New Israeli Government is a Horror Show

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Repeating yourself because you want to ignore Obama's own statements as well as a federal plan Neil (no quotes necessary,he's not using a pen name) linked to is not really an intelligent way to respond. If you have evidence Obama didn't make the quoted statements and that the document is false, please provide. The article stands until you can show me Neil made these things up. Given I've known him for almost 30 years, I can speak for his integrity, going back to Defense News and his writings there. You currently run a blog. I trust his research and opinion more

The document is authentic. It just doesn't say what "Neil" says it says. If you believe that document proves that Obama is orchestrating the federalization of local police, all you need to do is quote the paragraphs that demonstrate this. There is no need to rely on "Neil" when the primary source is there. As far as Obama's comments go, "Neil" did not provide a source. Once, again, I am not in the business of proving negatives -- as much as you would like me to be in that business, apparently. If Obama said those things and you believe they prove your point, show the original source.

See, here's the thing about reporting. The data and quotes that are provided are real. The quotes don't have to come only from that particular document; when forming a conclusion on anything you report, you should naturally pull from other sources as well, i.e. relevant speeches, press conferences, etc. It's always a sum-total. I'm sure Hitler didn't write one document entitled "How to kill 6 million Jews - steps to the Holocaust". The information about what Hitler was up to came from multiple sources, i.e. his speeches, letters, reports from folks on the ground, etc. You can not agree with Neil's conclusions, but ignoring what Obama has said in his speeches and other conversations about this issue, ,especially in regards to how it relates to the formal document, is, at the very least, ignorant.

Again, Obama did not say what "Neil" said he said. "Neil" paraphrased. Are you now comparing Obama to Hitler? I don't know why you cannot answer a simple question? Do you or do you not have evidence that Obama is planning to federalize local police? You have linked to an article that is misleading and inaccurate. It is not a case of disagreeing with conclusions, but rather a case of an author incorrectly describing what a report says. I have linked to the actual report and you cannot find the part of the report that supports your allegation. So, you have not been able to present any evidence. Why do you believe in a crackpot conspiracy theory when you have no evidence to support it?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Repeating yourself because you want to ignore Obama's own statements as well as a federal plan Neil (no quotes necessary,he's not using a pen name) linked to is not really an intelligent way to respond. If you have evidence Obama didn't make the quoted statements and that the document is false, please provide. The article stands until you can show me Neil made these things up. Given I've known him for almost 30 years, I can speak for his integrity, going back to Defense News and his writings there. You currently run a blog. I trust his research and opinion more

The document is authentic. It just doesn't say what "Neil" says it says. If you believe that document proves that Obama is orchestrating the federalization of local police, all you need to do is quote the paragraphs that demonstrate this. There is no need to rely on "Neil" when the primary source is there. As far as Obama's comments go, "Neil" did not provide a source. Once, again, I am not in the business of proving negatives -- as much as you would like me to be in that business, apparently. If Obama said those things and you believe they prove your point, show the original source.

See, here's the thing about reporting. The data and quotes that are provided are real. The quotes don't have to come only from that particular document; when forming a conclusion on anything you report, you should naturally pull from other sources as well, i.e. relevant speeches, press conferences, etc. It's always a sum-total. I'm sure Hitler didn't write one document entitled "How to kill 6 million Jews - steps to the Holocaust". The information about what Hitler was up to came from multiple sources, i.e. his speeches, letters, reports from folks on the ground, etc. You can not agree with Neil's conclusions, but ignoring what Obama has said in his speeches and other conversations about this issue, ,especially in regards to how it relates to the formal document, is, at the very least, ignorant.

Again, Obama did not say what "Neil" said he said. "Neil" paraphrased. Are you now comparing Obama to Hitler? I don't know why you cannot answer a simple question? Do you or do you not have evidence that Obama is planning to federalize local police? You have linked to an article that is misleading and inaccurate. It is not a case of disagreeing with conclusions, but rather a case of an author incorrectly describing what a report says. I have linked to the actual report and you cannot find the part of the report that supports your allegation. So, you have not been able to present any evidence. Why do you believe in a crackpot conspiracy theory when you have no evidence to support it?

