I was told by Chris94 that I was guilty of "anti-semitsm" for noting that another corrupt Soros DA was being removed from office. While i actually thought Soros was a catholic who was kicked out of Hungary, I was informed that he was Jewish, and mystifyingly, I was also made to understand that these comments were anti-semitic in Chris' mind for noting this individual's bad behavior wrt helping elect these bad eggs because Soros is Jewish.
Now we have a case where I was ripping the JCPOA for facilitating Iran to obtain its nuclear weapon capabilites which is now about to occur. The debate is as you see. Chris called me a liar for stating that there was evidence that Iran was cheating on JCPOA (as predicted by us) and that Trump rightfully ended the bogus deal. I provided a link showing the chief of staff of the NSA at the time who described Iran's cheating and provided the evidence. The evidence was collected by Israel. In fact, the presentaion I linked was made by the Prime Minister of Israel at the time, Benjamin Netenyahu.
Chris did not apologize for the "liar" remark of course, but he did tacitly acknowledge that I had provided evidence of what I claimed, but he then dismissed it because he said the US intel agency and the IAEA had not collected such information themselves. Of course, he disparaged the messenger of this information (chief of staff of NSA at the time in question) as an "idealogue", but he further dismissed the intel because it was not "American or IAEA intel". It was Israeli intel, and thus he discounted it. Given the parameters Chris provided for calling someone antisemitic, I am wondering if this then qualifies as the same? Is the outright dismissal of information (detailed outline available in the original link) from perhaps the best intelligence agency in the world which happens to be Jewish an act of anti-semitism?
To be totally fair, just as I did not know that George Soros was Jewish, I strongly suspect that Chris never heard about this information before our discussion though he has not admitted so.
Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=122830
(no message)
Sigh.
It’s not just hatred of Jews. It’s the corrosive belief that Jews run the world, or control society. THAT is why the Nazis killed so many. THAT is why what Kanye said upset so many people. THAT is why blaming so many things on Soros the bogeyman is antisemitic.
How a man could live as long as you have and not understand this is beyond me.
Also: you are 100% dead wrong about the JCPOA and not really worth talking to about it.
I also understand that your claims about JCPOA are based on dismissing information that others do not dismiss.
I know that my statements about Soros horrible behavior were not based on the idea that "jews run the world". His religion and his race never even entered my mind ( I thought he was a catholic kicked out of Hungary for the same behavior btw). I was judging his personal actions and character. I also would not consider your comments to be anti-semitic by my own estimation, but you have set this new standard that should also apply both ways.
You have chosen to be hyper critical and see things that are not there. So ok. You don't get to be the person who defines all anti-semitism. it doesn't just have to be related to the stupid worldview that jews somehow run everything. it can also be an innate bias that wants to discount their views and credibility because of simple loathing. You have discounted their credible information. If you are going to say that I am guilty of anti-semitism for somehow unintentionally treading too near to the "runnig the world stereotype", i can equally say that you have dismissed the information from the Jewish state for no apparent reason other than that you don't give theJewish state credence.....that was also a tenant of nazi-ism. That is also why so many were frustrated with Obama and Biden's treatment of the state of Israel.
Still, it wasn't i who threw the race card at the other first.
Now let's just talk brass tacks a minute regarding expertise issues and dismissals. You posted what I professionally know to be junk, citing a 2 year old government study review on masks with no Randomized Controlled Trials, and asserted that it somehow stood as proof that there was evidence to undermine the recent Cochrane Review of the 12 Randomized Controlled Studies to date on masks that meet their exacting standards which found that they were not seen to have benefit, and more importantly - clearly showed that there was no evidence to argue FOR mask policy implementation either now NOR in the past when Fauci and Biden did their thing with COVID. I pointed out the argument, but I didn't dismiss you.
In this case, i am posting in YOUR field of expertise, and you have dismissed it in knee jerk fashion. You called me a liar, and when i showed you the evidence that you said did not exist, you dismissed it as coming from an "idealogue" (Cheif of staff of NSA during the time in question) without even giving reasoning why the information is considered false or inferior as I had done with you when our roles were reversed.
As a grown man, I can see that you see things in only one direction.
I prefer not to call people "liars" when they aren't (I legitimately believe that Iranian information when it was reported, and I do now). I prefer to not call people racists wen they are not. (I do believe George Soros, the individual, undeniably has a political goal of influence in our country that cannot be argued. Even if i had known that he was Jewish, it wouldn't have occured to me that it was relevant in any way to the discussion).
That is the viewpoint of a grown man.
Now, how we proceed from here is in your court, but please understand that no discussion is worthwhile unless both sides are playing by the same rules and expectations.
He did not falsely accuse you.
You are who you are!
on two occasions dealing with the issue...once, when you posted the MIT Report on Masking and claimed it said masks didn't work, when in fact it strongly supported their use...and then, more recently when you accused me of mis-information with the NEJM Editorial, claiming it wasn't a real report and had no data...again I clearly showed to all on this board that not only was there a full scholarly Report with voluminous data, and you falsely accused me, ..again, outright lies on your part....you clearly have no credibility and can not be trusted.
Also, wrt your claim that the "Cochrane Review" on masking is the source to believe in, the attached critique demonstrates that it is not.
Every Health Care System on earth recommends masking during a pandemic...yet you do not...this is another example of your failure to follow evidence based medicine...stop using your MD Degree as a shield while you spread lies and mis-information.
Link: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/multiple-studies-show-face-masks-reduce-spread-of-covid-19-cochrane-review-doesnt-demonstrate-otherwise/
(no message)
response.
-so much so that they ended JCPOA because of it......but it was not credible to Chris. Textbook anti-semitism. He has a harsh standard for others, but not himself.
Baron VonZemo’s Rules of Liberalism:
Liberalism Rule #1 - accuse others of that which you are/do.
Liberalism Rule #2 - the rules apply to thee and not me
Liberalism Rule #3 - We know what is best, thus the ends justify the means.
Liberalism Rule #4 - We believe ourselves to be smarter.
i. Full learning requires admitting mistakes. Admitting mistakes undermines the premise of
being smarter, ergo self correction is not possible.
Liberalism Rule #5 - What didn’t work last time, will work next time (see 4 i.)
Liberalism Rule #6 - When we lose, change the rules.
i Whenever convenient, change the definition to suit your goal.
Liberalism Rule #7 - Surrender & appeasement is the best deterrent to foreign conflict.
Liberalism Rule #8 - TotallyDifferentism - when we do something that we don’t like others doing, it is always
“totally different”.
Liberalism Rule #9 - Equity through inequity (any difference must be equalized by pulling down the
unaffected party. Vengeance is preferable).
Interesting aside: in the liberal mind, transgressions are genetic, but gender is not.