The Political Discussion Thread

[Coco Pops]

Why is the US wanting allies to buzz the fake islands China has made in the South China Sea?

How is pissing them off a good thing?

[Gatefan1976]

I've been saying for a long time that the current or "establishment" leadership of the Republican party has been acting against my (and others like me) interests for a long time. So we seem to agree there. I strongly suspect that this is why Trump is doing so well. Many on the right think the same.

You are quite right, we agree on that issue.
My "argument" is that Trump will not only "not help" you, and the "people like you", but sell you out harder and faster than the very people "you" are railing against.
I have no real desire to see people get screwed that way, so I argue. I look at him hiring illegal immigrants to "cut costs" to build his ivory towers, yet publicly call them rapists and murderers. I see him advance no policy, foreign or domestic beyond "I am the bestest in the world", and hear nothing but the cheers of people who have had enough being screwed, not just again, but even harder. I see him insulting his "BBF" Cruz the very second he becomes an "inconvenience" to what he wants.
Quite frankly, and only now have people in the US begun to understand this, He is a dangerous, unhinged, power hungry, lunatic. 6 months ago, he was a joke, today he is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination who runs on a mixture of fear of the "ebil democrats" in the mainstream GOP, and ignorance buy the "uneducated" he "loves" so much.
Do you honestly -think- that a person that is so reviled by not just "a few people" but and ENTIRE nation such as the UK would have -political discussions in the parliament- about keeping him out of the country because he is such a dangerous arse is a -good- idea for your president?

Trump may not be the perfect candidate, but he is in opposition to the "establishment" Republican party, and might be able to push it in a more favorable direction.

He will not, all they will do is do just what they did to Obama, stop him from doing anything without presidential veto, and the people will continue to vote the same people in power because "they republican" and the establishment will not allow another republican candidate to even get a foothold.

As far as why I won't vote for a Democrat, it's quite simple. In my view, the Democrats and their policies are even more unacceptable to me than the Est. Republicans.

I don't care who you vote for, all that matters is that I -could- put Mussolini or Stalin on your republican bill for president, and you would vote for them as long as they were republican.
I know enough.

So, that leaves Trump as the best choice on the plate for someone like myself.

Yep, and you will eat him no matter what.

[SGalisa]

...I do not disagree with the creation of an Israeli state, I disagree on it's location based on religious works. I do not "hate Jews" because, well, why would I? They are no different to any other people to me, so why would I "hate" them?

Mr Womble, your justification for slaughtering the original owners of the land now know as Israel, who had no hand in Egypt keeping "your people" in bondage, and were just in the way, and ignoring that fact.

Not to intrude in here, but, ancient Israel took the land based on what they were told to do, which would fall under the "religion" topic, I think? Political motivations, but it was based on spiritual data given to them from a source that guided them by a pillar fire at night and a cloud by day.. and then took residence up in their temporary "temple" -- and later residence in the more permanent temple, until they got taken into captivity into another foreign land (Babylon) in the opposite direction that was NOT Egypt. Myth or fact, it's fact to Jewish history, regardless of how much rewriting of history the rest of the world pushes on current readers.


Now, about Trump issues..

Like...Kill the Jews (among others). He said that. He even wrote a book detailing that. It wasn't just "nice" things. He was pretty open about everything. Trump even said that he could get away with murder at this rate. And he is right. That's what blind devotion is.

He says he could, but would it be against the enemies of the general world's population, such as the I.S. and affiliates, or was he referring to individuals in general..?

Trump says all the right things and does all the right things. He has the charisma, much like Hitler, to string people along to follow him. And when they realize his true intentions, it's too late for most of them to turn back.

Things he's said, leave me wondering every single time why anyone "in their right mind" could even vote for this guy.

Yeah, there's a lot of things he said in the beginning of these political presidential campaigns that made me think he was pushing himself into a corner, until some of the *unofficial* election polls seemed to reveal the exact opposite results.

Don't know what his *true* intentions are, until he actually does them.

And then of course, his absurd idea to build a wall between the US and Mexico (he should ask Israel for advice on that, or perhaps the Chinese (they used to build a giant wall, it's still standing) or maybe there's still some Berlin wall left to re-use.

Ooooo. Jeeeze. Maybe if Trump gets elected President, he'll be "the one" to prop up China's military, so "they" can be the ones to fight the I.S. and affiliates, since the Chinese are already on that side of the planet! That would be a Great consolidation in use of resources already in the region.
China could do that all on its own, but Trump's economic boosters might help motivate it more. China and Russia could team up, and take care of the I.S./etc. (takeover) invasions.

But please, do tell me what makes him "less bad than what we think he is"?

Let's see.. Whatever is considered less "evil" than what Hillary has waiting in the winds of time, especially for those she feels oppose her. Oooooo! There's a bunch of stories on that, where she's already suspected of hiring "hit men" against certain (family members of) ladies who were actively railing against (*free willy*) Bill during his presidency, and continued to do so in more recent years, as well. According to several interviews or via the grapevine reports that made it into public speaking places or into written forms, it's Not gonna be a pleasant day for them..

..And I forget the name of the one lady, who's husband got murdered -- which was believed to circle back to Hillary from some sort of conversation the two ladies had, but the details of the deceased husband's "accident" seemed to fall into that suspected hit list area, and it wasn't the dead guy that was in the news for months and months, but somebody else. Heard similar *threats* were given to the other gals or guys who landed on that interfering zone area.

Trump doesn't have that sort of issue going on with him, as far as from what I think I've been hearing.

Most recent complaint about Donald Trump was from Mitt Romney complaining about Trump's tax returns not being made public.
Seriously?
According to Trump, he's being audited, has been audited for several years now, and doesn't know why..
Again, seriously speaking?

