michellemalkin.com— A further decision is due in the controversy over taxi drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport who refuse to transport passengers visibly carrying alcohol
Feb 23, 2007View in Crawl 4
Okay YixilTesiphon, thats fine, so why are they creating a stir about it? and why is anyone contemplating a policy in regards to this?I say lt them eat pork!! they can always move to Londonistan and drive a hack there if they dont like it here.
bridge, in yet another typical right-wing attempt to use the concepts they learned from me, said:"This is what you call Projection."No, this is NOT projection. If you're going to try and use terms like this perhaps you should try and study them and their meanings first. Oh, and while you're at it you can look up democracy, freedom of speech, and all of those other terms you are unfamiliar with.***************************************************I'm well aware of the word, and it works perfectly. ***************************************************"You brought up one sentence that he said or didn't say about Chomsky."It's irrelevant, as I've said from the beginning, even if I said Chomsky's name in ever other sentence. In fact, I've rarely brought him up. I rarely say anything about his ideas. I've never said that I even like the guy, though I do. Nothing. But, since you've said his name, AGAIN, here, then you TOO should just stop using the word given you know nothing of the subject. After you study a little and have some clue as to what you're referring to THEN perhaps you can start making a debate.*********************************************************************what the heck are you saying? You brought the guy up. Can you read? DO you know what you typed? It's write here on this page. Your comments. Sheesh******************************************************************************"Perhaps he made one comment in ignorance."Irrelevant. Your and your cohorts talking about Chomsky without knowing the subject is the only thing ignorant here. Better be careful. *****************************************What the heck are you talking about? I'm not talking about CHOMSKY in this sentence. I'm talking about Pipes. I'm responding to Your earlier comments. You can't even follow a conversation?*****************************************"And then you claim that people become zombies and "follow" him."I know of no one who "follows" him. No one fro the left anyway. I've studied him and know his work, just as I have Plato Aristotle, Hume, Kant, etc...and all the other famous philosophers in the history books, where, mind you, Chomsky already is and will be more in the future. What's wrong with learning about one of the great thinkers of our time? What's odd is that people would resist knowing about him. I don't recall this much antipathy towards Einstein, even though he probably had many of the same ideas. Nope, 100% irrelevant. If you're going to talk about the subject, try studying it a little first. Hey, I'm not doing this because I get something out of it. On the contrary, I get much more of the data I'm looking for by you maintaining your seemingly proud positions of ignorance on the topic while trying to talk about it all the time. This benefits YOU, not me.**************************************************************************Again, I wasn't talking about Chomsky. You are unable to follow the conversation between us, I see. Again, I'm referring to Pipes and what you wrote above.***********************************************************************"Utter stupidity."Now THIS is projection, as I've just demonstrated, again, for the 300th time.***************************************************************Projection? I'm talking about the idea that YOu brought forth about people following Pipes and it becoming "propoganda"...Again, you can't follow.****************************************************************"Besides, this has nothing to do with Chomsky. (again)"Then quit talking about him.***********************************************************you're losing it. Try to follow a conversation. YOU brought the guy up.***********************************************************"Pertaining to This Post, Where is the LIE????????????????????????????"You really don't see it, do you? Perhaps if you knew a little background, as I've tried briefly to teach you, about the man Malkin is trying to spoon-feed you as a source, then it wouldn't be so difficult to tell. And if someone claims that 2+2=54, and you TOO believe that it's 54, then you probably wouldn't see the problem. Couldn't get much easier than this. ********************************************Where's the LIE? If it's so clear as day. DO TELL. Still waiting.....and still Nothing but you not being able to follow. **********************************************
