Last week 11/30/2007 I called Thom Hartman's nationally syndicated radio show to ask Bernie Sanders about what he thought about the AIPAC/Pentagon Spy Case. Unfortunately right after I mentioned the fact that there is virtually no real media coverage of this scandal, I was cut-off and brazenly attacked by none other than Hartman himself who called me a anti-semite. His direct quote which can be heard in the the audio above was:
"There's a small cadre of people who are convinced that Israel & the Jews are behind all evil things in the world and that AIPAC is there point person and uh.... I'm just... ya know...I'm not even gonna debate the....I'm not even gonna go there, I'm sorry."
This totally vicious attack was not warranted by any anti-semitic rhetoric. I said nothing about Jews, neither did I say anything about Israel. I am not anti-semitic.
My only concern was with the fact that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee was caught red-handed spying in the Pentagon for Israel.....and still is. Thom is simply too sensitive to handle the facts and their implications.
Some of the more high profiled members subpoenaed in the spy case are Stephen Hadley, Richard Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and the convict Lawrence Franklin himself. I guess the Judge expects Franklin to testify in his orange jumpsuit. You can print out the court Documents here:
Not clear what your point is. Does Israel spy on the us with impunity? Jonathan Pollard has been in prison for 25 years for doing it. Does the USA send too much money to Israel? Well, they send almost the same amount to Egypt, which isn't even a democracy. Are American Jews a powerful lobbying force? Yes, they are. In addition to being taxpaying American citizens who exercize their civil rights.
Maybe you can spell out exactly what your problem is with the Jews and Israel.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Maybe you can spell out exactly what your problem is with the Jews and Israel.
As I already stated in my first post, I said nothing about Jews, neither did I say anything about Israel. I am not anti-semitic.
My only questions are why is a pro-Israel lobby allowed to spy in the Pentagon? Who's national security comes first in Washington? Israel or the United States?
Not real clear what you mean Jonathan Pollard has been in prison since 1986, and the severity of his sentence has angered both Israel and American Jews for 20 years. Numerous attempts by powerful lobbying groups to get him released have failed through 4 administrations. In consideration of the Pollard situationt, it's hard to imagine how Jews have free access to spy for Israel (as you claim).
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: Not real clear what you mean Jonathan Pollard has been in prison since 1986, and the severity of his sentence has angered both Israel and American Jews for 20 years. Numerous attempts by powerful lobbying groups to get him released have failed through 4 administrations. In consideration of the Pollard situationt, it's hard to imagine how Jews have free access to spy for Israel (as you claim).
Look, I don't like Wolfowitz, Perl and the rest of those warmongering Jews any more than you do. I strongly doubt, however, that the pro-Israel lobby is the force behind the warmongers. This looks like a red herring to distract naysayers from the real threat, which is a well organized attempt to undermine American sovereignty perpetrated by both Jews and non-Jews.
Don't forget that in Nazi Germany there were highly influential Jews who were held up as proof that Hitler didn't have a problem with the Jews. These were the token Jews, used for their money, brains and public image. A clever propaganda campaign to convince Germans that "good" Jews were OK in Germany, and that campaign resulted in more Jews being trapped inside.
Today we are subject to the same kind of propaganda. As wealthy white Gentiles consolidate power, Jews are getting the blame for it. And you are taking the bait like an obedient American.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: Look, I don't like Wolfowitz, Perl and the rest of those warmongering Jews any more than you do. I strongly doubt, however, that the pro-Israel lobby is the force behind the warmongers. This looks like a red herring to distract naysayers from the real threat, which is a well organized attempt to undermine American sovereignty perpetrated by both Jews and non-Jews.
Don't forget that in Nazi Germany there were highly influential Jews who were held up as proof that Hitler didn't have a problem with the Jews. These were the token Jews, used for their money, brains and public image. A clever propaganda campaign to convince Germans that "good" Jews were OK in Germany, and that campaign resulted in more Jews being trapped inside.
Today we are subject to the same kind of propaganda. As wealthy white Gentiles consolidate power, Jews are getting the blame for it. And you are taking the bait like an obedient American.
