FEINSTEIN- What's wrong with America

[TuxedoPk]

I continue to be amazed at the garbage spewing from the mouth of some of our country's elected officials. Our nation's threat comes not from across its borders but from the cancerous growth within that wants to redefine seperation of church and state and support Israel.

From yesterday's Senate hearings on Judge Roberts:

FEINSTEIN: During World War II, it turned out that Hungarian fascists and Nazi soldiers forced thousands of Jews, including men, women and children, to remove their shoes before shooting them and letting their bodies float down the Danube.

These shoes represent a powerful symbol of how religion has been used in catastrophic ways historically.

[MrsDigger]

Um...aside from the fact that supporting Israel is logistically, tactically, and ethically, a pretty good idea...

...remember when people used to post about how much they loved boating?

[TuxedoPk]

Darcy, I've got to believe that you at least agree with the following:

- The left has gone way too far trying to using the judicial system to redefine the original protections that seperation of church and state was intended to provide.

- The this provision was originally 'intended' to allow Americans to practice any form of Chrisitanity they choose, although scripted in such a way as to allow the peaceful and lawful practice of other religions. It was never meant to prohibit references to god.

- A speach about WWII, Nazis, and Jews has no place in the confirmation hearings of a Supreme Court Justice.

"Supporting Israel is logistically, tactically, and ethically, a pretty good idea..."
Wouldn't having a strong Palestinian ally in the same geographic region achieve the same logistic and tactical aspects?

How do you arrive at the position that there is anything ethical about supporting Israel?


Um...aside from the fact that supporting Israel is logistically, tactically, and ethically, a pretty good idea...

[ChromeGorilla]

...remember when people used to post about how much they loved boating?


I almost spit orange juice on the screen when I read that.......... Are you kidding...... when was your last "boating" post....... :biggrin: ;)

[gcarter]

"Supporting Israel is logistically, tactically, and ethically, a pretty good idea..."
Wouldn't having a strong Palestinian ally in the same geographic region achieve the same logistic and tactical aspects?

How do you arrive at the position that there is anything ethical about supporting Israel?
My name's not Darcy, but, It only makes since to support Israel.......
They are the only democracy in the area,
They have the only organized government,
They are the only capitalists,
They have the only organized military under a recognized government.
They have a much closer relationship to the USA,

Palestiians only recognize Arab countries and Egypt.

[MrsDigger]

I almost spit orange juice on the screen when I read that.......... Are you kidding...... when was your last "boating" post....... :biggrin: ;)

...I'm just trying to fit in! :lookaroun :boat:

[boldts]

Now, you all want to analize a real lefty, take the countries divorce laws. Because women have moaned and groaned for so long about how they are left with nothing, the laws are so pro women, it's ridiculas.

Take for instance, the woman leaves the marriage. Takes children with her including alot of items obtained because of the marriage. The man gets the royal shaft! Has to pay child support which is figured by a % of annual pay. Not by what is actually brought home or current bills being taken out of paycheck. Is told to seperate remaining objects in half with former mate and she can still sue the man for allimoney? Because she took said children, man has to prove her to be doing drugs, soliciting sex or some other out of the ordinary exercises. Doesn't matter whether she has the abilty or brain to raise a child. Also, depending on age of child, child has no right to say which parent they would rather be with. Sad thing is that say ex partner remarries and chidren are molested by new partner, only then does other parent have the right to go back into court and then be given custody of children.

If a partner in marriage leaves, there should be no rewards for doing so! Be different if partner was abused or something, but if it is their choice to go it alone, shouldn't they also go it alone money and possesion wise?

Sorry to get off subject. Laws are always adjusted for those doing the most complaining. For those of you considering marriage, good luck and I mean that sincerely. It's been an ongoing life learning experience for me for the last year. Just needed to vent!

[TuxedoPk]

Scott- I hear your pain. According to a poll in US News and World Report Marriage is still cited as the number one leading cause of divorce! It's a classic case where there was a real problem with dead beat dads and in the process of trying to correct it the scales of justice have swung too far in the opposite direction.

I think that alot of of our woes stem from Roe v. Wade and the issue of a woman's right to choose. Call me old fashioned but I preferred things when a woman didn't even have a right to suggest :yes: :beer:

In the words of the poet Kanye West, "I ain't sayn she a Gold Digger, but she ain't messing with no broke Nigga"

If you haven't already seen the "Gold Digger" video I think you'll like it
http://music.yahoo.com/ar-304131-videos--Kanye-West

[Rootsy]

Tux, i feel that it is my duty to inform you that you may want to put the gun to your head and pull the trigger now, and end your life humanely before a throng of severly pissed off women with dull butter knives and kosher salt show up on your doorstep sir...

[TuxedoPk]

Tux, i feel that it is my duty to inform you that you may want to put the gun to your head and pull the trigger now, and end your life humanely before a throng of severly pissed off women with dull butter knives and kosher salt show up on your doorstep sir...

brb... Doorbell.

[TuxedoPk]

Back. No women with butter knives, just some castrated guys handing our flyers to their coed shower. :biggrin:

[gcarter]

Wouldn't having a strong Palestinian ally in the same geographic region achieve the same logistic and tactical aspects?

How do you arrive at the position that there is anything ethical about supporting Israel?
Tux, I've been thinking about this ever since I posted the last time concerning this question.

It's a joke, right?
You're being facetious, right?
Come on, admit you are, being facetious!!!!

Cause, if you're serious, which organized terrorist organization would you pick to have as an ally?

