The Political Discussion Thread

[epg20]

The last time Jerusalem was internationalized, there wasn't a squeak from the UN, the "international community" or whoever when Jordan conquered it. For 20 years after that, any non-Muslim entering Jerusalem's Old City had to submit a written proof of Christian baptism to ensure they they aren't, God forbid, Jews sneaking in to pray.

No thanks.

you didn't understand, it wouldn't be internationalized, it would be a nation unto itself, like france Germany, or the u.s., just like the Vatican, they would have a seat at the U.N, and have all the rights and responsibilities of a nation they would need to have passports, and embassies, visas, and everything, they would need to set up a complete Bureaucracy to run the nation, just like the Vatican has.

[epg20]

Number 2 is genocide, and quite extreme. But point 1 has merit - Jerusalem on its own, and no one gets to lay claim.

number 2 wouldn't be genocide, they would be more than welcome to leave, hell we would be happy to provide the necessary transport to where ever they wanted to go, be they Muslim Christian or Jew, just as long as they left the world heritage site Israel, or as it would be called, the world Israeli forest, eh we can work on the name later.

[SGalisa]

You're toast whether the US is there or not. Think on that!

I don't have to *think* about it. I see it in ways that you don't.
goodness! I spent about 2 hours reading updated reports regarding the last 2 days about the mid-east situation (twitter feeds and various articles). I need to do other, more interesting things..!

And BTW, if we/the USA are toast, what do you know that we/the USA don't *already* know?

The US was already there - I doubt they ever left the area after the Gulf Wars.

I think the USA had a very small number of troops in the Iraq regional area, and only for training purposes. Obama promised at the beginning of his 1st term that our USA troops would be completely out of the area in a short amount of time. Real story was -- The USA pulled out of the region after the Kuwait situation in 1991 was tidy'd up. But when President Bush #2 came along, we got dragged back in, against the wishes of many (US) Americans.

As for being there now, that was mostly President Obama's doing, but not willingly, if I understand the story correctly. It was more of a "guilt trip" on why the USA stayed - after the world began labeling the USA as the #1 evil empire... (well, until Russia intervened last week!). Now, I'm not sure who is being declared as wearing the proverbial evil Darth Vadar cloak..

As for the situation with Syria, the USA was NOT invited, and thus should NOT be there at all. Russia *was* invited, and has *all* the reasons in the world to be there -- because Russia was invited. Iraq has also requested and invited Russia to clean up their area, because apparently, the USA hasn't done squat. Even the Kurds now want Russia to come to their rescue, as well.

Problem with all this is that is once the Middle East is cleaned up, the mercenaries and I.S. affiliates who survive and flee to other nations, like morphing or blending in with the refugees into Europe and the USA, etc., who's going to chase those infiltrators down? Plus, there is also Africa with its Boco Haram seizing control of various parts of Africa.

IF the US and Canada sign on this might be a done deal.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/1...124604560.html

What are the implications for things like copyright and fair use?

People have been saying this will be the end of youtube gaming videos and other topics where users use other content to make a discussion or learning video...

I don't know much about total copyright, except that the original owners of the info would like to get the recognition they put out into the world as first or whatever. Some web sites just copy info and never state where the original info came from or who authored it. I think "Fair Use" has to do with permissions of sharing the original info, too. I'm not exactly sure, but I've seen it posted on some web discussion sites and don't really know what the difference is. I do know that some web sites absolutely do not want even their links shared (without written permission first, etc.), if their news or whatever is to be exposed to the world at another location / posted by someone not connected to their work.

[SGalisa]

Regarding the "Pacific trade deal"-- I haven't really looked into this, so I'm gonna play *dumb*. . .

Which nation(s) benefit the most out of this?

I hope people here know about this and we can discuss this really bad idea they want to make law.

ISDS for instance will allow a corporation to sue any government if their trade in the host country is hurt.. That is just plain wrong..

See below for an article that might explain this better, of course the article seems more about the USA Congress' involvement than the rest of the world. Not sure how it affects copyright and "Fair Use" agreements, as noted in some news/commentary discussion articles.

"Historic Pacific trade deal faces skeptics in U.S. Congress"
Reuters
ATLANTA, By Krista Hughes and Kevin Krolicki
Markets, Mon Oct 5, 2015 11:45pm EDT

...
Tired negotiators worked round the clock over the weekend to settle tough issues such as monopoly rights for new biotech drugs. New Zealand's demand for greater access for its dairy exports was only settled at 5 a.m. EDT (0900 GMT) on Monday.

