Quote:Slang.
Exaggerated or foolish talk, usually intended to deceive: "snookered by a lot of malarkey" (New Republic).
note to c.i. :
be advised that "false" is to be replaced by "malarkey" !
hamburger wrote:ican wrote :
Quote:Sorosaisms are responsible for all the malarkey presented about the troubles in Iraq by much of the news media.
better listen up , EVERYBODY !
repeat after me :
WE (that's the royal "we" :wink: ) DO NOT WANT TO READ ANY POSTS ABOUT TROUBLES IN IRAQ !
THOSE POSTS ARE ALL MALARKEY !
signed : XXX
Do YOU really think that?
CORRECTION
ican711nm wrote:]Sorosaisms are responsible for MUCH OF the malarkey presented about the troubles in Iraq by much of the news media.
ican711nm wrote:
]Sorosaisms are responsible for MUCH OF the malarkey presented about the troubles in Iraq by much of the news media.
Prove this claim?
cicerone imposter wrote:No matter which news media reports the bad news from Iraq, they are all false!
Not all bad news about Iraq is sorosaisms.
Not all good news about Iraq is icanisms.
Much false bad news about Iraq is sorosaisms.
Some true good news about Iraq is icanisms.
ican711nm wrote:Sorosaisms are responsible for much of the malarkey presented by much of the news media about the problems in Iraq.
USA invaded Iraq for its oil.
USA's invasion of Iraq was illegal.
One in four homeless are veterans.
USA's invasion of Iraq ruined USA's image.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not part of the al-Qaeda confederation.
USA's no-fly zone over northeastern Iraq protected al-Qaeda in Iraq.
A total of 655,000 Iraqis died by violence March 2003 thru June 2006.
No matter which news media reports the bad news from Iraq, they are all false!
USA's occupation of Iraq causes al-Qaeda to mass murder Iraqi civilian non-murderers.
A majority of it's legal voters want the USA to remove its troops from Iraq as soon as possible.
USA's occupation of Iraq causes Iraqi insurrectionists to mass murder Iraqi civilian non-murderers.
ican, YOu used "much of," so please provide proof for this claim?
ican wrote :
Quote:CORRECTION
ican711nm wrote:
]Sorosaisms are responsible for MUCH OF the malarkey presented about the troubles in Iraq by much of the news media.
reminds me of playing "hot and cold" as kids .
it seems to me that ican is at least getting "luke warm " .
if memory is not deceiving me - and at my age it might very well - we have had some "conversions" right here on a2k .
one should never give up hope
hbg
cicerone imposter wrote:ican711nm wrote:
]Sorosaisms are responsible for MUCH OF the malarkey presented about the troubles in Iraq by much of the news media.
Prove this claim?
I already did provide
substantial evidence.
Prove I did not already provide substantial evidence.
CORRECTION
PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT I did not already provide substantial evidence.
Quote:
http://www.m-w.com
Main Entry:
malarkey
Variant(s):
also malarky \mə-ˈlär-kē\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
origin unknown
Date:
1929
: insincere or foolish talk : BUNKUM
For much of something to be malarkey, I think more than 10% of it would have to be malarkey.
However, in the case of the malarkey about Iraq, I think at least 50% of the news media malarkey about Iraq is sorosaisms.
cicerone imposter wrote:You mean these?
ican711nm wrote:
Sorosaisms are responsible for much of the malarkey presented by much of the news media about the problems in Iraq.
USA invaded Iraq for its oil.
Nonsense aside, the sands of Iraq hold oil... lots of it. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), "Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm
USA's invasion of Iraq was illegal.
Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
One in four homeless are veterans.
Study: 1 Out of 4 Homeless Are Veterans
By KIMBERLY HEFLING
The Associated Press
Thursday, November 8, 2007; 10:47 AM
Washington Post
USA's invasion of Iraq ruined USA's image.
Thursday, 1 November 2007
Bush's US image adviser resigns
The woman in charge of improving the image of the US around the world has announced she will resign.
Hughes, who was sworn in as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy in September 2005, had sought to combat negative opinions about the US following the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and its chaotic aftermath.Hughes said: "I feel that I have done what Secretary Rice and President Bush asked of me by transforming public diplomacy and making it a national security priority."
Hughes had been close to Bush since before he entered politics by running for governor of Texas in 1994. Al Jazeera.net
Other ican statements to be answered later.