What if there were a Palistinian civil war in the next two or three months (which there probably will be) and you picked the wrong group?
Then you would have the winner pissed off at you, AND the Israelies!!
Again, what if you picked the most promising terrorist group, but they started loosing, would we then be expected to supply troops and arms to that terrorist group?
Can you imagine having troops in Palestine, i.e.,the area Palistinians now occupy, and having 8 or 10 other groups stopping their civil war and attacking us?
Come on Rich... this idea is a "loose-loose" scenario, any way you look at it.

[TuxedoPk]

Before I support this position or share that it was made tongue in cheek... You were with me on everything in post 3 before this though, right?


Tux, I've been thinking about this ever since I posted the last time concerning this question.

It's a joke, right?
You're being facetious, right?
Come on, admit you are, being facetious!!!!

Cause, if you're serious, which organized terrorist organization would you pick to have as an ally?

What if there were a Palistinian civil war in the next two or three months (which there probably will be) and you picked the wrong group?
Then you would have the winner pissed off at you, AND the Israelies!!
Again, what if you picked the most promising terrorist group, but they started loosing, would we then be expected to supply troops and arms to that terrorist group?
Can you imagine having troops in Palestine, i.e.,the area Palistinians now occupy, and having 8 or 10 other groups stopping their civil war and attacking us?
Come on Rich... this idea is a "loose-loose" scenario, any way you look at it.

[ChromeGorilla]

In the words of the poet Kanye West, "I ain't sayn she a Gold Digger, but she ain't messing with no broke Nigga"

If you haven't already seen the "Gold Digger" video I think you'll like it
http://music.yahoo.com/ar-304131-videos--Kanye-West


Tux, I thought myself, Fish and BigPimpin were the oonly ones to listen to Kanye West and the likes...... thats a fairly new song too....... Damn your pretty hep for an old dude..... :biggrin.:

[joseph m. hahnl]

the government backs where the money is. and where they feel they'll benifit from it. palestines are poor people that have nothing for us to gain from.
as far as religion it self goes it is better to side with the nation that has the same ideals as you. which would be isreal. not to mention that their military is one of the strongest and most seasoned on earth . they have been at war for thousands of years. been persecuted by almost every other religion and empires past or present. and they have maintained. a force to be reconed with don't you think.

as far as the woman thing goes. and why the woman gets it all and poor little suck gets nothing

that jack ass in the black rob . yah the same guy that can't even do a simple arithmatic problem. oh yah that's the same guy that decided a tomatoe is a vegitable " when biologically it's a fruit along with the cucumber and the squash"

well that guy thinks he's gunna get a little if he gives everything to the chick.
oh yah and your lawyer. he too thinks he gunna get some.


so to any one who is in this situation. hire a woman attorney judge sees not only that he might get some but she's got money too. and she not interested in your x wife or her woman attorney. and best of all they are b?????
that was one of those words that might offend some woman.

beleive me the only thing i hold against woman is well that's my private matter." if you know what i mean"

and the one thing you forgot to mention the IRS fooks you too


joe.

[TuxedoPk]

Whad up.. Tux in da house. KW idnt no Pac but das ok. You dis this cracker calln him an old dude- but doncha worry- 'I ain't mad at cha' :cool!: Gotta go, my man Laurence Welk is on de video.


Tux, I thought myself, Fish and BigPimpin were the oonly ones to listen to Kanye West and the likes...... thats a fairly new song too....... Damn your pretty hep for an old dude..... :biggrin.:

[MrsDigger]

*sigh* I could offer a whetstone to those poor women armed only with butter knives...or give them the address to Cabela's, where they can find more suitable tools for evisceration and emasculation. Of course, it might be hard for said women to find the time to make it to Cabela's, much less go around ringing doorbells (do caves have doors? Do Neanderthals have doorbells? I'll have the roast duck...) whilst they are barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen...

Divorce is an ugly thing, and it certainly doesn't bring out the best in people of EITHER gender. The assumption that men are motivated by nothing more than the desire to "get some" does as great a disservice to the masculine gender as judicial activism does to jurisprudence.

Kanye West is a putz. And Jif is still better than Skippy.

[Patti]

Cabelas, good idea! :yes:

Good thing we have one close by..and it's Jamies favorite place to shop..i'm sure I could find something appropriate there :D

Thankfully he isn't a caveman..I'm lucky in that respect..

[Rootsy]

actually.. my philosophy is... never bring a knife to a gunfight... :biggrin:

[TuxedoPk]

It takes far more than a knife to emasculate a man... it takes a coed baby shower :)

"Kanye West is a putz."
While he's certainly not a talented rapper, he is a very talented producer.
BTW- What's Palestinian for 'putz'?

'And Jif is still better than Skippy'
It's nice to see that while our views differ in so many areas we always have common ground to come back to.


*sigh* I could offer a whetstone to those poor women armed only with butter knives...or give them the address to Cabela's, where they can find more suitable tools for evisceration and emasculation. Of course, it might be hard for said women to find the time to make it to Cabela's, much less go around ringing doorbells (do caves have doors? Do Neanderthals have doorbells? I'll have the roast duck...) whilst they are barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen...

Divorce is an ugly thing, and it certainly doesn't bring out the best in people of EITHER gender. The assumption that men are motivated by nothing more than the desire to "get some" does as great a disservice to the masculine gender as judicial activism does to jurisprudence.

Kanye West is a putz. And Jif is still better than Skippy.

[TuxedoPk]

George- I owe you a response.
No, I was not joking at all. A complex issue so this may take me a pass or two to convey my thoughts.

First is the issue of the legitimacy of an Israel state in Palestine. Second is the point you brought up about terrorism and specifically if we chose to support the wrong side. The final part you bring up is having US military in Palestein and having Palestinians fighting a civil war around us.

