Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
One of the versions of R. Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion car could turn all its weels to park sideways. I don't know if it had a ham prevention system, but I wouldn't be surprised.
One of the versions of R. Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion car could turn all its weels to park sideways. I don't know if it had a ham prevention system, but I wouldn't be surprised.
I would like to take this chance to thank Charles for making LGF Pages so easy. I would also like to apologize. Because I am gonna personally thake this blog's IQ down a point or two. :)
I would like to take this chance to thank Charles for making LGF Pages so easy. I would also like to apologize. Because I am gonna personally thake this blog's IQ down a point or two. :)
The Pages is a really fantastic feature. I scrolled through all my pages the other day looking for something and was really proud of most of what I've done with it. Very easy to use.
The Pages is a really fantastic feature. I scrolled through all my pages the other day looking for something and was really proud of most of what I've done with it. Very easy to use.
My first was a test. My second was an abortion.
///
The Pages is a really fantastic feature. I scrolled through all my pages the other day looking for something and was really proud of most of what I've done with it. Very easy to use.
Incredibly easy to use.
I've got the history of the oil spill, right there in the pages, if anybody wants to look for anything. Amazing.
I also really like the "subscribe" to a thread feature - if a thread is dead or dying, but I want to see any additional comments that might be made - I subscribe, and get a notice when something is posted, without having to keep a tab open or click back to the thread. It's come in handy.
There's a cool fall nip in the air here today. I was still wearing my wool hat the 1st week of July and summer's already over with. My garden didn't do much this year at all. Some squash is starting to form but it's probably too late. Not a single ripe tomato out of the garden this year either.
Yeah, but that suppository got 30 mpg in 1933, seated 11 people, went up to 120 mph, could do a U-turn in its own length, and park sideways. Bucky was just waiting for strong enough alloys to come along so he could make it fly as well. If more people had listened to that guy, we could have had the George Jetson future that everybody missed out on. Unfortunately it had some crosswind problems, and a fatal accident during a demonstration at the 1933 world's fair made everybody avoid the thing like the plague.
There's a cool fall nip in the air here today. I was still wearing my wool hat the 1st week of July and summer's already over with. My garden didn't do much this year at all. Some squash is starting to form but it's probably too late. Not a single ripe tomato out of the garden this year either.
Sorry to hear that.
Better luck next year.
We actually will dip below 70 for tonight's low! I am so looking forward to it. The dog will get a long walk tonight.
I like how on the main page, if you hover the mouse over the last-poster's name it does a little popup with their comment. If you recognize it, then nothing new's appeared there.
I'm going to have to get around to playing with Pages sometime.
I like how on the main page, if you hover the mouse over the last-poster's name it does a little popup with their comment. If you recognize it, then nothing new's appeared there.
I'm going to have to get around to playing with Pages sometime.
There's a cool fall nip in the air here today. I was still wearing my wool hat the 1st week of July and summer's already over with. My garden didn't do much this year at all. Some squash is starting to form but it's probably too late. Not a single ripe tomato out of the garden this year either.
You suck :) I miss living at the coast (and my beanies) with the almost always present marine layer. It's hot as hell here today, and darn it, I want to move.
Those who commit atrocities to fight for the cause of Darwin are similar to those who commit atrocities for the sake of Jesus or Muhammed. They are con men, striking out in hatred and justifying their acts with figures greater than self. . .
Just as James Dobson and other evangelists cultivate audiences in order to spread their beliefs, so do atheist evangelizers. The bigs are Britons Christopher Hitchens, who is battling cancer, and Richard Dawkins, who turns 70 in March. Myers, who grabbed attention by vandalizing sacred religious property, is a young and energetic American evangelist on track to become the James Dobson of atheism. . .
The more atheists push their beliefs — through terror or preaching — the more they appear as another evangelical movement with faith in a philosophy that can never be proved or disproved. Atheists, welcome to the club. All you’re lacking are orphanages, AIDS hospices, missionaries, and thousands of charitable foundations. Get on it.
It might or might not be interesting to note that the author of that piece used to write for Soldier of Fortune magazine, and one of his pieces was cited by Timothy McVeigh as describing his justification for bombing the Murrah building.
You suck :) I miss living at the coast (and my beanies) with the almost always present marine layer. It's hot as hell here today, and darn it, I want to move.
A controversy arose in July 2008 over a Pharyngula blog entry written by Myers expressing amazement at news reports of death threats issued to University of Central Florida Student Senator Webster Cook. On June 29, 2008, Cook attended a Catholic Mass being held in the student union at UCF by a Catholic student group that receives funding from the student government. Cook received the Catholic Eucharist host but did not consume it immediately. He said later that he wanted to take it back to his seat to show a friend, but when stopped he put it in his mouth until back at his seat, then a church leader made forcible attempts to take the host from him. Cook stored the host at his home, then returned it one week later after receiving e-mail threats and pleas. Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League, described the student's actions as "beyond hate speech" and said that "All options should be on the table, including expulsion."
In his July 8 blog entry, Myers criticized the reaction to Cook's act. Myers described the level of harassment including multiple death threats leveled against the student, and accusations against the student which included hate crime, kidnapping, and intent to desecrate the wafer which Catholics consider a mortal sin. Myers expressed outrage that Fox News appeared to be inciting readers to cause further problems for the student, and ridiculed reports that armed guards would attend the next mass. Myers suggested that if any of his readers could acquire some consecrated Eucharistic hosts for him, he would treat the wafers "with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web."
Another thing I like about the pages is the ticker for clicks. It's kinda fun to see the click count go up. A counter for retweets might be kinda cool too.
Sometimes if I'm at a coffee shop I'll grab one of those giant cookies you might see and treat it like a communion wager complete with faux Latin wording. When I'm being silly.
Good grief.
To me, it's a cookie.
ZOMG, I'M EEEVIL INCARNATE!
I had a Jewish friend who worked in a Christian supply store that sold those wafers by the box. She procured one for us. We never did anything with them though. We kept talking about having an Easter Brunch with French Host and Pentecostal Sundaes and Hot Cross Buns, but we never got around to it.
Hoops, what do we wan to write about. Because I can start here. We are the Bucs. We suck.
/
When I read Tony's book and how the Buc's locked him out after he was fired..
On a rainy night a guard over saw Dungy pack his office and escort him out in the poring rain. Effen you Bucs..There is no shame below you...
It's been a few years since I've been to London but I seem to remember more outrageously drunk women stumbling around at night than men. Maybe I just notice the women more.
It's been a few years since I've been to London but I seem to remember more outrageously drunk women stumbling around at night than men. Maybe I just notice the women more.
Um...duh?
All the Hopkins students are back, partyin' hearty, and the weather in Baltimore is splendid, after a very AGW-y summer, and I only notice the drunken guys when they drunkenly confront me for drunkenly staring at their drunken GFs.
My dad has worked at the hospital his entire professional life. He's now 76 years old and still goes there every day, and frequents the neighborhood eateries. It's really not that bad.
My neighborhood, on the other hand, is Charles Village, where the Hopkins Homewood campus is. A few weeks back a young researcher was stabbed to death five blocks from where I live over a cellphone. They caught the killers within hours. Then the Baltimore authorities showed up at the memorial service and tried to reassure us all that this is a safe neighborhood.
My dad has worked at the hospital his entire professional life. He's now 76 years old and still goes there every day, and frequents the neighborhood eateries. It's really not that bad.
My neighborhood, on the other hand, is Charles Village, where the Hopkins Homewood campus is. A few weeks back a young researcher was stabbed to death five blocks from where I live over a cellphone. They caught the killers within hours. Then the Baltimore authorities showed up at the memorial service and tried to reassure us all that this is a safe neighborhood.
I had a Jewish friend who worked in a Christian supply store that sold those wafers by the box. She procured one for us. We never did anything with them though. We kept talking about having an Easter Brunch with French Host and Pentecostal Sundaes and Hot Cross Buns, but we never got around to it.
A pre-blessed wafer and a post-blessed wafer are two totally different things. Trying to make off with one after it's received the eucharist blessing is a total dick move. Hardly rising to the level of a hate crime, but a dick move nonetheless.
there was a wonderful piece of web design by a British satirist spoofing the website of the mayor of Baltimore complaining about how it had such a bad rep in the UK purely based on the Wire...where as the English village of Midsomer had a murder rate many many times worse...
i think all trace of the spoof site has been removed :(
Oh, gawd.
To him, a cracker.
To a Catholic, the consecrated host (which this was) is the body of Christ.
From my viewpoint, attending a religious service, and getting into the communion line, and taking the consecrated host, being delivered in good faith by the Parish for the purposes of communion for the faithful, taking that host for the purpose of treating it in a way that is anathema to those who belong to that religion, doesn't deserve your scare quotes.
It was a silly, stupid, provocative, idiotic thing to do, and it was done because he HATES those believers and what they believe.
An unconsecrated wafer is just bread.
You can buy 'em, or make your own.
But Myers sought someone to go into a Church, during a Mass, for the purpose of taking the consecrated host. And entirely different thing. I would not show such disrespect to another faith. It's amazing to me that disrespect to the Catholic faith is just fine with some of you folks; but God forbid anyone show any disrespect for Islam.
I'll be honest with you.
I have little to no respect for religion in general.
Kind of hard to respect something that states I'm going to suffer for all eternity for not believing in it.
Sorry if this offends, but it's how I feel.
I'll be honest with you.
I have little to no respect for religion in general.
Kind of hard to respect something that states I'm going to suffer for all eternity for not believing in it.
Sorry if this offends, but it's how I feel.
I don't care how you feel about religion in general.
If you invite someone to your house, and set your table with your finest silver, have you given your invitees permission to come into your house and destroy your settings?
Well, that's what this guy did. Whether you are religious or not, it's just wrong.
A pre-blessed wafer and a post-blessed wafer are two totally different things. Trying to make off with one after it's received the eucharist blessing is a total dick move. Hardly rising to the level of a hate crime, but a dick move nonetheless.
Yep. I was Catholic, so I have experience in trying to keep the post-blessed wafer from sticking to the roof of my mouth. I don't think I'd mess with a post-blessed one even though I'm an atheist now. I try not to offend people on purpose, unless they do it first. (It's not exactly the Golden Rule, but maybe the Mustard Yellow Rule, at least.)
I don't care how you feel about religion in general.
If you invite someone to your house, and set your table with your finest silver, have you given your invitees permission to come into your house and destroy your settings?
Well, that's what this guy did. Whether you are religious or not, it's just wrong.
Oh, I agree. What he did was stupid.
However, the overreaction to what he did was far more stupid.
I don't care how you feel about religion in general.
If you invite someone to your house, and set your table with your finest silver, have you given your invitees permission to come into your house and destroy your settings?
Well, that's what this guy did. Whether you are religious or not, it's just wrong.
Just because you don't believe it or see the value of it, doesn't make it OK to do.
PARIS — French trade unions protested on Saturday against a clampdown on immigrants, launching a week of action against tightening security and pension reforms on which President Nicolas Sarkozy has staked his political reputation.
Demonstrators opposed to new measures including repatriation of Rome to eastern Europe waved French flags and placards and chanted slogans including "let's stop repression" and "no to Sarkozy's inhumane policies."
A column of thousands headed in bright sunshine towards Paris's city hall, led by Rome. Thousands more rallied in Marseilles, Lyons, Bordeaux and over a hundred other cities.
"This weekend's demonstrations will be a first indicator of the country's mood during this turbulent return to work for politicians," the left-leaning Liberation newspaper said in an editorial.
Critics see the expulsions as part of a drive by Sarkozy to revive his popularity before 2012 elections and divert attention from painful pension reforms and spending cuts.
Saturday's protests also target the revocation of French nationality for immigrants found guilty of attacking police officers.
I don't know why anyone has a problem with this one. If you let someone in to your country and they then process to shoot at cops or try to firebomb a squad car, by all means throw them out.
A pre-blessed wafer and a post-blessed wafer are two totally different things. Trying to make off with one after it's received the eucharist blessing is a total dick move. Hardly rising to the level of a hate crime, but a dick move nonetheless.
Yeah I'd have to agree with that. I thought this was regarding something that occurred outside of a church. It's prankish and immature when you come down to it. A bit like disturbing the peace or if someone walked into an atheist meeting to perform a similar prank say with a book written by Hitchens. Additionally these silly moves make atheists look bad.