If Donald Trump is being audited, why doesn't he just allow the audit company to (publicly) report that either Trump is all paid up on his taxes or on some sort of balance plan. They really don't need to go into a breakdown of financial details. Just simplify it.
It'd probably be very boring to some of the people reading page by page breakdowns anyway, while it'd only interest folks who would either want to make a scandal out of it or rob him in some other way.

And as far as security goes, I think he would probably create a business to close that electronic security hole into certain systems that so many trojan/back door hackers have been exploiting in the past decade or more. Too many vulnerabilities out there.. which if the world is going to go ALL electronic with an internal chip at some future date, there is going to be a NEED for closing that hole/gap that currently exists in so many data systems at the moment.

[Gatefan1976]

Sorry for misunderstanding your post in reply to me earlier..

All good dude, text is a -CRAP- way to hold a discussion.

Hey found this online. I don't think this is a very good idea.


General wants allies to pee off China

http://nworeport.me/2016/02/24/top-a...-fake-islands/

The China/ south china sea, issue is something I know little about. I -do- know the reasons for our projected increased military spending is based on this, especially the new Submarines that we approved in the defence White Paper that came out a day ago.

I don't know dude, China wants to re-emerge as a political power, in a way it hasn't for a looooong time. It's not "good" for us, but I don't know if it is "bad" for us either. Australia, despite it's military spending and standing is far, far better protected by it's diplomacy than it's military. That is no diss on our Military, but a pragmatic look at the situation.

[Gatefan1976]

Not to intrude in here, but, ancient Israel took the land based on what they were told to do, which would fall under the "religion" topic, I think?

As modern Israel says it is a secular state, no, it is not a religious topic.
As far as ancient Israel is concerned, can I claim all of Europe a pagan state because Alexander the Great had all of it at some stage?
How about the mongols?
I mean, they had most of Europe as well.
Can I have that too?
Can I claim "anti paganism"?
Can I claim "Anti-race" as well?
Of course NOT.

Political motivations, but it was based on spiritual data given to them from a source that guided them by a pillar fire at night and a cloud by day.. and then took residence up in their temporary "temple" -- and later residence in the more permanent temple, until they got taken into captivity into another foreign land (Babylon) in the opposite direction that was NOT Egypt. Myth or fact, it's fact to Jewish history, regardless of how much rewriting of history the rest of the world pushes on current readers.

This -is- more suited to the religious thread.
Otherwise, I claim that I am guided by the sauce of the flying spaghetti monster, and I can produce books as well.
Do you dare call my sauce wrong?
My gods said there would be no frost giants, have you seen one recently, or did they deliver on their promise?
Or MAYBE, just MAYBE, they are all 3 stupid claims in the "real world" used to justify the actions of some?

Now, about Trump issues..


He says he could, but would it be against the enemies of the general world's population, such as the I.S. and affiliates, or was he referring to individuals in general..?

He specifically stated in the middle of a street in the US, what do you think?
I could shoot your Husband, but really, I mean the people on the other side of the world, even though I specifically stated -your husband-.
Really?

Yeah, there's a lot of things he said in the beginning of these political presidential campaigns that made me think he was pushing himself into a corner, until some of the *unofficial* election polls seemed to reveal the exact opposite results.

Don't know what his *true* intentions are, until he actually does them.

Seriously??

Ooooo. Jeeeze. Maybe if Trump gets elected President, he'll be "the one" to prop up China's military, so "they" can be the ones to fight the I.S. and affiliates, since the Chinese are already on that side of the planet! That would be a Great consolidation in use of resources already in the region.
China could do that all on its own, but Trump's economic boosters might help motivate it more. China and Russia could team up, and take care of the I.S./etc. (takeover) invasions.

I can't even see the rabbit hole at this stage.

Let's see.. Whatever is considered less "evil" than what Hillary has waiting in the winds of time, especially for those she feels oppose her. Oooooo! There's a bunch of stories on that, where she's already suspected of hiring "hit men" against certain (family members of) ladies who were actively railing against (*free willy*) Bill during his presidency, and continued to do so in more recent years, as well. According to several interviews or via the grapevine reports that made it into public speaking places or into written forms, it's Not gonna be a pleasant day for them..

Yeah, cause a woman with the will to run as President gives a toss about a blow job.
Just how pathetic do you think women are?

..And I forget the name of the one lady, who's husband got murdered -- which was believed to circle back to Hillary from some sort of conversation the two ladies had, but the details of the deceased husband's "accident" seemed to fall into that suspected hit list area, and it wasn't the dead guy that was in the news for months and months, but somebody else. Heard similar *threats* were given to the other gals or guys who landed on that interfering zone area.

What?

Trump doesn't have that sort of issue going on with him, as far as from what I think I've been hearing.

He would just be a paedophile.

Most recent complaint about Donald Trump was from Mitt Romney complaining about Trump's tax returns not being made public.
Seriously?

Welcome to the madhouse you created.

According to Trump, he's being audited, has been audited for several years now, and doesn't know why..
Again, seriously speaking?

He's a nice guy, this doesn't happen to nice guys.

If Donald Trump is being audited, why doesn't he just allow the audit company to (publicly) report that either Trump is all paid up on his taxes or on some sort of balance plan. They really don't need to go into a breakdown of financial details. Just simplify it.

Ummm..........

It'd probably be very boring to some of the people reading page by page breakdowns anyway, while it'd only interest folks who would either want to make a scandal out of it or rob him in some other way.

And as far as security goes, I think he would probably create a business to close that electronic security hole into certain systems that so many trojan/back door hackers have been exploiting in the past decade or more. Too many vulnerabilities out there.. which if the world is going to go ALL electronic with an internal chip at some future date, there is going to be a NEED for closing that hole/gap that currently exists in so many data systems at the moment.