I think people like you & Hartman are the real ones creating the distraction. You & Hartman are the only people who are making this about Jews. Don't forget there are a lot of Christian groups like "Christians United for Israel" who are members of AIPAC too.
In pursuit of his support of Israel, Pastor Hagee helped found Christians United for Israel on February 7, 2006 as a "Christian AIPAC" lobbying Congress to support Israel.
Also, I'm not saying Israel took it upon itself to spy in the Pentagon, I'm saying the Bush Administration set up an apparatus "Back Channel" for them to spy for Israel.
It actually sounds like you are complaining that the system works. As a Jew, I am glad it works, and traitors are in jail. No doubt there are Russian and German spies in American prisons, but for some reason you are obsessing on a few wayward Jews.
To me it looks like prejudice... against Jews.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: Why is Jonathan Pollard in prison?
It actually sounds like you are complaining that the system works. As a Jew, I am glad it works, and traitors are in jail. No doubt there are Russian and German spies in American prisons, but for some reason you are obsessing on a few wayward Jews.
Why does nationality matter? Isn't spying in the Pentagon for the last 5 years scandalous enough? Who's National Security is more important to you as an American, Israel or the United States?
quote:
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: To me it looks like prejudice... against Jews.
To me it looks like you need a psychiatrist. Grow up.
Thom Hartmann: "There's a small cadre of people who are convinced that Israel & the Jews are behind all evil things in the world and that AIPAC is their point person and uh.... I'm just... ya know...I'm not even gonna debate the....I'm not even gonna go there, I'm sorry."
Mr. Truth: This totally vicious attack was not warranted by any anti-semitic rhetoric.
Huh?
Where's the "totally vicious attack" and where's the accusation of "anti-semitic rhetoric"?
I'm not catching your drift, Mr. Truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Mr Truth I am a big fan of Thom's, but I was disappointed in the way he handled your call. I am not sure if I would agree with everything you have to say, but do believe you have the right to say it. Unless I am missing something I think Thom was completely wrong in the way he dealt with you, and quite frankly am glad that you came to the board to complain about it. Regardless of my feelings on an issue, red flags go up for me when discussion on any issue is stifled. I feel Thom needs to explain why this issue cannot be discussed.
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
I agree, Mr Truth, Thom treated with outrageous disregard, then caricaturized what you had said, insinuating you are anti-semitic when there was nothing remotely anti-semitic in your comment. This is becoming a pattern with Thom. He appears to be a shill for AIPAC all right, and his respect for open debate and "hearing the other side" goes out the window every time someone mentions the inordinate influece of AIPAC and the Israeli lobby. This is one of those matters that many on the left have been weak on, so I'm not that surprised to find it in Thom. But it's still outrageous.
-------------------------- "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" - Sherlock Holmes
I didn't hear the question and answer on the program. I'm just reading the memories of it.
I do have an observation about introducing delicate topics into a conversation with a person who is "running a show" -- a radio broadcaster who has a theme he's developing, a teacher who is presenting material, a supervisor who has a view of how things should be done, etc. and so forth.
Talk radio blurs the interpersonal and role relationships, because listeners can phone in and make comments, and for that time they are on the air, the listeners are on "equal footing" with the broadcaster, at least in terms of access to the listeners. How well the call-in listener seizes that opportunity is related to how prepared and articulate the listener is. That preparation includes an awareness of what will play into making a good coherent program, which is the broadcaster's goal. In that slice of exposure, the listener actually has a huge job to use the air time well.
Listener comments that reflect attitude and bias themselves, and are presented in a confrontational way won't get as much air time as measured and articulate talking points. Where the topic itself, that the listener seeks to introduce in the live phone comment, has been foreclosed as a program topic before the call was ever made, the challenge is even greater, because first the listener has to turn a hands-off topic into something reasonable to discuss. It's hard to tell exactly what went into the back and forth raised by this part of Thom's talk radio show, whether AIPAC has been foreclosed as a topic, and so on.
It does seem clear that AIPAC was not introduced by Thom; what's unclear is how AIPAC was related to something Thom was discussing.
What's the best way to introduce a topic (that the person in charge has not introduced) and elicit some developed response. I don't know.
