I believe if you go back and read my comments you will see I have not uttered one negative word about the Jewish faith, Jewish people or the concept of Zionism. Government actions are government actions regardless of any other characteristic, and as such they are worthy targets of criticism when they overstep their moral authority. Unlike Republicans who wither in fear when called racist even though they are not I will not back down from criticizing actions by the Israeli government I find offensive just because someone thinks he can take a shortcut to avoid the criticism by calling me an antisemite.86% of Jews see Israel as vital to the ongoing existence of the Jewish people. Just because you say anti-Zionism =/= antisemitism, doesn't mean it's true.
Tell that to the 30,000 or so Yemenis who were slaughtered by Saudi Arabia using US military hardware. Tell that to the thousands of innocent people who had their lives cut short because the Trump administration set records in drone strikes.
Hyperbole disguised as facts. Be better Dan.Tell that to the 30,000 or so Yemenis who were slaughtered by Saudi Arabia using US military hardware. Tell that to the thousands of innocent people who had their lives cut short because the Trump administration set records in drone strikes.
Tell that to the 30,000 or so Yemenis who were slaughtered by Saudi Arabia using US military hardware. Tell that to the thousands of innocent people who had their lives cut short because the Trump administration set records in drone strikes.
Please correct my hyperbolic numbers.Hyperbole disguised as facts. Be better Dan.
Typical Dan. He throws out ‘facts’ that has no basis in fact. When called out on it, he asks you to either prove or refute his made up ‘facts’.Please correct my hyperbolic numbers.
When one "throws out 'facts' that have no basis in fact" and is subsequently"called out on it" what is the proper response if it is not to ask for the truth from the person calling him out for his erroneous "facts?" I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about vis a vis work permits. I'd ask you to clarify, but apparently I'm not supposed to.Typical Dan. He throws out ‘facts’ that has no basis in fact. When called out on it, he asks you to either prove or refute his made up ‘facts’.
I expect he’ll not return to the Gaza work permits topic either. He ignores actual facts that don’t fit his preconceived conclusions.
Ummm. How about doing a bit of research ahead of the post and cite where you got your information instead of talking out your ass.When one "throws out 'facts' that have no basis in fact" and is subsequently"called out on it" what is the proper response if it is not to ask for the truth from the person calling him out for his erroneous "facts?" I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about vis a vis work permits. I'd ask you to clarify, but apparently I'm not supposed to.
Dan pretends he doesn't understand how this all works.When one "throws out 'facts' that have no basis in fact" and is subsequently"called out on it" what is the proper response if it is not to ask for the truth from the person calling him out for his erroneous "facts?" I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about vis a vis work permits. I'd ask you to clarify, but apparently I'm not supposed to.
Okay, that's a fair demand, I should cite chapter and verse where I have gotten my information. But it seems to me that when a person "calls me out for incorrect facts" he should abide by the same guidelines and cite his facts and where his research has come from.Ummm. How about doing a bit of research ahead of the post and cite where you got your information instead of talking out your ass.
Ummm no. It’s up to you to prove your point. Do the research first and provide the link to the source. Just like in high school English when you cite your references. Same as in high school debate.Okay, that's a fair demand, I should cite chapter and verse where I have gotten my information. But it seems to me that when a person "calls me out for incorrect facts" he should abide by the same guidelines and cite his facts and where his research has come from.
No pretense needed. If my "facts" are nothing more than hyperbole as you say it is, it is incumbant upon you to correct the record. Otherwise one is left with the conclusion that maybe you are not sure what you're talking about.Dan pretends he doesn't understand how this all works.
A sad effort.
Here’s a 2 second Google search on Saudi Arabia/Yemen. I’m much too lazy to look any further.Ummm no. It’s up to you to prove your point. Do the research first and provide the link to the source. Just like in high school English when you cite your references. Same as in high school debate.
Yup...you're fuggin' lazy alright.Here’s a 2 second Google search on Saudi Arabia/Yemen. I’m much too lazy to look any further.
![]()
CAAT - The war on Yemen’s civilians
The war in Yemen has killed an estimated 377,000 people through direct and indirect causes. Over 150,000, including tens of thousands of civilians, have been killed in fighting, including the Saudi-led bombing campaign, while many more have died of hunger and disease in the humanitarian crisis...caat.org.uk
I hope you know how stupid you sound. Every debate coach in the world would flunk you.No pretense needed. If my "facts" are nothing more than hyperbole as you say it is, it is incumbant upon you to correct the record. Otherwise one is left with the conclusion that maybe you are not sure what you're talking about.
Not always, just when I'm not very invested in an argument that is nothing more than an attempt to nitpick.Yup...you're fuggin' lazy alright.
LolI hope you know how stupid you sound. Every debate coach in the world would flunk you.
We are all laughing at you right now. You are really bad at this.
You and @my_2cents laughing at me. What a world we live in. Fortunately for me I don't care what you think of me any more than you care what I think of you. But for the record I think you're a smart guy if not a little quick to anger.We are all laughing at you right now. You are really bad at this.