Media is controlling the liberal thought process again.....

[Married Buried]

Greenspan Backtracks On Iraq War Oil Claim

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501203_162-3267685.html

"The fiscal guru backed off that assertion by suggesting that while securing global oil supplies "was not the administration's motive," it should have been."

Next?

Ofcourse he backtracked. He realized he opened his big fat mouth when he shouldn't have. Means nothing. He said what he said, no amount of backtracking will change it. The other reason for the is for the good of Israel. All the jews pushed Bush into going to war just like they are pushing Obama to go into Iran and Syria.

Paul Wolfowitz ring a bell? Bush was just the dummy they needed to go through with the plans. At least Clinton was smart enough not to do it. Who cares what he said, he didn't invade. Most of this list is jewish as well:

Persons associated with the PNAC
Project directors

[as listed on the PNAC website:]

William Kristol, Co-founder and Chairman[1]
Robert Kagan, Co-founder[1]
Bruce P. Jackson[1]



Mark Gerson[1]
Randy Scheunemann[1]

Project staff

Ellen Bork, Deputy Director[1]
Gary Schmitt, Senior Fellow[1][52]
Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow[1]
Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow[1]



Mitch Jackson, Senior Fellow
Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director[1]
Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

 

[Derek Flint]

Dude, try to stick with facts and not your anti-Semitic bigotry.

So now Greenspan's opinion doesn't count because it no longer matches your biases and agenda?

Are you going to keep moving the goalpost's whenever your own sources dispute your argument or your own argument blows up in your face?

First it was oil, then it was those damn Jews. You're a real piece of work.

Let me guess - you think the US was responsible for 9-11 and not AQ

 

[Married Buried]

Dude, try to stick with facts and not your anti-Semitic bigotry.

So now Greenspan's opinion doesn't count because it no longer matches your biases and agenda?

Are you going to keep moving the goalpost's whenever your own sources dispute your argument or your own argument blows up in your face?

First it was oil, then it was those damn Jews. You're a real piece of work.

Let me guess - you think the US was responsible for 9-11 and not AQ

I don't have time to argue with someone living in denial, so bug off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA

Someone explain this to the idiot:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...DcGhFvCn_rm-cB1bGekefhg&bvm=bv.56643336,d.dmg

http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/05/14...ng-war-with-iran-on-house-floor-tomorrow-4-2/

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-03-05/opinions/35447473_1_aipac-pro-israel-nuclear-program

They led the charge on Iraq too.

So take your bigot remarks and shove up up your naive ass!

Thanks

 

[Derek Flint]

Sourcing "alternative" web sites and biased opinion pieces doesn't exactly reek of credibility.

As much as I despise the demonstrably liberal-leaning media as proven above in Post # 43, I always source mainstream sources and facts to back my claims and not agenda-driven web sites and/or biased opinion pieces.

And the personal attack at the end of your post was a nice touch and typical as well.

If you can't beat them with logic and facts, resort to personal attacks and name-calling, much like your dismissive "Next" comments, as if you are proclaiming some type of victory by posting opinions instead of facts or making leaps of logic that Carl Lewis would envy.

And when Greenspan clarified his opinion, all of the sudden he was no longer credible in your eyes and was just another "Jew" with a biased opinion that now "means nothing" when in a previous post, you used his words to "prove" your argument, prefaced with a victorious "Next" proclamation.

What's funny is that you basically blew yourself out with your own words and actions.

I've lived in San Francisco most of my life. I know the "debating" tactics of the far left better than they do. They go thru a typical progression, much like you did.

Seems the one living in denial is you. BTW, "projecting" is part of the progression.

"Next!"

 

[Married Buried]

Sourcing "alternative" web sites and biased opinion pieces doesn't exactly reek of credibility.

As much as I despise the demonstrably liberal-leaning media as proven above in Post # 43, I always source mainstream sources and facts to back my claims and not agenda-driven web sites and/or biased opinion pieces.

And the personal attack at the end of your post was a nice touch and typical as well.