Can I tap out??

[Gatefan1976]

FH: It's the UK government wanting to ban BDS from exercising its rights as a private organization....this includes the right to make dumba$$ decisions in whose products to boycott

You said it was a bad idea, not anyone else.

to me that represents the UK government sticking its overly large nose into affairs it has no business sticking its nose into

Like?

all I'm saying is they should let the free market make that decision...if a lot of the people in the UK don't like BDS decision and decide to boycott BDS in turn...I would then imagine that BDS's sources of funding would dry up rather quickly and they'd cease to be a problem in the long run

Yeah, right.
If I took all your money, would you stop being a Catholic?

[SGalisa]

As modern Israel says it is a secular state, no, it is not a religious topic.
. . .
Otherwise, I claim that I am guided by the sauce of the flying spaghetti monster, and I can produce books as well.
Do you dare call my sauce wrong?
My gods said there would be no frost giants, have you seen one recently, or did they deliver on their promise?

This is Israel being discussed, not some wacky cult. Israel has documented history, which has been broken apart into so many pieces, that whatever fragments (of actual civilization or written works) do show up, have been scattered across the region, so it has made it difficult for Israel to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt what their "Holy Scriptures" recorded from a historical POV.

Pillar of Fire by night and cloud by day is more in line with tornado-like activity, except this *phenomenon*apparently never vanished during the whole 40-years of wandering around the wilderness. Yes, it moved around from spot to spot, but never vanished -- except to enter into the mobile Temple tent.. and then moved outside -- became visible again, etc.

What boggles me, is that since the ark of the covenant was made and buried in ancient times, yet the current new Temple Institute staff claim that they know exactly where that ARK currently is, but won't touch it until the Messiah shows up (and there protection of it / situation is partly *political* in nature) -- how is anyone else going to know (or be convinced in believing) if the contents that were inside the ARK is genuine, if the Temple Institute won't touch it ahead of time? They said they will bring it out, when the appointed time comes, and NOT before. If they wait for the Christian version of the story, they'll be waiting for a very long time.. (Seven years from the time the 70th week begins the countdown clock again -- to the end of this age and the beginning of the next millennia -- with Messiah ruling over the earth -- see Rev. 19:1-16.)

He specifically stated in the middle of a street in the US, what do you think?
I could shoot your Husband, but really, I mean the people on the other side of the world, even though I specifically stated -your husband-.
Really?

I heard that interview/comment session. I think Trump was being facetious.. tho he could have been downright serious as well. We may never know, especially if someone else becomes President.

Yeah, cause a woman with the will to run as President gives a toss about a blow job.
Just how pathetic do you think women are?
....
What?

I heard the interview from a 3rd person, who either knew the case, or heard of it. The lady in question also had her house vandalized and sought police protection or something like that. Don't remember which "lady" it was, but she may have been encountered Hillary in recent years and had issues from other things that Hillary may have done, as well. That's all I remember. I don't think it's in the news, because it was on someone's taped broadcast with a special guest, and I don't remember who that person was.. sorry.
I'm not always tuned in to the itty bitty details on audio-taped interviews (because I hear too many of them,and they get blurry after a while).. the ones that do stick out in (my) memory, often are of the strange variety.. You kind of don't forget about houses being vandalized or people getting knocked off.. who and where ends up being the foggy stuff.. So, this was several weeks (or months?) ago, when I heard about it.

Welcome to the madhouse you created.

I didn't create it. Mitt Romney brought it up. *grin*

He's a nice guy, this doesn't happen to nice guys.

Just so I remember what this was about -- it's Audits. Trump was probably audited before, but he was publicly complaining about it shortly after he said he was against "Obamacare". So was Michael Savage and a few others on the Republican/conservative political slant. They all seemed to end up getting audited shortly after voicing anti-ACA rants. Haven't heard about too many Dems being audited, tho for that same health care issue.

Can I tap out??

Tap out on what? Sleep? I need to sign off now for that..

(For my own memory reminder benefit=) The item discussed was about having some sort of computer chip containing all of our personal data info for buying, selling, ID, etc.
I think there might be some nasty nanobots or something contaminated (possibly cancer causing) that comes with the chips that ends up causing massive problems internally for the folks receiving it. My info comes from certain Bible verses. So, morph over into that world into the tracking topic, one of these days/years.. if/when I ever get to compile info about it.

[Gatefan1976]

This is Israel being discussed

Yes, -Modern Israel-, and it is not even the actual topic. The topic was boycotting products from -modern Israel-.

, not some wacky cult.

I'd ask you if you were serious, but I know the answer.

Israel has documented history, which has been broken apart into so many pieces, that whatever fragments (of actual civilization or written works) do show up, have been scattered across the region, so it has made it difficult for Israel to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt what their "Holy Scriptures" recorded from a historical POV.

Ummm..............
............ok.............??

Pillar of Fire by night and cloud by day is more in line with tornado-like activity, except this *phenomenon*apparently never vanished during the whole 40-years of wandering around the wilderness. Yes, it moved around from spot to spot, but never vanished -- except to enter into the mobile Temple tent.. and then moved outside -- became visible again, etc.

What boggles me, is that since the ark of the covenant was made and buried in ancient times, yet the current new Temple Institute staff claim that they know exactly where that ARK currently is, but won't touch it until the Messiah shows up (and there protection of it / situation is partly *political* in nature) -- how is anyone else going to know (or be convinced in believing) if the contents that were inside the ARK is genuine, if the Temple Institute won't touch it ahead of time? They said they will bring it out, when the appointed time comes, and NOT before. If they wait for the Christian version of the story, they'll be waiting for a very long time.. (Seven years from the time the 70th week begins the countdown clock again -- to the end of this age and the beginning of the next millennia -- with Messiah ruling over the earth -- see Rev. 19:1-16.)