I'm a widdle atheist and I'm going to sneak into a mosque Catholic church and steal a Koran consecrated host and then take it home and scoff at it and see if anyone gets upset.
I don't know why anyone has a problem with this one. If you let someone in to your country and they then process to shoot at cops or try to firebomb a squad car, by all means throw them out.
I could see having a predefined period of conditional immigration, but in the long run if you give somebody citizenship then they should be subject to the same rules and legal penalties as a native-born citizen. If they started deporting natural-born French people somewhere for the same crimes, that'd be fine.
I don't know why anyone has a problem with this one. If you let someone in to your country and they then process to shoot at cops or try to firebomb a squad car, by all means throw them out.
well first off they do not just mean immigrants of two or five or even ten years, they seem to want to include even second-generation immigrants (who, not only are born nationals, but would be left stateless).
second of all: once you naturalize someone, you don't take that nationality away anymore. I'm quite certain european law would not even allow it so it's no danger, but I find even just the idea quite objectionable (and I'm not exactly on the political left).
secondly their deportation of Roma is quite inhumane and has had this debate riled up quite highly in France already.
the way in which France casually discriminates based on race nowadays I would be surprised if this were the last protest you hear of.
I would have no problem with religion if it just left me the hell alone.
But it doesn't.
We have Rs trying to ram their religious values down our throats.
We have people, uninvited, knocking on doors trying to save souls from the hell of their religion.
We have religious leaders, in this county, supporting the death penalty for gays in Africa.
We have religious leaders, the Pope, lying about condoms in Africa.
We have religious leaders, Imams, saying it's okay to kill infidels.
Etc.
So, yeah, I get pissy about it.
I don't get France's immigration policies. Does anybody get France's immigration policies?
In the last couple weeks, they've been going through these "camps", as I saw described, of Bucharest immigrants and basically forcing them all out. Why is do they live like this?
I'm a widdle atheist and I'm going to sneak into a mosque Catholic church and steal a Koran consecrated host and then take it home and scoff at it and see if anyone gets upset.
Anyone see a difference here?
Because I don't.
I don't need to sneak into a Church or a Mosque to scoff at it.
I can do it from the comfort of my home.
I'm another widdle atheist. Watch me sneak into a synagogue, walk out with a crate of Seder wine, get drunk with my widdle atheist buddies, and piss on a Torah.
I'm another widdle atheist. Watch me sneak into a synagogue, walk out with a crate of Seder wine, get drunk with my widdle atheist buddies, and piss on a Torah.
Same thing.
and it doesn't even take algebra. you must be the scum of society.
I could see having a predefined period of conditional immigration, but in the long run if you give somebody citizenship then they should be subject to the same rules and legal penalties as a native-born citizen. If they started deporting natural-born French people somewhere for the same crimes, that'd be fine.
I don't agree. Someone allowed in should be removed if they demonstrate themselves unfit for citizenship. Firing on police officers is a clear sign someone is not a proper citizen.
I don't agree. Someone allowed in should be removed if they demonstrate themselves unfit for citizenship. Firing on police officers is a clear sign someone is not a proper citizen.
yes. and then we put them in prison. like every citizen.
this is pure racism. we put boundaries on immigration for good reason; but once someone is in they are not to be treated as a second class citizen for any reason, in any way. equal treatment, that sort of lefty stuff. /
I don't get France's immigration policies. Does anybody get France's immigration policies?
In the last couple weeks, they've been going through these "camps", as I saw described, of Bucharest immigrants and basically forcing them all out. Why is do they live like this?
I don't agree. Someone allowed in should be removed if they demonstrate themselves unfit for citizenship. Firing on police officers is a clear sign someone is not a proper citizen.
So once you are a citizen, then break the law (against the police, oh my) you lose the ability to be treated under the rule of law? i.e. punished & sentenced?
You just get kicked out because you are "new"
Bullshit. And I'm glad we are talking about France.
yes. and then we put them in prison. like every citizen.
this is pure racism. we put boundaries on immigration for good reason; but once someone is in they are not to be treated as a second class citizen for any reason, in any way. equal treatment, that sort of lefty stuff. /
Its not racism. It's saying "If you come into our country and then shit on our laws and values, out you go!"
Nice young couple showed up at my door the other day to invite me to their church on Sunday morning. All I could think was "man, that wife of yours is goood looking". I consider myself a believer, but I may end up in hell anyway.
Its not racism. It's saying "If you come into our country and then shit on our laws and values, out you go!"
well, if that's what you want to do, fine. institute a protracted, say, 10 year immigration period during which one does not yet receive citizenship. that might, just *might* allow for what you suggest.
once someone takes up a different nationality they take up a different life. they agree to subject themselves to the laws and regulations of their new country, and they build a new life there.
they make new friends. absorb a different culture. build a new life for themselves.
and yes. sometimes that goes wrong. but whatever way you put that, it never ever allows you to treat one citizen differently from another.
I understand it's easy to go with a gut feeling and "just kick someone out", it's just fundamentally wrong (as with plenty peoples' gut feeling when pertaining to either immigration or criminal law - let alone a combination of both).
if you feel the criminal justice system is not up to the task; improve it.
in a NON-discriminatory manner.
Your allowed to be angry about religion. Lots of people are angry about religion.
hell, plenty of religious people are angry about religion the way it is practiced by certain fanatics.
or about painted with the same broad brush as those, for that matter.
I would have no problem with religion if it just left me the hell alone.
But it doesn't.
We have Rs trying to ram their religious values down our throats.
We have people, uninvited, knocking on doors trying to save souls from the hell of their religion.
We have religious leaders, in this county, supporting the death penalty for gays in Africa.
We have religious leaders, the Pope, lying about condoms in Africa.
We have religious leaders, Imams, saying it's okay to kill infidels.
Etc.
So, yeah, I get pissy about it.
yes, and plenty other groups have done plenty objectionable things.
the point with ideologies is that, when taken to their extremes, they all stink in the end. nothing special about religion in that regard. sheesh.
When I first met Mr. Moon, he was agnostic. Now he's an all out heathen atheist. But he's MY heathen atheist.
He was traumatized by some corporal punishment experiences in parochial school, from what I gather. So I get it. It's a shame to me, because it ruins one's understanding of God which is often mixed up in a lot of wrong stuff.
This just convinces me that we are ahead of Europe in the matters of ethnic and religious tolerance. A great reason to be nationalist about my country.
Its not racism. It's saying "If you come into our country and then shit on our laws and values, out you go!"
It's saying that naturalized citizens are a separate legal class, subject to different rules, than natural born citizens. It isn't particularly racist, since it would apply to someone regardless of where they came from. But neither would such a rule uphold the principle of equal protection under the law, which IMO is about as important as democracy itself.
It's saying that naturalized citizens are a separate legal class, subject to different rules, than natural born citizens. It isn't particularly racist, since it would apply to someone regardless of where they came from. But neither would such a rule uphold the principle of equal protection under the law, which IMO is about as important as democracy itself.
Actually, the US also allows for the revocation of naturalized citizenship. It's not a separate class so much as a statement that those allowed to stay can still be sent back if they commit certain types of crime. These crimes should be limited to severe offenses, but trying to kill a police officer surely qualifies.
This just convinces me that we are ahead of Europe in the matters of ethnic and religious tolerance. A great reason to be nationalist about my country.
Obdicut's wife iirc, is a decendant of Roma. Wish he was here, and hope this topic is brought up again to get his input.
To read that Sarkozy is doing this maybe because of elections? To me, that is very very scary.
No, no.
Wasn't you, really.
I had to log off or say things I would deeply regret.
I do try to respect what others own or believe, even if it's something that has no value to ME personally, and I try to act accordingly. I just wish people weren't so dismissive of Myers' actions on that - he solicited someone to go to a Mass, and take something of value to the congregation, for the purpose of demeaning it.
If someone did that to something of yours that you valued, you would call the police, you would call the person a thief, outright, no quotes around it, and action would be taken. The action taken on this situation was everybody pokes fun of the icky Catholics for reacting. So be it.
I'll be sure to bring this subject up again when I Obdicut on again. Sarkozy's actions, if the allegations are true, makes what's going on right now with the Republicans look tiny in comparison.
Actually, the US also allows for the revocation of naturalized citizenship. It's not a separate class so much as a statement that those allowed to stay can still be sent back if they commit certain types of crime. These crimes should be limited to severe offenses, but trying to kill a police officer surely qualifies.
Involuntarily Losing Your US Citizenship (Denaturalization)
Both the State Department and the USCIS have specific laws and regulations they must follow in determining whether someone’s US citizenship should be taken away.
1. Convicted For An Act Of Treason Against The United States
2. Holding A Policy Level Position In A Foreign Country
3. Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces If That Country Is Engaged In Hostilities Or At War With The United States [I didn't edit this one, because it's interesting and maybe more applicable recently]
If your native country is engaged in hostile actions or is at war with America you need to be extremely careful. The US government will attempt to take away your US citizenship if they find out you are either aiding or serving in your native country’s armed forces in any capacity. Alternatively, the US government could try to nail you with a treason conviction and then strip you of your US citizenship.
4. Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces As An Officer Or A Non-Commissioned Officer
5. Lying To The USCIS During The Naturalization Process
Not on par to lawbreaking against the cops. Just isn't. Especially if said lawbreaking attack on police is in form of a protest against something.
Now, I know we're talking about FRANCE here, but I automatically apply to the US. So, you are stopped by an asshole cop and you resist? Your citizenship is not in jeopardy?
I'll be sure to bring this subject up again when I Obdicut on again. Sarkozy's actions, if the allegations are true, makes what's going on right now with the Republicans look tiny in comparison.
SERIOUSLY. And this is the first time I've seen it brought up. Of course I may have missed it, but damn.
I'll be honest with you.
I have little to no respect for religion in general.
Kind of hard to respect something that states I'm going to suffer for all eternity for not believing in it.
Sorry if this offends, but it's how I feel.
One of the least well kept secrets here in the UK is that trainee priests on retreat often have 'naughty moments' involving large scale 'food fights' with the communion host.
Given the circumstances, I expect alcohol may be involved too.
One of the least well kept secrets here in the UK is that trainee priests on retreat often have 'naughty moments' involving large scale 'food fights' with the communion host.
Given the circumstances, I expect alcohol may be involved too.
Sounds like just the kind of atheist urban legend that I've come to look forward to at LGF.
Sounds like just the kind of atheist urban legend that I've come to look forward to at LGF.
Catholics in the UK have a long history of having a sense of humour about their religion. For many of us of course, it's a slippery slope to atheism (the horror!).
Actually, the US also allows for the revocation of naturalized citizenship. It's not a separate class so much as a statement that those allowed to stay can still be sent back if they commit certain types of crime. These crimes should be limited to severe offenses, but trying to kill a police officer surely qualifies.
Well, I'm agin' it. It really does create two classes of citizenship. One type of person faces one type of sentence for the same crime, another type of person faces another type of sentence. That's separate classes of people under the law.
Another thing is, deportation for serious crimes might or might not be harsher than punishing them locally: "You mean I can kill a cop and the worst thing that happens to me is I get a free plane ticket to go live with my uncle in the UAE? Great!"
It basically amounts to revoking the right of the state to determine the actual punishment of an offender. The state you send them to might or might not apply a punishment that your country would find proper, whether what happens to them is too harsh or not harsh enough.
It's also a bit odd that we're talking about France, where other countries often find it difficult to extradite someone from for crimes committed elsewhere. Between those two policies, there's something of a double standard going on.
Well, I'm agin' it. It really does create two classes of citizenship. One type of person faces one type of sentence for the same crime, another type of person faces another type of sentence. That's separate classes of people under the law.
Another thing is, deportation for serious crimes might or might not be harsher than punishing them locally: "You mean I can kill a cop and the worst thing that happens to me is I get a free plane ticket to go live with my uncle in the UAE? Great!"
It basically amounts to revoking the right of the state to determine the actual punishment of an offender. The state you send them to might or might not apply a punishment that your country would find proper, whether what happens to them is too harsh or not harsh enough.
It's also a bit odd that we're talking about France, where other countries often find it difficult to extradite someone from for crimes committed elsewhere. Between those two policies, there's something of a double standard going on.
