ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by Boumer

On that, and it may be a bit off thread, but the incessant negative media coverage about Arabs and Islam must have an effect.
...

If you do some counting on heroic Johnny Rebs and villainous Yankees you might well think Hollywood was run by the Sons & Daughters Of The Confederacy, rather than the "liberal elite".

I've always taken that as Septic PC code for a Cabal of Jews and homosexuals and it's hard to miss the curly headed mensch as hero particularly in US comedy, often still passively signalled, the days of Tony Curtis(Bernie Schwartz) aren't so far away. However folk like Spielberg are mostly genuinely liberal, it's natural for such an egomaniac to cast a nerdy Stevenalike like Dreyfus as hero. His Munich has Israelis as broad chested heros for instance but actually ends up as quite a questioning film where Arabs are verging into the sacred ground of victimhood as well, not something that happens to his Nazis.

It's the positive stereotypes I tend to notice, lovable IRA men for instance, according to hollywood there is no nicer sort of person to get your legs blown off by. Amusingly a while back it was the Muhj galloping along with Rambo and James Bond. I'm still waiting for the heroic Libyan/Syrian Jihadi to pop up in 3D, I give it about five years.

It used to be more evil orientals conspiring against America than Arabs but 9-11 could be seen as playing up the market value of that evil doer stereotype. I've noticed despite that there's some care taken not to antagonize the Saudis, that odd creature, the liberal enlightened Arab Prince remains a cliche. Then there is all the usual EDL bollox we find on the interwebs. You see much less of this sort of thing in the Israeli media, at least in English.

Coming back to the thread I have the impression evil Iranians are actually a bit thin on the ground in popular entertainment, I may complain at Blockbuster.


That's more like it and also a bit gay even next to a Bubble in tiny red shorts.

Originally Posted by alib

If you do some counting on heroic Johnny Rebs and villainous Yankees you might well think Hollywood was run by the Sons & Daughters Of The Confederacy, rather than the "liberal elite".

I've always taken that as Septic PC code for a Cabal of Jews and homosexuals and it's hard to miss the curly headed mensch as hero particularly in US comedy, often still passively signalled, the days of Tony Curtis(Bernie Schwartz) aren't so far away. However folk like Spielberg are mostly genuinely liberal, it's natural for such an egomaniac to cast a nerdy Stevenalike like Dreyfus as hero. His Munich has Israelis as broad chested heros for instance but actually ends up as quite a questioning film where Arabs are verging into the sacred ground of victimhood as well, not something that happens to his Nazis.

It's the positive stereotypes I tend to notice, lovable IRA men for instance, according to hollywood there is no nicer sort of person to get your legs blown off by. Amusingly a while back it was the Muhj galloping along with Rambo and James Bond. I'm still waiting for the heroic Libyan/Syrian Jihadi to pop up in 3D, I give it about five years.

It used to be more evil orientals conspiring against America than Arabs but 9-11 could be seen as playing up the market value of that evil doer stereotype. I've noticed despite that there's some care taken not to antagonize the Saudis, that odd creature, the liberal enlightened Arab Prince remains a cliche. Then there is all the usual EDL bollox we find on the interwebs. You see much less of this sort of thing in the Israeli media, at least in English.

Coming back to the thread I have the impression evil Iranians are actually a bit thin on the ground in popular entertainment, I may complain at Blockbuster.


That's more like it and also a bit gay even next to a Bubble in tiny red shorts.

Another reason I do not waste my money or time on anything coming out of Hollywood.

Im amazed our import to the US hasnt had a few comments, although its good to have a sense of humour, and its worth it to watch the end of the film to hear the speech about being a dictator.



forward to around 2:04 mins

Originally Posted by whitecity

Priceless!!

Sorry I am Heterosexual but thanks for the offer....

Originally Posted by whitecity

Says you. I've never come across it before. Not saying it's not credible, but it seems a rather poor option to choose when surely you could link to official government webpages for similar information.

So because you have never heard of it it must not be credible, or it's a poor option? Who knew you were the Solomon who decides whats credible for the planet.... It puts the information together so even imbeciles like yourself could understand it (of course one has to actually click and read it, not stare at the monitor and rage about Joos with spittle flying). However It is a source rather than your ilks ranting as supposed to be gawdstruth from on high.

