The Political Discussion Thread

[Womble]

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?

That could explain it... if you weren't so often the first to bring it up.

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

I did, yes. The likelyhood of India -Pakistan nuclear conflict is far higher than between Israel and... well, anybody. I would've thought that the India - Pakistan conflict would be of higher concern, objectively speaking, but that's not the case with you, is it?

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

I mean Jammu and Kashmir, obviously.

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.

Because you had another hobby horse to ride

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.

Don't quite see how that amounted to defending, or MG's comment to attacking, but never mind.

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.

But you consistently misinterprete the actual reasons and resist - with a no small amount of desperation - when these reasons are pointed out. The reasons why Israel was founded where it was had nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with history and Jewish national identity. Yet you keep going 3000 years back.

There is no "whimsy" involved.

Oh but there is. Nothing but.

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

Again, yes. If you feel entitled to decide where other people belong and where they don't, it's only a matter of time before you decide that they don't belong where you have originally assigned them, either.

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.

That defense would've worked if you didn't seem to believe that it's relevant everywhere at any time.

There's a reason why this thread, ostensibly about politics, keeps turning to discussion of religion. And if you review it, it invariably starts with either you or Falcon Horus bringing it in.

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.

You don't go out of your way to research Israel either. You know woefully little. Yet it never stopped you.

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

You hate religion, so long as it's mainstream first-world religion. Anything exotic, syncretic and outright manufactured is not on your hate list.

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.

Which would amount to arguing that might makes right, and the latest ethnic cleansing is what determines legal ownership. Which is an argument you aren't willing to make elsewhere, and therefore I dismiss it as dishonest.

"There were always Jews" is a historically FALSE statement as "cold hard evidence" of previous civilizations exist that predate the existence of Judaism.

Since you're incapable, once again, of following a simple line of reasoning, I will rephrase; the Jewish residence in the Land of Israel, from the moment the Jews were established as a nation and up until the creation of modern Israel, was never completely interrupted, and at all times there was a movement of return. Obviously, there couldn't be Jews before there were Jews, but for the last 3000 years, there were Jews in Jerusalem at any given time, and most of the time they were the majority.

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"

You've never admitted as much, but my point is that when discussing Israel, you use standards you don't use elsewhere, you're willing to use the kind of arguments that you would find outrageous elsewhere (see above about ownership of territory), whether you consciously acknowledge it or not. I've been trying to get you to reflect on that, but you keep taking it as an assault.

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 don't think you do.

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?.

Again, you're failing to adequately read a simple statement.

There is no historical evidence of that mass slaughter you keep talking about. There is, however, a fair bit of evidence that the Jews were, in fact, an outgrowth of the Canaanites, and that the Canaanite language was an archaic form of Hebrew. In other words, the Jews did not displace the "original owners" but evolved from the original owners.

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?

Don't flatter yourself

You're not an anti-Semite, not consciously anyhow. You're a typical Westerner who has never quite bothered to make a coherent picture out of the hodgepodge of opinions and impressions that inform his view of the world. Like many, if not most, people you would be pretty shocked by the logical implications of the things you say and think, but that's about as far as it goes.

[Annoyed]

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.

Well, at first glance that appears to be one of the more boneheaded marketing strategies I've run into.. But you know what? Our society is so screwed up that it probably works. Hopefully the government stays out of it so it either succeeds or fails on its own merits, or lack thereof.

I imagine he's going to run into employment discrimination issues, though. Reminds me of a fight between the airlines and their stewardesses a few decades back, where the airlines tried to limit stewardess positions to "hotties" As I recall, that didn't fly too well.

[mad_gater]

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?

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

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

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.

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.

There is no "whimsy" involved.

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

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.

No, they are not.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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?

Yep.

I did not use Israel unfairly. I only pointed out that ANY government's banning of one group's right to boycott certain products, WHETHER OR NOT I AGREE WITH THIS GROUP'S CHOICE OF WHOSE PRODUCTS TO BOYCOTT, is quite the totalitarian can of worms to open. Such a can of worms could open the door to other government-mandated attacks on whatever rights and freedoms the UK citizenry currently enjoy. In this case I most certainly do NOT agree with BDS's boycotting of Israeli products. So in this case, though BDS's choice is likely to fail on its own merits without any government intervention necessary, I think they should still be allowed the choice. If the majority of rank and file UK citizens think it's a bad choice people will stop supporting BDS. I know I certainly would stop supporting BDS...if I was even supporting them to begin with, a scenario that is highly unlikely.

[Coco Pops]

Well, at first glance that appears to be one of the more boneheaded marketing strategies I've run into.. But you know what? Our society is so screwed up that it probably works. Hopefully the government stays out of it so it either succeeds or fails on its own merits, or lack thereof.

I imagine he's going to run into employment discrimination issues, though. Reminds me of a fight between the airlines and their stewardesses a few decades back, where the airlines tried to limit stewardess positions to "hotties" As I recall, that didn't fly too well.

I just read a story about B & H and telling hispanic workers to use a separate bathroom. Is there some kind of time warp in some parts of the US?

[Falcon Horus]

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

Convenient for Trump then...

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

And again, you give me what Hillary is evil for in your opinion, and not what makes Trump less evil?

I don't need to know about Hillary. Try sticking to her political ambitions and what she could do for the country, insteal of what allegedly happens to women her husband had affairs with.