".....Oh, and while you're at it you can look up democracy, freedom of speech, and all of those other terms you are unfamiliar with."kb"I'm well aware of the word, and it works perfectly."bridNo, you aren't. Or if you are you keep doing it repeatedly.***************************************************************************************************** "You brought up one sentence that he said or didn't say about Chomsky.""It's irrelevant, as I've said from the beginning, even if I said Chomsky's name in ever other sentence. In fact, I've rarely brought him up...."kb "what the heck are you saying?"I'm saying that it's irrelevant. See? It's written right up there."You brought the guy up. Can you read? DO you know what you typed? It's write here on this page. Your comments. Sheesh"Really? Where's the evidence? I've been talking about Pipes and his LONG history of lying. Chomsky's name was only mentioned in how it related to Pipes' habit of lying, therefore the sentence isn't about Chomsky, it's about Pipes. The mention of Chomsky in the above is STILL irrelevant.******************************************************************************Perhaps he made one comment in ignorance."Irrelevant. Your and your cohorts talking about Chomsky without knowing the subject is the only thing ignorant here. Better be careful." Still irrelevant.*****************************************"What the heck are you talking about? I'm not talking about CHOMSKY in this sentence. I'm talking about Pipes."Yes, me too. I've only been talking about Pipes."I'm responding to Your earlier comments. You can't even follow a conversation?"Evidence?*****************************************"And then you claim that people become zombies and "follow" him."I know of no one who "follows" him. No one fro the left anyway. I've studied him and know his work, just as I have Plato Aristotle, Hume, Kant, etc...and all the other famous philosophers in the history books, where, mind you, Chomsky already is and will be more in the future...." **************************************************************************"Again, I wasn't talking about Chomsky. You are unable to follow the conversation between us, I see. Again, I'm referring to Pipes and what you wrote above."Evidence? Where? Don't know what you're referring to.***********************************************************************"Utter stupidity."Now THIS is projection, as I've just demonstrated, again, for the 300th time."Projection? I'm talking about the idea that You brought forth about people following Pipes and it becoming "propaganda"...Again, you can't follow."Yes, Pipes IS a propagandist of the first order, and a well established lying fanatic. Again, you can't follow. I left one of the thousands of links where you find many examples of his lying, his neo-conartistry, etc.....That's all. Simply put, he lies. That's all. But even pathological liars don't lies ALL the time. You know, like when he says he must go to the bathroom he might be telling the truth. I'm talking about his entire career, where he came from, etc....Are you unaware of those who you use for sources? "Besides, this has nothing to do with Chomsky. (again)"Then quit talking about him.***********************************************************"you're losing it. Try to follow a conversation. YOU brought the guy up."Only in relation to how Pipes was a liar. The mention of Chomsky's name IS irrelevant. The relevant part is that Pipes lied, and in this case a lie so gross and apparent that it should make anyone with a half a brain dismiss him out of hand. Had he made the same lie about anyone else on earth it would have changed the point one bit. The mention of Chomsky is irrelevant."Pertaining to This Post, Where is the LIE????????????????????????????"bridge"You really don't see it, do you?...."kb Where's the LIE? If it's so clear as day. DO TELL. Still waiting.....and still Nothing but you not being able to follow. His entire thesis regarding Muslims is a lie. What do you mean "Where's the lie?" You want MORE evidence of his lying? Okay:<a class="user" href="http://www.alkalima.com/publications/Alkalima-Exposing-Daniel-Pipes.pdf">http://www.alkalima.com/publications/Alkalima-Exposing-Daniel-Pipes.pdf</a><a class="user" href="http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann1207.html">http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann1207.html</a><a class="user" href="http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/onrebi.html">http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/onrebi.html</a>See: What Others Say at bottom of page:<a class="user" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daniel_Pipes">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daniel_Pipes</a>You'll