Well, some of it is based on a desire to get rid of those who you don't even want in your prisons. Two of the other crimes eligible for revocation are polygamy and female genital mutilation. If it sounds like that's aimed at a certain group of people, it is. As for which group: Starts with 'I', ends in a 'slam'. That last witticism is Mark Steyn's, not my own.
Catholics in the UK have a long history of having a sense of humour about their religion. For many of us of course, it's a slippery slope to atheism (the horror!).
I'll bet you any amount of money they don't hurl consecrated hosts at each other, though.
Anything else is just bread, but you would get kicked out for that.
And I am a Catholic with a notably perverse sense of humor.
An unconsecrated wafer is just bread.
You can buy 'em, or make your own.
But Myers sought someone to go into a Church, during a Mass, for the purpose of taking the consecrated host. And entirely different thing. I would not show such disrespect to another faith. It's amazing to me that disrespect to the Catholic faith is just fine with some of you folks; but God forbid anyone show any disrespect for Islam.
Interestingly enough, per Benedict (nee Ratzinger)'s 2001 order mishandling of the eucharist is one of those things which the Vatican reserves to itself to investigate centrally. It was listed as a line item well above the sexual abuse of children, but the same rule applies. People in the local parish are supposed to keep quiet about it until the Vatican can investigate and make a ruling. So technically, all of the people making a big deal about what that dickwad did and sending him death threats were in direct violation of a Papal order.
Seein' as how you're also agin Israel as a Jewish state, and lookin' forward to it bein' majority Arab, the fact is I don't care what else you're agin.
Seein' as how you're also agin Israel as a Jewish state, and lookin' forward to it bein' majority Arab, the fact is I don't care what else you're agin.
You seem to have picked up LVQ's habit of dragging old discussions into new ones.
Yes, I'm also agin' dividing people out by their race/ethnicity/religion and separating them into purportedly homogenous "homeland" states.
Interestingly enough, per Benedict (nee Ratzinger)'s 2001 order mishandling of the eucharist is one of those things which the Vatican reserves to itself to investigate centrally. It was listed as a line item well above the sexual abuse of children, but the same rule applies. People in the local parish are supposed to keep quiet about it until the Vatican can investigate and make a ruling. So technically, all of the people making a big deal about what that dickwad did and sending him death threats were in direct violation of a Papal order.
I wouldn't think the Code of Canon Law applies to non-Catholics. In other words the Vatican would have no authority over non-Catholics, and these investigations would be one that would involve Catholics within a congregation.
Of course anyone sending him death threats was way wrong to do so, and THAT behavior should be prosecuted, if it's possible to prosecute those sorts of threats.
So technically speaking, we had and have the right to be offended by Myers' actions, and to make it known.
I wouldn't think the Code of Canon Law applies to non-Catholics. In other words the Vatican would have no authority over non-Catholics, and these investigations would be one that would involve Catholics within a congregation.
Of course anyone sending him death threats was way wrong to do so, and THAT behavior should be prosecuted, if it's possible to prosecute those sorts of threats.
So technically speaking, we had and have the right to be offended by Myers' actions, and to make it known.
I'm assuming that the people sending death threats were Catholic. As such they were in violation not only of the local legal code but also of the Vatican edict.
I'm assuming that the people sending death threats were Catholic. As such they were in violation not only of the local legal code but also of the Vatican edict.
Violation of legal code, sure.
And the Ten Commandments, and all sorts of other things.
However:
I was trying to say that the Vatican would have no authority to investigate Myers ; the investigations for which people are supposed to keep their mouths shut involve charges against, and investigations of, Catholics. Therefore, reasonable expressions of distaste regarding Myers' actions are in no way a violation of any damned thing.
Leave him alone, Cato. Your words are getting in his way. He was trying to watch the prancing unicorns.
Pretty much. A one-state solution with a commitment to equal treatment under the law for all residents regardless of their ethnicity or religion has been forced into "unicorn" status at this point. I recognize that both sides have allowed themselves to become convinced that they can't live together. Which is exactly why I have so little hope that their disputes are ever going to get resolved.
It's odd how often we're told by our leaders that policy X is right for this place and policy Y is right for that place, without being told what the significant difference is between the places. One example I can think of is how we trade with China but refuse to trade with Cuba. Another is how we were told that a one-state solution was the best thing for Iraq but a two-state solution is the best thing for Israel.
I don't think the history and name of the country necessarily imply that it should strive to maintain an ethnic majority of some sort.
Political correctness gone mad.
Denmark = "We're not really Danes! It's just a name."
Ditto France, Germany, Sweden, Thailand, China, Japan, Korea, and Iceland. Oh, and the Scots. And the goddamned Irish with their goddamned right of return (same law as in Israel).
I suppose the Tibetans are racists too, for wanting to keep Tibet Tibetan?
Violation of legal code, sure.
And the Ten Commandments, and all sorts of other things.
However:
I was trying to say that the Vatican would have no authority to investigate Myers ; the investigations for which people are supposed to keep their mouths shut involve charges against, and investigations of, Catholics. Therefore, reasonable expressions of distaste regarding Myers' actions are in no way a violation of any damned thing.
The Vatican might reserve the right to investigate the circumstances under which he was allowed to take Communion in the first place. The investigation would center on the situation, not necessarily about this or that person involved. Since it's on the list of things that the Vatican reserves the right to investigate, and which Catholics aren't supposed to talk about under threat of excommunication, running around and yelling about it constitutes a violation of the order.
Of course, it's a really stupid order, and one which has has contributed significantly to the Church's legal issues regarding child abuse.
Pretty much. A one-state solution with a commitment to equal treatment under the law for all residents regardless of their ethnicity or religion has been forced into "unicorn" status at this point. I recognize that both sides have allowed themselves to become convinced that they can't live together. Which is exactly why I have so little hope that their disputes are ever going to get resolved.
It's odd how often we're told by our leaders that policy X is right for this place and policy Y is right for that place, without being told what the significant difference is between the places. One example I can think of is how we trade with China but refuse to trade with Cuba. Another is how we were told that a one-state solution was the best thing for Iraq but a two-state solution is the best thing for Israel.
For the bolded part, we have another fantasy creature:
The Magical Balance Fairy. She uses the sweet mist of Hopeychange to mask the Jewish pleas for peace and sharing going back to the 1920s and the violent rejection of these by the Arabs. She makes it seem like both sides are to blame, when in fact blame is concentrated overwhelmingly on the Arab side of the scale.
For part in italics, that had to do with the reality of international boundaries and Iraq's area. To have divided Iraq would have been to leave it prey to Iranian depredations. There was also the fact that Turkey will not tolerate an independent Kurdish state, because their own Kurds would try to join it. That is not fair to the Kurds, but since the Turks have the power: It's like that, and that's the way it is.
What about Greece, whose near-default four months ago rattled the nerves of investors around the globe?
"Greece will not make it," said Sinn. He said the world can either subsidize Athens indefinitely, force a degree of austerity that actually risks "civil war," or — in what he suggested was the least bad option — encourage Greece to restore its drachma currency despite the domestic banking collapse that could well result.
Maybe the world could just carve up Greece into little bits (after all, it has quite a few islands) and sell off the parts?
Yes, I'm also agin' dividing people out by their race/ethnicity/religion and separating them into purportedly homogenous "homeland" states.
When you put it like that, it does seem a tad problematic to say the least. I'm sure many if not most countries were founded on at least a few bad ideas though. I'd never challenge a country's existence based on that, (not saying you would either) but I think I'm in agreement with you that all countries should be encouraged to strive towards genuine pluralism and openness.
Denmark = "We're not really Danes! It's just a name."
Ditto France, Germany, Sweden, Thailand, China, Japan, Korea, and Iceland. Oh, and the Scots. And the goddamned Irish with their goddamned right of return (same law as in Israel).
I suppose the Tibetans are racists too, for wanting to keep Tibet Tibetan?
I see.
Wanting to keep "X" "X-ish" is an expression of xenophobia wherever it happens. That's what xenophobes always say.
Look, you're literally advocating for racial separatism here. That's what you're doing. The argument you're making would be right at home if it were posted at Stormfront.
PS: does the Irish law require that the person who wants to move there be Catholic? Or that it include anyone who converts to Roman Catholicism? If so, you might have a good analogy. But then I'd just state my opposition to that law too.
For the bolded part, we have another fantasy creature:
The Magical Balance Fairy. She uses the sweet mist of Hopeychange to mask the Jewish pleas for peace and sharing going back to the 1920s and the violent rejection of these by the Arabs. She makes it seem like both sides are to blame, when in fact blame is concentrated overwhelmingly on the Arab side of the scale.
I didn't see where elbruce said or implied anything like that, DF.
My take on this is that there won't be any resolution of this conflict based on forcing one side or the other to accept the blame for all that has happened in the past.
Maybe we'll one day see a popular peace movement composed of people from both sides who are just sick of the violence become big enough to convince the terrorists and warmongers that it's time to give up their 'struggle', as happened in Northern Ireland. That might seem a long way away right now, but remember that people used to think that peace in NI was an impossibility, for similar reasons.
The most disgusting, obscene little ditty I ever heard in my life was broadcast to the world during Saint Reagan's reign, as part of the Los Angeles Olympics. Its refrain went:
"I want a world that's just like America.
I want a world that's just like the USA."
For part in italics, that had to do with the reality of international boundaries and Iraq's area. To have divided Iraq would have been to leave it prey to Iranian depredations. There was also the fact that Turkey will not tolerate an independent Kurdish state, because their own Kurds would try to join it. That is not fair to the Kurds, but since the Turks have the power: It's like that, and that's the way it is.
I'm sure we could support whatever state was closest to Iran to a degree that they wouldn't want to risk it.
It's possible that having a Kurdistan within Iraq's current borders might be more convenient for Turkey, since their Southern Kurds would have a place to go to. Obviously, such a Kurdistan would still want to expand into Turkey, but at least they'd have a specific country to argue about it with, without dragging the rest of Iraq into their issue.
The only problem with the three-state solution that I know of was unequal distribution of oil fields. But that wasn't spelled out very clearly. I'd just rather have had the leadership involved take the time to explain it rather than have us try to figure it out later.
So, Israel supports a one-state solution...? Cool.
At one time, they did. And in 1947, they pleaded with the Arabs of Tel Aviv to stay there and live with the Jews. The Arabs refused, and did so again in Jaffa, fearful of being seen as collaborators or just plain hating the Jews. Here, read this and you'll gain some understanding:
Never thought I'd see the day when standing up for Israel on this blog would get me compared - with total impunity - to a member of France's Front National and a writer for Stormfront.
Never thought I'd see the day when standing up for Israel on this blog would get me compared - with total impunity - to a member of France's Front National and a writer for Stormfront.
May I just highlight the part I so believe is key?
I didn't see where elbruce said or implied anything like that, DF.
My take on this is that there won't be any resolution of this conflict based on forcing one side or the other to accept the blame for all that has happened in the past.
Maybe we'll one day see a popular peace movement composed of people from both sides who are just sick of the violence become big enough to convince the terrorists and warmongers that it's time to give up their 'struggle', as happened in Northern Ireland. That might seem a long way away right now, but remember that people used to think that peace in NI was an impossibility, for similar reasons.
What I see, is people who are in no way going to do this, and that is what's most messed up to me. Yes, you are allowed based upon the past to believe what you believe, but to characterize the future this way?
The most disgusting, obscene little ditty I ever heard in my life was broadcast to the world during Saint Reagan's reign, as part of the Los Angeles Olympics. Its refrain went:
"I want a world that's just like America.
I want a world that's just like the USA."
I fucking well do not.
Well, I believe that the founding principles of Democracy are philosophically, rather than culturally, valid. If they aren't good enough to apply anywhere, then we need to go back to the drawing board with them.
Never thought I'd see the day when standing up for Israel on this blog would get me compared - with total impunity - to a member of France's Front National and a writer for Stormfront.
I haz a sad.
You weren't "standing up for Israel" at that point. You were standing up for segregating all nations based on ethnicity, race, and/or religion. Quite explicitly.
The future is that which you will not live to see.
Given the discussion here today, I wish I were even older, so that I'd see less of it.
Israel is a country in constant flux. Folks who would compare it to the U.S., a country with no war on its border, or even places like Iraq or Afghanistan simply do not understand the conflict and yet speak of it with such authority.
All conflicts are different, the histories, the people, the cultures and have their own unique issues to deal with. (I know you know all that.)