Perhaps the keepers of the ark don't believe in your whacky cult?

I heard that interview/comment session. I think Trump was being facetious.. tho he could have been downright serious as well. We may never know, especially if someone else becomes President.

Do -you- joke about shooting people?
Would -you- do it if you were running for President?

I heard the interview from a 3rd person, who either knew the case, or heard of it. The lady in question also had her house vandalized and sought police protection or something like that. Don't remember which "lady" it was, but she may have been encountered Hillary in recent years and had issues from other things that Hillary may have done, as well. That's all I remember. I don't think it's in the news, because it was on someone's taped broadcast with a special guest, and I don't remember who that person was.. sorry.
I'm not always tuned in to the itty bitty details on audio-taped interviews (because I hear too many of them,and they get blurry after a while).. the ones that do stick out in (my) memory, often are of the strange variety.. You kind of don't forget about houses being vandalized or people getting knocked off.. who and where ends up being the foggy stuff.. So, this was several weeks (or months?) ago, when I heard about it.

..................riiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhtttttt................

I didn't create it. Mitt Romney brought it up. *grin*

ok...........

Just so I remember what this was about -- it's Audits. Trump was probably audited before, but he was publicly complaining about it shortly after he said he was against "Obamacare". So was Michael Savage and a few others on the Republican/conservative political slant. They all seemed to end up getting audited shortly after voicing anti-ACA rants. Haven't heard about too many Dems being audited, tho for that same health care issue.

That was an actual issue, and one where Republicans -were- treated unfairly.

Tap out on what? Sleep? I need to sign off now for that..

Tap out = give up.

(For my own memory reminder benefit=) The item discussed was about having some sort of computer chip containing all of our personal data info for buying, selling, ID, etc.

Yes, it's the bar code thing, where the first, middle and last longer bars are the same as the number 6, so getting bar codes is the number of the beast..............

[Womble]

1: What makes you think I deem the division of India and Pakistan by the English any different?

The number of times you've been vocal about it vs. the number of times you've been vocal about Israel.

(I'll even temporarily ignore the "by the British" part, there's a bigger fish to fry).

3: Put people on the brink of nuclear war? Please, launch into a diatribe about how some people (with a great deal of power, not just Joe Shlep) in the most powerful, well armed, and nuclear capable nation on the planet are -also- willing to do whatever it takes to make sure you are around -JUST- to fulfil religious prophecy, and otherwise would not give a DAMN about your state, or your beliefs in the slightest.

You're comparing "making sure you're around" to "making sure a non-essential piece of territory remains on one side of the border rather than another"?

Well yeah. Earth, steaks. Survival of a nation or ownership of a piece of land that is less than 7% of territory and isn't in any way essential for survival. Totally comparable, once your morality is warped enough.

4: I don't make a "fuss" over Israel, I don't like the notion of -any- nation being created by religion on the modern era based on the "holy books" from the Bronze Age. Would you -like- me to make a fuss over India/Pakistan? Perhaps Vatican City would be better, they cut a deal with a fascist government to exist in the modern Era.

Yes, please do. With comparable regularity to your fuss over Israel. Otherwise it looks like you're singling Israel out for reasons that have nothing to do with any general notion you hold, but rather have to do with Israel specifically. Israel's case is not unique among world nations, yet there's something about Israel that uniquely gets your goat. So far, from the looks of it, the problem is in your goat.

You do not understand my views on Israel, because you only have two modes of dealing with people who question Israel, and that is that they are either Anti-Jewish, or Anti Israel. I do not disagree with the creation of an Israeli state, I disagree on it's location based on religious works. I do not "hate Jews" because, well, why would I? They are no different to any other people to me, so why would I "hate" them?

You don't disagree with the creation of an Israeli state, you only disagree with the Israeli people's right to self-determination. You will graciously allow them to have a state, subject to your whimsical limits, in the part of the world where you're okay with them existing. For a while.

Your views about Israel are no great mystery. You have an obsession with religion, specifically the Christian religion, and it's so bad that you can't keep it out of any subject you discuss. Your views on Israel are informed primarily by that obsession. Jammu and Kashmir, a conflict between Muslims and Hindus, doesn't get your goat because it doesn't lend you the opportunity to ride your favorite hobby horse. Israel gets your attention because you hate the Bible, and anything tangentially linked to the Bible gets tainted in your brain by association.

Israel's founders did not lay claim to restoration of the Biblical kingdoms. They were driven by self-determination, and inspired not by the Bible but by history - known and confirmable. It is inarguable that this land was the ancestral land of the people of Israel. It is inarguable that Jews have always lived in this land, and those who didn't, always dreamt of returning. It is inarguable that the Jews were the single largest population group in Jerusalem throughout its existence. None of it needs the Bible as a source of confirmation; it's all cold hard recorded facts.

Mr Womble, your justification for slaughtering the original owners of the land now know as Israel, who had no hand in Egypt keeping "your people" in bondage, and were just in the way, and ignoring that fact.
Please, make it long.

Aside from the general cretinism of using references to 3000 year old events to condemn someone today, I'd like to point out one more consequence of your obsession - you liberally oscillate between rejecting the Bible as ahistorical and taking the Biblical narratives over those of historians. Whichever makes the Jews look worse somehow, is the one you side with.