also notice that Malkin supports and has written direct apologetics for this lying buffoon. As always, you should perhaps look at his agenda before jumping on board and drinking the cyanide koolaid. Let's have a look at a few statements which pretty much sum up his positions, and most things which flow from the them, including this joke of an article here:The Truth About Daniel Pipes1)Daniel Pipes' speech before the convention of the American Jewish Congress on 10/21/2001). "The increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews." 2)"The Palestinians are a miserable people...and they deserve to be." Daniel Pipes, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2001 3)"Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most." (National Review, 11/19/90) 4)"Iranians and Pakistanis, to take two groups of non-Arabs, are at least as widely conspiracy-minded and as anti-Semitic as, say, Tunisians and Kuwaitis." (Commentary, 9/1/99) 5)"...black converts tend to hold vehemently anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic attitudes." (Commentary, 6/1/2000) <a class="user" href="http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=72">http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=72</a>From Democracy Now (The true colors of the brave Pipes demonstrated here)"Last week Pipes walked off the set of an Al Jazeera news show when he learned representatives from the Council on American Islamic Relations would also appear on the show." (Coward)"Almost two weeks ago we talked with Pipes, as well as Hussein Ibish of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American Islamic Relations. Since it was a phone interview Pipes couldn't walk off the set. But he did the next closest thing. He hung up. Not once but twice. But we were able to ask him a few questions.I began by asking for his response to the charge that he was the nation's leading Islamophobe..." <a class="user" href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/03/0026241">http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/03/0026241</a>There are 12 good examples here:<a class="user" href="http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=searchResults">http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=searchResults</a>More here:<a class="user" href="http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=1779&no_cache=1&sword_list[]=daniel&sword_list[]=pipes">http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=1779&no_cache=1&sword_list[]=daniel&sword_list[]=pipes</a>Anyway, I could go on and on demonstrating the man's history, and it is in THIS light which one should be reading things such as this basically irrelevant issue regarding taxis, Muslims, and alcohol. =========================================================================bridgetown said:"Furthermore, Kbkbkbk....While I await you trying to find a lie in Pipes' postings.....""Here, Same subject....different sources. Are you going to now, tell me they ALL LIE????????????"As mentioned before, even the most depraved and pathetic figures like Pipes lie ALL the time, though some seem to be trying. If he said his butt itched I see no reason not to believe him. Beyond this I don't see much reason to believe him regarding anything. The he has tried to frame the two light on the taxi issue as more evidence that "The Muslims are taking over" in the same paranoid light that his father thought "The commies are taking over". What this does is to instill further incorrect stereotypes and hatred for Muslims, basically from folks like you folks here, and causes you to see ALL things they do through these warped lenses, which, in turn, DOES affect the decisions you make on whom to support, their agendas, etc...A given that his agenda is hardly a secret, well, one should be able to easily see that "the taxi affair" is just another link in the chain. Seemed to me pretty much like a culturally sensitive thing to do by putting lights on the cabs. Personally I'd prefer to get into a cab with a light having a Muslim driver who doesn't wish to pick up a drunk person, that I would a cab with a light saying the racist driver doesn't wish to pick up a black person. I think it's a good idea. Then we can see who stands where. "I'd keep on going, but I think I've made my point."Your point being that Pipes thinks that the Muslims are trying to take over the world? "I won't wait for you to enlighten us on the "lie", because you can't. There isn't one. And 2+2 still equals 4, babe."His entire position is a lie, babe. I think I've made MY point. And why are you using my 2+2=4 examples being that your math is as good as your debating abilities, not to mention that you don't do math.