Seein' as how you're also agin Israel as a Jewish state, and lookin' forward to it bein' majority Arab, the fact is I don't care what else you're agin.
You weren't "standing up for Israel" at that point. You were standing up for segregating all nations based on ethnicity, race, and/or religion. Quite explicitly.
Like you have any fucking notion of reality on which to base an opinion about me, or what I stand for.
Can I ask an honest q? Do you dislike Haaretz as a news source? I made it a point to learn learn learn, and have been reading - every night. My basic point is lefty here, lefty there. Please don't take my asking as a negative (dang LGF is pretty scary this way)
Look, you're literally advocating for racial separatism here. That's what you're doing. The argument you're making would be right at home if it were posted at Stormfront.
Taking offense at straw-man distortions doesn't constitute stating your case.
Israel is a country in constant flux. Folks who would compare it to the U.S., a country with no war on its border, or even places like Iraq or Afghanistan simply do not understand the conflict and yet speak of it with such authority.
I't most probably that the "maybe Israel should do X instead of Y" crowd and the "everything they do is right and all problems are somebody else's fault" crowd are both speaking above our level of knowledge and authority.
I recognize that what Israel has to deal with is a balance between practicality and ideals. It likely wouldn't be safe or workable to institute the sort of things I'm talking about immediately or unilaterally. My main concern here is whether the ideals being put into the equation as a long term goal are the philosophically correct ones.
Denmark = "We're not really Danes! It's just a name."
Ditto France, Germany, Sweden, Thailand, China, Japan, Korea, and Iceland. Oh, and the Scots. And the goddamned Irish with their goddamned right of return (same law as in Israel).
I suppose the Tibetans are racists too, for wanting to keep Tibet Tibetan?
I see.
I think it's a fair characterization to label such a policy as universal xenophobia, if not full blown segregation.
Characterizing an argument as being consistent with other arguments (which may come from famously disreputable sources) is not the same thing as "putting words in" anybody's "mouth." I'm not saying he said anything he didn't say. Nor am I paraphrasing his arguments back to him, but am rather sticking to a consistent policy of using the "quote" feature generously provided to us by Charles.
I have no problem with Cato. Or you. I have in the past, and look forward in the future to agreeing with both of you on other subjects.
But I strongly disagree with this line of argumentation, and I think it's worth pointing out that it's highly consistent with the international policies proposed by virulent racists everywhere.
Can I ask an honest q? Do you dislike Haaretz as a news source? I made it a point to learn learn learn, and have been reading - every night. My basic point is lefty here, lefty there. Please don't take my asking as a negative (dang LGF is pretty scary this way)
Oh I never take that as a negative.
I think Haaretz is more liberal, more anti-war, although that's not really a good description either, while Jpost is more conservative, like no land for peace deals, etc. But both have equal commentaries, too. So it's good to read both. And there's a lot of culture in both papers. I gravitate to Jpost and Auretz Sheva which is Israeli National News ([Link: www.israelnationalnews.com...]
Here's a fun one. [Link: www.Jerusalemonline.com...] That's a live feed. That's also pretty even, left/right, but probably leans conservative.
I was just listening and it's all pretty depressing.
Apparently stating the case for Israel (or Tibet) now gets one characterized as a xenophobe here, with no serious reply allowed.
Only Charles gets to determine what people are "allowed" to say here.
Tibet and Israel have a number completely different issues; you'd have to drill down somewhat to explain what your point of comparison is. As I support equality under the law and religious freedom, I think I'd land on the right side of the Tibetan issue overall.
I't most probably that the "maybe Israel should do X instead of Y" crowd and the "everything they do is right and all problems are somebody else's fault" crowd are both speaking above our level of knowledge and authority.
I recognize that what Israel has to deal with is a balance between practicality and ideals. It likely wouldn't be safe or workable to institute the sort of things I'm talking about immediately or unilaterally. My main concern here is whether the ideals being put into the equation as a long term goal are the philosophically correct ones.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're talking about. You move the goalposts around quite a bit.
What sort of things exactly are you talking about when you say they wouldn't be working immediately or unilaterally.
It seems that Israel is a particular focus for some people who want to talk about national groups behaving in an unwelcoming or nationalistic way. That tends to raise my suspicions.
I think Haaretz is more liberal, more anti-war, although that's not really a good description either, while Jpost is more conservative, like no land for peace deals, etc. But both have equal commentaries, too. So it's good to read both. And there's a lot of culture in both papers. I gravitate to Jpost and Auretz Sheva which is Israeli National News ([Link: www.israelnationalnews.com...]
Here's a fun one. [Link: www.Jerusalemonline.com...] That's a live feed. That's also pretty even, left/right, but probably leans conservative.
I was just listening and it's all pretty depressing.
Thank you MM!! I need to mark these on my iphone because (tmi) that's my last read of the day, lying in bed learning about the situ. thank you.
I don't think its possible to have a consistent, universal policy on such matters, because situations do differ. In Nigeria, for example, it is in fact bad that Christian towns often maintain a "no Muslims" policy and enforce it violently. But such policies are sadly needed, due to the fact that far too many Muslims in that country subscribe to Islamist doctrines and support the introduction of Sharia. Given those facts, such policies of exclusion become essential. They are an evil, but a necessary evil. The same situation prevails in Israel: The Palestinians have to be kept away because too many of them are terror minded.
And now my stand on Israel is "consistent with the international policies proposed by virulent racists everywhere".
Good. I'm implicitly a racist now, too. I've always wondered what it would feel like to go viral.
For the third time this thread, I'm characterizing your line of argumentation, not you. If you can't discuss politics on the Internet without taking everything personally, maybe you shouldn't. If you're using all of this personal outrage as some sort of passive-aggressive tactic, then you definitely shouldn't.
It seems that Israel is a particular focus for some people who want to talk about national groups behaving in an unwelcoming or nationalistic way. That tends to raise my suspicions.
Imagine there's no country
It's easy if you try
and all that.
God bless John Lennon for making a catalog of music to endure through the ages. And though I appreciate the spirit of "Imagine", some of the lyrics make me cranky.
It seems that Israel is a particular focus for some people who want to talk about national groups behaving in an unwelcoming or nationalistic way. That tends to raise my suspicions.
I get that. This blog has however, been a good place to talk about Israel specifically. It is one of the defining things I've seen since my arrival.
I am here, I am more interested in Israel than I ever have been (good thing) so why not talk more?
I am not diminishing the info I've received from SFZ. If she reads this she'll say Sea! wtf? (I've received a lot of info, but obviously want more conversation)
Only Charles gets to determine what people are "allowed" to say here.
Tibet and Israel have a number completely different issues; you'd have to drill down somewhat to explain what your point of comparison is. As I support equality under the law and religious freedom, I think I'd land on the right side of the Tibetan issue overall.
Here's a hint for you: If the Tibetans were in a position to hurl every single man, woman, and child of the invading Han Chinese back across their borders, and then seal the borders, I would write 150 new psalms in the style of King David in honor of that feat.
Failing that, I would applaud if they are merely able to keep Tibet majority Tibetan.
Absent the godlike ability to put all ethnicities of humans in a big bag, shake them up like different-colored marbles, and scatter them in a statistically even distribution over the face of the earth, this is the way the world works.
I like diversity among nations even more than I do among individuals. Call me old-fashioned - or whatever more scurrilous epithets you have so far held in reserve.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're talking about. You move the goalposts around quite a bit.
What sort of things exactly are you talking about when you say they wouldn't be working immediately or unilaterally.
If it seems like I'm moving the goalposts, it's only because I'm getting tackled from multiple directions.
There's the usual charge in response to the sort of things I'm talking about where somebody recharacterizes my position as "yeah sure, Israel should instantly drop all of their security efforts and allow themselves to be blown up!" [I'd like to note for the record that that particular straw-man hasn't made an appearance in this thread.] Unilaterally doing the right thing on one side only might (is likely to be) too dangerous. It's the difference between having a "roadmap to peace" and just declaring peace. The latter doesn't necessarily work on the ground. It takes some patience to get to the ideal solution. I'm only proposing what I think the ideal solution to aim for should be, on its philosophical merits.
For the third time this thread, I'm characterizing your line of argumentation, not you. If you can't discuss politics on the Internet without taking everything personally, maybe you shouldn't. If you're using all of this personal outrage as some sort of passive-aggressive tactic, then you definitely shouldn't.
If it seems like I'm moving the goalposts, it's only because I'm getting tackled from multiple directions.
There's the usual charge in response to the sort of things I'm talking about where somebody recharacterizes my position as "yeah sure, Israel should instantly drop all of their security efforts and allow themselves to be blown up!" [I'd like to note for the record that that particular straw-man hasn't made an appearance in this thread.] Unilaterally doing the right thing on one side only might (is likely to be) too dangerous. It's the difference between having a "roadmap to peace" and just declaring peace. The latter doesn't necessarily work on the ground. It takes some patience to get to the ideal solution. I'm only proposing what I think the ideal solution to aim for should be, on its philosophical merits.
But you're not saying anything or I'm missing it, which I may regret asking...
I don't care so much about what others thought you said, although being a part of those others, we all pretty much read the same thing.
Putting that aside, you said, "Unilaterally doing the right thing on one side only might (is likely to be) too dangerous." What is "the right thing" you're talking about?
"But such policies are sadly needed, due to the fact that far too many Muslims in that country subscribe to Islamist doctrines and support the introduction of Sharia".
Yes, it's another country D_F, but that's bs talking points that I hate to see.
Here's a hint for you: If the Tibetans were in a position to hurl every single man, woman, and child of the invading Han Chinese back across their borders, and then seal the borders, I would write 150 new psalms in the style of King David in honor of that feat.
Failing that, I would applaud if they are merely able to keep Tibet majority Tibetan.
I'll grant that intentionally moving people who are loyal to one group into another group's country is a dirty tactic, and should be opposed. I oppose China moving Chinese people into Tibet in order to intentionally change the local makeup and increase loyalty, just as I would have opposed the Ulstermen of Northern Ireland and as I oppose continued West Bank settlements. For one country to try to move their own loyalists into another country in order to support their side of a disputed ownership claim is a really fucked up tactic.
Absent the godlike ability to put all ethnicities of humans in a big bag, shake them up like different-colored marbles, and scatter them in a statistically even distribution over the face of the earth, this is the way the world works.
God does shake the bag, a little bit every day: it's called entropy. You can let it happen over time, or you can try to build walls to keep it out. The latter is xenophobia. Also, futile.
I like diversity among nations even more than I do among individuals. Call me old-fashioned - or whatever more scurrilous epithets you have so far held in reserve.
"Old fashioned" sounds about right as you've explained your perspective so far, but in practical terms I think the implications go beyond that.
I think that it's quite likely that sociological development in the future can lead to new forms of diversity without necessarily trying to "hold the line" to retain the old. Heritage is a cool thing, and everybody should celebrate theirs. But maintaining heritage going forward shouldn't be the policy of any society, particularly if it restricts the rights of others.
It's quite possible that many regions, countries or cultures have yet to burst out with new distinct and specific "flavors" of human endeavor yet to be seen. Some of the best culture historically comes out of conflict between distinct cultures. We don't actually have to try to preserve the distinct ethnic population distrubutions of the past in order to have lots of interesting flavors blended into the world.
Cato, could you please point out the lie for this ignoramus?
I'm not seeing it...
He's lying when he says his characterization of my argument for Israel being and remaining the sole majority Jewish state on the face of the earth is racist, xenophobic, and worthy of Stormfront applies only to my argument and not to me.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am my argument. And I am entirely comfortable with the Danes taking measures to keep Denmark the sole majority Danish state, as well.
If that makes me any or all of the things he has called me tonight, I will go to bed happy. It's known as the real world, as opposed to the Moonbat Kingdom.
"But such policies are sadly needed, due to the fact that far too many Muslims in that country subscribe to Islamist doctrines and support the introduction of Sharia".
Yes, it's another country D_F, but that's bs talking points that I hate to see.
How am I wrong, given the attacks on Christians in Nigeria and the introduction of Sharia in most Muslim-majority Nigerian states?
Putting that aside, you said, "Unilaterally doing the right thing on one side only might (is likely to be) too dangerous." What is "the right thing" you're talking about?
He's lying when he says his characterization of my argument for Israel being and remaining the sole majority Jewish state on the face of the earth is racist, xenophobic, and worthy of Stormfront applies only to my argument and not to me.