Without the need to go back over thousands of years of disputes between the Palestinians and Jews (which doesn't support the Jewish position), we can jump to the period immediately preceeding the creation of the state of Israel.

WWI, Palestine is controlled by the Anglo-French. The 'Sykes-Picot Agreement’ is signed promising Palestine to the Arabs in return for a revolutionary Arab liberation war against the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), which war in fact largely won the war in the Middle East for the Allied Powers.

France gets Syria and Lebanon, Britian gets Iraq, Palestine, and Jordan.

Armaments company Brunner Mond pushes the Brits to break their promise to the Palestinians and yield to the Zionists who would pledge their loyalty to Britain. Britain succoms with the most unfortunate ‘Balfour Declaration’. One of the primary concerns of Britain was to keep hold of the Suez canal which it thought could best be accomplished a weak Palestine. To this end they kept a Zion settlement within Palestine.

Right wing Jews were the first terrorists in the region- NOT the Palestinians. The Jews took up against the British. Ex-premier Shamir even proudly proclaimed his terrorist past. *The term terrorist was not used when used by the Jews against the Brits, only when the Palestinians fought against Israel for their land.

After the UN partition in 1948, Israel with the backing of Britain and France, annexed large portions of Arab lands. British/French backing was replaced by support from the United States in the subsequent 5 Arab-Israel wars each stealing more land from the Arabs.

Arafat's PLO is what I assume you are referring to as the terrrorist organization. This organization rightly refused to recognise Israel’s right to exist as a state on the basis of Israeli seizure of Palestinian land and its forcible expulsion its inhabitants. As this reflected the views of most Arabs, the PLO was their primary voice until the other Arab states began having their own national interests and ecomomic concerns and showed lessened concern for the Palestinian cause.

I contend that by supporting Israel over the Palestinians we supported the wrong side. Ultimately whichever side we supported would be the prevailing military and economic winner. The choice to support Israel was not the moral decision, the ethical decision (for our ally Britain to support based on their promises), nor the best 'strategic' alliance. And we ended up supporting the original terrorists!

My belief that this was not the best strategic alliance is based on the fact that we gained nothing inheritantly from the Jews and lost our ties to the entire Arab world. (Any of the strategic benefits that have been established with Israel would have been established with whomever we backed be it Jew, Palestinian, or Martian)

I conculde with a glimpse of how the world might have been had we supported the correct side-A strong tie between the United States and the Arab world, lower gas prices, no 9/11, no Gulf Wars...


Tux, I've been thinking about this ever since I posted the last time concerning this question.

It's a joke, right?
You're being facetious, right?
Come on, admit you are, being f!!!!

Cause, if you're serious, which organized terrorist organization would you pick to have as an ally?

What if there were a Palistinian civil war in the next two or three months (which there probably will be) and you picked the wrong group?
Then you would have the winner pissed off at you, AND the Israelies!!
Again, what if you picked the most promising terrorist group, but they started loosing, would we then be expected to supply troops and arms to that terrorist group?
Can you imagine having troops in Palestine, i.e.,the area Palistinians now occupy, and having 8 or 10 other groups stopping their civil war and attacking us?
Come on Rich... this idea is a "loose-loose" scenario, any way you look at it.

[joseph m. hahnl]

*sigh

Divorce is an ugly thing, and it certainly doesn't bring out the best in people of EITHER gender. The assumption that men are motivated by nothing more than the desire to "get some" does as great a disservice to the masculine gender as judicial activism does to jurisprudence. .


divorce is a by product of un ugly marriage. as you can see most of us who are divorced are dammaged goods. abuse also knows no gender. but for some reason if a man is abused phisically and mentally by a woman know one cares and there aren't any laws protecting men. for instance if there is a domestic dispute it is allways the man who gets arrested regardless if he has been assalted by the woman. if you want to dispute that claim i'm sure any man will tell you the same thing. domestic violence laws a geared to protect women from men and not the other way around. and in the courts it is allways prazumed that the children are better off with the mother. as said before the woman must commit a crime for the father to get the children.

when it should be the one who has the best means for supporting the house hold with out having to mooch of the other.


and if you have been before a judge oyu explain the ignorance and the predjudice.


joe

[gcarter]

George- I owe you a response.
No, I was not joking at all. A complex issue so this may take me a pass or two to convey my thoughts.

First is the issue of the legitimacy of an Israel state in Palestine. Second is the point you brought up about terrorism and specifically if we chose to support the wrong side. The final part you bring up is having US military in Palestein and having Palestinians fighting a civil war around us.

Without the need to go back over thousands of years of disputes between the Palestinians and Jews (which doesn't support the Jewish position), we can jump to the period immediately preceeding the creation of the state of Israel.

WWI, Palestine is controlled by the Anglo-French. The 'Sykes-Picot Agreement’ is signed promising Palestine to the Arabs in return for a revolutionary Arab liberation war against the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), which war in fact largely won the war in the Middle East for the Allied Powers.

France gets Syria and Lebanon, Britian gets Iraq, Palestine, and Jordan.

Armaments company Brunner Mond pushes the Brits to break their promise to the Palestinians and yield to the Zionists who would pledge their loyalty to Britain. Britain succoms with the most unfortunate ‘Balfour Declaration’. One of the primary concerns of Britain was to keep hold of the Suez canal which it thought could best be accomplished a weak Palestine. To this end they kept a Zion settlement within Palestine.