I've mentioned it before; the Biblical story of "slaughtering the original owners" remains unconfirmed as far as modern archaeology is concerned; the prevailing line of thinking is that the Israelites were, in fact, an outgrowth of the "original owners" and did not come from somewhere outside of the area. One can explain a religious person staunchly sticking to the Biblical narrative against that of historians; with you, however, we have a case of... a self-proclaimed Bible-hating pagan preferring the Bible over history. That is only explainable in terms of seeking confirmation for your prior assumptions that Israel's creation was somehow a bad thing. You're basically looking for straws to grasp at, and any straw goes.

[Falcon Horus]

FH: It's the UK government wanting to ban BDS from exercising its rights as a private organization....this includes the right to make dumba$$ decisions in whose products to boycott

If BDS is ready for the consequences of banning any products, whether they be from Israel or somewhere else, then I don't see what the government needs to interfere for.

it's like Abercrombie & Fitch only wanting beautiful people buying and wearing their clothes -- their sales figures dropped like a stone.

to me that represents the UK government sticking its overly large nose into affairs it has no business sticking its nose into

Perhaps to avoid a political or diplomatic mess.

..."holy books" from the Bronze Age.

*gasp*

Gatefan, the Bronze Age was first, way before those "holy book" -- they didn't even exist in that time and age.

Why is the US wanting allies to buzz the fake islands China has made in the South China Sea?
How is pissing them off a good thing?

Because the US is afraid China will use those islands for military purposes -- which they are used for. To control the body of water surrounding them.

Sidenote: I think it's super cool China builds their own islands.

Myth or fact, it's fact to Jewish history, regardless of how much rewriting of history the rest of the world pushes on current readers.

I suggest you stick to facts, and not myth. Or, better yet, follow the archaeological discoveries being made around the Temple mount (which have yielded some fantastic finds already) and notice how it's a mix of several civilizations: occupied or conquered by a long
succession of peoples—including Jebusites, Israelites, Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, Byzantines, early Muslims, Crusaders, Mamluks, Ottomans and the British.

Source: What is Beneath the Temple Mount?

...since the Chinese are already on that side of the planet! That would be a Great consolidation in use of resources already in the region.

Your knowledge of geography seems to be lacking a bit... China is nowhere near Syria or Iraq. Not even a neighbor of Afghanistan.

Heck China is closer to the US than it is to the IS Caliphate.

For reference: world map

I was by the way referring to the Great Wall of China, build from the 7th century BCE onwards all the way through to the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644).

Trump doesn't have that sort of issue going on with him...

First of all, I did not ask you why you wouldn't vote for Hillary, I asked you about Trump, so I'm rather disappointed you seem unable to come up with more than what you wrote.

According to Trump, he's being audited, has been audited for several years now, and doesn't know why..
Again, seriously speaking?

This was asked before, and mentioned again during the last GOP debate where Rubio gave Trump what for, and Cruz rode his wave. Carson and Kasich were the fifth wheels.

Audits happen all the time - my company is auditted every year. The results are used to calculate our budgets to spend in the following quarters.

...while it'd only interest folks who would either want to make a scandal out of it or rob him in some other way.

Yeah, cause who does that, right... wanting to know about someone's emails.... I mean, taxes.

And as far as security goes, I think he would probably create a business to close that electronic security hole into certain systems that so many trojan/back door hackers have been exploiting in the past decade or more. Too many vulnerabilities out
there.. which if the world is going to go ALL electronic with an internal chip at some future date, there is going to be a NEED for closing that hole/gap that currently exists in so many data systems at the moment.

LOL - Anonymous would have a fieldday!

Also, that chip already exists and people are already implanting them underneath their skin.

And seriously, is that all you can think of?

...can I claim all of Europe a pagan state because Alexander the Great had all of it at some stage?

Alexander the Great didn't have all of Europe. The Roman Emperor Hadrian had a good bit Europe and lots around the Mediteranean Sea.

How about the mongols?
I mean, they had most of Europe as well.

They heard stories.

Yeah, cause a woman with the will to run as President gives a toss about a blow job.
Just how pathetic do you think women are?

Ask Trump, he'll tell you.

Can I tap out??

Too late.

If I took all your money, would you stop being a Catholic?

He'd be a poor Catholic, I think.

[garhkal]

Audits happen all the time - my company is auditted every year. The results are used to calculate our budgets to spend in the following quarters.

And last time i looked at the rules, if you are being audited, your docs (meaning your tax returns) couldn't be made public..

[aretood2]

3: Put people on the brink of nuclear war? Please, launch into a diatribe about how some people (with a great deal of power, not just Joe Shlep) in the most powerful, well armed, and nuclear capable nation on the planet are -also- willing to do whatever it takes to make sure you are around -JUST- to fulfil religious prophecy, and otherwise would not give a DAMN about your state, or your beliefs in the slightest.

Are you talking about America? Because that little diatribe is absent in most debates and coverage of the issue around here. Yeah, there are some folks around that feel that Israel is some fulfillment of some prophecy, but that really doesn't factor into the debate. If anything it is the impetus of the US back in the good old days of calling Jews communists being able to back a Jewish state...which was done out of fear that they would turn to the Soviet Union.

In the USA's decision to recognize Israel, cold war concerns were primary. Guilt over the Holocaust were secondary. The bible was really far away as far as motivations are concerned. Especially considering the anti-semetic nature of American society at the time (Walt Disney anyone?). Sure it wasn't as bad as it was in Europe, but it wasn't a walk in the park for American Jews either.

4: I don't make a "fuss" over Israel, I don't like the notion of -any- nation being created by religion on the modern era based on the "holy books" from the Bronze Age. Would you -like- me to make a fuss over India/Pakistan? Perhaps Vatican City would be better, they cut a deal with a fascist government to exist in the modern Era.