Hey, if you could quote the post where I said that, I'd be glad to clarify and/or apologize as necessary.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am my argument.
So anybody who disagrees with you is insulting you? Okay... Then it was your decision to become insulted, not mine to insult you. So acting like I'm the one who did something wrong here.
And I am entirely comfortable with the Danes taking measures to keep Denmark the sole majority Danish state, as well.
As defined by being at least 51% ethnically Danish? Once the next person who isn't wants to move there, then every attempt to keep that person out will be a purely "national front" approach.
If that makes me any or all of the things he has called me tonight, I will go to bed happy. It's known as the real world, as opposed to the Moonbat Kingdom.
First of all, to my knowledge I haven't called you a damn thing. It's getting awfully close, though.
Second of all, this is why I'm proud to be a progressive. Whether it's called the "Moonbat Kindom" or tikkun olam, wanting to make the world a better place is something you'll never convince me to be ashamed of.
The West Bank is not a country. It's a disputed territory of Israel.
And Northern Ireland was a disputed territory of England. Intentionally having a policy of moving people who would vote for you to that place still constitutes basically monkey-wrenching any future peace process, much less one based on a democratic solution.
Ever have any native friends living on Indian reservations?
The reservation system isn't an ideal solution. In fact, it's only the best remaining of a great many horrifically awful options left by a history of genocide. Even so, it's not a perfect analogy, since only one of the parties involved actually counts itself as a sovereign nation.
Ever have any native friends living on Indian reservations?
Too. Much. Cognitive. Dissonance. The ElBruce-bot is confused.
When I brought that up yesterday, he deflected the argument into a silly one over beheadings.
I wish Steve were back. He could confirm that there are reservations in New Mexico where you would be killed for walking your white skin too far past the tourist boundary. And I have no problem with that.
Not that that has much to do with Israel's ethnic situation, where things are entirely different.
At least he's consistent. He seems to have as much problem with the idea of Denmark actually being and wanting to remain Danish as he does with the very name of Israel.
How am I wrong, given the attacks on Christians in Nigeria and the introduction of Sharia in most Muslim-majority Nigerian states?
D_F, I re-read your post to make sure I'm on the right track.
Bottom line,. without researching the whole religious turmoil of Nigeria, the approval of discriminatory practices based on religion are BAD. Muslim, Christian or Judaism - Bottom line = bad.
Trouble occurs when you support this, maybe not for years, or your lifetime, and maybe your intentions are good, but trouble will come.
The reservation system isn't an ideal solution. In fact, it's only the best remaining of a great many horrifically awful options left by a history of genocide. Even so, it's not a perfect analogy, since only one of the parties involved actually counts itself as a sovereign nation.
My point, the reason I said that, was because if the native people's of this country didn't keep their heritage, it would have been lost. The Jews at least had it written down. They didn't. It was largely verbal. The Cherokee had writing later on.
And to think of a group of people basically committing their own genocide by losing whatever culture they had left, according to you "maintaining heritage going forward shouldn't be the policy of any society," is pretty much unthinkable to me.
You seem to know a lot about the policies of Israel, I'm just trying to figure out which specific policies you're talking about.
I was initially arguing for a one-state solution that was neutral as to ethnicity and religion as an ideal worth working towards
But if I gave a more specific answer to your question, I'd be accused of claiming that Israel wasn't a secular democracy. And then when I argued that it currently was, I'd be accused of claiming that I was ignoring its "historic purpose for existing." And so on, and so forth...
Me too. Elbruce seems to have no answer to the problem of hostile populations. And it doesn't take a majority to make a population hostile. An energetic minority that the majority fears is enough.
Democracy... equal protection under the law for all persons... separation of church and state... you know, that kinda stuff.
You have your own convoluted agenda and you steadfastly refuse to listen outside that box.
I told you multiple times that Israel is run under a parliament which functions as a democratic republic like anywhere else in the western world, but you refuse to listen.
D_F, I re-read your post to make sure I'm on the right track.
Bottom line,. without researching the whole religious turmoil of Nigeria, the approval of discriminatory practices based on religion are BAD. Muslim, Christian or Judaism - Bottom line = bad.
Trouble occurs when you support this, maybe not for years, or your lifetime, and maybe your intentions are good, but trouble will come.
Yeah, so let the Nigerian Muslims have there way with Christian villages.
Ethic or religious self-protection is only a bad thing when Jews or Christians do it, right?
I was initially arguing for a one-state solution that was neutral as to ethnicity and religion as an ideal worth working towards
But if I gave a more specific answer to your question, I'd be accused of claiming that Israel wasn't a secular democracy. And then when I argued that it currently was, I'd be accused of claiming that I was ignoring its "historic purpose for existing." And so on, and so forth...
That is because your mind is not capable of multifactorial thinking, apparently.
When I brought that up yesterday, he deflected the argument into a silly one over beheadings.
Actually, you brought up beheadings. You explicitly challenged me to state my point to Native Americans there and see if I could keep my head attached to my neck. Before your comment, I wouldn't have even entertained such an insane possibility. I just said in response that it was stupid (if not flat-out racist) to claim that Native Americans behead people for having the wrong opinions. Then you said I said that. Then I pointed out it was you who said that.
Please quit bringing up stoopid things and then blaming me for bringing them up when I respond to the stoopid things you brought up, 'k? It's not working.
I wish Steve were back. He could confirm that there are reservations in New Mexico where you would be killed for walking your white skin too far past the tourist boundary. And I have no problem with that.
On behalf of native Americans in New Mexico: fuck you, whitey. You and Jan Brewer can both go suck a dick with the accusations of casual murder you like to throw around on other ethnic groups.
At least he's consistent. He seems to have as much problem with the idea of Denmark actually being and wanting to remain Danish as he does with the very name of Israel.
Ethnically Danish? Come out and say it. Ethnically? Is that or isn't it what you mean to say here?
Bottom line,. without researching the whole religious turmoil of Nigeria, the approval of discriminatory practices based on religion are BAD. Muslim, Christian or Judaism - Bottom line = bad.
Watch it, stating universal philosophical positions means that you're open to attack from all directions. You just jumped into my foxhole with that statement. This is exactly what everybody else here is arguing against.
Yeah, so let the Nigerian Muslims have there way with Christian villages.
Ethic or religious self-protection is only a bad thing when Jews or Christians do it, right?
Cato, re-read my post:
Bottom line,. without researching the whole religious turmoil of Nigeria, the approval of discriminatory practices based on religion are BAD. Muslim, Christian or Judaism - Bottom line = bad.
D_F, I re-read your post to make sure I'm on the right track.
Bottom line,. without researching the whole religious turmoil of Nigeria, the approval of discriminatory practices based on religion are BAD. Muslim, Christian or Judaism - Bottom line = bad.
Trouble occurs when you support this, maybe not for years, or your lifetime, and maybe your intentions are good, but trouble will come.
I don't approve of it on a moral level, but I approve of it as a tactical necessity. For this purpose it does not matter if most Nigerian Muslims are not of an Islamist frame of mind. Enough young Muslim men are so minded that unless Muslims are kept at a distance there are attacks on Christians and especially their churches. Sometimes separation is the only option, because one side has decided it wants to either conquer or kill the other side. No integration or peace is possible till the portions of the population that want to do such horrid deeds are removed from power and influence.
Me too. Elbruce seems to have no answer to the problem of hostile populations. And it doesn't take a majority to make a population hostile. An energetic minority that the majority fears is enough.
I don't have the answer. As I have repeatedly said, I don't think that Israel should instantly drop all security concerns and adopt my moonbat unicorn position unilaterally, leaving them open to attack from all angles. But what they work gradually towards should be philosophically sound, in order to actually resolve the issues in the long run.
I can see you've never been there, or talked to anyone who has.
I bet the very idea of going gives you hives.
Are you kidding? Going there would be awesome. I'd love to have the chance sometime.
But if you're going to accuse me of transferring my opinion onto a nation without firsthand knowledge of how the people there live, then I think I'm safe in accusing you of doing the same thing.
We're arguing politics on the Internet. Of course neither of us actually know what we're talking about. Otherwise we wouldn't be arguing politics on the Internet.
That is because your mind is not capable of multifactorial thinking, apparently.
Me: "Israel shouldn't be restricted by ethnicity/religion."
Others: "So they're not a secular democracy?"
Me: "Yes, they are and should commit to equality."
Others: "So you're against them being a homeland for the Jews?"
I feel like I'm the third guy in a tennis match straddling the net and trying to play against both sides.
You have your own convoluted agenda and you steadfastly refuse to listen outside that box.
I told you multiple times that Israel is run under a parliament which functions as a democratic republic like anywhere else in the western world, but you refuse to listen.
I'm fully aware of that. How is it relevant?
Should we look at the map of Israel and say that everyone who lives inside the borders of that country should have equal rights and equal representation in the country described by those borders? If so, then you're agreeing with me that a one-state solution is ideal.
If you believe that the parliament should only represent some of the people and that the others should have limited self-determination with sovereign rights retained by the first group over the second, then you're supporting the status quo - but hardly supporting equal rights and representative democracy.
I want to quote you here, as I believe this is a point you have restated many times already.
It seems that you have ruffled feathers, I'm not Jewish, so I can not understand where they are coming from, but also, I clearly see you are not advocating and have never advocated the Israel let themselves be pushed into the sea.
I also see that you have repeatedly suggested that Israel work towards an ideal that you consider being the most democratic ideal the world has to offer. Equality for all people and separation of church and state.
Should we look at the map of Israel and say that everyone who lives inside the borders of that country should have equal rights and equal representation in the country described by those borders? If so, then you're agreeing with me that a one-state solution is ideal.
If you believe that the parliament should only represent some of the people and that the others should have limited self-determination with sovereign rights retained by the first group over the second, then you're supporting the status quo - but hardly supporting equal rights and representative democracy.
Are you on medication?
You said, "Democracy... equal protection under the law for all persons... separation of church and state... you know, that kinda stuff."
So you mentioned democracy and equal protection under the law, once again, as something Israel DOES NOT provide and when someone tells you different, you just say you didn't say it.
Should we look at the map of Israel and say that everyone who lives inside the borders of that country should have equal rights and equal representation in the country described by those borders? If so, then you're agreeing with me that a one-state solution is ideal.
If you believe that the parliament should only represent some of the people and that the others should have limited self-determination with sovereign rights retained by the first group over the second, then you're supporting the status quo - but hardly supporting equal rights and representative democracy.
I'm still waiting for the unilateral right thing to do.
Expel the Arabs?
Expel the Jews?
Move them all in together? Take down the wall? What?
As has been often pointed out to me, I don't have all the answers to tell them unilaterally what's the right thing to do.
As I've repeatedly said, I support a one-state solution. Which means the third option of those you've presented would be the philosophically correct goal. How to get to that goal is above my pay grade, but that's what they should be aiming towards, if they expect to ever resolve the conflict.
Everybody who wants to resolve the conflict. Everybody involved. Everybody who has any control over the situation. The Israeli who doesn't want to catch a rocket in their apartment. The Palestinian who wants to go to work without being patted down through two checkpoints between his house and his job. Leadership on both sides who have more to gain through peace than the status quo (if there are any of those). Zombie Rabin, back to kick some ass. Hillary, who's looking to get her name in the history books now that she missed the brass ring of the Presidency. You know, them. Whoever can do anything about it.
Everybody who wants to resolve the conflict. Everybody involved. Everybody who has any control over the situation. The Israeli who doesn't want to catch a rocket in their apartment. The Palestinian who wants to go to work without being patted down through two checkpoints between his house and his job. Leadership on both sides who have more to gain through peace than the status quo (if there are any of those). Zombie Rabin, back to kick some ass. Hillary, who's looking to get her name in the history books now that she missed the brass ring of the Presidency. You know, them. Whoever can do anything about it.
Everybody who can fix it, should.
They should all just get along and live together.
We need someone to follow the correct policies so we can go forward in peace.
The problem is that the Palestinian has be raised to believe that the Israeli are going to be driven into the sea. Any real peace deal will require Mahmud Abbas letting that Palestinian know he's been lied to his whole life and Abbas was one of those doing the lying. The reaction to such a statement is liable to be quite violent.
So you mentioned democracy and equal protection under the law, once again, as something Israel DOES NOT provide and when someone tells you different, you just say you didn't say it.