manchu drooled, having nothing better to offer:"Bridge, everything comes back to Chomsky (of course, KB's just "pulling your chain" with that...he's not really completely obsessed with the good professor.....)"Evidence? I rarely talk about him at all. I don't recall mentioning ANY of his positions or quoting him more than once or twice since I've been coming to this blog. But of you think you can find any evidence, please present it. About 85% of the comments rel;ated to the man at all have simply come from the village idiots here who think they know his positions, when they don't, and then lies about them, which, I then procede to correct. Then there is about14% which is responding to liars who say that I talk about him all the time when I rarely do. Then there is maybe 1% at most, and I don't recall even this much, so I'm being rather conservative here, where I actually mentioned his positions in any manner other than correcting incorrect assertions made against him. And even then, I never remember saying that therefore he was correct. I simply said that the position assigned to him were incorrect, just as the positions I've assigned to Pipes ARE correct. So, I'm afraid your assertion itself, manchu, is as full of crap and falsity as those who seem to attrack your type, Pipes, Malkin, and the like, all full of crap. "Didn't read KB's posts; not worth the time"This is probably true. If I went to a physics blog and saw a bunch of formulations which I didn't understand and knew that I had nothing to contribute, and that I was unable to respond with anything more than a grunt, I'd probably conclude that it was "not worth the time" also.
Oh, and a word of advice. When you folks begin to look at an issue where two or more sides are involved, or where one side has a grievence against the other, it REALLY doesn't hurt to try and make some sort of attempt at looking at the side with the grievence instead of relying solely upon folks like Pipes to "tell" you what the other side is all about. A simply example which ALL of you should be able to easily relate: There were black slaves and white slave masters. The blacks had grievences. From time to time they actually had the nerve to ask for things, like, perhaps going to see their children a few counties over who had been sold to the highest bidder that day. These grievences were perceived by the masters as attempts by the blacks to impose THEMSELVES on the master. After all, he paid for them. Now, the master thought that if we allow the blacks to start down this "slippery slope" where would it end. Then there were even instances where the masters were killed. The fear and anti-black fever was reaching a high pitch around white communities where the like-minded lived. Everyone was sure the blacks would get them next. Now, if you ONLY listened to the masters arguments, rationalizations, etc...and never took the time to actually talk to any of the slaves, etc....do you think you'd be developing an accurate perception of what was actually taking place? Would you not perceive every act the slaves were doing through these lenses? Would you not begin to become paranoid, as the right has ALWAYS done, about everything they do, interpreting everything as a potential plot to "get them"? I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you probably would. And, I'm sorry, but this is basically what you do on an almost daily basis here. You ARE the white folks looking through the eyes of the master, and this IS not a way to understand issues. Period! The absolute FIRST step, once again (Why am I always having to point out the ost obvious first steps which you folks never seem to grasp?), if wishing to enlighten yourself about the topic, is to actually go to the exact people who Pipes lies about, most often the victims, just as the master lied about his slaves, and see what they actually say themselves. THIS is the FIRST step, and I'd doubt VERY SERIOUSLY that a one of you unwitting right-wing propagandist bottom-feeders has read a sentence from the folks directly instead of after having it filtered through folks like Pipes or Malkin. This is also another reason why things even as obvious as allowing bin Laden blurbs to not appear in the media are so important. You folks aren't supposed to know what they actually say, you're only supposed to know what others, the propagandists want you to hear. This is the job of places like The U.S. Information Agency. What do you think their job is? Who do you think the targets of propaganda are? People overseas? YOU are the primary targets of the propaganda and this is how it works in almost every state. Propaganda isn't only trying to make Iraqis believe that the U.S. is trying to "free them". It's about trying to make YOU perceive that this is what the U.S. is up to. And for the most part it works relatively well. I doubt there are more than a few percent of Iraqis who fall for this nonsense, but look at all of you, hook, line, and sinker. But just to give you a chance to prove me wrong, you can tell me the names of all of the Muslim writers, blogs, homepages, agencies, groups, etc....you have studied to which have led you to your perception about them. (The category will be EMPTY)
Furthermore....you say, "you can tell me the names of all the muslim writers, blogs, hompgs,agncs,grps,etc u have studied which led u to perceptions..."I lived in Saudi Arabia, for starters...no books, just first hand living with people there as they live.Also, the category would not be empty, I have thousands of references, but only One should matter here, The Quran. And before you say that I don't have thousands of references, just ask and I'll list them for your stubborn head.