The problem here is that you completely disqualify Israel's location because it happens to factor in the Bible. It's immaterial even irrelevant that it is their historical homeland. And speaking from a scientific perspective...Jews are "indigenous" to that land and not Palestinians. But you'd discount that irrevocable fact because the Bible is somehow involved too.

[Gatefan1976]

The number of times you've been vocal about it vs. the number of times you've been vocal about Israel.

(I'll even temporarily ignore the "by the British" part, there's a bigger fish to fry).

Womble, it's a political discussion thread, populated by mainly Americans, and Israel is a "big deal" for some of them.
Has it crossed your mind that I speak about Israel more simply due to the fact that it is a -topic- more?

You're comparing "making sure you're around" to "making sure a non-essential piece of territory remains on one side of the border rather than another"?

I did not bring nukes into this discussion, you did.

Well yeah. Earth, steaks. Survival of a nation or ownership of a piece of land that is less than 7% of territory and isn't in any way essential for survival. Totally comparable, once your morality is warped enough.

I don't even know what you are raving about at this stage.
7% of what?
Do you mean Jerusalem?

Yes, please do. With comparable regularity to your fuss over Israel. Otherwise it looks like you're singling Israel out for reasons that have nothing to do with any general notion you hold, but rather have to do with Israel specifically. Israel's case is not unique among world nations, yet there's something about Israel that uniquely gets your goat. So far, from the looks of it, the problem is in your goat.

Its a political discussion thread, inhabited by mainly Americans, it is a "hot topic" in American politics. I complain about guns just as much, but when you posted your link about guns in Israel, did I go off on a "Anti-Israeli rant"?
Nope.
I stuck to the topic of guns, pointed out that the restrictions being put forward in the debate were all reasonable and simply moved along.
In fact, this current spat is over me -defending- Israel, not attacking it. I pointed out that MG was -using- Israel in an unfair way, Yet -I- am the one being forced to defend my position.
Ok man, ok.

You don't disagree with the creation of an Israeli state, you only disagree with the Israeli people's right to self-determination.

Wrong, totally, unreservedly, wrong.
I don't know how many times I have to say that, but it never seems to sink in. I disagree with the -reasons- why it was created where it is, no more, nada, zip, zilch, zero, bugger all, snowballs chance in hell etc etc.
You will continue to not believe me, but quite frankly, I don't care anymore.

You will graciously allow them to have a state, subject to your whimsical limits

There is no "whimsy" involved.

, in the part of the world where you're okay with them existing. For a while.

For a while?
For a While...............

Your views about Israel are no great mystery. You have an obsession with religion, specifically the Christian religion, and it's so bad that you can't keep it out of any subject you discuss.

Garbage.
Pure, unadulterated garbage. It comes into what I post when it is -relevant-, otherwise, I could quite happily leave it out of the room.

Your views on Israel are informed primarily by that obsession.

No, they are not.

Jammu and Kashmir, a conflict between Muslims and Hindus, doesn't get your goat because it doesn't lend you the opportunity to ride your favorite hobby horse.

It does not get my goat because it is
A: It has never, to my knowledge been a topic on this thread.
B: I don't know enough about it to speak of it.
Strangely enough, I actually don't go out of my way to research things just to get my knickers in a twist over, I don't see it as all that useful.

Israel gets your attention because you hate the Bible, and anything tangentially linked to the Bible gets tainted in your brain by association.

Yeah, I'm a big Jesus hater.............
Oh, and I hate them rabbinical interpretations of the Torah.........
Can you tell me what else I hate so I can put it on my hate list?
Thanks

Israel's founders did not lay claim to restoration of the Biblical kingdoms. They were driven by self-determination, and inspired not by the Bible but by history - known and confirmable. It is inarguable that this land was the ancestral land of the people of Israel. It is inarguable that Jews have always lived in this land, and those who didn't, always dreamt of returning. It is inarguable that the Jews were the single largest population group in Jerusalem throughout its existence. None of it needs the Bible as a source of confirmation; it's all cold hard recorded facts.

I don't believe I have ever argued against any of that.
I have argued against that their previous ownership gives them any "special dispensation" to get them back, for any reason. I have argued that their ownership is not a clear historical line, in fact NO city or region in that part of the world -does- have a clear historical line due to the warlike nature of the region. "There were always Jews" is a historically FALSE statement as "cold hard evidence" of previous civilizations exist that predate the existence of Judaism.
So, go ahead, argue your historical "ownership" and watch the mountains of evidence, -cold hard facts- dispel your illusions.

Aside from the general cretinism of using references to 3000 year old events to condemn someone today,

Ahh, another false assumption. I don't use it to condemn, I use it to point out facts. I do not believe I have ever condemned -anyone- from Israel "because Israeli/Jew"
This is getting tiresome.

I'd like to point out one more consequence of your obsession - you liberally oscillate between rejecting the Bible as ahistorical and taking the Biblical narratives over those of historians. Whichever makes the Jews look worse somehow, is the one you side with.

Has it -ever- crossed your mind that I "speak the language" of the person asking the question?
When I speak to FH, I speak of history, because that is her "language", when I speak to MG, or SG, I speak to biblical narratives, because that is -their- language? When I speak to Tood, I go between the two based on the subject at hand.
Why do you think I do that?

I've mentioned it before; the Biblical story of "slaughtering the original owners" remains unconfirmed as far as modern archaeology is concerned; the prevailing line of thinking is that the Israelites were, in fact, an outgrowth of the "original owners" and did not come from somewhere outside of the area.

So, they were not the original owners?
What is your historic claim then?
None.
What is your religious claim?
You slaughtered the inhabitants because God told you to.
So, still not the owners, except via conquest, but that's a taboo subject and you still can claim it, even though you lost it via conquest, or in some readings, divine decree.