Trump declared all Mexicans (legal and illegal) rapists (some might be good, he's not sure). He insulted just about every person who he didn't agree with (journalists, women). He made a mention to ridicule a few disabled journalists. He's a bigot, a racist and he loves to discriminate. Quite women unfriendly, if you ask me, and men unfriendly too. He wants to build a wall on the border, exclude every Muslim from entering the country -- the database was an idea --, keep Guantanamo open for "bad guys", thinks waterboarding is a good interrogation technique, and promises every opponent who wants to hear the right words he'll roll back marriage equality cause why give out equal benefits to spouses right. Or Obamacare, cause affordable healthcare, who needs that? No American needs that.

In fact, a local newspaper called him America's Putin - I think that's quite honestly an insult to Putin.

In comparison to your allegations towards Hillary -- I'd have to say he's no less evil. On you to disprove that theory. However, as of yet, you still haven't.

[SGalisa]

And again, you give me what Hillary is evil for in your opinion, and not what makes Trump less evil?

In case you still haven't figured it out, as far as most of us tracking the election coverages, at least Trump hasn't ((in the past or present)) sent out a hit squad against people opposed to him yet. Hillary, apparently has, based on those articles about her previous time spent in the White House's governmental power position. That's what was being being implied between the lines. No need to further explain. What Trump currently threatens to do with the immigration situation, etc., is not a personal vendetta, either -- but a governing issue, which may be a bluff or not.

Trump ... He insulted just about every person who he didn't agree with (journalists, women). He made a mention to ridicule a few disabled journalists. He's a bigot, a racist and he loves to discriminate.

Insulting people is not sending out a hit squad against those people. It's just his personality speaking out. I work with people who do that -- all the time, and they don't care who they insult, unless it's the person paying their paycheck, then they kind of watch what they say, but only to that particular individual(s)..

Trump ... Quite women unfriendly, if you ask me, and men unfriendly too.

Yeah, well, I can't say I approve of his foul mouthed language in some of the interviews, or whatever mic he's spoken into. Lots of other things I found a tad on either the vulgar side or not something a person would normally say to win Lots of votes. So, I really don't understand how the so-called polls are finding him as the favored top runner.

I don't need to know about Hillary. Try sticking to her political ambitions and what she could do for the country, insteal of what allegedly happens to women her husband had affairs with.

Tell that to the ladies who feel their lives (and those of their family members) are being threatened into silence, which translates as personal vendettas.. in contrast to whatever Trump is babbling about.
Again, it's their word against hers and hers against theirs. No one in this life will probably ever know what was or is really going on, other than the "war of words" being tossed about from both sides.

Anywho, since Hillary *won* the last round of debates against Sanders, apparently, it doesn't seem her past is going to be a problem with those who voted in favor of her / or approve of her more than Sanders.

Anyway, it's her *word* against the ladies who feel they are being (secretly?) stalked, etc. and their word against her. As GF noted, "we live in interesting times."

Wonder who Hillary's VP will be, if she wins the final election.

[Annoyed]

Lemme guess.. .Bill Clinton? *shudders*

[SGalisa]

Lemme guess.. .Bill Clinton? *shudders*

Doubt it. He doesn't look too well with his health.
My guess is -- that it would probably be someone who is female, and already high up there in some sort of executive position. Just a hunch; unless it ends up being Biden, which seems doubtful.

[Coco Pops]

And our wonderful allies in Saudi Arabia, such lovely people. :/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6900056.html

Human rights, who needs all that?

[Coco Pops]

check this out, this is how the Prime Minister of my country doesn't answer a simple question.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefan...zzz#.yfG6Dd9Ao

[Falcon Horus]

Lemme guess.. .Bill Clinton? *shudders*

We were talking about the elections over the weekend and that came up as well -- we thought it'd be hilarious. And then continued with who would be the First Lady when Hillary wins. Bill Clinton too...

Maybe she'll take Bernie as VP -- or Warren.

And our wonderful allies in Saudi Arabia, such lovely people. :/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6900056.html

Human rights, who needs all that?

Business as usual, you mean...

[Coco Pops]

We were talking about the elections over the weekend and that came up as well -- we thought it'd be hilarious. And then continued with who would be the First Lady when Hillary wins. Bill Clinton too...

Maybe she'll take Bernie as VP -- or Warren.



Business as usual, you mean...

Yeah but I wouldn't put a smiley there. What they are doing is barbaric and uncivilized

[Falcon Horus]

Yeah but I wouldn't put a smiley there. What they are doing is barbaric and uncivilized

And what do you call the death penalty?
Or, the limitation of rights?

Human rights are constantly being violated in a lot more countries than Saudi Arabia.

I give you human rights' violations in Australia, or the United States from the 2015 report.
Couldn't find Belgium in the list of countries but I'm sure we commit violations as well.

[garhkal]

And our wonderful allies in Saudi Arabia, such lovely people. :/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6900056.html

Human rights, who needs all that?

Yea who needs rights. Its crap like this that makes me NEVER understand how in anyway shape or form we can consider them our allies..

[SoulReaver]

And what do you call the death penalty?
Or, the limitation of rights?

Human rights are constantly being violated in a lot more countries than Saudi Arabia.

I give you human rights' violations in Australia, or the United States from the 2015 report.
Couldn't find Belgium in the list of countries but I'm sure we commit violations as well.

at least there's no death penalty in civilized Europe & europeans elect their leaders