The quotes are at WhiteHouse.Gov as part of a press conference. I stated that in this thread.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Repeating yourself because you want to ignore Obama's own statements as well as a federal plan Neil (no quotes necessary,he's not using a pen name) linked to is not really an intelligent way to respond. If you have evidence Obama didn't make the quoted statements and that the document is false, please provide. The article stands until you can show me Neil made these things up. Given I've known him for almost 30 years, I can speak for his integrity, going back to Defense News and his writings there. You currently run a blog. I trust his research and opinion more

The document is authentic. It just doesn't say what "Neil" says it says. If you believe that document proves that Obama is orchestrating the federalization of local police, all you need to do is quote the paragraphs that demonstrate this. There is no need to rely on "Neil" when the primary source is there. As far as Obama's comments go, "Neil" did not provide a source. Once, again, I am not in the business of proving negatives -- as much as you would like me to be in that business, apparently. If Obama said those things and you believe they prove your point, show the original source.

See, here's the thing about reporting. The data and quotes that are provided are real. The quotes don't have to come only from that particular document; when forming a conclusion on anything you report, you should naturally pull from other sources as well, i.e. relevant speeches, press conferences, etc. It's always a sum-total. I'm sure Hitler didn't write one document entitled "How to kill 6 million Jews - steps to the Holocaust". The information about what Hitler was up to came from multiple sources, i.e. his speeches, letters, reports from folks on the ground, etc. You can not agree with Neil's conclusions, but ignoring what Obama has said in his speeches and other conversations about this issue, ,especially in regards to how it relates to the formal document, is, at the very least, ignorant.

Again, Obama did not say what "Neil" said he said. "Neil" paraphrased. Are you now comparing Obama to Hitler? I don't know why you cannot answer a simple question? Do you or do you not have evidence that Obama is planning to federalize local police? You have linked to an article that is misleading and inaccurate. It is not a case of disagreeing with conclusions, but rather a case of an author incorrectly describing what a report says. I have linked to the actual report and you cannot find the part of the report that supports your allegation. So, you have not been able to present any evidence. Why do you believe in a crackpot conspiracy theory when you have no evidence to support it?

The quotes are at WhiteHouse.Gov as part of a press conference. I stated that in this thread.

What you quoted earlier did not support your allegation. The only part that kind of, sort of, supported it was a paraphrase. The text that is paraphrased is not identified. Since the President didn't say anything close to what was paraphrased, the paraphrase doesn't appear to be accurate. But, again, instead of endlessly trying to make things difficult, just quote the primary sources that support your allegations. "Neil's" creative writing exercise is not necessary. Between the document to which I linked and "Whitehouse.gov" you should be able to show me Obama's plan to federalize the local police. I'm surprised that you haven't done that by now.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Repeating yourself because you want to ignore Obama's own statements as well as a federal plan Neil (no quotes necessary,he's not using a pen name) linked to is not really an intelligent way to respond. If you have evidence Obama didn't make the quoted statements and that the document is false, please provide. The article stands until you can show me Neil made these things up. Given I've known him for almost 30 years, I can speak for his integrity, going back to Defense News and his writings there. You currently run a blog. I trust his research and opinion more

The document is authentic. It just doesn't say what "Neil" says it says. If you believe that document proves that Obama is orchestrating the federalization of local police, all you need to do is quote the paragraphs that demonstrate this. There is no need to rely on "Neil" when the primary source is there. As far as Obama's comments go, "Neil" did not provide a source. Once, again, I am not in the business of proving negatives -- as much as you would like me to be in that business, apparently. If Obama said those things and you believe they prove your point, show the original source.

See, here's the thing about reporting. The data and quotes that are provided are real. The quotes don't have to come only from that particular document; when forming a conclusion on anything you report, you should naturally pull from other sources as well, i.e. relevant speeches, press conferences, etc. It's always a sum-total. I'm sure Hitler didn't write one document entitled "How to kill 6 million Jews - steps to the Holocaust". The information about what Hitler was up to came from multiple sources, i.e. his speeches, letters, reports from folks on the ground, etc. You can not agree with Neil's conclusions, but ignoring what Obama has said in his speeches and other conversations about this issue, ,especially in regards to how it relates to the formal document, is, at the very least, ignorant.

Again, Obama did not say what "Neil" said he said. "Neil" paraphrased. Are you now comparing Obama to Hitler? I don't know why you cannot answer a simple question? Do you or do you not have evidence that Obama is planning to federalize local police? You have linked to an article that is misleading and inaccurate. It is not a case of disagreeing with conclusions, but rather a case of an author incorrectly describing what a report says. I have linked to the actual report and you cannot find the part of the report that supports your allegation. So, you have not been able to present any evidence. Why do you believe in a crackpot conspiracy theory when you have no evidence to support it?