Closed AccountFeb 23, 2007
Okay YixilTesiphon, thats fine, so why are they creating a stir about it? and why is anyone contemplating a policy in regards to this?I say lt them eat pork!! they can always move to Londonistan and drive a hack there if they dont like it here.
Closed AccountFeb 24, 2007
Blocking again. Not worth my time.
bridgetownFeb 25, 2007
bridge, in yet another typical right-wing attempt to use the concepts they learned from me, said:"This is what you call Projection."No, this is NOT projection. If you're going to try and use terms like this perhaps you should try and study them and their meanings first. Oh, and while you're at it you can look up democracy, freedom of speech, and all of those other terms you are unfamiliar with.***************************************************I'm well aware of the word, and it works perfectly. ***************************************************"You brought up one sentence that he said or didn't say about Chomsky."It's irrelevant, as I've said from the beginning, even if I said Chomsky's name in ever other sentence. In fact, I've rarely brought him up. I rarely say anything about his ideas. I've never said that I even like the guy, though I do. Nothing. But, since you've said his name, AGAIN, here, then you TOO should just stop using the word given you know nothing of the subject. After you study a little and have some clue as to what you're referring to THEN perhaps you can start making a debate.*********************************************************************what the heck are you saying? You brought the guy up. Can you read? DO you know what you typed? It's write here on this page. Your comments. Sheesh******************************************************************************"Perhaps he made one comment in ignorance."Irrelevant. Your and your cohorts talking about Chomsky without knowing the subject is the only thing ignorant here. Better be careful. *****************************************What the heck are you talking about? I'm not talking about CHOMSKY in this sentence. I'm talking about Pipes. I'm responding to Your earlier comments. You can't even follow a conversation?*****************************************"And then you claim that people become zombies and "follow" him."I know of no one who "follows" him. No one fro the left anyway. I've studied him and know his work, just as I have Plato Aristotle, Hume, Kant, etc...and all the other famous philosophers in the history books, where, mind you, Chomsky already is and will be more in the future. What's wrong with learning about one of the great thinkers of our time? What's odd is that people would resist knowing about him. I don't recall this much antipathy towards Einstein, even though he probably had many of the same ideas. Nope, 100% irrelevant. If you're going to talk about the subject, try studying it a little first. Hey, I'm not doing this because I get something out of it. On the contrary, I get much more of the data I'm looking for by you maintaining your seemingly proud positions of ignorance on the topic while trying to talk about it all the time. This benefits YOU, not me.**************************************************************************Again, I wasn't talking about Chomsky. You are unable to follow the conversation between us, I see. Again, I'm referring to Pipes and what you wrote above.***********************************************************************"Utter stupidity."Now THIS is projection, as I've just demonstrated, again, for the 300th time.***************************************************************Projection? I'm talking about the idea that YOu brought forth about people following Pipes and it becoming "propoganda"...Again, you can't follow.****************************************************************"Besides, this has nothing to do with Chomsky. (again)"Then quit talking about him.***********************************************************you're losing it. Try to follow a conversation. YOU brought the guy up.***********************************************************"Pertaining to This Post, Where is the LIE????????????????????????????"You really don't see it, do you? Perhaps if you knew a little background, as I've tried briefly to teach you, about the man Malkin is trying to spoon-feed you as a source, then it wouldn't be so difficult to tell. And if someone claims that 2+2=54, and you TOO believe that it's 54, then you probably wouldn't see the problem. Couldn't get much easier than this. ********************************************Where's the LIE? If it's so clear as day. DO TELL. Still waiting.....and still Nothing but you not being able to follow. **********************************************
Closed AccountFeb 25, 2007
