw herring.”
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
Oh my, lots of professionals had to have had complicity in order for this real estate fraud to have been perpetrated on such a MASSIVE SCALE. It’s not just a little ol’ single Mom trying to rip off the government, it’s a whole passel of professionals in on the scam.
The bring out the RICO statutes.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago
Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a market for subprime mortgages the lenders did not have to worry about of the soundness of the mortgage contract they wrote. Thus the lenders could write the mortgages as adjustable interest rate mortgages knowing full well that an upturn in the interest rates could easily throw the borrower into insolvency. For example, when the interest rate is 6 percent the mortgage payment for a 30-year $200,000 mortgage is $1199 per month. If the interest rate goes up to 7 percent the mortgage payment would increase by $131 per month, an 11 percent increase. For many of the subprime borrowers living on the edge of insolvency this would be enough to push them over the edge. The guilt for the subprime mortgage financial crisis lies both with the lenders who knowingly put borrowers into booby trapped mortgages and the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for making a market for such booby trapped mortgages thus giving the lenders the incentive for writing them.
The subprime borrowers were charged a higher interest rate to compensate for the higher risks. Obviously the borrower that could not qualify for the mortgage at the lower rate was going to be more of a risk at the higher rate. It seems that everyone but the dimwits running Fannie Mae (into the ground) understood intuitively that a poor risk for a mortgage cannot be made a better risk by charging a higher interest rate. Here are some illustrations of the point.
__________________________________________________________________________
And, it seems, the banking industry is still performing quite unethically viz homeowners who are seeking to refinance their loans so they can remain in their homes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Your point is????
“You’re not supposed to encourage them to get into a house they can only afford for 6 months before the ARM rises to an unaffordable level.”
So they violated their fiduciary duties when they failed to consult YOU to check the Americana universal affordability test. I get it. You want to be the new Stalin.
Here you go again, playing the Dumb and Dumber Devil’s Advocate role. Knock yourself out. Remember, there’s always a stage hook waiting to drag you off Stage Right…
http://crisisservices.Org/content/index.php/24-hour-hotline/
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
Nah, it’s so much more fun to read real information than hang around on a hotline. But if you feel the need for an intervention, be our guest. You really don’t need to let us all know WHEN and WHY you’ve called these psychiatric professionals to help you w/your issues. That’s between you and them.
Go ahead and pretend that I’m the one that needs it. If that helps you get through the struggles, that’s fine. But regardless of your public bravado you really do need to get some help.
Why don’t you call them and explain how mean I am. Tell them all about how much help I need. That might lead to something good for you. Surely they’re more interested in hearing from you than anyone likely to read your cow pies online.
“Awwww, but in lots of cases, there weren’t buyers who were able to be encouraged to fall into the same trap as the first buyer and so lots of repossessed properties remained uninhabitate for years and the housing recovery was delayed and delayed and delayed.”
The only “trap” significant to this conversation is failing to understand how government interventions are the largest unseen force affecting pricing. And you only see the “trap” retroactively. If you were there at the time, you’d have been wrong in almost every case. You’re an idiot. No offense.
In this case, the government’s program would have heated the market up almost immediately rather than have dropped the price 10%. But what the hey, have it your way. That still doesn’t change the fact the realtors and mortgage bankers COLLUDED w/CRIMINAL INTENT IN MANY, MANY INSTANCES.
Americana 9 minutes ago: “In this case, the government’s program would have heated the market up almost immediately rather than have dropped the price 10%.”
What?
“But what the hey, have it your way. That still doesn’t change the fact the realtors and mortgage bankers COLLUDED w/CRIMINAL INTENT IN MANY, MANY INSTANCES.”
So poor law enforcement is the issue? Why didn’t the genius interventionists warn of these clear risks? Because they’re not really geniuses.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
Oh, so it’s OK to identify something that wasn’t really interventionism as interventionism but just don’t come down hard on the professionals who committed the criminal fraud?
Idiot,
As I said many times, that is a separate discussion. There is fraud with or without interventions. The specific interventions enabled even more fraud.
You’re too retarded to process this. You just react defensively and double down by referring to the circular logic of the various “explainers” you read. You’re arguing in circles.
You’re simply ignoring the facts of who committed the fraud and who benefited from committing this fraud. As for how it is that the fraud took on the complexity and layers it did as it worked its way around the country, that’s again the criminal enterprise at work. Most of these people could have been set up in tiny homes w/comfortable mortgages they could have better afforded even in a downturn.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
I’m ignoring your circular arguments. Clown. Get off the stage, stupid spammer.
You want to monopolize this issue and pretend it was something it wasn’t go right ahead. I’ll continue to argue the opposite because that’s what the facts support.
No retard. Finding something that you think is the opposite is not evidence that I’m wrong because you don’t actually understand how it all fits together. You’re not even a good bean counter. You’re an idiot.
I’m quite an excellent bean counter which is why I’m not letting any PART OF THIS EQUATION be overlooked in my presentation. You on the other hand would like it all to start and stop w/the so-called “government intervention”. Blimey, but that’s the blind leading the blind liar’s version of the events leading to this mess.
Americana 8 hours ago:
“I’m quite an excellent bean counter which is why I’m not letting any PART OF THIS EQUATION be overlooked in my presentation.”
We’re not counting beans. Retard. You’re a horrible accountant. At least here, you demonstrate zero acumen for accounting, which is more than just “counting” and pointing to things that you think should count when convenient to your idiotic comments.
You’re the one who suggested we were counting beans. As for my accounting skills, mine take into account what actually went on during this fiasco while your accounting lets 50% of the perpetrators off the hook.
I definitely referred to YOU as a bean counter. You have no clue why that’s considered a pejorative.
“As for my accounting skills, mine take into account what actually went on during this fiasco while your accounting lets 50% of the perpetrators off the hook.”
You have accurately pointed to cross currents while denying dominant currents in the “river.” But what makes you a complete moron is that you think evidence of cross currents disproves the theory that there is a dominant current in the river. That’s something a moronic bean counter would do. They found the beans and they counted them.
Warning! Sarcastic paraphrase: “Why don’t you understand the bean count?”
Answer: Because they’re not beans and you’re counting the wrong things in the wrong places.
You’re accounting is totally f’ed even though some of the counts are accurate and useful should they be placed in the correct context.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago:
“I’m quite an excellent bean counter which is why I’m not letting any PART OF THIS EQUATION be overlooked in my presentation. You on the other hand would like it all to start and stop w/the so-called “government intervention”. Blimey, but that’s the blind leading the blind liar’s version of the events leading to this mess.”
The equation is what remains after all the opinions are voiced.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago
“You want to monopolize this issue and pretend it was something it wasn’t go right ahead. I’ll continue to argue the opposite because that’s what the facts support.”
Breathe deeply, exhale. Repeat. Do it again.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago
“You’re simply ignoring the facts of who committed the fraud and who benefited from committing this fraud. As for how it is that the fraud took on the complexity and layers it did as it worked its way around the country, that’s again the criminal enterprise at work. Most of these people could have been set up in tiny homes w/comfortable mortgages they could have better afforded even in a downturn.”
http://www.justice.gov/sites/d…
Elucidation sometimes isn’t welcome.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago
http://www.justice.gov/sites/d…
“Oh, so it’s OK to identify something that wasn’t really interventionism as interventionism but just don’t come down hard on the professionals who committed the criminal fraud?”
They didn’t prosecute enough people.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
Enough said. By lots of different US Attorneys.
Straw herring.
You’re so stupid you don’t even notice this reaction started after the cow got out of the barn. And again, the law forced them to rely on applicant claims more than credit reports and verifiable data.
You idiots should have thought about that. But you’re so freaking clueless about human behavior and why your stupid central plans always fail.
The law DIDN’T “force them to rely on applicant claims more than credit reports and verifiable data”. NOTHING WAS WRITTEN IN THE LAW THAT CHANGED HOW THESE PURCHASES and MORTAGES were to be analyzed and verified as being good loans. You’re BSing your way into a corner. Produce ANYTHING that supports your claim that realty lawyers and mortgage bankers were supposed to ignore credit reports and work and salary history. I dare you.
Idiot. They had to make loans in red lined areas and populations or else. The —>>implications…
Oh, never mind. You’re just too stupid to understand.
Yes, they were asked to find suitable homes for suitable buyers. That was doable. They were not told to find unsuitable homes for unsuitable buyers and to misrepresent everything about the financials in order to sell those homes to those unsuitable buyers.
Americana 8 hours ago: “Yes, they were asked to find suitable homes for suitable buyers. That was doable.”
You’re too stupid to recognize how stupid you are.
Of course it was “doable” some times. If it was doable “all the time” or as often as they demanded for collective goals they would just refer to civil rights legislation and case law when someone had a complaint. They would not interfere with banking policies.
Don’t be an idiot. NOTHING in the law stipulated that homes should be permitted to be bought that were above and beyond their capacity to buy. Any prospective homeowner who brought up such a silly civil rights complaint as “I wasn’t allowed to buy this $350,000 house **because** I’m black/Latino/whatever” in a court of law would have been laughed out of court and told to pay the court costs.
Robotic moron, learn the difference between implication and stipulation. Learn the difference between explicit and implicit.
“Any prospective homeowner who brought up such a silly civil rights complaint as “I wasn’t allowed to buy this $350,000 house **because** I’m black/Latino/whatever” in a court of law would have been laughed out of court and told to pay the court costs.”
Nor do you understand what a cause of action is, nor the concept of actionable at all. You don’t even understand how these assessments are made. They’re not made by douchebags like you.
I’d hardly say that since a cousin prosecuted some of these sub-prime loan fraud cases. If he found reason to prosecute certain professional folks in the deals other than homeowners, there had to have been factual reasons for him to be able to make the evidence work in court.
You’re reading my comments as saying there was no fraud. That’s interesting.
No, I’m just reading your comments as an excusing the fiduciary performance of these realtors and mortgage bankers because they were afraid of violating someone’s civil rights. You are choosing to point at the fraud committed solely by one side of this fiasco — the unsuitable homeowners — while the realtors and mortgage bankers were knowingly committing equally as much fraud on their side in many cases.
Next time check jewelery. Got it.
Next time, check someone’s CV and professional status as well as all their relevant financials. If they’re not able to provide the income stream that would allow them to purchase the home and pay for it over the long haul, direct them to a home they would find affordable for whatever their income bracket is. It’s really pretty simple. Much as you’d like to make the process out to be mysterious so as to let all these realtors and mortgage companies off the hook.
Shut up. Stupid moron. Open your own phucking bank and leave others alone. Retard.
Hahahahaha, I guess this is as close to a gotcha moment as you’ll show me! But it’s terribly intriguing that you’ve basically acknowledged I’m aware of where the realtors and the banks let down their guard. On purpose, for that matter, because they were guaranteed a win-win situation whatever happened. You’d like everyone to ignore that aspect of this fiasco but I’m not going to let you forget it. Especially not w/the latest recommendations of the rollback of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that were just passed in the spending bill.
_____________________________________________________________
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/14/broadcast-sunday-shows-largely-ignore-rollback/201877
From the above link:
The deal reverses a requirement of 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform, allowing banks to “place both standard accounts and accounts that handle riskier derivative trades under the protection of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.” The provision was drafted by Citigroup bank and provides a major benefit to big banks that allows riskier trades and transfers accountability for banks’ failures — and potentially future financial crises — onto the government and taxpayers. The bill also rolls back campaign finance regulations, dramatically increasing the limit wealthy individuals may donate to national political parties.
This erosion of key Wall Street and campaign finance regulations was all but ignored on the broadcast Sunday political talk shows. Neither NBC’s Meet The Press, CBS’s Face The Nation, nor Fox Broadcasting Company’s Fox News Sunday acknowledged the controversial provisions in their discussion of the spending bill, glossing over the specific rollback of regulations in favor of general discussions on inner-party divisions on the vote. Only ABC’s This Week highlighted the provisions. Host Martha Raddatz explained how the bill “dramatically ease[s] restrictions on the amount of cash individuals can donate to campaigns,” while a later panel discussion emphasized the rollback of Wall Street regulations.
The shows’ failure to cover the rollback of banking regulations and systematic erosion of campaign finance comes at a time when dark money, large donors, and outside spending are playing an increasingly outsized roll in elections and the financial services sector — the very industry which drafted and stands to benefit from the Dodd-Frank reversal — is already outspending all other industries in midterm elections.
Dark money plays a rapidly expanding role in determining which party controls each chamber of Congress — in 2014 dark money groups spent nearly $200 million in the most competitive Senate races — twice as much as they spent in 2012. What’s more, most campaigns in 2014 were fueled by large donors. As a Demos study pointed out, just 50 individuals “accounted for more than a third of the total money raised by Super PACs” in the 2014 midterm election contribution cycle. Outside political groups independent of candidates also spent a record high of “more than $814 million to influence congressional elections.” The spending bill’s increase of contribution limits opens the door for these exorbitant amounts to climb even higher.
You’re an idiot. You’re applying standards retroactively without any awareness of how these standards are developed and how dynamic the process is. IOW it constantly changes from month to month or even more quickly and there are different standards by region. The principles are the same but after all circumstances are factored…
But you have no clue what you’re talking about. The banks were forced to create high risk loans. End of story. The fact that fraud also exists doesn’t let the government off the hook. Idiot. The point is not that this guy or that guy screwed up. They screwed up collectively, led by…the government.
It doesn’t matter how much the system is in flux. They STILL REMAIN under the fiduciary obligation to have reasonable standards of matching house and buyer. The banks were asked to introduce low-income and middle-income homebuyers to the market. That’s best done how? By assisting them to buy quarter million dollar homes? You’re a hoot when you try to pretend that any realtor in his right mind is going to assume that a janitor can afford a quarter of a million dollar home. ****They screwed up collectively. Led by their own GREED and their own AWARENESS of just how long it would be before any government or legal process would catch up to them.****
HTF do you think your copy paste job supports any of your whacky assertions?
You’re so freaking insane. You really are creepy. I don’t think you understand any of it.
How much banking experience do you have?
How much banking experience do you have? Let’s hear your relevant experience first and then I’ll state mine.
“Much as you’d like to make the process out to be mysterious so as to let all these realtors and mortgage companies off the hook.”
Retard, I’m not the one that let them off the hook.
Oh, yes you are. You’re making claims that in order for this to have worked we would have needed elements to the systems that don’t already exist when, in fact, all the needed systems were already in place.
objectivefactsmatter a few seconds ago
Americana 11 minutes ago: “You’re making claims that in order for this to have worked we would have needed a housing inventory system. We’ve already have one. It’s called the MLS system. Having such a system still doesn’t preclude the mortgage bankers and the realtors doing their jobs.”
Why am I talking to such a phucking moron? The MLS LISTS inventory. It doesn’t create inventory! You stupid freak! The “ideal starter home” has to exist before it can get listed.
You’re so phucking stupid!
How in hell is the government supposed to “create housing inventory”???? With this kind of freaktastic thinking you indulge in, indulge in it on YOUR OWN TIME. In that case, if the government had an instrument to “create housing inventory”, we’d be talking about an entirely different issue viz the sub-prime crisis.
Americana a minute ago: “How in hell is the government supposed to “create housing inventory”????”
You really are stupid.
“With this kind of freaktastic thinking you indulge in, indulge in it on YOUR OWN TIME. In that case, if the government had an instrument to “create housing inventory”, we’d be talking about an entirely different issue viz the sub-prime crisis.”
There are programs to incentivize builders to create more low income housing. Obviously it’s not enough. That was my obvious point. Unless of course you want to go ahead with ramping up this social justice authoritarianism. Then you can use slave labor. Or whatever.
There are programs for builders to concentrate on low-income housing. That’s within the realm of the builder’s responsibility to create housing that appeals to the buyers in their area. It’s pretty simple. **Match the price point to the likely buyers.** Don’t invent a price point and then help the buyers invent the financials picture that allows them to qualify to purchase those homes.
“**Match the price point to the likely buyers.** Don’t invent a price point and then help the buyers invent the financials picture that allows them to qualify to purchase those homes.”
Magic central plans. That’s not how “pricing” works.
No, that’s right. That’s what builders in specific regions and towns are supposed to be able to arrive at for their companies’ building plans based on their awareness of their town’s business profile, proximity to large urban centers w/large, stable employers, etc, etc. Gee, that statement of mine doesn’t involve central planning at all. As far as I can tell, that sentence of mine suggests that it’s the builders who are making those kinds of decisions along w/their bankers’ guidance. So, if the builders made the decisions on their own, then no one but themselves are to blame for their mistakes.
So you think that various jurisdictions across the country are going to organically fit your “common sense” plan. You should run for office and let the public benefit from these magic solutions you have.
Maybe I will at some point. In the meantime, it’s enough for me that I get to chat w/a cousin about the situation in my former childhood hometown, a bedroom suburb of Boston that is tackling all of these issues.
If these local jurisdictions do some things on their own to ease pressures in response to their own conditions (and they very often do), that’s not the worst thing in the world. The problem is that each program will dynamically affect the market and disrupt goals of the larger regions (states and the entire nation) when you look at statistics from the top down. And it will eventually have a pendulum effect even in their own local markets. But like I said, small interventions are some times acceptable if they’re done intelligently for intelligent reasons. The bigger the constituency, the lower the chances are of having this intelligent planning.
None of your ideas are bad when context is rectified. You just don’t often understand how the pieces fit together and how they relate to one another in a dynamic market.
All markets are dynamic because we have lives to live and people make choices every day that are not anticipated by the planners. That builds tension over time. It can build bubbles that pop. It can build resentments that are channeled in to political opposition and so forth. If the “planners” are private businesses and the buyers / users are buying with their own money, it’s up to these private parties to work out their own conflicts. Therefore political distortions are minimized and tensions resolved locally with fewer conflicts. Most of the time there is no perceived conflict at all.
I wouldn’t disagree w/your premise that many of these financial problems reflect social stressors and social ills that build tension over time. Free markets are not the ultimate and inviolate panacea you seem to portray, however. You’ve written previously that fewer people suffer in an entirely free market and that is patently not true. In the history of capitalism, free markets have experienced as many catastrophes as have free markets that have been guided through bottlenecks by choices made by society’s larger financial entities.
As for all “tensions being resolved locally w/fewer conflicts” just because you’re claiming that by allowing “private parties to work out their own conflicts” those conflicts will be resolved by dialogue/mutual actions/interactions doesn’t even make sense given the nature of free markets that cross all borders and affect all people, directly and indirectly. As for there being “no perceived conflict at all,” that might be true if you wish to ignore things like HIGH-SPEED ROBO-TRADING on the stock exchanges, et al but as I read the financials picture of today, that “no perceived conflict” story is not the case.
“That’s within the realm of the builder’s responsibility to create housing that appeals to the buyers in their area. ”
See, you really don’t get it. Who is the builder accountable to? You? The executive branch? Congress? Buyers that you want to help? Who owns these properties?
All of these issues go straight over your head. You just assume a central plan makes sense. You don’t mind private property rights for others as long as the owners go along with “the plan.” We call that economic fascism. You want private property subject to state control to meet the state’s goals.
NONE of THE ISSUES go over my head as regards this issue of affordable housing. I’ve got a cousin who remained behind in my hometown who’s dealing w/city planning issues right now because she’s on the city council. Considering the multi-million dollar deals she’s discussing w/city planners and architects and builders, I bet I’m a lot more acquainted w/the issues than you are.
I’ve never endorsed central planning from the central government. There’s certainly a role played by the tiers of government in each town and city though as far as planning goes. You’re the one who’s confusing central planning w/a simple program to make qualifying for a mortgage less susceptible to bias. As for builders who become involved w/taking contracts to produce low-income housing through an agreement w/a government agency or town/city vs those builders who attempt on their own to produce low-income housing, that’s something that is within their capacity to gauge as professional builders. Don’t try to claim that realtors couldn’t figure out what tier of house most of their clients could afford to buy. Don’t try to claim that most buyers didn’t know what tier of house they really should have chosen.
You have a very limited range of experiences and you cull from that and your leftwing “journalist” rags. You then reject anything that contradicts leftist narratives.
Conversation with you is useless. You’re robotic. I’m not confused about any of these relatively simple topics. Anyone that has taken and understood an entry level economics or business class would understand everything that I’ve said even if they do prefer more government involvement to achieve social justice aims. Your arguments don’t actually make sense in the ways that you try to apply them.
You read about and pontificate on issues that you don’t understand well enough. You think you do otherwise you’d keep your pie hole shut. I assume.
Like I said, you’re talking about central planning and socialist / fascist economics:
Americana 19 minutes ago: “There are programs for builders to concentrate on low-income housing. That’s within the realm of the builder’s responsibility to create housing that appeals to the buyers in their area. It’s pretty simple. **Match the price point to the likely buyers.** Don’t invent a price point and then help the buyers invent the financials picture that allows them to qualify to purchase those homes.”
That is not at all what I’m talking about! For pete’s sake, must YOU ALWAYS RELY ON CHEATING in a discussion? That is very clear that I’m talking about builders looking around their communities and figuring out what they’ve got for large employers nearby and whether they can afford to splurge on building snazzier houses vs simple boxes. That is NOT “central planning”; that is BUILDERS being aware of their own economic climate in their immediate vicinity and responding to it!!!!
I’ve got several friends who are city planners. I went to school w/city planners and architects and I know how andy why they operate as they do. Central planning is an entirely different thing as you’re describing it than if a city was given a grant to develop certain types of housing and they chose to do X vs Z. Matching the price point to the buyers is what is done all the time in real estate and this is what is done all the time in each and every city in the U.S. as each locale evaluates how it remains affordable for all classes of people. The only reason you’re objecting to the concept now is because you think it can shore up your argument. Well, I’m here to tell you it shores up my argument equally as well, perhaps even more so, than it shores up yours.
It’s not cheating to confuse the idiotic interlocutors by explaining the implications of their own ideas.
There were also programs to privatize what was previously government owned housing. Those programs in some cases targeted first time buyers but a lot of the housing came from military.
So? Complete your thinking on this issue and don’t leave us all guessing. I’m not going to write a long response until I know in what direction you’re taking this.
I don’t care what your response is. You can’t solve any problems. All you is pontificate and say very stupid things. There is no Utopian solution. That’s the point!
Who’s ever mentioned a Utopian solution of the kind you accuse me of focusing on? You’re the one who always mentions Utopian solutions as if there is any such thing. I’m of a more practical mindset and I see limits of all kinds.
All you do is pontificate and say very stupid things. <<<< I won't quote you for credit here since I absolutely endorse writing the same thing right back at ya. In fact, stealing the quote feels about right.
You think that you’re practical. Most delusional morons also think that their own ideas are practical. That’s why we refer to them as delusional. You should start to notice some patterns here but you’re not acknowledging them.
You might not feel like a delusional moron, but any member of MENSA should at least understand the accusations. You can’t even manage that.
Hahaha, you think you get brownie points for being rude in debate. You don’t.
All that you can possibly understand is that you’re being disrespected. That’s really too bad. That’s not my problem.
It is your problem because that is your argument style. You produce less information that is filtered and reconfigured for presentation and fewer classical rebuttals than you present vile, puerile name-calling and labels. That doesn’t push the conversation forward toward any form of consensus. It STALLS all conversations in place.
I know, let’s make sure all the buyers have jobs. Why didn’t they think of that? Stupid banksters!!!
Ah, so you recognize they flouted their own standards… Finally.
There was no single standard. The laws and policy changes forced them to constantly create riskier loans. Period. That’s it. Why so hard to understand? The standards were extremely fluid. I’m sick of repeating myself. You stupid freak.
I can understand this confusion about fixating on derivatives, which did intensify the effects…but the crash occurred because the riskier loan creation brought in lots of unqualified buyers that first caused prices to riser sharper than they should have based on rational expectations in a freer market, and then when economic circumstances changed pressure lost many of these people to lose their homes causing a swing in the other direction. Also not mentioned yet is that building rates in many cases tried to keep up with high demand which intensifies the bubble and the burst exponentially.
Of course, there can be no single standard but there can be REASONABLE STANDARDS for every situation. You are leaping from one aspect of this situation to another and ignoring the fact you know that there were an awful lot of buyers and realtors and bankers who were using this as an opportunity to get rich quick or make a quick killing. The riskier loan system brought in all sorts of Ponzi scheme practitioners who intended to flip houses and sell them on and so on. As for the housing prices rising in response to the heating up of the market, that’s yet another aspect of this that should be seen in isolation from the other aspects. And as for the building industry rates, I’m certainly taking that into account in my remarks. Again, builders in any area should be AWARE of the DEMOGRAPHICS they’re building for and they shouldn’t overreach and build housing that doesn’t conform to those demographics. Builders don’t arbitrarily get to decide they’re going to build quarter of a million dollar homes simply because that’s what’s being built in other parts of the country.
(objectivefactsmatter) “…but the crash occurred because the riskier loan creation brought in lots of unqualified buyers that first caused prices to riser sharper than they should have based on rational expectations in a freer market, and then when economic circumstances changed pressure lost many of these people to lose their homes causing a swing in the other direction.”
You’re cracking me up. This is one of your all-time great lines (objectivefactsmatter) “…based on rational expectations in a freer market.” Why is it so funny? Because it was simply that rational and irrational were so inextricably interlinked as far as those housing prices go. And as for your ultimate proofing line of financial credulity that “a freer market” would have helped rectify the housing bubble situation, nothing helps rectify the “freer market” in the housing sector because it’s ultimately as free as greed and business sense and common sense can make it.
Nobody could agree what reasonable was. That’s another point you miss. Nobody really thought any of it was reasonable. It was like an economic cold war. In fact it still is very much like that.
Everyone who thought twice knew what “reasonable” was. I didn’t remain in my hometown for that very reason. I knew I wouldn’t be able to afford the prices never mind the real estate taxes past the first few years of residence. Many of the homes in my childhood hometown are now $2-$35 million. I played in homes that were considered white elephants because they were ginormous old Victorians and they’re now astronomically expensive.
Anyone who thought twice KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING. The fact some knew more than others is simply the difference between being a professional and being a first-time buyer. The fact there were so many who’d prefer to believe that housing can go up forever are simply capitalist optimists. It was an economic war of a kind that you don’t want to acknowledge.
Americana 2 minutes ago: “Everyone who thought twice knew what “reasonable” was.”
Yikes. An illogical appeal to common sense when judging thousands upon thousands of desperate people. The programs were not reasonable. That’s my point. The laws were not crafted and manged carefully.
“It was an economic war of a kind that you don’t want to acknowledge.”
Life is always a struggle. In America we historically worked very hard to make it a meritocracy, not a pure democracy where the only thing that matters is political power. You’re leaning towards political solutions rather than solutions that reward smart and hard (not to mention patient) workers. You say you want to promote certain ideals but your suggestions reward political power and nothing more. You do not understand the implications of your suggestions.
You’re leaning toward identifying programs that you feel are at fault when, if people had not ACTED CRIMINALLY and CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT on a MASSIVE SCALE, we wouldn’t have suffered nearly as catastrophic an implosion as we did.
Life is a struggle and you’d better recognize it as such. Not pretend that you can have whatever you want just because you want it. For someone who seems to think they’re the paragon of self-restraint, you’ve got a pretty poor record of recognizing someone else who’s got the same attitude of toughing it out. As for “not understanding the implications of my suggestions”, of course I’ve got an understanding of what I’m suggesting.
I have a friend who allowed her husband to take out a second mortgage on their house and max out their credit cards, several of them, even though her name is on all the joint documents and accounts. She later claimed that she “didn’t know what he was doing” but she knew when new cars and trucks showed up in their driveway and she could have opened those credit card statements and stopped him at any point. Why didn’t she? Because she didn’t see any reason for them to change their lifestyle substantially. They pretended that their home was accruing in value “just because” without them having done any substantial renovations, etc. I might have been somewhat polite when talking to her about their economic plight but, in my heart, that’s not what I was thinking.
Americana 10 hours ago
“You’re leaning toward identifying programs that you feel are at fault when, if people had not ACTED CRIMINALLY and CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT on a MASSIVE SCALE, we wouldn’t have suffered nearly as catastrophic an implosion as we did.”
Yikes. You’re going in circles. So the root cause is the criminal element? Then solve that before you map out your delusional programs. Then maybe I’ll listen to you.
See, this is why I said, among other things, that the implications of your own ideas leads us to solve this “problem” with a bigger police state. When you crash the system again we’ll here similar blame shifting and arguments that lead to an ever bigger state with ever more power. You’re a dupe.
This is yet another of objectivefactsmatter’s unforgettably weird political science concepts hybridized w/ some DNA from economics lines: “In America we historically worked very hard to make it a meritocracy, not a pure democracy where the only thing that matters is political power. “
Americana 9 hours ago: “This is yet another of objectivefactsmatter’s unforgettably weird political science concepts hybridized w/ some DNA from economics lines: “In America we historically worked very hard to make it a meritocracy, not a pure democracy where the only thing that matters is political power. “”
You’re proud that my comments go sailing right over your head. It’s fascinating.
The law was crafted to be IMPLEMENTED BY REAL ESTATE and REAL ESTATE AFFILIATED PROFESSIONALS WHO HAD THE FIDUCIARY DUTY to act reasonably and ENCOURAGE REASONABLE CHOICES BY THEIR CLIENTS.
Every transaction had at least one or more professionals that considered the deals “reasonable.”
The theme you’re missing is that you’re not qualified to judge as you’re trying to do.
Oh, and you are qualified? You’re a realtor now? I’ve got three friends who’ve been inducted into the million dollar realtors club status in two different states. None of them were caught up in this scandal. However did they manage that? By being ethical and by being intelligent. As for those transactions being “reasonable”, I’d hardly call ROBO-SIGNING a reasonable clearing house measure for ANY real estate transaction. But, hey, maybe that’s just me being persnickety.
As a matter of fact I’m legally qualified, yes. I don’t actually work for retail clients.
“I’ve got three friends who’ve been inducted into the million dollar realtors club status in two different states. None of them were caught up in this scandal. However did they manage that?”
Because the scandal is not what you think it is.
“As for those transactions being “reasonable”, I’d hardly call ROBO-SIGNING a reasonable clearing house measure for ANY real estate transaction. But, hey, maybe that’s just me being persnickety.”
Retard, they were forced by law to ignore “common sense” standards and substitute them with “social justice” standards. Why is this so phucking hard for douchebag retards like you understand even after months now of explaining it to you?
They weren’t “forced by law to ignore common-sense standards”, they were simply asked to consider first-time homebuyers w/less than ideal qualifications. In which case, steering them toward homes they could afford and continue to afford should their ARM mortgages blow up over time was the key to making this program work. So, ROBO-SIGNING was their ethical solution to the whole issue of first-time questionable buyers? Is that the ‘See No Evil, Speak No Evil’ approach of the realty community that you’re defending? Sorry, they should have been “Seeing No Evil, Signing No Evil,” then I’d believe they were performing their fiduciary duty. Your excuse, that “they couldn’t leave any money on the table if they wanted to honor their fiduciary duty to their shareholders”, is ridiculous and utterly bizarre given your claim that they shouldn’t have been trading in those mortgages in the first place. Have you got A CLUE HOW WEIRD THAT REMARK OF YOURS WAS, have you???
As for you continuing to explain the situation to me so patiently and thoroughly, well, as the plucking douchebag recipient of your arcane and half-azzed wisdom that you deliver w/huge plucking blinders on your head, we two obviously have a deep and mutual misunderstanding. Your antipathy to insights that don’t meet your approval is well known and I’ll continue to take that attitude of yours for granted. As for you being a non-practicing realtor, I’m beginning to wonder how it is that you’ve got sooooo many disparate job skills. First, you’re a TV sales for your family business, then you’re a tech guru and now you’re a realtor. Sounds a little hinky, very much like the claims that Drakken made.
No, I understand your narratives. You’re clueless because you repeat them over and over without trying to understand the weaknesses in your own assertions. The longer you remain steadfast with your rigid, narrative-based POV in the face of contrary, verifiable views, the dumber you look.
At this point, the scale is increasing dramatically.
“First, you’re a TV sales for your family business, then you’re a tech guru and now you’re a realtor. Sounds a little hinky, very much like the claims that Drakken made.”
No retard. At age 15, I did repair for someone that didn’t even know my family. I was known in the community already for doing repair work and car audio installations. And yes, I did also handle sales when the shop owner went to lunch and he started paying me commissions for that as well. We would often take televisions in that needed repair but the client would not wait and traded it in for a used television that we had repaired earlier.
I then at age 16 went to work for a locally based, regional contractor for some of Northern California’s largest home builders. And I’m not an active agent but I am legally qualified since I passed the licensing test in California. In fact I worked at sites mostly in California but I also worked with one of Wyatt Earp’s descendants (he was a large stakeholder in at least one of the commercial builders we had contracts with) on his ranch in Montana. We flew his plane from Hayward to his landing strip on the ranch. I was still a teenager. I ended up making a large commission on a commercial highrise when I was 19 and then ended up with a nice consulting contract with the tenant, an international banking organization, when I was in my 20s. All while attending college. Our “family businesses” include academic contracts, and as a matter of fact, a very successful private academy. My family relationships only ever gave me opportunities to meet people that passed judgment on my abilities, not my DNA or anything of political value. I took contrary routes. I never took pay from family businesses. But I did develop contracts later from those relationships once people knew what I had to offer. My family is not at all in to rewarding people according to who they know or what family they belong to. This would be repugnant to our own values. My brother and sisters didn’t ever work for any family businesses at all. I did it for free. I wanted to learn. It was interesting. That’s it. And my grandfather along with a neighbor started teaching me about electronics when I was 5. My first “show and tell” in kindergarten was a handmade telegraph made from recycled telephone wire and carpenter’s framing nails.
It’s a classic learning project for kids:
http://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.Net/images/integrate/teaching_materials/energy_sustain/student_materials/electromagnet.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.Com/images/I/21c5jVy8ZRL._SY300_.jpg
(should be solid core wire) http://www.discount-low-voltage.Com/core/media/media.nl/id.132536/c.1259044/.f?h=5d2435cb570153654db5
“Sounds a little hinky, very much like the claims that Drakken made.”
Who cares about your tin ear? I sure don’t. What I don’t like is people forcing me to talk about my experience and then turning it on me as if some other force drove my success. My experiences give me teachable lessons that I can pass on to others. That’s what matters. You want to whine about bullcrap and all of the fallacies of the naysayers, I can’t stop you. But I can ridicule you and expose how fatalistic and weak you are. That’s why you have this great expectation of magic government solutions, which you characterize as “realistic.” Your view of the success of our nation (and “the rich”) is driven by over estimating the determinism of material resources and this underlying assumption that powerful nations become powerful primarily due to resources and smart government policies. You just don’t understand how important our constitution is to those successful policies and cultural values.
Sadly, our academies create so many idiot savants these days that if someone ever tries to build broad knowledge bases and skills it seems “hinky” according to the “commons sense” of the idiots.
The dumber I look? I believe you’ve written things like “there was a fiduciary duty to take the money that was on the table for their shareholders” as justification for professional real estate functionaries TO DUPE others despite knowing they were making ridiculously unsound deals. You’re ignoring the fact there were many within the banking industry who knew they were passing on junk derivatives when they bundled them and tried to hide them by putting optimistic labels on them. The dumber I look pales in comparison to how dumb you look when you write such things.
Oh, but it was plain old common sense that led me to question (_________) claims. You’ll note that he’s sort of vanished from the scene as far as making the sorts of grandiose insider knowledge claims he was making. The fact I twice exposed him as a fraud doesn’t indicate I’m someone who’s “brainless and has a tin ear” regardless of what you say. I’m quite good at picking up vibes that don’t have the right tone and don’t have the underlying facts to support the tone. I’m someone who’s used to fact checking and used to having to wend her way through facts vs spurious claims. You don’t admire that ability, fine, but it sure comes in handy. Especially on sites like this one. You’ve forced others to speak about their CV and life experiences so forgive me if you’re expected to do turnabout and share your work history. You challenge people in that idiotic fashion and you’re going to be facing trial by fire. It’s especially important when we’re discussing particular issues and how one arrives at one’s life’s work and/or vocation and how that enables one to reach a pinnacle of success in life. It’s even more vital when I’ve had family member’s experiences in the Middle East challenged by people like Pete on the basis of some wacky bit of nonsense from a site like Jihad Watch that claims there are “no infidels who are in charge over Muslims in academia in the Muslim world”.
“I’m quite good at picking up vibes that don’t have the right tone and don’t have the underlying facts to support the tone. ”
You’ve convinced yourself.
“I’m someone who’s used to fact checking and used to having to wend her way through facts vs spurious claims. You don’t admire that ability, fine, but it sure comes in handy.”
Competence matters. Most people have good intentions.
“You’ve forced others to speak about their CV and life experiences so forgive me if you’re expected to do turnabout and share your work history.”
I haven’t forced anyone. My thing is that I try to promote ideas that are verifiable. I don’t try to force people to accept my own personal testimony. It should not matter what my background is unless you want to verify something I personally testified to.
Nonfactual example: I personally worked with Jon Gruber and I know that he set out to defraud people.
I can’t think of anything that I’ve said that can’t be examined independently. Maybe I make offhand remarks some times where I’m not as careful. In any case, hopefully you get my point.
“You challenge people in that idiotic fashion and you’re going to be facing trial by fire.”
I only do it when I already know the answer. I don’t think that I’m idiotic. If you get different results…that’s for you to resolve.
“It’s even more vital when I’ve had family member’s experiences in the Middle East challenged by people like Pete on the basis of some wacky bit of nonsense from a site like Jihad Watch that claims there are “no infidels who are in charge over Muslims in academia in the Muslim world”.”
I didn’t see that conversation. I can’t comment.
I never said you were idiotic. I said you challenged people in an idiotic fashion. Those are two very different things. I appreciate your arguments and perspective far more when you deliberate and present things in a rational, connected manner in an attempt to prove how you see A leading to C leading to E. It’s not terribly hard to resist the urge to label someone and throw out ad homs every third sentence. It does take more effort to write at length, but considering these discussions are the only way we are going to move forward in unity, I’m willing to put aside silly labels. I think you should be capable of doing the same.
I’m cooperative when I think it’s worth it. Some times IME it’s better to let things spin a little out of control to see what lessons ultimately come from that. It’s not easy leading people to see the differences between worldview and their own sense of “reality.” That’s where most of the arguments ultimately can be traced back to: Blind promotion of worldview as (full extent of) “reality.”
I’m not anxious for anyone to be cooperative. I simply expect people to be able to adhere to a reasonable standard of behavior (most of the time). Considering I’ve had quite the argument w/a Marxist professor for over a year and a half on another BB, I don’t expect to be labeled a Marxist. And, given that professor doesn’t see the least thing Marxist about my perspective, it’s very strange to have that label being thrown at me, right, left and center on here. Attempting to land sticky labels on someone as the underpinnings of one’s argument doesn’t achieve anything. That attempt to label is as blind promotion of worldview as anything else as far as I’m concerned.
“That attempt to label is as blind promotion of worldview as anything else as far as I’m concerned.”
No, not always. If you seek to end an argument with labels, that is one thing. If you use labels to confront someone about the origins and etymology of their ideas it can lead to a critical discussion that at some point would be useful.
It might, if it were genuinely used as an etymological tool for excavation. If it’s simply a tool to say to someone, “get the heck out of the intellectual gene pool, you’re a Neanderthal” that’s another thing entirely.
My sister was living proof that not only was that possible but that it is reality. I finally posted an international recruitment advertisement for the King Abdullah University of the Sciences and Technology because she’d mentioned the recruitment drive to me. It’s the biggest sciences/technology university in the world and was an obvious Saudi initiative to try to bring the Middle East into the 21st century as well as give Saudi citizens a handle on their POST-OIL ECONOMY which is a looming social crisis within two generations. KAUST was advertising INTERNATIONALLY for DEPARTMENT HEADS and they were looking for the greatest minds they could entice to come to Saudi Arabia. That verifiable advertisement **sort of** quieted down the Jihad Watch stupidity, but it didn’t SILENCE IT and NO ONE RETRACTED THEIR STUPID STATEMENTS. Pete even had the gall to claim that once they’d had Muslims educated to the point of being capable of not needing NON-MUSLIM DEPT. HEADS ANY MORE, they’d get rid of the infidels. At some point, this silliness has to stop. Really, I mean, Jihad Watch is encouraging people to doubt that KAUST was recruiting international faculty??? How DUMB can you be to try to discredit that recruitment drive?
http://www.kaust.edu.sa
I wasn’t part of that conversation at all.
Well, I reposted my thoughts on that conversation because Pete brought it up again. It is beyond me how someone can be that ???????? on that issue of infidels outranking Muslims. It drives me crazy for such a stupid remark to be made and for support for the remark to be provided by some stupid hadith is even stupider. And for other people to concur w/such a stupid remark despite all evidence (PUBLISHED EVIDENCE) to the contrary, at least in this instance of KAUST University and its international recruitment drive????? Aaarrrrgh, it’s aggravating as heck to see such stupidity repeated by poster after poster. I don’t mind honest ignorance, but to see deliberately dishonest dissimulation being paraded around as forgivable ignorance, that’s another thing entirely.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 16 days ago
“Well, I reposted my thoughts on that conversation because Pete brought it up again. It is beyond me how someone can be that ???????? on that issue of infidels outranking Muslims. It drives me crazy for such a stupid remark to be made and for support for the remark to be provided by some stupid hadith is even stupider. And for other people to concur w/such a stupid remark despite all evidence (PUBLISHED EVIDENCE) to the contrary, at least in this instance of KAUST University and its international recruitment drive????? Aaarrrrgh, it’s aggravating as heck to see such stupidity repeated by poster after poster. I don’t mind honest ignorance, but to see deliberately dishonest dissimulation being paraded around as forgivable ignorance, that’s another thing entirely.”
Glad you brought this post up again. It truly is remarkable the efforts some will go to try to produce wrong information or deny the facts. King Abdullah University of Sciences and Technology is recruiting internationally. There’s not anything that can be said against this but, somehow, Pete manages to spit something out.
“Oh, but it was plain old common sense that led me to question (_________) claims. You’ll note that he’s sort of vanished from the scene as far as making the sorts of grandiose insider knowledge claims he was making. The fact I twice exposed him as a fraud doesn’t indicate I’m someone who’s “brainless and has a tin ear” regardless of what you say. ”
You testified several times (just as an example for you) that I reported you for “spam” when you posted an URL to (according to your own testimony) a site for Elders of Zion. This material is highly controversial. I don’t know who blocks it but it’s just the kind of thing that drives the desire to block URLs other than for commercial reasons. At the very least I can see that you’re not careful about weighing your own intuition against the possibility that you’re wrong. There’s nothing wrong with being sensitive to intuition as long as you filter it rationally.
I think you need to slow way down and think quite a bit more before you think you understand people that disagree with you. That’s useful advice for everyone.
As far as our friend goes, even Chris Kyle has been caught saying controversial sayings. But AFAIK the verifiable things that he has said are still just as useful. I don’t trust anything that anyone says until I verify it on my own. That’s what I recommend. But it also takes longer to form views that you can have confidence in. So I recommend…more patience. Again, for everyone.
I’m very careful about evaluating the people who disagree w/me. I also am quite open to persuasion if someone presents compelling reasons for their position on an issue. That doesn’t mean that I won’t pursue the truth when I have every inkling that someone is NOT SPEAKING the truth. It’s fine to simply speak from a biased position but to INVENT FACTS and TRY TO INFLUENCE the nature of the debate by lying in such a way as (_______) did is completely and totally WRONG. It’s half-azzed, it’s foolish, it’s nuts, it’s bogus and, above all, it’s DANGEROUS to try to undermine the truth in that fashion. It’s also beyond bizarre that stories like those go unchallenged when they do not match up w/the facts. There were ways to present those issues in a truthful manner that still had the bias you feel is justified. By undercutting the truth and attempting to substitute lies you sacrifice the entire HISTORICAL REALITY of the scenario. I’m very patient, by the way, and I don’t believe I need to be asked to demonstrate yet more patience than I do. I’m only impatient when it comes to outright lies and crazy theories that exhibit no roots in reality. The accuracy of history is important and the accuracy of history as we live it and observe it close up, too close in fact always to make sense of it, is even more important to preserve and not interfere w/its events and its context.
You might consider yourself to be careful, but you’re at a huge disadvantage here if you’re trying to track conversations. You rely too much on instinct. You can’t just come in and take on the group as a dissenter that won’t consider the flaws in your own arguments.
I was fairly subtle with you for a long time. Your avoidance of discussing Oslo Accords and the events in Israel along a rational timeline (some time last year, maybe even before that) provided “tells” that led to me qualifying you in certain ways. I didn’t do it on instinct. I did it based on evidence. Like I said, there’s nothing wrong with most of your views until you present them dogmatically and work to block or minimize the arguments and data that are going against you. It seems to me that you feel “right” when opposing the collective (dissenters) and you don’t realize when you lose your way in a particular argument. This is again, all very natural. But you have to slow down when this happens. You seem to expect to accomplish too much. You’ve go to be willing to check yourself as much as you’re checking people that disagree with you.