The quotes are at WhiteHouse.Gov as part of a press conference. I stated that in this thread.

What you quoted earlier did not support your allegation. The only part that kind of, sort of, supported it was a paraphrase. The text that is paraphrased is not identified. Since the President didn't say anything close to what was paraphrased, the paraphrase doesn't appear to be accurate. But, again, instead of endlessly trying to make things difficult, just quote the primary sources that support your allegations. "Neil's" creative writing exercise is not necessary. Between the document to which I linked and "Whitehouse.gov" you should be able to show me Obama's plan to federalize the local police. I'm surprised that you haven't done that by now.

Whatevs. Kind of sick of your games, which are designed to deflect in order to discredit. The quotes were real, I provided you a source, now they 'don't count'. Hilarious.

You believe what you believe; I will believe what I believe. Only one of us is calling names - the lowest form of debate, by the way. I feel I've proven my case, and I'm sure Neil - and myself - are correct. I believe time will bear that out. And when it does, you will be the first one out there claiming that 'it needed to be done', and 'no one is hurt by it' just like you were with healthcare. Socialists always say these things. And I do believe you are a hard-core socialist.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Whatevs. Kind of sick of your games, which are designed to deflect in order to discredit. The quotes were real, I provided you a source, now they 'don't count'. Hilarious.

You believe what you believe; I will believe what I believe. Only one of us is calling names - the lowest form of debate, by the way. I feel I've proven my case, and I'm sure Neil - and myself - are correct. I believe time will bear that out. And when it does, you will be the first one out there claiming that 'it needed to be done', and 'no one is hurt by it' just like you were with healthcare. Socialists always say these things. And I do believe you are a hard-core socialist.

Look if you want to believe in a crackpot conspiracy theory, that is absolutely your right. But, don't get mad when someone calls you a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Obviously, a source that misrepresents the primary sources it claims to describe is not credible. That you put your absolute faith in such an article when it is within your means to discover its misrepresentations tells volumes about your mindset. You want to believe in your crackpot theory so badly, that you won't dare question your source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The new Israeli government confirms that the two state solution is dead, that Israel has no intention to negotiate in good faith, but simply wants to buy time to keep confiscating land and build settlements in the territories.

At this point the Palestinians should just ackowledge the situation, set the two state solution aside and push for a one state solution where Israel annexes the West Bank, and all the people who live there.

Only if everyone can vote in the new state.

this is what I said. the Palestinians should push for one state at this point with the West Bank annexed to Israel in its entirety, including all the Palestinians who live there. Israel is very proud of being the only true democracy in the area thus I don't see how Israel could deny the right to vote to the WEst Bank Palestinians who would be then be living in Israel. or maybe I see it.

The point is that the negotiating process that has been going on for a long time and that should have resulted in the creation of a viable Palestinian state is clearly dead and the new cabinet is even more proof of this (think of the new ministry of justice and her party). so everybody, including US and the Palestinians, should just take note and move on. Israel does not want a greater Israel with all the West Bank Palestinians? well, too bad, should have thought of that before

[Anonymous]

Good thing this is not a troll thread.

Now back to the "discussion."

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Whatevs. Kind of sick of your games, which are designed to deflect in order to discredit. The quotes were real, I provided you a source, now they 'don't count'. Hilarious.

You believe what you believe; I will believe what I believe. Only one of us is calling names - the lowest form of debate, by the way. I feel I've proven my case, and I'm sure Neil - and myself - are correct. I believe time will bear that out. And when it does, you will be the first one out there claiming that 'it needed to be done', and 'no one is hurt by it' just like you were with healthcare. Socialists always say these things. And I do believe you are a hard-core socialist.

Look if you want to believe in a crackpot conspiracy theory, that is absolutely your right. But, don't get mad when someone calls you a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Obviously, a source that misrepresents the primary sources it claims to describe is not credible. That you put your absolute faith in such an article when it is within your means to discover its misrepresentations tells volumes about your mindset. You want to believe in your crackpot theory so badly, that you won't dare question your source.

Mad? Oh HELL no. I think it's funny that your constant goal is insult and deflect. I enjoy watching you engage this way and exposing you for who you are.

[Anonymous]

Good old Neil.