".....Oh, and while you're at it you can look up democracy, freedom of speech, and all of those other terms you are unfamiliar with."kb"I'm well aware of the word, and it works perfectly."bridNo, you aren't. Or if you are you keep doing it repeatedly.***************************************************************************************************** "You brought up one sentence that he said or didn't say about Chomsky.""It's irrelevant, as I've said from the beginning, even if I said Chomsky's name in ever other sentence. In fact, I've rarely brought him up...."kb "what the heck are you saying?"I'm saying that it's irrelevant. See? It's written right up there."You brought the guy up. Can you read? DO you know what you typed? It's write here on this page. Your comments. Sheesh"Really? Where's the evidence? I've been talking about Pipes and his LONG history of lying. Chomsky's name was only mentioned in how it related to Pipes' habit of lying, therefore the sentence isn't about Chomsky, it's about Pipes. The mention of Chomsky in the above is STILL irrelevant.******************************************************************************Perhaps he made one comment in ignorance."Irrelevant. Your and your cohorts talking about Chomsky without knowing the subject is the only thing ignorant here. Better be careful." Still irrelevant.*****************************************"What the heck are you talking about? I'm not talking about CHOMSKY in this sentence. I'm talking about Pipes."Yes, me too. I've only been talking about Pipes."I'm responding to Your earlier comments. You can't even follow a conversation?"Evidence?*****************************************"And then you claim that people become zombies and "follow" him."I know of no one who "follows" him. No one fro the left anyway. I've studied him and know his work, just as I have Plato Aristotle, Hume, Kant, etc...and all the other famous philosophers in the history books, where, mind you, Chomsky already is and will be more in the future...." **************************************************************************"Again, I wasn't talking about Chomsky. You are unable to follow the conversation between us, I see. Again, I'm referring to Pipes and what you wrote above."Evidence? Where? Don't know what you're referring to.***********************************************************************"Utter stupidity."Now THIS is projection, as I've just demonstrated, again, for the 300th time."Projection? I'm talking about the idea that You brought forth about people following Pipes and it becoming "propaganda"...Again, you can't follow."Yes, Pipes IS a propagandist of the first order, and a well established lying fanatic. Again, you can't follow. I left one of the thousands of links where you find many examples of his lying, his neo-conartistry, etc.....That's all. Simply put, he lies. That's all. But even pathological liars don't lies ALL the time. You know, like when he says he must go to the bathroom he might be telling the truth. I'm talking about his entire career, where he came from, etc....Are you unaware of those who you use for sources? "Besides, this has nothing to do with Chomsky. (again)"Then quit talking about him.***********************************************************"you're losing it. Try to follow a conversation. YOU brought the guy up."Only in relation to how Pipes was a liar. The mention of Chomsky's name IS irrelevant. The relevant part is that Pipes lied, and in this case a lie so gross and apparent that it should make anyone with a half a brain dismiss him out of hand. Had he made the same lie about anyone else on earth it would have changed the point one bit. The mention of Chomsky is irrelevant."Pertaining to This Post, Where is the LIE????????????????????????????"bridge"You really don't see it, do you?...."kb Where's the LIE? If it's so clear as day. DO TELL. Still waiting.....and still Nothing but you not being able to follow. His entire thesis regarding Muslims is a lie. What do you mean "Where's the lie?" You want MORE evidence of his lying? Okay:<a class="user" href="http://www.alkalima.com/publications/Alkalima-Exposing-Daniel-Pipes.pdf">http://www.alkalima.com/publications/Alkalima-Exposing-Daniel-Pipes.pdf</a><a class="user" href="http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann1207.html">http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann1207.html</a><a class="user" href="http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/onrebi.html">http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/onrebi.html</a>See: What Others Say at bottom of page:<a class="user" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daniel_Pipes">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daniel_Pipes</a>You'll also notice that Malkin supports and has written direct apologetics for this lying buffoon. As always, you should perhaps look at his agenda before jumping on board and drinking the cyanide koolaid. Let's have a look at a few statements which pretty much sum up his positions, and most things which flow from the them, including this joke of an article here:The Truth About Daniel Pipes1)Daniel Pipes' speech before the convention of the American Jewish Congress on 10/21/2001). "The increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews." 2)"The Palestinians are a miserable people...and they deserve to be." Daniel Pipes, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2001 3)"Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most." (National Review, 11/19/90) 4)"Iranians and Pakistanis, to take two groups of non-Arabs, are at least as widely conspiracy-minded and as anti-Semitic as, say, Tunisians and Kuwaitis." (Commentary, 9/1/99) 5)"...black converts tend to hold vehemently anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic attitudes." (Commentary, 6/1/2000) <a