I’ll offer this advice: If you want to learn while arguing your positions, you have to slow down and listen and prepare to be flexible. If you want to win above all else, you have to research the opposition much better before you start the arguments. Slowing down a bit will help you no matter what you choose. It’s your life.
I’ve never been unwilling to discuss the Oslo Accords and I’ve always been willing to fault the Palestinians for not willing to recognize that Israel is here to stay and that they must concentrate on achieving other national gains from Israel instead of merely taking land back. I see the issue as being one where the Palestinians haven’t even begun to look at the aspects of the situation that I would advocate for in any peace accord. That DOESN’T MEAN I refuse to see how it is that Israel came to be and sympathize w/both the Palestinians and the Israelis for entirely different reasons.
I don’t rely on instinct, by the way. I’m not sure if you’ve written that in an attempt to discredit my thinking and analysis that goes into “proofing” something but, nonetheless, that’s how it reads. Considering anyone w/half a brain should have arrived at the same awareness those were lies, it’s pretty strange that no one else’s brains led them to those same conclusions. When I’ve caught people out, it’s because the facts don’t lead to the same conclusion or the story they’ve presented. That’s rational, that’s not emotional. You claiming I’m being emotional when the only way to have figured out those claims were lies was through reason is someone who’s on a mission to denigrate my ability to think.
I don’t necessarily “care about winning above all else” (not sure where you get that?), but I do like discussions to be HONEST, ACCURATE and HISTORICALLY FORWARD-LOOKING. This idea that everyone can compare what Muslims did in the distant past and put it on fast forward and that’ll be that is simply nonsensical to me. That oversimplifies all the sociology involved in the rise of Islam in that distant, primitive timeframe and what the sociology of Islam today means. The fact there are recidivist Islamists roaming around only says it’s difficult if not impossible not to have religious artifacts that lead to backwards ethnographic events. I may be overreaching when I suggest there is an oncoming Reformation that Islam will be facing and who will initiate it, but I don’t believe I can be wrong in the essence of that thought. There is simply too much dissension within Islam right now for me to be totally off-track w/that belief.
The problem is rooted in who has power. There certainly are innocent victims. It’s not Israel’s fault and it’s not entirely the fault of the every day non-Israeli citizen in the region either. The problem is who Westerners empower to represent the alien “oppressed” collective. And failing to understand all of the implications of Islamic sharia (including cultural factors) very often leads to us applying the wrong kinds of incentives. It also leads to massive dupery.
It’s very similar to the set of ideas that leads to radical economic interventions. The idea that we see wealth as more deterministic than it really is allows people to make wealth disparity the allegedly dominant factor so that they can ignore the importance of malignant cultural problems. It’s deemed racist to weigh those factors when you can use historical determinism (and accusations of greed) instead as an explanation for the conflict(s).
And if I recall correctly, the reason I originally wanted to call your attention to the Oslo Accords is that this idea about the Palestinians showing good faith efforts to comply is nonsense. They blame terror on uncontrollable factions. Um, OK. Hold that thought. Didn’t the Oslo Accords demand the PA clamping down on incitement? And doesn’t the PA clearly drive this incitement?
The PA can’t or won’t establish sovereign control to any extent that rule of law can win. Therefore the treaties are practically worthless. Never mind the rest for a moment… how can Israel be faulted when it’s not even possible to find a sovereign to hand over power to? They tried, I believe in good faith, to create a treaty that would help the PA build sovereignty in reality, to build the practical tools that would lead to their ability to live up to their commitments. It was a failure. Reading the implications of those failures is really the only way forward. You can’t ignore the Oslo Accords and then just say, well, if we’re nicer to them and show them love and trust that they’ll naturally organize themselves as a peaceful nation. There is no way that anyone can confidently predict that. Evidence argues for the opposite to occur. The best you could hope for would be another chaotic “sharia” regime that was too busy with infighting to worry about threatening Israel. That seems like pie in the sky to me.
Well, I don’t believe that all Palestinians are represented by Fatah or Hamas in terms of the peace process. The fact the Israelis insist on those organizations as representing the entirety of the Palestinians works to Israel’s advantage because Israel continues to state that the Palestinians are dishonest in their dealings w/the peace process. Certainly, there are some Palestinians who are dishonest because they believe they’ve been wrongfully dispossessed. But, fundamentally, no one can realistically pretend that’s not the truth. That point leaves us where in terms of negotiating options? But it’s also true to state there are Israelis who are dishonest in their peace dealings. Where does one draw the line as to which nation is more dishonest when it’s demonstrated that both nations are exhibiting the same dishonesty for identical reasons in some cases and for opposite reasons in other cases?
It’s like I said before, there have been “wrongs’ and “victims” but you can’t just say it was Israel just as you can’t say it was all Palestinians. The fault was in the anti-Israeli leadership. The people who have power in those societies cause problems in putting together good faith negotiations and sticking to them. That is the root problem.
“Where does one draw the line as to which nation is more dishonest when it’s demonstrated that both nations are exhibiting the same dishonesty for identical reasons in some cases and for opposite reasons in other cases?”
I don’t consider Israelis to be any more “dishonest” as a collective than we are as a nation. They are probably more honest than we are collectively. But that’s not really the point. The indisputable fact is that Israel sticks to it’s agreements in good faith and the people that have been historically in power among their enemies do not stick to agreements unless it’s clearly in their interest to do so because of some threat of annihilation or great harm. Or it is often enough that making it clearly futile to wage violent jihad will moderate the culture over time… to an extent. But they’re not going to find those peaceful paths if we just pretend that their culture is not the root problem. We have to force them to look inward for their own solutions. People rarely learn to fish on their own if you keep delivering fresh fish to them in the hope that they’ll get addicted. They’ll get addicted to the free part, not the process of learning how to fish.
OK, you’ve said some relevant things in the above post. Then how do you feel about the settlements and how do you feel about the push for Greater Israel?
Greater Israel meaning sovereignty over that territory is legitimate if circumstances allow it to be. I alluded to this before. If Israel is the only legitimate sovereign, they need to face reality. If a non-Israeli faction grows sovereignty by establishing law and order and becomes a reliable groups to deal with, then those factions can negotiate on their own.
Greater Israel does not thwart that in any sense. If you just read religious justifications and so forth you might get the ideas of some on the fringe, but it’s not about mowing others down. It’s about a sense that it’s right for secular and religious reasons to take sovereignty. It’s the Israeli equivalent to America’s Manifest Destiny.
It very much depends on how everyone behaves. They should not pursue it for religious reasons and very few Israelis are suggesting that. I think most people discussing it recognize that it might be the best path for security reasons and the best interests of everyone involved. Other than those who put sharia above all else. I’m not for it or against it as a principle. The “facts on the ground” actually matter, including the fact that there truly is no other contending sovereign. There are pie in the sky groups that claim to want to have their own nation. The ones in power are not executing on that strategy in good faith.
The answer is that it depends. I have no bias for or against bigger or smaller territorial sovereignty for Israel. They need to do what makes good sense for their nation and consider the natural rights of everyone.
No, seizing sovereignty shouldn’t and DOESN’T “depend on how everyone behaves” and it also is NOT AT ALL SIMILAR w/AMERICAN “MANIFEST DESTINY” because of the relative relationship of the two peoples. With that seizure and manifest destiny of Greater Israel continuing as a looming threat, the urgency of the Palestinians to continue to take military action against settlements and against Israel continues apace. Instead of REDUCING THE VIRULENCE, Israel is doing everything in her power to continue to build the level of violence exerted against Israel and against Israeli settlers. The attempt to claim that there is no way to negotiate through such divines is a moot point because if Israel were not there, had not stolen Palestinian land, the issue of who would be the sovereign entity would have already been answered. You’re trying to pitch a political proof of a situation based on a solution that suits only the one side. Besides which, Israel is NOT ALLOWED “to do what makes good sense for their nation” without taking into account the Palestinian nation. This is NOT a one-way street, no matter how many roadsigns you or the Israelis put up that have the Palestinians turning off for Mecca and leaving Palestine to Israel.
“Instead of REDUCING THE VIRULENCE, Israel is doing everything in her power to continue to build the level of violence exerted against Israel and against Israeli settlers.”
You truly are an ignorant tool.
Not at all. And, besides, you are an equally ignorant tool. Pretending to have any sort of open-ended opinion when you so obviously don’t is a pernicious way of discussing the Israel-Palestine issues.
“Open minded” is good when open to new evidence. It’s bad when the mind is “open” to purely emotional arguments.
You’ve presented no “new evidence” and since you’re backing an OLD, ORIGINAL PROPOSITION made by Zionists from ages ago about taking over the entire Palestine region, a proposition which was based upon ENTIRELY EMOTIONAL and BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS, you’re hardly in a position to lecture anyone else about who’s resorting to “emotional arguments”.
Their motives were emotional. But they acted in good faith and negotiated with each sovereign, purchased property legitimately and so forth.
No, my arguments are not at all based on emotion.
There were some that originally acted in good faith by negotiating w/individual Palestinian landowner to purchase property, but, there were also those Zionists who declared themselves ENTITLED to the entire Palestinian region on the basis of Biblical prophecy. Those Zionists were veering off into unrealistic and emotional arguments about the relevance of ancient property rights of the region that bear no reality to the reality of the first Zionist period or of today. What’s more, they committed murders to ensure that those Jews who didn’t agree w/their plans were eliminated. You may not consider your argument is based on emotion, the reality is otherwise.
“…there were also those Zionists who declared themselves ENTITLED to the entire Palestinian region on the basis of Biblical prophecy.”
At best that’s you misunderstanding what people said. It doesn’t matter.
“What’s more, they committed murders to ensure that those Jews who didn’t agree w/their plans were eliminated. You may not consider your argument is based on emotion, the reality is otherwise.”
When your narratives are placed back in a timeline with the actual evidence you have to back them, they are nothing. You only think you score points when you rant on certain fixations. It’s pure emotionalism.
It’s highly significant there has always been a core Zionist group who’ve claimed the entire Palestine region. That’s not misunderstanding what the Zionists said or wrote, either in the past or the present. The Palestine land grant might have been suggested for different reasons depending on the constituency suggesting it but the result would be identical — the gifting of the entire Palestine region to the Zionists.
If it were not the case that there were Zionists who were still dedicated to murdering powerful Israelis who seemingly veer from Zionist manifest destiny, then Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin would still be alive. Your claim that “actual evidence” would change the nature of the historical timeline viz these political murders is belied by those murders of significant individuals of several nations including Israel who were killed because they disagreed w/the most rabid of Zionist visions.
“It’s highly significant there has always been a core Zionist group who’ve claimed the entire Palestine region.”
No it’s not. You’re inventing crap.
“Your claim that “actual evidence” would change the nature of the historical timeline viz these political murders is belied by those murders of significant individuals of several nations including Israel who were killed because they disagreed w/the most rabid of Zionist visions.”
You’ve never demonstrated at all that any of your claims are valid. They were reacting to events as they unfolded and some of them are better at forecasting than the likes of you. If I predict that in some time in the future that we have to drop some kind of massive bomb on Mecca and future generations end up doing that for their own rational reasons, will you blame everyone involved for the “massive conspiracy?” That’s in effect what you’re doing. Jihad has been around for a very long time. Who knows what might happen and who might come to the same “Islam-o-phobic” conclusions as some of the more radical thinkers here? I guess as long as ISIS proves to be a peace-loving rational player in the region we won’t worry about having to resort to anything extreme. What’s that smell anyway? I can’t see anything with my head buried in the sand but I’m afraid to pull it out.
All you’ve done is illustrated why you’re moved to think certain things. It’s the same kind of thinking that goes on at stormfront.
These Zionists “weren’t reacting to events as they unfolded”; they were reacting to events they believed were unfolding in negative ways which WOULD RESULT IN AN OUTCOME THEY DIDN’T WANT. In other words, they wanted the OUTCOME THEY DESIRED and whatever or whoever stood in the way, they chose to deal with in one way or another. In several instances, they chose to deal with opposition figures by ASSASSINATING THOSE OPPOSITION FIGURES even if they weren’t obviously going to significantly change the likeliest of the outcomes, which was a recognition of both Palestinian desires and nascent Israeli desires for the region that resulted in the current land division between the two. These are NOT “claims” by the way, these are proven POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS that were TERRORIST ACTIONS DESIGNED TO INTIMIDATE THE BRITISH and the U.N. into giving the Israelis what they wanted ASAP.
Your point is not entirely clear about what you believe the connection is between the historical record for the Zionists vs the historical record of the Palestinians. Regardless, there you go again, implying that this Islamist religious era will result in the Christian (et al) World having to “drop a massive bomb on Mecca” as if that would solve something significant about this Islamist crisis. The fact there is a minute portion of the world’s Muslims involved in any of these jihads seems to be utterly immaterial to you, you’ll still claim it’s the religion IN TOTO. You’ll still advocate that Islam represents paedophilia, world wide war (hmmmmm, just who started the two World Wars w/the two greatest death tolls of all human conflicts?), worldwide domination, etc. There may be plenty of crackpot Muslim clerics, but what about the Haredi Jews who refuse to sit next to women on airplanes or on buses and all the rest of the sects who’ve demonstrated such behavior? There’s a lot of medieval behavior that still lingers courtesy of religious purists and blaming the Palestinians and the Arabs for all that medieval behavior spread across the far reaches of the globe REGARDLESS OF WHAT COUNTRY ONE IS IN JUST DOESN’T CUT IT SOCIOLOGICALLY.
Oh and I’m quite different than the guys at Stormfront so don’t even attempt to go there.
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.633959
Moron. Shut up already. You have nothing new. Nobody is interested. You failed. Get lost.
Back to your old pathetic “get lost” marching orders? There are people who are interested, otherwise I wouldn’t be getting up votes or any responses. There may be more negative responses than positive ones, that’s the nature of this web site. So, shut up, moron, yours are not the only set of eyes and ears for which I’m writing.
You get occasional upvotes from Jerry and “Cowesomeloneboy.”
You’re crap is delusional and old. Every other person expressing an opinion is sick of you and it’s easy to see why. You’re just a nuisance. People that create nuisances are usually just tools.
Listen to Mr. Tool himself!!! I get up votes from people I’ve never heard of. Jerry (hieronymous) largely doesn’t endorse my posts. He occasionally up votes specific ones that mention his thinking in relation to mine.
As for your crap, it is delusional and old. You’re a propaganda voice on a grand and obnoxious scale w/the volume constantly turned to high and the most inane and REPETITIVE utterances and insults coming out of your mouth. You’d give Rush Limbaugh a run for his money for rudeness and lack of insight.
“Listen to Mr. Tool himself!!! I get up votes from people I’ve never heard of. Jerry (hieronymous) largely doesn’t endorse my posts. He occasionally up votes specific ones that mention his thinking in relation to mine.”
Right. For a grand total of: 540 upvotes / 4206 comments.
How many of those are from the two users I already mentioned? Virtually all of them.
Hahaha, nice use of your math skills!#$!#$ Who gives a rip how many up votes vs posts I get? It’s the nature of the posts that matters. Of course, to someone who considers himself a propaganda mouthpiece, the number of up votes is essential. That’s why Pete always stresses my batting percentage. What a joke you two are. Who’s Barbara Roswell? She’s a new poster who just voted up one of my posts. Your criticisms? Pfffffftttt. Pathetic.
“It’s the nature of the posts that matters.”
Where are these “posts that matter” from you? Elders of Zion has been around for over a century and there were many similar libels before that. Lots of people do what you do. So what? We get it.
Try David Duke’s site. I assume he has one. You have a lot in common with him as far as I can tell.
Elders of Zion doesn’t have word one to do w/my perspective. Much as you’d like to claim that it does influence me, it doesn’t. This is the same ploy you take w/economics discussions. Your claim is always that I’m a Marxist and a Communist even though I’ve spent years arguing w/Marxists. Lordy, but you do looooooovvvveeee your labels!
It’s the same narrative form. You’re an idiot.
“This is the same ploy you take w/economics discussions. Your claim is always that I’m a Marxist and a Communist even though I’ve spent years arguing w/Marxists.”
You don’t understand anything. You’ll argue with anyone. But your actual worldview shows you actually think that even here in the USA that the government has a right to impose “social justice” taxes. There is no non-Marxist way to do that in the USA.
Like Trotsky never argued with Stalin. Plus you’re not even smart enough to know where your “feelings” come from. YOu have the same views on “class” and you actually do register pretty strongly for all of the idiotic Marxist fallacies. It doesn’t matter what you “feel” like. If you hawk myths about Buddha, people might notice. If you start quoting from Hindu texts, same thing. You preach the “gospel of Marx.”
You and your “feelings” are more like you getting a lot of tingling along your legs. Just can it as far as that goes… Your debate ploys really are becoming tiresome when they’re used so liberally and identically toward so many different figures who are in ideological opposition to you.
You’re tired of the pattern of receiving legitimate criticism. I bet you are.
Your “legitimate criticism” is the intellectual dingling of the hard core.
I try to keep it interesting when dealing with drones. But the legitimate criticism is certainly there and easy to find for anyone paying attention.
You’re the propaganda mouthpiece for the powers who have never stopped criticizing the Jews disproportionately for a very very long time.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 13 days ago:
“Hahaha, nice use of your math skills!#$!#$ Who gives a rip how many up votes vs posts I get? It’s the nature of the posts that matters. Of course, to someone who considers himself a propaganda mouthpiece, the number of up votes is essential. That’s why Pete always stresses my batting percentage. What a joke you two are. Who’s Barbara Roswell? She’s a new poster who just voted up one of my posts. Your criticisms? Pfffffftttt. Pathetic.”
You can say that again.
“The fact there is a minute portion of the world’s Muslims involved in any of these jihads seems to be utterly immaterial to you, you’ll still claim it’s the religion IN TOTO. ”
No, I’m simply showing you how easy it is to construct moronic narratives. It’s not that easy for me to mimic you and you never seem to recognize it. Your self-awareness is practically zero.
It certainly is easy for someone like you to construct moronic narratives and expect people to simply swallow the narratives as you present them without any questions being posed. I wonder why that is? Is it because you actually make a substantial and good case for your perspective? Not at all. It’s because you don’t broach discussion by alternative voices. You simply chant the cliches and story lines you’re encouraged to chant and that’s enough for you. You don’t use critical thinking, or even rational thinking, on certain issues to suggest where the geopolitical needles may move.
Yeah, see, I’m the one that keeps referring to the timeline. You’re insane. Anyone can see that.
If you were the one “who keeps referring to the timeline” and you were trying to achieve ideological and historical accuracy then you wouldn’t ignore the fact that Ze’ev Jabotinsky stated he would force the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine by MILITARY FORCE in the 1920s.
Dumbshit,
They were already violently opposed and unprotected before that. He was right to stand up and articulate opposition to all of the injustice.
If Jabotinsky had simply stood up and articulated opposition to the injustice, it would have been fine by me. What he did was stand up and declare he was going to form a militia, train everyone who was Jewish and then seize enough land for a Jewish state. That’s not simply standing up for injustice, that’s CREATING YOUR OWN KIND OF JUSTICE because you wish to fulfill a question for nationhood while ignoring the injustice you’ve inflicted on another people because you consider them to be lesser humans.
Again, this “seize land” meme is tiresome. According to you he meant to displace non-Jews even if they were willing to go along with the Jewish right to self-determination. Is that right?
So name the dates of the operations where he went and did any of that.
Who wrote ANYTHING like what’s implied in this following sentence of yours: (objectivefactsmatter) “According to you he meant to displace non-Jews even if they were willing to go along with the Jewish right to self-determination. Is that right?”
No, Jabotinsky didn’t want to displace non-Jews. He wanted to seize land and impose a Jewish state on whatever amount of Palestinian territory he was able to seize and hold. I’ll give Jabotinsky credit for being liberal enough he didn’t wish to displace these Palestinian Arabs by the formation of a Jewish state. Nonetheless, by seizing their land for a Jewish state and imposing Jewish sovereignty over them by force, Jabotinsky’s ideology did take away their freedom of choice in the matter. The fact he was willing to include them as full citizens doesn’t really change the nature of that transition. The date when this was ultimately FINALIZED was the date Israel declared herself a state in 1947 by forestalling any further partitioning discussions at the United Nations.
“No, Jabotinsky didn’t want to displace non-Jews. He wanted to seize land and impose a Jewish state on whatever amount of Palestinian territory he was able to seize and hold.”
So you admit it wasn’t about displacing anyone? You admit that it was about establishing non-sharia (Jewish in this case) sovereignty where sharia forbids it and where after negotiating and acting in good faith for many decades they were screwed by the British and the local jihadis?
So your little “imperialism” narrative turned out to be completely nonsensical.
“I’ll give Jabotinsky credit for being liberal enough he didn’t wish to displace these Palestinian Arabs by the formation of a Jewish state. Nonetheless, by seizing their land for a Jewish state and imposing Jewish sovereignty over them by force, Jabotinsky’s ideology did take away their freedom of choice in the matter.”
Wow. You really…wow. If he didn’t displace anyone, he was not “seizing land” but planning to establish sovereignty in part of the British Mandate just as they were promised. Of course those others had choices. You can’t make every individual’s every dream come true. You’re way more delusional than I thought.
What a waste of time.
The Zionists tried to achieve a Jewish nation state in the region initially through DIPLOMACY but EVENTUALLY THROUGH TERRORISM against the British and against the U.N. as well as against the Palestinian Arabs. The fact the nascent Israelis wished to have their own state might be seen as an admirable effort but, ultimately, when push came to shove, they achieved their means via TERRRORISM. That shouldn’t be seen as an innocent effort at achieving sovereignty, especially given the timeline. That was a DELIBERATE, LONG-TERM EFFORT to SUBVERT THE HISTORY of the region and bend it to fit Jewish narratives. The fact you’ve indulged in so much historical balderdash about the extant Jewish community and the revival of the ancient Jewish tribal kingdoms and all the rest of it to give it a veneer of normalcy and clean political achievement doesn’t really equate w/the reality AT ALL. As for this sentence of yours, it’s indicative of just how blind you are to the reality of WHAT was done and HOW it was done: (objectivefactsmatter) “If he didn’t displace anyone, he was not “seizing land” but planning to establish sovereignty in part of the British Mandate just as they were promised. ” The Jews were promised a homeland in the Palestine Mandate after JEWISH TERRORISM made it imperative for the British to find a way to staunch the political bloodshed and turmoil. The Arabs weren’t the ones ASSASSINATING POLITICIANS and DIPLOMATS IN PALESTINE and in LONDON in order to PREVENT THE ZIONISTS from being given a nation in Palestine. When was the first Arab assassination of anyone outside Palestine because of their role in the Palestine Arab-Israeli controversy???
“That was a DELIBERATE, LONG-TERM EFFORT to SUBVERT THE HISTORY of the region and bend it to fit Jewish narratives.”
What?
You’re insane. And tiresome. Nobody is buying it but other psychotic Jew-haters like you. You’re wasting everyone’s time.
“The Jews were promised a homeland in the Palestine Mandate after JEWISH TERRORISM made it imperative for the British to find a way to staunch the political bloodshed and turmoil.”
You really are insane. Again, you can’t even follow a timeline. Or your a lot dumber than I give you credit for. Given how you define “land seizure’ and “imperialism” I’m guessing that there is no real way for me to underestimate your stupidity.
There’s no reason for anyone else to underestimate the extent of your selective stupidity when you can’t or WON’T recognize events that are historical fact.
You can’t even describe the events in context or using a sensible lexicon that anyone outside of your cultural bubble would recognize. Establishing sovereignty is not “land seizure.” That’s just one example that anyone can find over the many weeks of your insane tirades.
I’m not writing clearly. (ofm) “Establishing sovereignty is not ‘land seizure'”. That’s correct, but Ze’ev Jabotinsky said he was going to seize land for a Jewish state. Now, Jabotinsky may have believed he could secure land for a secure Jewish state without really seizing it or going to war to secure it but, the fact is, he said himself he WOULD SEIZE LAND at gunpoint to form a Jewish state. That is in reality what happened when Israel declared her independence and had made the decision to deal w/the remaining Palestinian population on her own terms.
Considering the intermingling of the two nations properties, in effect when Israel declared her independence, Israel DID EFFECTIVELY SEIZE PALESTINIAN LAND by declaring sovereignty over it. The fact that the seizure was along the lines of the U.N. demarcation still doesn’t change the fact that ultimately, the Zionists had succeeded despite the WISHES OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE. The fact they had PREVIOUSLY PAID for PORTIONS of the land that eventually became Israel doesn’t change the legal questions regarding either the circumstances of the gradual erosion of Palestinian ownership over previous decades nor does it recognize Palestinians who lost property in the Nakba.
“That’s correct, but Ze’ev Jabotinsky said he was going to seize land for a Jewish state.”
Quote him.
“Considering the intermingling of the two nations properties, in effect when Israel declared her independence, Israel DID EFFECTIVELY SEIZE PALESTINIAN LAND by declaring sovereignty over it.”
That is not land seizure.
“The fact that the seizure was along the lines of the U.N. demarcation still doesn’t change the fact that ultimately, the Zionists had succeeded despite the WISHES OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.”
The indigenous people that got harmed (collectively) were rebelling against the legitimate sovereigns. They gambled and lost. That’s not Israel’s fault nor is it even GB’s. That’s the fault of the Turks for entering WWI.
“The fact they had PREVIOUSLY PAID for PORTIONS of the land that eventually became Israel doesn’t change the legal questions regarding either the circumstances of the gradual erosion of Palestinian ownership over previous decades…”
Erosion of ownership? What kind of ridiculous term is that?
“…nor does it recognize Palestinians who lost property in the Nakba.”
They phucked up. They chose rebellion and then they left or got killed. Life is not Utopian. What about all of the people displaced and killed when India was partitioned. Why don’t you go and worry about that? Hmmm? What’s this fixation with Israel as alleged bad actor? I already told you why you’re fixated on Israel. You can’t figure out even after all of the help I’ve given you that you are a tool of Utopian thinkers.
Your expectations are not realistic. That is why ultimately your analysis is so flawed. That explains the problems with all of your narratives when you clash with people here. See, it’s OK to disagree. It’s not OK to present delusion as reality. Lot’s of people agree to disagree with me and others. Delusional people are not allowed to have the last word when their delusions are dangerous and or costly.
That’s the rule. No exceptions.
So you admit that they were fighting people that violently opposed their good faith efforts to establish self rule in the Mandate territory and they had no intention of harming or taking land from anyone personally, removing them, seizing property etc. You call establishing sovereignty “land seizure.”
Yikes.
Why shouldn’t the Palestinians HAVE FOUGHT AN IMPOSITION OF JEWISH RULE over them? Your silly remark that “they (Jews) were fighting people that violently opposed their good faiths efforts to establish (Jewish) self-rule in the Mandate territory” as if that land was TOTALLY UP FOR GRABS by Jewish Zionists is simply nonsensical. You’re claiming that the Palestinians should have welcomed the imposition of Jewish self-rule as if that was something that ANY NATION ANYWHERE would welcome some intruder nation coming in and setting up shop.
The Palestinian Arabs had lived there for CENTURIES and now along comes a cadre of Jewish Zionist ideologues who decide they’re owed a NATION in the middle of this Palestinian Arab region on the basis of Jewish manifest destiny and Biblical prophecy. You’re saying their announcement that It’s the Jewish homeland and they’re going to take some of it for their RESURRECTED JEWISH TRIBAL NATIONS should have been welcomed as a self-rule initiative without any blowback from the Palestinians? And this will be brought about not only because the Jews want to have such a nation there in the Palestine Mandate but because they’ve got the European diplomatic power at their backs to impose such a nation on the Palestinian Arabs and. if diplomatic attempts fail, they’ve always got terrorism to fall back on?
Moron,
Their leaders negotiated to get some things from the British. And others later rejected some of those agreements after they got a lot of what they asked for. So they should not be shocked at all when non-Muslims eventually liberate themselves.
Nope, some Arab entities were negotiators for the benefit of themselves but didn’t represent the interests of the Palestinian Arabs nearly as well. They should well be shocked that those who claimed to have fought a war of liberation actually invented lots of the terrorist tactics that they’re now decrying…
“Nope, some Arab entities were negotiators for the benefit of themselves but didn’t represent the interests of the Palestinian Arabs nearly as well.”
That’s always going to happen to some degree. Not the fault of the Jews at all. Try again.
“They should well be shocked that those who claimed to have fought a war of liberation actually invented lots of the terrorist tactics that they’re now decrying…”
Crazy person,
Facts matter. Context matters.
Sure, context matters. That’s why the Jewish terrorism shouldn’t be overlooked in the context of this entire historical saga. The assassinations of individuals the Zionists didn’t feel would be willing to do exactly what the Zionists wanted viz Israeli statehood were ordered by top ranked figures among the nascent Israelis. Why is it acceptable if the Jews performed terrorist acts but the same terrorism being conducted by the Palestinians is considered less justifiable?
Sure, it wasn’t the fault of the Jews that the fairness issue of the political plight of the Palestinians was never solved. However the Jews had the advantage of highly placed British Jews like Lord Rothschild able to present their case at court and in Parliament at every opportunity. Would the tangled British situation have ever evolved into the Balfour Declaration if there hadn’t been a Lord Rothschild as well as other British Jews in the mix offset by Zionist terrorism on the other side of the diplomatic scale? This will remain a Gordian knot w/political and sociological strands that defy logic for a long time yet.
It’s not a Gordian knot. You’re the one that’s confused. The Arab claims are made in bad faith. They were in some cases duped by their own leadership and in other cases are just plain liars.
Both nations make claims in bad faith. It’s a matter of timing whose bad faith makes the situation more untenable than the other’s bad faith.
Americana 7 hours ago: “Both nations make claims in bad faith. It’s a matter of timing whose bad faith makes the situation more untenable than the other’s bad faith.”
False equivalence. You need to show evidence of bad faith, not just infer from the results.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.Com/bad+faith
Bad Faith
The fraudulent deception of another person; the intentional or malicious refusal to perform some duty or contractual obligation.
Bad faith is not the same as prior judgment or Negligence. One can make an honest mistake about one’s own rights and duties, but when the rights of someone else are intentionally or maliciously infringed upon, such conduct demonstrates bad faith.
The existence of bad faith can minimize or nullify any claims that a person alleges in a lawsuit. Punitive Damages, attorney’s fees, or both,may be awarded to a party who must defend himself or herself in an action brought in bad faith.
Bad faith is a term commonly used in the law of contracts and other commercial dealings, such as Commercial Paper, and in Secured Transactions. It is the opposite of Good Faith, the observance of reasonable standards of fair dealings in trade that is required of every merchant.
Jordan used terrorism, too. You are dismissing the Jews from the Arab countries and their loss of property.
I’ve never suggested that other Arab countries didn’t take revenge on their Jewish populations by banishing them once Israel declared her independence. I’ve always thought there should potentially be restitution all around but, for many, the restitution will be too late since many are already long since dead. Should those who are dead still receive any recognition of property they lost? Is there any record of property that they lost?
You are approaching this from a biased perspective. It was NOT THEIR LAND OVER WHICH they could fight TO ESTABLISH SELF-RULE.
They were largely fighting over territory containing owned by people supporting the movement. So you’re actually wrong.
The Zionists had large and small enclaves of their own purchased land in the midst of Palestinian territory. That’s what made the partitioning so strategically necessary and yet so vilified by both sides. Here’s a map of where the Jewish colonies and population concentrations were as of 1947:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Palestine_Index_to_Villages_and_Settlements%2C_showing_Jewish-owned_Land_31_March_1945.jpg
“The Zionists had large and small enclaves of their own purchased land in the midst of Palestinian territory. ”
So what? That’s why the “Palestinians” coming up with this name as a nationalist movement is so bogus. Palestinian at that time did not imply any national movement. It was a territorial label in use primary by Westerners. Like “America” was before any colonies were established.
“That’s what made the partitioning so strategically necessary and yet so vilified by both sides.”
You’re not mentioning the hatred from the Jihadis and in some cases other Jew haters. That’s what made it “controversial” to tolerate Jewish self-rule.
There was a degree of Palestinian nationalism present. You’re simply unwilling to consider the situation from the Palestinian perspective. They’d been part of a long-lived Caliphate and as such they were not in a position to plan their political future. When their region then became roped into the WW I intentions of the Germans and that war was finally over, the region was in disarray. The fact the Zionists saw their way clearly forward nearly from that point is natural because they thought it should be simple for the British to give them sovereignty over quite a large hunk of Palestine and it shouldn’t matter to anyone. But they meant anyone of importance in the diplomatic equation of who could reassign dominion over Palestine; they weren’t at all concerned about no choice in the matter being offered to the Palestinians. The Zionists felt they were dealing w/the power brokers by dealing w/the British but sociological circumstances on the ground will always be the REAL power brokers in any such equation.
The fact the Palestinians reacted w/hatred, well, you’re being quite disingenuous to pretend the hate arose out of nowhere and had nothing to do with the Palestinian dispossession. Sure, there’s always been underlying friction between the two faiths but the INSTIGATING REASON of this particular hatred was the imminent loss of large portions of Palestinian land and fears about being under Jewish rule. What if you’d been sitting there for years wondering WHAT would happen to your sovereignty? You don’t think you’d start becoming an activist? The fact both groups were aware they were fighting for their future is a given.
Why do you not mention that there was no state of any kind there for at least 700 years before that? The govenrment was located in Domascus (look up where the Pasha of Syria had dominion) You base your whole argument on what you can get away with due to antisemitism. If I am wrong you are required to mention that the government was located in Domascus, of this nation you invented to hate the Jews.
NO, I think I’m pretty sure I’ve covered the whole issue of the Turkish Caliphate being the governing body for Palestine and that the power vacuum that occurred after the collapse of the Turkish Caliphate after WW I was the reason the Palestinians were so unprepared for reaching for the golden ring of a Palestinian state. The Palestinians didn’t know what was going to happen and they didn’t know what the British would permit and so they waited it out. After all, they didn’t have insiders who were inside the inner circles of British policy making. But their nationalism DID develop, just not quickly enough to deflect the historical inevitability of Israel coming into being because, in the meantime, land was sold off in vast tracts to Zionists. Once the crazy quilt had been pieced together, it was difficult to turn the clock back. You can’t fault the Palestinians for that geopolitical shift in how the Muslim world is pieced together in the modern day vs the days of the Caliphates.
Americana Multikulti Baby 12 days ago
NO, I think I’m pretty sure I’ve covered the whole issue of the Turkish Caliphate being the governing body for Palestine and that the power vacuum that occurred after the collapse of the Turkish Caliphate after WW I was the reason the Palestinians were so unprepared for reaching for the golden ring of a Palestinian state. The Palestinians didn’t know what was going to happen and they didn’t know what the British would permit and so they waited it out. After all, they didn’t have insiders who were inside the inner circles of British policy making. But their nationalism DID develop, just not quickly enough to deflect the historical inevitability of Israel coming into being because, in the meantime, land was sold off in vast tracts to Zionists. Once the crazy quilt had been pieced together, it was difficult to turn the clock back. You can’t fault the Palestinians for that geopolitical shift in how the Muslim world is pieced together in the modern day vs the days of the Caliphates.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 13 days ago:
“No, Jabotinsky didn’t want to displace non-Jews. He wanted to seize land and impose a Jewish state on whatever amount of Palestinian territory he was able to seize and hold. I’ll give Jabotinsky credit for being liberal enough he didn’t wish to displace these Palestinian Arabs by the formation of a Jewish state.”
objectivefactsmatter is trolling for trouble and this is his sales pitch. Again, it’s necessary for your comments to be present for the context of my posts to be clear.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 13 days ago:
“If Jabotinsky had simply stood up and articulated opposition to the injustice, it would have been fine by me. What he did was stand up and declare he was going to form a militia, train everyone who was Jewish and then seize enough land for a Jewish state.”
objectivefactsmatter is trolling for trouble. Guess we’ve finally had someone self-disclose that they are the paid troll in the crowd! Again, it’s necessary for your comments to be present for the context of my posts to be clear.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 13 days ago:
“It certainly is easy for someone like you to construct moronic narratives and expect people to simply swallow the narratives as you present them without any questions being posed. I wonder why that is? Is it because you actually make a substantial and good case for your perspective? Not at all. It’s because you don’t broach discussion by alternative voices. You simply chant the cliches and story lines you’re encouraged to chant and that’s enough for you. You don’t use critical thinking, or even rational thinking, on certain issues to suggest where the geopolitical needles may move.”
objectivefactsmatter, a man who knows what he’s doing by doing this.
“Oh and I’m quite different than the guys at Stormfront so don’t even attempt to go there.”
You’re different, but not that different. You have different narratives and slightly different claims. Plus you like big government and they’re paranoid about government as well as everyone else. That’s about it. Your enemies are the same and you use the same form of whacky accusation that you think is compelling because there’s a small group of other morons that think like you and you convince each other in your own little bubble.
Yeah, right. You can’t even get out this particular gobful of propaganda without gagging. Nope, I’m not in the same vein as Stormfront as to your claim of our mutual “enemies” being the same. As for trying “to convince other morons that think like you and you convince each other in your own little bubble,” well, that’s something you seem to be doing as well. Must be catchy.
When I’m in the USA I live in a leftist bubble. As a matter of fact I know all of your arguments better than you do.
I doubt it or you wouldn’t trip yourself up so frequently.
You have nothing.
Wouldn’t you like to successfully be able to claim that? It would make your life so much easier.
It’s obvious that you have nothing but Elder of Zion riffs. Which is actually worse than having nothing.
It’s obvious you have nothing but Elders of Zion claims to fall back on. Yep, this Elders of Zion BS is surely worse than having nothing in the way of a legitimate rebuttal that’ll work.
There’s nothing to rebut other than pointing out that you cull one person from the middle of the timeline and proceed to irrationally demonize him.
EoZ.
I could certainly add to the list of Zionist figures who’ve written nearly identical statements. Don’t feel that Ze’ev Jabotinsky is the only Zionist who can be named as uttering those kinds of statements about when the Israeli nation would be founded and that it would be founded at the point of a gun.
Americana objectivefactsmatter • 6 hours ago
“No, seizing sovereignty shouldn’t and DOESN’T “depend on how everyone behaves” ”
Of course it does. What else is there?
(objectivefactsmatter) “What else is there?”
Let’s leave that to your imagination.
I know what else there is. It all falls under the heading of delusion. Your challenge is to defeat my position. I see that you opted to pass.
You don’t feel you can be explicit because it’s too condemnatory of the chess moves of Israeli actions over time that are leading to the revival of this “manifest destiny” concept. The fact this “manifest destiny” is being propounded now and yet defines the fears of Palestinians from the **very beginning of the conflict** is the definitive indicator the Palestinians were right to take the Zionist hegemony intentions so seriously. The chicken or egg nature of much of what has gone on between the two nations in this conflict still should leave no doubt of the nature of what this land seizure would be.
Paranoid people some times guess the approximate framework for what comes in the future so we should take their narratives seriously. And every time we see a Jew working in Hollywood we should remember that they control all media. Same with banks. They’ve been accusing Jews for centuries and they’re still accusing Jews today so that’s consensus. Gotta be something to that. That’s KKK logic.
Put another way, you’re justifying your own delusions by implying that you’re not the only delusional one and that you came across these delusions honestly. I understand.
We should all work together to grow beyond living in delusion. That would be a great thing to work on.
It’s not paranoid to draw the parallels between what some of the original Zionists claimed and what Caroline Glick is claiming today. After all, she named her book “The Israel Solution” so she’s pretty much nailed the original Zionist geopolitical intention for the region. Strangely, it’s the geopolitical solution to the issue that was created by the Israel solution in the first place.
(objectivefactsmatter) “We should all work together to grow beyond living in delusion. That would be a great thing to work on.”
What an interesting proposition! But the nature of illusion and delusion is ultimately interchangeable within the context of Israel and Palestine and within the presentations by each nation as to their own cause. It’s quite amazing how anyone can write at length about the Israel solution and ignore the chicken/egg aspects of the conflict, constantly stressing the legitimacy of their own side’s perspective while deriding that of the other. Even Ze’ev Jabotinsky didn’t try to hide the fact that Palestinian Arabs absorbed into the Israeli nationalist footprint would need to be enticed to become Israelis by default by granting them equality under Israel law.
http://en.idi.org.il/media/2384931/Jabotinsky-IDI-2013.pdf
Ignore the chicken and egg aspect. I see. Is that some kind of common sense justification for playing with the timeline and looking for the “true yoke” of the conflict?
It’s not really that hard to be objective if you want to. It’s evidently very difficult to recognize one’s own emotion-driven biases.
“Strangely, it’s the geopolitical solution to the issue that was created by the Israel solution in the first place.”
I think that Isaiah must have been in on the “conspiracy” as well. Because any time anyone forecasts something that’s ipso facto proof of malicious conspiracy. And who could have foretold 100 or 200 years ago that jihad would continue? Who could have foreseen it? Must be conspiracy!
Hahaha, there you go again, trying to deflect my perspective by claiming it’s based on emotion-driven biases instead of my understanding of the HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. However, the fact that you try to deflect the historical evidence of when Ze’ev Jabotinsky stated unequivocally that he was going to secure an Israeli state in Palestine come hell or high water means that you don’t want to confront the realities of the Zionist historical timeline. Unfortunately for you, many people are aware of the stance of the most opinionated, strong arm Zionists who were advocating military action to seize a state in the region. That’s NOT A CONSPIRACY. That’s simply FACT.
What’s this vague timeline you’ve suggested about “jihad continuing for 100 or 200 years”? You can’t just leave that jihad comment hanging in the air and not relate it to something in particular. Every jihad is related to a specific political situation. These jihads are not just coming out of nowhere otherwise we’ve be engulfed in LARGE-SCALE jihads everywhere. As for you shouting “conspiracy” that’s a bit disingenuous of you. But carry on w/your tactical ploys, they’re so inherently predictable by now I should simply take for granted you’ll resort to one or more if you’re really unable to argue the relevant point.
Idiot,
You don’t cite any historical evidence. Hahahahahahahaha!
“However, the fact that you try to deflect the historical evidence of when Ze’ev Jabotinsky stated unequivocally that he was going to secure an Israeli state in Palestine come hell or high water…”
Moron, he was a freedom fighter. And he was on the fringe. You’re using emotional arguments. You haven’t even named the analogous opposition personalities nor the real world bloody events he was REACTING to. Why? Because history powerfully refutes your ignorant Elder of Zion riffs.
He was NOT on the fringe, Ze’ev Jabotinsky was MAINSTREAM ZIONISM. He’s got a couple of museums DEDICATED TO HIS CONTRIBUTIONS to the state of Israel That’d be pretty strange if he were “on the fringe”. Here you are claiming he was solely “a FREEDOM FIGHTER” as if you’re able to simply ignore the terrorism he indulged in. That’s not an emotional argument, that’s a factual argument about his historical impact. I haven’t named the same number of opposition personalities from the Palestinian Arab side because that’s not the current focus of the discussion. Sure, in some respects, Jabotinksy armed his fellow Jews solely for protection but his ULTIMATE AIM was to create an army to FIGHT FOR and SEIZE ENOUGH LAND IN PALESTINE FOR A JEWISH STATE. We would not have those statements about seizing a Jewish state by military force by Jabotinsky himself if that was not his aim. Self-defense and nationhood are two different things and I discuss them individually.
http://www.attractions-in-israel.com/tel-aviv-and-center/tel-aviv-museums/ze’ev-jabotinky-museum-–-jabotinsky-institute-in-tel-aviv/
Sure. He would have been the first prime minister. No doubt. He’s a hero for speaking up and standing up to the insane jihadis. That’s about it.
Oh, so you consider them “insane jihadis” from the get go. How interesting and TELLING.
Anyone that takes a religious worldview and is willing to kill over it just to preserve cultural hegemony without looking for more comprehensive answers is insane.
I wouldn’t disagree that the ISIL fighters are insane for exercising the religious world view they’re exercising. But since you claim you’re looking for answers, then why is it there are relatively few of the world’s Muslims who are flocking to ISIL? Let’s hear you try to explain the discrepancy of the total number of Muslims around the world and why so few are engaged in this particular ISIL jihad. Why haven’t all the governments in the Middle East sworn loyalty to the Caliphate? Questions like those are legion and if your beliefs about Islam truly supplied a correct explanation for why this era of ISIL jihad is happening, those questions would already be answered. So far, your explanations have rung false.
You’re an idiot. You don’t know anything about Islam. Why would you expect them all to go there? It’s pretty shocking just how many people are doing that now and you ask why aren’t there more? It’s a stupid question.
The texts exhort this kind of behavior but it’s not clear who they should be loyal to. The Saudis want to be the seat of the Islamic empire, the Turks as well, and so do the Iranians. Why would you expect that a majority of Muslims or even a majority of jihadis would jump to help ISIS when ISIS is fighting at least 3 other major factions?
Why do you set yourself up for such humiliation? If you paid any attention at all to the conversations you constantly interrupt you’d (perhaps) ask fewer stupid questions.
Oh, lordy, but you do rattle on w/the insults hoping that your perspective reigns supreme but then you go shooting yourself in the foot right and left w/regularity!!! Your acts of self-violating ideological idiocy are hard to follow.