If approved, the pact would cut trade barriers and set common standards from Vietnam to Canada. It would also furnish a legacy-shaping victory for U.S. President Barack Obama, who will promote the agreement on Tuesday in remarks to business leaders in Washington.
...
U.S. lawmakers can approve the deal or vote it down, but not amend it.

CURRENCY, DRUGS, DAIRY, AUTO POLICIES

Ministers said the agreement would include a forum for finance ministers from participating countries to discuss currency policy principles. This takes into account, in part, concerns among U.S. manufacturers and critics who suggest Japan has driven the yen lower to benefit its car exporters and other companies.
...
The United States, Mexico, Canada and Japan agreed to auto trade rules on how much of a vehicle must be made within the TPP region to qualify for duty-free status.

The TPP would give Japan's automakers, led by Toyota MotorCorp, a freer hand to buy parts from Asia for vehicles sold in the United States, but sets 25-30 year phase-out periods for U.S. tariffs on Japanese cars and light trucks.

The deal between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam also sets minimum standards on issues ranging from workers' rights to environmental protection.

Trade ministers said the TPP would in future be open to other countries, including potentially China.
...

[Womble]

You were saying ...

Israel to destroy homes of Palestinian Jerusalem attackers
An article dating back to November 2014 after a Palestinian drove his van into people waiting for the tram.

Gal-On: Cabinet decision to destroy terrorists' homes is stupid
Dating back to May 2015

The reason that method was established is because the families of Palestinian terrorists are paid generously for their sons' murderous actions. Payouts reach sums of over $25 000, which in the West Bank can easily buy a house.

Demolition of houses of terrorists has been proven effective by statistical research.

You know how I feel about the Israel//Palestine matter, and that hasn't changed. The violence on both sides needs to be stopped but obviously that's not going to happen. While young boys throw stones at soldiers, they fire back with life-rounds. There are other ways to deal with that, but killing them seems to be the easier solution.

Note how you treat stone throwing as some kind of not-quite-violence. That's one of the indicators of warped morality that I'm talking about - defining violence down when the Palestinians engage in it, while similar violence on your own home turf would qualify as attempted murder.

Throwing stones is not harmless, especially the way Palestinians do it, - using slings, throwing large rocks into windshields of moving cars, dropping cinder blocks from roofs. It's cynically calculated violence designed to kill and maim without triggering the sensitivities of foreigners watching it on TV. It isn't met with live fire very often, but I don't always mind when it is.

Back in my army days, when I was manning a checkpoint at Har Gilo, my dad told me that if I were to face a rock throwing mob like that, he wanted me to shoot whether or not it was legal, because he would much rather bring Pepsi to my jail cell than flowers to my grave. And frankly, that'd be my preference too.

[Womble]

you didn't understand, it wouldn't be internationalized, it would be a nation unto itself, like france Germany, or the u.s., just like the Vatican, they would have a seat at the U.N, and have all the rights and responsibilities of a nation they would need to have passports, and embassies, visas, and everything, they would need to set up a complete Bureaucracy to run the nation, just like the Vatican has.

That's absolute nonsense not even worth addressing. How exactly would it be a nation unto itself when it's not? Do you think you can simply command anyone living in Jerusalem to start seeing yourself as a new ethnicity?

Just picture UN blue helmets wheeling into your city and declaring that from now on, it was decided, by someone outside your city, that you'll be a country unto itself. Nonsense, right? Well, in Jerusalem, it'd be that plus violent opposition. It would simply do nothing to satisfy the demands of either side, and the fighting would go on. Any UN troops would pull out in a hurry after the first suicide bomber blew up their first patrol, and back to square one it is.

[Annoyed]

IF the US and Canada sign on this might be a done deal.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/1...124604560.html

What are the implications for things like copyright and fair use?

People have been saying this will be the end of youtube gaming videos and other topics where users use other content to make a discussion or learning video...

Which nation(s) benefit the most out of this?

I hope people here know about this and we can discuss this really bad idea they want to make law.

ISDS for instance will allow a corporation to sue any government if their trade in the host country is hurt.. That is just plain wrong..

I'm hoping this does not get ratified by our congress, but since it benefits business interests and is harmful to the average US citizen, I expect it will pass. The best hope is that enough Republicans join congressional democrats who oppose it to block it.

[Coco Pops]

I'm hoping this does not get ratified by our congress, but since it benefits business interests and is harmful to the average US citizen, I expect it will pass. The best hope is that enough Republicans join congressional democrats who oppose it to block it.