Which one of these gives you a valid claim again?

One can explain a religious person staunchly sticking to the Biblical narrative against that of historians; with you, however, we have a case of... a self-proclaimed Bible-hating pagan preferring the Bible over history.

Yeah................
See above.

That is only explainable in terms of seeking confirmation for your prior assumptions that Israel's creation was somehow a bad thing.

Yeah, that's right, you got me. I'm just a god hating anti-Semite who wishes you would all burn, would you like my stormfront login codes as well?

You're basically looking for straws to grasp at, and any straw goes.

Yep.

[Gatefan1976]

Are you talking about America? Because that little diatribe is absent in most debates and coverage of the issue around here. Yeah, there are some folks around that feel that Israel is some fulfillment of some prophecy, but that really doesn't factor into the debate.

Yes, it doesn't factor at all, which is why the Republicans felt it was nessesary to invite the Prime Minister of Israel to speak to congress about how important Israel is?
But yeah, it's a "minor factor, hardly spoken about"
Is that like when the news covers the Republican pandering to Israel as a "important step" in becoming the Republican candidate, or how important the "evangelical vote" is?
Please Tood.

If anything it is the impetus of the US back in the good old days of calling Jews communists being able to back a Jewish state...which was done out of fear that they would turn to the Soviet Union.

So the US wanted to "own them" first?

In the USA's decision to recognize Israel, cold war concerns were primary. Guilt over the Holocaust were secondary. The bible was really far away as far as motivations are concerned. Especially considering the anti-semetic nature of American society at the time (Walt Disney anyone?). Sure it wasn't as bad as it was in Europe, but it wasn't a walk in the park for American Jews either.

I will not argue with your reasoning here. Yes, Israel was supported to be a military stop gap in the M-E. In essence, they were USED. The US did not support them for religious or "guilty" reasons at all. When I speak of people in the US -now- supporting Israel, I speak to the fact that the Republican Party has changed the entire notion of conservative to not mean "fiscally conservative" or "small government" conservative as it once stood for, but -morally and socially conservative-. This change was fuelled by the introduction, nay embrace of the "moral majority" as represented by the socially conservative evangelicals who injected religious morals into the political process, despite the separation of church and state.
Even the Tea party, which was obstensibly created to return "conservative government values" could not escape the now ever-present touch of the religious right.

The problem here is that you completely disqualify Israel's location because it happens to factor in the Bible.

To a degree, yes. I don't think anyone has a right to land based on biblical claims. I also know that Jeruselam and it's surrounds were not the only choice put forward when establishing a Jewish homeland.

It's immaterial even irrelevant that it is their historical homeland.

If I could find a Caananite, would they have the right to kick the Jews out because they were there before them?
That's the question I keep asking myself here Tood.
If my claim is historical, should the older historical people be allowed to kick you out?
If my claim is Religious, can I find a follower of an older religion and kick you out?

And speaking from a scientific perspective...Jews are "indigenous" to that land and not Palestinians. But you'd discount that irrevocable fact because the Bible is somehow involved too.

From a scientific perspective, Jews are not a "race", they are tribes that share a religious belief structure.
Ask yourself this.
Why is Egypt not the "historical homeland" of the Jewish people?
It's where the tribes come from, it's where they united, it is the home of their greatest prophet, and it is where they were freed from slavery.
Israel holds -no historical consequence- for the Jewish people -in terms of origin-, but it holds a great, great deal of religious consequence for them as it is the "promised land".

Which argument do you think holds more weight for them?

[SGalisa]

GF & FH =)
I tried to piece these quotes together, so I'm not repeating too much..

Trump doesn't have that sort of issue going on with him, as far as from what I think I've been hearing.

First of all, I did not ask you why you wouldn't vote for Hillary, I asked you about Trump, so I'm rather disappointed you seem unable to come up with more than what you wrote.

hmmm... Do I need to refresh your memory to the exact question?

But please, do tell me what makes him "less bad than what we think he is"?

here was my reply--

Let's see.. Whatever is considered less "evil" than what Hillary has waiting in the winds of time, especially for those she feels oppose her. Oooooo! There's a bunch of stories on that, where she's already suspected of hiring "hit men" against certain (family members of) ladies who were actively railing against (*free willy*) Bill during his presidency...

..And I forget the name of the one lady, who's husband got murdered -- which was believed to circle back to Hillary from some sort of conversation the two ladies had, but the details of the deceased husband's "accident" seemed to fall into that suspected hit list area, and it wasn't the dead guy that was in the news for months and months, but somebody else. Heard similar *threats* were given to the other gals or guys who landed on that interfering zone area.

Trump doesn't have that sort of issue going on with him, as far as from what I think I've been hearing.

And---

Yeah, cause a woman with the will to run as President gives a toss about a blow job.
Just how pathetic do you think women are?
. . .
What?

Ok. Did some research. Found some articles mentioning what I thought I heard, but couldn't remember ALL of the details. Had lots of articles to choose from, but here's only a few with the main issues in question highlighted..

The ladies who rejected Bill Clinton's advances and claimed they were being threatened (and still are)-- please see links to articles in spoiler quotes--

Spoiler:

"Hillary's woes show that young women 'get' feminism"

By Heather Robinson (article appears in the New York Post)
February 17, 2016, 8:23pm
( © 2016 NYP Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved)

... both Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick report being threatened by Hillary — Willey even claiming detectives hired by Hillary threatened her children as well ...

Those are strong accusations there. But there's plenty more.