“Why would I expect them all to go there?” Why, because you keep saying how many jihadis are flocking to Syria to join ISIL and that the world Caliphate is being sought to be imposed by all these jihadis and by ALL MUSLIMS. The world is at “imminent risk of world jihad for the sake of a world Caliphate” is pretty much the constant refrain we all hear from you and yours. However, when you examine the situation, there isn’t ANYWHERE NEAR THE ISLAMIC CONSENSUS that a world jihad for the sake of a Caliphate is desirable so how is this world Caliphate going to come about? The fact there was ONE PROMINENT SAUDI, Osama bin Laden, who backed the Palestinian jihad and through his 9/11 attacks on the U.S. and other attacks on U.S. interests, he began to militate followers into a genuine international push doesn’t change the nature of his push for a Caliphate. It’s a Caliphate in the former nations of the Turkish Caliphate so it’s not really a Gates of Vienna scenario yet and likely will never be such UNLESS and UNTIL significant countries succumb militarily to the ISIL onslaught and those military gains empowering ISIL.
“”Why would I expect them all to go there?” Why, because you keep saying how many jihadis are flocking to Syria to join ISIL and that the world Caliphate is being sought to be imposed by all these jihadis and by ALL MUSLIMS. ”
Shut up you stupid phucking liar. You can’t follow any of the conversations. All you have is bullcrap whiny victim narratives and straw men attacks. Really, it does not work. Seriously. Get help.
“It’s a Caliphate in the former nations of the Turkish Caliphate so it’s not really a Gates of Vienna scenario yet and likely will never be such UNLESS and UNTIL significant countries succumb militarily to the ISIL onslaught and those military gains empowering ISIL.”
Separate issue for now, but still a problem. Nevertheless, you can’t stop making crap up. Cogent conversation with you is apparently impossible.
Factual, reality-based discourse w/you is fundamentally impossible. You wish to sell the vision of the monolithic world jihad full-stop in order to deflect from the reality of WHERE and WHY this jihad originated. Too late, the historical record has been written, and it’s time for us all to watch the chickens come home to roost.
Idiot,
You’re lying again. I just described 4 major factions contending for world leadership in jihad. That’s not even close to monolithic, obviously. That doesn’t even count non-Arabic speaking factions that have their own agendas (though I obviously counted Iran).
Americana an hour ago: “Factual, reality-based discourse w/you is fundamentally impossible”
Apparently for you it is.
You would be better served by seeking out the source of confusion and discussing the actual issue than by sneering and posturing. You described a monolithic worldwide jihad with an ongoing power struggle to determine who will sit at the apex. Rather than respond with a predictable effort to prove whose use of the word is superior, why not live some of your earlier advice to seek out the causes of confusion so you can have a productive conversation? From the outside, it’s pretty obvious that you’re missing a good opportunity to get to the heart of the matter, which deals with the extent to which this “jihad” is a universal jihad suffering a power struggle, or whether “jihad” is an enabling tool used by disparate actors with disparate objectives rooted in other causes leading to superficial similarities.
“You described a monolithic worldwide jihad with an ongoing power struggle to determine who will sit at the apex.”
When did I do that?
“From the outside, it’s pretty obvious that you’re missing a good opportunity to get to the heart of the matter…”
In theory, yeah. But it’s a dead lead.
“…which deals with the extent to which this “jihad” is a universal jihad suffering a power struggle, or whether “jihad” is an enabling tool used by disparate actors with disparate objectives rooted in other causes leading to superficial similarities.”
Jihad is both of those things. And life is dynamic. It’s not easy to accurately discuss risks that need to be examined when people are simply looking for ways to misquote and mischaracterize you and your actual positions. From an outsider’s perspective the jihad we need to be concerned about is coercive Islamic evangelism and coopting the history and or legends of Mohamed and exhorting people to follow those violent dogmatic exhortations.
But like I said before, the most benign way to look at Islam would be to think of the ummah as a transnational virtual state that overlaps real world sovereign states. And that great ummah is further subdivided. It’s like a combination of a religion and a virtual sovereign with various calls to perform duties for this virtual sovereign. And because there are conflicting factions within this virtual sovereign, they’re often target each other more than they are targeting outsiders. Nonetheless, we need to be aware of the potential dangers. How they organize, what they’re exhorted to do and so forth. That doesn’t mean we should be paranoid. But obviously it’s not just fun and games.
My feeling is that the more non-Muslims are educated on the full gamut of the issues the more difficult it will be for nefarious Muslim actors to use Islamic exhortations to organize against us. I also think that non-Muslims have a peripheral role in pressuring Muslims to either face up to their religious duties as interpreted by the violent jihadis or to condemn and reform actively, not just when cornered with a microphone.
Denial won’t help. Neither will going nuts and slaughtering innocents. I see steady social pressure as part of what I hope will lead younger generations to think more critically about what they believe and whether they’re truly certain that these texts and traditions are giving them advice that is so reliable they can kill or main, or even sacrifice their own life on the word of some religious leader. I do see that happening but I think it’s at least in part because the infidel world is setting examples for them and applying pressures to examine their beliefs critically. At least before doing harm to others in the name of any god.
But…the places that seem to do better in terms of giving some space to independent thinking are the states that have some connections culturally with their pre-Islamic history and identity. I think that ISIS, the Palestinian groups, and several states and virtual states are high-gravity cultural bubbles that are hard to escape.
Have I ever disagreed w/there being multiple factions seeking to play roles in the Caliphate push in the Middle East? NOPE. What I’ve disagreed w/is the list of STATE players that you claim are interested in its recreation, what their ultimate aim is, both as individual STATE PLAYERS and COLLECTIVELY, and whether that aim is achievable. None of the states confronted by ISIL wish to surrender their autonomy to ISIL. As far as I can tell, NONE of the state players wish to have a Caliphate recreated. There may be **some individuals of many nationalities** in all the Muslim nations who are interested in a Caliphate but they don’t have the major legs to prop the Caliphate effort up. Most of the world’s Muslims are all well aware that a Caliphate is a passé concept that cannot be resolved as a state entity until the Sunni-Shia split is resolved. So, although the recreation of some portion of the Turkish Caliphate footprint is very remotely within the realm of possibility **for a tiny amount of time,** the likelihood it will involve the same amount of territory as the Turks held is EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL. Why? Because none of the world’s nations (never mind the Muslim nations) wish to confront an ISIL state from here on out and they will continue to guarantee ISIL is stamped out. Will the ISIL Caliphate eventually attempt to operate in the same manner the Turkish Caliphate operated when the Turks ran that part of the world if they ever manage to stabilize a government? I doubt very much that there is anywhere close to the cohesiveness for the Turkish Caliphate footprint to be recreated either in form or function and certainly that will never happen under the guidance of ISIL. The Sunni-Shia sectarian divide will continue to hamper ISIL in its attempt to popularize the Caliphate. (Thank god, these freaks are who they are and they’re guaranteeing they’ll be rendered extinct.)
“NOPE. What I’ve disagreed w/is the list of STATE players that you claim are interested in its recreation, what their ultimate aim is…”
Retard,
There is no consensus on what a global ummah leader should do other than “sharia.” Pointing out contending factions should have given you a clue that there is no consensus on protocols at the very least.
“…both as individual STATE PLAYERS and COLLECTIVELY, and whether that aim is achievable. ”
The people on the receiving end of their efforts care less about long term plausibility than controlling the damage. It’s very much like the anarchists and communist revolutionaries. OK, they’re delusional…but their violence is real. Their destructive schemes are still real.
So you’re OK with ISIS as long at they don’t run an efficient state? You can laugh at them as failures while they keep killing people and using the snuff films to promote their jihad. No problem because they can’t even arrange government-run garbage collection. So it’s LOL meaningless.
Don’t you people get tired of your lame talking points? I know the intelligent people do.
There you go, PUTTING WORDS in my mouth again!#$!# Is that the only way you know to attempt to win an argument?? Trying to win by default and cheap verbal ploys? You know very well I’m “not OK w/ISIS” otherwise I wouldn’t be counseling specific journalists not to go over there to cover the war and I wouldn’t have encouraged my sister to return to the U.S.
I’m convinced that ISIS will both succumb from internal stressors as well as be extinguished as a movement by outside military forces, primarily those countries that are liable to be in their gunsights within a year or two. ISIS is certainly not meaningless but it’s NOT what you’re making it out to be either as a nationalist movement or as an internationalist movement. I’m not laughing at the fact ISIS is not able to handle the garbage pickup or the water supplies or any of the other civic duties involved in actually running a country. Pete is the one who claimed that being able to make payroll implied that this was a WELL-RUN, WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA and it had a bright future ahead of it because of that ability to make payroll. To me, that merely implied that the group had adequate money in the bank. You consider my conviction that ISIS is running its operations on a wing and a prayer a “lame talking point”, but that’s the crux of the matter — will Islamic State survive long term? Fanaticism either burns out or is burned out if it dangerous to the world at large. ISIS is both. So it will be extinguished. It’s a matter of how long it will take and how many more Muslims will be seduced into participating in this vainglorious attempt to achieve NOTHING.
“ISIS is certainly not meaningless but it’s NOT what you’re making it out to be either as a nationalist movement or as an internationalist movement.”
What am I making it out to be?
“I’m not laughing at the fact ISIS is not able to handle the garbage pickup or the water supplies or any of the other civic duties involved in actually running a country. Pete is the one who claimed that being able to make payroll implied that this was a WELL-RUN, WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA and it had a bright future ahead of it because of that ability to make payroll.”
You don’t understand the reference. The conventional (leftist) thinking is that jihadis become more moderate as they get distracted by the needs to run a state. IOW, democratization is organic and once material needs are satisfied to some degree, people will demand more and more and instead of worrying about things like the glory of jihad, their constituents will keep them busy with the demands that come from running a normal modern state. This comes from a few theories like Maslow’s hierarchy and others. I’m not mocking their material condition but their real priorities versus the priorities that all humans are supposedly so highly responsive to, evidently without any exceptions.
“You consider my conviction that ISIS is running its operations on a wing and a prayer a “lame talking point”, but that’s the crux of the matter — will Islamic State survive long term? Fanaticism either burns out or is burned out if it dangerous to the world at large. ISIS is both. So it will be extinguished.”
You’re totally missing the point. Of course they’ll be destroyed from without and within. The problem is that others will learn different lessons than you. These movements will still inspire others to take their place. You’re imposing your own worldview on the entire jihadi world. You think it’s just a few clowns and everyone else is waiting for it to die. No. There are lots of people still inspired by the movement but not inspired to act. Some of them have their own competitive plans. When ISIS dies, others will move to the front if nothing significant changes how jihadis see the world and read events. They don’t read events the way that you do. Which is 95% of the point of these articles and comments that you read and contend with. You don’t understand their worldview. It’s not just “the crazies.” The problem is how Muslims at large see these crazies and how some of them will act to join and or replace them.
“It’s a matter of how long it will take and how many more Muslims will be seduced into participating in this vainglorious attempt to achieve NOTHING.”
You need to convince them, not me. When people like you argue against Israel you’re actually encouraging violent, mendacious jihad against the West. According to Islam, your stupidity (according to worldview) is proof that Allah is actively helping them to spread sharia.
You are so unbelievably full of **it. I can’t even write a response to this post of yours when you’ve written a sentence like this one below. I’m barking w/laughter at this whacked thinking of yours.
(objectivefactsmatter) “The conventional (leftist) thinking is that jihadis become more moderate as they get distracted by the needs to run a state.”
Americana 5 minutes ago: “You are so unbelievably full of **it. I can’t even write a response to this post of yours when you’ve written a sentence like this one below. I’m barking w/laughter at this whacked thinking of yours.”
>(objectivefactsmatter) “The conventional (leftist) thinking is that jihadis become more moderate as they get distracted by the needs to run a state.”
And you think that’s laughable because – why?
Ask Jerry to explain it to you.
No need “to ask Jerry to explain it to (me)”, because I’m pretty sure he’d also find it a hysterical thought. It will be DECADES before the jihadis are distracted by the needs to run a state because, according to you, they’re on a world-wide Caliphate rampage and that’s going to take some time. They’re going to be compounding their issues of maintaining infrastructure by their attempt to increase the size of their Caliphate against the wishes of the inhabitants of the regions they invade but they’re not liable to be persuaded to become more moderate just over worrying about water and sewage. (Sounds like the Germans in WW II doesn’t it? Uneasy lie the heads that invade.) And, considering they’re certainly not persuading very many of the world’s Muslim countries to join their efforts, it’s going to continue to be an uphill battle. No, they’ve boxed themselves in philosophically and by sectarian demographics and they’re going to be paying the price for this foolish choice for the remainder of their years as the “Caliphate” contracts and contracts and contracts until, pfffftt, it’s no more.
Here, preserved for all time, one of the all-time great statements about ISIL and Leftists:
>(objectivefactsmatter) “The conventional (leftist) thinking is that jihadis become more moderate as they get distracted by the needs to run a state.”
You must enjoy talking to yourself.
I’m sure Jerry will interject if he feels the need to set me straight. I’m glad you’re on a first-name basis w/such a stellar addition to the FPM community. I prefer using Jerry’s BB handle to his Christian name because I’ve always admired the paintings by Hieronymous Bosch, the Netherlandish painter.
“I’m sure Jerry will interject if he feels the need to set me straight.”
He might not give a damn about correcting you.
hieronymous has amply demonstrated he’s eager to CORRECT ANYONE if they have their historical fundamentals wrong. I’ll ask him next time in passing if he keeps track of my comments and if he feels free to interject and issue a correction. I’m betting hieronymous/Jerry will say “Yes, absolutely. Factual inaccuracies shouldn’t be allowed to stand”, or something similar.
Pivot. I didn’t say you employ factual inaccuracies. You build huge narratives around very thin factual claims and mendaciously isolated facts. That’s your problem.
And the question was why you would mock me for explaining a mainstream theory based on Maslow’s Hierarchy? I was mocking people for putting too much weight in these theories and you mocked me for explaining the theory as if I invented this deterministic materialist paradigm.
The bottom line is that you’re in way over your head and should be in a contemplative mode. But you’re trying to prove something about yourself and nobody’s really interested in helping you work out your personal problems. Not that I can see. That’s why I suggested other strategies for you.
I don’t “mendaciously isolate facts.” You just don’t like anyone presenting a different structural configuration of historical events. You want the historical scene to remain as you set it despite many, many indications to the contrary that the situation was as you claim. You’ve claimed that Ze’ev Jabotinsky didn’t say what he said. Then you’ve claimed that the meaning was different than what he said. Then you’ve claimed that the timing of those tremendously inflammatory comments wasn’t relevant to the reactions of the Palestinians.
Per usual, you’ve resorted to name calling and calling into question someone’s mental state in this post. Maslow’s Hierarchy is probably one of the LEAST LIKELY of the psychological paradigms you should attempt to rely on for categorizing those folks who are interested in the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Lots of people think Maslow’s Hierarchy is not the be-all and end-all interpretation of the drivers of human psychology. So, I’d suggest that you’re way in over your arrogant head but far be it from me to try to dissuade you from posting. You’re amusing in your own way and you certainly do drag in everything including the kitchen sink in these vain attempts to make someone else appear ill-equipped to deal w/you. I’d suggest other strategies to you as well, but since you seem to have a full array of anti-intellectual ballistic missiles that you lob wildly at each and every opportunity, far be it from me to add to your arms race by making additional suggestions.
Here’s just a sampling of some of the criticism of Maslow’s Hierarchy (of needs) from Wiki. I could certainly go drag up a whole helluva lot more if you need to have Maslow’s Hierarchy chewed up and spat out by bigger and bigger names in psychology in order for you to recognize that Maslow really is only illustrating one particular aspect of the development of human psychology w/his pyramid of needs:
In their extensive review of research based on Maslow’s theory, Wahba and Bridwell found little evidence for the ranking of needs that Maslow described or for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all.[19]
The order in which the hierarchy is arranged (with self-actualization described as the highest need) has been criticized as being ethnocentric by Geert Hofstede.[20] Maslow’s hierarchy of needs fails to illustrate and expand upon the difference between the social and intellectual needs of those raised in individualistic societies and those raised incollectivist societies. The needs and drives of those in individualistic societies tend to be more self-centered than those in collectivist societies, focusing on improvement of the self, with self-actualization being the apex of self-improvement. In collectivist societies, the needs of acceptance and community will outweigh the needs for freedom and individuality.[21]
The term “Self-actualization” may not universally convey Maslow’s observations; this motivation refers to focusing on becoming the best person that one can possibly strive for in the service of both the self and others.[9] Maslow’s term of self-actualization might not properly portray the full extent of this level; quite often, when a person is at the level of self-actualization, much of what they accomplish in general may benefit others or, “the greater self”.
“I don’t “mendaciously isolate facts.” You just don’t like anyone presenting a different structural configuration of historical events.”
Moron,
Did you not fixate on Ze’ev without ever mentioning the players and events he reacted to? Anyone can read what you wrote on this very page. To deny it at this point forces even higher evaluates of your state of delusion. What you did was classic mendacious isolation of facts. I don’t even know how anyone could do worse.
It’s shocking how blatant your denial is.
Nope, it’s perfectly clear what the situation was and how long the situation was being manipulated toward the showdown. As for “the events and players Ze’ev Jabotinsky reacted to,” let’s have you write up your historical version of events and then I’ll write a rebuttal. That way you’ll be forced to analyze the situation and word it in your own fashion without reacting to my language.
You’re insane.
Your sanity is what’s in question here.
Natch.
Your honesty is also in question.
From you.
From lots of people who understand that your perspective leaves out a vast array of facts that you find uncomfortable and that put a different reflection on the matters at hand.
I didn’t leave out facts by calling your attention to the timeline you psychopathic moron.
Oh, sure, you called my attention to a timeline you yourself CHOSE and then you WERE UNWILLING TO ACKNOWLEDGE dates from that timeline that established facts for the discussion. That’s leaving out facts in my book.
Retard,
The question was who started the violence and I stated that the Jews were the last to resort to violence or coercion. You have fixated on Ze’ev from the 1920s to “disprove” my assertion and timeline that proves my assertion. And basically you imply that the violence was planned all along even though they were the last to join.
You’re insane. I don’t deny any of the facts. I deny the thrust of your unhinged libels.
If you deny the thrust of the facts, you’re denying the facts. The question was not who started the violence; the question has always been WHY the violence started between the two peoples. It basically began in the 1920s which is the time when Zionists began to call for a Jewish state.
The violence started because someone started it.
Freak.
The violence started because a group of people made plans based on their own philosophical tweaking and didn’t take into account the facts on the ground, i.e., that the ground belonged to Arabs.
FOAD.
The rape started because women decided…
Wow, you didn’t even a get a single decent sentence out before beginning to play around w/the “FOAD” advice… What a SAGE you are!
And by the way you are quite nearly unique in suggesting that I leave out facts from any of my analysis.
You pile on one ridiculous claim after the other hoping you can riff your way through and cover the most blatantly idiotic things that you say. It doesn’t work that way. I can return to any of your over-the-top, absurd comments any time I want.
Like how realtors should qualify clients visually using some kind of “salesman’s intuition” and your unbelievable remark about how the “Palestinians” have been “suppressed” for much longer than the Jews have.
Of course you leave out reams of facts! It’s your modus operandi. In any and all arguments, you leave out reams of facts just as you’re doing in this post where you claim that I wrote that realtors were able to distinguish suitable home buyers from unsuitable home buyers MERELY by a visual inspection. The fact that you’d like to portray me as suggesting that the realtors/bankers should rely solely on a superficial appraisal of someone’s attire and car vs PERFORM THE CREDIT CHECKS that buying a house demands is you shilling at your best.
As for the Jews being oppressed and suppressed more so than the Palestinians, I guess we all need to know if you’re going to go all historical and claim that the thousands of years of diaspora are being thrown on the scales as far as you’re concerned or not.
Idiot,
We’re arguing over who is culpable for the negotiations turning to violence. I proved my case by simply posting a timeline of events of “community violence in Palestine” or something like that. You then started your Elder of Zion riffs “proving” that Jews discussing possibilities are more deterministic than jihadis causing murder and mayhem in real life – meaning if you follow the flow of time in order of events. You ignored all of the events of violence and fixated on a guy that said hey, maybe we need to defend ourselves and stop trusting these violent liars.
It’s a typical way to weave libels with factoids. I started with a timeline and allowed it to speak for itself. You still won’t concede.
You’re insane. In fact I predicted long before the conversation that the only way you could defend the jihadis was by destroying the timeline. And you did. You’re so predictable because you’re a moronic tool of the left and their “explanatory journalism.”
You’re a moron to think I’m unfamiliar with the garbage that you read. In fact I’ve refuted your stupid arguments before you even arrived here. I’ve talked about robotic morons exactly like you for years. You have nothing new. Your lies are old and not even your creation.
The negotiations turned to violence because of the determination of each side to secure specific aims from the negotiations. If the Zionists weren’t upset over the potential for their specific plans of statehood to be overturned by a new proposition by Count Berndotte, they wouldn’t have assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte. Ze’ev Jabotinsky was not simply about defending Jews. He was all about declaring a Jewish state and thereby DIVESTING THE PALESTINIANS of a sizable chunk of territory. The question was not when violence erupted but WHY it erupted and what drove the INCREASE IN VIOLENCE over time. The claim that this was jihad that was without merit is where history draws the line.
As for you getting on your high horse about “explanatory journalism”, that’s you trying to discredit factual information because I’ve discredited advocacy journalism that oversteps its bounds as so often happens on this site. Then, once again, you end on the note of “you’re insane” because you don’t have anything else to throw at anyone other than political smears and personal smears. It’s quite moronic of you to persist in trying to make false historical claims when there is so much evidence against you but, nonetheless, you try.
Cycle of violence and cycle of stupidity.
You’re such a moron. This started out when I gave you a timeline that included the violent pogroms against the Jews. You immediately fixated on Ze’ev. What, weeks ago?
Real violence against the Jews in Palestine began when the Palestinians began to realize they were facing an entity that had declared itself eager to set up a foreign government in the midst of their homeland. The Palestinians knew they were losing both their geographic footprint via land sales as well as losing the diplomatic war abroad to retain their lands. In other words, once the Palestinian Arabs realized they were being flanked by the Zionists, they adopted a far more aggressive stance in an attempt to keep the Zionists at bay. I’d hardly call that an unexpected reaction. So, given that this is the case, why wouldn’t I FOCUS on ZE’EV JABOTINSKY who was one of the first Zionists to proclaim that he intended to set up a Jewish state in Palestine. Once again, you’re pretending that the Zionists could hope to make an omelette without breaking any eggs. Even the Jewish Virtual Library understands that Palestinian fears of losing territory to the Zionist influx is what drove all violent Arab nationalist activity against the Zionist communities and other resident Jews.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/riots29.html
Hey robotic moron,
The non-Jews attacked the Jews and rioted. First. Years before Jews started defending themselves.
Get it?
FOAD.
“Even the Jewish Virtual Library understands that Palestinian fears of losing territory to the Zionist influx is what drove all violent Arab nationalist activity against the Zionist communities and other resident Jews.”
An explanation is not justification – you psychopath.
That’s not really the take-away understanding you should have of the situation and you know it…
You’re still insane.
Seriously.
Psychomalarkey courtesy of the purveyor in chief of psychomalarkey himself: (ofm) “You’re insane.”
It’s more important to warn others. Obviously you won’t seek help on your own.
Ah, FINALLY we are making some progress if you can see that an explanation is not justification but that you at least SEE THE EXPLANATION for WHAT IT WAS. At least you are now no longer pretending to be unaware that the Palestinians were right to be worried and attempt to act to prevent the Zionists attempting to secure a huge amount of Palestinian territory for themselves.
“At least you are now no longer pretending to be unaware that the Palestinians were right to be worried and attempt to act to prevent the Zionists attempting to secure a huge amount of Palestinian territory for themselves.”
Freaking moron,
I said before that if Allah is The God that the Palestinians have every right to do what they do. I’m simply pointing out the facts of history to show that they are our civilizational enemy when they attack Israel. It’s not about “nationalism.” The “Palestinian question” is not about Israel only. It’s about Islamic imperialism and rolling back the infidel (resistance to sharia).
You’re like a child. No wonder you have empathy for those childish and fatalistic psychopaths.
Hahahaha, now you’re trying to distract everyone from thinking the two nation’s dispute has nothing to do w/seizing Palestinian land, instead you’ve expanded the geopolitical situation to claim it is all about the fact they are “our civilizational enemy”. How is it the initial Jewish settlers managed to live peacefully in Palestine right alongside Palestinians until it became glaringly obvious a few decades later that the Jews would be trying to secure millions of dunams of Palestinian land for their own Jewish state?
Hahahaha!
“Here’s just a sampling of some of the criticism of Maslow’s Hierarchy (of needs)…”
Moron,
I’m not the one invoking deterministic materialism and Maslow (or any of those theories) to predict what jihadis will do. Get it? Your “explanatory journalists” rely heavily on those theories, not me.
You’re so freaking stupid. It’s really unbelievable how thick you are.
What, now your craziness extends to claiming journalists are using the Maslow pyramid to predict what the jihadis will do….???@#$#Q$#!! You’re really worrying me. I think I’d better recommend you call a couple of psychologists, have them help you up your psych game and then ship you off to some strategic think tanks to polish up your geopolitical awareness. As for “explanatory journalists” using Maslow’s pyramid or deterministic materialism to explain jihadi moves, I haven’t come across a one who’s done that. Please provide some links to stories that make that out to be the case.
As for me being thick and you thinking yourself brilliant, no one who’s truly brilliant needs to stroke their ego in public. Certainly not in the manner you do so, anyway. Either exhibit your brilliance by being, well, BRILLIANT or at least try not so hard to be as thick. Or as rude. Or as deceptive. Or as manipulative. Or as… Well, you get the picture….
Dumbass,
You can’t follow along. That’s your problem, not mine. I’m simply marking the cow pies you leave.
“Please provide some links to stories that make that out to be the case.”
You’re so stupid. You don’t even have any clue where your ideas come from. You can’t learn from these conversations or the clues I give you, that’s for sure.
Hahahaha, every time you go for broke w/your insults, I’ve gotta laugh. That’s how people know they’re gaining traction against you and your limited thinking — when you just can’t control your resorting to insults and bluster.
Moron,
You’re not worth the energy and clearly you don’t know what “go for broke” means.
Then why do you expend the energy?
Dumbass,
You complained that I don’t take you seriously. I don’t. You’re not worth the energy. I make brief remarks so that you don’t think you’re idiotic comments will stand and be taken seriously by anyone.
It would help bolster the nature of the conversation if your comments conveyed more intellect and a lot less vitriol. Dumbass, indeed. Look in the mirror.
I don’t give a phuck what you think. People that read my comments can decide on their own and don’t need to fixate only on what I say to you.
Oh, yeah, you give a ppppphuck what I think and write because otherwise you wouldn’t try to write such slapdash and idiotic rebuttals that are all about stapling labels on me vs actually presenting information that rebuts my points.
Americana a minute ago: “It would help bolster the nature of the conversation if your comments conveyed more intellect and a lot less vitriol. Dumbass, indeed. Look in the mirror.”
And as I said before, you are not worth making any special effort at all. Replying to you is simply about damage control to keep unfamiliar people from getting trapped in to your circular logic and riffs inspired by the Elders of Zion, The New Republic, Vox, etc.
OTOH it is interesting to see the thinking behind those that support such leftist rags. I’ve known for years how empty the arguments are but others might not be as familiar.
As I keep writing, your ignorance is your burden. As for making your usual “special effort” at replying, it’s pretty darn easy to keep the insults flowing.
Yes. My ignorance is causing you problems.
From what I can see here you need to return to junior high school and maybe, eventually, after a few years in a good college you might be able to return to these conversations and understand how patient I am and WTF I’m talking about.
You’d better return to HS and take quite a few remedial history courses. We won’t worry about your psychology until your educational deficiencies are eliminated. Then you can move on to junior college and see where your head is at. Try for a little more humility this second time around, god knows, you should be humble vs arrogant given your BS and your bluster.
Here we go again.
You’re the one who’s always worried about everyone else’s education no matter how many times your education is shown to be lacking.
What?
Really? You expect me to go around and collect debates in which you are clearly outclassed by your opponent because their education is more profound than your own? No, I’ll leave that to other readers to detect the frequency w/which you’re bested by other posters. It’s simply a matter of reading.
Your judgment doesn’t matter.
If it didn’t, you wouldn’t bother rebutting it so often.
It matters the way that other toxic things matter.
You don’t like alternative views of historical events presented even if those alternative perspectives are confirmed as a realistic appraisal of the situation by words spoken or written by actual protagonists in those historical events.
I don’t like frauds like you. End of story.
FOAD.
As is clear by now, you don’t like any accurate historical perspective of situations being presented of which you hold a different perspective. As for me taking your advice to “FOAD”, since I’m not going to be taking your utterly SPURIOUS, FATUOUS, RUDE recommendations to seek mental help, I’m certainly not going to take your advice to “FOAD”. All in good time, for both of us.
You? Accurate history?
You’re insane.
FOAD
“No need “to ask Jerry to explain it to (me)”, because I’m pretty sure he’d also find it a hysterical thought.”
He actually told me he thought it was a good idea to let jihadis form political parties and compete for power. And he also explained his confidence (before ISIS made their move in Iraq) that should a caliphate form that eventually the people would get bogged down in…running the state. Under the theory that you’re mocking. He’s actually right. But whether it takes 3 months, 3 years or 3 centuries is not something we can predict. Or it might not happen at all. But it just might.
It’s not that the theory is ridiculous. I only mock it because we can’t just assume that everyone will do that. We can’t stop worrying about jihad just because 0’Bama set out to enhance Muslim self-esteem and decided to throw his weight behind this theory as an article of faith. And here you’re acting like it’s totally absurd. It does happen to some degree. We just can’t rely on it in my view.
So you again show how utterly clueless you are. I know the leftist narratives. And I know what they overlook. You just learn by meme and you can’t really work out how to adapt these narratives when you’re forced off of your talking points. I’ve proved that over and over again with you.
You mistake my ridicule for being all-inclusive time-wise. Of course, some of this will occur over time but it won’t shift the emphasis of their Caliphate drive for AGES… You also have either misstated or you’ve misconstrued what hieronymous’ points were because I’ve hardly ever disagreed w/hieronymous’ view of what will happen w/ISIL. Your sentences this time begin to approach Jerry’s POV I think but it’s not as simplistic as what you baldly stated. Once again, you IGNORE THE NUANCE because you PREFER TO HAMMER AWAY IDIOILLOGICALLY (sic/pun).
As I stated in my previous post, the jihadis aren’t stopping now to do anything much in the way of infrastructure maintenance or function or provisioning of cities under their control. There’s always an initial push to seemingly provide provisions and do a reach-out to the populace and then it’s back to the business of being conquerors and identifying those in the community who need to be executed. Besides which, you’re ignoring the fact ISIL will simply force those who were previously doing the infrastructure jobs to RESUME doing those jobs just as EVERY OTHER CONQUEROR has done since forever. As for showing how utterly clueless YOU ARE, I don’t need to since you choose to demonstrate it almost each and every time you post.
Give it up already. You’re a liar and a bore. Anyone that wants to read your swill can just get it before you regurgitate it by going directly to salon.Com, The New Republic and vox.com.
Why you think anyone is going to buy your sloppily presented and moronic talking points and silly narratives is just beyond me.
Anyone who reads your moronic misstatements and deliberate misinterpretations deserves to imbibe whatever they assimilate from your posts.
You’re a waste of time. I’m not even going to read your bullcrap.
You may not, but others will. That’s fine by me if others read my rebuttals of your thinking(?).
No mindless leftist clown would bother following you this far. They might agree with your sentiments in generally, being mindless clones, but nobody that actually reads your bullcrap here gives a damn what you say. Most likely nobody else reads it.
Fine by me. Being the little terrier that could yourself, you’re barking at the wrong postman. I’ve got news to deliver and some little terrier isn’t going to stand in my way without getting kicked to the curb.
You are somewhat amusing to laugh at. I’ll grant you that.
The terrier barks once more…
Boring tu quoque. Your mental age is around 7.
Arrrrroooooowwwwwww! The terrier is now pretending he’s got a sophisticated bark along w/a nasty bite.
Yes, I’m the retarded terrier. I was projecting.
Doubt it. You’re producing terrier-based output from both ends. That isn’t just “projection,” that’s the genuine article.
What?
“I’m barking w/laughter at this whacked thinking of yours.”
You’re an idiot because your expectations are counting on this and other similar ideas. It proves to me that you have no clue about anything other than narratives that feel right. You try to riff off of narratives. Showing you have a “sense” of the narratives and trying to keep them more or less coherent is what you think establishes your competency – or something like that.
I’m not sure who invented the concept of competing narratives, but you’re a ONE NOTE writer if that’s your only criticism. Ah, so you’ve given up trying to make the claim that my timeline is inaccurate or incorrect and now you’re just saying I misuse the twin narratives in my discussions? Nope, I don’t misuse them or misstate them. The historical context is correct and it’s obvious what side you take from my perspective what your own bias is.
“The historical context is correct and it’s obvious what side you take from my perspective what your own bias is.”
Retard,
Again, you mention the Jew you want to demonize how many times without naming any of the jihadis that incited real violence against the Jews. Real hatred aimed at people because of group membership and nothing to do with anything these people had done wrong other than show they knew how to organize themselves.
Yes, I judge. But I don’t lie.
How is it lying to indicate that the Palestinians were well aware that though the initial Zionist inhabitants were simply interested in living there, later Zionists formed communities w/the intention they were going to declare statehood and take territory permanently under Jewish control?
Technically, you’re right, the “Zionists weren’t doing anything wrong” by making plans for statehood, but if the state was going to be torn right out from the heart of the previous inhabitants’ state, then obviously, there was going to be civil strife and warfare.
You act surprised that there was any action taken against the Zionist communities. But, once that declaration became known, that the the Zionists intended to declare themselves a state, that’s when civil warfare became endemic. This is PRECISELY the grounds on which the American Civil War was fought. The fact that the Palestinians were not yet a declared national entity really doesn’t change the fact that they were beginning to formulate what their plans would be and that it didn’t include DIVESTING THEMSELVES of HALF THEIR LAND TO A FOREIGN ENTITY.
“How is it lying to indicate that the Palestinians were well aware that though the initial Zionist inhabitants were simply interested in living there, later Zionists formed communities w/the intention they were going to declare statehood and take territory permanently under Jewish control?”
Why the phuck should he Zionists not have the same advantage as other groups looking at a post-Ottoman future in that region?
You make no sense. You make ti sound like the Zionists took over for the Ottomans or took everything but Turkey. You’re an unhinged lunatic with no sense of perspective about anything.
You are like an annoying little terrier that won’t stop barking because your masters (the great neo-Marxist explainers) direct you to focus all of your criticism on the “commanding heights” of civilization. The Arabs and Muslims in general are considered to be hapless savages by your ilk. That’s why they’re used to attack the commanding heights to bring about greater justice in the world when the establishment finally collapses.
You’re just a tool. Even my patient explanations can’t inspire you to reflect even a little on your biases.
Because, by and large, they weren’t the indigenous natives of the area. As for my sense of perspective, the fact you are denigrating my perspective in the ways that you are means that you recognize the validity of my concerns over how this situation was handled. And “your patient explanations inspiring (me) to reflect even a little on (my) biases”, well, on that score, you’d best look to your own biases and lack of reflection. You’re just a tool and you’re a rude tool.
The concern is that the libels you riff off of are used to incite terrorists. You’re a tool of the terrorists and the Marxists that are trying to foment revolution.
So, yeah. You’re a “bad guy.”
And what about your libels and your incitement to terrorists? Calling for the extermination of all Muslims everywhere around the world when only a minute percentage are involved in these heinous activities is fine by you because it might keep the pressure off Israel to finally make peace w/Palestine for another two decades? You’re a tool who’s cognizant of being a tool, so, yeah, you’re a “bad guy”.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 13 days ago:
“Factual, reality-based discourse w/you is fundamentally impossible. You wish to sell the vision of the monolithic world jihad full-stop in order to deflect from the reality of WHERE and WHY this jihad originated. Too late, the historical record has been written, and it’s time for us all to watch the chickens come home to roost.”
objectivefactsmatter is trolling for trouble. Guess we’ve finally had someone self-disclose that they are the paid troll in the crowd! Again, it’s necessary for your comments to be present for the context of my posts to be clear.
“…but his ULTIMATE AIM was to create an army to FIGHT FOR and SEIZE ENOUGH LAND IN PALESTINE FOR A JEWISH STATE…”
How many non-Jews did he displace. Any data on that?
Nice deflection. Sure, there’s vague data on that just as there’s vague data on what the waves of aliyah brought in terms of Jewish influx of population. The point is not the precise numbers, it was that the transfer of sovereignty WAS NOT VOTED ON BY THE RELEVANT INDIGENOUS PEOPLE; the decision to transfer sovereignty to Israel was made by other nations which really weren’t in the position to make the decisions that they did. Decisions which to some extent, were MADE UNDER TERRORIST DURESS, by the way.
“Nice deflection. Sure, there’s vague data on that just as there’s vague data on what the waves of aliyah brought in terms of Jewish influx of population. ”
What kind of nonsense is this? I’m deflecting? If he kicked people off their land you’d have dates of the operations if nothing else. When did these violent imperialist actions take place?
And conflating immigration with violent imperialism is just about what we expect from you.
“Violent imperialism” is precisely what was achieved by the imposition of a Zionist state on the region through terrorism over decades and political diplomacy over decades. The fact is “violent imperialism” was exercised on the slow and steady timeframe of a mountain stream dripping on a limestone rock and altering the shape of the limestone. The fact it was done slowly doesn’t change the fact of what was ultimately done by the water nor does it change the intention of the water to inflict that deformation on the rock.
Dumbass,
Israel is a bunch of Jews that built their own state. They rule themselves. They also control territory occupied by an imperilistic enemy and they’re stupidly trying to trade “land for peace.”
That’s not “imperialism.” In this case it’s anti-imperialism.
Israel was formed by a bunch of Jews w/the full belief they were within their rights to seize large amounts of territory for a Jewish state because of religious prophecy as well as political opportunity in the aftermath of WW I in a region that was dominated by another ethnic group. That’s imperialism.
Everything is imperialism these days. Except communism. Weird.
“Dominated by another ethnic group” do you mean the Turks?
Americana objectivefactsmatter 13 days ago
“Israel was formed by a bunch of Jews w/the full belief they were within their rights to seize large amounts of territory for a Jewish state because of religious prophecy as well as political opportunity in the aftermath of WW I in a region that was dominated by another ethnic group. That’s imperialism.”
objectivefactsmatter is trolling for trouble. Again, it’s necessary for your comments to be present for the context of my posts to be clear.
“”Violent imperialism” is precisely what was achieved by the imposition of a Zionist state on the region through terrorism over decades and political diplomacy over decades. ”
You’re using a mendacious Marxist / jihadi lexicon. Nobody falls for that crap.
Nobody falls for your mendacity either. Doesn’t mean you stop posting it.
You’re an idiot. One minute you’re addressing me as if I represent the entire group and the next minute you say my arguments have no support. You don’t even make sense from moment to moment.
Yeah, right. The nature of the entity one addresses in posts on such a forum as this is both individual and monolithic and you should understand that, all pretense to the contrary that it’s not legitimate to address either audience interchangeably.
Idiot,
Quote me. I say nothing like that.
What a character you are. Still trying to pretend that I misstate situations just like you’ve done since forever as part of your debate repertoire…
You can’t paraphrase accurately at all because you can’t follow the conversations. Same problem.
Remarkably, you try to pull this same schtick w/everyone, even those who most certainly can follow your conversation, who can follow your points so closely in fact, that they constantly find you w/holes in your arguments.
When people fail to follow the conversations, I inform them. You should be thanking me.
Or perhaps it’s just my imagination that people come here with their worldviews and try to impose them on others without paying attention to the problems with their myopic little theories.
Don’t be such an ingrate.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 13 days ago:
“”Violent imperialism” is precisely what was achieved by the imposition of a Zionist state on the region through terrorism over decades and political diplomacy over decades. The fact is “violent imperialism” was exercised on the slow and steady timeframe of a mountain stream dripping on a limestone rock and altering the shape of the limestone. The fact it was done slowly doesn’t change the fact of what was ultimately done by the water nor does it change the intention of the water to inflict that deformation on the rock.”
objectivefactsmatter, again, it’s necessary for your comments to be present for the context of my posts to be clear.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 13 days ago:
“Nice deflection. Sure, there are various vague sources of data on that just as there are vague data sources on what the waves of aliyah brought in terms of Jewish influx of population. The point is not the precise numbers, it was that the transfer of sovereignty WAS NOT VOTED ON BY THE RELEVANT INDIGENOUS PEOPLE. The decision to transfer sovereignty to Israel was made by other nations which really weren’t in the position to make the decisions that they did. Decisions which to some extent, were MADE UNDER TERRORIST DURESS, by the way.”
objectivefactsmatter is trolling for trouble. Guess we’ve finally had someone self-disclose that they are the paid troll in the crowd! Again, it’s necessary for your comments to be present for the context of my posts to be clear.
I actually pity you. I hope you do get help some day but it doesn’t look like you have enough honest friends to encourage you to take care of yourself correctly.
Fella, you’re seen for exactly what you are and these tactics of calling other people sickos in need of psychiatric care of psychological counseling, they’re seen for what they are. I can’t believe rabid conservatives like you are still trying to give this kind of bulloney any legs! The day anyone should trust to your psychological insights is the day I convert.
What do you recommend for people that encounter others who are mentally ill? You think it never happens? I’m trying to do the best I can for you. My options are limited. Go and get a professional opinion and show them the find of rants you actually publish online about “the wolf” who devoured poor, innocent jihadis sitting around campfires singing songs of peace and love.
Once again, objectivefactsmatter resorts to libels and implications of mental illness when he’d be better off actually trying to discuss facts… I guess objective facts aren’t all they’re cracked up to be as potent debate tools, huh?
Dumbass,
Your fixation on “the wolf” and the stupid accompanying narratives is a cry for help. It’s so easy to overcome your absurd narratives by visiting the timeline that has been referred to at least a dozen times here in this conversation alone.
No, it isn’t otherwise you would have done so. The timeline states the beginning of the determination to form a Jewish state in the region regardless of what the indigenous people wished.
You’re saying “Zionism” started in the 1920s?
I never said anything about WHEN Zionism started. What a COLOSSAL MISSTATEMENT and DEVIOUS PARAPHRASE all in one!!! Could you ever just stop w/your disruptive self-serving invented BS for one post? As if it makes any difference precisely when Zionism started. No, what you should be asking me is when Zionism started to display the attitude it currently displays toward its ownership rights in the region and what those ownership rights entail.
I said that the FIRST DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS about seizing the geographic territory for a Jewish nation — through MILITARY FORCE, IF NECESSARY — in the Palestine Mandate came during the 1920s. Do you care to dispute that statement? If you can prove that military force intention in aid of seizing enough territory for a state came earlier in the colonization process, be my guest and do so.
“I never said anything about WHEN Zionism started. What a COLOSSAL MISSTATEMENT and DEVIOUS PARAPHRASE all in one!!!”
Chica loca, you certainly do imply that the problem with Zionism started with the big bad wolf. We should just call everything else “pre-Zionism” since you don’t see anything relevant to discuss.
“I said that the FIRST DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS about seizing the geographic territory for a Jewish nation — through MILITARY FORCE, IF NECESSARY — in the Palestine Mandate came during the 1920s. Do you care to dispute that statement?”
I’ve responded rationally at least a dozen times. This was a legitimate, perhaps even overdue reaction to the violence and oppression they suffered.
Boca loca, you can keep ignoring the facts but the fact is that the intention to colonize Palestinian land and bring it into the ultimate possession of Israelis was a plan that was arrived at organically, over time, as the increase in Jewish population and creation of Jewish populations centers brought a different geographic reality into the reach of the Zionists. But, once Israeli statehood was decided upon, it was full steam ahead and the realities of the effort weren’t to be confronted, then or now, despite decades of Palestinian unrest and continuing Israeli colonization.
You’re trying to make it sound nefarious when it’s not. They have nothing as a state to apologize for once context is examined.
I never said their behavior was nefarious. I said it was unfortunate that the situation could not have been foreseen prior to its reaching its apogee knowing that such a turn of events would have very long-term consequences for the region. The initial Zionist push was merely to live in Palestine. There was nothing other than a return to the homeland in their minds. Then came WW I and w/the collapse of the Turkish Caliphate followed by the first serious anti-Jewish reactions from the region’s Arab communities as Zionism changed its focus toward nationhood, their opportunities and their vision of the Jewish future in Palestine changed. When the British took over the Palestine Mandate, suddenly, there was seen to be a real opportunity to achieve a Jewish state through diplomacy. After all, there was no effective national entity that had stepped forward in that specific region, why not go for it? So, the land rush by Zionists was on because if there were more Zionists there in residence, then that would go a long way toward mandating and forcing establishment of a Jewish state. The realities of their two linked geopolitical situations were different all along the timeline and the awareness of the exigencies of that timeline was seen in the reactions of the two peoples, respectively. The fact the Zionists were more adept at seizing the moment than the Palestinians doesn’t mean the Palestinians don’t recognize what was at stake then or what’s at stake now.