Who's in charge of how the program rhythm develops and who should be? These questions apply, also, to our monolithic representatives in the Senate and in the House. How do People have their say and get policy makers to consider the People's concerns carefully? And who are the People? Even on this board, the People speak in disparate voices. It's hard to find a consensus on what the burning issues for "Us" are.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
I just listened to the tape, and Thom's transition was abrupt, and the listener had a calm voice and a set-up to his question, involving other scandals that have erupted on the national scene. The place where things would have gotten uncomfortable for me, if I were the guy in charge of the flow of the discussion and the one with the capacity to shut off the caller, ... was the listener's flagging of AIPAC, with the acronym and then the slow set-up of what each word in the acronym was. It was done in a calm voice, but it opened up a huge huge issue that would be impossible for Thom to fully and thoughtfully discuss, or Bernie Sanders for that matter.
I don't think what's being printed in mainline newspapers is off limits for these phone-in comments. And it's hard to bring up something that's *not* being reported in mainline media, even here on the message boards. Perhaps a way to introduce it, next time, would be to focus on what *is* being reported (as in the official hearings and so on that are being reported), and then the question is not flagged with "the media is trying to hide" or by the term AIPAC which has a warning light attached to it. Framed in that way, the question would allow Thom and Bernie to give their perspective on the news item, rather than unpack the perspective presented by the call-in listener.
Why is AIPAC a warning ("this is a contentious issue") signal? I'm not sure. The wikipedia article on AIPAC undoubtedly (I've not checked) has its own flame war. I did, however, observe the protracted flame wars on Palestine and Israel over there at wiki.
Our public policy is driven by so many unseen and inarticulable forces. One of the disarming and infuriating things about Noam Chomsky, for example, is his dispassionate and clear way of connecting some of the dots. Of course he, himself, is a watch word for "I'm not going there."
Interesting planet we live on.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Kate- I am not completely clear on what your final stance on this is. I have to say if Thom thought this was "too huge" an issue to be discussed then that is what he should have said.
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
Well, a couple of years back I called the show and unlike Hartmann's disciples who go to the front of the line, I never got passed the censor. I think Hartmann provides a good effort on environmental awareness even if his method undercuts environmental sustainability via his domesticated political doctrine.
Despite that critique, I also think Hartmann is in bed with the Israeli lobby, if not owned by it. He often remarks about "not being in the suck up, zone." Or something to that effect.
Israel invaded Lebonon and created a massive humanitarian nightmare as the Israeli Army completely destroyed the infrastructure of the country without so much as a whimper of protest from Sanders (who affirmed the invasion with his vote) and Hartmann's culpability through his silence.
While Hartmann and all the shepple march lock step to the status quo.
Posts: 1162 | Location: Boulder Creek Watershed | Registered: 14 February 2004
Yeah, Loki, slab and his little playmates are dressed up every morning by mommy in their cute little outfits. They run around in their tu tu's and are the token lemmings on this site.
Posts: 1162 | Location: Boulder Creek Watershed | Registered: 14 February 2004
Loki, personally I don't give a damn that the Powers let loose a couple of lemmings on this site; but unlike the shepple, I have no intention of letting sewer scum attak me and then skip merely away as though nothing happened. What I do on this site is called shapeshifting, a practice I learned in the Amazon jungle with an indigenous tribe who still collect and shrink human heads. While this is a modified version, it will do for now...
Posts: 1162 | Location: Boulder Creek Watershed | Registered: 14 February 2004
I think Hartmann provides a good effort on environmental awareness
I don't. As far as I'm concerned, you can't be all supportive of the one thing that is the most environment unfriendly and still get to be called 'environmentally aware'.
I am talking, of course, about Thom's beloved 'Middle Class'.
Posts: 247 | Location: Limbo | Registered: 17 November 2007
but unlike the shepple, I have no intention of letting sewer scum attak me and then skip merely away as though nothing happened. What I do on this site is called shapeshifting, a practice I learned in the Amazon jungle with an indigenous tribe who still collect and shrink human heads. While this is a modified version, it will do for now...
Good for you, and right you are. Incidentally, a propos the 'mommy issue', I believe I found something of relevance.
