Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > I read this, and just had to laugh.

I read this, and just had to laugh.
Thread Tools
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 12:41 PM
 
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:01 PM
 
I laughed when I saw it was written by a woman named 'Toole'. Appropriate!

(for anyone not wanting to click the link for fear of contracting nutjob fever, allow me to cement your concerns with the observation that the next article on the site is called...'Israel The Good')
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:07 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
(for anyone not wanting to click the link for fear of contracting nutjob fever, allow me to cement your concerns with the observation that the next article on the site is called...'Israel The Good')
So informed people can't possibly see Israel as good? Those who do are by definition 'nutjobs'? Isn't this basically an ad hominem attack on the author of the article?

Either way, many liberals do act like the article says, but then, many conservatives act in an analogous manner. It's the nature of online political discussion.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:08 PM
 
Here's a link to the main page of that site http://www.israpundit.com/ in case anyone wants to read Zimphire's opinions in one fell swoop rather than forcing him to cut, paste, and rearrange the words of his opinions on a post-by-post basis.
MISSION

IsraPundit is dedicated to pro-Israel advocacy through the presentation of news and views.
     
Zimphire  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:08 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
I laughed when I saw it was written by a woman named 'Toole'. Appropriate!

(for anyone not wanting to click the link for fear of contracting nutjob fever, allow me to cement your concerns with the observation that the next article on the site is called...'Israel The Good')
Did you give a perfect example of what the article was speaking of on purpose? Or was that unintentional?

     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Did you give a perfect example of what the article was speaking of on purpose? Or was that unintentional?

Give me some credit, purlease....
     
Curios Meerkat
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: América
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:12 PM
 
Man, that website is a riot. Who's their webmaster? Ali G?




Good find Zimph, thanks for brightening up my day.

…somehow we find it hard to sell our values, namely that the rich should plunder the poor. - J. F. Dulles
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:14 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
So informed people can't possibly see Israel as good? Those who do are by definition 'nutjobs'? Isn't this basically an ad hominem attack on the author of the article?
Yes, yes, all those things.

and they say irony doesn't translate into American...
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:17 PM
 
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
NYCFarmboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:20 PM
 
well..that pretty much sums it up.
     
Zimphire  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:31 PM
 
Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
well..that pretty much sums it up.
Indeed, I must have hit pretty close to the mark.
     
Zimphire  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:32 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
Give me some credit, purlease....
Aah.. I didn't think it was on purpose.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:46 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Aah.. I didn't think it was on purpose.
I'll let you in on a little secret...it was when I first clicked reply Then I caught myself and decided to go ahead anyway and lay it on a little thick!

Over here, these days, you don't really find the vitriol between 'left' and 'right' that you guys seem to have. It's pretty funny if you think about it - for example the fact that what you might perceive as lefty 'liberal' thinking would often seem quite right wing to me.

Guess what I'm saying is that the policy differences between Republican and Democrat seem so small (from my perspective) that the strength of feeling is always surprising.
     
Zimphire  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:49 PM
 
Do you expect us to believe that?
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 01:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Do you expect us to believe that?
Uh...which part?

I'm not really bothered if you do or not.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 02:32 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
I'll let you in on a little secret...it was when I first clicked reply Then I caught myself and decided to go ahead anyway and lay it on a little thick!

Over here, these days, you don't really find the vitriol between 'left' and 'right' that you guys seem to have. It's pretty funny if you think about it - for example the fact that what you might perceive as lefty 'liberal' thinking would often seem quite right wing to me.

Guess what I'm saying is that the policy differences between Republican and Democrat seem so small (from my perspective) that the strength of feeling is always surprising.
Reading your posts, I get the feeling you don't know any real Conservatives in your own country. They do exist, you know. Maybe you should get out of London more.

I'm glad you put in the "these days" in your post. I grew up in your country in the 70s and 80s. Political harmony and consensus wouldn't be the way I would describe it.
     
chris v
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 02:34 PM
 
It just goes to show how wide the gulf is these days. I could easily swap "conservative" for "liberal" throughout that post, and I'd be nodding right along.

We have a problem all across this country of being unable to thoughtfully consider viewpoints without shrinking behind rhetoric. We also have a problem with the cherry-picking of facts to support ideologies. As a liberal, I tend to see this as more of a problem with conservatives, but I can well imagine the shoe on the other foot.

Pointing and laughing certainly does nothing to improve the situation, however.

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 02:48 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Reading your posts, I get the feeling you don't know any real Conservatives in your own country. They do exist, you know. Maybe you should get out of London more.
I know plenty of Conservatives, family members included. The platform they are voting for differs little from that offered by the Labour Party. As a result you don't see the bitterness between supporters of the two main parties that existed until 'New' Labour.