It’s a little confusing for me to follow these narratives where you still don’t support your points with data along a timeline. It’s not quite clear where you’re getting some of your inferences. Some of what you claim is roughly accurate but other claims seem like purely subjective judgments that you pick up from other “narrative” writers rather than you stepping carefully through the historical records that we have. These records are lopsided for a number of reasons, and if you’re not careful you can find more evidence regarding Israeli activities and communications and then it’s easy to make the Israelis look like they planned everything from the start and the poor hapless Arabs just got shuffled along. There’s some truth to that, but blaming Israel for the chaotic Arab culture is __________ and comes from various Critical theories that all end up concluding that the world would be better off with a single global sovereign.
In any case, if you want to understand more about what happened, you need to study more carefully what the Zionists did alongside a coherent single timeline with Arab activities.
The Zionists were following WWI developments along with the British and some of them were actively involved in the war on GB’s side. OTOH, so were the Arab rebels. But they were not all working together. Arab and Jew, even though both were against the Turks in the war, each had different visions of who would rule after the Turks.
The Zionists clearly had a vision and worked with the British government. The Arabs were (as far as historical records show) incited and organized by British secret service to rebel and were not promised anything specific, at least initially. It’s foggy what kind of negotiations were going on. There are claims and counterclaims about what was promised to the various Arab factions. But the Arabs did not approach any of these opportunities as events to manage and shape as a people one would consider part of a national movement. It was more like, from my reading, a bunch of factions that reacted to the opening opportunities without any real attempt to find out what “the people” wanted and what would serve them best. It seems like “sharia” was the natural assumption and that most of them realized on “Allah” (fatalism) to shape events.
Eventually some organized movements emerged from among the Arab factions and clearly the British did keep at least some promises to some factions that they considered viable. AFAIK there was never a promise from the British to torpedo the Zionist movement that had been openly evolving since long before the war started. The only way that the Arabs would be happy today with British promise-keeping would have been for them to abandon the Zionists completely or at least enough so that they could be chased out or forced to submit to “sharia” or dhimmitude again.
So in a sense, the effect of your criticism is to punish the Zionists for openly planning a coherent strategy to form their own ~autonomous group. As the other factions rebelled and fought the Zionists, the Zionists reacted by acting with more careful organization and vision-planning. Again, to criticize them in such a biased fashion is to punish people for behaving in a civilized manner.
To do so is also to fall in to Critical Theory fallacies. The idea with Critical Theory is to focus criticism where change can be affected. In theory. So if the Jews and the “white man” are considered the de facto shapers of civilization, focus all criticism on them and point out the shortcomings of society to push them to bring things along more closely aligned with the Utopian living that will be possible according to the theories of a certain fat and delusional German dude not to mention the organic thinking of people that just make “common sense” assumptions when applying Darwinism to society at large.
What you are doing, probably without realizing it, is promoting narratives that are constructed entirely from the Critical Theory approach. Focus on the organized folks and show what they “could have” done or “should” do. The Arabs are losers, you see…so to criticize them is bigoted and pointless. They can’t change. They will evolve only when the white man puts “selective pressure” on them. Or put another way, the “white man” and those that submit to this cutting edge way of organizing society will help shape the future by creating Utopian circumstances and as we get closer to Utopia, selective pressure (from evolutionary theory) will then nudge along these inferior groups of people.
You simply do not realize the built in assumptions from these narratives that you’re reading. They’re racists that see themselves as “social justice” champions that use benign or “positive” theories of racism. Theories like don’t expect monkeys and half humans to act like humans. Be careful how you articulate this vision (Political Correctness) and focus criticism on society’s leading factions so that the fittest can evolve faster and this will pressure the lamer factions to evolve or fade away.
All of your narratives and analysis fit this Critical Theory form. You expect more from them. You’re disappointed because lots of other thinkers expect more from the Zionists and everyone in your group is disappointed. In this cultural bubble it all makes sense because you have coherent (yet seriously flawed) theories. I get it. Bubbles eventually pop. You need to emerge from your cultural bubble and learn how to challenge these “mainstream” thinkers at the very least to stress test the theories. That’s the true “scientific” approach. That’s what objectivity is: Trying out each plausible theory to see which can be broken or weakened and what the best theories are that remain.
“The fact the Zionists were more adept at seizing the moment than the Palestinians doesn’t mean the Palestinians don’t recognize what was at stake then or what’s at stake now.”
Adept? Their entire approach is a reflection of what generally leads man to become more civilized. You want to use emotional arguments to show pity for the losers so that some kind of external intervention can help bring equilibrium. That does not work at all! Any aid you give to jihadis is seen as “will of Allah” and evidence that they should carry on their aggression. If you aid jihadis striving for sharia, you will encourage them to invest that much more in jihad in hope of sharia rule everywhere. If you want to help the Palestinians, stop the blame-shifting and make sure your “help” is not incentivizing destructive habits. I’m doing a lot more for peaceful Muslims than anyone on the left is. That’s for sure. Demonizing Israel and applying lopsided CT analysis to the situation is torpedoing any hope of a stable, peaceful state to emerge from the ashes of the Palestinian jihad.
No, sorry, I don’t agree w/you that my sourcing of my posts os “too vague” or that they are cobbled together from so many different sources that you can’t possibly follow along w/my reasoning of who did what to whom. Why is it that you persist in claiming this about my posts? Well, you do this because it makes it seemingly feasible for you to claim that I’m uneducated about the context of the individual contributing factors that has brought us to where we are today.
You have blamed the Palestinian Arabs specifically for being disorganized and unready for their own governance and have given that excuse numerous times as the reason why the Palestinians have never taken advantage of their opportunities and, worse and far more disingenuously, that this is an ACCEPTABLE REASON, TODAY, FOR ‘THE ISRAEL SOLUTION’ — the ANNEXATION by Israel of the rest of the remaining Palestinian territory. Sorry, but if you don’t recognize the wrongs inherent in this entire fiasco, from way back when until today, then you really haven’t been paying attention to the entire gamut of how things were done. Lord Rothschild hosted house parties for god’s sake where the Palestinian issues were discussed. Were there any Palestinians there? NOPE, JUST ZIONISTS or ZIONIST SYMPATHIZERS. It took a while for the Rothschilds to warm up to Zionism but, once they did, look out… The Balfour Declaration, after all, was written to a Rothschild. Now, I understand how some might like to combine leisure time w/diplomacy but that’s really not above board to be discussing those kinds of issues outside the negotiation sphere. At least in that manner. As for not being educated on the subjects involved, I read widely and I’m both sympathetic and unsympathetic to BOTH SIDES.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html
“No, sorry, I don’t agree w/you that my sourcing of my posts os “too vague” or that they are cobbled together from so many different sources that you can’t possibly follow along w/my reasoning of who did what to whom.”
I follow your reasoning. I identified it. It’s neo-Marxist. What is not clear is how specifically you get your opinions. You’re not supporting your claims with evidence.
“Well, you do this because it makes it seemingly feasible for you to claim that I’m uneducated about the context of the individual contributing factors that has brought us to where we are today.”
It’s very clear, and I’ve said this for over a year now, that you get your “information” from “explanatory journalist” that use Critical Theory POV to promote “change.”
You are so blind that you don’t even understand your reliance on radical worldview.
“You have blamed the Palestinian Arabs specifically for being disorganized and unready for their own governance and have given that excuse numerous times as the reason why the Palestinians have never taken advantage of their opportunities and, worse and far more disingenuously, that this is an ACCEPTABLE REASON, TODAY, FOR ‘THE ISRAEL SOLUTION’ —”
The thing that you gloss over is that you know that I’m right in my appropriate criticism of Palestinian leadership and culture. You just don’t like it. You want a Utopian solution. You want the Israelis to create all of the circumstances that compensate for the flaws in Palestinian culture and ideology. It’s hard to believe that you have studied any of the history at all. You seem to have no clue where these opinions come from.
“Sorry, but if you don’t recognize the wrongs inherent in this entire fiasco, from way back when until today, then you really haven’t been paying attention to the entire gamut of how things were done.”
Wrongs come from lack of perfection. I know how to parse accountability. You assign accountability according to neo-Marxist (the “good” racists and “good” bigots) theories.
“Lord Rothschild hosted house parties for god’s sake where the Palestinian issues were discussed. Were there any Palestinians there? NOPE, JUST ZIONISTS or ZIONIST SYMPATHIZERS. It took a while for the Rothschilds to warm up to Zionism but, once they did, look out… The Balfour Declaration, after all, was written to a Rothschild. Now, I understand how some might like to combine leisure time w/diplomacy but that’s really not above board to be discussing those kinds of issues outside the negotiation sphere.”
That’s ridiculous. Were the Zionists following TE Lawrence and the Arabs around when they were trying to negotiate? Uh, no. Your expectations are ridiculous.
” At least in that manner. As for not being educated on the subjects involved, I read widely and I’m both sympathetic and unsympathetic to BOTH SIDES.”
I know that you read neo-Marxist narratives. It’s been obvious since the first few comments I read from you. What became more obvious over time is that you can’t even think outside of the neo-Marxist worldview. At all. It shows when you talk about the ACA, economics. politics in general, everything. You are a product of neo-Marxism. Telling me that you read a lot is not impressive.
Yeah, right. Not supporting my points w/evidence. if I weren’t supporting my posts w/”evidence” you wouldn’t write such lengthy replies saying I “couldn’t follow timelines” and I “ape Marxist or neo-Marxist narratives”. It must be easy being you in any and every discussion, just reach for those labels and let the posts RIP. Too bad they’re so often RIP on arrival because they’re all labels and no meat.
You really are stupid. I gave you plenty of clues where to pick up the timelines and how to rectify the fallacies from your narratives.
Not my problem. Obviously we can’t have remedial Middle Eastern Studies courses on disqus. If you want to fixate on neo-Marxist narratives I can’t stop you. But people that reject your bullcrap see it for what it is. At least I take the time to try to explain it to you.
And if you can follow timelines, why do you focus exclusively on what Zionists did? You didn’t mention anyone from the jihadis or the legitimate Arab “nationalists.” Why is that? Because everything that I said was dead accurate. You make it sound like Zionists were plotting and scheming behind everyone’s back, leaving out the poor Arabs and their “delegate” or something like that…I guess we’re supposed to just imagine hapless victims the way that you apparently do.
You’re right that it isn’t hard for alert people to debunk neo-Marxist garbage. It’s not really as sophisticated as the dupes think.
I’ve never left out what the Arabs were doing but it was what the Zionists were doing that has caused this. If the Zionists hadn’t concentrated their efforts on reviving a dead tribal empire, “establishing sovereignty (according to you)” in that region, these events would never have occurred. Surely you understand that kind of equation? Without X, Y and Z would never have occurred??
Americana 23 minutes ago: “I’ve never left out what the Arabs were doing but it was what the Zionists were doing that has caused this.”
Phuck you. You won’t even acknowledge it, you lie as if you didn’t mention “the wolf” dozens of times and you never once mentioned the Husseini clan. You immediately pivot to blaming the Jews for them without even mentioning any of it even once.
You’re so phucked up. You’re getting worse day by day. Women cause rape by tempting men. How? Well, what are they doing out there as targets? Come on man. They need to hide underground if they don’t want to cause rape and stuff. That’s your foul logic.
“Without X, Y and Z would never have occurred??”
Without gravity few elements would form. So what? They did nothing wrong. They were the “cause” by showing up and organizing something beyond sharia. They resisted nonviolently. They resisted without coercion for many decades.
So you are just a foul-mouthed moron stuck on stupid that can’t even recognize how low you’ve stooped just to avoid conceding that your narratives are hateful and mendacious. You’re so fully exposed. It’s just amazing to me that you carry on like this for weeks and months.
You’re a crackpot. You’re the ultimate cracked pot of all the cracked pots around here.
There you go again. I’ve never said “women cause rape by tempting men”. That’s YOUR CLAIM. And the fact you’re prefacing this entire post w/that silly claim is because you want to brand me as being for sharia or for ISIL and so on. Silly man, that’s no way to phrase your argument. That’s certainly a way to BLEND BS w/MISSTATEMENTS in order to produce DISINFORMATION and MISATTRIBUTION though. Your specialities, I might add!
The Zionists “did nothing wrong by showing up”, very true. But rather than attempt to work within the system to change the nature of sharia within Palestine, the Zionists chose to concentrate their population and buy land in a deliberate attempt to force divestment of large amounts of land from the Palestinian Arabs. That’s not a known, labeled crime that was previously listed in the international legal lexicon, but it doesn’t mean it was just and right to do such a thing. There is even Jewish rabbinical law that states one shouldn’t take what one desires without the giver having decided they are willingly surrendering what it is you’re taking whether through purchase or whatever. There is also rabbinical law stating there is a prohibition against deception. Certainly the Palestinians didn’t “willingly surrender” what was taken from them. Certainly the Zionists knew that what they intended to do in Palestine defrauded the Palestinian Arabs and satisfied Jewish needs. Pretending there is justice where there is injustice merely because one favors one side over the other is not justice in the largest sense.
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/geneivatdaat.html
“Certainly the Zionists knew that what they intended to do in Palestine defrauded the Palestinian Arabs and satisfied Jewish needs. ”
The Jews are at fault just like women are at fault for rape. Women know men rape. So…there you go.
You’re welcome to try the easy sell of your analogy about women vs. men and rape, but that analogy has got nothing to do w/the planned and executed seizure of Palestinian land courtesy of the terrorized British and then the U.N. The original settlement process that led to the partition plans is identical, in fact, to the process that is going on now w/the settlements in non-Israeli areas.
The point is that the Jews didn’t collectively plan to commit terror. There was no Jewish propaganda trying to incite terrorism. There were no terrorism schools. Moron.
It was never any centralized operation. There were liberation groups that chose “terror” several times. They didn’t go in to restaurants and places full of citizens trying to scare the crap out of non-Jews in the name of God. The hotel attack was probably the most notorious event. Nonetheless, it was a liberation strategy, not an effort to promote Islamic or Jewish supremacist theocracy.
Oh, now you’re claiming that it “wasn’t enough of a centralized operation to be called terrorism” and trained terrorism? You claim this despite the fact that many of the significant figures in the Haganah and the Irgun and the Lehi groups all took positions in the very first Israeli governments? Pretty strange that you’d claim they weren’t coordinating their efforts sufficiently to be called a unified terrorism campaign. Their terrorism might have been a “liberation strategy” but it DEPENDED ON TERRORISM. It certainly influenced how the Palestinians subsequently employed terrorism.
You’re SPLITTING HAIRS when you claim that they weren’t trying to scare the crap out of non-Jews in the name of God. No, they weren’t doing their terrorism in the name of God perhaps, it was in the NAME OF ISRAEL and the establishment of a JEWISH STATE. What’s the difference between those two? Pretty minor differences, if you ask me. Well, the Israelis are going to have to continue to live w/what they have wrought and what they have contributed to the Palestinian terrorism campaigns. The Jews bombed trains, markets, restaurants, buses and hotels. That’s pretty much the same thing as is being done NOW by the Palestinians.
Americana 44 minutes ago: “Oh, now you’re claiming that it “wasn’t enough of a centralized operation to be called terrorism” and trained terrorism? You claim this despite the fact that many of the significant figures in the Haganah and the Irgun and the Lehi groups all took positions in the very first Israeli governments? Pretty strange that you’d claim they weren’t coordinating their efforts sufficiently to be called a unified terrorism campaign. Their terrorism might have been a “liberation strategy” but it DEPENDED ON TERRORISM. It certainly influenced how the Palestinians subsequently employed terrorism.”
Retard,
The issue is not terror per se. It’s primarily about fraud. Facts matter. See, the jihadis use terror in order to appear “backed in to a corner” as freedom fighters when in fact they are participating in a transnational (albeit loose at times) campaign for Islamic imperialism.
Again, the Jews were fighting for liberation. Terrorism is not something you can say is “always wrong.” In fact if you believe in Allah then they are right to fight for jihad. But I’m here to denounce them as liars, not to use smear words like “terrorists” as if that is the only thing we must consider.
If you believe in Allah, egg on the Palestinians. I’ll expose you for it. If you believe in violent jihad, face up to it. If you lie to me, you are my enemy.
Nah, the Palestinians aren’t “pretending to be backed into a corner,” they ARE BACKED INTO A CORNER. Entering the Palestinian territories is like shooting fish in a barrel. You’re entering treacherous territory by claiming the Jews were fighting for liberation while the Palestinians are not. So, if in fact, “terrorism is not always wrong,” then the Jews and the Palestinians have and had equal rights to use terrorism to advance their respective causes. It’s funny that you’re now willing to concede there was Jewish terrorism but that terrorism is not “the only thing we should consider” about the relative situations of the two peoples.
The Palestinians DON’T NEED to be egged on by anyone. The Israeli practice of trying to keep them suppressed until whatever acquiescence is considered suitable for their situation as a dispossessed people has occurred is obviously not a strategy that’s working. And such counter-productive strategies will only continue to backfire if Israel persuades the world that’s it’s OK for her to pursue “the Israel Solution.” I don’t happen to believe in violent jihad. But the fact is, the Jews pursued jihad in Palestine and achieved their goal and the Palestinians saw that the Jews achieved their goals via jihad and terrorism. There may be less of a historical record of Jewish terrorist atrocities simply because the world didn’t keep the Jews suppressed for anywhere near as long as it has done the Palestinians. After WW II, there really was nothing to do but to salvage the Jews who’d been traumatized in Europe and resettle them in Palestine. It’s unfortunate that the historical slide toward permitting Israel to come into existence wasn’t better handled by both sides. But it’s important not to let either side evade the burden of making this present situation into a workable peace. Anyone who lies as much as you and has to be keelhauled repeatedly w/the same facts time and time again before admitting those historical facts are true is an enemy of facts.
Just shut up with your idiotic memes already.
Since yours are even more idiotic than mine, you should shut up first.
Unfuckingbelievable:
Americana 6 minutes ago:
“There may be less of a historical record of Jewish terrorist atrocities simply because the world didn’t keep the Jews suppressed for anywhere near as long as it has done the Palestinians.”
It’s not “untuckingbelievable” to posit about the ‘WHAT IFs’ of ZIONIST TERRORISM continuing up until the present day if Israel hadn’t been declared in 1947. Why wouldn’t the Zionists have ramped up their terrorism to a similar extent to what the Palestinians have done if they were still awaiting the formation of the state of Israel in 2014? They might not have chosen identical targets to what the Palestinians have chosen. But the Zionist terror groups certainly gave every indication they were willing to wage all sorts of terrorism, both within Palestine and on the European continent, in order to achieve a Jewish state. The Zionists killed a U.N. envoy just because they felt he wasn’t representing Zionist interests. That’s striking an ethically low terrorist level when the man who was killed — Count Folke Bernadotte — did quite humane things in trying to prevent Jewish deaths during the Holocaust
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/folke.html.
objectivefactsmatter Americana • 20 hours ago
Unfuckingbelievable:
Americana 6 minutes ago:
“There may be less of a historical record of Jewish terrorist atrocities simply because the world didn’t keep the Jews suppressed for anywhere near as long as it has done the Palestinians.”
You find this unbelievable to suggest that the Zionists would have kept escalating their terrorist violence in order to secure the granting of statehood and being given land in Palestine? I’d say if the Zionists were willing to assassinate someone like Count Folke Bernadotte the Zionists were pretty much on their way to doing lots of terrorist acts we’d find heinous and inexcusable. The Zionists stopped their terrorism because they were given what they demanded. Well, what if they hadn’t been given what they demanded?
Liar,
You implied very clearly that the Palestinians have been “suppressed” for longer than the Jews. You’re insane.
“The Zionists stopped their terrorism because they were given what they demanded.”
No, retard. They stopped “terror” when they organized a central command. Like a real state does. Like a serious national liberation movement does. Like jihadis refuse to do. Even ISIS only has a nominal leader. They don’t follow rule of law.
None of this will even make sense to you. You’re too damn stupid.
The Zionists ceased their terrorism only after the formation of the state of Israel. The fact these groups had their own level of autonomy didn’t change the fact they were coordinating their terrorism nor does it excuse their choice of targets.
http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/10538/11136
From the above link:
Terrorism: a Tactical Weapon for Strategic Purposes
6 The Jewish underground groups launched their insurgency against the British on 31 October 1945 with a series of coordinated attacks against the railways, oil refineries, and police boats. The anti-British insurgency continued for nearly two years, in two phases. The first, often referred to as the “United Resistance” phase, lasted from October 1945 to August 1946. During this period, the three groups attempted to coordinate their actions against the British, but political and strategic disagreements precluded a wholly united front. The Haganah used violence as a pressure tactic to persuade the British to change their policy on Jewish immigration into Palestine. So, it limited its attacks mostly to targets related to anti-immigration efforts, such as coastal radar stations and police boats. But it also sabotaged the railway as a way of imposing economic pressure on the British. The Irgun and Stern groups, however, were committed to all-out “national liberation” wars. They did not believe that the British would give Palestine to the Jews and thus were determined to force them out. They tried to increase the human and political costs to Britain of remaining in Palestine by attacking British troops and police, military bases and police stations, oil refineries, trains, bridges, and banks. Between them, the three groups carried out 78 attacks in the nine months after October 1945. However, the united resistance dissolved after the Irgun blew up the British administration headquarters in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in July 1946, killing 92 people. Following that disaster, which was a grave embarrassment to the moderate Zionists, the Haganah effectively withdrew from armed operations. Unrestrained by the need for a united front, the Irgun and the Stern Gang rapidly escalated the levels of violence nearly four-fold in this second phase, carrying out 286 attacks over the next twelve months. Casualties exceeded 1,000 over the whole two-year period.6
7 But numbers don”t tell the whole story. The insurgents confounded the British by conducting a “two-front war”: a tactical paramilitary battle for control – the ability to rule; and a strategic, political, and psychological battle for legitimacy – the right to rule.7 On the tactical front, they used innovative terrorism techniques to reduce the country to chaos, thereby making Palestine ungovernable. At the strategic level they expanded the armed struggle to Europe and Britain, and conducted an imaginative propaganda war against Britain in the United States that frustrated British policy efforts. Together, these two fronts undermined the British will to remain in Palestine.
Irgun leader Menachem Begin believed that once the revolt began Palestine would resemble a “glass house.” The world”s attention would be focused on events there and that would protect the insurgents, because the British would not be “free to suppress the rebellion in a sea of blood.”8 So the Irgunpursued a strategy that would simultaneously undermine British rule in Palestine while promoting the Irgun”s image and message. Every Irgun attack the British failed to prevent would be a blow to its prestige, while the act itself would enhance the reputation of the Irgun. It was a classic application of the anarchist strategy “propaganda of the deed.”9 The Irgun”s strategy was designed to defeat Britain on both the tactical/control and strategic/political fronts. Since the British position in Palestine was already controversial at home and abroad, the legitimacy battle was all but won. So, the Irgun concentrated on undermining the means of British control.
9 The LHI”s grand strategic vision had died with founder Abraham Stern, leaving a legacy of commitment to individual terrorism, which the group turned into an obsession with revenge for his death. His successors fused this with their Marxist doctrine, arguing that Britain”s position in Palestine was determined solely by economic interests. Therefore, the Stern Gang”s strategy consisted of a combination of economic warfare and anarchist-style “direct action” against senior government officials and especially the police. Like the Irgun, the LHI”s leaders believed that their attacks would show that the Mandatory regime was “weak and ineffectual” and unable to maintain order except at an unacceptable cost.10
10 The attack on the King David Hotel in July 1946 was a devastating blow to the British administration in Palestine. The bomb had blown up the Secretariat, which was responsible for much of the day-to-day work that kept the government – and the country – functioning. It took the lives of twenty-one senior civil servants and of many junior staff, such as clerks, typists, and messengers. Administrative files and records were destroyed. Neither the people nor the records could be replaced easily, and the administration of the mandate suffered as a consequence.11
11 While the insurgents relied on “tried and true” terrorist tactics, such as bombings, assassinations, and sabotage, they offset British military advantages with tactical innovations of their own. The road network and the British Army”s vast pool of motor transport gave them freedom of movement throughout the country. The insurgents reduced British mobility with Improvised Explosive Devices (IED”s) disguised as mile-stone markers that blew vehicles off the road and killed or injured their occupants. The insurgents regarded these as their most cost-effective weapon. They also placed bombs in abandoned vehicles. British police stations were heavily fortified, protected by high thick walls, so in at least one attack the insurgents blew up a station with a massive truck bomb (vehicle-borne IED).12
12 When the British passed death sentences on convicted terrorists, British military personnel and civilians were abducted and held for ransom. Two Intelligence Corps sergeants were executed by the Irgun after a mock trial. Their booby-trapped bodies were hung in an orange grove. Facing the death penalty, two imprisoned Irgun members sacrificed themselves in a “martyrdom operation”: they blew themselves up in prison with a smuggled grenade. Others were freed in an attack on Acre prison.13 In short, they skilfully neutralized Britain”s ability to exert control of the security situation.
13 The insurgents carried out more than 90 attacks against economic targets. Mines damaged or derailed more than 20 trains, and five railway stations were attacked. These incidents disrupted and delayed railway traffic over a period of nine months from October 1946 to August 1947, with a resulting loss of commercial revenue. In addition, the insurgents attacked the petroleum industry a dozen times; most of these involved sabotage of the pipeline, but in March 1947, the Stern Gang destroyed 16,000 tons of petroleum products at the Shell Oil refinery in Haifa.14 The damage inflicted in these attacks cost Britain nearly two million pounds, but the real damage was to its ability to govern the mandate. During the winter of 1947, Britain was forced to evacuate non-essential personnel and concentrate the remainder in heavily guarded security sectors (known as “Bevingrads”). By August 1947, the rising insurgency had spilled over into large-scale Arab-Jewish communal violence.15 At that point the High Commissioner, Sir Alan Cunningham, told the Colonial Secretary, Arthur Creech-Jones,I cannot guarantee that the situation will not deteriorate to such a degree that the Civil Government will not break down . . . it is by no means clear how much longer I can keep the Civil Service working under conditions such as exist at present.16
14 The combined application of the Irgun”s and Stern Gang”s strategies of chaos worked; they had eroded British control of Palestine to the point where it was ungovernable. This was one of the major factors that influenced the British decision in September 1947 to abandon the Palestine Mandate.
The International Propaganda Campaign
15 In keeping with Begin”s “glass house” theory, the insurgents also conducted a strategic political and psychological battle for legitimacy. They complicated Britain”s situation on the political front through a well-organized local and international propaganda campaign. The insurgents were aided by “front” groups that served as the voices of the insurgency outside Palestine, promoting the Zionist cause and castigating the British government for its policies and actions.
16 This bolstered morale within the movements and among their local sympathisers. But they also reached out to potential supporters world-wide, especially in the United States. The US had a large and politically active Jewish community, and because it was Britain”s major creditor, it was the one major power able to exert influence on Britain. Insurgent propaganda repeatedly emphasized several major themes: first, that the insurgents were winning; therefore, a British withdrawal was inevitable. Second, it characterized Britain”s Palestine policy as illegal; it singled out in particular the limits on Jewish immigration that violated the terms of the mandate. This shifted the blame for violence onto Britain and legitimized all Jewish resistance as “self-defence.” Third, insurgent propaganda de-legitimized British rule by portraying Palestine as akin to a “police state.” Closely linked to this was a theme that equated British policies and behaviour with Nazism and anti-Semitism. These themes rested upon at least a kernel of truth. British policy had not changed since the outset of the war, at which time it favoured the Arabs and limited Jewish immigration, in violation of Britain”s obligations under the mandate. Palestine was not a democracy; it was governed under emergency laws, enforced by a large military and police presence. And the words and deeds of some British officials and members of the security forces were infused with a patina of anti-Semitism. This embarrassed the British government and gave insurgent propaganda considerable credibility within its audiences at home and abroad. It allowed them to maintain pressure on the US government, making it almost impossible for the Truman administration to cooperate with Britain in finding a negotiated solution to the Palestine crisis.17
17 To enhance their armed and propaganda struggles the Irgun and the Stern Gang also extended their terrorist campaign abroad. On 31 October 1946, the Irgun set off a large “suitcase bomb” at the British embassy in Rome, causing extensive damage. It claimed that the attack marked the opening of a new front against the British and the accompanying propaganda offensive was intended to “bring home” the terrorist threat to the British people. Hysterical newspaper stories of faceless, ruthless terrorists haunting the streets of London may have produced the desired psychological effect. But the reality was less dramatic. The Irgun and Stern Gang networks in Britain, including some “home-grown” terrorists, were small, under-funded, and not particularly competent. Furthermore, MI5 kept a careful watch on them and, although both groups carried out some smaller attacks, they never mounted another successful major international operation.18
Moron,
It’s not about terror per se. It’s about tactics and objectives. They are liars and they are an enemy of non-sharia sovereigns around they world.
The terror tactics employed by the jihadis both before, and even moreso after the formation of the PA, prove that they are not interested in statehood as an end goal. They are interested in eliminating non-sharia states as an end goal.
The Palestinian Authority is all about Palestinian goals viz the region. The fact you and other Zionists like you would like to continue to play Hide The Jihad by trying to conflate ALL THE JIHADS around the world INTO ONE MASSIVE JIHAD that is attempting to wipe out Christian civilization is simply BS of the worst, most pernicious and deceptive sort. There may be plenty of blowhards in the jihadi camps but the likelihood of them being able to effectively achieve anything like that against Western civilization is nowhere near possible.
Retarded straw man.
I’m shocked.
You are desperately trying to pretend that the Palestinian jihad is the same as the Caliphate jhad but it isn’t. Even Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch finally admitted that the Palestinian jihad is a jihad unto itself and that there are several INDIVIDUAL JIHADS around the world that are not necessarily linked in terms of a strategic attempt at eventual world domination. I got Robert Spencer to admit that most jihads have INDIVIDUAL STRATEGIC AIMS of RELEVANCE TO THE JIHADIS EXECUTING THE JIHAD and they’re not interested in a larger world Caliphate. If Robert Spencer can admit that, surely you can admit that.
Retard,
It’s the ideological front of the grand jihad, although most probably see it as a global ummah issue to fully liberate the peninsula. Nonetheless, it is undeniably a transnational movement.
No, it’s NOT a transnational movement. Although the Palestinian jihad has become such a locus for various significant Muslim figures that someone like Osama bin Laden did take up the Palestinian cause. But it is a jihad that is RESTRICTED TO PALESTINIANS and other ARABS from the immediate area. They haven’t had Indonesian Muslims showing up in Palestine to fight. They haven’t had Australian Muslims showing up in Palestine to fight. Certain factions would like to make the world believe that the Palestinian jihad is a transnational movement because it serves a ridiculous propaganda purpose but it’s NOT.
” They haven’t had Indonesian Muslims showing up in Palestine to fight. ”
HTF would you know? The Indonesian jihadis absolutely do see it as the front of the jiahd. They support it with funds and propaganda in their own language.
You truly are a moron.
Produce some links to support your claims. HTF would I know there are no Indonesians fighting jihad in the Palestinian territories? If there were Indonesian Muslims showing up en masse in Israel to fight in the Palestinian jihad, it would make the news. God knows, any new international jihadis who sneeze in the Palestinian Territories, Israel let’s the world know what’s up as far as the new cast of characters. You seem to forget just how tight of a blockade the Palestinian territories are under.
The fact there are various Indonesian media discussing the Israeli-Palestinian situation does not necessarily mean everything being written in Indonesia is “propaganda” even if some of it is. The Indonesian Muslims understand that the Palestinians are fighting for their rights. There is no discussion in the Indonesian media of the Palestinian jihad being linked to a culmination of the global jihad. You’re the moron. Even Robert Spencer, at the risk of being shown to be a duplicitous, manipulative propagandist, finally confessed that there were distinct jihads around the world that had nothing to do w/each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia–Israel_relations
“If there were Indonesian Muslims showing up en masse in Israel to fight in the Palestinian jihad, it would make the news.”
Shut up retard. What a straw man factory you are. Indonesian jihadis absolutely see “Palestine” as the salient front for the jihad. Few jihadis show up to “Palestine” in large groups at all. And the jihadis don’t want foreign fighters reported. Moron.
There’s also the fact that Arabs are quite racist and just as likely to enslave them along the way as treat them as equals. But that’s another story. The salient point is that all jihadis see “Palestine” as the front to either liberate the peninsula or as the front for the global war. Often both.
“Even Robert Spencer, at the risk of being shown to be a duplicitous, manipulative propagandist, finally confessed that there were distinct jihads around the world that had nothing to do w/each other.”
Nothing to do with each other? You’re a stupid liar. Otherwise you’d quote him. Nobody claimed there was a central command. Dipshirt. There’s not even a central command in the region we’re talking about.
You can’t follow any conversation. You’re so stupid and annoying.
Why on earth would I run on over to Jihad Watch and look for the quote of Robert Spencer’s where he finally admitted that he was working the world jihadist angle for all it was worth? By the way, that’s NOT what he wrote but that was what he meant.
Why is it Robert Spencer HAS NEVER explained the various world jihads as being individual jihads? His schtick is that it’s ONE JIHAD which it is PATENTLY CLEAR IS NOT TRUE. Eventually, there might be a single jihad but, at this moment, and far, far into the foreseeable future, there are individual jihads w/singular aims. Robert Spencer and the rest of those ideologues ought to explain them as such. The point is not that there is a central command within these jihads, diphthong, the point is to what extent they are UNIFIED OR NOT. But that’s not how Spencer has perennially described these jihads and he plays hide the jihad for one reason and one reason only and he misdescribes these jihads for one reason and one reason only.
Troll,
Shut it. Nobody cares about your rants.
Right. Onward and upward.
You seem to know nothing about the US Constitution.
You seem to know less than nothing about the U.S. Constitution…
Yes child. Go to your room now until your parents call you out.
You’re squatting at your computer only to be let out at dinnertime. Enjoy the jello, and try not to think about the jello that is your grey matter.
“There is no discussion in the Indonesian media of the Palestinian jihad being linked
to a culmination of the global jihad. ”
Moron,
Do you think the Republic of Indonesia has a free press with secular investigators hunting for interesting threads of the story? Jihadis are considered “terrorists” in Indonesia. They are not considered “legitimate” Muslims as far as official government policy is concerned and if you stir the debate you will end up fired or killed.
Certainly Indonesia is freer than a lot of other Muslim nations but there is definitely a dominant strain of their own brand of sharia culture. And in some regions (their own local) sharia dominates life the way that many “no go zones” in Europe do.
However, there are not a lot of Arab speakers and the ancient tribe and clan cultures still remain part of the fabric of society. It’s not a good example for understanding other Muslim nations. And yet there is very strong support among the “terrorists” for the “Palestinians.”
“indigenous” are you insane?
Nope. There were plenty of indigenous Palestinian Arabs. Otherwise there wouldn’t be small stone villages dotted all over the place that are being converted into luxury condominiums. Nor would those villages have hundreds of years old olive groves. That’s the thing, trees don’t lie. They live in situ and they testify to how long they’ve been planted somewhere.
So you are holding the fact that the worst of the Jews according to you, is still better than the best of the Arabs, Jordan has a law from the beginning that no Jew can become a citizen, in none of the Arab countries imposed on the region are any of the indigenous Jews allowed to become citizens.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 16 days ago
“I don’t rely on instinct, by the way. I’m not sure if you’ve written that in an attempt to discredit my thinking and analysis that goes into “proofing” something but, nonetheless, that’s how it reads. Considering anyone w/half a brain should have arrived at the same awareness those were lies, it’s pretty strange that no one else’s brains led them to those same conclusions. When I’ve caught people out, it’s because the facts don’t lead to the same conclusion or the story they’ve presented. That’s rational, that’s not emotional. You claiming I’m being emotional when the only way to have figured out those claims were lies was through reason is someone who’s on a mission to denigrate my ability to think.”
All true. I work my way through someone’s posts, following their thread of facts and at some point, if the facts don’t add up, I challenge them w/those facts not adding up. You’ve got a problem w/this?
The conversations are not structured so that it would be easy for anyone to come in guns blazing. I find it annoying if someone comes in with an attitude and an expectation to completely recompose everything I’ve written just to make it easy on the attacker. I have no reason to do that. You have to decide what your goals really are.
“I’m only impatient when it comes to outright lies and crazy theories that exhibit no roots in reality.”
That’s your view of yourself. See, if you become convinced that someone is deceptive when it’s really mostly your confusion you’re going to end up going in circles. Your confusion, disagreement and or lack of experience is not evidence that someone else is suggesting anything that is unrealistic. It might some times point you in the right direction but jumping to early conclusions will get you in trouble.
Nope, when I’ve challenged someone on SPECIFIC TRUTHS, there’s no question in my mind what the reality is. I don’t consider you deceptive on economic issues. I simply see you as having an extremely strong bias that I don’t believe is rooted in historical fact. That’s an entirely different thing than arguing over relatively vague chicken and egg causation questions when someone makes a reasonable case for how an event unfolded. No way would I totally discard someone’s thinking as to its contribution in analyzing such a chicken and egg issue, but I would rank their #1 REASON below ANOTHER ROOT CAUSE if I see the latter is seemingly the far more powerful causative driver of the event.
Where we are facing far more amorphous issues that have multiple sources and multiple causations, then it becomes a matter of will we ever be able to untangle the Gordian knot of how such an event came about? We might, we might not, but if we look at enough UNBIASED, HISTORICALLY CORRECT MATERIAL, then we just might be able to arrive at the PRINCIPAL CAUSES and RANK THEM in terms of their contributions to how the event unfolded. Looking at **biased, opinion driven material** isn’t the clearest path toward analysis. That kind of writing drives bias, it doesn’t necessarily drive accuracy of analysis.
“I simply see you as having an extremely strong bias that I don’t believe is rooted in historical fact. ”
Um, I’m trying to include MORE history. And fit the pieces together as history shows that they do. It’s hard for me to understand how you can consider that I’m myopic and you’re views are more comprehensive and rational. I’m strongly biased against myopia.
Fine, you continue to provide more historical context. It’ll make all our conversations more interesting. I’m not myopic. My trouble has always been having too broad of a vision of how issues fit together. Ideally, one can zoom in and out to see how the macro- and the micro-economic (etc) scales interact and examine the contributing elements over time.
If you zoom too quickly and jump around you’ll miss relationships and fail to understand driving versus trailing factors and so forth. And that’s where the controversies lie.
“Where we are facing far more amorphous issues that have multiple sources and multiple causations, then it becomes a matter of will we ever be able to untangle the Gordian knot of how such an event came about? We might, we might not, but if we look at enough UNBIASED, HISTORICALLY CORRECT MATERIAL, then we just might be able to arrive at the PRINCIPAL CAUSES and RANK THEM in terms of their contributions to how the event unfolded.”
That’s why I pointed you to the timeline of the housing bubble in America. You can go back further if you want, but not as a way of avoiding or deflecting the immediate topic.
First set the scope, then choose the appropriate timeline. We’re not talking about “the history of problems with capitalism” because if you do that you really must go back to earliest recorded history to discover that “capitalism” is a part of civilization. If you see abuse and attribute it to “capitalism” you are not understanding how humans abuse power. Material is easier to spot and quantify so it’s easy to get caught up in materialistic explanations as too highly deterministic and you’ll entertain the idea that it is the primary or only tool used to abuse others. If you get it wrong, you punish people for being “too productive” and you ignore people that are less materially productive but more successful at using populism to gain power.
So if you have problems with “capitalism” as innately dangerous, that’s a longer conversation. If you want to look at the US housing bubble you should start with a glance at the New Deal, track how the war masked the problems with these interventions and then track the economic problems that started to become obvious in the 1970s onward. Then layer the various statistics in housing prices and the kinds of things people started doing to get in on the bubble. That was a government created bubble.
If you want to come up with some kind of intervention strategy that makes sense, the very least you have to do is work out all of the implications based on a very careful examination of what has really happened in the past. And you have to be prepared to live with the consequences and not blame others when something goes wrong. Just blaming “capitalism” is the never ending cycle that leads to constant zero sum negotiations and clash of worldviews. If more time is spent rooting out fallacies, those worldview clashes won’t cause so many problems because the chasms in thinking will be much smaller.
I don’t see capitalism as “inherently dangerous” but it’s possible for capitalism to become temporarily derailed. I don’t think of these temporary derailments in terms of social injustice but, rather, in terms of the complexities of the consequences of derailment working their way through the society. What will be the responses of the society? Can the situation be HANDLED vs simply ALLOWED TO PROCEED through to its conclusion? I don’t fault capitalism for this type of unfortunate event. Capitalism has provided some of the greatest advancements the world has seen and, besides, similar issues have occurred in the other economic systems as well. But there have been periods of foundering for capitalism. There’s no way to deny that fact. That those periods have been linked w/other historical human events that are not strictly rooted entirely in economics is where the function/dysfunction of an economic system becomes a little murkier. The fact that’s also where the enlightenment about the role economics plays in society must arise from makes the revelations about economics and sociology awkward, but pretending that sociology is totally disunited from economics isn’t feasible.
Private enterprise should not be ruled by the collective without some Constitutional justification. What happens is that politicians come up with “magic” solutions that are supposedly win win, so they’re not really taking public funds so much as borrowing and then redistributing. The government has no legal right to do that. But what happens is that the consequences only become undeniable later. Then blame shifting occurs. People don’t want to look at all of the implications because that would lead to smaller interventions and smaller government.
In essence government is taking on the role of “social justice administrator” (as opposed to constitutional justice) and it is now looking after its own interests in defending its justifications for doing these things in the first place. This separate worldview grows around this orientation to think it’s OK or even generally good for government to have that kind of power.
I know most people have good intentions. But they also have tendencies to protect their own interests in ways that some times even they are not even aware of.
When I was very young I used to believe that interventions just made sense. To not try would be like burying gold in your back yard. The government already has to take control of lots of resources so why not be “smart” about it? Because it’s very difficult, perhaps not even possible, for government to be smart enough. That’s just the reality that I learned. I’m a “progressive” by instinct and a conservative by learning. And honestly that’s the most benign criticism anyone can realistically come up.
And that’s the beauty of our US Constitution. By forcing the various factions to contend with each other and build dominant consensus we’re supposed to avoid doing too many stupid things. Over time, the fraudulent ideas became more seductive and clever. But really if these ideas are so great they should be obvious to the various cities, counties and states. Those should be the proving grounds. I don’t even have a problem with any state that wants to have “socialized medicine” of some kind. But when you restrict an entire national economy in such an important field…wow. It’s ridiculous.
Politicians are never going to tell the voters what they really need to know. We have to recognize when there is something significant at stake and perform our own diligent research according to importance. There are too many demagogues and delusional thought leaders for these controversies to go away any time soon. But the some of the controversies can be reduced by chasing down fallacies and discrediting them. Then consensus is easier to build, synergistic solutions because more likely, and so forth.
In some cases, private enterprise HAS TO BE RULED BY THE COLLECTIVE WISDOM of the society or by APPROPRIATE policing elements within society because otherwise you have things like this following happening:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/02/suppressed-eu-report-could-have-banned-pesticides-worth-billions
From the above link:
As many as 31 pesticides with a value running into billions of pounds could have been banned because of potential health risks, if a blocked EU paper on hormone-mimicking chemicals had been acted upon, the Guardian has learned.
The science paper, seen by the Guardian, recommends ways of identifying and categorising the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that scientists link to a rise in foetal abnormalities, genital mutations, infertility, and adverse health effects ranging from cancer to IQ loss.
Commission sources say that the paper was buried by top EU officials under pressure from big chemical firms which use EDCs in toiletries, plastics and cosmetics, despite an annual health cost that studies peg at hundreds of millions of euros.
The unpublished EU paper says that the risks associated with exposure to even low-potency EDCs is so great that potency alone should not serve as a basis for chemicals being approved for use. Its proposed criteria for categorisations of EDCs – along with a strategy for implementing them – was supposed to have enabled EU bans of hazardous substances to take place last year.
Advertisement
But commission officials say that under pressure from major chemical industry players, such as Bayer and BASF, the criteria were blocked. In their place, less stringent options emerged, along with a plan for an impact assessment that is not expected to be finalised until 2016.
“We were ready to go with the criteria and a strategy proposal as well but we we were told to forget about it by the secretary general’s office,” a commission source told the Guardian. “Effectively the criteria were suppressed. We allowed the biocides and pesticides legislation to roll over.”
Last month, 11 MEPs complained in a cross-party letter to the health and food safety commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, about the EU’s failure to honour its mandate and adopt the EDC criteria.
This was supposed to have happened by the end of 2013, and is now the subject of court proceedings brought by Sweden, the European parliament and council.
But Catherine Day, the EU’s powerful secretary general, laid the blame for the delay on poor communication between the commission’s health (Sanco) and environment (Envi) departments, which shared responsibility for the file.
“They were working in different directions, which made no sense so the secretariat-general did intervene to force them to do a joint impact assessment with the aim of coming up with one analysis on which the commission could base itself,” she told the Guardian.