Agree..... You got to wonder what the nations that have signed on hope to gain because really this will hurt sovereignty of many of the nations signing on. Their leaders have basically sold their people out...

[Annoyed]

Agree..... You got to wonder what the nations that have signed on hope to gain because really this will hurt sovereignty of many of the nations signing on. Their leaders have basically sold their people out...

It's quite possible there is some hidden hand orchestrating all this. It's about the only thing that makes sense.

[Falcon Horus]

I will reply to the Israel/Palestine discussion but first the copyright-thing, which is the shortest, and I'm at work so should technically be paying attention to my to-do list...

What are the implications for things like copyright and fair use?

Fair Use explained:

First part of the article (source: Stanford University Libraries):

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement.

So what is a “transformative” use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varied court decisions, because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit its definition. Like free speech, they wanted it to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.

Copyright explained.

First part of the Handbook of Copyright Law:

What is copyright?

Copyright is a right given by the law to creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings. In fact, it is a bundle of rights including, inter alia, rights of reproduction, communication to the public, adaptation and translation of the work. There could be slight variations in the composition of the rights depending on the work.

Why should copyright be protected?

Copyright ensures certain minimum safeguards of the rights of authors over their creations, thereby protecting and rewarding creativity. Creativity being the keystone of progress, no civilized society can afford to ignore the basic requirement of encouraging the same. Economic and social development of a society is dependent on creativity. The protection provided by copyright to the efforts of writers, artists, designers, dramatists, musicians, architects and producers of sound recordings, cinematograph films and computer software, creates an atmosphere conducive to creativity, which induces them to create more and motivates others to create.

People have been saying this will be the end of youtube gaming videos and other topics where users use other content to make a discussion or learning video...

Gaming videos have always been infringement of copyrighted material - there's nothing new about those. Same with tutorials for computer programs or what not...

Did you know that Disney has a policy which states that costumes worn by Disney characters are a direct copyright infringement if an individual reproduces them for say cosplay. And yes, that includes the costumes from the Star Wars franchise. They don't collect on the infringement cause people aren't making millions of dollars of money off of it. Should they do that - they're toast.

I know that some members of the Replica Prop Forum have received cease and desist documents for recreating the ARC-reactor from Iron Man, the portable one.

At my previous work, I was, for a time, responsible for finding and reporting infringers of cross-stitch patterns. Fun job, not so fun for the uploaders. About half only needed a warning, half of the other half a cease and desist and the rest would be invited to court. But catching them all is very difficult - there were even repeat offenders.

[Falcon Horus]

Violence against Israelis is tolerated more among Palestinians than violence against Palestinians is tolerated by Israelis.

If I understand correctly, you're saying both Palestinians and Israelis are proud of the violent achievements they commit against one another, however the level of tolerance of violence towards one another varies. It's more okay for a Palestinian to commit violence in the eyes of another Palestinian, then it is for a Isrealian towards a Palestinian or a Palestinian towards an Israelian.

I think you lost me at hello.

Then there is a genocide against black people in the US. I mean, if we are going to use that word all willy nilly like that...

I don't know about you but I wasn't using it "willy nilly". How else would you classify epg20's extreme solution. He is willing to wipe out an entire region of people in order to solve the problem. I think that does fit the term genocide.

Definition of Genocide

Genocide is the systematic elimination of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious, cultural or national group. Well-known examples of genocide include the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, 1971 Bangladesh Genocide, and more recently the Rwandan Genocide.

number 2 wouldn't be genocide, they would be more than welcome to leave, hell we would be happy to provide the necessary transport to where ever they wanted to go, be they Muslim Christian or Jew, just as long as they left the world heritage site Israel, or as it would be called, the world Israeli forest, eh we can work on the name later.

That would be the World Heritage Site of Palestine and Canaan.

Okay, so you offer them the chance to voluntarily pack up and leave. That's different. Nevertheless, you'd still be killing those that choose not to. But they were warned, I guess.

The reason that method was established is because the families of Palestinian terrorists are paid generously for their sons' murderous actions. Payouts reach sums of over $25 000, which in the West Bank can easily buy a house.

If only prices for houses were that low over here...

Anywho... I guess, we shall henceforth call it life-insurance, or more accurately compensation. I can imagine that if I have nothing, 25,000 dollar could feed my entire family for months to come. I could probably be persuaded to go blow myself to kingdom come. It's a fortune. It would seem like a good deal. Too bad, I'd have to go and kill others in order to get it. That's a bit of a turn-off, but perhaps starvation might make me see things differently after a while.