class="user" href="http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=72">http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=72</a>From Democracy Now (The true colors of the brave Pipes demonstrated here)"Last week Pipes walked off the set of an Al Jazeera news show when he learned representatives from the Council on American Islamic Relations would also appear on the show." (Coward)"Almost two weeks ago we talked with Pipes, as well as Hussein Ibish of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American Islamic Relations. Since it was a phone interview Pipes couldn't walk off the set. But he did the next closest thing. He hung up. Not once but twice. But we were able to ask him a few questions.I began by asking for his response to the charge that he was the nation's leading Islamophobe..." <a class="user" href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/03/0026241">http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/03/0026241</a>There are 12 good examples here:<a class="user" href="http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=searchResults">http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=searchResults</a>More here:<a class="user" href="http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=1779&no_cache=1&sword_list[]=daniel&sword_list[]=pipes">http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=1779&no_cache=1&sword_list[]=daniel&sword_list[]=pipes</a>Anyway, I could go on and on demonstrating the man's history, and it is in THIS light which one should be reading things such as this basically irrelevant issue regarding taxis, Muslims, and alcohol. =========================================================================bridgetown said:"Furthermore, Kbkbkbk....While I await you trying to find a lie in Pipes' postings.....""Here, Same subject....different sources. Are you going to now, tell me they ALL LIE????????????"As mentioned before, even the most depraved and pathetic figures like Pipes lie ALL the time, though some seem to be trying. If he said his butt itched I see no reason not to believe him. Beyond this I don't see much reason to believe him regarding anything. The he has tried to frame the two light on the taxi issue as more evidence that "The Muslims are taking over" in the same paranoid light that his father thought "The commies are taking over". What this does is to instill further incorrect stereotypes and hatred for Muslims, basically from folks like you folks here, and causes you to see ALL things they do through these warped lenses, which, in turn, DOES affect the decisions you make on whom to support, their agendas, etc...A given that his agenda is hardly a secret, well, one should be able to easily see that "the taxi affair" is just another link in the chain. Seemed to me pretty much like a culturally sensitive thing to do by putting lights on the cabs. Personally I'd prefer to get into a cab with a light having a Muslim driver who doesn't wish to pick up a drunk person, that I would a cab with a light saying the racist driver doesn't wish to pick up a black person. I think it's a good idea. Then we can see who stands where. "I'd keep on going, but I think I've made my point."Your point being that Pipes thinks that the Muslims are trying to take over the world? "I won't wait for you to enlighten us on the "lie", because you can't. There isn't one. And 2+2 still equals 4, babe."His entire position is a lie, babe. I think I've made MY point. And why are you using my 2+2=4 examples being that your math is as good as your debating abilities, not to mention that you don't do math.
Closed AccountFeb 25, 2007
manchu drooled, having nothing better to offer:"Bridge, everything comes back to Chomsky (of course, KB's just "pulling your chain" with that...he's not really completely obsessed with the good professor.....)"Evidence? I rarely talk about him at all. I don't recall mentioning ANY of his positions or quoting him more than once or twice since I've been coming to this blog. But of you think you can find any evidence, please present it. About 85% of the comments rel;ated to the man at all have simply come from the village idiots here who think they know his positions, when they don't, and then lies about them, which, I then procede to correct. Then there is about14% which is responding to liars who say that I talk about him all the time when I rarely do. Then there is maybe 1% at most, and I don't recall even this much, so I'm being rather conservative here, where I actually mentioned his positions in any manner other than correcting incorrect assertions made against him. And even then, I never remember saying that therefore he was correct. I simply said that the position assigned to him were incorrect, just as the positions I've assigned to Pipes ARE correct. So, I'm afraid your assertion itself, manchu, is as full of crap and falsity as those who seem to attrack your type, Pipes, Malkin, and the like, all full of crap. "Didn't read KB's posts; not worth the time"This is probably true. If I went to a physics blog and saw a bunch of formulations which I didn't understand and knew that I had nothing to contribute, and that I was unable to respond with anything more than a grunt, I'd probably conclude that it was "not worth the time" also.