Right wing Jews were the first terrorists in the region- NOT the Palestinians. The Jews took up against the British. Ex-premier Shamir even proudly proclaimed his terrorist past. *The term terrorist was not used when used by the Jews against the Brits, only when the Palestinians fought against Israel for their land.

After the UN partition in 1948, Israel with the backing of Britain and France, annexed large portions of Arab lands. British/French backing was replaced by support from the United States in the subsequent 5 Arab-Israel wars each stealing more land from the Arabs.

Arafat's PLO is what I assume you are referring to as the terrrorist organization. This organization rightly refused to recognise Israel’s right to exist as a state on the basis of Israeli seizure of Palestinian land and its forcible expulsion its inhabitants. As this reflected the views of most Arabs, the PLO was their primary voice until the other Arab states began having their own national interests and ecomomic concerns and showed lessened concern for the Palestinian cause.

I contend that by supporting Israel over the Palestinians we supported the wrong side. Ultimately whichever side we supported would be the prevailing military and economic winner. The choice to support Israel was not the moral decision, the ethical decision (for our ally Britain to support based on their promises), nor the best 'strategic' alliance. And we ended up supporting the original terrorists!

My belief that this was not the best strategic alliance is based on the fact that we gained nothing inheritantly from the Jews and lost our ties to the entire Arab world. (Any of the strategic benefits that have been established with Israel would have been established with whomever we backed be it Jew, Palestinian, or Martian)

I conculde with a glimpse of how the world might have been had we supported the correct side-A strong tie between the United States and the Arab world, lower gas prices, no 9/11, no Gulf Wars...
Of course you know I'm going to disagree with almost everything you said.
The Jews had lived in this land ever since the return from Egypt (sorry- I don't have a date at hand) till 70 AD, when Rome created the Diaspora after a very severe civil war. All the jews were kicked out of the region after almost every Jew in Jerusalem was starved to death because of a Roman seige. The Jews largely went to Eastern Europe, Russia, and Spain.
They waited, sometimes not so patiently, till in the late 19th century at which time glimmers of possibilities of a return to their homeland started to arise.
The Arab mind is almost incapable of self governance. Just look at the history of the region, one despotic dictator after another.
The typical Arab will live under incredibly horrible conditions as long as it's an Arab that has their boot on his neck. But just change to a Western ruler, even if his condition changes radically for the better, and he'll rebel.
The only reason Turkey has a so called democracy is because, I've been told, Attaturk told them too.
While the 20th century historical points you mention are correct, the motivation behind your arguments are just as flawed as your attitude that the US should wear sack cloth and ashes, and apologise for being succesful.
Just one more thought, the displaced Palestinian people are the children of some of the former inhabitants who, at the urging of the surrounding Arab countries and Egypt, left all in 1948 to wait on the sidelines while these same countries were going to push the Israelies into the Mediteranian Sea.
The funny thing is, the Palestinians who stayed in place kept everything they had, and have largely prospered with the Israelies, while the ones who left and were going to profit, are still waiting for their unfulfilled reward.
Thank you, but I'll stick with the Israelies. At least they know how to live together as a country.

[mattyboy]

politics and world salvation wow and boating too !!!!!!! we got it all :p

this is your mind :cool: , this is your mind on blowboats :nuke:



:)

[Darrell]

Hmmmmm, you think that there is some political site on the web that is being overtaken by boating threads right now. :rlol: :rlol: :rlol:

Darrell

[Islander]

politics and world salvation wow and boating too !!!!!!! we got it all :p

:)

Not quite...no more naturalists. :biggrin.:

[TuxedoPk]

Now that's funny!


Hmmmmm, you think that there is some political site on the web that is being overtaken by boating threads right now. :rlol: :rlol: :rlol:

Darrell

[TuxedoPk]

George-

Historically, Jews have presented challenges and problems to many nations of the world for thousands of years leading to their exile or diaspora a number of times. These exiles were the direct result of the jew's own actions and revolts against various world powers.

The Babylonians first exiled the Jews from Judea in 586BC. Jews were further scattered and exiled during their three major conflicts they provoked against the Roman Empire (Jewish-Roman war of 66, Kitos war of 115, Bar Kohhba in 132) and were banned from living in Jeruselem and Judea. In essence there has been a 2000 year old historical 'restraining order' against the land they now occupy. And yes in terms of handling the uprisings, Titus certainly knew how to throw a good siege.

"They waited, sometimes not so patiently, till in the late 19th century at which time glimmers of possibilities of a return to their homeland started to arise."

What homeland did they have any rights to?
By the late 1800s the people of Europe had their fill of the Jews and antisemitism was growing fast. The 'glimmer' you referred to was an attempt to combat this rising sentiment and eventually obtained British support which resulted in the British Mandate of Palestine. Even Hertzl the founder of the Zionist movement in 1896 named Argentina as a possible location for a Jewish state.

"The Arab mind is almost incapable of self governance."
This sounds like those textbooks for southern plantation owners teaching them what niggas is capable of learning and what niggas is not capable of learning.

"Just look at the history of the region, one despotic dictator after another. The typical Arab will live under incredibly horrible conditions as long as it's an Arab that has their boot on his neck. But just change to a Western ruler, even if his condition changes radically for the better, and he'll rebel."
What Arab and Western rulers are you referring to here? 20th Century?

"The only reason Turkey has a so called democracy is because, I've been told, Attaturk told them too"
Mustafa Ataturk did an amazing job at liberating his people, establishing the Turkish republic, and presiding over the new nation during its first 15 years. The civil liberties, especially the rights of women and the poor were quite impressive for their time and in many cases on par with our most progressive American policies of the day.