Just, you know... thinking out loud.

Demolition of houses of terrorists has been proven effective by statistical research.

But when epg20 suggests a similar idea, you freak out and call him a psychotic.
True, you'd all be doomed. Not just those damned "terrorists".

Note how you treat stone throwing as some kind of not-quite-violence. That's one of the indicators of warped morality that I'm talking about...

No, I'm comparing stones to bullets, unarmed men and boys to armed to the teeth soldiers (with helmets).

It's like an army of Indians standing across an army of colonists - bows and arrows vs guns and bullets.

Fight violence with violence, and all you get is more violence --> your conflict is a prime example of that.

It isn't met with live fire very often...

Funny how the news reports differently...

...but I don't always mind when it is.

There, if anyone was ever wondering why this conflict will never end, there you have it. That one sentence applies to both sides.

That's absolute nonsense not even worth addressing. How exactly would it be a nation unto itself when it's not? Do you think you can simply command anyone living in Jerusalem to start seeing yourself as a new ethnicity?

I was thinking neutral zone, but even that would be problematic.

However, not allowing your Muslim neighbors to pray in their mosque isn't very friendly either.

[Falcon Horus]

One more reply to make and I'm through with my list...

I don't have to *think* about it. I see it in ways that you don't.

Yup, you think the apocalypse is coming. I just follow the news on a daily basis and at the same time try to not get bored out of my skull at work.

And BTW, if we/the USA are toast, what do you know that we/the USA don't *already* know?

Actually, it's probably Europe that's going to be toast if Russia and the US get it on with one another, we're smack-dab in the middle of it, and the US has some nuclear weapons lying around not so far from where I live.

Yeah, we're doomed.

Now, I'm not sure who is being declared as wearing the proverbial evil Darth Vadar cloak..

Probably Putin at the moment, and he loves it.

As for the situation with Syria, the USA was NOT invited...

Interesting you think that, especially since it's the US who went willingly into the coalition to bomb IS in the first place. And has been arming rebels in Syria.

Russia *was* invited, and has *all* the reasons in the world to be there -- because Russia was invited.

Assad is allied with Russia, so he can stay in power. You really don't want a tyrant the likes of Assad in power.

Problem with all this is that is once the Middle East is cleaned up...

When pigs fly and hell freezes over.

...the mercenaries and I.S. affiliates who survive and flee to other nations, like morphing or blending in with the refugees into Europe and the USA, etc., who's going to chase those infiltrators down?

Morphing?

They are already blending in with the refugees - that simply cannot be stopped. It would be naive to think otherwise.

[mad_gater]

If I understand correctly, you're saying both Palestinians and Israelis are proud of the violent achievements they commit against one another, however the level of tolerance of violence towards one another varies. It's more okay for a Palestinian to commit violence in the eyes of another Palestinian, then it is for a Isrealian towards a Palestinian or a Palestinian towards an Israelian.

I think you lost me at hello.



I don't know about you but I wasn't using it "willy nilly". How else would you classify epg20's extreme solution. He is willing to wipe out an entire region of people in order to solve the problem. I think that does fit the term genocide.

Definition of Genocide





That would be the World Heritage Site of Palestine and Canaan.

Okay, so you offer them the chance to voluntarily pack up and leave. That's different. Nevertheless, you'd still be killing those that choose not to. But they were warned, I guess.



If only prices for houses were that low over here...

Anywho... I guess, we shall henceforth call it life-insurance, or more accurately compensation. I can imagine that if I have nothing, 25,000 dollar could feed my entire family for months to come. I could probably be persuaded to go blow myself to kingdom come. It's a fortune. It would seem like a good deal. Too bad, I'd have to go and kill others in order to get it. That's a bit of a turn-off, but perhaps starvation might make me see things differently after a while.

Just, you know... thinking out loud.



But when epg20 suggests a similar idea, you freak out and call him a psychotic.
True, you'd all be doomed. Not just those damned "terrorists".



No, I'm comparing stones to bullets, unarmed men and boys to armed to the teeth soldiers (with helmets).

It's like an army of Indians standing across an army of colonists - bows and arrows vs guns and bullets.

Fight violence with violence, and all you get is more violence --> your conflict is a prime example of that.



Funny how the news reports differently...



There, if anyone was ever wondering why this conflict will never end, there you have it. That one sentence applies to both sides.



I was thinking neutral zone, but even that would be problematic.

