Out of touch with reality

Submitted by Ray Exley (United States), Nov 17, 2006 at 07:00

Dear Sir:

Your "point by point" answer to my comments again missed most or all the essential points I was making. Either you do not understand the major points, or you don't want to address them. In lieu of substantive on point responded you just again restated a mixture of your biases not supported by any reality recognized by most knowledgable people on the subjects.

It is true that everyone has a right to their opinions, but you don't have the right to your own facts. And, that is what you continue to do, is to mistake as facts your unsupported ignorant biases. And, apparently you don't have the slightest clue, that is what you are doing.

Commenting to you is like "casting pearls before swine." You don't answer the points being made, but state as answers your bigotry, and as I just said, apparently you are oblivious to the fact that you are not aswering the points when you just spout untrue bigotry as "facts" and refuse to recognize when differing facts are offered which are widely supported by people from a wide range of political viewpoints. Since I suspect you don't have the slighted understanding of what I am observing, I will provide you with an example, eventhough I doubt you will learn any more from this example than from anything else I might offer. You are a classic example of the old saying, "Don't bother me with any facts, I don't care, my mind is made up."

You stated that immigrants are only allowed into Europe because of humanitarian reasons, not to support the aging population, and the semi socialists states of Europes don't need to have workers to provide the taxes to support the promised benefits of the socialist states particularly socialized health care. YOur statements are directly contrary statements made by many European leaders who stated that was the reason for allowing the increased Muslim immigration.

Your statement that it failed to work as planned, has nothing to do with the essential truth of my original comment, and as a statement of the failure of the policy, is more of a comment of the lack of vision of the leaders who allowed them in, allowed them to not integrate into society, and failed to offer economic opportunity, than it is a statement that the original intention was to get more workers, which is clearly documented and undisputed by anyone with the slightest knowledge of the origin of the policy. This is the central fact of my statement, which you did not challenge with any facts, but with a smokescreen of untrue, or irrelevant BS, and apparently you don't even understand that is what you did.

In the record, during the 1950s , 60s and 70s the leaders of all of European countries, including France, Italy and Germany in particular, made many statements that they were allowing in large increased numbers of immigrants for the explicit purpose of filling the needs of the state for revenue in the future in it's attempts to supply the services promised (particularly medical) by the ageing population of europe which would be needed in the future. These are facts, not my opinion, just consult your archives.

You just deny that these statements and actions occurred, denying facts that are both common knowledge, by knowledgable people, and can be checked by a review of the record, if you were inclined to check your facts rather than just state your biases as facts. You offer no record to support your assertions.

This is an example of you ignoring my major point, and trying to distract from the point being made with a smokescreen of related but even if correct, noise irrelevant to the point being made.

Concerning your comments about the state media, i speak and read French. I subscribe to Le Monde, diplomatic edition, and it the lead new outlet in France, it publishes most vile untruths about the Bush administration and the goals of America in general. Only someone brainwashed like you could not see this. But, remember, when stalin died, most of the people of the Soviet Union were emotionally devastated because their "great leader" had passed away.

Until Kreuchev's secret speech was published in the West, most citizens of the soviet union did not know what a tyrant Stalin had been, including killing on his orders at least 30 million Soviet citizens, and nearly lost WWII because of his incompetent handling of the Soviet Military. In fact when the people were killed, it was common for the agreeved to say. "This would not have happened, is Stalin knew what was occurring." When in fact, Stalin signed the death orders, and successfully hid behind a screen of state controled propaganda, that he was a great and benevelant leader. Again these are facts. And they demostrate, as your comments also demonstrate that the victims of state controlled media do not understand how they have been mislead, and they believe, when they refuse to fact check, which is a hall mark of your comments, with all of their being that they are correct. This is your behavior, it is demonstrated in nearly every comment you made.

You see, when you refuse to get outside your predjustices, you behave as you do. You refuse to consider the opinions and views of others, and respond not with facts and well considered opinion, but with distractions, misstatements of facts, and other bigotry. And that is why trying to commincate with you is "casting pearls before swine". You refuse to consider the possiblity that either your "facts" or your opinions are incorrect, and I learn nothing from you, because you spout your bigotry as if it were facts. Apparently, you don't even understand the differences between your beliefs, and widely accepted and documented facts.

If you want a reason why Europe opposed the Iraq war, just look at the number of French and other European politicians who were being paid by the 20 to 30 billion dollars missing from the "oil for food" program which was administered by a French Government owned, French Bank. And, it is French government policy to not allow any non European accountants to review the books to see where the money went. The European eaders, who were pocketing the money individually, did not want the gravy train to stop, and now don't want it revealed. And, you will see nothing of this in Le monde, or any other continental papers.

And, you won't read in French newpapers that the French Governement continues to obstruct all attempts to get to the people who benefited from this largest theft in human history. And, you won't understand this unless you do some checking outside of your bigotry and your usual sources of information, which seems to be two concepts which you do not understand.

So, respond with facts, and original thinking, and your opinions will be respected. But, respond with bigotry stated as facts and again you will get the respect that you deserve, or the lack of it.

And, although I doubt very much if you have a clue, as to what I have been addressing. If you do, you will see that I am saying that your comments are without enough substance to comment upon. That is what I commented not on your substance, but on the obvious reasons why you have no substance to offer.

And, if you are capable of understanding what I have written, you will not be angry or feel slighted, but feel you have been offered some advice which used constructively might be of benefit to you. So to test your response, are you angry, and feel I am a jerk just trying to offend you, or do you feel that you have been given something about which you might benefit from considering. I would assume from your earlier comments, it is the former, without a hint of the later. If that is the case, then you have demonstrated again, that attempting to comminicate with you is truly an exercise in futility, because you can not see the pearls, apparently because it is over your ability or willingness to understand and absorb.

Just spouting your biases is not comminicating, it is just a demonstration by you of your ignorance, arrogance, hostility, and lack of ability to understand and relate to others with whom you do not agree.

Your comments, apparently of which you are proud, do mark you as this type of person, not my observations. I just am observing what you are doing (and not doing), not doing it for you. That is my comments observing that you only offer bigotry as facts with nothing original, is not a problem I created, but just an observation of your techniques of answering comments with which you do not agree.

And, you refusal to comment on point, or even see the point, means that we are not comminicating, and that is because you offer nothing but bigotry upon which to comment.

Sorry that is you.

Ray

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".