You know, Ethan, it's hardly an insult to be called ignorant by a guy that routinely fails at reading in his own language.
Let's take, as an example, this bit:
Jubbergun wrote:
The practice of either forcing Jews out or encouraging them to leave dates back to at least the Reconquista.
Now since you seem to have serious issues with how certain prepositions and other identifiers work, I'm going to explain this to you using the smallest words possible. See the part in bold? That part makes the sentence mean that the history of antisemitism in Europe goes back as far as the period I'm discussing but might possibly go back even farther. So that means that all the other tedium and bullshit you spewed just for the purpose of showing us how clever you (think you) are was nothing more than wasted space. The only thing you were doing was adding to my list by taking the timeline back even farther than I went and adding more examples of how this problem has its roots in Europe. My point was not that the Reconquista caused this situation, it was that European antisemitism did, and that Europe's antisemitism had a long history that included the Reconquista. How you read any of that paragraph and came to the conclusions you did, I neither know nor care, but it's a glaring example of your inability to understand clearly written prose.
Not only that, but everything you wrote is something someone could Google (and again with "Nice Google," could we try something a bit more original?). Given how often you link something thinking it means one thing only to find out that it means something different (or something completely opposite that which you think it means) when someone actually reads all the fine print, I'm tempted to hit a search engine just to see how wrong you are.
Semi-Literate Blowhard wrote:
...they'd be wearing CIA T-shirts?
They're taking a hike on an unscenic border of a country we're in a state of cold war with, rather than off somewhere very similar but NOT politically dangerous like the Himalayas or Tibet. What do you think they're doing?
If the episode of
Top Gear I watched last week is any indication, you're making a lot of assumptions. Mr. Clarkson and company were flown into Iraq and given the task of driving to Jerusalem...which for some odd reason they attempted to do by driving into Iran (where they were barred because Iran won't allow anyone from the BBC in). The country they drove through was very scenic, and in the norther part of Iraq. Parts of it they showed reminded me of the nearby Skyline Drive. It's not all desert sand and camel shit, you insipid twit.
What they were doing should be obvious, especially in light of a conversation we had here a while back concerning some young dumbass running off to Libya to fight with the rebels so he'd have some cool stories to tell. These jackholes were looking for some
ADVENTURE, and were probably checking out old ruins and nature when they got snagged by overzealous Iranians who had about as much of an idea regarding where the border was as our idiot hikers did. If they had really been spies, it's doubtful the Iranians would have made their capture public knowledge, since they would have been too busy torturing them for information. It's also incredibly doubtful they would have released them even after more than two years of captivity. Of course, there's the very real possibility that the whole thing was arranged by Rupert Murdoch's secret ninja squad so that there'd be some exciting news to divert attention away from the wire-tapping scandal in the UK, and we'd be foolish to overlook that possibility, now wouldn't we?
Paranoid Buffoon wrote:
That you don't know what I'm making reference to is another example of your reliance on entirely reactive information uptake - Googling for scraps to corroborate your preformed views, rather than getting general information and forming views from there.
I was speaking only about the release of the "spies" (LOL) and its impact on Obama's UN speech...so unless NATO had a response to Obama's speech, I have no idea why you'd bother to bring it up. If I were pulling a "NICE GOOGLE," I wouldn't have to ask what the fuck is running through your addled mind and why it matters.
You would think someone wouldn't complain about "googling for scraps to corroborate your preformed views" after clearly having done so themselves in the past, especially after you linked that Wiki on the 14th Amendment and missed the entire paragraph that proved my point while disproving your own. At least when I "google for scraps," I don't link shit that disproves my "preformed views" the way you do. Quit projecting your shortcomings onto me, thank you very much.
Your Pal,
Jubber