However, not allowing your Muslim neighbors to pray in their mosque isn't very friendly either.

fighting violence with violence only begets more violence....so innocent people are supposed to just sit there and let people who mean them harm run roughshod over them? hell no!

if necessary I can, will, and do have the moral right to use deadly force in defense of myself and others....it's the same with nations....each nation has the moral right to use deadly force to defend itself and its allied nations against aggressor nations

[aretood2]

If I understand correctly, you're saying both Palestinians and Israelis are proud of the violent achievements they commit against one another, however the level of tolerance of violence towards one another varies. It's more okay for a Palestinian to commit violence in the eyes of another Palestinian, then it is for a Isrealian towards a Palestinian or a Palestinian towards an Israelian.

No.

What I meant was that Israelis committing acts of terrorism are condemned by their own compatriots a lot more than Palestinian acts of terrorism are condemned by Palestinians. That is, that Israelis are quicker to condemn their own and do so more widely than Palestinians who seem too slow to condemn their own.

I don't know about you but I wasn't using it "willy nilly". How else would you classify epg20's extreme solution. He is willing to wipe out an entire region of people in order to solve the problem. I think that does fit the term genocide.

Sorry, I was confused. Ignore that part.

That would be the World Heritage Site of Palestine and Canaan.

Why not Israel? After all that name predates the name Palestine. Bias much?

No, I'm comparing stones to bullets, unarmed men and boys to armed to the teeth soldiers (with helmets).

It's like an army of Indians standing across an army of colonists - bows and arrows vs guns and bullets.

Only that this is more like Indians fighting Indians.

Fight violence with violence, and all you get is more violence --> your conflict is a prime example of that.

Quick! Tell Hamas!

Funny how the news reports differently...

I'd agree with you but for totally different reasons.

There, if anyone was ever wondering why this conflict will never end, there you have it. That one sentence applies to both sides.

This conflict can end. The first step would be Hamas dropping the "Kill all Isrealis and then Kill all Jews" platform. And no, that's not hyperbole. That is their stated raison d'etre. You can't negotiate with someone who espouses genocidal goals.

Second, someone has to stop with the whole conflicting narratives and deal with the whole settlement issue. Which would be easier if Palestinians didn't vote in a "party" (for a lack of better words) bent on the annihilation of the Israeli population.

Third, instead of fanning the fumes, people on the outside should be encouraging amicable relations.

And finally, realize that they can and should (Israelis and Palestinians) lead their own talks. They don't need foreigners telling the what to do with the particulars of any negotiation.

What is blocking this process is that there is no peace movement in Palestine. The idea of a Two-State solution is more popular in Israel than in Gaza or the West Bank. The people are not prepared for peace when they are being fed a narrative that Israel shouldn't exist, that it should be done away with and so on. How can you desire peace with someone who you don't believe should even be there to have peace with?

[epg20]

That's absolute nonsense not even worth addressing. How exactly would it be a nation unto itself when it's not? Do you think you can simply command anyone living in Jerusalem to start seeing yourself as a new ethnicity?

Just picture UN blue helmets wheeling into your city and declaring that from now on, it was decided, by someone outside your city, that you'll be a country unto itself. Nonsense, right? Well, in Jerusalem, it'd be that plus violent opposition. It would simply do nothing to satisfy the demands of either side, and the fighting would go on. Any UN troops would pull out in a hurry after the first suicide bomber blew up their first patrol, and back to square one it is.

would it, you don't think the average people of Jerusalem have ben caught in the middle of this free for all long enough you don't think the chance to start over and decide who they want representing them in the U.N. and to the rest of the world is something they want. you don't think they would jump at a chance to maybe have, AT THE VERY LEAST, a chance for a peaceful day where they don't need to ride a bus with white knuckles or worry that box on the side of the road will explode if they walk by it, of IF the customer who walked in carrying a shopping bag has a pair of shoes in it or a bomb, ok, they might not vote to have their city turned in to a country, and if it does need to be forced on them, then it might go down the way you say, but they deserve the right to choose, they deserve the chance to choose for them selves if they want a fresh start to try again, or fall back in to the chaos of the same old same old.

as for ethnicity, I don't think you understand it, you are born white, black, brown, Asian, these are ethnicities you aren't born a Christian, Muslim or Jew, these are religions, these are beliefs, the only thing you are born believing is I need to breathe,eat, sleep, and the other bodily functions-everything else is fed to you through your eyes and ears and life experiences and what others have taught you, they are hard to change, but it can be done.

as for how to turn the city in to a country, you would need to ask the Vatican how they did it.