US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

you screwed up the UBB code there, Ican't, you might want to fix that.

He who presents little but his own opinion about the sources of opinions with which he disagrees -- and not about these opinions themselves -- provides persuasive evidence that he is incapable of rationally refuting those opinions with which he disagees.

There we go, that's much better. I didn't offer an opinion about your source, i provided facts about the sources of their funding. So, as usual, you're off track.

The American Committees on Foreign Relations not ringing a bell, it seemed it would be interesting to see just what sort of source they might be for "balanced" information. And it appears that they are no kind of source at all--not for balanced information. The two principle conributors to ACFR are the Smith Richardson Foundation, described by Media Transparency as: "Financed by the Vicks Vaporub fortune, this foundation is estimated to have assets of about $250 million. Became active in supporting conservative caues in 1973 when R. Randolph Richardson became president. Funded the early "supply-side" books of Jude Wanniski and George Gilder. The Richardsons are estimated by Forbes to have a net worth of $870 million, making them one of the country's richest families."

And the other principle contributor is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., described, once again by Media Transparency, as: "With over $700 million in assets (down to $489 million in 2002), the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee, Wisconsin is the country's largest and most influential right-wing foundation. As of the end of 1998, it was giving away more than $30 million a year [The Bradley Foundation 1998 Annual Report]."

All of which is to say, ACFR does not constitute an unbiased source of information.

If you look back a way, Cyclo, you will see a post of mine in which i dug up info on ACFR at Media Transparency . . . they are supported by foundations which fund conservative media outlets, and all the evidence is that ACFR is just another conservative propaganda organ . . .

He who presents little but his own opinion about the sources of opinions with which he disagrees -- and not about these opinions themselves -- provides persuasive evidence that he is incapable of rationally refuting those opinions with which he disagrees.

He who presents little but souces of opinions and his own opinion about those sources of opinions with which he disagrees -- and not about these opinions themselves -- provides persuasive evidence that he is incapable of rationally refuting those opinions with which he disagrees.

If you contend that i am merely voicing opinion about ACFR, do you then contend that they are providing factual information and not opinion?
NO! I am contending that those sources, like almost any source others as well as I have posted here, is expressing their opinion about what is their opinion about what are facts and the logical implications thereof.

If so, the burden of proving such a ludicrous contention is on you.Why did you bring up this ludicrous IF of yours when I repeatedly wrote of opinion?

Hmm?

You really need to learn to use the 'preview' button if you are going to rely on fancy coloring to make your point, Ican

Cycloptichorn

You need to work on your grammar as well . . . "those sources is" . . . not good.

This--"expressing their opinion about what is their opinion about what are facts and the logical implications thereof."--is nightmarish butchery of the language. They are expressing an opinion about their opinion? Once again, a contention that they are discussing facts and the logical implications of the alleged facts is a contention for which you have provided no support.

Don't expect me to get sucked in by your playground rhetorical style. When is see propaganda, and can, as in this case, demonstrate as much, i certainly will not waste my time refuting the fairy tales the propagandists are trying to peddle.

Your posts here are so much linguistic masturbation--no one here is interested in their content other than you.

What's the point in arguing with propoganda? You don't get anywhere, there is no reward to it.

So why bother? Instead, ignoring it works much better; one is not subjected to long boring works, innaccurate in content and mistaken in conclusion, which seek not to ask questions or foster discussion but instead aim to silence dissent.

Between ACFR and posting the same thing over and over and over again, you really aren't doing yourself any favors in this thread if your goal is to sway anyone's opinions.

Cycloptichorn

malignancy = people who mass murder civilians and people who are accomplices of people who mass murder civilians.

malignancy pursues the doctrine of DAMD (i.e., Die And Make Die).

Lovers-of-liberty pursue the doctine of LALL (i.e., Live And Let Live).

malignancy must be exterminated before they exterminate lovers-of-liberty.

No one has a god-given-right to any area of the earth. One's rights to an area of the earth are governed by the prevailing human rule of law in that area.

…
eight reasons for global jihad. These include the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Spain, "Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, Sicily, Ethiopia, Russian Turkistan and Chinese Turkistan. . . Even parts of France reaching 90 kilometers outside Paris."
…

…
I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped
...
No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.
...

malignancy = people who mass murder civilians and people who are accomplices of people who mass murder civilians.

malignancy pursues the doctrine of DAMD (i.e., Die And Make Die).

Lovers-of-liberty pursue the doctine of LALL (i.e., Live And Let Live).

malignancy must be exterminated before they exterminate lovers-of-liberty.

No one has a god-given-right to any area of the earth. One's rights to an area of the earth are governed by the prevailing human rule of law in that area.

…
eight reasons for global jihad. These include the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Spain, "Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, Sicily, Ethiopia, Russian Turkistan and Chinese Turkistan. . . Even parts of France reaching 90 kilometers outside Paris."
…

…
I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped
...
No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.
...