Moral Clarity in Gaza

[poncho]

Sure you did.

If I were to claim to be called a racist I would have said YOU called me a racist.

I said no such thing. You're trying to read something in that isn't there.

Of course not. I do, however, believe it legitimate to question organizations' reputations when they appear dubious.

So do I. That's why I question everything the corporate media reports.

You want to see dubious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZVv2AOCnaA

So tell me, who writes the script for the corporate media? Obviously all the networks and there's only 5 or 6 now follow the same script so who's writing it? Or maybe it's all just a big coincidence that the networks air the same stuff word for word? Tell me, what are the odds?

Here's some more dubiousness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/world/middleeast/the-man-behind-the-casualty-figures-in-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I checked Fox New's archives. There are at least 8 pages where this man is sourced. Either Fox never bothered to check this guy out or they're just sourcing people that fits their interventionist agenda.

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=syrian+observatory&submit=Search&ss=fn

Here's an anti Assad Islamist pretending to be something he isn't and Fox News is treating him like he's THE authority on Syria. I consider that dubious.

How do you decide which is dubious and which isn't? Do you judge the dubiousness of sources because they aren't on the script? Or go along with the mainstream narrative?

Or do you dig as deep as you can to find out who's behind the headlines, who they are tied to and what their agenda really is?

 

[Rolfe]

If I were to claim to be called a racist I would have said YOU called me a racist.

I said no such thing. You're trying to read something in that isn't there.

"I dunno I guess I just enjoy being called a racist by people who would otherwise denounce those who call other people racists Don." -Poncho.

I have my doubts, but I will grant that there is very small room for misinterpretation. I will take your word for it that you did not mean how you wrote it.

So do I. That's why I question everything the corporate media reports.

You want to see dubious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZVv2AOCnaA

So tell me, who writes the script for the corporate media? Obviously all the networks and there's only 5 or 6 now follow the same script so who's writing it? Or maybe it's all just a big coincidence that the networks air the same stuff word for word? Tell me, what are the odds?

Here's some more dubiousness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/world/middleeast/the-man-behind-the-casualty-figures-in-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I checked Fox New's archives. There are at least 8 pages where this man is sourced. Either Fox never bothered to check this guy out or they're just sourcing people that fits their interventionist agenda.

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=syrian+observatory&submit=Search&ss=fn

Here's an anti Assad Islamist pretending to be something he isn't and Fox News is treating him like he's THE authority on Syria. I consider that dubious.

How do you decide which is dubious and which isn't? Do you judge the dubiousness of sources because they aren't on the script? Or go along with the mainstream narrative?

Or do you dig as deep as you can to find out who's behind the headlines, who they are tied to and what their agenda really is?

If you expect me to defend Fox, look elsewhere. I have little use for them.

You may want to take it to RevMitchell, however.

 

[poncho]

"I dunno I guess I just enjoy being called a racist by people who would otherwise denounce those who call other people racists Don." -Poncho.

I have my doubts, but I will grant that there is very small room for misinterpretation. I will take your word for it that you did not mean how you wrote it.



If you expect me to defend Fox, look elsewhere. I have little use for them.

You may want to take it to RevMitchell, however.

At the time I wrote that I fully expected someone would jump in and call me a racist. That seems to be the way it works with Christians who will defend Israel's tactics no matter how it acts.

Let's move beyond all that. I brought up Fox News as one example, the same can and does apply to the other 5 conglomerated networks. None of them are there to inform us. They are there to make a profit.

Just between you and me the Rev is a regular visitor to prison planet/infowars. If you think I'm accusing the Rev with no proof then I urge you to check out all the links he posts. The great majority of them are posted on prison planet/infowars. Check it out.

Coincidence? Maybe, but I doubt coincidences can be that consistant. I've asked him about it several times now and so far he has neither "confirmed or denied it".

So, how do you decide which source is dubious and which isn't?

 

[Rolfe]

At the time I wrote that I fully expected someone would jump in and call me a racist. That seems to be the way it works with Christians who will defend Israel's tactics no matter how it acts.

It is not limited to Christians, but I understand your point.

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." -Elbert Hubbard

Personally, I like to call people Clowns...:laugh:
I am trying to be better about behaving myself.

I brought up Fox News as one example, the same can and does apply to the other 5 conglomerated networks. None of them are there to inform us. They are there to make a profit.

I am curious. Who would you consider to be the other five?

So, how do you decide which source is dubious and which isn't?

I have no well-planned criteria. I would say that I consider its primary motivation (Almost always financial, but not necessarily bad. It becomes questionable when it is obvious that marketing of the product takes priority over its accuracy.). Another is reputation of honesty (CBS/Dan Rather and the Killian documents, for instance.). A third would be agenda/obvious bias. Also general reputation for accuracy. Fifthly, Do they report facts that are independently verified? (If not immediately, eventually.) Lastly, gut feeling/basic impression...is there an unexplainable feeling that something is not right.

This is not all inclusive, but you get the idea.

If I may, I would like to ask you the same.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Nobody called you a racist, Poncho.

Playing a victim does not suit you.

Actually, it suits him just fine. He loves it, because it provides him an opportunity to derail a thread with which he vehemently disagrees. Just look how much time you've spent trying to show now one called him a racist, to which he responds by whining he didn't say anyone called him a racist. Round and round we go ...

Recognizing the political Israel today has nothing to do the biblical Israel is likewise not anti-Semitic. Attempting to sling around this moniker to defeat those with legitimate questions is the tool of an anti-intellectual. There is some anti-Semitism which exists in this world, but it is often not found in those attempting to work through legitimate arguments and questions.

Post #2 is not about the status of Israel in biblical eschatology. It is about the slanted reporting of a biased media regarding Israel, and policies of this administration which attempt to reverse 66 years of support by the U.S. for Israel.

 

[Rolfe]

Actually, it suits him just fine. He loves it, because it provides him an opportunity to derail a thread with which he vehemently disagrees. Just look how much time you've spent trying to show now one called him a racist, to which he responds by whining he didn't say anyone called him a racist. Round and round we go ...

I have enjoyed it.