"While the 20th century historical points you mention are correct, the motivation behind your arguments are just as flawed as your attitude that the US should wear sack cloth and ashes, and apologise for being succesful."

Thank you for acknowleging that my historical points are accurate while attacking both my motivation and attitude. If you put just a little more effort into that sentence and weaved in something about my mother you'd have hit a grand slam :)

While you have yet to factually point out a single flaw in any of my arugments, what do you interpret my motivation to be?

I'm a capitalist and am the last person to feel individuals or nations such as ours should have to apologise to anyone when they innovate and build a better mousetrap.

What I have stated is that we should acknowlege that our nation's actions have not always been proper. (There seems to be a resistance to acknowlege any 'blemishes' other than slavery and the treatment of the native americans) I never asked you or anyone to appologise, show remorse, or wear sack cloth. *If Wes will auction off a picture of you wearing sack cloth though, I'll be happy to start the bidding at $25 :)

"Just one more thought, the displaced Palestinian people are the children of some of the former inhabitants who, at the urging of the surrounding Arab countries and Egypt, left all in 1948 to wait on the sidelines while these same countries were going to push the Israelies into the Mediteranian Sea.
The funny thing is, the Palestinians who stayed in place kept everything they had, and have largely prospered with the Israelies, while the ones who left and were going to profit, are still waiting for their unfulfilled reward."

While some economically challenged negros in this country are descendents from free blacks, and some very successful negros in this country can trace their lineage to slave ancestors, having the role of 'house nigga' still isn't considered a great career path. Our founding fathers were pretty much all successful under British rule yet though independence was the better choice- the same holds true for the Palestinian people.

"Thank you, but I'll stick with the Israelies."
Unfortunately for the time being we are all stuck with Israel.

"At least they know how to live together as a country"
What they know is how to start wars and survive as parasites on other nations be it the Roman Empire, the British, or the United States. Too many people are concerned about the influence the UN might have over US policy while they stand by quietly out of ignorance or apathy while our nation increasingly becomes Israel's bitch. I contend that honest reflection of our past isn't un-American- allowing ourselves to be some other people's bitch is.

[gcarter]

Tux, I don't have any problem w/ most of the historical "landmarks" you mention. Just how you interpret them.
The people we now call Jews, were conquered first by the Persian emporer Nebuchadnezzer and enslaved. That's how they did it then. It wasn't that these people were "banned" from living there (your words), they were "enslaved" and taken to Babylon to perform labor. They stayed there until they were allowed to return.
You make it sound like these people were squatters living there causing problems and the rightful owners came along and kicked them out. In fact,
while they were enslaved and removed, there was no one living there. Jerusalem, in fact, was an empty city that quickly became a ruin.
Jews just didn't like to be captured. They had a proud history of self governance. They were quite good at it.
When the Romans came along, again the Jews didn't want to be governed by Rome. That's pretty easy for me to understand. I wouldn't want Rome to govern me either.
Remember other peoples had a problem with Roman rule. The Brittish tribes managed to kick out the Romans after some battles. Also remember the Phoenicians attempted to conquer Rome, and almost managed it. Eventually the Germans were succesful. So why is it so hard to believe the Jews simply didn't want to be ruled by someone else?
So my problem with your interpretation of history is that you seem to be saying the Jews have never had a right to live in this region, when in fact, they came into existance in this tiny piece of land. They were never a nomadic tribe that continuously wandered around.They inhabited the land, prospered, multiplied, and became a successful nation there. But the most important point is they existed in this region for hundreds of years until the Romans kicked them out.
The Jewish tradition had always been that they would one day return. That was their historical homeland. Collectively, as a people, they always believed in a Jewish nation in what was known as Palestine.
My points about the Arab mentality about self governance is absolutely true. They have no history of self rule. The Ottoman empire started in 1100 AD (I think) and lasted til 1920. The emperor picked the wrong side of WW I to fight on and lost. Attaturk and his allies (the Young Turks, yes that's where that term came from) managed to transform the former empire into the first democracy in the whole region (The only other one is Israel). But my point about Attaturk was that the turkish people had no natural inclination to self rule or democracy. It succeeded only because of the strong leadership of Attaturk, who told the people "this is how it's going to be" and they went along.
The dispossed Palestinians are exacly the people I described. They left Palestine to wait for the war to go well for them. It didn't. They lost everything. Instead of blaming the people who made the promises, they blame the Jews for winning. Duhhhh!!
As far as this country goes, we were the winners. Of course we were right. You can't easily judge the morals of history with todays rules. That is where Hitler and Stalin failed, the world had come to a point it was understood that genocide was wrong. A century before, it may have been judged differently at that time. Just like it's not fair to say slavery was wrong in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. It was the law of the land. It wasn't "wrong" to have slaves. The change in attitude came over a long period of time.
I'm personally pleased with our history. I believe we did a better job than most any other country in the same period of time.

[Dr. Dan]

Now, you all want to analize a real lefty, take the countries divorce laws. Because women have moaned and groaned for so long about how they are left with nothing, the laws are so pro women, it's ridiculas.

Take for instance, the woman leaves the marriage. Takes children with her including alot of items obtained because of the marriage. The man gets the royal shaft! Has to pay child support which is figured by a % of annual pay. Not by what is actually brought home or current bills being taken out of paycheck. Is told to seperate remaining objects in half with former mate and she can still sue the man for allimoney? Because she took said children, man has to prove her to be doing drugs, soliciting sex or some other out of the ordinary exercises. Doesn't matter whether she has the abilty or brain to raise a child. Also, depending on age of child, child has no right to say which parent they would rather be with. Sad thing is that say ex partner remarries and chidren are molested by new partner, only then does other parent have the right to go back into court and then be given custody of children.