Posts: 247 | Location: Limbo | Registered: 17 November 2007
I am not defending Chris here, because I don't think these kinds of attacks are necessary, however I have been called some pretty nasty names on this site (and told to F*** Off, once), by one (s) who will remain nameless.
I suspect we either need to eradicate all of these types of foul attacks, or allow it, but not pick and choose which is worse.
For what its worth, I don't think anyone who makes these kind of immature attacks on another member does him/herself any favors.
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
I suspect we either need to eradicate all of these types of foul attacks, or allow it, but not pick and choose which is worse.
Mel, I respect what you bring to this forum. And I think you and Rachel and everyone else here ought to have the right to carry on a discussion without Log and Slabby interfering with it. These ass holes have been running rough shod here for years and given free run of the place. I personally know a lot of people have had it. Some very visionary voices left including a couple of moderators who were kicked out by the current crop of moderators and happened to be good friends of mine. I see no point in rehashing this now as it is very old history.
As far as I am concerned they ought to ban Log and slabby and myself and then you people can do whatever it is you do here.
Posts: 1162 | Location: Boulder Creek Watershed | Registered: 14 February 2004
Mel, I respect what you bring to this forum. And I think you and Rachel and everyone else here ought to have the right to carry on a discussion without Log and Slabby interfering with it. These ass holes have been running rough shod here for years and given free run of the place. I personally know a lot of people have had it. Some very visionary voices left including a couple of moderators who were kicked out by the current crop of moderators and happened to be good friends of mine. I see no point in rehashing this now as it is very old history.
As far as I am concerned they ought to ban Log and slabby and myself and then you people can do whatever it is you do here.
Of course, Chris, formally I have to disagree with you in order to be allowed to stick around.
However, I do support right to express your constitutionally protected opinion.
One might, though, wonder if calling someone an asshole may be construed as an ad hom when said individual IS in fact that
In addition:
quote:
Trolling is to deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments in order to bait other guests into angrily responding. They may also focus on changing the subject or diluting the discussion with content-poor posts, or focus on only one topic and point of view whatever the discussion. The troll has no intention of taking part in discussions, save to try and ruin the quality of the community for others. Trolls may also adopt sock puppets - alternative identities - to further their aims. Trolls will be banned.
Apparently, this rule knows many exceptions, as can be seen on pretty much any thread on this forum.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Loki,
Posts: 247 | Location: Limbo | Registered: 17 November 2007
Loki, believe it or not this place use to be pretty cool with a lot of interesting people with something interesting to say. The only two originals left are Don (Sawdust) and myself: Bonnie also one, but she seems gone now. It is too bad. THe only thing left (for the most part) are a bunch of shepple marching to their Democratic Handlers...
keep the fires burning...
Posts: 1162 | Location: Boulder Creek Watershed | Registered: 14 February 2004
... and now, let's quickly save this thread, before somebody asserts his or her constitutionally protected right to delete somebody else's constitutionally protected opinion.
Gotta love this country.
Posts: 247 | Location: Limbo | Registered: 17 November 2007
Originally posted by Mr Truth: My only questions are why is a pro-Israel lobby allowed to spy in the Pentagon? Who's national security comes first in Washington? Israel or the United States?
reading this thread it's evident that the main misunderstanding is in the expression pro-Israel. The people you are talking about in AIPAC and the neo cons are not pro-Israel. They are even less pro-Israel than the republicans are pro-american. They are pro themselves and pro-elite. They use Israel and the jewish people for their own selfish purposes in an imperial grand chess game. If you want to see the endgame for Israel and the jewish people look into the 19-20th turn of the century history of the Habsburg Empire, with the nobility and corrupt elites of subjugated nations especially the hungarian aristocracy living large in Vienna detached from the realities of their own exploited people at home, in utter contempt to national minorities and profound sense of entitlement, ethnic superiority and hubris, doing politics and partying with the elite, oblivious to the realities of every day life in the country side.
Originally posted by Mattnapa: Kate- I am not completely clear on what your final stance on this is. I have to say if Thom thought this was "too huge" an issue to be discussed then that is what he should have said.