Originally Posted by whitecity

My point was to highlight your inability to present useful and credible evidence to support your argument. Whether opensecrets.org is or is not a credible source of information is irrelevent.

And what evidence have you put forth other than ranting opinion? I put forth sources you and Black Buck rant, which is the more rational approach?

Originally Posted by whitecity

Your first failure is that you presented unhelpful and meaningless data.

Your failure and BBO's is you put forth nothing but rants like 2 emotionally disturbed individuals. Maybe make your posts in all capitals that would make it truth, correct? I Put forth verified list of the top l;obbyists in the USA, the Amounts they spend going back over a 10 years period and your answer is: Derp, means nothing- de Joos be ebil nazi? which again is the rational answer?

[QUOTE=whitecity;4434995]I wrote: It is people like you that make your great nation look like a backwater full of religious-sect inbreds whose only claim to greatness is based upon the labours of recent immigrants.[/Because typically for Arrse, the attitude is americans are all southern redneck bible thumpers.

Originally Posted by whitecity

To give an example of how influence over US foreign policy can have very little to do with financial donations, I suggest you study the development of US policy towards Bosnia in the early '90s. I doubt you'll find Bosnian Muslim donations to Clinton and the Democrats getting into the top 100 of overall donors. Nevertheless, they managed to lobby successfully for the bombing of the Bosnian Serbs.

again what proof do you offer? why the typically White City answer of nothing other than take my word for it.

Originally Posted by whitecity

I could provide links to 100s of books available on Amazon as well as academic papers available through such sites as jstor. However, I doubt you'll bother to attempt to read a single one, so I won't bother.

I cannot help it if all you give are rants threats of books by those(Likely Biased). but it is funny that so far you failed over and over give any such sources to refute instead of again, your typical ranting and take your word for it pronouncments.

Originally Posted by whitecity

PS. I have deliberately avoided using an Israel/Palestinian/Jewish example to encourage you all to recognise that I am taking no side in this pro/anti-Isreal bunfight. I am merely highlighting the abject weakness in Goldbricker's evidence and thought process.

Please any reading of your posting history with regard to israel shows your bigoted thought process.

[QUOTE=Goldbricker;4435799]Sorry I am Heterosexual but thanks for the offer....

So because you have never heard of it it must not be credible, or it's a poor option? Who knew you were the Solomon who decides whats credible for the planet.... It puts the information together so even imbeciles like yourself could understand it (of course one has to actually click and read it, not stare at the monitor and rage about Joos with spittle flying). However It is a source rather than your ilks ranting as supposed to be gawdstruth from on high.

And what evidence have you put forth other than ranting opinion? I put forth sources you and Black Buck rant, which is the more rational approach?

Your failure and BBO's is you put forth nothing but rants like 2 emotionally disturbed individuals. Maybe make your posts in all capitals that would make it truth, correct? I Put forth verified list of the top l;obbyists in the USA, the Amounts they spend going back over a 10 years period and your answer is: Derp, means nothing- de Joos be ebil nazi? which again is the rational answer?

Originally Posted by whitecity

I wrote: It is people like you that make your great nation look like a backwater full of religious-sect inbreds whose only claim to greatness is based upon the labours of recent immigrants.[/Because typically for Arrse, the attitude is americans are all southern redneck bible thumpers.

again what proof do you offer? why the typically White City answer of nothing other than take my word for it.

I cannot help it if all you give are rants threats of books by those(Likely Biased). but it is funny that so far you failed over and over give any such sources to refute instead of again, your typical ranting and take your word for it pronouncments.

Please any reading of your posting history with regard to israel shows your bigoted thought process.

Solomon was Jew.

In TDB Iran Bans ‘Simpsons’ Toys? How Homer, Marge, and Krusty Could Help Regime.

