Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Which is why I use Daily Mail Online a lot.I have a few expat friends who live down in Mexico. Some say it took them a while to get deprogrammed from the US news.
I said we can't condemn others for the very thing we do.
Only those addicted to fellating others demand proof whenever they're cornered.Prove it!
Only those addicted to fellating others demand proof whenever they're cornered.
I ask for 'evidence'. There is no such thing as 'proof' on the internet.I don't know about all that. I ask for proof when I hear something that doesn't set right. This is the internet, after all.
The actual verified story was that the Hamas terrorists killed forty children and babies in the kibbutz and some were beheaded. People like you immediately twisted the facts to make it seem wrong.As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.
Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:
MSN
In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.
While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.
But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.
Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:
Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance
What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.
Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.
In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.
And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.
Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.
Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.
This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.
Is this something that is likely to change?
Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?
Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.
Oh yes we can.
The world isn't perfect, but we hold ourselves to standards the other side doesn't.
Although the point of those standards was always BOTH sides following them.
So you are saying Palestinians don't have a right to exist?
BTW, the cause of their hatred is the "occupation".
I ask for 'evidence'. There is no such thing as 'proof' on the internet.
DEMANDING 'proof' when cornered is for the fellatio addicted juveniles in our midst.
Asking for 'proof' when something stinks is normal behavior. Asking for evidence though is more gooder.
The GOP didn’t want the UK and France to surrender, their position was that a war between European countries was none of our business. Both parties were happy to sell aircraft and weapons to the French, British and other warring countries. Right up to Pearl Harbor American public opinion was against the US joining the war against Germany, although Germanys actions like attacking clearly marked American merchant ships and war ships was changing that opinion.You're the one who brought up 1939 and German aggression. Don't like the isolationists in todays Neo-GOP being compared to the isolationist of FDR's day? Too bad. They are/were the ones who want/wanted Ukraine/France and England to roll over and just take it. The French obliged but the UK didn't because......
As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.
Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:
MSN
In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.
While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.
But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.
Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:
Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance
What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.
Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.
In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.
And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.
Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.
Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.
This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.
Is this something that is likely to change?
Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?
Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.
As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.
Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:
MSN
In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.
While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.
But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.
Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:
Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance
What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.
Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.
In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.
And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.
Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.
Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.
This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.
Is this something that is likely to change?
Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?
Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.
www.cbsnews.com
Yeah? But you're a nut job partisan operative spreading hatred of Americans.
Our military targets civilians and babies for slaughter? Really?I said we can't condemn others for the very thing we do.
Sorry, but that's not proof. It is evidence.Proof can come in many forms. Even on the internet. Photo's, video's even simple statements that can be backed up and verified.
Your advice for killing capturing terrorists that hide in and attack from civilian residential buildings, hospitals, mosques ...?They did it out of callous disregard.
Hardly better
French journalist Margot Haddad confirmed reports of Hamas killing and beheading children and infants under 2 years old.As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.
Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:
MSN
In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.
While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.
But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.
Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:
Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance
What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.
Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.
In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.
And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.
Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.
Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.
This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.
Is this something that is likely to change?
Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?
Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.
No, I just don't take the IDF at their word. They are proven liars!Only those addicted to fellating others demand proof whenever they're cornered.
At the Rave, they dressed as Cops and when the people ran to them for protection, they were mowed down.Your advice for killing capturing terrorists that hide in and attack from civilian residential buildings, hospitals, mosques ...?
of course we can but the world knows we are hypocrites.
Hardly. Seems we were pretty proud of our torturing.
They do.