“The commission is under no obligation to publish internal working papers,” another commission spokesperson said. “As you know, the European commission acts in full independence and in the general European interest.”
A counter-narrative popularised in the film Endocrination holds that Sanco was brought into the policy process as a proxy for industry interests.
“We had a lot of arguments with Sanco,” a commission source said. “At one point, the secretary general intervened to halt the process and then basically it was just stopped. We were told that we and Sanco had to bang our heads together. But when the two directorates eventually – and reluctantly – reached an agreement, even that was blocked by the secretary general.”
Safety laws are not economic interventions just because they have some economic impact. If private companies lose out because they were too speculative with risky products, they should be “punished” when they are unable to profit…if the safety regulations are legitimate.
That is no justification at all for state sovereignty over capital. The government should own the traffic lights, not the products being shipped over the roads or the factories that produce things.
There you go again… REWRITING SENTENCES and CRAFTING PHILOSOPHICAL BOONDOGGLES to portray me as something I’m not. And it’s very crafty of you to word the next sentence as you did. (objectivefactsmatter) “…if the safety regulations are legitimate.” There isn’t often an instance where regulatory agencies have come down on products that AREN’T DANGEROUS and SHOULDN’T BE ON THE MARKET and were able to prevent them coming to market. If this were the case, there would be lots and lots of case histories of products coming to market after companies successfully going to court to prove their products’ validity and non-harmful fallout.
My point is that private enterprise that affects the health of people and our nation has to be regulated. That’s got NOTHING to do w/”state sovereignty over capital”. Why would you write such a preposterous sentence unless you wish to portray my thinking in that insane light? Not allowing dangerous chemicals to be used when they have been proven to be dangerous has nothing to do w/”state sovereignty over capital”.
I explained where your ideas come from. Unless you simply have a natural envy that you think should inform government policy without any rational challenges.
“That’s got NOTHING to do w/”state sovereignty over capital”. Why would you write such a preposterous sentence unless you wish to portray my thinking in that insane light?”
Because that is what you’re advocating. You are not advocating >absolute< state sovereignty, you are advocating Fabianism. If you still don't understand the implications of your own advocacy you really can't blame me. I've explained it to you every way from Sunday.
"My point is that private enterprise that affects the health of people and our nation has to be regulated."
It is regulated to a huge, huge degree. The objections are over regulating capital and utilizing price controls and homogenization of products and services. Those are totally illegitimate efforts.
"That's got NOTHING to do w/"state sovereignty over capital". Why would you write such a preposterous sentence unless you wish to portray my thinking in that insane light?"
Because that is the difference between what the FDA and other organizations do in the name of safety and quality assurance and what the ACA does, which you advocate. The controversy is not between anarchy and total, immediate state control over capital. The controversy is over rational safety regulations versus Fabian (incremental) socialism. The ACA and these other interventions we're discussing take incremental control for the sake of control in the name of "greater good" with irrational counterproductive policies that only benefit the elites that promote these ideas.
"Not allowing dangerous chemicals to be used when they have been proven to be dangerous has nothing to do w/"state sovereignty over capital"."
This is a straw man. I never indicated that it would be such a thing.
You’ve explained where YOU THINK my ideas come from. If you were only slightly less arrogant about making assumptions about what everyone else thinks and word your posts more honestly, there’d be a lot less inaccurate representation in your posts.
The key is first to focus on equal opportunity, equal application of the law. Then look at actual claims and weigh the evidence. If these interventions were driven exclusively by case law I would not worry one bit. But when we look to Congress for “social justice” solutions…it’s almost always a problem. Worse still is when a president also starts pressuring Congress to pass “social justice” laws and worst of all are executive actions that are used to get around our Constitution. It’s giving too much power to people that feel like victims because their natural envy has been exploited and to the demagogues that exploit them.
“The fact that’s also where the enlightenment about the role economics plays in society must arise from makes the revelations about economics and sociology awkward, but pretending that sociology is totally disunited from economics isn’t feasible.”
I’m not sure I’d put it that way. It’s good when anyone abandons fatalism and dogmatism. But I think I’d rather have people thinking fatalistically than putting together dangerous and mendacious victim narratives. The Enlightenment should have been about abandoning dogmatic thinking but in the end it was as much about replacing old dogmas with new ones as anything else. The only real progress came from major advances in technology. That’s how I see it. But that technology did lead to greater distribution of political power. That alone should be celebrated. But now it’s far easier to exploit populism. Which is not good.
So, it’s complicated. But it’s never been easier to keep pursuing equal opportunity. We have so many ways to allow “disadvantaged” people to participate as equals. That’s where virtually all of the social progress has come from. If we appreciated that, we might not get caught up in the new, destructive, fatalistic and deterministic narratives that lead to these overly paternalistic interventions.
I believe that individuals generally have a lot more potential than they’re often allowed to develop. Treating them like they need protection of and from elites when they don’t will not help them develop much if at all. Just about anyone can grow from student to “elite” if we focus on equality of opportunity rather than top down equality of outcome adjustments.
There are all sorts of different ways of focusing on individual professional development. I had a long-time riding student whom I’d identified as capable of being a very high-ranking professional equestrian. Her parents were not wealthy. I bought her a horse w/great potential w/the understanding the loan would eventually be repaid. The two went on to great success and I began to think of additional fall-back professions that could be combined w/her riding skills in order to flesh out her professional life. I suggested she become a physical therapist. She is now a physiotherapist w/a thriving professional riding life. She should never want for a suitable job provided her health holds up. What I did for her is not at all insignificant and that’s what good educators should be able to do for all their students — steer them in a productive, suitable direction. On top of the professional guidance, there are also all sorts of ways of providing financial support. If you consider that being overly protective or overly supportive, I’d disagree. Equality of opportunity has to be combined w/equality of life vision for the outcomes to be optimal. Look at how many wastrels come out of high-income households. It’s not just the low-income, low-expectation households that have the problem of developing their children’s potential.
Well, I disagree that there shouldn’t be limits discussed about all sorts of aspects of business in the U.S. and “social justice” as seen in other lights. Whether or not those discussions should lead to actual recommendations of action is another thing entirely. But look at executive pay and compensation and how OUTRAGEOUS it has become over the past 25 years in the U.S. while not being the adopted practice elsewhere, in Europe, for example. Why is that important? Because that is money that is LEAVING the COMPANY COFFERS forever and is going to someone whose total benefits to the company may never come anywhere near the sum total of his/her package. When we elevate a tiny cadre of workers above all other workers, oftentimes we forget what drives companies to be that great of a success. Certainly, that astronomical success can hardly ever be the sole claim of the later CEOs of these American companies. What should redound to the first formulators of such grandiosely innovative companies should not simply fall to the next cadre of CEOs “just because” when it puts the companies’ financial health at risk over time.
Get over yourself. People like you created the problem.
You keep playing whack a mole and wonder why you get nowhere. You next trick is to go full totalitarian.
The hucksteric, he’s baaaaaaacccckkkkk!
“Liberals don’t have the guts to tell anybody who they are. I think 35% call themselves independents.”
Hucksterics don’t have the common sense to self-identify themselves as hucksterics, others need to inform them of their plight.
You called yourself an independent and 20 million people heard what that really means.
Of course what are we to call someone, who supports Beyond Marriage, but a liberal, a leftist?
You’re selecting the translation for Independent that suits your perspective. Be my guest, Mr. Hucksteric. Lots of people have been willing to recognize that’s an accurate label for you and they seemingly understand the dual meaning of the newly coined term “hucksteric” as being someone who’s a combination of a hysteric and a huckster.
You sleep better at night knowing you tell pollsters and certain friends you are Independent while pulling that lever for D all the time.
Like I said, you are banal.
Oh, such wisdom from you! Banal. Perhaps far better an adjective to have attached to oneself than “hucksterical.”
“Well, I disagree that there shouldn’t be limits discussed about all sorts of aspects of business in the U.S. and “social justice” as seen in other lights. Whether or not those discussions should lead to actual recommendations of action is another thing entirely. But look at executive pay and compensation and how OUTRAGEOUS it has become over the past 25 years in the U.S. while not being the adopted practice elsewhere, in Europe, for example. Why is that important? ”
You’re again looking at this like a cultural Marxist or communist. See, if indeed any company is overpaying anyone, it’s competitors will punish this company by competing at “the right” pay scales and be able to deliver better value to the marketplace. That’s the beauty of free markets.
It’s weird that over the past decades our students are exhorted to worship the beauty of mother nature and the “free market” of competition. We already have laws on top of all that and now people ask for laws to change scoreboards after the game has started while calling that “evening the playing field.” No, the playing field is the environment. Pay and profit are scoreboard stats. But in business if you try on your own to screw with the scoreboard your competition has the power to punish you. There is no need to empower referees to punish teams that overpay players. Punish teams that screw with the environmental factors illegally.
You’re so in love w/the concept of executive compensation you don’t even see the fiscal issues w/that much encumbrance being put on American companies.
I just explained it to you why it is in EVERYONE’s best interests to leave it to the marketplace.
“Because that is money that is LEAVING the COMPANY COFFERS forever and is going to someone whose total benefits to the company may never come anywhere near the sum total of his/her package.”
That’s really a weird way of looking at it. All pay can be described that way. Then why do we pay people? Because people work according to their compensation packages. High pay keeps people loyal and attracts the best new workers.
As for “leaving the company…” this is again looking at myopic views of eco-systems. Free markets apply all of the right forces to reward companies that get it right and punish companies that overpay or underpay. Fraud is something else entirely. There are some companies that do unethical things but that’s another topic. Shareholders can punish those malefactors. Competitors also gain advantage when this kind of “waste” occurs. That kind of corruption usually does not hurt the public beyond the stakeholders.
“When we elevate a tiny cadre of workers above all other workers…”
We who? If you’re worried about employees in operations where you really are a stakeholder, take it up with management. That’s what the TEA party is doing. The tax payers are getting screwed by the government with corrupt pay practices and phony operations built just to squeeze more money and power from the stake holders.
Even if you disagree with TEA party folks about “right levels” of government size and pay you should at least be alerted to the fact that while free markets don’t tent to take straight lines to building Utopian living, they at least keep us heading that way in general whereas government interventions end up making things worse.
It’s one thing to have ideals and another thing entirely to figure out who has the best real world solutions. You have to really know the realities of the pressures in free markets to understand what government interventions actually do. Most of the time their solutions just screw everything up but because they have access to such massive amounts of resources, they can construct their schemes to show impressive early results until people just forget about what they had before and how the new programs really affect them. Cost shifting is a given. That’s why we are where we are. Partly because of cost-shifting the costs of war, and then cost shifting in everything else because it must be OK to do if we did it to pay to secure our interests. That’s yet more flawed thinking.
That’s not at all “a weird way of looking at it”. That is the FUTURE GROWTH and STABILITY of the company going out the door w/nothing necessarily much being secured by giving that SINGLE INDIVIDUAL that much value. If the person is truly an individual who’s contributing vast expertise and novel ideas to the company, that’s one thing but if the person is merely keeping the company semi-well run and he/she is not doing more than retaining the core competency of the company then their value is not in the astronomical range. Theoretically, we pay people relative to their core relevance to the company’s profit line, but that’s NOT what I see happening in many instances.
You are making several assumptions in your last two paragraphs and those assumptions must be clarified for me to understand where you’re going w/this post.
Americana is still at it trying to wear you down.
She is such a b00b.
[b00b] Slang.
noun
1. a stupid person; fool; dunce.
2. British. a blunder; mistake.verb (used without object)
verb
3. British. to blunder.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/booby
Americana objectivefactsmatter 16 days ago
“Nope, when I’ve challenged someone on SPECIFIC TRUTHS, there’s no question in my mind what the reality is.”
Well then, at this point, you’re supposed to produce the compelling truth from your perspective…
“Million Dollar Club” memberships are no big thing. For crying out loud. Even basic math is hard for you.
Million Dollar clubs are not all that hard, especially in large urban areas, true. But the point is, it wasn’t necessary for them to indulge in UNETHICAL BUSINESS BEHAVIOUR to get there. They maintained their ethical behavior throughout the entire event, as the law was passed, as the respective markets they work in heated up and then as the markets collapsed. As for basic math, since you’ve given no sign you’re a higher math type person, I’m fine w/being at a disadvantage (if I am at a disadvantage) w/you.
The comedy value is very high. I’ll grant you that.
You’re about as much comedy as I can take in an afternoon, I’ll grant you that.
At least we’re both amused. That’s good for human health.
I guess according to you the people should have “thought twice” and said F these programs. They’re drawing us in to a housing bubble! I actually agree. But I blame the programs, not the desperate people.
This is getting funnier again.
I don’t blame the programs. I certainly could have directed people to avail themselves of the programs without a problem. Why? Because I’m a realist.
Americana 10 hours ago: “I don’t blame the programs. I certainly could have directed people to avail themselves of the programs without a problem. Why? Because I’m a realist.”
This has got to be the funniest thing you’ve ever said. You think it’s reasonable to preserve programs by having people like you running around approving the deals. Because you have this universal objective standard that you can apply. And you don’t need more government sovereignty to employ this approach.
Write to Congress. You’re a genius. I’m sure there’s no magic involved like telling builders what to build until you have all of the ideal housing you need.
I’ve never said I would have approved loans for $225,000 homes to first-time buyers. I’ve got a pretty good handle on what a first-time homebuyer w/no major job or job prospects should buy and it’s not that home.
There are classic accounting formulas used to start with. When politics distort that process you will have problems.
Politics wasn’t MEANT TO DISTORT that ASPECT of the process. You’re mistaking what was asked (less bias in homeownership qualification) for what was done (allowing inappropriate homes to be sold to inappropriate buyers). Those “classic accounting formulas” were being used to enrich the home speculators, the realtors and the mortgage bankers. This situation could have been modified and made less volatile at each level of professional engagement if those professionals didn’t see their cash cows walking around. Lots of professionals MILKED THE SYSTEM and they KNEW THEY WERE MILKING THE SYSTEM.
Hahaha, explain your “desperate people” comment. That ought to be good for a laugh.
Phuck off. Retard.
Just curious if you use the term douchebag for the males around here as well? Because there’s lots to that term that is both “explicit” and “implicit”. Oh, I don’t understand how those “assessments are made”? How is it I’ve bought houses before and qualified for the mortgages then? How is it I’ve remained within the level of homeownership w/which I’m comfortable although I could certainly have qualified for a higher mortgage? How is it I’ve refrained from overextending myself in my credit even though I’ve got honking great credit lines on my CCs?
I understand what my course of action should be in most instances. I watched friends take out second mortgages on their homes and farms though they didn’t have adequate plans on how to expeditiously pay those second mortgages back. I’ve still got my farm, others don’t. I’m responsible for making a reasonable assessment of my course of action and I’ll then ask that another entity second-guess my assessment w/their own assessment. How this process was distorted during this housing bubble was a matter of greed and dissimulation. There were lots of buyers flipping houses and using straw men purchasers. There were lots of banks and realtors taking the money on the transactions and looking the other way. It wasn’t in their interest to really dig deep and be rational so they weren’t digging deep and they weren’t being rational.
Again, you’re very confused. You have ideas. You’re ideas are not always the polar opposite of the truth. You simply don’t understand where your ideas belong.
Oh, I’m pretty sure where my ideas belong. You obviously DON’T but you’re going to assign them to the categories you choose regardless for the sake of your continuous beating of the Marxism drum.
You’re so boring.
Here’s an “explanation” that perhaps you can comprehend. Subprime loans are what you look back on and refer to as “fraud.”
http://dailycaller.Com/2012/09/03/with-landmark-lawsuit-barack-obama-pushed-banks-to-give-subprime-loans-to-chicagos-african-americans/
With landmark lawsuit, Barack Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans
1:26 AM 09/03/2012
9776
3662
NEIL MUNRO
White House Correspondent
President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.
As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings, following a decade in which Obama and other progressives pushed banks to provide mortgages to poor African Americans.
Americana an hour ago: “Don’t be an idiot.”
Hilarious clown show. Just wonderful.
Don’t break the stage hook.
Hilarity is knowing that you’re refusing to acknowledge that the realtors, the banks were anxious to complete these transactions because they could make a significant profit off them… There may be duplicity and rose-colored glasses in this crowd but I’m not the one who’s duplicitous and I’m not the one wearing the rose-colored glasses. I pretty much see all the players in this fiasco as to the roles they played.
No, you’re just confused.
That’s always your fallback. Don’t you get tired trying to save your POV w/that old line?
No, I don’t. I don’t have to “save” my POV because most of the people reading it understand I’m saying more or less what Thomas Sowell has been saying. You get yours from an idiot savant’s view of reading The New Republic.
“NOTHING in the law stipulated that homes should be permitted to be bought that were above and beyond their capacity to buy.”
http://www.nytimes.Com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29— In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
She said nothing in the law stipulated, etc, and the article you just quoted cited two reasons for such activity – neither of which cites stipulations in the law. The two reasons given for FM easing credit restrictions were political pressure from the administration and – interestingly enough – pressure from stockholders for continued high profits.
And how does that contradict anything that I said? It’s a straw herring.
“She said nothing in the law stipulated, etc, and the article you just quoted cited two reasons for such activity – neither of which cites stipulations in the law.”
I have VERY CONSISTENTLY used the word —>>> implications <<<—- of the combined statutes, case precedents, policies and so forth. And I have cited MANY examples of the same.
"…interestingly enough – pressure from stockholders for continued high profits."
Again, this harkens back to my points about moral hazard and fiduciary duties of the various actors. This is why interventions are stupid.
But instead, you can blame society rather than the policy wonks. What we need is more control over society so that our interventions work as intended. That's how you get the next Stalin, Hitler, etc. That's how we lose our liberties. Because too much liberty leads to "unfairness."
“And how does that contradict anything that I said? It’s a straw herring.”
If you are discussing the implications of anything beyond the law in question, you’re not addressing the point to which you are responding.
You haven’t demonstrated that the intervention in question resulted in the stockholder pressure cited, as opposed to, say, Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
“That’s how you get the next Stalin, Hitler, etc”
That escalated quickly.
“If you are discussing the implications of anything beyond the law in question, you’re not addressing the point to which you are responding.”
That’s the problem with hostile, ignorant interlocutors. You can’t let them set the agenda with straw herrings until the end of time. Her point has been addressed many times in the past few weeks, even today, even if you question it looking only at the local comment.
“You haven’t demonstrated that the intervention in question resulted in the stockholder pressure cited, as opposed to, say, Gramm-Leach-Bliley.”
I’m not sure where your confusion lies. But basically the answer is moral hazard shift. These stockholders would not have pressured the banks to lower credit standards if those stockholders calculated risks in a free market. If they did, they would have taken the hit on their own and the policies would not become “toxic.”
The interventions basically create this free for all environment because at the end of all the assessments you have this “too big to fail” idea where everything will be fine unless there is a huge crash and in that case the government must either act to prevent it or fix it afterwards because we’re all just pursuing the implications of these laws, policies and so forth. Therefore we have a fiduciary duty to behave more or less as recklessly as other institutions, or rather to pursue maximum profits with similar risk calculations. To leave money on the table would be a violation of their fiduciary duties to their shareholders. Policies that force moral hazard problems can be described as incoherent conflict of fiduciary duties. There’s lots of finger pointing as a result and from each POV it makes sense. It’s the lack of coherency in our interventions and the slippery slope implications.
Yes, yes, that’s all clear. The question is – which policy shifted the moral hazard in this case? When you complain about interventions in general, that’s not terribly helpful in identifying the helpful from the harmful policies. Unless you are arguing for laissez-faire, of course. Are you?
“The question is – which policy shifted the moral hazard in this case?”
In American law, all precedents are potentially valid unless explicitly ruled out. But the nearest proximate intervention would be the CRA and the lawsuits that followed. I assume that is what emboldened the factions to lobby Clinton late in his second term. Is that the answer you’re looking for?
“When you complain about interventions in general, that’s not terribly helpful in identifying the helpful from the harmful policies. Unless you are arguing for laissez-faire, of course. Are you?”
Oh, I see. No, I don’t consider disclosure laws in the same class of “intervention” as those that attempt to adjust wealth distribution statistics.
First and foremost I’m against fraud and deception. As a principle, I’m for disclosure laws. But even some of those are poorly done. But that’s a separate (but related for sure) discussion. Some times they’re just used as “doing something” in order to take the pressure off when they’re really not dealing with the root problems.
But generally speaking, in a vacuum, disclosure laws that are properly created are good. There are interesting “bad” outcomes that come from them too, but we can overcome that with education. Not a fundamental problem in my mind.
“That escalated quickly.”
No, I mentioned that weeks ago in this thread and it’s a consistent point that is made in these discussions. That’s another problem with “interventions” when you don’t have complete information.
And I didn’t think you’d dispute that a lot of the support for Hitler was driven by the population’s general feeling that strong leaders are needed to direct national economies with “fair” economic policies. No matter what kind of altruism people claim to have, usually “fairness” is biased by self-interest of the promoters.
That’s what is building here in the USA right now. Look at all of these “peaceful” (violent) demonstrations. You can’t keep the Constitution intact and let people roam around setting things on fire until they “feel” things are fair. The direction that we’re heading towards, if unchecked, is to giving more power to law enforcement (which is ironic considering who some of the agitators are) and the executive branch if they can convince their voter base that they can be trusted with a strong “social justice” agenda.
All of those historical tyrants had agendas that their constituents would have considered “socially just.” That’s how it works. This is legitimate criticism of populism in nations that don’t pay close enough attention to rule of law. You have rule of law slide towards rule of tyrant if you feel the tyrant will deliver “fairness” beyond what rule of law has done historically.
And by the way this is related to the “slippery slope” objections people talk about in other realms. “Slippery slope” is not just code for objections to polygamy or something like that. We need to be very concerned about all of the implications of our laws and policies, not just explicit “stipulations.”
If you skip ahead to the end and have a complete understanding of how these elements all fit together you have only one rational conclusion: The intervention policies need to be much more coherent.
The controversy among those who fully understand these issues are over whether the answer is more loss of liberty and more regulations until the policies make sense towards social justice goals, in the hope that it won’t impact GDP, or fewer interventions until you can manage them coherently without significant disruption of liberties, including the liberty to offer innovative and truly progressive approaches rather than things that seem progressive to the pro-intervention (“social justice”) camp.
Interventions don’t lead to progress. Interventions are incremental steps to planned economies. Planned economies don’t work very well.
Again, I’ll simply say that if these folks w/less than ideal credit histories had resulted in these homeowners being introduced to the lower end of the housing market, there wouldn’t have been the catastrophic fallout that there was. If the realty and mortgage banking industries had been more scrupulous, they wouldn’t have allowed such deals to go forward. They did so because they would profit coming and going.
You have no right to dictate your standards, especially after the fact. And my point all along, like when I mentioned Stalin, was that in order to fulfill your ideals you need a much stronger police state. You’re ignorant because you’re so delusional.
There is NOTHING in the way of recommendations for a “stronger police state” in any of my remarks. Interesting that you’d try to PITCH THAT AS YOUR LAST DITCH DEFENSE of your perspective though. As I’ve written in multiple posts, there is/was adequate guidance and LEGAL STRUCTURES ALREADY IN PLACE that demanded these professionals perform their fiduciary duties in a professional and knowledgeable manner. **They chose not to do so.** As for me “dictating (my) standards”, my standards are not different from what is presently demanded of realtors and mortgage bankers. The houses these sorts of buyers should have been given the opportunity to buy are not the houses that someone who’s solidly upper middle-class w/a long-time professional CV and an in-demand career should be allowed to buy. That should be pretty evident to everyone and even more so if they’re realtors and mortgage bankers. Gee, my last remark here sounds remarkably like a capitalist, don’tcha think?
“There is NOTHING in the way of recommendations for a “stronger police state” in any of my remarks.”
Implication. That’s how it works. You’re too dumb to follow.
“The houses these sorts of buyers should have been given the opportunity to buy are not the houses that someone who’s solidly upper middle-class…”
Here we go again…
“That should be pretty evident to everyone and even more so if they’re realtors and mortgage bankers. Gee, my last remark here sounds remarkably like a capitalist, don’tcha think?”
No, you’re just trying to find some “common sense” narratives to support the other nonsensical narratives you’ve already spewed. The governments forced the lending standards to go down. But never mind all of that. You’re going to be the judge regarding who gets to be middle class based on “salesman’s intuition.”
(ofm) “Implication. That’s how it works. You’re too dumb to follow.”
You’re not allowed to simply seize on the word “implication” and claim that would be the result of my intention not to countenance real estate fraud on this scale again. A police state is HOW you see it WOULD WORK in your LITTLE CORNER OF THE WORLD but not in mine. I’m quite content to know there are legal structures already in place to prevent such a boondoggle.
It’s ABSURDLY FUNNY you’re trying for turnabout in bias and claiming that I’m the one who’s preventing a rise in class!!!!! Nope. I’m merely pointing out there are homes which are suitable for first-time buyers and lower-income buyers in all markets. Letting them buy tiny homes would be a great introduction to the housing market. Letting them buy large homes w/all the amenities is not being honest w/them or w/those buying mortgage derivatives downstream. Either you’re FAIR and SENSIBLE throughout the ENTIRE FINANCIAL EQUATION underlying realty transactions or you’re favoring one partner in the equation over another.
“You’re not allowed to simply seize on the word “implication” and claim that would be the result of my intention not to countenance real estate fraud on this scale again. ”
Sure I am. Moron. Or scale back the problems with the interventions. But a quick Internet search shows that there are more lawsuits along these lines now that all of the frauds have blamed the derivatives bundlers.
The clear implication is that if you have Utopian views about human behavior that you either have to grow up or you grow the police state.
“It’s ABSURDLY FUNNY you’re trying for turnabout in bias and claiming that I’m the one who’s preventing a rise in class!!!!!”
You’re doing nothing but mouthing off without understanding the implications of your own assertions.
“Letting them buy tiny homes would be a great introduction to the housing market.”
Right. All we need is a central plan to make sure the inventory levels allow this. That’s for starters. But never you mind all of that. All you have to do is click your heals and dream up a solution. See who follows you down the Yellow Brick Road.
Jeebers, do you NEVER get tired of putting up stupid objections?#$!#!#@$#@ Now you’re claiming that we’d have to centralize the housing inventory???!#$#!$#!@#$!@$ If there aren’t homes available in your area AT YOUR PRICE POINT then you have to wait to find one. Simple as that. You don’t simply tell your realtor you’re willing to look at homes that are a quarter of a million dollars above your ability to pay… ‘Course, maybe that’s what you’d do.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 18 days ago
“Jeebers, do you NEVER get tired of putting up stupid objections?#$!#!#@$#@ Now you’re claiming that we’d have to centralize the housing inventory???!#$#!$#!@#$!@$ If there aren’t homes available in your area AT YOUR PRICE POINT then you have to wait to find one. Simple as that. You don’t simply tell your realtor you’re willing to look at homes that are a quarter of a million dollars above your ability to pay… ‘Course, maybe that’s what you’d do.”
You’re making claims that in order for this to have worked we would have needed a housing inventory system. We’ve already have one. It’s called the MLS system. Having such a system still doesn’t preclude the mortgage bankers and the realtors doing their jobs.
Americana 11 minutes ago: “You’re making claims that in order for this to have worked we would have needed a housing inventory system. We’ve already have one. It’s called the MLS system. Having such a system still doesn’t preclude the mortgage bankers and the realtors doing their jobs.”
Why am I talking to such a phucking moron? The MLS LISTS inventory. It doesn’t create inventory! You stupid freak! The “ideal starter home” has to exist before it can get listed.
You’re so phucking stupid!
No one “interfered w/banking policies” per se, other than to request the banks consider less stringent qualifying financials from these buyers. If the banks had remained fiscally conservative, they would have encouraged these buyers to remain within the tier of homes they should have been steered toward. You claim that the only reason these homeowners failed is because they didn’t start out w/the right financial underpinnings for homeownership but any seasoned realtor and mortgage bankers SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THAT JUDGMENT CALL. However, someone who’s been encouraged to buy a $225,000 house w/an ARM that could have a balloon payment due in a year or two when they should have been in a $62,000 house w/an ARM w/a balloon payment are facing two entirely different financial scenarios. There was far too much collusion and delusion and sheer criminality from all concerned for this to be merely the fault of 100% of the homeowners who ended up caught up in this mess.
You’re so stupid. Those deals in many cases only look “bad” retroactively because of the crash. Can you understand that? No. You can’t.
These deals were “remarkably bad” because they were bad to start out with, not just because of the crash. Even if there had been a crash, it wouldn’t have had the intense repercussions it did internationally if the houses that had been sold involved far less money viz their purchase price/mortgage ratio as should have been the case.
You really do not understand anything.
You’d love to think that. You love to sell that to the general public here.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 19 days ago
“No one “interfered w/banking policies” per se, other than to request the banks consider less stringent qualifying financials from these buyers.”
You should have selected more of my post to give what you did select its true context. The NEXT TWO or THREE SENTENCES were all about the price categories of homes these less capable buyers should have been steered toward.
“You’re giving an “example” that doesn’t even apply to how these houses were purchased. Why on earth would you do that unless you wished to give the impression that these inappropriate homebuyers were given 10% down in order to facilitate them buying a house on the government’s dime?”
Retard,
People tracking the conversation would understand that ultimately, no matter how you bundle it, when you assist people in nationwide programs you ultimately screw everyone that follows the first wave and you screw whoever has to fund the programs. And my example was deliberately simple so that people, even dimwits like you, in theory, might be able to understand.
No, your example was designed to give the impression that there was actually a 10% discount for those participating in buying homes under this program otherwise you would have worded your remark differently. There was no advantage to “being in the first wave” of this program. As for why there were people screwed in the denouement of this program, that’s what happens w/all people who are the last investors in Ponzi schemes.
Americana an hour ago:
“No, your example was designed to give the impression that there was actually a 10% discount for those participating in buying homes under this program otherwise you would have worded your remark differently.”
Can’t – stop – laughing…
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago:
“No, your example was designed to give the impression that there was actually a 10% discount for those participating in buying homes under this program otherwise you would have worded your remark differently. There was no advantage to “being in the first wave” of this program. As for why there were people screwed in the denouement of this program, that’s what happens w/all people who are the last investors in Ponzi schemes.”
Better Call Saul!
That’s not really how this bubble came about.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
Stop spamming the URL. How many times have you tried that one? You’re trying to spread your feces around to confuse readers. All any of them have to do is ask what the most disgusting and ignorant thing you said in the entire thread was. Then we show them where your head is at.
Your ignorance is all over the thread but you’re fine w/that because it’s your ignorance.
Right.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago
“Your ignorance is all over the thread but you’re fine w/that because it’s your ignorance.”
Breathe deeply, exhale. Repeat.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 21 days ago:
“That’s not really how this bubble came about.”
http://www.justice.gov/sites/d…
Perspective. Or maybe “PERPSPECTIVE” is more applicable.
“You’re giving an “example” that doesn’t even apply to how these houses were purchased. Why on earth would you do that unless you wished to give the impression that these inappropriate homebuyers were given 10% down in order to facilitate them buying a house on the government’s dime?”
The depths of your stupidity continue to shock me.
The depths of your cupidity continue to shock me.
Americana 9 minutes ago: “The depths of your cupidity continue to shock me.”
Clown show’s over.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/05/27/usab5803.pdf
Here’s something to get you finally steering your clown car in the right direction…
I’m not going to respond to your spam. Get off the stage, clown.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 24 days ago
You’re unbelievably dense if you believe that the “unsuitable homeowners” weren’t finding the REALTORS who helped them falsify their applications and the BANKS that accepted the ludicrous applications in order to take the money from the transaction. ANY ONE of those professionals could have shut down inappropriate homeowners at ANY POINT DURING THE TRANSACTION by checking on their bona fides. Voila, no inappropriate homeowners make it through the system, no inappropriate homeowners would have had to be evicted at the other end of the crash and no inappropriate packages of DERIVATIVES would have been sold around the world. But, no, none of those professionals wanted to do that because they BENEFITED from each transaction that they completed.
Capitalism at its best.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 25 days ago
Are you simply INCAPABLE of discussion without conflating all the various bogeymen you believe in from infesting each and every single issue? They’re not all related and, besides, some of the boogeymen are your own highly vaunted capitalists. We wouldn’t have had a housing bubble if the financiers at the mortgage companies had suggested homes that WERE AFFORDABLE for the people who were given the opportunity to purchase homes courtesy of the U.S. government. If the mortgage brokers had insisted that a janitor in Chicago only look at homes that were in the neighborhood of $50,000 rather than $350,000 then would we have had the same housing bubble? I don’t think so.
The government may have mandated extending mortgage support to an underserved demographic in the U.S. but the government didn’t say what the PARAMETERS of the loans should be nor did the government suggest that a janitor should buy a home fit for a CEO. Those sorts of decisions were the PURVIEW OF THE MORTGAGE LENDERS and the BANKS and they did it because they COULD PROFIT FROM THE ORIGINATING of the loans. But you don’t want to discuss that PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ASPECT OF THE HOUSING CRISIS BUBBLE, do you? Because that doesn’t fit into your narrative. Well, one way or another, I’ll be bringing it into ANY and EVERY mention of the housing bubble because that is part of that event just as much as the UNSUITABLE NEW HOMEOWNERS.
Those darn bogeymen! They’re at it again!!!
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
The Jews are NOT WILLING TO SHARE JERUSALEM. I love how you suggest — (objectivefactsmatter) “They (the Palestinians) could perhaps in the future have sovereignty over **part of** Jerusalem. But these people asking for it have not earned it.” That’s one of the biggest bugaboos of the entire diplomatic brouhaha. The fact that you make this entirely facetious claim that the Palestinians “must earn the right” to use Jerusalem as their capitol when it’s just expected by the Israelis that they’re entitled to use Jerusalem in its ENTIRETY as the JEWISH CAPITOL is one of the most ridiculous sovereignty claims the Israelis could make.
The Israelis don’t want to share Jerusalem. Not sure how many times you want me to write this.
Moronic Alinsky robot,
You’re full of crap. Every additional comment you make proves how stupid and mendacious you are. Doubling down only works with guys like Gruber talking to morons like you. You’re no Gruber. And I’m nothing like you.
America’s founding fathers threatened the legitimate colonial sovereign! Bastards! They threatened to take land by force! They intended to create their own “Christian” homeland! It’s unfreaking believable!
Stupid communist.
America was not founded in the modern day nor in a modern context of an understanding of human rights. The Zionists founded Israel in the modern day and knew they were seizing land belonging to Palestinian Arabs and knew they were flouting Palestinian rights. There’s a big difference between those two scenarios.
The Zionists had one of two justifications for their perspective depending on how devout they were or how political they were; they felt they were entitled to do so because God said so or because the Jews were such an oppressed ethnic group they needed their own nation to be safe from persecution.
Not stupid. Not a Communist. But keep repeating those labels if you really need to feel the intellectual pacifier stuck in your mouth.
“America was not founded in the modern day nor in a modern context of an understanding of human rights. The Zionists founded Israel in the modern day and knew they were seizing land belonging to Palestinian Arabs and knew they were flouting Palestinian rights. There’s a big difference between those two scenarios.”
The Jews had >more< right than the American colonials. Period.
"The Zionists had one of two justifications…"
The controversies lie in where the violence and lack of cooperation began. The Jews acted in good faith until they became a persecuted minority after the others screwed them. None of your "explanatory" scripts erase those facts.
Shut up. Stupid moron.
The American colonials acted out of total inhumane ignorance that reflected the time period in which they lived. The nascent Israelis acted out of religious and temporal self-interest in seizing land they knew belonged to another ethnic group. The Jews were a persecuted minority because the Palestinians didn’t want to give up a large portion of the Palestine Mandate to interlopers. The Palestinians well knew what political machinations were going on around the world in order to dispossess the Palestinians and provide for the Jews. The controversies DO NOT SOLELY LIE as you claim (objectivefactsmatter) “in where the violence and lack of cooperation began” but, rather, those controversies lie in the betrayal which the Palestinians knew was coming from the British because of the British reaction to Jewish terrorism.
“The American colonials acted out of total inhumane ignorance that reflected the time period in which they lived.”
Oh shut up. They didn’t do anything wrong either that was not a reaction. They were stronger. That’s why you feel this need to defend the weak like a moronic communist robot.
Of course, the colonial Americans “did something wrong” but they did it UNINTENTIONALLY, at least initially, because their colonization occurred prior to international legal awareness of civil rights of native indigenous peoples. The colonists from England and Netherlands and Spain had no concept of how big the country would grow, they didn’t know the dimensions of the continent, they had no awareness of how many tribes were spread across the land, they didn’t know how those tribes interrelated, etc. The fact the colonists eventually began to kill off or push the Native American tribes further inland w/the first war between the colonists and thus began the process of the inevitable displacement and subjugation of the Native Americans is not something that can be assessed other than in its timeframe.
http://www.colonialwarsct.org/1637.htm
“Of course, the colonial Americans “did something wrong” but they did it UNINTENTIONALLY…”
Who are you to say they were “wrong?”
“The fact the colonists eventually began to kill off or push the Native American tribes further inland w/the first war between the colonists and thus began the process of the inevitable displacement and subjugation of the Native Americans is not something that can be assessed other than in its timeframe.”
Conflict is not Utopian. Thanks for informing us.
Conflict is not utopian. (How BRILLIANT of you!) It can be made even more dystopian though when protagonists refuse to see the entire configuration of a conflict or when propagandists from both sides roil the diplomatic mix in order to prevent final treaty closure because they fear for the choices they face in such a treaty.
As for the American colonists being “wrong”, of course, they were “wrong” when looked at in HINDSIGHT from the perspective of the apex of humanitarian enlightenment which came a LONG while after the Enlightenment. The American colonists were the one of the last great clashes of culture between the Old World and the New World. It was a conflict that was inevitable, given the drive to complete the exploration of the globe but that’s an issue that goes beyond the scope of what the reasons are for the conflict between the Jews/Israelis and the Palestinians. No comparison is really possible between the two nor is it ethically a suitable exercise given the historical circumstances.
Whatever.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
Of course, the colonial Americans “did something wrong” but they did it UNINTENTIONALLY, at least initially, because their colonization occurred prior to international legal awareness of civil rights of native indigenous peoples.
The era was what it was.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
The American colonials acted out of total inhumane ignorance that reflected the time period in which they lived.
Naturally they did.
“Not stupid. Not a Communist. But keep repeating those labels if you really need to feel the intellectual pacifier stuck in your mouth.”
Indeed you are very stupid and you fight the fight that Karl Marx outlined in his Communist Manifesto. As a non-sentient being you are unaware of these facts. Nonetheless, you are a stupid communist robot.
Right, I’m a “non-sentient being” while you’re the sentient being in the conversation. Are you the same sentient being who has to INVENT QUOTES so he can RESPOND TO THOSE INVENTED QUOTES and then LIES ABOUT DOING SO?
A paraphrase is an “invented quote?”
Whatever.
Someone would normally use the signifier phrase, to paraphrase (whomever) and only then use the quote marks. This is your latest and greatest and perhaps the LEAST FEEBLE of your excuses for that behavior. Regardless, the fact you’ve only come up w/the paraphrase BS now is only because you’ve been thinking long and hard about how to dig yourself and your absurd reputation out of the hole you’ve been digging for yourself.
So you got confused and it’s the fault of the imperfect writing style of your adversary. Wow. I suppose that excuses all of the delusional and idiotic things that you say. Or at least that’s your theory.
Is that a squirrel?
Oh, now you’re claiming that it was “the IMPERFECT WRITING STYLE of your adversary (you, objectivefacts)” that was at fault???? LOL isn’t the half of what I’m hooting about over this latest and greatest lie of yours. (Not only wouldn’t you admit that you’ve got an imperfect writing style, but you stroke your ego over your writing far too frequently for that to even be a possibility.) You’ve already admitted in another post that you invented the quote. Let’s not have you attempt to further muddy the waters and write yet another falsehood about how the quote came to be inserted into a post of yours and how you replied to it as if you were responding to a quote of mine.
I’ve raised grey squirrels as pets. That’s no squirrel. That’s a NUT WITHOUT A SQUIRREL.
What?
You think that your victim narratives are compelling. You really are so typical of the morons our academies produce. That is, you’re representative of the lowest common denominator of all the non-sentient communist morons.
What do you call someone who strings together narratives that leave out vast amounts of **ACTUAL STATEMENTS** made by Zionists? Would selective historian be applicable? Or would liar be more applicable?
Idiot,
If you want to talk about what people said historically and exclude what people have actually done, you can rewrite history and fabricate just about anything.
Wow. You really are stupid. The question is who started the violence. You fixate on some guy who reacted to the violent persecution and somehow in your mind his reaction caused what came before it?
Double down on your insanity forever and maybe your buddies will stick with you. That’s your strategy? How about admitting how stupid your arguments are? You cornered yourself. Doubling down makes you look even dumber each time you try.
Doubling down is something you do w/insane regularity no matter what the truth of the matter is. It makes you foolish and duplicitous not to admit some of the reality.
You’re not able to process correctly what people write.
Oh, now the problem is that “I’m not able to process correctly what people write”? If that were the case, why is it so many others who write extremely detailed analyses of your posts also have the problem? No, it’s not us, it’s you and your fluid evasiveness of facts.
So many others like if I fail to capitalize or miss-type something. And those so many others are who?
“No, it’s not us, it’s you and your fluid evasiveness of facts.”
No it’s not. Nice try. If I’m a moron that doesn’t have a substantial case to make, I suppose in theory I might try to attack someone’s imperfect typing instead. Because that always impresses the crowd and makes the target feel so insecure. Or…perhaps you’re just projecting your own insecurities while desperately looking for a way out of this mess you’ve created.
I don’t “attack your imperfect typing” very often and, if I do, it’s merited. Besides, generally it’s not the typing I attack, it’s the fallacious thinking behind your typing. Glad you admit that someone like you gets insecure when your typos and your fallacious thinking are pointed out. It should make you think harder. Instead, it makes you simply package up more insults that you so freely throw out as evidence of your superiority.
Yeah, that’s what I said. Good job again.
Viva la revolucion!
There you go again, claiming I’m something I’m not. You ALWAYS try to win by superimposing your claims over what someone else states their position is. You and Pete are two petes in a pod.
Liar!. It’s PEAS in a pod! Why must you lie!!!
Because two petes in a pod is such a marvelous picture given the two of you.
Of course. I’ll change my name to Pete. Just for you. And of course – for the Revolution!
Viva ZaPetes!
Americana objectivefactsmatter 23 days ago
Viva ZaPetes!
Oh, don’t appreciate the pun on Zapata?
Americana objectivefactsmatter 24 days ago
Because two petes in a pod is such a marvelous picture given the two of you.
Obviously you’re not a fan of gardening puns… You want me to leaf you alone so your intellect can bloom in peace.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 24 days ago
Oh, now the problem is that “I’m not able to process correctly what people write”? If that were the case, why is it so many others who write extremely detailed analyses of your posts also have the problem? No, it’s not us, it’s you and your fluid evasiveness of facts.
Got your processor checked? I got my processor checked at Instant Compute.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 25 days ago
Doubling down is something you do w/insane regularity no matter what the truth of the matter is. It makes you foolish and duplicitous not to admit some of the reality.
Double or nothing.
2 Christian girls get murdered and all the pig Americana can do is troll.
All Americana is trying to do is silence you, get you to quit and move on to her next target so as to shape discussion forums.
She is a real piece of work.
She decries ethnic violence but ignores the rule and and focuses on the exception.
Muslims murder a thousand Christians and Americana says “Big Deal“. A christian murders 1 Muslim & she goes to battle stations.
“2 Christian girls get murdered and all the pig Americana can do is troll.”
Completely oblivious.
Of course, drawing fire here keeps her from trolling as much elsewhere. So we’ll see what can be done.
“She decries ethnic violence but ignores the rule and and focuses on the exception. Muslims murder a thousand Christians and Americana says “Big Deal”. A christian murders 1 Muslim & she goes to battle stations.”
She’s emotionally attracted to explanatory journalism as she calls it. It’s really about egotism and insecurity. She takes up causes as devil’s advocate (following the narrative forms that she loves so much) and works it out in her mind that by defending a target she’s on the moral high road. It never occurs to her that maybe the dominant local groups are already standing up for the real victims. It never occurs to her that she’s truly standing in for Satan.
There is already a name for explanatory journalism. It is called narrative journalism. A writer or editor for Bloomberg explained to the WSJ in December 2014 how they were going to do more of it to make business and economics news more interesting.
Stories usually appeal more than tables and statistics. I plead guilty. But I have had more than a few courses in statistics. To value narrative journalism over accounting, statistics, actuarial science, engineering, etc is to stand a good chance to delude oneself.
“There is already a name for explanatory journalism. It is called narrative journalism. ”
I know. I like subtly mocking her supposed cleverness and modernism.
“Stories usually appeal more than tables and statistics. I plead guilty. But I have had more than a few courses in statistics. To value narrative journalism over accounting, statistics, actuarial science, engineering, etc is to stand a good chance to delude oneself.”