If a partner in marriage leaves, there should be no rewards for doing so! Be different if partner was abused or something, but if it is their choice to go it alone, shouldn't they also go it alone money and possesion wise?

Sorry to get off subject. Laws are always adjusted for those doing the most complaining. For those of you considering marriage, good luck and I mean that sincerely. It's been an ongoing life learning experience for me for the last year. Just needed to vent!
:wavey: Scott.......... When my "Practice Wife" made a management decision that did not include me, I decided my best defense was a strong offense. I hired the Best Female Attorney in Colorado. As a result I got my case setteled and argued from a womans perspective. Everyones case is unique, but a common thread is men tend to pick men to represent themselves, and women pick women... I wanted to think outside the box and have a "womans perspective on my case".... it worked.

Sorry to Hi Jack this engageing thread....back to the Motza Ball Soup Please. :D

Doc of Random Brain Waves :smash:

[smokediver]

We support israel , and i really don't get it ... What about the USS Liberty ? We celebrate the people in China standing in front of a tank but curse the people that throw rocks at tanks in an occupied territory . The Palestinians have been refugees longer than any other race in the history of the world . I think we need to give back new york city to the alogonquin indians , a thousand years from now , to understand what the Palestinians mindset really is ... Do I support the terrorist suicide bombings ? no way !!!!! I think if the borders were set to where they were supposed to be in 1948 there would be peace ... But if that were to happen I am sure there would be a new terrorist and they would be made to be martyrs instead of killers .... A little insight , I dated a Palestinian girl .. her dad couldn't leave the country for more than a month . if he did , his house would be seized and given to israeli "settlers" ... even though the land had been in the family for generations .... that would tend to piss a person off !!!! funny you don't hear these things in the media ... but then again why would they expose themselves ? I am not anti-semetic by any means but I truly believe that there is equal blame to be placed there ...

[TuxedoPk]

Forget about who represented you with your "Practice Wife", I want to know who represented you getting your "Current Wife"- Now there is someone who knows what they are doing!

Sorry to Hi Jack this engageing thread....back to the Motza Ball Soup
"Lol" - Next week George and I are going to debate sickle cell anemia.
We're going to limit ourselves to debates on religion, politics, and gender and leave the real sensitive issues like foam to the pros.


:wavey: Scott.......... When my "Practice Wife" made a management decision that did not include me, I decided my best defense was a strong offense. I hired the Best Female Attorney in Colorado. As a result I got my case setteled and argued from a womans perspective. Everyones case is unique, but a common thread is men tend to pick men to represent themselves, and women pick women... I wanted to think outside the box and have a "womans perspective on my case".... it worked.

Sorry to Hi Jack this engageing thread....back to the Motza Ball Soup Please. :D

Doc of Random Brain Waves :smash:

[Rootsy]

Forget about who represented you with your "Practice Wife", I want to know who represented you getting your "Current Wife"- Now there is someone who knows what they are doing!

Sorry to Hi Jack this engageing thread....back to the Motza Ball Soup
"Lol" - Next week George and I are going to debate sickle cell anemia.
We're going to limit ourselves to debates on religion, politics, and gender and leave the real sensitive issues like foam to the pros.
Tux,

dont forget chopper guns...

[Woodsy]

Just to weigh in some thoughts...

All sides are to blame for the Palestinian issue... with the most notable exception being the Palestinians themselves. They did not ask to be displaced from thier homes to make room for another society's expansion.

When an entire society/culture is oppressed by a militarily stronger society, be it physically or economically, they have but two choices: capitulate to the oppressor, or resist. The Palestinians have have chosen to resist. I cannot fault them for resisting. The men who founded this nation also chose to resist.

The military reality of the situation is you cannot stop a determined enemy working in small groups who is willing to die for thier cause. Israel has finally figured this out, and has withdrawn the military from Palestinian land it took by force in the '67 war.

We are in the process of learning this ourselves, however, we seem to learn rather slowly. We have not learned much from 9/11, nor I fear will we.

Woodsy

[boldts]

Ahhhh......I have a female attourney....... X has a male attourney....... We're actually considering switching to a male lawyer to stop the agressive nature of X's lawyer. Thanks everyone. One day it will be done with and I personally think if no attourneys were involved, it would have happened a year ago. Who knows, maybe I wouldn't even have what little I still have if lawyers had not been brought into the mix. It's a messed up world for sure. Keeping my head up and living 1 day at a time. :)

Sorry to Hi Jack this engageing thread....back to the Motza Ball Soup Please.:D

[TuxedoPk]

Tux,
dont forget chopper guns...

Them is not even part of my vocabulary any more!

[Lenny]

Ahhhh......I have a female attourney....... X has a male attourney....... We're actually considering switching to a male lawyer to stop the agressive nature of X's lawyer. Thanks everyone. One day it will be done with and I personally think if no attourneys were involved, it would have happened a year ago. Who knows, maybe I wouldn't even have what little I still have if lawyers had not been brought into the mix. It's a messed up world for sure. Keeping my head up and living 1 day at a time. :)


Fun isn't it :rolleyes: Still doing the same, only "I think" mine is a little more civil. Practice wives/husbands are expensive. The best part of it, I think, is Child Support, not to be confused with the MONEY they fight for to be spent frivilously on anything BUT stuff for the children and enhance THEIR standard of living:rolleyes: (either sex)

I think all mine has gone to Someone Else's new vehicle :rolleyes: , Vacation Townhome, :rolleyes: , Home Reno c/w Income Suite in basement, :rolleyes:, the list goes on and on.