Spoiler:

"Woman who accused Bill Clinton of assault to campaign against Hillary presidential run"
( © 2016 KFGO-790 )
By Jonathan Allen
(Reporting by Jonathan Allen, editing by Ross Colvin)
Monday, February 08, 2016 5:33 a.m. CST

...
Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer who says Bill Clinton groped her in an Oval Office hallway in 1993 when she came to him tearfully seeking a paid job, said she had agreed to become a paid national spokeswoman for a group being created by Roger Stone.
...
"This gives me more of an opportunity to get this message out to young voters who weren't even born or don't even remember what happened and to the women who have suffered," Willey told Reuters.
...
Stone released a book last year called "The Clintons' War on Women," for which Willey wrote the foreword.
...
Stone has also helped to set up an online fundraising page to help raise money to pay for Willey's mortgage, he said. She said she has been in financial difficult since her husband's suicide and is facing foreclosure on her Virginia home this month.

Apparently,the story goes this way, Kathleen's husband was committing suicide during the very day/moment Bill Clinton had Kathleen in his office and within his literal grasp. Now, why would Willey's husband commit suicide *before* he even would have heard of what the President did to Kathleen during those moments behind closed doors? Unless they were both desperate for money (a paid job), the issue of Kathleen's husband committing suicide prior to her encounter with the President *incident* sounds a tad suspicious.. who's telling the truth?

Here's more about Kathleen's husband's mysterious death incident--

Spoiler:

"Longtime Bill Clinton sex-assault accuser says Hillary 'enabled it to happen again and again and again and again'"

By David Martosko, Us Political Editor For Dailymail.com
Published: 12:03 EST, 1 June 2015, Updated: 15:00 EST, 1 June 2015

...(caption under photo reads---)
"SCORNED: Kathleen WIlley claims Hillary Clinton set out to destroy her reputation after she rebuffed Bill Clinton's sexual advances in the Oval Office in 1993, and told her story five years later"

...Together with her husband Ed, Willey had been among the Clintons' earliest and most ardent campaigners in Virginia, and the president had singled her out at multiple campaign events for giant bear hugs that seemed to last longer than expected.

She was already a volunteer in the White House social office during the Clinton administration's first year, but needed a salary after her husband was investigated for embezzling from one of his legal clients.

He later committed suicide, although WIlley wrote in a 2007 book that she suspects the Clintons were involved in his death – which occurred on the same day she saw the president in the Oval Office.

Conflicting stories emerged of what Willey did after that fateful meeting.

Willey claimed she told her friend Julia Hyatt Steele about the encounter immediately. Steele claimed later that Willey said nothing for weeks, and later coached her on what to tell investigators.

Steele's disagreement with her, Willey has suggested, is a sign of Hillary Clinton's hand at work. She sees herself as a victim of intimidation of the sort meted out to women during the 1992 presidential campaign – those labeled 'bimbo eruptions' by the Clinton machine's senior strategists.

But Willey told Klein on Sunday that Hillary Clinton can't threaten all of Bill's female conquests into silence.

"...can't threaten... into silence..." -- implying..??

Kathleen's husband, Ed Willey, was (coincidentally) found dead from an apparent "gunshot wound" and he was next to his vehicle, which was also parked along a hunting trail..??! Ooooo. Is that some double speak there? (hunting trail?)

Spoiler:

"Kathleen Willey -- husband was found dead"

"Willey's second husband, Edward E. Willey Jr., was found dead from a gunshot wound next to his vehicle parked along a hunting trail in rural King and Queen County, Virginia on November 29, 1993 — the day she claimed Clinton's sexual misconduct took place. His death was determined to be a suicide by investigators. She wrote in her book, and acknowledged in a 60 Minutes interview her suspicions of the Clintons' involvement in her husband's death pointing to similarities with White House aide Vince Foster's death which was also determined to be a suicide."

a convenient *suicide* next to his parked vehicle...???!
timed just "Riiiiiiiiiiight.."


Oh, and just for an apparently huge sudzy, soap dish on the side --

Spoiler:

Former Miss Arkansas, Sally Miller gives tell all about the Clintons

By Ben Ashford In Little Rock, Arkansas For Dailymail.com
Published: 10:43 EST, 16 February 2016, Updated: 03:16 EST, 17 February 2016

...
* As far-fetched as her accusations may be, she is convinced that the Democratic presidential candidate {Hillary is behind a plot to silence her
* Miller insists she has been stalked, spied upon and plagued by anonymous phone calls since word of her memoir leaked out
* 'There is a vengeful, spiteful ugliness that some women have for other women. Hillary is just one of those women.'

"...
She claims the affair ended abruptly in late 1983 when Miller revealed her intention to stand for mayor of her hometown, Pine Bluffs, as a Republican.

It would remain a secret for nearly a decade until she went public on the Sally Jesse Raphael show in July 1992, a day after Clinton had been formally named by the Democratic Party as its Presidential candidate.

Miller insists her name had already been leaked to the newspapers and news channels who hounded her day and night for the story.

But her decision backfired when she was faced with a hostile New York audience packed with Democrat supporters and a largely skeptical media.
..."

Oh jeeze, no surprise there -- Key political maneuver there was her decision to become a Republican Mayor "But her decision backfired when she was faced with a hostile New York audience packed with Democrat supporters..."

Seems that will often be the situation when both political parties end up at odds against each other. Lesson that might be learned is never trust info to remain a secret to a Democrat, if the person seeking support is a Republican.


So, it's their word--of the ladies who were taken advantage of--against Hillary Clinton's word and vice-versa. If she hasn't done this already, Hillary will probably declare these women as delusional.

So, where's the dishy soap stuff on Donald Trump suspected of murdering his opposition / competition..? Somehow, his audited financial secrets don't quite compare with what Hillary is being accused of.
(sorry about the length of the above...)