If you can't beat them with logic and facts, resort to personal attacks and name-calling, much like your dismissive "Next" comments, as if you are proclaiming some type of victory by posting opinions instead of facts or making leaps of logic that Carl Lewis would envy.

And when Greenspan clarified his opinion, all of the sudden he was no longer credible in your eyes and was just another "Jew" with a biased opinion that now "means nothing" when in a previous post, you used his words to "prove" your argument, prefaced with a victorious "Next" proclamation.

What's funny is that you basically blew yourself out with your own words and actions.

I've lived in San Francisco most of my life. I know the "debating" tactics of the far left better than they do. They go thru a typical progression, much like you did.

Seems the one living in denial is you. BTW, "projecting" is part of the progression.

"Next!"

You started the name calling with "bigot". Nice try putting it on me. Go f/ck yourself.

Can't even say "Jew" anymore without being called a bigot. It's like calling someone racist for not voting for Obama. Won't even waste my time with someone like that.

 

[Derek Flint]

You started the name calling with "bigot". Nice try putting it on me. Go f/ck yourself.

Can't even say "Jew" anymore without being called a bigot. It's like calling someone racist for not voting for Obama. Won't even waste my time with someone like that.

Re-read your posts about "Jews" and the context you used it in. If you can't see that it's offensive, then you're myopic.
And no, I'm not Jewish.

And you won't even try to dispute any of my points because you can't.

Stick to your fringe web sites, blaming "Jews", engaging in childish name-calling and avoiding reality.

 

[( . )( . )]

What?

Re-read your posts about "Jews" and the context you used it in. If you can't see that it's offensive

Why don't you caption the part of his post you found "offensive" before the kneejerk cries of "NAZIWHOWANTSTOKILLSIXMILLIONJUICE" go up eh?

 

[Married Buried]

Now I see he is claiming my sites are leftist. They aren't even my sites they are the first 3 that came up on google. Why don't you google it yourself? Let me help you out:

https://www.google.com/search?q=aip...:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

There is no disputing Israel has the USA by the nuts and runs the foreign policy.

 

[Derek Flint]

Now I see he is claiming my sites are leftist. They aren't even my sites they are the first 3 that came up on google. Why don't you google it yourself? Let me help you out:

https://www.google.com/search?q=aip...:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

There is no disputing Israel has the USA by the nuts and runs the foreign policy.

Again, you're stating YOUR opinion and not FACTS.

And I didn't say you or your sources were "leftist" I said they were biased and opinionated and that you "debated" like a typical lefty.
I know how they debate better than they do and you follow their debate progression to the letter.

Claim your opinion as fact, source fringe web sites, be dismissive of anything that counters your "facts", claim victory, move the goalposts when proven wrong, change the argument or throw your source under the bus like you did with Greenspan when he clarified his statement and you didn't agree with it, engage in name-calling, then say something like "You're too stupid to debate. I'm done with you. Eff You!" and then continue to "debate" after you said that you were done, etc...

Slate, Code Pink, Commondreams, etc...all show up in that google search and all of those are biased, agenda-driven web sites containing opinion pieces and linking to other fringe web sites. One big echo chamber of the same talking points being parroted.

Sourcing fringe web sites isn't credible and doesn't help your argument.

Like I said, you blew yourself out.

 

[Married Buried]

Again, you're stating YOUR opinion and not FACTS.

And I didn't say you or your sources were "leftist" I said they were biased and opinionated and that you "debated" like a typical lefty.
I know how they debate better than they do and you follow their debate progression to the letter.

Claim your opinion as fact, source fringe web sites, be dismissive of anything that counters your "facts", claim victory, move the goalposts when proven wrong, change the argument or throw your source under the bus like you did with Greenspan when he clarified his statement and you didn't agree with it, engage in name-calling, then say something like "You're too stupid to debate. I'm done with you. Eff You!" and then continue to "debate" after you said that you were done, etc...

Slate, Code Pink, Commondreams, etc...all show up in that google search and all of those are biased, agenda-driven web sites containing opinion pieces and linking to other fringe web sites. One big echo chamber of the same talking points being parroted.