I’ll read it. These sites are not much different at all. The difference is that I don’t think that narratives are authoritative just because they’re poignant or seem elegant. Mostly narratives offer POV that can be used to explain how others already think about a given subject. They have their place. Using them out of context is the favorite trick of the dummies. It’s done intuitively though. Usually. There’s a subtle difference between mendacity and malice. The line gets thinner all the time when the stubbornness continues. On and on.
But just repeating narratives over and over….OMG. Please. Grow up. The only way to use narratives for objective research is to try reconcile the various antagonistic views to triangulate facts and see what harmonized narratives emerge from that. Just amplifying emotion…that’s no good. It’s bad.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
What do you call someone who strings together narratives that leave out vast amounts of **ACTUAL STATEMENTS** made by Zionists? Would selective historian be applicable? Or would liar be more applicable?
Selective history.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
America was not founded in the modern day nor in a modern context of an understanding of human rights. The Zionists founded Israel in the modern day and knew they were seizing land belonging to Palestinian Arabs and knew they were flouting Palestinian rights.
Two different situations w/two different prevailing conditions.
“The fact the militia also served a defensive purpose is neither here nor there…”
The original reason they gathered weapons was to defend themselves. Moron.
“The first aim doesn’t prejudice the second aim but neither excuses Jabotinsky’s announced plan that he would take territory in Palestine by force of arms.”
The relevance is that they took up arms because they were being oppressed violently and then their aims got higher. It matters. Retard.
No, that’s not what Jabotinsky stated was the reason for forming the militia. Certainly the militia was meant to SERVE TWO PURPOSES, defense being one of them, but Jabotinsky’s STATED AIM was to ESTABLISH A JEWISH STATE BY FORCE OF ARMS. Besides, it’s reality that the two intentions of Jabotinsky were inextricably intertwined. After all, why were the Zionists needing to defend themselves from the Arabs? Because the Arabs weren’t ignorant of the Zionist intentions to found a Jewish nation and amass a significant amount of Arab territory by means of forcing the British to make territorial concessions when the Palestine Mandate ended. The Arabs read the Zionist literature and kept up on the political maneuvering via political connections.
Even you are now sort of admitting that the Zionists made a political decision that was dependent on successfully executing a preemptive military and terrorism campaign. It’s almost immaterial why the Zionists began harboring aims of statehood in Palestine and that somehow, god knows how!#$!#@$, “their aims reached higher”. Their aims got higher in that the Zionists intended to seize territory not belonging to them and found a Jewish state. It’s pretty simple.
Moron,
Timeline. It was a reaction. End of story. They were an oppressed minority. Get over it. Retard.
It wasn’t just “a reaction”. It was a planned coup over a long period of time by an invading group which felt they owned the land based on Biblical prophecy and self-righteous wish lists from 3,000 years ago. Get over it. Retard.
“It wasn’t just “a reaction”. It was a planned coup…”
Liar. Freak. Moron.
You and your string of cut and paste insults.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
It wasn’t just “a reaction”. It was a planned coup over a long period of time by an invading group which felt they owned the land based on Biblical prophecy and self-righteous wish lists from 3,000 years ago. Get over it. Retard.
It’s all in the eyes of the beholder.
In that case, if the original reason that they took up arms was “to defend themselves,” then why did Jabotinsky put the creation of a Jewish nation by military force in the charter for his Revisionist militia?
Here’s an interesting compilation of his statements about the forming of a Jewish defense force, Zionist treatment of Arabs, the military seizure of a Jewish state, etc.:
http://www.mideastweb.org/ironwall.htm
All text below is from the above link, the quotes are from Jabotinsky:
Jabotinsky was a reactionary even in the context of early 20th century Europe. His writing is replete with unabashed colonialism and racist cliches of the kind that were common enough in an era when paleontology texts speculated that Africans and Australian aborigines were of a different, inferior species, and Jews, Africans and other minorities were ridiculed in popular novels and cinema. He wrote of the Arabs:
(Jabotinsky) “Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination”
He conceived of Zionism as a colonial enterprise, in the same vein as colonization of the United States or Australia:
(Jabotinsky) “My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.”
I don’t know when he wrote that, but possibly he saw their behavior and predicted the failure of the negotiations. Or you’re again pulling crap out anachronistically. It doesn’t actually matter. Because your question doesn’t even make sense. The fact is that the Jews were the last to take up arms.
You really are stupid to just keep badgering away. You really think I’m going to just give up and let all of your EoZ libel riffs sit here as if you’ve proved something? You’ve proved how mendacious so many critics of Israel are.
It doesn’t matter if Jabotinsky anticipated “the failure of the negotiations,” his statement indicates in no uncertain terms that Jabotinksy wasn’t going to have his nation-building aims thwarted by anyone or anything and that he thought of what his solution was going to be VERY EARLY ON, by 1921 or so. The Jews were NOT the last to take up arms in that case, they were right there in the militarist mix, getting their hands on as many different types of arms as they could in preparation for waging terrorism against the British and then whatever war they needed to wage against the Palestinians. They subsequently justified their own terrorism to themselves and they’re attempting to justify it to the rest of us as “a war of liberation”. You can’t liberate what you do not own.
“It doesn’t matter if Jabotinsky anticipated “the failure of the negotiations,” his statement indicates in no uncertain terms that Jabotinksy wasn’t going to have his nation-building aims thwarted by anyone or anything and that he thought of what his solution was going to be VERY EARLY ON, by 1921 or so…”
Hey, moron. Did you forget the timeline…again?
“The Jews were NOT the last to take up arms in that case, they were right there in the militarist mix, getting their hands on as many different types of arms as they could in preparation for waging terrorism against the British and then whatever war they needed to wage against the Palestinians.”
Right. Because way back when, time was not linear like it is now. For example in the future we can say that we invaded Iraq the first time because of ISIS. I mean, clearly ISIS was “in the mix” because here they are now. So…you now. Time is fluid when you’re a moronic communist liar.
(objectivefactsmatter) “The relevance is that they took up arms because they were being PREVENTED from establishing a Zionist state on Palestinian land.”
I’m sure you won’t mind the revised wording of your quote, will you? I mean, after all, that’s acceptable debate behavior as illustrated so thoroughly and admirably by you.
I guess you don’t know the etymology of “Palestine.”
http://www.etymonline.Com/index.php?term=Palestine
Palestine from Latin Palestina (name of a Roman province), from Greek Palaistine (Herodotus), from Hebrew Pelesheth “Philistia, land of the Philistines.” Revived as an official political territorial name 1920 with the British mandate.
“Under Turkish rule, Palestine was part of three administrative regions: the Vilayet of Beirut, the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem, and the Vilayet of Damascus. In 1917 the country was conquered by British forces who held it under occupation until the mandate was established April 25, 1920, by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo. During the occupation Palestine formed “Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (South),” with headquarters at Jerusalem.”
“Palestinian” only has connotations of judenfrei to people like you. At that time, the sovereign was the UK operating under a UN mandate.
It doesn’t frankly matter what the etymology of the name “Palestine” was in its earliest history since we’re talking about the dispossession in the **present day** of the native population of Palestinian Arabs who fully intended to achieve statehood when they ran up against the Zionists who were intent on taking advantage of the collapse of the Turkish Caliphate to form a Jewish state on their land. I am not advocating a “Judenfrei” Holy Land. But it is incumbent on Israel to treat w/the Palestinians as another sovereign state and cease trying to pretend they aren’t.
The U.K.’s role in the Palestinian Mandate was meant to make definitive political decisions about the future geographic breakdown of the area based on reasonable expectations of setting up a conflict-free region. The U.K. was immediately put under pressure by Zionists to provide a Jewish homeland in the region. When those political machinations in the U.K. didn’t bear fruit sufficiently quickly, the Zionists resorted to terrorism. Claiming that one’s own sense of entitlement merits using terrorism for political reasons when another group isn’t allowed to use terrorism for political reasons is the height of hypocrisy.
Sure it does. Referring to “Palestinian land” is not necessarily implying that the Jews have no business there. But apparently retarded people get confused on that point. Moron.
Referring to anything as “Palestinian” has no bearing on who the sovereign should be.
I’ve never said Jews have no business being there. But they definitely don’t have any business being there on the basis of ownership from 3,000 years ago when they’ve been conquered by everyone and his mother. The Israelis can’t blame the Arabs or the Palestinian Arabs for the last significant conquering where the Jews were finally dispersed as the ruling demographic in the region. Yet you’ve been trying to sell this story of Jewish dispossession by Arabs in umpteen posts. Why? Because you think that if you can sell that narrative — that the Palestinians were the ones who drove out the Jews — then it makes it reasonable for the Jews to take back their land in Palestine. Well, none of it is true. Referring to anything as “Palestinian” has no bearing on who the sovereign should be, nor should referring to Biblical prophecy have any bearing on who the sovereign should be.
“But they definitely don’t have any business being there on the basis of ownership from 3,000 years ago when they’ve been conquered by everyone and his mother. ”
That’s their inspiration, not legal basis.
“Why? Because you think that if you can sell that narrative — that the Palestinians were the ones who drove out the Jews — then it makes it reasonable for the Jews to take back their land in Palestine.”
No, retard. I clearly said they were fighting for freedom, not to take back “land” on the basis of revenge. You can’t help but twist everything. Can you. It’s how your brain thinks. Once you have your scripts from the leftist gurus you just can’t understand any other views.
“Referring to anything as “Palestinian” has no bearing on who the sovereign should be, nor should referring to Biblical prophecy have any bearing on who the sovereign should be.”
In essence that’s true. But Biblical prophecy is not how they justify their nation. It’s what inspired their collective efforts.
Oh, Jabotinsky’s militia is seen in context all right by those who read the history. Stating that you’re founding a militia in order to seize territory and found a nation is pretty unequivocal.
Moron,
In context it’s unequivocally self defense.
Hardly. When you claim you’re going to seize a vast amount of territory for your nation, that goes beyond the notion of self-defense.
Liar.
I’m sure Jabotinsky would be rolling over in his grave if he heard you saying he wasn’t fully aware of his ambitions viz taking sufficient land for a Jewish state. He stated this was his aim numerous times.
Idiot.
Jabotinsky was no idiot.
Are you one of the robotic morons that claims the 1967 Six Day War was a “War of Israeli aggression?” Of course you are.
why on earth would you extrapolate ANYTHING about the 1967 war from my questioning Zionists saying they’re going to seize land in the 1920s because they feel it is their right?
You are willing to conflate anything and everything if you think it: 1) either obscures the reality; or, 2) emphasizes the reality of your choosing. Those are the two interchangeable aspects in this conversation.
“why on earth would you extrapolate ANYTHING about the 1967 war from my questioning Zionists saying they’re going to seize land in the 1920s because they feel it is their right?”
Because it’s very common to do the same mendacious thing throughout the timeline. If you can’t see the connection…you can’t see the connection.
“You are willing to conflate anything and everything if you think it: 1) either obscures the reality; or, 2) emphasizes the reality of your choosing. Those are the two interchangeable aspects in this conversation.”
Actually any rational person can see that I’m mocking morons that deviate and distort (or ignore entirely) the historical timeline to make their “explanations” seem plausible. They use emotional arguments. Just like you.
You are yet again only testifying about your own inability to follow the conversations. You have narratives and you’re confused (and angry) that people are not responding emotionally as you do.
No, w/your usual aplomb, you’re testifying to the fact you are willing to selectively endorse and understand the history underlying the situation in which Israel finds itself.
Whatever that is supposed to mean.
Oh, it’s very clear what it MEANS if you speak English.
No, not really clear. You’re speaking semi-gibberish. I recognize the words and patterns but your logic is getting worse rather than better. You’re just inanely repeating previously refuted talking points. IOW you’re not improving your position as you go. You’re falling back further.
So, yeah, I do understand.
Look who’s talking about logic!!! I’ve seen your clock being cleaned well, around the clock, so I’m not worried about you claiming you’re cleaning my clock. You need to take your frustrations out on someone.
Americana an hour ago: “Look who’s talking about logic!!! I’ve seen your clock being cleaned well, around the clock, so I’m not worried about you claiming you’re cleaning my clock. You need to take your frustrations out on someone.”
You’re dramatic presentation is far superior to mine. No doubt. Kudos.
Would you please try to differentiate between the possessive and the verb? It would make your dramatic presentation far superior.
Pass.
My arguments are not emotional. They’re factual. At issue is whether you are willing to face facts. You dismiss the meaning of actual quotes from someone like Ze’ev Jabotinsky but they are a matter of historical record. You deny them and you deny Zionism. Your own commentary is a testament to your willingness to lie and obfuscate and pretend to ignorance, if necessary, in order to ignore the realities of Israel’s creation. Well, the rest of the world is not in that unlikely etymological position of relying on or ignoring the role ancient texts have as justification for modern day land seizure.
Yet again you’ve attempted to pretend that what’s at issue is “my inability to follow conversations” when what’s really happening is YOUR ABILITY TO TWIST CONVERSATIONS to successfully reflect your perspective just ain’t happening.
That facts that matter most to this discussion are that the Jews were the last faction to resort to violence. And they never abandoned good faith negotiations like all of the contending factions did.
OK moron?
“Well, the rest of the world is not in that unlikely etymological position of relying on or ignoring the role ancient texts have as justification for modern day land seizure.”
You —> Crazy cherry-picking, hypocritical liar.
You’re the cherry-picker in the crowd. The fact you’re also a hypocritical liar is simply an additional ingredient of which we’re all aware.
Tu quoque failure.
Not at all. You can pretend it’s a failure if you really need to feel better about your tactics.
Yes, naturally.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
why on earth would you extrapolate ANYTHING about the 1967 war from my questioning Zionists saying they’re going to seize land in the 1920s because they feel it is their right?
Naturally.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
Hardly. When you claim you’re going to seize a vast amount of territory for your nation, that goes beyond the notion of self-defense.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
Oh, Jabotinsky’s militia is seen in context all right by those who read the history. Stating that you’re founding a militia in order to seize territory and found a nation is pretty unequivocal.
?????????? Got a question, go to the Jabotinsky Museum.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
Yes, you did suggest the timeline on which there was a mention of Ze’ev Jabotinsky founding a militia in 1925 that was organized in order to seize territory for a Jewish state. That indicates that the Zionists didn’t intend for diplomacy to continue to its rightful end; they were going to do whatever suited them and their desired aims viz seizing land in Palestine. That’s not demonization; that’s history. Live it up a little and celebrate the history of Israel.
Got a question about Jabotinsky’s quote?
“Oh, yes, your spotless-as-the-driven-snow narratives about Jewish freedom freighters are so much more historically accurate.”
Which narrative of mine was not accurate? Other than correctly identifying them as the oppressed group how can you even consider anything that I said to be subjective? Because you’re a kook.
I simply remind you that your narratives only work when ignoring all of the other facts. AKA “cherry picking” and revisionism by mendacious selection of the facts where you then bolt on your Elders of Zion riffed (and completely fabricated) victim narratives.
The Jews did it. Just remember that if nothing else. Hmm. Never heard that one before!
The phrase “they were oppressed freedom fighters”, doesn’t apply, totally inaccurate evaluation of what those guys were up to.
From the Western perspective and the facts, like the fact that the West won a big war and made promises and so forth to continue the program started with the Ottoman Empire, the Jews were an oppressed ethnic minority. From the jihadi POV they were rebellious dhimmis. From the Western anti-Semite perspective, the Jews are always wrong because they’re exploiting capitalists and they charge “usury” on loans to non-Jews.
So it’s perhaps a matter of POV. You’re aligned with enemies of the West. Jews don’t have any rights. So they’re at fault. Just look at what Hitler had to do. You know, just read that great textbook, Elders of Zion. Your narratives fit right in with all of the other agitation propaganda.
Western powers had no right to divvy up the region as they did. It made no sociological sense and it definitely made no sense to cater to a religious minority that ultimately doesn’t intend to honor half the equation under which they were allowed to seize land.
I’ve never said that Jews “have no rights” but what I do say is that the Jews didn’t have an intrinsic right to seize Palestinian land based on Biblical prophecy and/or Zionist daydreams. Either the Israelis recognize what was done by their founding fathers or they continue to face this political contretemps for the foreseeable future.
“Western powers had no right to divvy up the region as they did. ”
You really are retarded. Nobody “has a right” to do anything. Because sovereigns don’t have rights to control territory. So they have no “right” to offer any social contract that anyone can derive rights from. That’s your logic.
“I’ve never said that Jews “have no rights” but what I do say is that the Jews didn’t have an intrinsic right to seize Palestinian land based on Biblical prophecy and/or Zionist daydreams.”
They’re rights aren’t any different than anyone else under the same circumstances. They had a natural right to liberate themselves from the oppressors. And they were by far the last to act with violence or perfidy. Which of course you use AGAINST them because they love to publish their own thoughts and examine their own circumstances to strive to do what they measure as being “right.” You’re “punishing” people for trying to do what is right and rewarding mendacious, impulsive savages.
Actually you’re just a moronic, robotic communist.
http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Fathers-Zionism-Benzion-Netanyahu/dp/1933267151/ref=pd_cp_b_1
Americana 40 minutes ago: “The phrase “they were oppressed freedom fighters”, doesn’t apply, totally inaccurate evaluation of what those guys were up to.”
This seems like a good time to introduce an interesting and topical book to explain why moronic communist dupes like “Americana” are so fascinated with defending America’s (and the West’s) enemies:
http://www.amazon.com/United-Hate-Romance-Tyranny-Terror/dp/1935071602
United in Hate analyzes the Left’s contemporary romance with militant Islam as a continuation of the Left’s love affair with communist totalitarianism in the twentieth century. Just as the Left was drawn to the communist killing machines of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro, so too it is now attracted to radical Islam. Both the radical Left and radical Islam possess a profound hatred for Western culture, for a capitalist economic structure that recognizes individual achievement and for the Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States. Both seek to establish a new world order: leftists in the form of a classless communist society and Islamists in the form of a caliphate ruled by Sharia law. To achieve these goals, both are willing to wipe the slate clean by means of limitless carnage, with the ultimate goal of erecting their utopia upon the ruins of the system they have destroyed.
I haven’t got “a love affair w/militant Islam” going on. I wouldn’t have been one of those urging an Islamic Reformation from the early 1980s if I didn’t believe it was foolish to believe in a theocratic Islamic state whose tenets have been outstripped by advances in human rights in Western civilization.
As for your usual Communist/Marxist/totalitarian BS, that doesn’t apply either. I’m not interested in “limitless carnage” nor am I interested in Western capitalism facing “limitless financial carnage” because we’re too stubborn to recognize issues before they reach their zenith. As for being a classless society, no comment other than that brilliance knows no class. There have been geniuses from all sorts of backgrounds. One of the men responsible for some of the propulsion systems NASA is using came from Wisconsin. He built a new form of engine design from materials he found in his family’s junkyard. I’m of like mind w/this guy who saw the potential and acted on it. Recognize opportunity and build new things.
No, you’re a moronic non-sentient communist because that’s what you’re programmed to be.
“I’m of like mind w/this guy who saw the potential and acted on it. Recognize opportunity and build new things.”
You’re completely incompetent. You’ve only expressed a delusional self-image.
What a twit you are. You can’t read and grasp anything if it’s outside your narrow little comfort zone of reality. If you come up against anything you cannot explain, whooooosh, out come the pre-packaged insults and the superimposition of your thinking over that which has actually been written by your opponents. Someone’s self-image is delusional but I know it’ not me. If the image fits, wear it.
Moron,
I’m not here to cater to you. You are owed nothing. If you want to cooperate and learn you need to radically change your behavior.
I’m w/those on these forums who tend to feel you’ve got a lot more to learn than you believe you do. As for radically changing my behavior or being compelled to “cooperate” (for what purpose?), I don’t see the need to do either.
“I’m w/those on these forums who tend to feel you’ve got a lot more to learn than you believe you do.”
Oh yes. And you demonstrated that from the moment you showed up cherry picking Palestinian victim narratives a year a two ago.
Ah, I see you didn’t bother to focus on what you have to learn about the history. That indicates that you’ve selected your victim narrative and you’re sticking to it. Be my guest.
Yes. The “victim narrative” is that you are an idiot and a nuisance.
The nuisance idiot in this conversation is on your end of the wires.
You rely on tu quoque way too much.
Throwing in Latin phrases like tu quoque gives you a veneer of superiority; when the phrase actually applies to the sorts of practices you use all too frequently, the bomb goes off in your face, not mine.
I’m sure you’re right.
Once again, he pivots, thinks he’s scored… Such pretension.
Americana 2 hours ago: “Once again, he pivots, thinks he’s scored… Such pretension.”
Yes.
Americana objectivefactsmatter 25 days ago
Ah, I see you didn’t bother to focus on what you have to learn about the history. That indicates that you’ve selected your victim narrative and you’re sticking to it. Be my guest.
Victim narrative, check.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
I’m w/those on these forums who tend to feel you’ve got a lot more to learn than you believe you do. As for radically changing my behavior or being compelled to “cooperate” (for what purpose?), I don’t see the need to do either.
Nope, not doing either.
Here’s a good site to review statements written by Ze’ev Jabotinsky:
http://www.mideastweb.org/ironwall.htm
All text below is from the above link; Jabotinsky quotes are noted:
Jabotinsky was a reactionary even in the context of early 20th century Europe. His writing is replete with unabashed colonialism and racist cliches of the kind that were common enough in an era when paleontology texts speculated that Africans and Australian aborigines were of a different, inferior species, and Jews, Africans and other minorities were ridiculed in popular novels and cinema. He wrote of the Arabs:
(Jabotinsky) “Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination”
He conceived of Zionism as a colonial enterprise, in the same vein as colonization of the United States or Australia:
(Jabotinsky) “My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.”
I don’t care what you think of him. The question is why you focus on him as if he was leading a violent vanguard movement of land grabbers just because others have characterized him that way? We’re here to look at facts and offer analysis that fits with the facts. But you do the opposite. Your entire reason for bringing him up was to “prove” that the Jews were not (as I had stated) the last to take up arms.
So, you’re still an idiot that just focuses on narratives and the best you can do is point to other narratives and possibly other liars like you.
The fact is that the Jews took up arms to defend themselves and then to eventually free themselves from the perfidy and lawlessness of those who were oppressing them.
Well, it’s interesting that you’re defending the Jabotinsky “narrative” as if it’s entirely defensible. The two are ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUES by the way — taking up arms to defend oneself is NOT THE SAME THING as bombing the British who stood between the two warring parties. Bombings and assassinations were undertaken by Irgun orders in order to cause the British to abandon the region to allow the Jews to seize territory for the state of Israel. You’re the one who’s called Jabotinsky a “liberation fighter” when you know full well what terrorist bombings he conducted against the British and civilians in Palestine. I’m focusing on him because he’s one of the main sources for quotes about Zionist aims for Palestine and following his quotes lays out remarkably clearly what the Zionist timeline was. Since he is also one of the formative Zionists who came up w/some of the terrorist planning for the various militias, his life is perfectly in tandem w/some of the Palestinian terrorists of today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence
In 1935, the Irgun, a Zionist underground military organization, split off from the Haganah.[6] The Irgun were the armed expression of the nascent ideology of Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze’ev Jabotinsky. He expressed this ideology as “every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arab and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state”.
Communist moron,
I’m not here to defend every action or individual. I’m here to prove, which I have, that the “Palestinians” as you call them are the ones that caused their own problems. They have no right to complain about their own self-induced fate. If they want help from me they have to stop lying. But in that case they’d no longer have any use for the likes of you.
The world is not as ignorant of the history as you like to think/pretend.
Elders of Zion. The world knows about that. The world knows about explanatory journalists that create stupid agitation propaganda. And we know about the morons that spew the “explanations” as “history.”
You’ve merely got a bee in your bonnet because I’ve insisted on posting the ETHICS GUIDELINES for the Society of Professional Journalists. You think that you can dismiss all journalists who don’t shill for your causes by claiming that they’re producing “explanatory journalism” but you wouldn’t know what a journalist is without them being endorsed by certain individuals. Sad to think that the world has come to this but it has. As for whether or not your kind will get away w/a revisionist history that excludes key aspects of issues, it won’t happen. Or, rather, you may manage it in the short term, but eventually, HISTORY WINS OUT.
“You’ve merely got a bee in your bonnet because I’ve insisted on posting the ETHICS GUIDELINES for the Society of Professional Journalists.”
That doesn’t even make any sense. You know that your rants only make sense to you. I hope.
“…but you wouldn’t know what a journalist is without them being endorsed by certain individuals.”
Who?
“Sad to think that the world has come to this but it has. As for whether or not your kind will get away w/a revisionist history that excludes key aspects of issues, it won’t happen. Or, rather, you may manage it in the short term, but eventually, HISTORY WINS OUT.”
You’re the confused and dogmatic moron, not me.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
The world is not as ignorant of the history as you like to think/pretend.
Sir Spamalot sure is spamming a LOT.
Of course they’ve got a right to complain. Territory was taken from them without compensation. They were assigned a new ruler on the most absurd and flimsy of reasons when their own reasons for wishing for their own sovereignty were brushed aside because of terrorist pressure from their new sovereign. Their subsequent influence over their own fate is almost a foregone conclusion given how the Israelis handled their own revival in the region and subsequent events. The Israelis will always have use for the likes, oh, pardon me, I added a ‘k’ by mistake, the LIES of you.
Moron,
I have no reason to lie. My criticism is not based on Utopian notions and this assumption that the winner is always at fault for everything that happened to the victims.
Israel would not have “been the winner” if there had not be mistakes made over a long period of time by the world community. Let’s not give Zionism too much credit for what happened because of historical events that were not seen for what they were at the time. Israel will have to ultimately face the fact that she was created at the expense of another nation and that the pretense that Israel has owned that land from 3,000 years ago is simply not the honorable route to nationhood.
“Israel would not have “been the winner” if there had not been mistakes and decisions made over a long period of time by the world community that enabled the situation in Palestine to reach critical mass.”
Chief among those making the mistakes are the Palestinians.
“Israel will have to ultimately face the fact that she was created at the expense of another nation and that the pretense that Israel has owned that land from 3,000 years ago is simply not the honorable route to nationhood.”
This is also ahistorical. The Palestinians declined to form a state when offered to them. More than once.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
Of course they’ve got a right to complain. Territory was taken from them without compensation. They were assigned a new ruler on the most absurd and flimsy of reasons when their own reasons for wishing for their own sovereignty were brushed aside because of terrorist pressure from their new sovereign. Their subsequent influence over their own fate is almost a foregone conclusion given how the Israelis handled their own revival in the region and subsequent events. The Israelis will always have use for the likes, oh, pardon me, I added a ‘k’ by mistake, the LIES of you.
Sir Spamalot is sure having fun.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
The phrase “they were oppressed freedom fighters”, doesn’t apply, totally inaccurate evaluation of what those guys were up to.
ofm’s caption is supposed to be seen as the final one…
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
Oh, yes, your spotless-as-the-driven-snow narratives about Jewish freedom freighters are so much more historically accurate. Not quite, the white is not snow, rather it’s 3M WHITE OUT THAT YOU USE TO DELETE the nasty, incompatible historical details that don’t quite match up w/the narrative as you’ve written it.
There are incompatible details.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
Oh, so Ze’ev Jabotinsky was merely “an oppressed freedom fighter”? The man who devised the new form of political terrorism — the bombing of buildings, the bombing of public facilities, the bombing of buses, the bombing of markets? That guy was just an “oppressed freedom fighter”? It wasn’t even his country in which he could be an “oppressed freedom fighter” and it certainly wasn’t within his religion’s tenets that he was allowed to kill and maim in order to facilitate the revival of a Jewish state in the Middle East. Or is it?
Idiot:
https://www.udel.Edu/anthro/budani/ethnocentrismspring2011.pdf
http://facstaff.gpc.Edu/~wguyton/sociology/SocVocabulary.htm
Ethnocentrism – the practice of judging another culture by the standards of one’s own culture; an attitude of superiority about one’s own culture or society.
What a unique pivot! Why not discuss ethnocentrism from the perspective of what someone has written rather than trying to give the FALSE IMPRESSION that someone authored a quote that you COOKED UP ON YOU OWN?
You follow this form. That was my original point. It was just another way of pointing to your PC. How stupid are you?
You hesitate to apply the same standards to Islam. Why are you so thick? You need to cast Muslims as victims of Israel and European colonialism when they have their own colonial impetus encoded in their own religious texts.
“Retract that quote and don’t you DARE PRETEND AGAIN…”
Who am I quoting?
I mistakenly posted this reply into another post of yours. This is the post below where you chose to insert another person’s sentence and made it appear to be mine:
objectivefactsmatter 2 hours ago
(Americana) “The fact is religion seems to be one of the last signifiers of what someone’s sexual history will be based on the worst mass murderers and the worst sexual criminals we’ve had in the world.”
(objectivefactsmatter) Show me anyone that made any effort to analyze the Muslim role model (and his sex life), Mohamed, in some kind of objective way that was taken seriously by the neo-Marxist establishment. What happens is that these people are overlooked or excused in moral equivalence equations.
WHO ARE YOU QUOTING IN THIS SENTENCE BELOW? You’re attempting to portray this as being my thinking by inserting it as a response to me in which you DID include a quote of mine but it’s not a quote of mine.
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
Who are you quoting? I’m questioning the quote that was about cultural artifacts.. That was not my quote.
Americana • 35 minutes ago: “Who are you quoting? I’m questioning the quote that was about cultural artifacts.. That was not my quote.”
I have no idea what you’re ranting about at this point. I don’t sense that you do either. The burden of proof remains on you.
“Retract that quote and don’t you DARE PRETEND AGAIN…”
The fundamental reason for you coming here to mess with people is that you feel powerless. By going along with your “explanatory journalist” pals from Slate and New Republic you can imagine feeling automatic approval from the hive while pretending to slay the dragons of conservative anti-progressives that supposedly don’t know the beauty of magic economic schemes and entitlements discovered only recently in the US Constitution. It’s also why you rant about the protected classes from neo-Marxism because you feel you should be there in the lower “oppressed” classes if not for the pure luck in who you were born to and where. That part is probably true too.
You’re a member of a hive but you’re one of the drones. In every sense of the word.
As far as you can tell. You don’t realize what that says about you.
I’m not anxious to throw out labels of any kind. I’d rather listen for quite a while before making up my mind about someone and what their thinking is. You, on the other hand, labels are your modus operandi. That fact says a lot more about you than you’ll admit.
“I clarified your objective cheating in another post.”
Sure.
I copied the entire post of yours from a day ago where you’d included a sentence and pretended as if I’d written it. I didn’t write it. if you want to BLEND quotes from various posters in a single post in order to frame an argument of your own, you acknowledge the individual posters by NAME.
You don’t include a quote from someone else and then write a reply to me as if were the author of the quote w/which you’ve got issues.
____________________________________________________________________
objectivefactsmatter >>>>> Americana a day ago
(Americana) “The fact is religion seems to be one of the last signifiers of what someone’s sexual history will be based on the worst mass murderers and the worst sexual criminals we’ve had in the world.”
(objectivefactsmatter) Show me anyone that made any effort to analyze the Muslim role model (and his sex life), Mohamed, in some kind of objective way that was taken seriously by the neo-Marxist establishment. What happens is that these people are overlooked or excused in moral equivalence equations.
(WHO WROTE THIS SENTENCE? It wasn’t me.) “We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
(objectivefactsmatter) Do you want to guess how many times I’ve heard that assertion in academic and professional circles? So how then can you believe that when we are looking for criminals that we have massive quantities objective research to refer to in order to gauge just how deterministic some alien religion is in comparison to people native to Western Judeo Christian culture?
“I copied the entire post of yours from a day ago where you’d included a sentence and pretended as if I’d written it. I didn’t write it. if you want to BLEND quotes from various posters in a single post in order to frame an argument of your own, you acknowledge the individual posters by NAME.”
Prove it you insane, delusional, conspiracy theorist.
You included a quote from someone other than me and WROTE TO ME DISMISSIVELY as if you were addressing points that I had made. I had not written that statement, therefore your points addressed to me are MOOT. That was YOUR MISTAKE so it’s on you to prove that it’s a quote of mine not the other way around. Believe me, from now on, when I see that you’ve mistakenly attributed something to me that is not mine (as Pete relentlessly does), I’ll be coming down on you like a ton of bricks right then and there. You’re not going to carry on in your high falutin’ fashion while you’re lying your way through discussions. As for you being part of a conspiracy, you give it a bad name since you’re so inept at it. You insane, delusional, MESS of a writer.
Prove it. Don’t offer your stupid, endless rants as “explanations.” I understand the accusation and I want you to simply lay out the evidence.
Crazy fool.
The evidence is in your very own post. You seized two quotes only one of which is mine. Yet you had the nerve to write to me as if both quotes were mine. It’s you who effed up. Don’t do it again.
Americana 4 minutes ago: “The evidence is in your very own post. You seized two quotes only one of which is mine. Yet you had the nerve to write to me as if both quotes were mine. It’s you who effed up.”
Your “evidence” against me on this accusation is just as strong as your “evidence” that I marked any of your comments as spam. Actually the spam accusation, though false, might have some basis in truth for all I know. The other accusation is pure invention on your part because there’s no evidence I wrote anything you have any right to object to.
You’re just spinning on a proverbial hamster wheel.
“Don’t do it again.”
To be absolutely CLEAR, THIS SENTENCE BELOW BELONGS TO objectivefactsmatter (because, after all, objectivefactsDOMATTER):
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
Spammer, for the fourth time: Me to you: “Yes, freak. That is what I wrote. In context, it was clearly an allusion to political correctness.”
“That was YOUR MISTAKE so it’s on you to prove that it’s a quote of mine not the other way around.”
The first thing I did when you objected was copy the entire comment of yours containing the quote I pulled. And then you went further sideways with vague accusations. If you quoted someone without marking it, that’s on you.
Either admit that you F’ed up and move on or just shut up!
Listen, buddy, you know what the rules of debate are on the internet. Don’t pretend you don’t. All quotes are to be attributed. If you MIX QUOTES from DIFFERENT AUTHORS, you should list the authors of both quotes. Here are some on line rules for you to live by:
**LIST AUTHORS if you USE DIFFERENT QUOTES in the same post.
**DON’T SPEAK to MULTIPLE AUTHORS in one post without addressing them by name for the sake of clarity.
**DON’T ATTRIBUTE one writer’s thinking to another writer’s thinking just because you think they’re similarly liberal or whatever.
Need I go on w/the rules? Are you going to pretend you still don’t know them?
Americana 5 minutes ago: “Listen, buddy, you know what the rules of debate are on the internet. Don’t pretend you don’t. All quotes are to be attributed. If you MIX QUOTES from DIFFERENT AUTHORS, you should list the authors of both quotes. Here are some on line rules for you to live by…”
idiot,
I wasn’t quoting anyone other than you. You objected to two different sentences. One I wrote as a representation of PC values. I used no quote marks. There is no reason at all anyone would think I was quoting you or anyone else. You’re a paranoid, unhinged lunatic. Seriously. No, I’m not joking. This is not “just tactics.” You have severe problems. Really. Please get help. And by the way, the other was actually quoting you. Which I proved.
To be absolutely CLEAR, THIS SENTENCE BELOW BELONGS TO objectivefactsmatter (because, after all, objectivefactsDOMATTER and this is exactly as it appeared in his post):
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
Spammer, for the third time: Me to you: “Yes, freak. That is what I wrote. In context, it was clearly an allusion to political correctness.”
“Believe me, from now on, when I see that you’ve mistakenly attributed something to me that is not mine (as Pete relentlessly does), I’ll be coming down on you like a ton of bricks right then and there.”
Basically you’re promising to get your act together but you have to maintain this fiction that other people are the cause of your own problems. OK then. Whatever.
You still can’t show where you (allegedly) pulled the quote from nor why I’m responsible because you didn’t mark it as a quote.
This is actually a nice little example you’ve put together for how you create your own problems and then blame others. Combined with the “spam report” accusation coming within the same moment I think we have a nice little introductory profile on you to show how unhinged you are.
Are you a genuine idiot or do you just play one when convenient on FPM? YOU selected the two quotes. In order to prove you’d conflated the sources for the quotes, I pulled the ENTIRE POST OF YOURS w/the two quotes that you’d interspersed w/your “enlightened” commentary. Trouble is, the first quote is mine and the second quote is NOT MINE and you didn’t bother to distinguish between the authors.
You commented on both quotes as if I’d written them both. Something which you knew was UTTERLY FALSE since the one quote of mine was taken from one of my posts and you would have had to have gone to another post belonging to someone else to select the other quote. Either that, or YOU ACTUALLY WROTE THE SECOND QUOTE YOURSELF. There’s always that’s possibility…
Yeah, try to demonstrate how unhinged I am. As you claim the same craziness for so many others who aren’t of your opinion, the claim should hold a lot of water! WHAT A PUNK YOU ARE.
You’re insane.
You’re so confused you can’t follow conversations and like a little baby you lash out and cry when you feel things don’t go your way. You invent crap like some special knowledge about spam reports or whatever and you can’t even understand what people say to you.
I did not falsely attribute any quote to you. If I did that all you would have to do is show it. Instead you have yet another maniacal rant.
Get help. You need psychiatric professionals to help you deal with your behavior.
“You commented on both quotes as if…”
You have a reading comprehension problem and can’t recognize the source of your own confusion. What do you do? You fly off the handle.
You need to be medicated.
I fly off the handle because I’m tired of you and your unethical tactics. You claimed you hadn’t misquoted me, then you claimed that you could basically create quotes if you think they reflect my thinking. DOH????? In whose universe is that legitimate?
You WANTED other people to believe you were legitimately giving me a lecture based on something you’d quoted from someone else or that you’d written yourself. You think you can simply lie into the indefinite future about things you’ve done like this? Well, you’ve got another think coming.
It was never a quote. Moron. I was simply referring to political correctness. You’re insane.
Why do you keep ranting about “misquote” when it wasn’t even a quote? How crazy are you? Will you ever wake up and look in the mirror to take responsibility for your own crazy behavior?
Oh, so now it’s not a quote? In that case, then why are there quote marks around it? You ought to take responsibility for your own crazy behavior. A quote is a quote. You don’t want to indicate it as a quote then you don’t put quote marks on it. Easy as pie. Does someone need to send you a copy of Strunk and White’s Style Manual? Why did you write a response to this sentence >>> (“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”) if it wasn’t meant to be read by others as YOU talking to ME?
objectivefactsmatter 2 hours ago
(Americana) “The fact is religion seems to be one of the last signifiers of what someone’s sexual history will be based on the worst mass murderers and the worst sexual criminals we’ve had in the world.”
(objectivefactsmatter) Show me anyone that made any effort to analyze the Muslim role model (and his sex life), Mohamed, in some kind of objective way that was taken seriously by the neo-Marxist establishment. What happens is that these people are overlooked or excused in moral equivalence equations.
WHO ARE YOU QUOTING IN THIS SENTENCE BELOW? You’re attempting to portray this as being my thinking by inserting it as a response to me in which you DID include a quote of mine but it’s not a quote of mine.
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
I wrote it, you freak. It was not originally in quotes.
The sentence in question WAS ORIGINALLY in quotes. I pasted the entire post as it appeared other than that I added my name and your name in parentheses for clarity’s sake for those reading this exchange. So, now you admit that you wrote it. Yet you’re angry that I’m furious that you tried to pass this sentence off as my writing. You even wrote a response to your own sentence then, carrying out the pretense to the bitter end. God, you are soooooooooo hopelessly freaktastic.
objectivefactsmatter 2 hours ago
(Americana) “The fact is religion seems to be one of the last signifiers of what someone’s sexual history will be based on the worst mass murderers and the worst sexual criminals we’ve had in the world.”
(objectivefactsmatter) Show me anyone that made any effort to analyze the Muslim role model (and his sex life), Mohamed, in some kind of objective way that was taken seriously by the neo-Marxist establishment. What happens is that these people are overlooked or excused in moral equivalence equations.
WHO ARE YOU QUOTING IN THIS SENTENCE BELOW? You’re attempting to portray this as being my thinking because it’s in quotes but I DIDN’T WRITE IT.
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
Americana 11 minutes ago: “Oh, so now it’s not a quote? In that case, then why are there quote marks around it? You ought to take responsibility for your own crazy behavior. A quote is a quote.”
Not when I originally wrote it. It got quoted afterwards. You’re lost.
You’ve finally admitted in a post above that you wrote the sentence in question. But now you’ve claimed that it “wasn’t originally in quotes.” Yet I cut and pasted it just as the exchange appeared in your original post. This last sentence at the bottom of this post is the sentence in question. It’s IN QUOTE MARKS just as it originally appeared. Quote marks have to be manually typed in by an author if the person is trying to indicate that this is a quote by someone.
As if that weren’t quit enough to bury you, you’ve also admitted in another of your posts that it’s fine for you to extrapolate what someone’s thinking might be on a subject, write up THEIR THOUGHTS as filtered through YOUR GREAT BRAIN and then answer them as if you were ANSWERING THAT PREDIGESTED THOUGHT from your OWN BRAIN because, after all, YOU KNOW PRECISELY WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS are. I guess since you’re willing to WRITE OUT OTHER’S PEOPLES’ THOUGHTS FOR THEM, it cuts right to the chase.
To be absolutely CLEAR, THIS SENTENCE BELOW BELONGS TO objectivefactsmatter (because, after all, objectivefactsDOMATTER):
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
Americana 8 minutes ago: “You’ve finally admitted in a post above that you wrote the sentence in question.”
Idiot, how many various vague accusations did you hurl before you asked directly? It took you several days before you even pointed to that sentence.
You’re so unhinged. And why would I deny writing something that I clearly did write? Anyone can read my comment stream.
Damn. You are so stupid. It’s sad.
“Yet I cut and pasted it just as the exchange appeared in your original post. This last sentence at the bottom of this post is the sentence in question. It’s IN QUOTE MARKS just as it originally appeared. Quote marks have to be manually typed in by an author if the person is trying to indicate that this is a quote by someone.”
Clearly you are still mistaken. Clearly you can’t even find the original. You got lost and immediately launched accusations. You’re a stupid freak. If you have a comment you want to refer to rather than just copy, you can copy the URL too so that people can verify it. But you’re too stupid for that too.
What a wreck you are.
“As if that weren’t quit enough to bury you, you’ve also admitted in another of your posts that it’s fine for you to extrapolate what someone’s thinking might be on a subject, write up THEIR THOUGHTS as filtered through YOUR GREAT BRAIN and then answer them as if you were ANSWERING THAT PREDIGESTED THOUGHT from your OWN BRAIN because, after all, YOU KNOW PRECISELY WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS are. I guess since you’re willing to WRITE OUT OTHER’S PEOPLES’ THOUGHTS FOR THEM, it cuts right to the chase.”
You mean paraphrasing someone to test agreement?
Yes, crazy maniacal troll.
http://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/Active_listening
Active listening is a communication technique used in counselling, training and conflict resolution, which requires the listener to feed back what they hear to the speaker, by way of re-stating or paraphrasing what they have heard in their own words, to confirm what they have heard and moreover, to confirm the understanding of both parties.
Paraphrasing is not the same thing as INVENTING WORDS and THOUGHTS and putting them down as if they belong(ed) to someone w/whom you’re debating.
Why on earth would you have followed up that INVENTED SENTENCE that you wrote w/one of your usual inane lectures? That was really the piece de resistance, pretending that you actually had crafted a response to your own sentence.
You follow neo-Marxist analysis. Do you agree that “ethnocentrism” is bad?
For days you squirm, I assume, because you’re caught up in PC thinking and YOU don’t know which way to go. So you make it some plot against you. Fine. Set it aside. I lied or something. Why would I need to? I’ve had you pegged as a moronic neo-Marxist dupe of communism from day one.
Now deal with the accusation that I made against you that you follow that form of thinking. You make excuses for Islam in the same way that people decry ethnocentrism. Am I wrong? Explain. Stop deflecting.
You lied because you found it convenient to lie. It allowed you to then pretend to lecture me from a position of superiority. I’m glad you’ve finally admitted that you lied.
Why should I deal w/your wacko idea that I deal strictly from a neo-Marxist perspective?
“You lied because you found it convenient to lie. It allowed you to then pretend to lecture me from a position of superiority. I’m glad you’ve finally admitted that you lied.”
No, I didn’t lie. And no, it was not convenient. You’re making yourself in to a victim without any valid explanation. How did it victimize you or smear you for me to imply that you are uncomfortable making ethnocentric judgments?
How? You don’t make any sense. All you know how to do is whinge. Just like every other retarded leftist.
You STILL have not demonstrated any understanding of the “ethnocentrism” discourse. You think you were “smeared” and then when it’s clear enough WTF your complaint is I explain it further, and you still act “wounded.” It makes no sense.
You actually never demonstrate any comprehension of anything we talk about. You fake it for a bit but then you can’t handle anything that takes you off script.
Listen, mr. bubba, you haven’t got a clue how to segue from one subject to another. Or rather, maybe you do have a clue that you need to SEGUE AWAY FROM THE FACT YOU FALSELY ATTRIBUTED A QUOTE to me that you wrote in order to set up a reply. However that’s not how decent dialectical discussion is undertaken. When you’re underhanded enough to pull something like you did w/the QUOTE YOU WROTE and pretended that I wrote it, you’ve shown yourself to be OTHER THAN A DECENT DEBATER. Clean up your ethics and let us all know when you’re back on an ethical track.