Who cares, if I wasn't spending it on THAT, I would probably have a 38ZR in my driveway right now... Now who would want that??? :bonk: :banghead:

[TuxedoPk]

Woodsy- Well said. Very well said.

Smokediver- Really good point about the Israelies committing war crimes during their attack against the USS Liberty, and timely too based on the filing of a report on these crimes by the survivors just this past June. http://www.ussliberty.org/

"I think we need to give back new york city to the alogonquin indians"
The Jews don't want to give this up either. (Sorry I couldn't resist)

George- As much as I hate to correct cha, wasn't it God who had to exhile the first two jews from the Garden of Eden? :biggrin:

King Nebuchadnezzer wasn't Persian- He was a Babylonian who drove the Assyrians out of Mesopotamia and rebuilt the city of Babylon and was a hero to his people. The Persians captured Babylon after his death. When the Babs retook Israel from the Assyrians, they didn't destroy the temple or exhile the jews- they did take 10k jews into captivity relocating them to Babylon.

When the Jews were permitted to return after the Persians captured Babylon only 40k of the 1 million jews living in Persia chose to return- 95% prefered to live under Persian domination!

Yes the jews were a nomadic tribe who wandered around. We've coined a term for those that wander NYC- We call them "homeless". OK, sure our homeless are not a tightly knit tribe as the Jews... so I guess our modern day equivalent would be 'circus folk'. The only difference is that the 'Barnum' tribe got along well with people, are invited back, and don't make land claims after playing a venue.

"my point about Attaturk was that the turkish people had no natural inclination to self rule or democracy."
Our founding fathers didn't have any experience with self rule or democracy either.

"As far as this country goes, we were the winners. Of course we were right."
Right about what? If you are referring to siding with Israel I'd say we lost.. we lost big time... and will continue to lose each day until we stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated by Israel and its supporters.

'I believe we did a better job than most any other country in the same period of time." Sure if we grade ourselves on a curve we'd come out with an A. But even in school when you got an A didn't you take the time to review and learn from the questions you got wrong?

[MrsDigger]

The history of the Jewish state and the lands known collectively as Palestine fill entire libraries. Before WWI, Turkey held most of the Middle East and parts of North Africa, but since Turkey fought with the Germans, and the Allies kicked ass…well, enter the victors to claim the spoils. When the Turkish Empire was broken up, both the Arabs and the Jews requested independent states. The world powers granted the Arabs 22 independent Arabs states encompassing 5,414,000 square miles. The Jews asked for less than one percent of that territory, and the Allies agreed, in the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1920 San Remo Conference of World Powers.

In 1921, Great Britain reneged on the Balfour Declaration and used 77% percent of the land promised to the Jews to the create Arab Emirate of Transjordan. In 1922, the League of Nations mandated that Britain should use the remaining 23% of Palestine, including Samaria, Judea, Gaza, the Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem, to create a Jewish homeland. Under French pressure, in 1923 the Brits gave the Golan Heights to the French for Syria. The partitioning done by the British, the occupying power after WWI, left the Jews with a fraction of what they were promised by the League of Nations.

So far, I don’t see how this is the fault of the United States, but that is just me…

Once oil was discovered, all bets were off. Most nations appeased the Arabs and ignored the Jews. Even after WWII, many nations refused entry to Jewish refugees…including the U.S. It wasn’t until 1947 that the U.N. decided on a partition plan that further shrunk the lands the Jews were promised. And for the record, there were really no Palestinians in 1947--just Palestine Arabs.


Finally, in 1948, the Jews declared independence in the land of Israel. However, the moment that Israel declared independence, the British armies abandoned her to her fate, even going so far as to subversively aid the Arab that immediately invaded the new nation. The U.S., the Soviets, and most other nations immediately recognized Israel and condemned the Arab attack.

However, it should be noted that the U.S., while supporting the IDEA of Israeli independence, imposed an arms embargo on the region in December of 1947, at the same time Britain rejected a U.S. request to suspend weapons shipments to the Arabs--most especially Iraq, and Transjordan. Israel secured most of her defensive weapons through the black market or from Czechoslovakia.

Among the challenges faced by the new nation of Israel, formally established in 1948 after the U.N. voted to give her statehood (did I mention the part where the Israeli state came about via the UN?), was that the Arabs, led by Jordan and six other Arab nations, expressed the intent to "push the Jews into the sea" and to slaughter every last Jew.

History shows that they failed, even as Hitler failed in his genocide. In the end, the (Palestinian) Arabs ended up with less territory than they would have had by accepting the original UN partition. While Israel was able to capture land from which the Arab armies attacked (typical of the victor in virtually ANY war...except the United States, who asks only for land to bury her dead!) the majority of the Palestinian lands were absorbed not by Israel, but by Jordan and in a lesser part, Egypt. Those countries dealt with the Jews remaining on their seized territory by murdering them or expelling them. Neither Egypt nor Jordan thought to make any sort of independent state for the remaining Arabs—today known as Palestinians, but known then as Arab refugees. Oh, and it should be noted that Israel didn’t take the land now claimed by the "Palestinians" as their "homeland" from the Palestine Arabs. Israel captured the land from Jordan in the Six-Day war!

Finally, Israel, during the Clinton administration, was willing to cede to virtually ALL of the Palestinian demands in order to achieve peace. However, the alleged "freedom fighters" of the PLO couldn't manage to stop strapping bombs to themselves and slaughtering women and children, men on their way to work; mostly non-combatants on buses, in cafes, on street corners, in clubs, so the peace plan failed.