Sourcing fringe web sites isn't credible and doesn't help your argument.

Like I said, you blew yourself out.

Give me a break. AIPAC has SAID publically they want all these wars. Why don't you educate yourself instead of relying on me to provide websites?

Three influential pro-Israel groups urged US lawmakers on Tuesday to authorize US President Barack Obama to launch an attack on Syria, signaling a stepped-up lobbying effort for American military action.

Netanyahu says Iran threatens US mainland, and AIPAC and Congress cowboy up for war

AIPAC beats the drums of war

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-03-05/opinions/35447473_1_aipac-pro-israel-nuclear-program


We went to Iraq for Israel and Oil. Nobody ever said we went for Oil alone.

 

[Derek Flint]

Where's the Iraqi Oil?

You constantly make opinionated statements as if they were factual, then source other opinion pieces to "prove" your "opinion"

Like I said, take a look at post #43 on how to post an argument and back it up with facts, not opinion pieces. And facts from non-biased, non agenda-driven sources.

You're not educating anyone - you're posting a mishmash of BS and claiming it to be factual.

Then when proven wrong, or can't put together a cogent argument, one with facts and not opinions and leaps of logic, you then claim others aren't educated because they don't share your opinions.

Posting an opinion then posting links to similar opinions is just creating one big echo chamber of the same opinion over and over.

Show me how many barrels of oil the US is getting pre-war and post-war and if it has exceeded the baseline of oil imports for that time period, for example.

And please, avoid the lunatic fringe web sites.

I bet you won't because you can't.

If you can't, then you are just posting an opinion based on hysterics.

And like I said, would you like to go over the Iraq War Resolution point-by-point?

Or are facts too much for you to handle?

BTW, your "AIPAC beats the drums of war " opinion article is 20 months old - why aren't the bombs falling on Iraq yet?

 

[Vantagepoint34]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57605956/ole-miss-students-disrupt-play-with-anti-gay-slurs/

Go look at ESPN, they are considering suspending these football players from their game Saturday. For what, heckling some cast members? This should be a non-story, except the media is running with it, to get hits.

this is nothing new

 

[Married Buried]

Where's the Iraqi Oil?

You constantly make opinionated statements as if they were factual, then source other opinion pieces to "prove" your "opinion"

Like I said, take a look at post #43 on how to post an argument and back it up with facts, not opinion pieces. And facts from non-biased, non agenda-driven sources.

You're not educating anyone - you're posting a mishmash of BS and claiming it to be factual.

Then when proven wrong, or can't put together a cogent argument, one with facts and not opinions and leaps of logic, you then claim others aren't educated because they don't share your opinions.

Posting an opinion then posting links to similar opinions is just creating one big echo chamber of the same opinion over and over.

Show me how many barrels of oil the US is getting pre-war and post-war and if it has exceeded the baseline of oil imports for that time period, for example.

And please, avoid the lunatic fringe web sites.

I bet you won't because you can't.

If you can't, then you are just posting an opinion based on hysterics.

And like I said, would you like to go over the Iraq War Resolution point-by-point?

Or are facts too much for you to handle?

BTW, you're "AIPAC beats the drums of war " opinion article is 20 months old - why aren't the bombs falling on Iraq yet?

How old are you and what is your education level? Where is the oil? You think the government gives a damn about you? They are making the oil companies rich because the politicians are in bed with them. Don't bother replying, why don't you research before you post nonsense?

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/

Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.


Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.


From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm **** Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

You are saying General Abizaid and Chuck Hagel made it up?

 

[Married Buried]

Malice did a Rape on Derek Flint's regurgitated neocon talking points.

I just gave him general knowledge. People still aren't aware of the huge con called the Iraq War? As for the Iraq joint Resolution? Might as well call the the Iraq Bullsh!tolution.

Maybe he was in the military and in denial, still believing Iraq was for a "good cause". Iraq has the largest Oil Fields in the WORLD. Big Oil was salivating at going in, and paying off the politicians too.