I won’t bother getting involved w/your ethnocentrism discourse until you’ve thoroughly absolved yourself of your stupid urge to lie and squeal and mark other’s posts as spam.
“I won’t bother getting involved w/your ethnocentrism discourse until you’ve thoroughly absolved yourself of your stupid urge to lie and squeal and mark other’s posts as spam.”
So you’re going with delusional persecution fantasies again. OK then.
Dumbkopf, and you pretend to worry about “explanatory journalists” while you’re running around conducting your half-assed ___________ (I’m not even sure what to call the various things you do on this web site?). Let’s just leave it that you’re unique among the fraternity.
“Why on earth would you have followed up that INVENTED SENTENCE that you wrote w/one of your usual inane lectures? That was really the piece de resistance, pretending that you actually had crafted a response to your own sentence.”
You can’t really handle going off script. I was accusing you of blindly following political correctness. You want to follow it when it suits you because it seems like “common sense” to a lot of people. But you don’t really understand the implications of your own assertions.
I can find plenty of other examples where you follow this form of thinking. Something like you lecturing another about how in Western societies we also treated women like chattel till recently. False equivalence. Creating a legal framework for legitimate prostitution rings is not the same as having property owners head of household. Having workers that earn the money down on the title without directly listing his wife is also not quite morally equivalent with sexual slavery. And these things done in the West were not done because the Bible instructed it. That’s why people in the West have an easier time evolving with the times.
Yes we can and should judge everyone according to the same standard. We have only one UN and supposedly that’s the place for “international justice” so why would have adjust our standards when judging some factions? If they need a handicap, that already implies they’re inferior.
So what do you do? You lie. You tell these stupid stories about how the West is “just like” Islam in the way it treats women till just recently. You’re an idiot.
Americana 8 minutes ago: “To be absolutely CLEAR, THIS SENTENCE BELOW BELONGS TO objectivefactsmatter (because, after all, objectivefactsDOMATTER): “We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.””
Yes, freak. That is what I wrote. In context, it was clearly an allusion to political correctness.
Not w/the QUOTE MARKS around it, it wasn’t. Learn from your snafus and don’t do this again.
Shut up. Freak.
Oh, it was never a quote? Then why did you put quote marks around it? Why did you admit below (finally) that you wrote it and that it was a PC statement about political correctness? The amount of time it’s taken to clarify this situation indicates that you are willing to resort to all sorts of unethical and absurd tactics in order to achieve the most ephemeral one-upmanship. Clean up your act and behave as you know you should.
objectivefactsmatter 31 minutes ago
(objectivefactsmatter) Notice how in the course of 20 minutes you went from accusing me of misattributing a quote to you or someone and now you admit it wasn’t attributed to you. It wasn’t even a quote. It was MY STATEMENT regarding political correctness standards. You follow PC thinking patterns as if you’re totally unaware of them.
To be absolutely CLEAR, THIS SENTENCE BELOW WAS WRITTEN BY objectivefactsmatter (because, after all, objectivefactsDOMATTER):
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
Now I see why Pete thinks you’re crazy. You get worse by the hour.
Who gives a flip if Petulant Pete thinks I’m anything? Pete is quite the little offside blocker who goes off on his very own nonsensical tangents in hopes of proving someone isn’t this, that or the other. Meanwhile, most often the discussion backfires totally and proves that Pete himself isn’t this, that or the other… Pete gets worse by the month. Never mind Pete worrying about everyone else on here, the guy ought to worry about his own business and brain.
Pete is the guy who pretended to be a farmer who was then caught out when he didn’t know as much as he claimed to know about farming. He claimed that the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia would eventually only be hiring Muslims for its faculty even though King Abdullah University of Science and Technology had an international faculty recruitment drive. He claimed there was no sense in having a SATIRICAL NEWSPAPER like The Onion published in English in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates even though tons of Emiratis speak English and there’s a large expat community there. He’s pulled quite a few other similar stunts and they’ve backfired each and every time. The list of Pete’s snafus goes on and on…
Whatever. You sure had you pegged sooner than I did.
Pete thinks he’s got everyone pegged. Pffffftttt. I had him pegged just like I had Drakken pegged.
So you say. But you’re like a cross between a monkey and a hamster. Why would I care what you claim?
Americana objectivefactsmatter • 3 hours ago: “You included a quote from someone other than me and WROTE TO ME DISMISSIVELY as if you were addressing points that I had made.”
You’re confused on at least two things:
1) You admitted that when you first flew off the handle that you replied incorrectly but you were vague. You seemed to object to a quote that I was immediately able to prove came from you. Then you pivoted.
2) Now you seem to have a problem with something I wrote that I did not attribute to you. It’s “conventional” (PC) thinking:
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
I did not attribute that to you. But you do follow PC thinking. You follow that form of thinking. And if it becomes worth my time I can go back and show you were you did it. So it’s not a false quote. It’s calling attention to your flawed thinking. Like when you blame the girls for being uncovered and easier to seduce and “read” rather than being targeted as infidels. You shift attention away from the fact that Muslims are exhorted and instructed to treat infidels as lower status.
But you get confused and turn yourself in to a victim of a “malicious misquote” when I didn’t quote anyone, did not mark it as a quote and did not in any way suggest that you wrote it. I implied that you (and many other cultural Marxists) follow that thinking pattern. If you understood it in context it would make perfect sense.
You’re too stupid to follow.
(objectivefactsmatter) I did not attribute that to you. But you do follow PC thinking. You follow that form of thinking. And if it becomes worth my time I can go back and show you were you did it. So it’s not a false quote. It’s calling attention to your flawed thinking.
You didn’t attribute it to me. But you LECTURED ME AS IF IT WERE MY QUOTE and you were responding to me in that portion of your post. Listen, fella, that’s not how one debates. Especially in the cyber world where precision counts. You debate on the basis of what I WRITE. You don’t get to claim things like “Because Americana writes like a PC person, then I can claim this is her thinking on this subject” and then YOU WRITE THE QUOTE to which you respond. Do you have NO SHAME?
It wasn’t even a quote. You moron. It some times (in fact more often than not) applies to me when I must adhere to PC.
You’re so stupid.
To be absolutely CLEAR, THIS SENTENCE BELOW BELONGS TO objectivefactsmatter (because, after all, objectivefactsDOMATTER). If it wasn’t a quote, as you’ve now admitted, then why the quote marks? I mean you do know your English punctuation, correct? It took actual effort to add the quote marks so you had to have a reason to add them.
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
Americana 4 minutes ago: “To be absolutely CLEAR, THIS SENTENCE BELOW BELONGS TO objectivefactsmatter (because, after all, objectivefactsDOMATTER). If it wasn’t a quote, as you’ve now admitted, then why the quote marks? I mean you do know your English punctuation, correct? It took actual effort to add the quote marks so you had to have a reason to add them. “We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.””
Spammer, for the second time: Me to you: “Yes, freak. That is what I wrote. In context, it was clearly an allusion to political correctness.”
Oh my, here’s objectivefactsmatter trying to claim he did it solely within the context of an allusion to political correctness.
More like a DELUSION OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is more like it!
Then why refuse to admit that you’d written the sentence? Why did you add quote marks to that sentence? Why did you refuse to admit that you paired it up w/a quote of mine in order to give the false impression I’d written it?
“More like a DELUSION OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is more like it!”
What does that mean?
“Then why refuse to admit that you’d written the sentence?”
Because you’re original accusation was in reply to something else entirely. You made 3 separate accusations before it became clear you wanted to fixate on this particular sentence.
” Why did you add quote marks to that sentence? Why did you refuse to admit that you paired it up w/a quote of mine in order to give the false impression I’d written it?””
I didn’t attribute it to you as a quote. Perhaps at some point I was quoting you after you quoted me. The thread is too long and chaotic for me to retrace all of this. And again, why would you even freak out like it’s a smear when you can’t even state whether or not you agree with it? Is ethnocentrism good or bad according to you? Why can’t you answer?
No, the thread is NOT “too long and chaotic for (you) to retrace all of this”. There you go off again claiming that it’s possible that “perhaps at some point I was quoting you after you quoted me”. AHHHHHH, NOOOOOOO. That’s NOT why you wrote this quote and then answered it yourself as if you were in a position to lecture me. You are not going to continue to do this as a matter of course in discussions and get away w/it. It was a smear and you darn well know it. I don’t know what your problem is precisely but you’re not going to continue to cheat like this.
“It was a smear and you darn well know it.”
How was it a smear, you kook? I was simply paraphrasing a typical admonition to avoid “ethnocentric” judgment. And you’ll do anything to avoid commenting on the actual fallacies of your positions. You’re pathetic.
Mr. Bubba Bizarro is at it again. If it was not a smear then why did you pretend for THREE DAYS that I had written that sentence **or** you didn’t remember where you’d gotten it **or** maybe you ended up needing to cop to having written it yourself? Your explanations are nearly as lame now as when your first responses were made. Cut the loaf already, we’ve had it w/your total BS.
Moron,
Just shut up.
Mr. Bubba Bizarro would like silence over his tactical debate faux pas. He’s admitted the faux pas. So, to Mr. BB, it’s now a dead issue except for the spinoffs he think he can create from it. Enjoy watching Mr. Bubba Bizarro at his unethical best!
Americana 11 minutes ago: “Mr. Bubba Bizarro would like silence over his tactical debate faux pas. He’s admitted the faux pas. So, to Mr. BB, it’s now a dead issue except for the spinoffs he think he can create from it. Enjoy watching Mr. Bubba Bizarro at his unethical best!”
Because of all the things we talk about what we really need to fixate on is whether I wrote something that might have confused a reader. Nothing else compares in importance to that question. We must fixate on accusations of “faux pas” committed by the capitalists! The revolution is near. Keep up the pressure!
Yes, we do “need to fixate on whether (you) wrote something that might have confused a reader”. Why do we need to do so? Because it affects the basics of debate: HONESTY, CLARITY and PROVENANCE. I didn’t write the quote therefore you directing your answering tirade at me to YOUR VERY OWN QUESTION was nonsensical and duplicitous. You wanted to play at one upsmanship without being in a position of being one up on me. You INVENTED YOUR TACTICAL POSITION and let fly at me. You’ve continued to do SIMILAR DISCUSSION TACTICS today by claiming that I endorse certain housing programs and certain social welfare programs none of which I have EVER MENTIONED, never mind mentioned that I support or endorse them.
You give me reason to fire off rebuttals at you because you’ve falsely accused me of something or you’ve attributed a perspective to me which I have not endorsed or even written about, then I’ll do so. You’re not at liberty to make FALSE CLAIMS about what I think about programs I have not mentioned.
OK crazy chick. Whatever.
OK, crazy man. Thinks he’s in charge of the madhouse and he can write whatever the heck he wants for misrepresentation and no one will object. You got just waaaaaayyyyyyy too comfortable w/not having any opposition and now you just can’t handle it.
That’s gotta be it.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
OK, crazy man. Thinks he’s in charge of the madhouse and he can write whatever the heck he wants for misrepresentation and no one will object. You got just waaaaaayyyyyyy too comfortable w/not having any opposition and now you just can’t handle it.
And your point is? Well, we’ll see, won’t we?
Americana objectivefactsmatter 2 hours ago:
“Oh my, here’s objectivefactsmatter trying to claim he did it solely within the context of an allusion to political correctness. More like a DELUSION OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is more like it!”
What is that supposed to mean?
The hilarious thing is that I already reconciled my comment a long time ago.
Yes, you reconciled it by admitting that you fabricated a quote and you pretended as if you were addressing me. Why did you do this? Because you think it’s LEGITIMATE to take a guess at someone’s thinking and then make everyone else believe it’s their thinking as well by putting QUOTE MARKS AROUND YOUR OWN SENTENCES that are carefully crafted to make someone else seem X, Y, or Z.
Liar.
Americana 35 minutes ago: “Listen, buddy, you know what the rules of debate are on the internet. Don’t pretend you don’t. All quotes are to be attributed. If you MIX QUOTES from DIFFERENT AUTHORS, you should list the authors of both quotes. Here are some on line rules for you to live by…”
Americana 15 minutes ago: “You didn’t attribute it to me. But you LECTURED ME AS IF IT WERE MY QUOTE and you were responding to me in that portion of your post. Listen, fella, that’s not how one debates.”
Notice how in the course of 20 minutes you went from accusing me of misattributing a quote to you or someone and now you admit it wasn’t attributed to you. It wasn’t even a quote. It was my statement regarding political correctness standards. You follow PC thinking patterns as if you’re totally unaware of them. You’re a robot. I follow PC thinking patterns when I’m in an environment where I have no choice by contract. I’m not myopic about it. I can still see the fuller spectrum of reality.
Listen, dubmkopf, I didn’t say you’d misattributed the quote to me BY PUTTING MY NAME ON IT but rather by the way you WROTE IN RESPONSE TO THE QUOTE. You wrote in your usual sneering fashion and pretended that you were writing in response to my thinking. You even said in another post of yours subsequently that it didn’t matter that it wasn’t my quote because you know that I’m such a PC thinker, it probably would be what I think and that what you had to say about the cultural stuff was applicable.
Are you just as unethical as that statement would lead me to believe? Now, you claim that you’re allowed to write responses to invented quotes because you don’t have to wait to read something from someone, you just are going to react to what you think they’re going to write because you’re able to provide the PC words right out of your mouth that are supposed to have come from the other person’s mouth??
Once again, here’s the exchange between the two of us that we’re discussing as to the legitimacy of INVENTING QUOTES and MISATTRIBUTING THEM TO ANOTHER POSTER:
objectivefactsmatter 2 hours ago
(Americana) “The fact is religion seems to be one of the last signifiers of what someone’s sexual history will be based on the worst mass murderers and the worst sexual criminals we’ve had in the world.”
(objectivefactsmatter) Show me anyone that made any effort to analyze the Muslim role model (and his sex life), Mohamed, in some kind of objective way that was taken seriously by the neo-Marxist establishment. What happens is that these people are overlooked or excused in moral equivalence equations.
((WHO ARE YOU QUOTING IN THIS SENTENCE BELOW? You’re attempting to portray this as being my thinking by inserting it as a response to me in which you DID include a quote of mine but it’s not a quote of mine.))
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.” (This has got to be a hand-crafted quote from objectivefactsmatter if he hasn’t provided the original source and he’s too ashamed to have been caught out to admit he was caught.)
You have to actively type in QUOTE MARKS around a quote as you did in this post of yours. So, why would you use one quote of mine indicated within quote marks and then choose to use another quote within quote marks yet it’s not mine. Oooops, small problem w/PROVENANCE of quotes, objectivefactsmatter, care to clean up you debate tactics from now on?
objectivefactsmatter 2 hours ago
(This is one of mine — Americana) “The fact is religion seems to be one of the last signifiers of what someone’s sexual history will be based on the worst mass murderers and the worst sexual criminals we’ve had in the world.”
(This is one of —objectivefactsmatter) Show me anyone that made any effort to analyze the Muslim role model (and his sex life), Mohamed, in some kind of objective way that was taken seriously by the neo-Marxist establishment. What happens is that these people are overlooked or excused in moral equivalence equations.
(WHO ARE YOU QUOTING IN THIS SENTENCE BELOW????? It’s got QUOTE MARKS so it’s MEANT TO BE READ AS A QUOTE. But whose quote is it?)
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
Go back to the original. Or just shut up. I am not going to seriously work backwards after days of your maniacal rants. If you want a serious answer, start over without the stupid accusations.
Here’s another aspect of your cheatin’ style. You just marked a post of mine that rebutted a post of yours accusing me of my thinking being synonymous w/the libels underlying the Elders of Zion BS. Here’s the same post — AGAIN — without the link to the believersbible link. iT HAD BETTER NOT BE MARKED AS SPAM
(For those who’d like to indulge their wackiest conspiracy theories, you can simply flip those two words and add ‘.org’ as a suffix to create a link to one site featuring the EOZ crud.
____________________________________________________________________
Oh, I find all the Elders of Zion business to be total BS. The only people who find the Elders of Zion material credible are those who have conspiracy theories running out their ears and/or are members of anti-Semitic groups.
On the other hand, the fact I’m willing to acknowledge there were Zionists who were willing to do whatever it took for the Jews to secure a nation within the ancient Jewish national footprint in Palestine when the opportunity presented itself says more about the Jewish determination to reacquire a Jewish homeland than it does about any balderdash about Jewish world domination.
Americana 5 hours ago: “Here’s another aspect of your cheatin’ discussion style. You just REPORTED a post of mine AS SPAM that rebutted a post of yours accusing me of my thinking being synonymous w/the libels underlying the Elders of Zion BS. Here’s the same post — AGAIN — without the link to the believersbible link. iT HAD BETTER NOT BE MARKED AS SPAM”
Shut up. Crackpot.
Ah, Mr. Deceitful has spoken!
What’s awesome is having an idiot like you show just how delusional you are and how “rigorous” you are with “evidence.” Because you invent false claims based on your emotional reactions to events. You proved it again with your unhinged accusations.
The accusation isn’t unhinged. You’ve written a critical, raving post to me based on two quotes which you are attributing to me. I only wrote one of them, the other is from god knows where. Regardless, you wrote a response to the second quote as if you were justified in telling me I’m an idiot. You’re an idiot if you think this is your next great debate tactic besides declaring your opponent insane…
It’s not a tactic to point out that you’re insane. It’s a sidebar comment. You are insane. I don’t need to focus on tactics. You’re way past losing.
Why is it you persist in your insanity defense? (Pretty funny, LOL!#$!$!$)
It’s not a sidebar comment to contest a post of yours because of you falsely attributing quotes to me. What’s hysterical is to have you admit umpteen posts after the argument began over the “quote,” that you added that sentence because you think it’s fair to WRITE YOUR OWN SENTENCES and call it someone else’s thinking. Not only did you pretend this was my thinking, but you added quote marks to it to enhance it’s being read as a quote. You could have written it in another way. You DIDN’T. You CHOSE TO PRETEND THAT YOU WERE QUOTING SOMEONE and it’s fairly clear you were attempting to libel me w/your invented quote.
__________________________________________________________________________
To be absolutely CLEAR, THIS SENTENCE BELOW BELONGS TO objectivefactsmatter (because, after all, objectivefactsDOMATTER):
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
Spammer, for the fifth time: Me to you: “Yes, freak. That is what I wrote. In context, it was clearly an allusion to political correctness.”
You’d hoped the quote would be attributed to me because you wrote a chastising response that was directed at me in reply to the very sentence you wrote.
You follow that form of thinking. It’s just PC. Get it?
Three (or more) days of maniacal ranting and you can’t even say what your position is on ethnocentrism because you’ve trapped yourself. Which is kind of funny.
Why SHOULD I BOTHER stating a position on ethnocentrism when you won’t admit you INVENTED A QUOTE and tried to ATTRIBUTE IT TO ME BY DEFAULT? It’s pretty funny that you’ve trapped yourself in this situation.
You’ve been shown to script YOUR OWN QUOTES in order to write your replies to those scripted quotes you authored. It took three or more days of ranting to get you to admit WHY YOU WRITE YOUR OWN QUOTES and WHY YOU PRETENDED YOU DIDN’T. I don’t know about you, but I consider that three days well spent. You’ve admitted the whole thing. What’s even funnier, is you admitted WHY you did it and it makes NO SENSE. You could have gotten there simply by introducing a question about ethnocentrism.
“Why SHOULD I BOTHER stating a position on ethnocentrism when you won’t admit you INVENTED A QUOTE and tried to ATTRIBUTE IT TO ME BY DEFAULT? It’s pretty funny that you’ve trapped yourself in this situation.”
That’s your game then. I did “invent” the sentence. I did not attribute it to you. I originally was alluding to political correctness. You went on a 3 plus day tear and it took you 2 days just to get your accusations straight for me to even know which comment and which line you objected to.
All anyone has to do to see how insane you are is to read your comment stream or the thread here.
And the reason you need to take a position on it is because you asserted that I “invented” this quote to smear you. How would it smear you? You can’t even say what your position is. You’re just a kook trying to win an argument by throwing down flags and deflecting with whiny complaints long after you’ve lost.
We’re talking about Islam and the effects it might have on human behavior. We’re also talking about PC and the effects PC has on police investigations. It’s all relevant. If you don’t want to take a position at this point, I don’t’ care. I have enough already to hang you for being a retarded neo-Marxist. It’s up to you if you want to dig your way out and maybe redeem MENSA’s reputation.
“You could have gotten there simply by introducing a question about ethnocentrism.”
I don’t have any questions for you. I’m explaining to you where your ideas come from. That’s one thing your “explainers” don’t explain. They explain mendacious victim narratives but they don’t explain where the analysis comes from. I’m “explaining” how they arrive at their conclusions.
Your explanation of how that sentence came to be in a post of yours and why you would respond to it as if it came from a stranger (me) is absolutely classic disinformation and propaganda taking the form of discussion. Your goose is well and thoroughly cooked on that score. How often you’ve resorted to this particularly nasty, low-brow tactic I don’t know but now that I know you do it, I’ll keep a sharp eye out for such in future.
You want to pretend to be the dialectical master of all you survey here, be my guest, but you’re not anywhere even close to being what you claim for yourself. Hate to be the bearer of bad academic news but your ethical standards suck. You’d best observe the NORMS of dialectical discussion from now on instead of pretending you’re doing a professorial thing because you’re NOT.
“Your explanation of how that sentence came to be in a post of yours and why you would respond to it as if it came from a stranger (me) is absolutely classic disinformation and propaganda taking the form of discussion. Your goose is well and thoroughly cooked on that score. How often you’ve resorted to this particularly nasty, low-brow tactic I don’t know but now that I know you do it, I’ll keep a sharp eye out for such in future.”
It was originally the “royal we.” I was including myself you dipshirt. I was not smearing you. You’re so dumb.
Political Correctness may have a lot of problems but there are real concerns too. Ethnocentrism is not often appropriate. But when looking at criminal behavior or performing objective analysis you have to be careful about both ethnocentrism and Political Correctness biases. That’s the nuanced point I would have made to an intelligent interlocutor. And it would have been relevant at the time. The only point now is to show how unhinged you are.
“The only point now is to show how unhinged you are.”
That’s a pretty classic Marxist approach. Seems pretty cheap to me. If your arguments are good, let them stand on their own. All this babbling about her being insane is something I’d have once thought beneath you.
How is it Marxist? What I’m actually doing is demonstrating that I’m not going to let her waste my time by controlling what I must repeat over and over.
“All this babbling about her being insane is something I’d have once thought beneath you.”
I’m serious. She needs professional help. You should try to help her by convincing her to talk to someone about her potential need of some kind of medical intervention. It’s not a joke.
Evidently you see her through rose-colored glasses. She’s a huge nuisance. She adds nothing good to the discussions.
If she would just offer her stupid comments once and then respond to the discourse like a sentient being it could be different. But she doesn’t do that. She’s just a ridiculous PITA.
Oh, now I’m being included in the “royal we” you were writing about? I doubt that very much since you’re always attempting to exclude me as if I’m something other than human. You always mention that it’s just you and hieronymous having those manly heart to hearts that you’re so fond of and that I’m not in your league.
Interesting that you believe you’re able and willing to address ethnocentrism in respect to criminal activity and innate biases.
Americana 6 minutes ago: “Oh, now I’m being included in the “royal we” you were writing about? I doubt that very much since you’re always attempting to exclude me as if I’m something other than human. You always mention that it’s just you and hieronymous having those manly heart to hearts that you’re so fond of and that I’m not in your league.”
Idiot,
Who alive today in the English-speaking world has not been exposed to the discourse on ethnocentrism? WTF is wrong with you?
How could you be “other than human” and also be a typical neo-Marxist clone?
Is that what this is all about? Your hurt feelings? I think you’re human. I know people like you. That’s why I’d like to see you get help. I think you’re fully redeemable. In one or two months I can see potentially that you would probably be able to contribute in meaningful, positive ways while also putting yourself on a path of continuous learning rather than relying on “explanatory journalism” that you don’t really understand very well.
Oh, please, here you are w/your usual tactic of implying that everyone but you is far behind you on the learning curve for these subjects. We all know that’s hardly the case. If you were all you believe yourself to be, there wouldn’t be quite so many finding quite so much to object to in your posts. As for whether I’m “on a path of continuous learning,” part of that path follows in the wake of journalism of all kinds. Oddly, you don’t seem to read material from all compass points.
(objectivefactsmatter) “In one or two months I can see potentially that you would probably be able to contribute in meaningful, positive ways while also putting yourself on a path of continuous learning rather than relying on “explanatory journalism” that you don’t really understand very well.”
“You always mention that it’s just you and hieronymous having those manly heart to hearts that you’re so fond of and that I’m not in your league.”
That’s just weird. My only point mentioning him is that you should not IMO try to shore up (or distract from weaknesses in) your arguments by referring to his “support” for you because it doesn’t exactly work that way.
I’ve never mentioned hieronymous in terms of eliciting support from him. What I’ve written about hieronymous is that if my posts are found illogical or factually wanting or ignorant, hieronymous is going to be right there correcting me. I’ve also said that he’s welcome to correct me because he’s got a steel trap for a brain and he’s better at political recall. If you take that as me claiming support from him, au contraire, that’s a claim that my posts aren’t being found as flawed and as lacking in substantive material as you keep claiming. As for you thinking it’s weird that I’d write something about your manly heart to hearts w/hieronymous, that’s straight from the heart because I find it funny that you’d try to cast your discussions in a better light than how others see them.
It’s just pointing out that you’re following PC. Which you were. That’s the relevant point. You’re clearly insane. You need medical help.
Your sentence quote was designed to reflect badly on me. You lied in attempting to suggestively attribute it to me and then enhanced that lie by haranguing me via a reply to your VERY OWN QUOTE! Talking to oneself takes on a whole new meaning when done by objectivefactsmatter. First, ofm denies and denies and denies. I produce the quote he invented and suddenly ohm’s story changes to this invented quote tactic being permissible. On and on and on go objectivefactsmatter’s excuses…
“Your sentence quote was designed to reflect badly on me.”
How was it a smear, stupid retard? It was just a paraphrase to return to the subject of neo-Marxist analysis and how we supposedly can all come to live together under a benign, global socialist government if we learn to think beyond ethnocentrism. This thinking that I paraphrased permeates our Western academies and most professional environments.
Are you insane? You’re just confused because it involves a fork in the road and you don’t know which to take. Should you be ethnocentric or nonjudgmental? What to do?
Oh, I’ll go for the judgmental. No one would pull the stuff you do, from the name calling to the fantastical debate formats you invent, without having….. (DELETED).
You still have not explained why it would be a “smear.” All you can do is run around and whine when you can’t figure out which scripted victim narrative to try here.
Why is there any need to supply a victim narrative? The point is you WROTE A FALSE QUOTE and then REPLIED TO YOUR OWN QUOTE to give it a veneer of honest intercourse. Pretty funky debate behavior but to each his own. So, no, you’ve supplied the victim narrative for me.
Americana 14 minutes ago: “Why is there any need to supply a victim narrative?”
Why are you asking me?
“The point is you WROTE A FALSE QUOTE and then REPLIED TO YOUR OWN QUOTE to give it a veneer of honest intercourse. Pretty funky debate behavior but to each his own. So, no, you’ve supplied the victim narrative for me.”
You’re the victim by everyone’s account. Nice solo act.
You’re a revisionist ‘historian’ to your very corrupt core.
“It’s not a sidebar comment to contest a post of yours because of you falsely attributing quotes to me.”
You can’t follow a freaking thing. Noting that you are insane is merely a sidebar comment.
Ethnocentrism – the practice of judging another culture by the standards of one’s own culture; an attitude of superiority about one’s own culture or society.
So, you are now responding to YOUR OWN QUOTE and you feel you need to supply the FPM world w/the definition of ethnocentrism? What’s the point of you supplying a definition of ethnocentrism in the context of you falsely providing a quote you wrote?
I was obviously paraphrasing it in the original. If you’re familiar with the idea why did you freak out when I paraphrased it?
I mean it’s very obvious now that I’ve posted a definition exactly what I was talking about. Now explain your 3 or 4 days of rants with how many comments and various clumsy accusations before you even cited the sentence you now dispute?
You’re a lot sicker than I thought before.
Explain why you pretended that you hadn’t meant to imply that was my quote. Why would you eventually admit you’d written it and that you wrote the response to your own quote? Talk about being a schizo sicko… You’re really beginning to flail around wildly while using all sorts of irrational tactics like this one.
When it was finally clear what you were talking about I explained that I wrote that particular sentence originally. And this is not the first time I told you. Your first few accusations didn’t even point to that comment at all.
Why can’t you follow any of the conversations?
Listen, buster, it’s not about “following the conversations” w/you. You denied and DENIED and DENIED that you wrote that sentence. I had to produce the entire post of yours in which that sentence appeared multiple times in different replies before you caved in and acknowledged you wrote it. Before then, you had the GALL to claim that it was obvious it was not an AMERICANA QUOTE and WASN’T A QUOTE AT ALL and that when you first put it in a post you didn’t know if I’d written it or where you’d found it, that it was inserted into your post just as a regular sentence and didn’t have quote marks around it, etc. The fact is, you eventually ADMITTED THAT YOU WROTE IT. That means that ALL YOUR DENIALS WERE BS and/or LIES.
If you care to reprise the entire conversation again, I’m game. You’re a tactical idiot if you think someone like me is going to stand by and let you WRITE SENTENCES to foster the thought that Americana wrote them so that your RESPONSE TO YOUR VERY OWN SENTENCE is seen as something it is not viz the other poster w/whom you’re engaging.
“The fact is, you eventually ADMITTED THAT YOU WROTE IT. That means that ALL YOUR DENIALS WERE BS and/or LIES.”
Retard, you never asked clearly. If you were confused and wrote clearly, who wrote this sentence: _______ I would have given you the same explanation 3 days earlier. You stupid freak.
“You’re a tactical idiot if you think someone like me…”
It’s clear to everyone that you’re a freak. Nobody really cares what you do. It’s just a matter of cleaning up your cow pies when you’re exhausted and or pooping somewhere else.
Oh, I asked clearly. Now, your defense is that I “didn’t ask clearly?” Hahahaha, that’s your biggest lie of the week. In the meantime, you claimed that you didn’t remember where the quote came from. You also mentioned that you might have taken it from someone else’s post. But you also still tried to pretend that you’d found it in one of my posts which you knew was absolutely not the case because YOU FINALLY ADMITTED WRITING THE QUOTE. Every claim you make is nullified by the fact that you FINALLY — UNDER PRESSURE from me — admitted that you’d written the quote you were trying to have be attributed to me.
In fact, I demanded an explanation of you so many times in so many different ways and pointed out the discrepancies in your claims about YOUR OWN POST frequently enough that you finally had to admit that you actually MADE UP THE QUOTE to which YOU YOURSELF REPLIED as if you were addressing my thoughts!#$!!#@$#!@$#!@! “Freak” is absolutely the applicable word for a poster like yourself.
Americana a minute ago: “Oh, I asked clearly. Now, your defense is that I “didn’t ask clearly?” Hahahaha, that’s your biggest lie of the week.”
Really now…
https://disqus.Com/by/disqus_bxEc2cNWi0/
Warning: Graphic Images of Murdered Christian Girl in Libya
Americana objectivefactsmatter 3 days ago: “I mistakenly replied to a post of yours where you’d inserted two quotes, one of mine and one from someone else. Why didn’t you identify the author of the second quote?”
ReplyView Comment
Americana objectivefactsmatter 3 days ago: “I don’t have a problem w/that quote about objectivity and sexual behavior. What I do have a problem w/is the quote about evaluating cultures against one another. That is not my quote.”
ReplyView Comment
Americana objectivefactsmatter 3 days ago: “Who are you quoting? I’m questioning the quote that was about cultural artifacts.. That was not my quote.”
Let’s ask someone like hieronymous if he finds those posts of mine confusing.
In the above compilation of my posts, I asked why you DIDN’T IDENTIFY THE AUTHOR of the second quote. (“Why didn’t you identify the author of the second quote?”) I’d say that’s a pretty logical, direct question. You’ve got a problem w/that direct question, hmmm, pretty odd. In the second post of mine, I said the one quote about culture is NOT MY QUOTE. In the third post of mine, I am again demanding that you NAME THE AUTHOR (“Who are you quoting?”) How can that question be any more clear? I’ll suggest that it’s because you didn’t want to have to admit that you were salting the discussion so that you could WRITE EXACTLY THE RESPONSE you wanted and direct it at me.
Your claim is that I didn’t “ask clearly enough” yet here I am in THREE DIFFERENT POSTS clearly saying it’s not my post as well as ASKING YOU WHO IS THE AUTHOR. You are absolutely shameless if you’re going to pretend those posts aren’t asking you to name the author as well as stating I am not the author.
If I wanted to compensate for your own self-created chaos, I could have submitted to you and begged you for clarity. I’m not interested in that. You’ve got to learn your place or change your behavior. The number one mission for me is not making you happy.
Well, it would help if you “knew your place” as well. It’s not at the head of the table, regardless of how much you claim that position.
https://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/warning-graphic-images-of-murdered-christian-girl-in-libya/#comment-1799363431
Americana objectivefactsmatter 3 days ago
I mistakenly posted this reply into another post of yours. This is the post below where you chose to insert another person’s sentence and made it appear to be mine:
objectivefactsmatter 2 hours ago
(Americana) “The fact is religion seems to be one of the last signifiers of what someone’s sexual history will be based on the worst mass murderers and the worst sexual criminals we’ve had in the world.”
(objectivefactsmatter) Show me anyone that made any effort to analyze the Muslim role model (and his sex life), Mohamed, in some kind of objective way that was taken seriously by the neo-Marxist establishment. What happens is that these people are overlooked or excused in moral equivalence equations.
WHO ARE YOU QUOTING IN THIS SENTENCE BELOW? You’re attempting to portray this as being my thinking by inserting it as a response to me in which you DID include a quote of mine but it’s not a quote of mine.
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
————–
If you’re asking about the “ethnocentrism” paraphrase and or quote, why not reply immediately when you are confused and ask: “Who wrote this sentence: “We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.””
I’m not going to allow you to assign tasks to me because you can’t streamline what you write.
Listen, you freak monster. Here you are again claiming that I’m the one at fault. Sorry, I wasn’t confused about the QUOTE YOU WROTE. Cut your loaf of BS and be done w/it.
You sure confused me.
“I wasn’t confused about the QUOTE YOU WROTE.”
Ri-i-i-i-i-ight.
Hahahaha, keep making your BS claims on that score! You wouldn’t have denied the entire affair for so many days when you knew it didn’t reflect well on you and your scuzzbucket tactics. You’ve illustrated to the world at large that you’re willing to do ANYTHING in order to make yourself appear authoritative in each and every discussion. Whether what you’ve done is unethical or not doesn’t seem to bother you. AT ALL. Which is pretty shocking.
You’re still confused about the quote. What was I referring to and why? I mean I’ve even explained it to you several times after we identified it and you STILL can’t actually deal with the topic at hand, which was the effects of Political Correctness on police investigations of people from alien cultures (or worse, alien religions).
What was my point? The point is that we have to be careful, “we” >all< need to be careful about managing objectivity and POV. If you want to employ an ethnocentric POV, do it openly so that everyone can understand how you arrive at your conclusions.
I have to walk that line constantly. But we should all be aware of these issues.
I’m not “confused about the quote”. That’s your claim because you find your actions more defensible that way. Well, YOUR ACTIONS WERE NOT DEFENSIBLE and your continuing denials and obfuscation make your original actions and your subsequent actions increasingly LESS DEFENSIBLE. As for you suddenly throwing yet another label at me and claiming I’m seeing the events through an entirely ethnocentric lens, that’s hardly the case.
There are UNIVERSAL BEHAVIOURS throughout all human societies around the globe, regardless of religion and regardless of the tenets of the religion. Humanity invented religions for several reasons based on drives within the human psyche; but one major practical reason was so religion could be used to shape the individual and society. However, religions are only partially successful at shaping human behavior as is seen by crime stats from around the globe. In fact, even if certain sexual behavior is banned by a religion, the human drive to fulfill that sexual behavior causes the behavior to take on other forms or be hidden from view. The religion doesn’t EXTINGUISH THE SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR NOR DOES IT ENHANCE THE EXPRESSION of the sexual behavior.
As far as U.K. police not recognizing Muslim sexual predator behavior for what it is, I think there’s quite an easy explanation for the trajectory of those events. Family intervention is not the easiest police duty, and, in the case of the Muslim pimp gangs, there’s no way the police could have prevented the Muslim predators from contacting the girls because they don’t have enough manpower to cover all the likely venues used to seduce the girls. The tragedy though is that the police failed to believe a couple of girls’ stories about being sexually abused and brutalized by these Muslim men. Not only didn’t the police FOLLOW UP by investigating each of the pimps who were mentioned by those girls, but they didn’t take the OBVIOUS STEPS of warning the schools to not allow adult Muslim males within X-number of blocks of the schools, they didn’t hold educational meetings w/students warning them that they were being targeted by (Muslim) pimps, etc. Telling a mother or father that their daughters were dating Muslims who are KNOWN PIMPS would have been the most direct way to open up the conversation w/their daughters. It seems to have been a total failure of police work. Whether it’s a failure because of PCness or not is still in question on the basis of what I know.
You want to talk about political correctness and political investigations, make sure you do so without making your usual PREEMPTIVE STRIKE statements about “Americana’s position is this” BEFORE I’VE EVEN WRITTEN ANYTHING.
Oh Jeez.
The truth is that you are the number one problem in this conversation. You’re just an absurd bullcrap spewer. If people want to read Salon, they know where to find it. They don’t need you coming here aping Salon and The New Republic. Especially when you can’t even make any sense if you’re forced off script. You’re like a virus come to spread random leftist claims and then argue endlessly when you’re bullcrap is exposed.
You realize that “ethnocentrism” is “bad” according to neo-Marxist PC, don’t you?
So it’s really unclear at this point whether you agree or disagree – because you sure freaked out when I paraphrased it as if you didn’t want anyone to think you’re shy about being ethnocentric. Is that the case or not?
What’s your position on ethnocentrism?
“Here’s the same post — AGAIN — without the link to the believersbible link. iT HAD BETTER NOT BE MARKED AS SPAM”
Don’t you mean to say something like: “Here’s the same post — AGAIN — without the link to the believersbible link. iT HAD BETTER NOT BE MARKED AS SPAM!!!!!!!!!!!!”
“The fact is religion seems to be one of the last signifiers of what someone’s sexual history will be based on the worst mass murderers and the worst sexual criminals we’ve had in the world.”
Show me anyone that made any effort to analyze the Muslim role model (and his sex life), Mohamed, in some kind of objective way that was taken seriously by the neo-Marxist establishment. What happens is that these people are overlooked or excused in moral equivalence equations.
“We can’t judge other cultures according to the same values we use to judge our own.”
Do you want to guess how many times I’ve heard that assertion in academic and professional circles? So how then can you believe that when we are looking for criminals that we have massive quantities objective research to refer to in order to gauge just how deterministic some alien religion is in comparison to people native to Western Judeo Christian culture?
Americana LittleRedRidingHood a month ago
Not at all. I’m quite willing to say that there’s Muslim sexual slavery going on. I’m just not willing to confuse it w/paedophilia. Nor should you.
Americana LittleRedRidingHood a month ago
I’m “not talking my way around it” at all. You claim that is Muslim sexual slavery OR sex jihad. I forget which you eventually thought was more compelling and more “provable” but Muslim sexual slavery is a VERY SPECIFIC term and it requires that ONE MAN seize one woman, claims her for his own and takes her into his home for his own sexual pleasure or perversion or whatever you want to call it.
Americana LittleRedRidingHood a month ago
Oh, it’s not conjecture. There are lots of secular Muslims who are Muslim by birth only. They’re not interested in being a functioning devout Muslim and THEY ADMIT IT. I don’t have to “conjecture anything” if that’s what they’ve said. They no more want sharia than the rest of us. Just as it would be your opinion as to them being functionally “Muslims” or not. The fact you claim this is either Muslim sexual slavery or sex jihad when jihad is a moral imperative in Muslim warfare when these men are satisfying carnal desires makes your thesis laughably inaccurate. Where sexual slavery and sex jihad are applicable is when they’ve been declared and they’re being practiced as in Nigeria and Iraq et al.
“White girls are not veiled, so the attractive girls are readily identified.”
As infidels and chattel.
“They’re out and about and readily approached and you can tell instantly if your tactics are working and you’re going to be able to likely seduce the girls because you can see their facial expressions and body language. That’s not targeting someone because they’re Christian for the sake of screwing an infidel.”
Yes it is. Moron. Veiled women are perhaps easier to seduce, but never mind all of that. You’re so smart you think you know everything.
Veiled women are “easier to seduce?” Oh, yeah, please give me your rationale for that statement. Here’s your chance, prove you’re smarter than the rest of us…
It’s very easy. Veiled women feel they can conceal their identity and get away with focused flirtations that are only seen by the one they want to see it.
Sheesh, women are also not allowed out unaccompanied by male relatives in many Muslim societies so they’re hardly easy prey! But their eyes give them away w/those “focused flirtations” you claim are so successful. Not nearly as easy as white Anglo-Saxon British girls who love the exotic Arabs in many cases more than the native British lads. Of course, the knowledge that many Muslims aren’t interested in them except sexually may finally make it’s way through the social networks but, for now, sadly in many cases, the Muslim males have the upper hand.
Just shut up, retard. You’re the one that tried to use “rules” to show something can’t be a certain way and I’m showing you there are factors you don’t consider. You’re just a moronic nutshell game propagandist. You can’t use your arguments to “prove” something won’t happen any certain way. That’s not how it works.
Yes, obviously there are also factors you also “don’t consider” or that you don’t know about or which you know about but you’re not willing to acknowledge. You’re a “nutshell game jingoistic propagandist and you use your arguments to “PROVE” that something must be a certain way and/or HAVE A CERTAIN OUTCOME. Well, there are always different options and different solutions. Just because you see there being only one relationship between a string of occurrences and an outcome doesn’t mean someone else can’t craft a different solution that would be better out of the very same circumstances.
Moron,
I’m not the one trying to get people to stop looking at correlations between Islamic sharia and Muslim (especially criminal) behavior. You are. I didn’t deny any relevant factors. I denied that you offered any valid reason to stop looking at correlations.
If Christians had higher crime rates in certain areas it should be examined. There should be no exceptions in trying to understand such connections.
I’m not trying to dissuade people from seeing what effects a Muslim upbringing has on males any more than I’d have them refuse to analyze what effects a Christian upbringing has on males. That’s correct, there should be no exceptions in trying to understand such connections.
You say that when cornered. But you clearly take actions to steer people away from this analysis.
I don’t in the least steer people away from any facts. I just don’t expect supposedly aware and educated people to ignore ALL, and I mean ALL, of the facts about the matter of human sexuality, no matter how distasteful they might find them. I don’t find sexuality to be markedly different across all ethnicities. There may be some cultural preferences, but there are far more similarities than differences. Whatever the influence on human sexuality of Islam, I see that influence as changing over time as Islam changes.
Americana 10 minutes ago: “I don’t in the least steer people away from any facts.”
Maybe I should paste a comment you made earlier when someone justed that the US housing bubble is constantly caused by erratic government intervention policies. You’re first sentence was “No.” And then you “explained” how it’s just that people expect their real estate investments to go up.
Gee. Clever you.
Housing investments may go up in the short term, but my point is can they go up forever? A tiny bungalow in CA w/no land to speak of is now often $650,000 and up. If someone puts down 25% and gets a mortgage for the rest, they’re expecting — and the bankers are expecting — to come out the other end w/a house that has nearly doubled its worth. How long can we expect that our housing can double its intrinsic value in that manner and still have that housing be affordable for the vast majority of Americans?
Gee, clever you.
Americana 9 minutes ago: “Housing investments may go up in the short term, but my point is can they go up forever?”
That depends on what you mean. They would be more stable without government interventions. And if we must intervene it should be limited to something static that is reliable and doesn’t add dynamic instability they way that each new faction tries to blame the other guys before and then proceeds to make everything worse until it finally blows up every generation or so.
“A tiny bungalow in CA w/no land to speak of is now often $650,000 and up. If someone puts down 25% and gets a mortgage for the rest, they’re expecting — and the bankers are expecting — to come out the other end w/a house that has nearly doubled its worth.”
Why would they expect that? From history. Why did it happen before? Government interventions. It is the interventions that have an erratic and unsustainable effect on the market. Hence bubbles pop. It’s more like a wave of instability but if you lose a lot of money if feels more like a popped bubble I suppose.
“How long can we expect that our housing can double its intrinsic value in that manner and still have that housing be affordable for the vast majority of Americans?”
The point is that it’s the interventions that cause it and I’m against that. Stop intervening and creating bubbles in the first place and people won’t be deceived by artificial inflated pricing trends.
“Gee, clever you.”
Is that you eating your own words of a few minutes before? I didn’t think so. Just plow on like you never step in your own cow pies.