My final stance is that 1) yes, Thom made an abrupt transition and yes he did not sound comfortable with addressing the AIPAC topic, and yes he sounded less than himself in the taped exchange that started this thread; 2) it's Thom's program, and this is Thom's message board -- he can entertain any question he wants to, and refuse to entertain any question he doesn't want to; and 3) if a caller wants to have a discussion with Thom about a topic of concern, the caller should leave off the red flag words like AIPAC (or Noam Chomsky perhaps) and ask questions around the edges that allow Thom to develop an answer that does not require Thom to include the caller's world view in his response.
Thom is a sturdy soul, to give us a forum in which to criticize his imperfections.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Originally posted by Mr Truth: As I already stated in my first post, I said nothing about Jews, neither did I say anything about Israel. I am not anti-semitic.
This is the other childish charge against dissenters. I'd love to ask the blowhards who play the antisemitism card if they ever spoke up against suicide bombers. Since most suicide bombers speak arabic which is a well known semitic language by this logic I could easily call them anti semitic as well.
Thom is a sturdy soul, to give you a forum in which to criticize his imperfections.
If that were true, he'd show up on this thread and face the charges, but he's hiding, like a coward. And not for the first time either.
I am sick and tired of this political witch hunt. If you want a talkshow host to answer your question put it in a way that does not convey gross misunderstanding of basic geo political realities.
Saying that likud or AIPAC are pro Israel is misleading and false. Just as anyone who condemns the republican party and its government, which in my opinion is starting to look like an unamerican nazi party more than a genuine conservative party, is not necessarily anti-american. Yet that's the charge against everybody from french intellectuals to european human rights activists or latin american world leaders: anti americans this anti american that. Again: pay attention and make your questions specific, avoid false generalizations if you want a genuine answer from Hartmann.
Thom is a sturdy soul, to give you a forum in which to criticize his imperfections.
If that were true, he'd show up on this thread and face the charges, but he's hiding, like a coward. And not for the first time either.
I am sick and tired of this political witch hunt. If you want a talkshow host to answer your question put it in a way that does not convey gross misunderstanding of basic geo political realities.
Saying that likud or AIPAC are pro Israel is misleading and false. Just as anyone who condemns the republican party and its government, which in my opinion is starting to look like an unamerican nazi party more than a genuine conservative party, is not necessarily anti-american. Yet that's the charge against everybody from french intellectuals to european human rights activists or latin american world leaders: anti americans this anti american that. Again: pay attention and make your questions specific, avoid false generalizations if you want a genuine answer from Hartmann.
Ok, on a second thought i just see that you haven't mentioned Israel, so I guess ignore my previous post and I apologise. I would have to listen to the audio to understand what's going on.
As far as I'm concerned, Hartmann screwed up on this one. Mr. Truth asked a question, but didn't get to finish. Thom interrupted him, and didn't go as far as explicitly call him an anti-Semite, but the implication is right there.
Anti-Semitism is a form of racism, which I happen to define as the belief that one's race is superior to another's on the basis of biological characteristics (please note, that on the basis of this definition any form of racist belief is easily debunked, since biologically, there's only one human race. We're not cats.)
As far as I can tell, Mr. Truth only brought up (not sure what the question was, because he didn't get to finish) the AIPAC/Pentagon Spy Case. There's not even a hint of racist prejudice there. This is Hartmann's forum, we get to criticize him all we want, and that's cool, but with a screw up of this magnitude, he should be big enough a man to show the **** up and clear this up.
Posts: 247 | Location: Limbo | Registered: 17 November 2007
I'd like to repeat my unanswered question, maybe you can spell out exactly what your problem is with the Jews and Israel. Your antisemitism is a result of importing European Nazism into the US.
For the first hundred years of the US the Irish were the target of organized discrimination. People claimed they were uneducated, stupid, drunkards and not fit for political office. This was a result of importing the British class system into the US.
I don't see your systemized prejudice against the Jews as inherently different. You are claiming that the Jews have no right to decide what American tax dollars get spent on? In your vision of democracy, what rights do the Jews have?
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
I'd like to repeat my unanswered question, maybe you can spell out exactly what your problem is with the Jews and Israel. Your antisemitism is a result of importing European Nazism into the US.