...
The Iranian government’s new ban on dolls of the animated characters from the television show The Simpsons should not surprise us. “We do not want to promote this cartoon by importing the toys,” Mohammad Hossein Farjoo, secretary of policymaking at the Institute for the Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults, told the Shargh newspaper in Tehran recently, adding that Spider-Man and Superman were authorized for sale because “they help oppressed people and they have a positive stance.”
...
Although Islam doesn’t feature much in Springfield—Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, who runs the Kwik-E-Mart, is Hindu—Bart Simpson did throw a “Pardon My Intolerance” party in the seventh episode of the 20th season after he mistook the family of his Muslim acquaintance, Bashir, for a terrorist cell intent on blowing up the Springfield Mall. When the families are having dinner, Bart tells Homer to not fear Bashir’s family “just because they have a different religion, different views, and their last name is bin Laden.” (When Krusty the Klown dined with the Simpsons, he gave the blessing in Hebrew: “Baruch atah adonai, eloheinu, melech ha’olam hamotzi lechem min ha’aretz.” Homer’s reaction: “Heehee! He’s talking funny talk!”)
...

This story is a few months old, they also banned Barbie, the swines.

Originally Posted by Goldbricker

So because you have never heard of it it must not be credible, or it's a poor option?

I shall repeat for you as you seem to be incable of understanding simple texts.

I am not questionning the accuracy or the credibility of the data on the website you linked to; I am questionning its crediblity to provide support to your claims and position.

The data you linked to does NOT help your argument. It just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Goldbricker

Who knew you were the Solomon who decides whats credible for the planet.... It puts the information together so even imbeciles like yourself could understand it (of course one has to actually click and read it, not stare at the monitor and rage about Joos with spittle flying). However It is a source rather than your ilks ranting as supposed to be gawdstruth from on high.

I understand the data on the website. I understand its relevance to your argument.

Clearly, you don't.

Originally Posted by Goldbricker

And what evidence have you put forth other than ranting opinion? I put forth sources you and Black Buck rant, which is the more rational approach?

You have put forward an argument and some sources of information that do not assist your position.

I have not put forward any argument other than to suggest the 'evidence' and sources you link to do not help your argument. I have also argued that you are a bit thick becuase you still don't grasp that notion.

Originally Posted by Goldbricker

Your failure and BBO's is you put forth nothing but rants like 2 emotionally disturbed individuals. Maybe make your posts in all capitals that would make it truth, correct? I Put forth verified list of the top l;obbyists in the USA, the Amounts they spend going back over a 10 years period and your answer is: Derp, means nothing- de Joos be ebil nazi? which again is the rational answer?

For the umpteenth time, you put forward a list of the top financial donors in US politics. You have made a simplistic connection that money equals (almost) absolute influence in all policy areas.

I am countering that by saying your thought process is so simplistic as to be utterly meaningless.

What would be more helpful to your argument is if you provided data on the relative spend of various lobby groups specific to FOREIGN POLICY matters.

And even then, simple stats on financial donations don't tell even half the story when it comes to leveraging influence!

Originally Posted by Goldbricker

Please any reading of your posting history with regard to israel shows your bigoted thought process.

And your posts just demonstrate you inability to grasp basic English.

In the spirit of trying to help Goldbricker understand the weakness of his evidence presentation...

Originally Posted by Goldbricker

You say AIPAC is one of the top 2 or 3 Lobbying groups in the USA. Open secrets begs to differ. using Official documents to the IRS. Mojo, your helper can explain to you that it isn't in the top 20 of Lobbying groups in the USA. I understand that deflates your erection about Ebil Jooos but in every life some rain must fall.
Top 13 interest groups in Washington
Interest Groups | OpenSecrets
No AIPAC....

Click on the link and read down the 13 sectors listed.

Now, which of those is AIPAC an "Interest Group"?

Goldbricker, you can argue with BlackBuckOne until the cows come home if you wish, but he/she is suggesting that the 'Israel lobby' (not just one single grouping called AIPAC) exerts undue influence over US FOREIGN policy issues. On the otherhand, you are arguing that AIPAC is small fish in financial donations when compared to the whales of US industry. He says bananas are yellow, you say oranges are orange. Until you start discussing the color of bananas, you cannot ridicule his position.

You are not arguing the same point. Now, either this is a deliberate tactic because you are unwilling to engage in the specific point put forward by BlackBuckOne or you simply don't understand what you are doing.

So, for the sake of this thread Goldbricker, can you focus on the color of bananas and put up some evidence that shows the 'Israel lobby' does, or does not, exert undue influence over US FOREIGN policy.

Edited to add.
Data is collected on this matter as evidenced by line 23 at this link: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby00/issueareas.php