The last three of the above claims in red do not constitute evidence that they are anything other than malarkey. These are merely often repeated repetitions of MoveOn.org et al claims; thus, they are all sorosaism malarkey.
The first claim above in red is not evidence that: the USA invaded Iraq for its oil. It is merely a statement of an alleged geological fact.
To show that the USA invaded Iraq for its oil. you must provide evidence that the USA stole Iraq's oil--or is stealing it--or bought it--or is buying it--for less than its prevailing market price.
Since the first post on Iraq oil was too spacial for you, read the following from the BBC. (Owned and operated by Soros.)
Secret US plans for Iraq's oil
By Greg Palast
Reporting for Newsnight
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.
I'm not sure, but this company might be owned by Soros.
Published on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
The US Invasion of Iraq: The Military Side of Globalization?
by Stephen Zunes
With the major justifications for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq -- the former regime's supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction and ties to the terrorist Al-Qaeda network -- now discredited, and claims of wanting to created a democratic Iraq highly dubious, this raises the question as to what actually motivated the United States to take on the problematic task of conquering and rebuilding that country.
To embrace the simplistic notion that it was done simply for the sake of the profits of American oil companies ignores the fact that even the most optimistic early projections of the financial costs of the invasion and occupation far exceed any additional profits that could have been reaped in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein was certainly willing to sell his oil at a reasonable enough price to satisfy Western buyers and his standing among fellow OPEC members was too low at that point to have wielded sufficient influence to successfully push the cartel to adopt policies detrimental to American interests.
This is not to say, however, that economic factors did not play an important role in prompting a U.S. invasion.
It's for you to challenge what they claim with your own first-hand "investigation/evidence."
cicerone imposter wrote:Since the first post on Iraq oil was too spacial for you, read the following from the BBC. (Owned and operated by Soros.)
Secret US plans for Iraq's oil
By Greg Palast
Reporting for Newsnight
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.
Yes, BBC's Newsnight is influenced by sorosaisms. BBC's various organs have printed almost as much malarkey about the Iraq war as has the sorosaist MoveOn.org.
ican711nm wrote:BBC's various organs have printed almost as much malarkey about the Iraq war as has the sorosaist MoveOn.org.
Well, maybe MoveOn.org is influenced by the BBC....
cicerone imposter wrote:I'm not sure, but this company might be owned by Soros.
Published on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
The US Invasion of Iraq: The Military Side of Globalization?
by Stephen Zunes
With the major justifications for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq -- the former regime's supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction and ties to the terrorist Al-Qaeda network -- now discredited[AGREED, BUT TIES OR NO TIES, AL-QAEDA WAS IN NORTHEASTERN IRAQ FOR MORE THAN A YEAR PRIOR TO OUR INVASION], and claims of wanting to created a democratic Iraq highly dubious[DISAGREE, THAT'S BEEN SUBSTANTIATED SINCE THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN.], this raises the question as to what actually motivated the United States to take on the problematic task of conquering and rebuilding that country.
To embrace the simplistic notion that it was done simply for the sake of the profits of American oil companies ignores the fact that even the most optimistic early projections of the financial costs of the invasion and occupation far exceed any additional profits that could have been reaped in the foreseeable future[AGEED]. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein was certainly willing to sell his oil at a reasonable enough price to satisfy Western buyers and his standing among fellow OPEC members was too low at that point to have wielded sufficient influence to successfully push the cartel to adopt policies detrimental to American interests.[AGREED]
This is not to say, however, that economic factors did not play an important role in prompting a U.S. invasion.[AGREED; NOR IS IT TO SAY THAT ECONOMIC FACTORS DID PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN PROMPTING THE US INVASION]
It's for you to challenge what they claim with your own first-hand "investigation/evidence."
What remains to be challenged? I disagreed with only one thing. We now know one of the goals of the US in Iraq is to help the Iraqis establish a democracy capable, without USA help, of protecting itself against internal and external mass murderers. I have no evidence that goal did not exist prior to the invasion.
Quote:I'll be back later!
We wait with breathless anticipation; after all what in the world would we have to discuss in this thread without you?
You are a troll and we are enablers.
He may not have the malicious intent of a true troll but in the end he has the same effect on this thread and we all just keep egging him on by responding to his ridiculous repetitive for the week(s) posts.