Sure. Just repeat your assumption. Why bother to read, right? Just blindly repeat, like a mantra. Just keep saying it. Out loud, and quietly, every waking moment. Right until you convince yourself.
And remember, whatever you do, do
NOT
read!
EVER.
Posts: 247 | Location: Limbo | Registered: 17 November 2007
When I was four (4) years old, the truth is, I did thangs wrong! That was great!!
Once, I found a shiney metal bowl of my Mother's fresh made cole slaw. It was irresistable! And although the table was much taller than I, I carried the bowl over my head, away from the counter, and directly into the 'Family Room'. MY FAVORITE COUCH WAS THE PERFECT PLACE to set down the bowl...
Luckily, there was a large ladel within the bowl. Did ANYONE KNOW I was gifted in the free use of my little hands?!! Huh.
The layer of cole slaw briefly resembled a 'continent', and then it began to submerge like Atlantis in my imaginationing...RUN! RUN! RUN! Oooooo. YEAH! YEAH!! YEAH!!
What?
"Ouch."
Bye.
Posts: 582 | Location: New York City | Registered: 13 February 2007
Garlodious: I only suggest that, to answer that, you first distinguish between reality of where Jews and Israel are now, and then consider what the heroes and myths about the two groups are. Then don't do yourself in!!
Posts: 582 | Location: New York City | Registered: 13 February 2007
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: I'll make the question as simple as possible for you:
Should black people be allowed to vote?
Of course Black people should be allowed to vote, but "Pro-African" groups shouldn't be allowed to spy in the Pentagon for 5 years as liaison to Africa.
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: I'd like to repeat my unanswered question, maybe you can spell out exactly what your problem is with the Jews and Israel.
Again with the Jews? I think it's obvious that you're too sensitive to handle the facts and their implications, so all you're able to do is cry like a baby. Or cry like this guy .
quote:
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: I don't see your systemized prejudice against the Jews as inherently different. You are claiming that the Jews have no right to decide what American tax dollars get spent on? In your vision of democracy, what rights do the Jews have?
No, all I'm saying is "Pro-Israel" lobbyists shouldn't have access to classified information or decide what our intelligence should say.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mr Truth,
Mel, I respect what you bring to this forum. And I think you and Rachel and everyone else here ought to have the right to carry on a discussion without Log and Slabby interfering with it. These ass holes have been running rough shod here for years and given free run of the place. I personally know a lot of people have had it. Some very visionary voices left including a couple of moderators who were kicked out by the current crop of moderators and happened to be good friends of mine. I see no point in rehashing this now as it is very old history.
As far as I am concerned they ought to ban Log and slabby and myself and then you people can do whatever it is you do here.
I always get a warm fuzzy when people mention my name with such reverence and benevolence. However, I am concerned by your apparent self loathing and poor self imagine that you feel you need to be banned. I am sure that is a topic all in itself. Where you feel you have so little to offer this community I however , have a tremendous amount to still offer. I think we both know why you want me banned.
I am not too concerned with Loki opinion regarding me. He has sever personal issues he needs to come to terms on.
While my participation here is of course subject to the whims of our host. Like it is in nearly all facets of life. Beyond my incredible self control they are the only one able to hold me accountable for the how, why, where and when I engage ideas that I find flawed and there are sooo many of those. I came here looking for opposing ideas that were as good or better then my own. So far I have been disappointed (especially since Common left). So there are only three ways to which I will leave this forum
By the whims of my hosts, Having my ideas thoroughly discredited to a point I can no longer exist here, I find somewhere better to be. So if you want me gone, I see only one avenue for you to take. Step up or Shut Up.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Pro-Israel groups shouldn't have access to classified information or decide what our intelligence should say.
And I agree. Where I disagree is your claim that Israeli agents have infiltrated The CIA, the Pentagon, and the DOD. The mere fact that we heard about it means they were caught. The remainder is hysteria, in my opinion.
You are not going to separate Jews from Israel, or Jews from lobbying. In addition, the Israelis are damned smart, and have advanced scientific and defense technology. In many cases it actually surpasses ours. Our DOD is in partnership with Israel because their know-how is valuable to us, for better or worse. I strongly doubt tht the DOD is going to let the Israelis stage a coup on the White House and start calling the shots.