Um no, I'm arguing that they should stick to their commitment to those ideals. Others here are explicitly arguing that they should not do so. Maybe those people are the ones you should be arguing with instead of me.
Everybody who can fix it, should.
They should all just get along and live together.
We need someone to follow the correct policies so we can go forward in peace.
You really should run for office.
If you oppose any of those positions, go ahead and say it outright. I'll be glad to run against such a platform.
If you oppose any of those positions, go ahead and say it outright. I'll be glad to run against such a platform.
You don't get it. No one opposes those ideas, but if it was that freakin easy, you don't think it would have been done 10x over? You have some idea someone hasn't thought of?
You have an infantile view of the entire situation if this is what you rely on to argue with, which is what you do. But instead of gathering up a little history, knowing what is current policy and what isn't, know the players on all sides, you simply stick to your talking points, which is what is infuriating.
No one, but no one is considering a one state solution. Actually, those that would like a one state solution, exclude the other. Guess which.
The problem is that the Palestinian has be raised to believe that the Israeli are going to be driven into the sea. Any real peace deal will require Mahmud Abbas letting that Palestinian know he's been lied to his whole life and Abbas was one of those doing the lying. The reaction to such a statement is liable to be quite violent.
That is one of the problems involved. There really is no "the problem" here. But yes, that does need to be addressed and resolved before the goal that I've outlined could be realized.
That is one of the problems involved. There really is no "the problem" here. But yes, that does need to be addressed and resolved before the goal that I've outlined could be realized.
And just how do you plan to address it, especially given that most politicians are too venal and cowardly to make such an admission?
I see it the other way around: working towards a philosophically sound goal isn't just the morally right thing to do, it's also the most sustainable in the long run. Sure, it's harder to achieve, but doing something else just because it's been hard to do won't settle anything; after you've tried the other thing, you'll still have the same problems. Repeatedly partitioning people based on their religion/ethnicity has never worked anywhere or anywhen, and it won't work here and now.
Thanks! I see the ME is being debated again. That's great. I'm getting tired of discussing mosques, Palin, or the GOP fuck up over and over and over...I think this subject is much more important right now.
You don't get it. No one opposes those ideas, but if it was that freakin easy, you don't think it would have been done 10x over? You have some idea someone hasn't thought of?
I didn't say it was easy. Doing the right thing is never easy. I'm just saying that if you give up and do the other thing instead, ultimately you're going to find yourself back at square one.
One can only deal with so much of it over and over.
MM, am I that new? Seriously. I haven't been educated to the point of finis by the posters, its always all or nothing. Don't give up based on your past history. Don't we count?
Thanks! I see the ME is being debated again. That's great. I'm getting tired of discussing mosques, Palin, or the GOP fuck up over and over and over...I think this subject is much more important right now.
I want to quote you here, as I believe this is a point you have restated many times already.
It seems that you have ruffled feathers, I'm not Jewish, so I can not understand where they are coming from, but also, I clearly see you are not advocating and have never advocated the Israel let themselves be pushed into the sea.
I also see that you have repeatedly suggested that Israel work towards an ideal that you consider being the most democratic ideal the world has to offer. Equality for all people and separation of church and state.
No, your style is sneaky Israel-hating idealistic concern-trolling assault and moonbattery.
1) Israel hating? Fuck you.
2) Idealistic? I'll cop to that.
3) Concern-trolling? Not remotely; that's a pretty specific thing.
4) Moonbattery? If I were really engaging in moonbattery regarding Israel, I'd be whining and screaming about white phosphorous, bulldozing apartment buildings and the like. I haven't done that... yet.
MM, am I that new? Seriously. I haven't been educated to the point of finis by the posters, its always all or nothing. Don't give up based on your past history. Don't we count?
I can't listen to the same empty rhetoric over and over. It's tiresome and I don't like repeating the same thing from board to board.
And just how do you plan to address it, especially given that most politicians are too venal and cowardly to make such an admission?
No idea. As has been pointed out to me repeatedly, I'm not an omniscient expert on the Israel/Palestinian conflict with an immediate solution in my pocket.
If I were really engaging in moonbattery regarding Israel, I'd be whining and screaming about white phosphorous, bulldozing apartment buildings and the like. I haven't done that... yet.
The problem is that the Palestinian has be raised to believe that the Israeli are going to be driven into the sea. Any real peace deal will require Mahmud Abbas letting that Palestinian know he's been lied to his whole life and Abbas was one of those doing the lying. The reaction to such a statement is liable to be quite violent.
You know what D_F?
These statements, made not just by you, but by many others. makes my stomach ache. If you prophesize the future of hate, you are going to get it. If this was the threat that destroyed all progress (as you make it) why the hell are people not there trying to change it?
So beyond "these guys are good and those guys suck," what's your solution? Exterminate all the Palestinians? Just kidding. Seriously, what?
We don't have the solution.
Israel has it.
the Palestinians have it.
Israel has shown a greater and a sincere desire to move toward true peace in the region, than the Palestinians, IMO.
I think it's high time the Palestinians made a sincere move, themselves.
And of course, by "Palestinians", I mean those in charge who are calling the shots.
We don't have the solution.
Israel has it.
the Palestinians have it.
Israel has shown a greater and a sincere desire to move toward true peace in the region, than the Palestinians, IMO.
I think it's high time the Palestinians made a sincere move, themselves.
And of course, by "Palestinians", I mean those in charge who are calling the shots.
I absolutely agree. But everybody there who has to live with the consequences needs to do something about it whether the other side is doing "enough" or not.
And all of the people half a world away jumping up and down and pointing their fingers in blame do as much harm to a sustainable peace than anything going on there. That includes the Arab nations rah-rah'ing the Palestinians into sustained conflict as well as the people in the United States rah-rah'ing the Israelis into sustained conflict. Many of whom seem to be prominent in this very thread.
These statements, made not just by you, but by many others. makes my stomach ache. If you prophesize the future of hate, you are going to get it. If this was the threat that destroyed all progress (as you make it) why the hell are people not there trying to change it?
I see it so much, I can't believe it.
With respect to DF, it's not all that black and white. Gaza is different than the West Bank. There is no negotiating with Gaza because they've reneged on every deal and are committed to wanton violence. Israel has some hope, a sliver of hope, with the West Bank, so Israel goes through those motions. But they know (at least I hope they do) that giving up the Capitol or more land would be a disaster.
I don't doubt that there are those in violent Gaza who are unhappy with their situation and have some inkling of a better world beyond. Unfortunately, it's hard to get out of there. Some small amount do, but the majority have been duped by the lies and "dictatorship" of it all.
Restricting, not stopping, the building in the territories may be a card that Israel can play. I don't know what's on the table in this round of talks.
These statements, made not just by you, but by many others. makes my stomach ache. If you prophesize the future of hate, you are going to get it. If this was the threat that destroyed all progress (as you make it) why the hell are people not there trying to change it?
I see it so much, I can't believe it.
So we should ignore the plain fact that Palestinians have been raised for generations to hate the very existence of Israel, subjected to endless wishful thinking and bloodlusty fantasies about the evil Jews and how they were going to be slaughtered in the name of Allah, and given their children that patrimony in the form of Jewicidal rabbits and mice and kindergarten parades dressed up as shaheeds - and just prophesy peace, and peace will come?
Listen to something besides John Lennon for a change.
I absolutely agree. But everybody there who has to live with the consequences needs to do something about it whether the other side is doing "enough" or not.
And all of the people half a world away jumping up and down and pointing their fingers in blame do as much harm to a sustainable peace than anything going on there. That includes the Arab nations rah-rah'ing the Palestinians into sustained conflict as well as the people in the United States rah-rah'ing the Israelis into sustained conflict. Many of whom seem to be prominent in this very thread.
What I see are people in this thread acknowledging Israel's need to defend itself and supporting that, which is not the same thing as rah-rah'ing Israel into maintaining a sustained conflict for the sake of conflict.
It isn't Israel launching rockets, unprovoked, into the territory where the Palestinians are. It's the other way around.
These statements, made not just by you, but by many others. makes my stomach ache. If you prophesize the future of hate, you are going to get it. If this was the threat that destroyed all progress (as you make it) why the hell are people not there trying to change it?
I see it so much, I can't believe it.
DF is describing what's going on; not prophesizing it. It's real; it happens.
We need to go back and find those videos of the Palestinian kids' shows.
We don't have the solution.
Israel has it.
the Palestinians have it.
Israel has shown a greater and a sincere desire to move toward true peace in the region, than the Palestinians, IMO. I think it's high time the Palestinians made a sincere move, themselves.
And of course, by "Palestinians", I mean those in charge who are calling the shots.
Fat chance with that. Hamas is in charge, aren't they? They were elected by the Palestinians themselves. Hamas is a terrorist organization and all they want to accomplish in life is to kill Jews. They killed 4 Israeli citizens, including a pregnant woman last week and injured 2 others in another attack. They also said more attacks are coming on civilians. If you can find a sincere way they can offer peace with all that, God bless ya.
Fat chance with that. Hamas is in charge, aren't they? They were elected by the Palestinians themselves. Hamas is a terrorist organization and all they want to accomplish in life is to kill Jews. They killed 4 Israeli citizens, including a pregnant woman last week and injured 2 others in another attack. They also said more attacks are coming on civilians. If you can find a sincere way they can offer peace with all that, God bless ya.
Well, sort of exactly my point, as to why so many of us here support Israel.
Hamas doesn't seem to me to be showing any sort of great desire for peace. If it's truly what they want, it's their move.
I absolutely agree. But everybody there who has to live with the consequences needs to do something about it whether the other side is doing "enough" or not.
And all of the people half a world away jumping up and down and pointing their fingers in blame do as much harm to a sustainable peace than anything going on there. That includes the Arab nations rah-rah'ing the Palestinians into sustained conflict as well as the people in the United States rah-rah'ing the Israelis into sustained conflict. Many of whom seem to be prominent in this very thread.
I absolutely agree. But everybody there who has to live with the consequences needs to do something about it whether the other side is doing "enough" or not.
And all of the people half a world away jumping up and down and pointing their fingers in blame do as much harm to a sustainable peace than anything going on there. That includes the Arab nations rah-rah'ing the Palestinians into sustained conflict as well as the people in the United States rah-rah'ing the Israelis into sustained conflict. Many of whom seem to be prominent in this very thread.
With respect to DF, it's not all that black and white. Gaza is different than the West Bank. There is no negotiating with Gaza because they've reneged on every deal and are committed to wanton violence. Israel has some hope, a sliver of hope, with the West Bank, so Israel goes through those motions. But they know (at least I hope they do) that giving up the Capitol or more land would be a disaster.
I don't doubt that there are those in violent Gaza who are unhappy with their situation and have some inkling of a better world beyond. Unfortunately, it's hard to get out of there. Some small amount do, but the majority have been duped by the lies and "dictatorship" of it all.
Restricting, not stopping, the building in the territories may be a card that Israel can play. I don't know what's on the table in this round of talks.
And that fucks up my opinion of how you all want a solution.
Give me a fucking break. You don't.
Yeah, because pointing out suicide bombers makes them realer than if you just silently gloss over them and pretend that everybody in the world is a cute bunny-wabbit and we all just want the same thing, peace, which of course means the same thing as when you say the word "peace".
Speaking of which: The Final Moments of a Giant Jew-Eating Rabbit.
Here’s a video with clips from Hamas TV, featuring children singing a song of praise for Qassam rockets, followed by a visit with creepy child host Saraa and Assud the giant Jew-eating rabbit in his hospital room, shortly before the whiny carnivorous bunny died from his IDF-inflicted injuries.
See, if I don't mention that the other side does what you're doing, you hit me for talking only about one side. If I throw a mention that the other side's doing the same thing you are, you cry "MBF!!!11"
I don't think it's all that crazy to point out that the situation is being complicated both by interference from Arab nations demanding that Palestinians fight to the last Palestinian baby as well as interference from the U.S. demanding that Israel fight to the last Palestinian baby.
Israel may be waiting a long time then, forgive me as I am admittedly not well versed on the ME, but I would think as times moves forward Israel position is becoming more perilous. Cato feel free to correct 'more perilous' it even looks wrong to me...
Is not the population of the Arab world growing faster that that of Israel.
Ive read here by others that energy independence would be be one way that the west could hold more sway, I happen to thing thats a good start.
I hope that the next 30 years of green technologies could be the sort of boon that we saw from computer technology since the 70's.