You've put forth this rather patronising 'maybe you should get out of London' comment a couple of times now. I spend a lot of time in Dorset and Devon, and I'll probably live somewhere like that when we have kids. Some of those places might not be the Tory heartlands you seem to think they are. When I lived in Exeter, the sitting Tory MP was defeated by Ben Bradshaw (Lab), the first openly gay MP. The only places that Tory MPs are really safe now is farmland. Even Michael Howard is under threat at the next election.
( Last edited by nath; Jan 14, 2005 at 02:57 PM. )
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 03:17 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
I know plenty of Conservatives, family members included. The platform they are voting for differs little from that offered by the Labour Party. As a result you don't see the bitterness between supporters of the two main parties that existed until 'New' Labour.


I'd change that top paragraph to "[t]he platform [New Labour] are voting for differs little from that offered by the [Tory] Party." Blair coopted the Tories, not the other way around. It still seems to be in a lot of ways, Maggie's Britain.

One possible pattern could be that politics is vitriolic when issues are really being contested. That's how I remember it in the UK in the 70s and 80. The two parties really couldn't agree on anything. Not even first principles of economics, constitutionalism, defense alignment, and so on. It was frustrating, to say the least. And also it had tendencies toward violence -- at least from the left. My earliest political memories are of the 1974 Miners' strike, and a little later, the Winter of Discontent.

Since then there does seem to have been a bit of a blending and Labour has (except for some wacko back benchers) given up on its more extreme collectivist positions. The Tories also seem to have self-destructed. I'd agree that they don't seem to be an effective opposition and haven't been for years.

Here in the US, some fairly basic issues are under contention between the two parties. Not least of which is the basic issue of which party has the natural alliegiance of the majority. I think that has a lot to do with the tone. But it also isn't new -- the change has been underway since at least the 1970s. Unlike Britian, though, we do still have two viable political parties. Perhaps that is why they argue.

As for your exposure to Tories (or whatever conservatives call themselves these days). I'm sorry if that isn't an accurate opinion of you, but you do come across as a little cloistered and Sixth Form Leftist. Obviously, I don't know you or your background, I can only judge by your posts. Perhaps if you were to acknowledge the other points of view in your country a bit more, I'd get a better sense that you are aware of them.

By the way, I have only visited Dorset and Devon, but they are both very pretty counties.
     
Curios Meerkat
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: América
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 03:33 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Either way, many liberals do act like the article says, but then, many conservatives act in an analogous manner. It's the nature of online political discussion.
Agreed. But the very premise of the article (liberals -> enemies of the western world), followed by more demagoguery and logical fallacies, sounds nothing more than a parody to me. The person writing that article (and much of what I've seen on that webite) are doing a horrible disservice to their (pro-israeli, conservative) cause: they are doing exactly what they're accusing others of...

…somehow we find it hard to sell our values, namely that the rich should plunder the poor. - J. F. Dulles
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 03:57 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'd change that top paragraph to "[t]he platform [New Labour] are voting for differs little from that offered by the [Tory] Party." Blair coopted the Tories, not the other way around. It still seems to be in a lot of ways, Maggie's Britain.
I think the Major government actually changed things more (post Thatcher) than Blair did (post Major). But you're right in that it's more a case of emphasis and priorities than major policy changes. The main thing I can think of that would never happened under the Tories is the huge improvement in education and NHS funding. This is starting to show results now after a lengthy turnaround period (my wife is a primary school teacher in a pretty poor area)

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Not least of which is the basic issue of which party has the natural alliegiance of the majority.
Well, I would say that's the ultimate intention of any major political party, isn't it?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As for your exposure to Tories (or whatever conservatives call themselves these days). I'm sorry if that isn't an accurate opinion of you, but you do come across as a little cloistered and Sixth Form Leftist.
Oooh, bitchy! But I'm sure you won't mind me saying that, from your postings in a politics forum, you seem a little imperialistic and a bit of a Flag-waving War Fetishist.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Obviously, I don't know you or your background, I can only judge by your posts. Perhaps if you were to acknowledge the other points of view in your country a bit more, I'd get a better sense that you are aware of them.
Poster gives away political orientation in politics forum SHOCKER! I'm aware that there is still a rump of the Thatcherite right in Britain, but to be honest it's not electorally significant. We'll probably be in a three party system after the next poll.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
By the way, I have only visited Dorset and Devon, but they are both very pretty counties.
Thanks. We got married by the sea, near Lyme Regis. London's getting way too overcrowded.

BTW, I meant to ask you about this article:http://www.harpers.org/BeyondFallujah.html
It's a very good read but I know nothing about Harper's - is it respected? Does it have a well-known agenda?
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 04:13 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
Well, I would say that [being the natural majority i]s the ultimate intention of any major political party, isn't it?




Of course, but in the US it has been changing. The Democrats became the natural majority after the New Deal. That didn't shut the Republicans out, but in general, I think it is fair to say the Democrat set the agenda. That has been gradually changing and reversing in the the last decade or two, and naturally, Democrats aren't happy about it. It makes them grouchy.

BTW, I meant to ask you about this article:http://www.harpers.org/BeyondFallujah.html
It's a very good read but I know nothing about Harper's - is it respected? Does it have a well-known agenda?
I don't read Harpers, and I don't know anyone who does. It's venerable but it's not really a serious news magazine, more a social magazine for Manhattan leftists.