You may not like the situation, but it would be worse if Israel was our enemy. God knows we already have an abundnce of those.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Pro-Israel groups shouldn't have access to classified information or decide what our intelligence should say.
And I agree. Where I disagree is your claim that Israeli agents have infiltrated The CIA, the Pentagon, and the DOD.
I didn't say that they are Israeli agents, AIPAC is a "Pro-Israel group". If the case gets dismissed claiming "State Secrets", THEN that's evidence that they were Israeli agents.
Mel, I respect what you bring to this forum. And I think you and Rachel and everyone else here ought to have the right to carry on a discussion without Log and Slabby interfering with it. These ass holes have been running rough shod here for years and given free run of the place. I personally know a lot of people have had it. Some very visionary voices left including a couple of moderators who were kicked out by the current crop of moderators and happened to be good friends of mine. I see no point in rehashing this now as it is very old history.
As far as I am concerned they ought to ban Log and slabby and myself and then you people can do whatever it is you do here.
I always get a warm fuzzy when people mention my name with such reverence and benevolence. However, I am concerned by your apparent self loathing and poor self imagine that you feel you need to be banned. I am sure that is a topic all in itself. Where you feel you have so little to offer this community I however , have a tremendous amount to still offer. I think we both know why you want me banned.
I am not too concerned with Loki opinion regarding me. He has sever personal issues he needs to come to terms on.
While my participation here is of course subject to the whims of our host. Like it is in nearly all facets of life. Beyond my incredible self control they are the only one able to hold me accountable for the how, why, where and when I engage ideas that I find flawed and there are sooo many of those. I came here looking for opposing ideas that were as good or better then my own. So far I have been disappointed (especially since Common left). So there are only three ways to which I will leave this forum
By the whims of my hosts, Having my ideas thoroughly discredited to a point I can no longer exist here, I find somewhere better to be. So if you want me gone, I see only one avenue for you to take. Step up or Shut Up.
Oh Log you give yourself too much credit, mostly you are just a constant source of amusement for most of us. And we all need a bit more humor in our lives, so thank you.
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
Actually, I only give myself half as much credit as I deserve. I do not want to come off as conceded. If conservatives spent as much time as liberal patting each other on the ass in a vain attempt to make those less deserving feel better about themselves, we wouldn’t get anything done here.
quote:
mostly you are just a constant source of amusement for most of us
I am not one to lie to myself, but whatever you need to tell yourself just to wake up in the morning is fine by me.
quote:
And we all need a bit more humor in our lives
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
I'm set regardless. Just got my oregon kicker check and my year end bonus. My only problem I have today is deciding how many Gold coins do I what to buy.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Kate - You seem to acknowledge that Thom has behaved poorly regarding this issue, but in the end you play the "its his board" card.I have two problems with that as a last word. One the whole idea that Thom would resort to ownership in the forum as a justificationd does not seem consistent with Thoms proffesed principles. The ownership card is simply a legal standing, and has nothing to due to with a discussion of whether Thom is behaving within the standard of ethics that he claims to uphold. He has refused to talk to Mr Truth twice on the radio(he has a different name on the radio by the way), add that this thread has no been moved away from the main board and we seem to have a significant problem. The fact that he has the power to do what he wants, really has nothing to do with whether he is behaving in an unprincipled manner.
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
Mr Truth: when a boy says, "I want candy from the bad man, with grey hair," adults can criticize his argument, and at the same time be aware that the child's fundamental facts or assumptions are flawed. A kid will always be a kid, but the link to the conservative Washington Post you provided is alive with fears, and may well be an example of historic yellow journalism. Even a child's notions are merely conclusions about reality he has drawn from his experience, and selected to rely upon with his argument. Your conclusions are based upon a brief conversation on the Show and are of a similar nature which may be based upon fear. The Post article you cite, however, delves into the (Vulcan-type) world of melodrama- nightmare! But I will be specific! First, I'll need to define the word shill, which has been twisted, for I think you are, in a way a shill too!