Unfortunately for the Palestine Arabs, they bought in to the Arab world's declaration of war against Israel with the intent to drive the Jews into the sea. Too bad for them. Israel has a right to exist. Perhaps they should petition Jordan for land and stop using anti-Semitism as their reason for living. Maybe they should stop trying to kill every Jew on the planet.

[Islander]

Great perspective Darcy.

Written history can be manipulated to support virtually any position. The truth is never quite the truth, and personal bias and prejudice play an important role in how the teller weaves the story. In this particular case, so many people have such a deep-rooted abhorrence of the Jews that the only version of history they will respond to is the one that further supports their feelings.

Personally, I'd rather have a strong Israel, ready and willing to defend itself, than not. Just having a nucular(red state spelling) armed and disciplined ally in a region that, for the most part, would like to see the US destroyed, gives me a bit of comfort.

[TuxedoPk]

Darcy- Both well written to support your position and you didn't even throw in one personal attack at me on this one- I'm impressed ;)

While I have not doubt that a few of us could debate this issue till the cows come home, I think we've all had a chance to voice our most valid points and would like to suggest that we let this one die a natural death-- at least for now.

The thing that I found the most surprising about this thread- how view people posted facts or shared their viewpoints for what most would consider a pretty controversial subject. I'm guessing that the board probably has the same percentage of Christian demographics as it does male. Just a gut feel after living in a state that voted the wrong color in the election.

* Can you send me an email or PM with the source of your statistics. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I did try to search the Internet for anything that might support them and came up empty. Perhaps I haven't been looking in the right places.

[smokediver]

Israel does have a right to exist ... all they should do is fess up about the Liberty , and .... Aren't they in violation of about 12 articles that the UN has sanctioned them for ? that would be yes .... I bet they are glad they aren't arab ... we would bomb them !!! go figure !!!!

[Islander]

Israel does have a right to exist ... all they should do is fess up about the Liberty , and .... Aren't they in violation of about 12 articles that the UN has sanctioned them for ? that would be yes .... I bet they are glad they aren't arab ... we would bomb them !!! go figure !!!!

Aah yes the UN. If they say it it must be right.

[Chili 18]

Finally, Israel, during the Clinton administration, was willing to cede to virtually ALL of the Palestinian demands in order to achieve peace. However, the alleged "freedom fighters" of the PLO couldn't manage to stop strapping bombs to themselves and slaughtering women and children, men on their way to work; mostly non-combatants on buses, in cafes, on street corners, in clubs, so the peace plan failed.




In the heat of the cold war. When Ronald Reagan was declaring the Soviets the Evil Empire. I recall one quote I won’t ever forget..." I want to be friends, but you can’t shake hands with someone whose fists are clenched". I wrote a letter to president RR, whitehouse etc..from an objectivist’s viewpoint, suggesting that on a gut level, Gorbechev was a man that should be given the benefit of a doubt". In the following months a change of tone occurred. Thatcher, Reagan, and Mr. Grbechev....Did things almost unthinkable. I remember my Russian godfather slamming his fist on the table saying the soviets would never change or give up their grip on power. Wow.. The fall of the soviet empire is the single greatest mega change we will see during our lifetimes. Yeah.. I "love" RR, though he scared the hell out me in the process of standing up to that once 'evil' empire. Russia and her people, have the potential to be one of our greatest allies in the modern world, if she can get through the growing pains.

But back to the point of my post. During the Clinton presidency. I wrote a similar letter to President Clinton. Saying that the potential rewards of giving Arafat the benefit of doubt, far outweighed the risks. And that he needed to give thought to our unquestioning supportive relationship with Israel, if both sides were to reach a place of compromise from which "peace" could be given birth... Over the following months, the tone did change. Arafat did make several trips to the white house, and was given the benefit of the doubt about his sincerity on the desire to reach agreement. Israel too was taken to task and brought to the point of making historically potent compromises to achieve peace. Much Credit is owed to the Clinton Administration for the shuttle diplomacy which brought the two sides sooooo close. I was, and am, completely dumbfounded that the Palestinians rejected the deal at the end... Really made me feel deep inside that those people do not want peace and cooperation. And their is something to be said about how the surrounding Arab states are unwilling to accept the Palestinians into their own societies as refugees. Hell no, they know better.

Not sure where it all goes from here... Wish em all the best..

PS, I’m not saying that those two letters were key. But I did write them. And who knows...perhaps they did make it thru the filters and were read... In both cases I asked that form replies not be returned, and that time not be wasted on personal replies.


Back to discussions about saturated foam.....

Chili

[MrsDigger]

Who is John Galt?

[Chili 18]

Who is John Galt?

Who is John Galt?

Happiness is not to be achieved at the command of emotional whims. Happiness is not the satisfaction of whatever irrational wishes you might blindly attempt to indulge. Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy—a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your mind's fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer. Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.

Just as I support my life, neither by robbery nor alms, but by my own effort, so I do not seek to derive my happiness from the injury of the favor of others, but earn it by my own achievement. Just as I do not consider the pleasure of others as the goal of my life, so I do not consider my pleasure as the goal of the lives of others. Just as there are no contradictions in my values and no conflicts among my desires—so there are no victims and no conflicts of interest among rational men, men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with a cannibal's lust, men who neither make sacrifices nor accept them.

The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot are traders, both in manner and spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder, or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtue, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the trader and held him in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of the sneers: a trader is the entity they dread—a man of justice.

Atlas Shrugged
by Ayn Rand

[MrsDigger]

"When you see a man casting pearls without getting even a pork chop in return -- it is not against the swine that you feel indignation. It is against the man who valued his pearls so little that he was willing to fling them into the muck..."