That is NOT why real estate has reached unrealistic states of valuation by region. The government has made ONLY ONE SIGNIFICANT program to assist w/spreading homeownership among all Americans. The only other instance where there was any kind of government assistance w/housing was after WW II. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/44333 But that was new housing and, in many cases, it was unencumbered by multiple generations of mortgages attached to it. Unfortunately, the government chose to support wider homeownership this time around right as the country came face to face w/the headwinds of a profound recession that suddenly economically cut many new and many not so new homeowners off at the knees. In the meantime, this continuous and relentless housing inflation reflects regional supply and demand and is an intrinsic feature of real estate because the vast majority of Americans are not in the position to purchase homes without mortgages and they expect to recoup the costs of their mortgage when they sell. Housing prices will eventually become unrealistic regardless because of the dependency of most Americans on mortgages.
Americana objectivefactsmatter • 2 days ago
“That is NOT why real estate has reached unrealistic states of valuation by region. The government has made ONLY ONE SIGNIFICANT program to assist w/spreading homeownership among all Americans. ”
You’re GDF moron.
http://www.nationalreview.Com/article/396698/could-financial-crisis-repeat-itself-michael-barone
http://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble
I just had to add this one sentence to my previous reply because it’s so funny that you’d write this… since you do this all the time.
(objectivefactsmatter) “You can’t use your arguments to “prove” something won’t happen any certain way. That’s not how it works.”
Anyone can offer explanations when they make sense, not just as simple implied moral equivalence patterns. I know you don’t see the difference. You’re like a monkey imitating people without really understanding what’s going on. There’s no rule about making a suggestion such as yours. It’s how you did it. As if now we understand that Islam has no effect on sexual predators. Hey, it’s just easier to target women without a veil. Maybe that’s something to consider, but it’s absolutely NOT a reason to look away from the numerous superior explanations.
I don’t present suggestions as rules or reasons to look away from more important suggestions and facts.
Like a monkey you won’t even understand the differences. You’re just an unthinking robot of the left and the “explanatory journalism” that impresses you so much because of its elegance and it never occurs to you how mendacious elegance can still be.
You’re a joke. There is something wrong with your brain that leads you to come in here with your bullcrap and poop all over the conversations as if you’re contributing to clearer understanding of the things we’re discussing. You blow it every single time.
There’s something utterly bizarre about a man claiming that a veiled woman can flirt w/the man of her dreams when she’s hardly allowed out of her house and/or allowed near very many men. You must be referring to all those Hollywood movies where the Muslim sirens in the harem draw the veil over their face and blink S-L-O-W-L-Y at the eunuchs… Yep, that’ll do the trick! The unthinking robot of the Right has spoken!
Americana 44 minutes ago: “There’s something utterly bizarre about a man claiming that a veiled woman can flirt w/the man of her dreams when she’s hardly allowed out of her house and/or allowed near very many men.”
You’re retarded. I’m comparing veiled versus unveiled as you did. Obviously if they’re not physically available there will be no flirtation. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Apparently ever.
Apparently, you believe you can make fatuous claims whenever you wish and they’ll be welcomed as factual by others on this web site. That may have been true for a long time, it’s no longer true. You will be challenged on whatever posts contain reasoning that demonstrate ignorance or lack of critical thinking.
And they got away with it for so long because of Political Correctness and people not understanding the differences between sharia and other kinds of religious beliefs.
Americana LittleRedRidingHood a month ago
Well, I disagree it’s targeted on race and religion in the sense you seem to mean rather than on EASE of PREDATION. White girls are not veiled, so the attractive girls are readily identified. They’re out and about and readily approached and you can tell instantly if your tactics are working and you’re going to be able to likely seduce the girls because you can see their facial expressions and body language. That’s not targeting someone because they’re Christian for the sake of screwing an infidel. That’s targeting a girl that you have a reasonable chance of seducing. As the Muslim male, you’ve got certain things on your side, possibly you’ve got an exotic appeal, you’ve got your willingness at least initially to lay out money for a few seduction sessions of eating out or movies, and then you’re in like flynn. I’d hardly call it what you’re calling it which is Muslim sexual slavery and rape jihad. Most of the guys who are doing this don’t come across as devout Muslims who’d do something like this on behalf of their faith vs doing it because it’s for their own pleasure or their own bank accounts. I think we’ve both had our say. I certainly don’t need to write more. But if more is posted along these lines then I most certainly will speak up again.
I think you need to look at rape and sexual crimes statistics (you’ll have to scroll down until you reach the Rape category (it will appear after Homicide and another crime).
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/International_Statistics_on_Crime_and_Justice.pdf
As for paedophiles being able to operate undetected or evading police for a long time, look at this guy. A white, Italian-American guy who sold foodstuffs managed to evade police arrest for decades. Even when he was caught, he managed to somehow convince them he wasn’t a paedophile because he said he wasn’t. Now that’s great policing for you!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/02/child-case-mysteries-discovery-matthew-coniglio
From the above link:
Matthew Coniglio’s Georgia home held a trove of child abuse material, more than 50,000 images and videos stored on laptops, external hard drives and thumb drives.
Among the stash, hidden in a bedside table turned around to conceal the doors, authorities made an even more horrifying discovery: 56 8mm cassette tapes they say show him raping and molesting girls.
All were unconscious, apparently drugged, FBI special agent William Kirkconnell, who viewed the tapes, told the Associated Press. Some were so incapacitated they were snoring. The camera was always turned off before they awoke.
Many of the victims’ faces cannot be clearly identified, so investigators don’t know how many different girls were attacked. But each tape recorded at least one assault – some had more – in homes and hotels. The youngest victim appears to be about 10 years old.
As for the alleged perpetrator, a 46-year-old traveling salesman who worked and lived in cities across Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, “he often looks back at the camera and even speaks”, Kirkconnell said. “There’s no doubt it’s Matthew Coniglio. None at all.”
The FBI shared exclusive details of the case with AP in the hope that victims will step forward and can be offered help and counseling. The AP also uncovered other exclusive details of Coniglio’s past and his previous encounters with the law.
Authorities’ best chance for resolving the raft of unanswered questions vanished on April 20. Ten days after his arrest, Coniglio wrote goodbye letters to his parents, tied a cord to a vent above a sink in his jail cell and hanged himself in an apparent suicide.
Questioned by authorities
Nearly a decade before his arrest, Coniglio sat in a South Carolina deputy sheriff’s office and was asked point-blank if he was a pedophile.
Ok last go.
How is a man operating alone any way near what i have spoken about? It’s admirable that you manage to dredge up all this information to try and prove a point, but it is not really achieving that.
The rapes in england and wales start trending upwards from 1996, funnily enough this coincides with the mass immigration of muslims after Labour won the 1997 election.
Which also tallies with a rise in the prison population of muslims that are disproportionate to the percentage of thw total population.
Dirty muslims unable to keep their d!cks in their pants.
Also you are linking from the guardian which is the most left wing, cultural marxist rag that protects our muslim friends.
Anyway, like I said I’m done.
Americana LittleRedRidingHood a month ago
I’m not “broadening the scope of this”, I’m merely pointing out that there is a VERY EXPLICIT DESCRIPTION of Muslim sexual slavery and this does not fit. It fits the description of paedophilia.
Americana LittleRedRidingHood a month ago
You produce sources that say unequivocally that many, many Muslim men are indulging in “Muslim sexual slavery” where they kidnap/seduce women (or even buy them) and keep them in their homes solely for their own use, I’ll certainly be intrigued to hear more about it. Until then, you, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and all the rest who are flogging this “Muslim sexual slavery” trope are simply not accurately representing the situation.
Americana LittleRedRidingHood a month ago
Muslim sexual slavery has one man acquiring one or more women for HIMSELF for his PERSONAL USE and they are maintained as part of his household retinue.
You really want Israel to use nuclear weapons? i don’t think that you do. More bullcrap from the idiotic communist.
I’m not idiotic and I’m definitely not a Communist. (Yet another failure of reasoning on your part, or just xenophobic pissiness?) As for Israel using her nuclear weapons, there’s a ton of advocacy for that very thing on this web site and Robert Spencer’s and Pamela Geller’s. They leave all those “Nuke Mecca” comments up and they also leave the BB names that indicate a willingness to nuke Mecca and Muslims.
Moron,
Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. The idea is to obliterate the main focal point of Islam which would (in theory) cause Muslims to question the power and existence of Allah.
As far as “nuking Muslims” what they’re really saying is that we should not be afraid to make total war against anyone who is engaged in “total war” against us. Nukes should not be off the table. Nobody has suggested that I know of that we should “nuke” Iran for example outside of the immediate goal of annihilating their own nuclear weapons programs. We should not take any options off the table. We should not operate according to UN consensus (largely filled by our rivals and enemies that want us diminished in power if not dead) the way they try to keep Israel from winning through political pressure.
Just convert to Islam and move to Saudi Arabia where the West doesn’t interfere with the “peaceful religion.” You’ll be so happy.
What makes you think I didn’t know Mecca was in Saudi Arabia? My eldest sister was just teaching there for a few years so I’d hardly not know. So, it’s fine to nuke Mecca if it would accomplish the “make Muslims doubt Allah” counter intelligence move that you envision as succeeding? And what if that’s not what the nuking of Mecca and other Muslim holy locations did but, instead, it unleashed a REAL world war between the Muslim world and the infidel one?
“So, it’s fine to nuke Mecca if it would accomplish the “make Muslims doubt Allah” counter intelligence move that you envision as succeeding?”
That’s not what I advocate. At least not as an opening move. Maybe if some big war flares up.
“And what if that’s not what the nuking of Mecca and other Muslim holy locations did but, instead, it unleashed a REAL world war between the Muslim world and the infidel one?”
It’s not my suggestion. But there is a certain logic to it. It’s very aggressive but it’s not as unhinged as yours. It would unleash a period that would last many generations where global trade would have to be sectioned, harsh travel restrictions and so forth. In the end it doesn’t make sense. But the point is to attack their ideology, not mindlessly spill blood.
Oh, so it’s great tactically, advocating the “nuking of Mecca is fine (as long as) it’s not the opening move”? And there you go, saying that the world could exist on reduced markets and w/fractured trade zones despite the fact that the industrialized world has been unable to do without Saudi sweet crude for umpteen decades.
The “certain logic you see to it”, is the logic that it would grant a reprieve to the issues facing Israel and the Muslims in the Middle East. However, it’s unlikely to do that, so it makes no sense to sell a worldwide military policy for the non-Muslim world that will cause more pain than gain in the long run.
Dumbass,
It’s not my advice to do that.
Oh, I’m sorry but I beg to differ about your disavowal of what you wrote. You suggested that it would be tactically acceptable to nuke Mecca if “a big war flares up” or if it’s “not an opening move”. Now, it’s unclear how you think nuking Mecca would serve any sort of tactical purpose but I’d love to hear you explain your sentences below.
objectivefactsmatter 16 hours ago
(Americana) “So, it’s fine to nuke Mecca if it would accomplish the “make Muslims doubt Allah” counter intelligence move that you envision as succeeding?”
(ojbejctivefactsmatter) That’s not what I advocate. At least not as an OPENING MOVE. Maybe if some big war flares up.
“Oh, I’m sorry but I beg to differ about your disavowal of what you wrote. You suggested that it would be tactically acceptable to nuke Mecca if “a big war flares up” or if it’s “not an opening move”.”
I said that I see the logic. In theory there might be a point where it made sense. You’re just too stupid to understand context. You can’t follow anything. Basically it means that you never take any options off the table. Moron.
Oh, no, I understand context all right. I understand that you’re too gutless to describe the “context” under which you’d nuke Mecca because it might just reveal how little you’ve thought the concept through as an element in a military campaign against the entire Muslim world. Never mind what you’d do to deal w/the resultant firestorm from the Muslim world. So, please, consider this an invite to really expatiate on what you see as this feasible crusade against the Muslim world. We’re all dying to hear you lay it all out.
Someone that suffers as badly as you at drawing useful lessons from history is not going to understand discussions about various scenarios that might come up in the future.
You’re a waste of time. You are a nuisance. Talking to you is just damage control.
That’s similar to what hieronymous does when talking to you and he reminds you about genuine historical context.
OK idiot. I can barely keep my eyes open reading your nonsense. It’s hardly worth the time.
Oy vey, but you do get tiresome.
That’s how virtually everyone feels about you. You should check yourself in for professional help as I suggested several times. Then lots of problems will likely get better for you and others.
Oy vey, professional help is sorely needed in the objectivefactsmatter department.
When you have nothing else to say just go with grade school debate tactics.
Just following your lead, Monsieur Retard Moron Idiot Fool.
As noted many times you are quite delusional. Hence the referral.
Hahahahahahaha, look, LOOK at who’s talking about grade school tactics!@!$! I’m hooting myself silly over your absurd claim that I’m the source of the lowest blows. You clean up your own posts and I’ll then clean up mine. Until then, you’re the dumbkopf who started the pissing contest of rudeness but I’m tired enough of your rudeness, I’ve finally decided to join in on the fun.
“You clean up your own posts and I’ll then clean up mine. Until then, you’re the dumbkopf who started the pissing contest of rudeness but I’m tired enough of your rudeness, I’ve finally decided to join in on the fun.”
False equivalence. You’re a moron. I’m not.
You and your “false equivalence” malarkey… You’re possibly not a moron, possibly you’re merely malicious and stupid. As for me being a moron, MENSA would disagree w/your assessment but, stick to your guns, maybe MENSA will rescind my membership on your recommendation.
MENSA is not an acronym, dimwit liar.
https://www.mensa.org
It isn’t? Could have fooled me. That’s how they send out invites to functions and all sorts of things…
Any member knows that it’s not. For crying out loud.
Really… Why is it you give no signs whatsoever that you’re a member in good standing?
You’re blind. And stupid.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
Oh, no, I understand context all right. I understand that you’re too gutless to describe the “context” under which you’d nuke Mecca because it might just reveal how little you’ve thought the concept through as an element in a military campaign against the entire Muslim world. Never mind what you’d do to deal w/the resultant firestorm from the Muslim world. So, please, consider this an invite to really expatiate on what you see as this feasible crusade against the Muslim world. We’re all dying to hear you lay it all out.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
Oh, I’m sorry but I beg to differ about your disavowal of what you wrote. You suggested that it would be tactically acceptable to nuke Mecca if “a big war flares up” or if it’s “not an opening move”. Now, it’s unclear how you think nuking Mecca would serve any sort of tactical purpose but I’d love to hear you explain your sentences below.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
Oh, so it’s great tactically, advocating the “nuking of Mecca is fine (as long as) it’s not the opening move”? And there you go, saying that the world could exist on reduced markets and w/fractured trade zones despite the fact that the industrialized world has been unable to do without Saudi sweet crude for umpteen decades.
The “certain logic you see to it”, is the logic that it would grant a reprieve to the issues facing Israel and the Muslims in the Middle East. However, it’s unlikely to do that, so it makes no sense to sell a worldwide military policy for the non-Muslim world that will cause more pain than gain in the long run.
Your sister was not in Mecca.
I never wrote my sister was in Mecca. You silly, self-important man who’s trying to illustrate I don’t know that Mecca is forbidden to non-Muslims. Yes, she laughed at the signs on the freeway that make us infidels turn off before reaching Mecca.
Americana an hour ago: “I’m not idiotic and I’m definitely not a Communist.”
You clearly are an idiotic communist.
https://www.marxists.Org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
———–
Calls for “social justice” meted out by politicians rather than the courts are rooted in communism and incremental attacks on property rights. You believe that there is some “right” to healthcare provisioning. And you attack the same things that communists have been attacking for over a century. In America.
You’re a communist. If you’re an idiot you might not know that you’re an idiotic communist. That’s just how it works. I’m sorry. Don’t get angry at the messenger just because you don’t like the fact-based message.
You’re always going to attack opponents as being Communists or Marxists if you don’t understand their POV. As for me attacking the “same things communists have been attacking in America”, you’re writing as if America has not improved herself over time by initiatives being taken by the consensus of the population, well, that’s on you if you don’t see that.
Americana an hour ago: “You’re always going to attack opponents as being Communists or Marxists if you don’t understand their POV.”
I’ve proved that I understand your POV better than you do.
“As for me attacking the “same things communists have been attacking in America”, you’re writing as if America has not improved herself over time by initiatives being taken by the consensus of the population, well, that’s on you if you don’t see that.”
That’s not relevant to the questions of where these ideas come from. In theory we could elect to socialize everything. That would be provably stupid. We have a lot of stupid people with voting rights. That’s why I’m here. I want to expose people like you and exhort everyone to think through what they demand from government.
Basically everything that you say is stupid. I never once claimed that Congress needs to keep our laws up to date and that some times the government urgently needs to work on developing some things. The minute people like Gruber and the legions like him start with their games, I cry foul. You’re one of the stupid people he was talking about. OTOH he likely thinks people are also stupid for not believing in the magic of the central plan imposed by the government.
Oh, like you understand anyone’s POV… The day you understand hieronymous is the day I’ll recognize that you’ve got a functioning brain and you’re using it.
I understand him pretty well. He’s a centrist with a natural bias that is not fully conscious. He has a lot of empathy for “the other” because he was a bit surprised by his own experiences. He just gets a little ahead of himself when he reads criticism that he assumes is driven by the same impulsive thoughts he had before he was “awakened” and like most people he underestimates just how much more there is to discover about life, human behavior, the roots of conflict between people of competing worldviews and so forth.
Just because we argue over things does not mean I don’t understand his worldview. And comparing yourself to him is not any way to flatter him.
It’s actually pretty low of you to try to drag him in to your controversies just because he shows empathy to you. He ~understands your feelings. It doesn’t mean he supports everything that you say.
You need professional help. Not imagined online comrades that you think support all of your inane rants.
Who ever claimed that hieronymous would support everything I write? I’ve written numerous times that he might not agree w/this or that bit of my thinking. I’ve even said that if he didn’t feel he wanted to reveal his present understanding about an international situation on which I’d requested his input that he shouldn’t feel obliged to write anything.
As for you claiming to understand him, I think I’d best leave that to him to rebut (if he even notices this comment of yours). I will say that if you think he’s got a “natural bias that is not fully conscious,” then you don’t really understand just how fully conscious hieronymous is. In fact, I’ll go ahead and state that’s likely the stupidest thing you’ve ever written about him.
The day someone like yourself is in any way qualified to tell me to seek professional help is the day I’ll need professional help.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
Oh, like you understand anyone’s POV… The day you understand hieronymous is the day I’ll recognize that you’ve got a functioning brain and you’re using it.
The one redeeming quality about your bullcrap is that at least I can laugh at you.
Oh, you’re fodder for a laugh riot yourself…
You’re so cooked in your own au just of craptastic commentary about who I am and what I believe in. I’m sorry you’ve put yourself on display as such a conservative nut case. But it’s what you are and you can’t help yourself. We all understand that. Take care of yourself and take your B vitamins, they’ll help w/your emotional stress level if the mood elevating drugs from your doctors don’t keep you on an even keel.
I’m not even truly conservative. Idiot. I just help explain the roots of the conflicts and I think that communist like you are infinitely more dangerous than people that expect communists and their victims to grow up and accept responsibility for their own fate, “progress” and productivity. I’m a rational progressive that sees the dangers of a bloated government that is taking on a life of its own. I know where true progress comes from.
Why would I “wish to throw over the bourgeoisie” when I’m a member of the bourgeoisie?
As a communist you want to throw over those that resist your agenda. Period.
Sorry, no. I’m in favor of certain things because I feel they’d help me hold onto my own bourgeoisie status and the bourgeoisie as a class. There’s no point in having only a few nobles and lots of serfs.
Americana 3 minutes ago: “Sorry, no. I’m in favor of certain things because I feel they’d help me hold onto my own bourgeoisie status and the bourgeoisie as a class. There’s no point in having only a few nobles and lots of serfs.”
See, more Marxist bullcrap. Most “social classes” are just tools for analysis. They’re dynamic and often flawed ways of looking at society. The fact that you think your advocacy helps you stay in your “class” means that indeed you are a communist and a very selfish one at that. You’ve just indicted yourself because you don’t even understand the accusations.
Social mobility comes from work. Equality before the law is part of what we do to ensure that America is a meritocracy so that people have social mobility and fair access to justice, political participation and so forth. Marxist interventions that supposedly “do something” about “class problems” actually impede social mobility, which creates apparently rigidity in some kind of class structure (according to whatever mendacious analysis they can suggest on any given day), and then they use these worsening statistics as proof of the need for more interventions when they’re the ones that F’ed up equality before the law and social mobility, which as I explained, F’s up the meritocracy and all of our American values. You are an anti-American.
You’re all a bunch of idiots. Seriously.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
Sorry, no. I’m in favor of certain things because I feel they’d help me hold onto my own bourgeoisie status and the bourgeoisie as a class. There’s no point in having only a few nobles and lots of serfs.
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
Why would I “wish to throw over the bourgeoisie” when I’m a member of the bourgeoisie?
Americana objectivefactsmatter a month ago
I’m not idiotic and I’m definitely not a Communist. (Yet another failure of reasoning on your part, or just xenophobic pissiness?) As for Israel using her nuclear weapons, there’s a ton of advocacy for that very thing on this web site and Robert Spencer’s and Pamela Geller’s. They leave all those “Nuke Mecca” comments up and they also leave the BB names that indicate a willingness to nuke Mecca and Muslims.
“No, that’s right. The Israelis and the Jews are only responsible for the proliferation and further flowering of the Palestinian jihad. They broke it, they should fix it.”
What idiocy. It’s Muslims who are endlessly slaughtering Jews in obedience to their religious texts, not the other way around
You’re a little skewed in your perspective. If the NEWLY ARRIVED Zionists of the 1900s onward who’d taken up residence in Palestine hadn’t decided to seize Palestinian land by military means or by international political machinations, the Palestinians would never have begun their jihad against the nascent Israelis.
Of course the uber troll chose the name Americana & likes the connotation with patriotism. It is its’ way of twisting the knife and engaging in disinformation at the while getting its’ ya yas off.
This troll haunts conservative sites protesting that it is a conservative or such while supporting groups like “Beyond Marriage”
This explains why you won’t have an occasional disagreement with this poster. you won’t agree 70% of the time & disagree 30% of the time. You will disagree 90% of the time of more with the troll. All the while the troll will whisper, I am just like you. It may even claim to have voted Republican once in a blue moon and like Chevy, Mom, & apple pie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americana
Americana refers to artifacts, or a collection of artifacts, related to the history, geography, folklore and cultural heritage of the United States. Many kinds of material fall within the definition of Americana: paintings, prints and drawings; license plates or entire vehicles, household objects, tools and weapons; flags, plaques and statues, and so on. Patriotism and nostalgia play defining roles in the subject. The things involved need not be old, but need to have the appropriate associations.
‘civilians of other faiths and other sects are at risk”
“We’ve got to find ways of moving civilians to safety before they are engulfed and murdered”
The troll, Americana, comes out for MASS MUSLIM IMMIGRATION.
Americana SoCalMike 2 months ago
The Leftists nor any other political party anywhere in the Western world have “the squeamish impulse to aid and abet these animals”. The reality is there is an inherent difficulty in ridding the world of this kind of jihadist violence and, sadly, it is simply a fact of life that in regions where these jihadis are active, civilians of other faiths and other sects are at risk. We’ve got to find ways of moving civilians to safety before they are engulfed and murdered.
Of course the uber troll chose the name Americana & likes the connotation with patriotism. It is its’ way of twisting the knife and engaging in disinformation at the while getting its’ ya yas off.
This troll, Americana, haunts conservative sites protesting that it is a conservative or such while supporting groups like “Beyond Marriage”
This explains why you won’t have an occasional disagreement with this poster. you won’t agree 70% of the time & disagree 30% of the time. You will disagree 90% of the time of more with the troll. All the while the troll will whisper, I am just like you. It may even claim to have voted Republican once in a blue moon and like Chevy, Mom, & apple pie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americana
Americana refers to artifacts, or a collection of artifacts, related to the history, geography, folklore and cultural heritage of the United States. Many kinds of material fall within the definition of Americana: paintings, prints and drawings; license plates or entire vehicles, household objects, tools and weapons; flags, plaques and statues, and so on. Patriotism and nostalgia play defining roles in the subject. The things involved need not be old, but need to have the appropriate associations.
You’re hysterical, Pete. In fact, in your honor, I’ll forge a new term for someone like you — you’re hucksterical. You combine HYSTERIA w/HUCKSTERISM in hopes of increasing the validity of your own perspective. But, the simple fact is, if your perspective was sufficiently compelling and factual enough, you wouldn’t have to RESORT TO SLAMMING other posters. Your own convictions and perspective would be enough of a sales pitch. So, forge on in your hucksteria and we’ll see what happens as time goes on.
As a true conservative I support “Beyond Marriage”
– Americana
Couplet as sung, promoted & advocated by avowed Roman Catholic American
3-some or 4-some,
It is all very wholesome!
Beyond Marriage: Inside The Future Of LGBT Advocacy
More HUCKSTERIA from the man himself.
Oh, and just in case it wasn’t clear from Pete’s PREPOSTEROUS POST, no, I didn’t write “As a true conservative I support “Beyond Marriage”. That’s Pete, that’s all preposterous Pete at his hucksterircal best.
You have said that you are like the rest of the readers & posters at FPM, a conservative, several months ago.
No, I did not. I said I don’t consider myself anything — other than perhaps an independent — and that I willingly entertain anyone who’s got sensible thinking backed up by reasonable, feasible planning whether they’re liberal or conservative. I said I’ve **VOTED FOR BOTH MAJOR PARTIES** depending on the candidate.
That is something entirely different from what you’re claiming I wrote. Go ahead, misrepresent me again, you hucksteric.
I remember the posts (conversation). You said you were like the majority of the readers/posters.
It will take a while to dig through your tedious shat.
Further I could use the same words
“I’ve **VOTED FOR BOTH MAJOR PARTIES** depending on the candidate.”
and it would be the literal truth. But rather than elucidate it would serve to obscure.
Wait…the communist that uses the username “Americana” claimed to be conservative? WTF?
Not directly but a person can infer that. When you say we’re mostly conservatives here, why you here and they protest they are one of us, you can reach that conclusion.
Now it is not strict Boolean logic, If P then Q, but the logic is there. All logic is not Boolean. When we were growing up it was, but we now have computer scientists & mathematicians have been studying things like fuzzy logic. Even before that we had Bayesian statistics. Actually these fields of study are a threat to liberalism.
Here is where American says she likes Beyond Marriage.
I would have to go through 2 or 3 thousands trollish posts to find where she said she was like us.
I’ve never seen anyone quite like her. I’m not joking when I say she needs medical intervention. But because she’s ranting about leftist causes, she’ll just be seen in the same light as all of those loons lying around railroad stations reading their smartphones while pretending to invoke the memory of dead “black victims of the system.” People like her are seen as frustrated revolutionaries and given a pass. Now if she was ranting about how the government is growing too powerful with even 1% of this level of lunacy, they’d institutionalize her and say she’s paranoid and delusional.
Paranoia about “white supremacy” and “(private) corporate fascism” and all of that? Healthy. Paranoia about the government growing too big? Institutionalize the poor delusional fool.
Hahahahahaha. What a mouthful!!!! Here’s Hucksteric #2 in full-blown rant mode.
“Here is where American says she likes Beyond Marriage.”
She seems to me to intuitively strive to play “devil’s advocate” and then screams when you point out that she’s representing the devil. Evidently she has an irrational process of deciding where anything lies on any kind of objective moral scale. So she’s driven by…emotions? No way!
“She seems to me to intuitively strive to play “devil’s advocate” and then screams when you point out that she’s representing the devil”
Well said
Yes, hucksterics find support in numbers. How interesting that objectivefactsmatter pretends to believe that’s ACTUALLY A QUOTE OF MINE in Pete’s post rather than a Petefied quote that Pete has typed up and attributed to me. A very similar turn of events to when objective facts matter crafted a quote himself, attempted to pass it off as being attributable to me and then responded to it as if he were responding directly to me. Hmmmm, is there a pattern of partnership here? Evil see, evil do? In other words, we’ve got two evil doers in the house. Haha.
Americana Pete 21 days ago
“Yes, hucksterics find support in numbers. How interesting that objectivefactsmatter pretends to believe that’s ACTUALLY A QUOTE OF MINE in Pete’s post rather than a Petefied quote that Pete has typed up and attributed to me. A very similar turn of events to when objective facts matter crafted a quote himself, attempted to pass it off as being attributable to me and then responded to it as if he were responding directly to me. Hmmmm, is there a pattern of partnership here? Evil see, evil do? In other words, we’ve got two evil doers in the house. Haha.”
Well, you did pretend that Pete had selected a quote of mine rather than followed your lead and invented a quote and then attributed it to me… Pretty strange workings between the two of you!
For 1 day I posted anonymously under the tag “Americana”. I mimicked leftists talking points so well that I had tons of replies. After I told them it was me, people were splitting their sides laughing.
When I do quote you most often I hyperlink the quote so people can see it in the context of the thread.
You doth protest too much. Like a stuck pig actually.
Very Un-Islamic of you to squeal like a pig, but somehow i think you secretly like it,
Oh, brilliant, you mimicked Leftist talking points… Such street smarts!!! What a hoot you are! As for squealing like a stuck pig, you do a similar grunt and squeal. So, you think you’ve identified the pig in the crowd, but there are a lot more pigs in the crowd than you care to address. Most of them squeal when you OBJECT to what they have to say and HOW they say it.
Too cold for you to do honest farm work so you stay inside and troll?
Oh, I’ve done quite a bit of honest farm work already today. It starts at 5 a.m. and ends w/night hay at midnight.
Doubt it. Too cold for you.
Oh, no, Pete is trying to figure out where I live…
Sorry, but Hierno already narrowed it down.
Plus you did yourself some time back
Americana a.k.a Taqiyya Pet
True conservative or Faux Conservative?
Americana supports “Beyond Marriage”
Beyond Marriage, a widely supported 2006 “strategic vision” statement by leaders of the LGBT movement, academics, journalists and leaders of the religious left, sets the goal of establishing legally recognized polyamorous “families” founded on relationships which include, “households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” and “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households”.
Yet MORE HUCKSTERIA from the man himself.
So of someone is illegal and they make it to Americana You pay & America is good with this.
Access for all, citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance
Wherever did I write that I agree w/illegal immigration? You’re simply in hucksteria mode and you’re also anxious to bury certain posts of mine to redirect the discussion away from the content of those posts.
I said you are good with Beyond Marriage.
Beyond Marriage is good with illegals receiving benefits.
why is this crap that belongs in jr high on Raymond Ibrahim’s site. Take it to Facebook or the toilet.
They should get a room…
Americana constantly tries to take people like Raymond Ibrahim or Daniel Greenfield to task. In other words they have a bad agenda. I am just letting people know.
The media are no friends to Muslim violence. There have been numerous journalists who’ve gone into harm’s way in order to provide information to people such as yourself. Are you going to simply forget those journalists who’ve been beheaded over the past several years starting w/Daniel Pearl right through to those still held captive and awaiting their fate? No one is aiding and abetting these animals, not those on the Left, not those on the Right and nobody in the middle.
Nobody???? The msm refuse to report honestly, especially when it is muslims performing violent acts on our streets.
There is PLENTY OF ACCURATE REPORTING OF MUSLIM VIOLENCE. The fact newspapers and magazines don’t use the identical alarmist phrasing that you do doesn’t mean there’s no accurate reporting of such events. t don’t have any problem assigning an appropriate range of Muslim terminology to such violence as the Boston bombing in Massachusetts or the brutal slaying of Corporal Lee Rigby in the U.K. I also don’t have any problem waiting for the underlying determination of WHY and WHAT a violent Muslim has done before making up my mind as to causation. I don’t need to know right off the bat within the first 10 minutes of a violent event to know if it’s a jihad action or simply some mentally ill Muslim. I do need to know if the authorities consider there to be a CONTINUING RISK of similar jihad actions related to the event, that there are other people connected to the perpetrators they’ve already taken into custody, etc.
The fact there must be clarity when assigning those terms is because accurate assessments of the threat posed by the person(s) committing the violent actions is necessary. There should be distinctions made between saying someone is committing a jihad action in total mental control of his faculties and someone who’s mentally ill who commits a jihad killing. Sure, the mentally ill person might say he/she is “committing jihad” but, in reality, anyone who’s homicidal and is mentally ill likely would STILL COMMIT the murder even if jihad wasn’t used as the excuse. Also, someone who is mentally ill does not pose the identical danger as someone who has a specific series of planned actions in mind and may have many other co-conspirators involved in his plot.
Mentally ill muslims. That seems to be the party line now doesn’t it. How many mentally ill christians or hindus are drving cars into crowds, or going on a gun rampage screaming god is great….. Very few…. If any. You stiry dies not stand up I’m afraid. I know what i need to fight and i’ll know when i will need to fight. The point is the media is afraid to say they are muslim through fear of the muslim apologists branding them racist.
Well, you’re right, it’s probably true that the vast majority of jihadis are probably BASICALLY SANE SICKOS who simply get off on decapitating their enemies and desecrating corpses because they’re twisted and Islam gives them the cover of religious legitimacy. You won’t get any argument from me that probably the majority of jihadis are disgustingly primitive in their belief in decapitation as being legitimate because it’s sharia law but, seen as a method of execution, is it any worse than any number of other legal methods of killing we’ve used for capital punishment in Western culture? The chemical cocktail, the electric chair, hanging, the guillotine, the sword? Let’s face it, the fact Western culture has moved up from one method of legalized killing to another on the basis that it’s more humane is a pretext that’s meant to assuage our feelings about our societal ethics as regards capital punishment. But declaring all Muslims guilty of these kinds of outrages simply doesn’t hold up to the actual demographics of Muslims around the world.
Look. You cannot deny that there is a blood lust within islam that can turn a normal sane human being into a raging madman. Winston Churchill captured the essence of muslims perfectly and what he said 100 years ago still applies today.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
Except we are not sheltered any longer.
Well, great a statesman and thinker as Winston Churchill was, he was not always right. He was guilty of quite a bit of racism that was imbibed by all higher-ranking militarist Brits in the waning days of the British Empire as they tried to hold onto their fragmenting empire. Churchill felt remarkably similar about the Boers in South Africa. This remark was made about the Mahdi’s horde as it slaughtered British army units and Lord ???? at Khartoum. It shouldn’t be seen as representing his opinion of each and every Muslim. This was a remark that was directed at the British fight against the Mahdi Army and though it has insights to what we face in the jihadis, it’s not a 100% universal truth that holds for all Muslims. How would he explain someone like Alaweed bin Talal or some of the other potent Arab/Indian Muslim businessmen, quite a few of whom are the highest-ranking billionaires of today who seem to have the Midas touch for the 21st century?
Here’s another Churchill comment about the Boers and the Boer War in South Africa. Note the similarities in terms of his ethnic analysis:
http://www.boer-war.com/Personalities/British/ChurchillWinston.html
Of the Boers, Churchill was to comment, “the individual Boer, mounted, in a suitable country, is worth four or five regular soldiers. The only way of treating them is to either get men equal in character and intelligence as riflemen, or failing that, huge masses of troops…., there is plenty of work here for a quarter of a million men and South Africa is well worth the cost in blood and money. Are the gentlemen of England all out fox hunting? For the sake of our manhood, our devoted colonists and our dead soldiers, we must persevere with the war”.
People really ought to read about the Mahdi and his nationalist aims if they’re hoping to gain a fuller understanding of Churchill’s remarks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mahdist_Sudan
Muhammad Ahmad[edit]
A 20 qurush coin minted during the reign of Abdallahi ibn Muhammad.
Muhammad Ahmad al-Mahdi
In this troubled atmosphere, Muhammad Ahmad ibn as Sayyid Abd Allah, a fakir, or holy man, who combined personal magnetism with religious zealotry, emerged, determined to expel the Turks and restore Islam to its primitive purity. The son of a Dongola boatbuilder, Muhammad Ahmad had become the disciple of Muhammad ash Sharif, the head of the Sammaniyah order. Later, as asheikh of the order, Muhammad Ahmad spent several years in seclusion and gained a reputation as a mystic and teacher. In 1880, he became a Sammaniyah.
Even after the Mahdi proclaimed a jihad, or holy war, against the Turkiyah, Khartoum dismissed him as a religious fanatic. The government paid more attention when his religious zeal turned to denunciation of tax collectors. To avoid arrest, the Mahdi and a party of his followers, the Ansar, made a long march to Kurdufan, where he gained a large number of recruits, especially from theBaggara. From a refuge in the area, he wrote appeals to the sheikhs of the religious orders and won active support or assurances of neutrality from all except the pro-Egyptian Khatmiyyah. Merchants and Arab tribes that had depended on the slave trade responded as well, along with the HadendoaBeja, who were rallied to the Mahdi by an Ansar captain, Osman Digna.
I can provide numerouse quotes on islam throughout history. Whether 5 yrs, 50yrs 500yrs or 1000 yrs ago the observations are the same. A doctrine incompatible with civilised society.
It doesn’t matter whose opinions you supply. The fact is, you are equating human development and sociological development around the world w/what a particular segment of humanity is capable of doing when only a certain percentage of that group will ever demonstrate the point of your “thesis”.
The worst crimes against humanity mankind has ever experienced have been known to be committed by criminals who have been adherents of ALL FAITHS as well as by those without FAITH. It’s pretty hard to explain the deaths at the hands of the Nazis and the Communists as demonstrating anything other than that humanity is capable of enormous evil and that we must always be on our guard against assigning credibility to the purity of one ‘race’ pitted against that of another.
I agree. And the current evil seems to revolve around islam.
Americana supports “Beyond Marriage”
So of someone is illegal and they make it to Americana You pay & America is good with this.
Access for all, citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance
Beyond Marriage, a widely supported 2006 “strategic vision” statement by leaders of the LGBT movement, academics, journalists and leaders of the religious left, sets the goal of establishing legally recognized polyamorous “families” founded on relationships which include, “households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” and “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households”.
True conservative or Faux Conservative?
Same with Mark Zuckerberg and Fakebook, a shameless supporter and shill for Jew murdering terrorists. Zuckerberg has declared war on free speech by turning Fakebook into his own personal Thought Police. And offered to act as chief thug to Angela Merkel in Germany for those daring to criticize Muslim rape-ugees.
Zuckerberg is a social predator just like any other social predator; rapists and child molesters. Unfortunately most people can’t be bothered to drag themselves away from their Fakebook games or smartphones to study the issues. They’re too lazy and too stupid to actually do any fact checking on their own when they swallow the kool-aid from Zuckerberg and the mainstream media.
Can anyone imagine that the pieces of pigshit that killed this girl, her parents and probably raping her sisters actually posed them and talked nice to them to get the photos of them smiling; then did what they did? Who could do that? That should make it a lot easier for people to understand how to deal with Islamists. There are true followers of Islam and the lazy, slack, secular, bad Muslims that we call ‘moderates.’ If the true Islamists continue to grow in number, eventually all will be true Muslims, because no one has the guts to stand up against the rising red tide.
It is so sad to see young life gone. Gone not by mistake or illness, but of such useless islamic barbarity. Such a waste of precious life. It’s so sad when ideology causes humans to kill other humans, particularly children. I’m really saddened and disturbed.
The futile attempts to insert Muslim “refugees” into American society is no longer acceptable. It’s too big a prize, that they neither deserve nor appreciate. We need to find some other place stick them.
Maybe in camps with Sunni and Shia mixed together, and unlimited firearms and ammunition.
Unless Western Nations ban together and send enough troops to eradicate these animals Western Civilization will be doomed.
Will Western Nation decide it is time to assemble armies to defend civilization?
American will be judged.. God going to judged us.. for not helping his precious children.. and other country is going to be judge as well.. There going to kill again in Paris .. and this time it going to be a real mass murder .. This is not about free speech .. this is the Devil and what his disciple believe in.. They think that they are doing God will.. This is real to these men and women.. just I believe in Jesus christ.. He is so very real to me.. God have mercy when his judgement come.. to those that did not reach out to help the persecuted church.. American been sleep for a very long time.. well keep having these church house party.. it going to come and it may be your church..
As for you all that sit and argue .. it is also sad.. Are you sowing your time or money to help the people .. that has the courage to go over to pakistan and other places.. where christian are getting kill and raped.. are you praying for this nation to wake up.. kick this Government out that is my prayer.. everyday.. I pray that God will show me now to be a light in a dark world.. I give to rescue christian .com .. stop with the bullshit.. and get real.. before isis comes to your city..
Such a classless trend these half-naked selfies and mag. covers. http://markby.me/yOXm1z3X
All of you neo freakazoids can chew the rubber bands off of a side issue while the Islamonazis build in strength. Arm the Christians overseas and they will take care of the problems as they are presented. This would cost less than 8 years of Presidential perks for the Obummers.
The LA Times and their whitewash of “Mein Kampf” landing on the Best Sellers List is typical Leftist cant. The MSM did it for the Nazis in the 30’s and they’re doing it now for these Jihadists. Nothing has changed in Europe: scratch any Muslim there and you don’t have to go deep to find anti-Semitism. And it’s quickly changing in the USA. How Jews continue to vote for the DC Leftist cadre when just under the skin they are animalistic as any Nazi bewilders me. American Leftists are more militant than ever.
War is coming.
http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-why-is-hitlers-mein-kampf-an-e-book-bestseller-20140109-story.html#ixzz2qClxeHCT
One of the most important contributions of the secular/progressive movement of the past half century has been the removal of “shame” from the body politic and everything else.. They should be proud. They “feel good” about themselves.
Well, I’m an old fashioned person, and I never thought I’d see a day when the President of the United States of America could be in the 7th year of his Presidency, nearly fifteen years after 9/11, still never having uttered the words “radical Islam” or “Islamic terrorism”. It never occurred to me that we would watch videos of beheadings, kidnappings, mutilations, sieges and/or enslavement of thousands because they’re Christian…. in plain sight…. all in the name of Allah…. and our President would muse that the Islamic “call to prayer” is one of the most beautiful sounds to his ears.
Never again!!!! All nations of the world agreed…. Never again! …. except when it’s more convenient to turn ones head and walk to the other side of the road.
mariana
Christian armies, march on these animals in the name of Jesus. Take back the holy land.
The horror of Islam. This is all BS to the max. China, Russia, America, any of them could destroy ISIS and Islam. Someone is backing them, another enemy.
Western countries must wake up from their deep slumber and start blanket bombing the Muslim world back to the Stone Age.
Muslims only understand language of death and destruction, they slaughter innocent Christians in the name of Islam we must return the favor and wipe out Muslim countries totally of the map.
The time has come either we take them out or they will destroy us.
Call them The Left, Progressives, when in fact they are Communists.
They are very mentally ill. And you say what is Mental Illness. Those who cannot except and get along in most situations.
We used to have mental institutions in this country, but they shut them all down. Now they have drug down many others into their mental illness,
This country in this mental illness….
And those mentally ill people are the ones who helped to coordinate the election or Obama, who is also a Misfit and Mentally Ill.
Who else could revile in so much Mass Murder and destruction….Only the Mentally Ill.
Impeach Obama on the Grounds of Mental Illness……
This is bullshit Raymond Ibrahim. Do you need a shovel?
I just don’t understand? It’s a peaceful, loving religion……
PRESIDENT FAILURE’S SMART DIPLOMACY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjK7MsWrffM
Barbarians Inside the Gates: Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and the Cultural Evisceration of the U.S. Navy by Craig Luther.
Our Estranged Generals: Our Generals Are Not on the Same Page as the Rest of Us. In Fact, They’re Not Even Reading From the Same Book by Caroline Glick.—-This is an article about the General Staff of Israel’s Defense Forces. But you could practically superimpose every fact in this article on what is happening in our military.
These images must be shown just as children see the images of Auschwitz in school
ENJOY everything you see going on now,PLANET earth has only a small amount of time left now,THEY WANTED SATAN,and their wish has been granted,OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN will now allow everyone to have the death and bloodshed they’ve always deamed about,THE WORSE BLOODBATH IN HISTORY is about to come on america,and it won’t be NOTHING like the TV version was………….
BEWARE – Yahuah altered the DNA of the Moslem into a WILD MAN.
Strangely of the two sons of Abraham he cursed this one because Abraham listened to his wife Sarah and not Yahuah.
There are SEVERE consequences when one disobeys his duty to Yahuah when Yahuah has chosen you. Case in point is Adam & Eve and He said you are DOOMED if you disobey me.
Today all men live short brutal nasty lives and then they DIE!!
Splice Protection Sleeves at Low Price – Heat Shrinkable Protection Sleeves 60mm, Heat Shrinkable Protection Sleeves 40mm, 8F Ribbon Fiber Splice Protection Heat Shrinkable Sleeves 40mm, 2F Ribbon Fiber Splice Protection Heat Shrinkable Sleeves 40mm
Splice Protection Sleeves at Low Price – Heat Shrinkable Protection Sleeves 60mm, Heat Shrinkable Protection Sleeves 40mm, 8F Ribbon Fiber Splice Protection Heat Shrinkable Sleeves 40mm, 2F Ribbon Fiber Splice Protection Heat Shrinkable Sleeves 40mm