Seymour Hersh is probably their most famous hard news reporter. I have a very, very, low opinion of him. To say he has an agenda is putting it mildly. To me he represents the worst and most destructive type of narcissistic investigative journalists. He is quite literally willing to hurt his country for the sake of a story, and in fact he has, several times.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 04:16 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

I don't read Harpers, and I don't know anyone who does. It's venerable but it's not really a serious news magazine, more a social magazine for Manhattan leftists.
Cool. One subscription, coming up!
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 04:18 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
I know plenty of Conservatives, family members included. The platform they are voting for differs little from that offered by the Labour Party.
He said "real Conservatives". That's UKIP voters, not those stupid lefties on the other side of the house.

------
I read Zimph's original post and thought of only one thing:
Hate Filled Lefty!

     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 04:18 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
Cool. One subscription, coming up!
They will be be delighted to hear that. Their circulation has been declining for years.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2005, 04:30 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
He said "real Conservatives". That's UKIP voters, not those stupid lefties on the other side of the house.

Yay! It's Kilroy! Here, take this -






and be on yer way
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2005, 03:05 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

He is quite literally willing to hurt his country for the sake of a story, and in fact he has, several times. [/B]
By exposing prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib for example?
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2005, 05:13 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
I read this and just had to laugh
me too!
***
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2005, 11:08 AM
 
Originally posted by nath:
By exposing prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib for example?
No, the Army did that. The investigation was under way long before Hersh and CBS turned it into a crisis and a propaganda bonanza for the enemy.

Actually, though, the main thing I had in mind was Hersh's role in blowing the Glomar Explorer cover. He cost the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars, and who knows how much valuable nuclear intelligence was lost. To do that at a time when his country was facing the threat of Soviet nuclear attack was completely irresponsible. But that is Hersh -- irresponsible, and lead by nothing but ambition and pride.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2005, 11:49 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, the Army did that. The investigation was under way long before Hersh and CBS turned it into a crisis and a propaganda bonanza for the enemy.
I said Hersh was the first to 'expose prisoner abuse' - which is true. Whether or not the Army was already investigating is not the point - they certainly didn't expose it.

I'm surprised that you seem to think the entire thing should have been dealt with in secrecy.


Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Actually, though, the main thing I had in mind was Hersh's role in blowing the Glomar Explorer cover. He cost the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars, and who knows how much valuable nuclear intelligence was lost. To do that at a time when his country was facing the threat of Soviet nuclear attack was completely irresponsible. But that is Hersh -- irresponsible, and lead by nothing but ambition and pride.
Now I've had the chance to look at his record, I fully undertand why you don't like him! He's a nightmare for anyone who think governments should be able to act illegally and/or without public scrutiny. But frankly, anyone who manages to publicly humiliate scum like Richard Perle is alright by me.

Interestingly, it's the Dems who seem to hold the strongest grudge against him, for his JFK biography (most of is which you probably agree with!) He certainly appears to be a sociopath, not an unusual trait for a journalist really...
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2005, 01:19 PM
 
Originally posted by nath:
I said Hersh was the first to 'expose prisoner abuse' - which is true. Whether or not the Army was already investigating is not the point - they certainly didn't expose it.

I'm surprised that you seem to think the entire thing should have been dealt with in secrecy.
This is kind of like the "if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" question. The press may have a role in causing government to do the right thing, but if the government is already doing the right thing, the need for publicity is lessened.

In fact, all these prosecutions would have reached the public notice anyway. Military prosecutions at the courts martial level are in the public domain. There was never anything secret here. There just wasn't a need for all the enthusiastic, tittilating and politically-driven hoopla.

As much as the left relished it, I saw, and continue to see, nothing served in the public good by the orgy of pornographic imagery that followed the CBS and New Yorker reports from Abu-Ghraib. It simply became a politcal football and a distorted avenue for propagandists. The truth of what happened didn't alter one whit as a result of the media frenzy.

In fact, it is still being distorted. Just this weekend both the Post and the New York Times reported the self-serving unsworn allegations of a (now) convicted criminal as if those statements were trustworthy statements of fact. In fact, the indications are that his own defense attorney believed he was committing perjury. That's why he wasn't put on the stand under oath. And of course, the jury didn't believe him either. But that wasn't clearly reported, because the "story" here seems to have taken on a life of its own, quite independent of reality.

Now I've had the chance to look at his record, I fully undertand why you don't like him! He's a nightmare for anyone who think governments should be able to act illegally and/or without public scrutiny.
There was nothing illegal about the Glomar Explorer operation. It was a brilliant and daring piece of intelligence skulduggery, aimed at a completely legitimate target -- find out what we could about the Soviet nuclear threat aimed at this country (among others). Secrecy in such a situation is not only legitimate, it is an absolute necessity. Responsible journalists understand that, and in the national interest and in the interests of saving lives, they will place limits on what they will report. Hersh is not such a responsible journalist.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Jan 17, 2005 at 01:25 PM. )
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:35 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,