Israel's position is dire...
I cant see how it can 'wait', waiting may be the games that their enemies want them to play.
On another note re education, is it not true that some of the suicide bombers in the last decade are educated people, I heard some were solicitors?
Please answer yes to the last question otherwise I will have to go search about it...
See, if I don't mention that the other side does what you're doing, you hit me for talking only about one side. If I throw a mention that the other side's doing the same thing you are, you cry "MBF!!!11"
I don't think it's all that crazy to point out that the situation is being complicated both by interference from Arab nations demanding that Palestinians fight to the last Palestinian baby as well as interference from the U.S. demanding that Israel fight to the last Palestinian baby.
WHO, with any authority whatsoever, in the US is demanding this?
Don't forget rockets fired off daily aimed at civilians.
They fired another one today, and got more airstrikes as a result. The basic problem that Hamas does not care about all the damage they do by continuing their war. They see themselves as on a Mission From God, and thus all earthly damage is rendered irrelevant. In Gaza, that view holds majority support. Its support is less in the West Bank but its still far too wide for comfort.
I don't think it's all that crazy to point out that the situation is being complicated both by interference from Arab nations demanding that Palestinians fight to the last Palestinian baby as well as interference from the U.S. demanding that Israel fight to the last Palestinian baby.
Your mask finally slips for all to see. (I saw through it weeks ago.)
Fuck you very much for that comment. And I mean that most sincerely.
So we should ignore the plain fact that Palestinians have been raised for generations to hate the very existence of Israel, subjected to endless wishful thinking and bloodlusty fantasies about the evil Jews and how they were going to be slaughtered in the name of Allah, and given their children that patrimony in the form of Jewicidal rabbits and mice and kindergarten parades dressed up as shaheeds - and just prophesy peace, and peace will come?
Listen to something besides John Lennon for a change.
I swear, you do not help by typing the hate that others feel. You are putting into our minds this hate that we would never ever see. I don't doubt for a minute that it's true, but YOU PROPOGATE it by re typing it. Damn it, I feel the same hate from the Israel supporters as that what they use as example.
Israel may be waiting a long time then, forgive me as I am admittedly not well versed on the ME, but I would think as times moves forward Israel position is becoming more perilous. Cato feel free to correct 'more perilous' it even looks wrong to me...
Is not the population of the Arab world growing faster that that of Israel.
Ive read here by others that energy independence would be be one way that the west could hold more sway, I happen to thing thats a good start.
I hope that the next 30 years of green technologies could be the sort of boon that we saw from computer technology since the 70's.
Israel's position is dire...
I cant see how it can 'wait', waiting may be the games that their enemies want them to play.
On another note re education, is it not true that some of the suicide bombers in the last decade are educated people, I heard some were solicitors?
Please answer yes to the last question otherwise I will have to go search about it...
Israel recently discovered oil near Tel Aviv, btw.
[Link: www.givot.co.il...]
As far as green energy, Israel is in the forefront of the world's technology, bio technology, agriculture, computer technology, auto efficiency, wind, electric and solar.
I swear, you do not help by typing the hate that others feel. You are putting into our minds this hate that we would never ever see. I don't doubt for a minute that it's true, but YOU PROPOGATE it by re typing it. Damn it, I feel the same hate from the Israel supporters as that what they use as example.
That is the problem.
StanleySea-
There are videos of TV shows for children on Palestinian TV.
It is what these kids grow up with.
Pointing out that these exist and telling you/showing you what's in them, isn't propagating the hate. It's trying to show you why DF isn't "prophesizing" anything - he's describing what is very real.
During the Clinton administration, a few senators (bipartisan as I recall it) tried talking to the U.N. about this. They had some meetings, wrote some letters. Like the late 90s. I don't have any of my links handy, unfortunately. The U.N. funds a lot of the education, if not all of it in the territories as part of UNRWA. You can look up UNRWA and schoolbooks to learn more.
But anyway, there was little that the U.S. could do to effect their policies.
See, if I don't mention that the other side does what you're doing, you hit me for talking only about one side. If I throw a mention that the other side's doing the same thing you are, you cry "MBF!!!11"
I don't think it's all that crazy to point out that the situation is being complicated both by interference from Arab nations demanding that Palestinians fight to the last Palestinian baby as well as interference from the U.S. demanding that Israel fight to the last Palestinian baby.
I've been trying my hardest the past few days to let you give your opinion and not down ding you if I disagree. With that foul post I take it back.
See, if I don't mention that the other side does what you're doing, you hit me for talking only about one side. If I throw a mention that the other side's doing the same thing you are, you cry "MBF!!!11"
I don't think it's all that crazy to point out that the situation is being complicated both by interference from Arab nations demanding that Palestinians fight to the last Palestinian baby as well as interference from the U.S. demanding that Israel fight to the last Palestinian baby.
I ask the same question as Reine: Who is the US is saying that? No one, not even Sarah Palin (fool though she is), says anything remotely like that. America wants peace, but right now I'm at a lose for how to achieve that peace given the facts on the ground.
This is the problem. You think we are not seeing the horrible parts. We see them. My god we see them. We are aghast. Please.
What is the solution?
What do you suggest?
I never hear it. I always hear the troubles.
You don't have the solution.
I don't have the solution.
The US government does not have the solution.
Israel does.
The Palestinian authorities do.
And as I said above, what I have observed is Israel having a greater and a more sincere desire, and making a greater and more sincere effort, for peace, than the Palestinians who are to this day, launching rockets into Israeli towns, daily.
It's time for the Palestinian authorities to step up to the plate. And until they do, I will support Israel's right to defend itself at all times from unprovoked attacks on its citizenry.
During the Clinton administration, a few senators (bipartisan as I recall it) tried talking to the U.N. about this. They had some meetings, wrote some letters. Like the late 90s. I don't have any of my links handy, unfortunately. The U.N. funds a lot of the education, if not all of it in the territories as part of UNRWA. You can look up UNRWA and schoolbooks to learn more.
But anyway, there was little that the U.S. could do to effect their policies.
Exactly.
We don't have the solution.
We don't have it in our power to create the solution.
It can only come from those involved; and it ain't Israel that's lacking a genuine desire and effort in creating peace.
Israel recently discovered oil near Tel Aviv, btw.
[Link: www.givot.co.il...]
As far as green energy, Israel is in the forefront of the world's technology, bio technology, agriculture, computer technology, auto efficiency, wind, electric and solar.
And I suspect they'll prove able to extract the oil as cheaply and as cleanly as we could, which is a very good thing. And won't to just give the Oil Ticks pain in the backside when Israeli oil starts cutting into their profit margins.
I swear, you do not help by typing the hate that others feel. You are putting into our minds this hate that we would never ever see. I don't doubt for a minute that it's true, but YOU PROPOGATE it by re typing it. Damn it, I feel the same hate from the Israel supporters as that what they use as example.
That is the problem.
Yeah, right.
Describing the hate that fascists or Nazis feel for the "other" actually propagates it, just like naming the disease actually turns it into cancer. Before that, it was something you could maybe ignore.
If your statement is true, then the entire premise of this blog in naming the anti-Islam hatred coming from Geller and Spencer and their Nazi friends is faulty - it all just makes it worse.
Sometimes it's too far left, other times it's a decent source. Same with Arutz Sheva on the opposite of the spectrum. As with any publication, read with a critical eye.
Exactly.
We don't have the solution.
We don't have it in our power to create the solution.
It can only come from those involved; and it ain't Israel that's lacking a genuine desire and effort in creating peace.
That's another added element. The U.N. and the problems they create, by one, not doing anything about the educational standards. Well, actually, I think they did. I think the maps don't eliminate Israel anymore, I thought I read.
You don't have the solution.
I don't have the solution.
The US government does not have the solution.
Israel does.
The Palestinian authorities do.
And as I said above, what I have observed is Israel having a greater and a more sincere desire, and making a greater and more sincere effort, for peace, than the Palestinians who are to this day, launching rockets into Israeli towns, daily.
It's time for the Palestinian authorities to step up to the plate. And until they do, I will support Israel's right to defend itself at all times from unprovoked attacks on its citizenry.
Bottom line, of course I hope the recent talks are fortuitous. But damn it, the talk her on LGF was doom and gloom from the first handshake.
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — The top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip rejected compromise with Israel in a fiery speech Wednesday, a day after gunmen killed four Israelis in a strong reminder that the Islamic militant group cannot be ignored in any Mideast deal.
...In an interview with AP Television News just before the Wednesday shooting, Gaza strongman Mahmoud Zahar indicated that more attacks could be expected. "Our resistance is continuous," he said. "We have to concentrate on the West Bank in order to achieve (its) liberation."
Earlier, in an address to Hamas members, Zahar said the movement would resist peace efforts and criticized the Palestinian president for joining the negotiations.
"Today marks the start of direct negotiations between someone who has no right to represent the Palestinian people and the brutal occupier, to provide a cover for Judaizing Jerusalem and stealing the land," Zahar said.
What a lovely group of peaceful gentlemen running the Palestinian area.
See, if I don't mention that the other side does what you're doing, you hit me for talking only about one side. If I throw a mention that the other side's doing the same thing you are, you cry "MBF!!!11"
I don't think it's all that crazy to point out that the situation is being complicated both by interference from Arab nations demanding that Palestinians fight to the last Palestinian baby as well as interference from the U.S. demanding that Israel fight to the last Palestinian baby.
WHO, with any authority whatsoever, in the US is demanding this?
I have to get some sleep.
I hope ElBruce comes back and answers this, because I just do not recall hearing anything like this.
Bottom line, of course I hope the recent talks are fortuitous. But damn it, the talk her on LGF was doom and gloom from the first handshake.
How do I form an unbiased opinion?
You study the history of the region, go way back.
Really.
It requires an understanding of how things got from where they were, to where things are today.
That's another added element. The U.N. and the problems they create, by one, not doing anything about the educational standards. Well, actually, I think they did. I think the maps don't eliminate Israel anymore, I thought I read.
Well, gosh.
That's something then.
sheesh.
One small step . . . maybe.
What a lovely group of peaceful gentlemen running the Palestinian area.
Well, to be fair they only run Gaza, but they'll commit acts of terror in the West Bank if there is even a hint of a breakthrough. Then there's the question of whether Abbas's security forces are loyal enough to maintain order when Hamas starts riots after any deal is announced.
You study the history of the region, go way back.
Really.
It requires an understanding of how things got from where they were, to where things are today.
That is the problem of communication to todays people.
They don't know the history, nor will they learn it.
That's why there is trouble. You all are informed. Most are not.
How do we inform them??? Don't just "diss" them which you are doing. Find a way to inform them.
Bottom line, of course I hope the recent talks are fortuitous. But damn it, the talk her on LGF was doom and gloom from the first handshake.
How do I form an unbiased opinion?
Well, it's a hopeful doom and gloom, how's that?
They get stuck on Jerusalem as the Capitol and building in Jerusalem. Those are the two most difficult points of negotiations. And like I say, 2 things that Israel can't wiggle. The Capitol, for sure.
Remember that even if they could get a deal with Abbas, there still is Gaza right there so no one is completely home free.
Maybe it's not so much about the when, how or what, but with whom they're dealing.
and i have to get to bed too so I can argue with you all fresh in the morning.
You study the history of the region, go way back.
Really.
It requires an understanding of how things got from where they were, to where things are today.
1948 by Benny Morris is an excellent read, and although Mr. Morris is Zionist, he doesn't pull any punches when it comes to laying out the ugly truth of events either.
I have to get some sleep.
I hope ElBruce comes back and answers this, because I just do not recall hearing anything like this.
ElBruce had one too many bong hits, allowed the "I'm not a moonbat" mask to slip, and has now retired in shame after letting everyone see that he actually thinks the US is urging Israel to "fight to the last Palestinian baby" - a sick talking point straight from Adam Shapiro and the ISM.
And when he slinks back in a thread or two, he'll be pissed if you bring it up.
One last thing, I've been looking for these IDF pictures from a soldier who manned the checkpoint. I hate not having my bookmarks! It was from some years ago, but it was a great photo montage of the soldiers playing with the Arab children.
What was the site? I'm sure someone has it. IDFpictures, idfsoldier, something like that.
WHO, with any authority whatsoever, in the US is demanding this?