Closed AccountFeb 25, 2007
Oh, and a word of advice. When you folks begin to look at an issue where two or more sides are involved, or where one side has a grievence against the other, it REALLY doesn't hurt to try and make some sort of attempt at looking at the side with the grievence instead of relying solely upon folks like Pipes to "tell" you what the other side is all about. A simply example which ALL of you should be able to easily relate: There were black slaves and white slave masters. The blacks had grievences. From time to time they actually had the nerve to ask for things, like, perhaps going to see their children a few counties over who had been sold to the highest bidder that day. These grievences were perceived by the masters as attempts by the blacks to impose THEMSELVES on the master. After all, he paid for them. Now, the master thought that if we allow the blacks to start down this "slippery slope" where would it end. Then there were even instances where the masters were killed. The fear and anti-black fever was reaching a high pitch around white communities where the like-minded lived. Everyone was sure the blacks would get them next. Now, if you ONLY listened to the masters arguments, rationalizations, etc...and never took the time to actually talk to any of the slaves, etc....do you think you'd be developing an accurate perception of what was actually taking place? Would you not perceive every act the slaves were doing through these lenses? Would you not begin to become paranoid, as the right has ALWAYS done, about everything they do, interpreting everything as a potential plot to "get them"? I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you probably would. And, I'm sorry, but this is basically what you do on an almost daily basis here. You ARE the white folks looking through the eyes of the master, and this IS not a way to understand issues. Period! The absolute FIRST step, once again (Why am I always having to point out the ost obvious first steps which you folks never seem to grasp?), if wishing to enlighten yourself about the topic, is to actually go to the exact people who Pipes lies about, most often the victims, just as the master lied about his slaves, and see what they actually say themselves. THIS is the FIRST step, and I'd doubt VERY SERIOUSLY that a one of you unwitting right-wing propagandist bottom-feeders has read a sentence from the folks directly instead of after having it filtered through folks like Pipes or Malkin. This is also another reason why things even as obvious as allowing bin Laden blurbs to not appear in the media are so important. You folks aren't supposed to know what they actually say, you're only supposed to know what others, the propagandists want you to hear. This is the job of places like The U.S. Information Agency. What do you think their job is? Who do you think the targets of propaganda are? People overseas? YOU are the primary targets of the propaganda and this is how it works in almost every state. Propaganda isn't only trying to make Iraqis believe that the U.S. is trying to "free them". It's about trying to make YOU perceive that this is what the U.S. is up to. And for the most part it works relatively well. I doubt there are more than a few percent of Iraqis who fall for this nonsense, but look at all of you, hook, line, and sinker. But just to give you a chance to prove me wrong, you can tell me the names of all of the Muslim writers, blogs, homepages, agencies, groups, etc....you have studied to which have led you to your perception about them. (The category will be EMPTY)
bridgetownFeb 25, 2007
Furthermore....you say, "you can tell me the names of all the muslim writers, blogs, hompgs,agncs,grps,etc u have studied which led u to perceptions..."I lived in Saudi Arabia, for starters...no books, just first hand living with people there as they live.Also, the category would not be empty, I have thousands of references, but only One should matter here, The Quran. And before you say that I don't have thousands of references, just ask and I'll list them for your stubborn head.