Encyclopedia Britannica (Conservative, heaven!)Shill: : 1) (intransitive verb) to act as a spokesperson or promoter (for something) circa., 1914 2) (noun, short for 'shillaber', of unknown origin, circa. 1916) a. one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler) b. one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter.
The child in my story might not know he cannot consume ONLY candy; and when he gets desperately hungry, he may also think that bad men have grey hair and they are foolishly generous, which is a stereotype!?
The child in my example, is doing his best to know that his needs are met, but of course lacks wisdom and experience to eat a mixed, and varied diet. Mr Truth, on your call and on this strain you have argued to us, your audience, that Thom's position is so very much identical with AIPAC, that we may safely conclude that their separate identities are tied by some hidden (illegal?) collaboration, which otherwise safely and practically be construed, as corrupt? Not the case. Like tooth-rottening candy though, Thom has stated his position (I think) in favor of ending the corporate lobbying or arm-twisting in Congress. He, like other progressives, claim that it just may be that we cannot rely upon lobbing groups' money to help our law-makers judgment! It only remains to bureaucratize these views. Have you never heard and accepted a man assaying an all-or-nothing opinion? Well, wise up! Wake up, here! The Washington Post column may be a good example of the fearful "yellow journalism" that scared us, right before the Spanish American War. The first paragraph refers to the intelligence mis-handling case conviction, but continues to suggest that some additional or secondary information of the case, which may or may not be related, may or may not, have been fairly adjudicated; this implication if true, may be a bald-faced lie, when next two non-sequetor (in my view)references to some set of repeated urgent meetings, and then to a recalling of an ambassador, seem to cast unwarranted negative aspersions against the Isreali foreign service. The article seeks, and finally succeeds in reverting from an attempt to unite un-connected implications concerning past power, and political abuse in Israel, short of re-writing the core of Israeli history. The article continues, "Israeli officials have been approached by U.S. investigators and are cooperating." What is YOUR opinion on Washington lobbyists, Mr Truth? Giving you the benefit of privately and publically acting in harmony for the common good, I think that it is you, who may be a shill for the melodramatic pitchmen, that currently write our free press!
Posts: 582 | Location: New York City | Registered: 13 February 2007
The fact remains, it is Thom's board, and AIPAC is a hot button issue. I'll give Thom a bye on not being perfectly composed when he dismissed the topic.
I just posted this on the "where is this thread" thread:
quote:
Originally posted by --Kate: Well. It seems like a political hot potato. Interesting problem.
quote:
Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) this week blamed a pro-Israel lobbying group for blocking legislation earlier this year that would have prevented President Bush from starting a war with Iran without congressional approval.
Moran, whose political career has been jeopardized by his past attempts to criticize the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), tried to walk a careful line as he complained about the group.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Originally posted by --Kate: My final stance is that 1) yes, Thom made an abrupt transition and yes he did not sound comfortable with addressing the AIPAC topic, and yes he sounded less than himself in the taped exchange that started this thread;
What's your theory on why he didn't want to talk about it?
quote:
Originally posted by --Kate:2) it's Thom's program, he can entertain any question he wants to, and refuse to entertain any question he doesn't want to;
Really? I called him on "anything goes friday" maybe he should change it to "anything goes but AIPAC friday".
quote:
Originally posted by --Kate: 3) if a caller wants to have a discussion with Thom about a topic of concern, the caller should leave off the red flag words like AIPAC (or Noam Chomsky perhaps)
Why is AIPAC a "red flag word"? Are you serious?
quote:
Originally posted by --Kate:and ask questions around the edges that allow Thom to develop an answer that does not require Thom to include the caller's world view in his response.
I'm not the only caller Hartman disagreed with. He seems to handle callers he disagrees with appropriately.....except when someone asks him about AIPAC.
quote:
Originally posted by --Kate:Thom is a sturdy soul, to give us a forum in which to criticize his imperfections.
No, Hartman is a cowardly coward and should be called out for being a left-gatekeeper.
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Read-Only Topic
To me it looks like you need a psychiatrist. Grow up.
I sound like a conservative because I care about National Security? Are you retarded? How about I sound like a Patriot.
. Or cry like this guy 
. 