The interjection "with any authority whatsoever" constitutes goalpost shifting. I was talking about the kinds of opinions appearing in this very thread.
I have to get some sleep.
I hope ElBruce comes back and answers this, because I just do not recall hearing anything like this.
ElBruce had one too many bong hits, allowed the "I'm not a moonbat" mask to slip, and has now retired in shame after letting everyone see that he actually thinks the US is urging Israel to "fight to the last Palestinian baby" - a sick talking point straight from Adam Shapiro and the ISM.
And when he slinks back in a thread or two, he'll be pissed if you bring it up.
Thank God there is no edit function here.
ElBruce is a standing member of HuffPo. Need I say more?
Your mask finally slips for all to see. (I saw through it weeks ago.)
Well, when you systematically oppose every possible option other than complete genocide, one eventually has to add 2 + 2. Of course, I've continued to give you other options, even repeatedly asked outright what other option you advocate, but y'all'z position boils down to only "Israelis are good, Palestinians are bad."
Prove me wrong. Tell me what you envision as a stable, peaceful situation for that region in the future, and generally how they should try to get there. Any time now.
You are fucked on LGF if you question the current Israel situ.
Yeah, I've got some books to buy and read. I will try.
I am reading Haaretz (Lefty here, Lefty there, sorry!!) every fucking night.
Problem I see? No debate here, none. I am classified, and bookmarked into many Lizard's psyche as "the other"
Puleeze.
Most of the time, (it seems to me anyway) that when Israel is questioned, it's always from a position that Israel HAS to do more, that it isn't doing enough, without holding Hamas/enemies of Israel responsible for their part.
I'm not sure if you saw my post to Reine, but 1948 by benny morris is an important read that will give you the necessary history. It's out in paperback now, and for cheaper prices, check out half.com, and overstock.com.
The interjection "with any authority whatsoever" constitutes goalpost shifting. I was talking about the kinds of opinions appearing in this very thread.
And who here do you think wants to "fight to the last Palestinian baby"? Because what you're sayin' sounds like fightin' words to me, bub!
Most of the time, (it seems to me anyway) that when Israel is questioned, it's always from a position that Israel HAS to do more, that it isn't doing enough, without holding Hamas/enemies of Israel responsible for their part.
I'm not sure if you saw my post to Reine, but 1948 by benny morris is an important read that will give you the necessary history. It's out in paperback now, and for cheaper prices, check out half.com, and overstock.com.
I don't think anyone here is actively opposed to having Israelis and Palestinians at peace with each other, it's the practical application that's in question. Not really a right/left issue.
I don't think anyone here is actively opposed to having Israelis and Palestinians at peace with each other, it's the practical application that's in question. Not really a right/left issue.
I don't think anyone here is actively opposed to having Israelis and Palestinians at peace with each other, it's the practical application that's in question. Not really a right/left issue.
Thank you.
I've fucking visited and been a member of the MOT for 15 years. I am on the right side. But the conversation sometimes is so full of hate, I'm having a hard time distinguishing, and THAT to me is the danger.
Well, when you systematically oppose every possible option other than complete genocide, one eventually has to add 2 + 2. Of course, I've continued to give you other options, even repeatedly asked outright what other option you advocate, but y'all'z position boils down to only "Israelis are good, Palestinians are bad."
Prove me wrong. Tell me what you envision as a stable, peaceful situation for that region in the future, and generally how they should try to get there. Any time now.
Everybody swaps out their human nature for Buddha-nature overnight. Problem solved.
Now go shit up a ladder with your assertions about genocide and what you think the US and Israel want to do to Palestinian babies.
I've fucking visited and been a member of the MOT for 15 years. I am on the right side. But the conversation sometimes is so full of hate, I'm having a hard time distinguishing, and THAT to me is the danger.
And ya'll, don't deny the hate, please. It's scary.
I don't think anyone here is actively opposed to having Israelis and Palestinians at peace with each other, it's the practical application that's in question. Not really a right/left issue.
They get stuck on Jerusalem as the Capitol and building in Jerusalem. Those are the two most difficult points of negotiations. And like I say, 2 things that Israel can't wiggle. The Capitol, for sure.
Remember that even if they could get a deal with Abbas, there still is Gaza right there so no one is completely home free.
Maybe it's not so much about the when, how or what, but with whom they're dealing.
and i have to get to bed too so I can argue with you all fresh in the morning.
I don't have a sense that Abbas has much of a leash right now from within Fatah.
Well, when you systematically oppose every possible option other than complete genocide, one eventually has to add 2 + 2. Of course, I've continued to give you other options, even repeatedly asked outright what other option you advocate, but y'all'z position boils down to only "Israelis are good, Palestinians are bad."
Prove me wrong. Tell me what you envision as a stable, peaceful situation for that region in the future, and generally how they should try to get there. Any time now.
I'm not opposed to the current talks. I hope that something may come out of them, even if they do not prove to be the miracle we've all been waiting for.
I'm not opposed to the current talks. I hope that something may come out of them, even if they do not prove to be the miracle we've all been waiting for.
That's my take too. Fingers crossed, but... we'll see. Don't underestimate Hillary.
If you don't support the most right-wing factions in Israel, then you don't support Israel. That seems to be the message from some people here.
It is also the message from Pamela Geller ("they're kapos!"), Robert Spencer and countless other wingnuts. You'd think more people here might have figured by now that there might be something wrong with their take on this situation.
Science and technology in Israel is one of the country's most developed sectors. The percentage of Israelis engaged in scientific and technological inquiry, and the amount spent on research and development (R&D) in relation to gross domestic product (GDP), is amongst the highest in the world.[1]Israel ranks fourth in the world in scientific activity as measured by the number of scientific publications per million citizens. Israel's percentage of the total number of scientific articles published worldwide is almost 10 times higher than its percentage of the world's population.[2]
Israeli scientists have contributed to the advancement of agriculture, computer sciences, electronics, genetics, medicine, optics, solar energy and various fields of engineering. Israel is home to major players in the high-tech industry and has one of the world's most technologically-literate populations.[3] In 1998, Tel Aviv was named by Newsweek as one of the ten most technologically influential cities in the world.[4]
That is quite impressive. Can you name anything made or created in Gaza besides the things they make meant to kill Israelis?
That is quite impressive. Can you name anything made or created in Gaza besides the things they make meant to kill Israelis?
I read the thread and am well aware of the context.
It is precisely because a suicide vest is used to maim & kill (innocent Israelis) that I found the photo distasteful, especially when combined with what seemed like the rather sarcastic quip "Science and Technology in Gaza".
I would find it equally distasteful if someone posted a photo of a large commercial jet headed towards a skyscraper with a link that said "Al Qaeda Science and Technology".
He's lying when he says his characterization of my argument for Israel being and remaining the sole majority Jewish state on the face of the earth is racist, xenophobic, and worthy of Stormfront applies only to my argument and not to me.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am my argument. And I am entirely comfortable with the Danes taking measures to keep Denmark the sole majority Danish state, as well.
If that makes me any or all of the things he has called me tonight, I will go to bed happy. It's known as the real world, as opposed to the Moonbat Kingdom.
I wasn't going to step into this conversation but, living in Denmark I'd like to take exception at this like - bold mine.
There's a myth about a sleeping giant, Holger, in Denmark - and in Helsingor castle there's an exhibition about national identity. The artist looks at the myths that define Denmark, and the art that captures the essence of Denmark and points out that it's all foreign. He posits that it is possible to have a national identity divorced from nationalism.
Which is very important in Denmark because And I am entirely comfortable with the Danes taking measures to keep Denmark the sole majority Danish state, as well. is the line that the far right party Dansk Folkeparti uses. They are openly, unrepentantly racist.
Child support was recently cut back here - and the law changed so that only 2 children can get child support (it was previously all children). A spokesperson for Dansk Folkeparti came and made an announcement that it wouldn't be a problem because it "wasn't Danish families who have more than one child."
One of the wonderful things we have in Europe is our right to travel, and live, where ever we damn well please in Europe.
One of the things the right wing press loves to hammer home - especially to a generation who isn't going to be ex-pat - is that The Other is coming to take their country. That it should be COUNTRY NAME for the COUNTRY INHABITANTS - be that DF in Denmark on the BNP in the UK.
So...I'm sorry if you never intended it that way...but - that's what you're saying. And it plays into the far right narrative.
Most of the time, (it seems to me anyway) that when Israel is questioned, it's always from a position that Israel HAS to do more, that it isn't doing enough, without holding Hamas/enemies of Israel responsible for their part.
With deference, I feel that this hasn't been the argument for the past couple of days, starting from when someone brought up the IRA. What started this conversation, and the reason re: #401 Stanley Sea posted that comment, is that the question of "How do you move forward on peace talks if all you do is blame one side." Had we not engaged with the IRA there wouldn't have been the steps made for peace. And this conversation has been hit, again and again, with the very thing that the original question decried: "How do you move forward on peace talks if all you do is blame one side."
It would be very interesting to hear how people here would have dealt with the end of apartheid in South Africa. How they feel about The Truth and Reconciliation Commission which determinedly didn't point blame, and thus broke the cycle or anger and recrimination.
The interjection "with any authority whatsoever" constitutes goalpost shifting. I was talking about the kinds of opinions appearing in this very thread.
I'm not shifting a goalpost.
I have exactly zero contact with any Israeli citizen, or with the Israeli government.
So my opinion on this matter has exactly zero influence with anyone. There are those who DO have contact with the Israeli government, and have authority to try to influence its decisions. Who, among them, is "rah-rah-ing" for Israel to kill every Palestinian citizen down to the last baby?
I hope and pray there is peace, sooner rather than later.
I'm not shifting a goalpost.
I have exactly zero contact with any Israeli citizen, or with the Israeli government.
So my opinion on this matter has exactly zero influence with anyone. There are those who DO have contact with the Israeli government, and have authority to try to influence its decisions. Who, among them, is "rah-rah-ing" for Israel to kill every Palestinian citizen down to the last baby?
I hope and pray there is peace, sooner rather than later.
But it's not the Israelis who are blocking it.
I see Cato got blocked. Do you know what happened?
You know, it's quite simple with respect to your post and your post alone:
PEACE NEEDS A PARTNER. Cliche? Yes. Reality? Israel has stepped up to the table and already Hamas is calling it quits. Murders in the West Bank. Two Israelis assaulted with gun fire near Jerusalem. Just in the past couple of days. Dinner Jacket in Iran is already denouncing the peace effort. Iranian officials claim that Israel's Zionst Regime will be destroyed in 15 years.
Start holding Hamas and Co responsible for once. FOR ONCE. Lay off with the double-standard against Israel already. Enough is enough.
Has this one not been through the rounds? Hasn't it already been said that Abbas isn't the voice of Hamas? He speaks for the Palestinian Govt.
And why is a willingness for peace a double standard? I'm not pushing a double standard. I'm saying that there can be no moving forward with gears stuck in reverse.
I think the activities of the jihadists and suicide bombers in Palestine are utterly despicable. I think that the propaganda put out by Hamas to the Palestinian people, including the children, is disgusting.
I also think that the illegal settlers are assholes, as are those who support them. I think that the 'support for Israel' generally from wingnuts who want to convince everyone that peace is an impossibility, with the attendant implication that only some kind of final war against the Arabs could suffice as a satisfactory or realistic solution is disgusting, and absolutely NOT in Israels - or anyones - best interests.
The problem is that Abbas has already rejected a generous offer by Israel, and like Arafat, made no counter offer. Again, there is a willingness for peace, and Israel has stepped up, only to be burned by rejection, world opinion and her enemies. You're right though, the gears are stuck in reverse - and not by Israel. With Hamas and Fatah cut from the same cloth, and Hamas being recently elected by popular vote, the Palestinians as a whole, find themselves without a best foot to put forward, so to speak.
Maybe peace is best made from the bottom up, rather than with offers from one side or another.
But, it's not going to be easy, and I'm going to be hoping for some kind of positive outcome, rather than pre-judge a failure.
That last line sounds really dickish when I read it back. Let me try again.
But, it's not going to be easy, and I'm going to be hoping for some kind of positive outcome, rather than expect it to go bad. But I hear your position and completely understand where you're coming from.
Weedley-Weedley-Wee -- Specifically, the small fret guitar-playing technique that musicians have a tendency to display while in pursuit of a cross between a waitress and a hoover vacuum... This, of course, from his book.
Frank says:
