# Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy



## justonemore

Just another study backing up the points I've made in several of my past posts concerning the lack of freedoms and democracy in the U.S.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

If any "civilized" contry should be on the brink of a "Ukraine situation, it should be the U.S. I'm sure all the true "leftisits" and "rightists" will come out in favour of such nonesense. I'm certainly looking forward to Hitch coming up with a couple one-liners to defend such policy. Although I'm only linking to a BBC article based on a Princeton study, Petrik will claim that my post shows a disregard for "truth" . I'm sure the righties will state that it's "liberal media & liberal univerities" that drive the info. As for me. I will once again claim that the U.S. has nothing to do with honor, integrity, justice, fairness, democracy, freedom, etc. These days the "American Dream" is nothing more than a bunch of propagnda to make everyone fall in line. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech? These fall in line to the current political mode (any opposition to special interest groups such as religions, sexual preferences, race, etc are automatically seen as racist, sexist, etc). If there is no taxation without representation and only the rich are being represented where does that leave the other 299.9 million people in the U.S.? Campaign Finance reform? Well that's obviously unconstituitional according to the "rightest" U.S. supreme court (who is probably more than happy to get outside funding as well). Freedom from religion? Just ask any group outside mainstream Christianity and Judaism how free they are to practice their religions. Christian Scientists? Muslims? Branch Davidians? Mormans? It seems that all have had direct interference from the U.S. government. The right to bear arms? Well this one is all over the place. Who even knows what the rules and régulations are anymore? Obviously it's a special interests game that costs $100s of millions per year. Freedom of the press? Only when the topic is ok with the government and the owners of such publications. Could you imagine how great the U.S. of A. could be if the politicians actually did what they were paid to do? If money was well spent versus waisted (the mayor of Chicago has recently run up almost a $million in travel expenses alone). For goodness sakes, how much waste and abuse of power will the Amewrican people take before rising up and changing something that has obviously gone wrong? Torture. Secret prisons. Imprisonment without trial. Murder of civilians in countries far away from American shores. 1st in military spending yet last in education, health care, and infrastructure. There are so many laws passed each year in the U.S. that the basic Citizen is probably guilty of violating a few each year (even by accident). Tax codes are draconian at best and the average family almost need to hire Professional accountants just to file a basic form. I myself haven't lived in the U.S. for 10 years but am somehow expected to support the U.S. government (and its illegal war machine).


----------



## SG_67

It's truly remarkable the depth of penetration that Marxist ideology, even in its much distilled form, has had around the world. Europe included, not to mention the 3rd world. The U.S. seems to be the only country that's resisted.

Your long soliloquy, my friend, has within it a sentence that completely contradicts your point: _"For goodness sakes, how much waste and abuse of power will the Amewrican people take before rising up and changing something that has obviously gone wrong?"_

The difference is that in most countries violent revolutions are required. The American public can vote in and out whomever it pleases. Our laws even have provisions to oust and impeach corrupt politicians. The problem is that many voters are apathetic. This should not be mistaken with powerlessness.

I don't think racking up air fare expenses equates to outright stealing of public funds to build a lavish $25 million dollar mansion with priceless works of art and gold plated flush handles on toilets.

Rich people will always have influence in government and politics. The difference is that our system has checks and balances to make sure that this does not dominate. Think of all the politicians that have been bounced out of office despite backing by organized parties and being well funded.


----------



## Hitch

The US is a republic.


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> The US is a republic.


As was/is the USSR, PRC, PRK....What proud company the U.S. keeps. You are indeed right up there with exécutions and military spending. Too bad that you're falling behind most of them in education and social issues.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> The difference is that in most countries violent revolutions are required. The American public can vote in and out whomever it pleases. Our laws even have provisions to oust and impeach corrupt politicians. The problem is that many voters are apathetic. This should not be mistaken with powerlessness.





SG_67 said:


> It's truly remarkable the depth of penetration that Marxist ideology, even in its much distilled form, has had around the world. Europe included, not to mention the 3rd world. The U.S. seems to be the only country that's resisted.


Just curious... Have you ever been to Europe? If so, how long? It appears that you are stating things from the typical "20% of Americans have passports" point of view.

Yes. The U.S. is one of the last holdouts to realize that education, health care, and social services are important to a society. Most people also believe in "god" over Science and have never traveled. Are you suggesting the world take the U.S as an example as to what is "good"?

The American public have very little choice as to who they vote in or out. It is either "mess with your personal life christian republicans" or "steal your mony for non-effiecient programs and ignore the constitution" democrats. I disagree with most points from both sides as do many, many americans...Our choice is still idiot 1 or idiot 2. Both parties are more than happy to keep the funds flowing as such. How many corrupt politicians have been outed or impeached versus resigning with full benefits (benefits that serve the corrupt better than those that pay for it of course).

Other than military superiority, can you name one thing that the U.S. excels in globally versus anyone else?



SG_67 said:


> I don't think racking up air fare expenses equates to outright stealing of public funds to build a lavish $25 million dollar mansion with priceless works of art and gold plated flush handles on toilets.


I do Wonder what all the $multi-million houses/flats of Emannual Rahm look like. They don't seem to show much on line but I bet they cost as much as the ousted Ukrainian President (and this from a city mayor versus the poresident of a country). You seem to forget that these people are staying in hotel rooms that cost $500-750 a night (much more than most people can afford) and are racking up expenses for limos and security (they must be gods huh?). Let's not forget fine dining, room service, tips, wines, $10 cokes, etc...I hate to say it but First class travel expenses for you and your entire team should not be a given when the majority of your populace can't even afford a basic vacation within the same state (let alone something simple like wisconisn dells). Rahms net Worth is $15 million. Not bad for someone that wants to dump education and social services in favor for speed radar contracts for his Buddies that he has investments with.



SG_67 said:


> Rich people will always have influence in government and politics. The difference is that our system has checks and balances to make sure that this does not dominate. Think of all the politicians that have been bounced out of office despite backing by organized parties and being well funded.


Really? Think of all the politicians that are still in office despite serious issues... It does more than dominate, it is the standard. Reid out of Nevada gives $100 of thousands to his granddaughter out of taxpayer moneys while his constituency suffers. How great. I suppose the republican would be better? OOPPPs.. Not really... huh?

BTW..Checks and balances has nothing to do with checking on corruption versus the "ideology" of keeping the 3 branches of U.S: government in check (which hasn't worked anyways)...

Rich people should have one vote and shut the F"*ç up otherwise. Just as the other 300 million people that have to live in the same place. $1 does not equal 1 vote (althogh I'm sure many wealthy would love it to be so). Outside influences should have NO say whatsoever on U.S. politics. I don't care if it's our best freinds for Israel or the U.K.... The populace from the U.S. should come first. And yes, that includes coming first before big business.


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> As was/is the USSR, PRC, PRK....What proud company the U.S. keeps. You are indeed right up there with exécutions and military spending. Too bad that you're falling behind most of them in education and social issues.


 LOL another pathetic attempt at discovering moral equivalency'. Ho hum.



> If any "civilized" contry should be on the brink of a "Ukraine situation, it should be the U.S. I'm sure all the true "leftisits" and "rightists" will come out in favour of such nonesense. I'm certainly looking forward to Hitch coming up with a couple one-liners to defend such policy


 Was there some 'policy' you had in mind and didnt bother to post or are you just off your meds again?


----------



## Chouan

Justonemore, what was it you were saying about Hitch and "smart" one-liners?


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Just curious... Have you ever been to Europe? If so, how long? It appears that you are stating things from the typical "20% of Americans have passports" point of view.
> 
> Yes. The U.S. is one of the last holdouts to realize that education, health care, and social services are important to a society. Most people also believe in "god" over Science and have never traveled. Are you suggesting the world take the U.S as an example as to what is "good"?
> 
> The American public have very little choice as to who they vote in or out. It is either "mess with your personal life christian republicans" or "steal your mony for non-effiecient programs and ignore the constitution" democrats. I disagree with most points from both sides as do many, many americans...Our choice is still idiot 1 or idiot 2. Both parties are more than happy to keep the funds flowing as such. How many corrupt politicians have been outed or impeached versus resigning with full benefits (benefits that serve the corrupt better than those that pay for it of course).
> 
> Other than military superiority, can you name one thing that the U.S. excels in globally versus anyone else?
> 
> I do Wonder what all the $multi-million houses/flats of Emannual Rahm look like. They don't seem to show much on line but I bet they cost as much as the ousted Ukrainian President (and this from a city mayor versus the poresident of a country). You seem to forget that these people are staying in hotel rooms that cost $500-750 a night (much more than most people can afford) and are racking up expenses for limos and security (they must be gods huh?). Let's not forget fine dining, room service, tips, wines, $10 cokes, etc...I hate to say it but First class travel expenses for you and your entire team should not be a given when the majority of your populace can't even afford a basic vacation within the same state (let alone something simple like wisconisn dells). Rahms net Worth is $15 million. Not bad for someone that wants to dump education and social services in favor for speed radar contracts for his Buddies that he has investments with.
> 
> Really? Think of all the politicians that are still in office despite serious issues... It does more than dominate, it is the standard. Reid out of Nevada gives $100 of thousands to his granddaughter out of taxpayer moneys while his constituency suffers. How great. I suppose the republican would be better? OOPPPs.. Not really... huh?
> 
> BTW..Checks and balances has nothing to do with checking on corruption versus the "ideology" of keeping the 3 branches of U.S: government in check (which hasn't worked anyways)...
> 
> Rich people should have one vote and shut the F"*ç up otherwise. Just as the other 300 million people that have to live in the same place. $1 does not equal 1 vote (althogh I'm sure many wealthy would love it to be so). Outside influences should have NO say whatsoever on U.S. politics. I don't care if it's our best freinds for Israel or the U.K.... The populace from the U.S. should come first. And yes, that includes coming first before big business.


So anyone who disagrees with you is in the camp of "never having travelled" and so in essence is ignorant of the world outside the cave. And here come the enlightened ones, who bring light to the cave?

Education, healthcare and social security (in the generic sense) are certainly important to society. But does it follow that it needs to be organized, funded and executed by the U.S. Government, or any government? Have you ever been to Chicago? Have you seen what has happened to the concentrations of poverty caused by public housing? Much ink has been spilled writing about as well as portraying these projects in popular culture. They're gone now but there memory stands as a stark reminder of the stupidity of modern socialism and liberalism.

As for the rest of your argument and your comments, I'm sorry but they're just silly and verge on a prepubescent notion of the role of capitalism in society and the governance of a republic. America still stands as the freest country in the world with the greatest degree of public liberty.

Whether you are Swiss or just live there, was there not a referendum just passed to limit immigration? Shall we use France as an example where virtual immigrant ghettos have been created?


----------



## Hitch

Until today I never could understand the throngs queued by their thousands along the border in desperate but futile at escape.


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> So anyone who disagrees with you is in the camp of "never having travelled" and so in essence is ignorant of the world outside the cave. And here come the enlightened ones, who bring light to the cave?
> 
> Education, healthcare and social security (in the generic sense) are certainly important to society. But does it follow that it needs to be organized, funded and executed by the U.S. Government, or any government? Have you ever been to Chicago? Have you seen what has happened to the concentrations of poverty caused by public housing? Much ink has been spilled writing about as well as portraying these projects in popular culture. They're gone now but there memory stands as a stark reminder of the stupidity of modern socialism and liberalism.
> 
> As for the rest of your argument and your comments, I'm sorry but they're just silly and verge on a prepubescent notion of the role of capitalism in society and the governance of a republic. America still stands as the freest country in the world with the greatest degree of public liberty.
> 
> Whether you are Swiss or just live there, was there not a referendum just passed to limit immigration? Shall we use France as an example where virtual immigrant ghettos have been created?


Well said.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> So anyone who disagrees with you is in the camp of "never having travelled" and so in essence is ignorant of the world outside the cave. And here come the enlightened ones, who bring light to the cave?
> 
> America still stands as the freest country in the world with the greatest degree of public liberty.


It's comments like this one, that were the cause of my asking if you've actually had any experience with cultures outside your own. You made a general comment about how great the U.S. is, but provided no proof to back it up. How is the U.S. the "Freest" country? The facts seem to state differently.

No one said that the U.S. is the worst but let's not state untrue things on the other end either. What public liberties do you assume the U.S. has over most of its European counterparts? How is it that the U.S. is "freer" let alone the "freest"? Do you have any examples of this or are you just saying it because you've heard it said by someone else that didn't have facts on their side?

First off. The U.S. didn't even make the top 10 in the 2013 State of World Liberty Index: (Hardly the "freest" now is it?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_World_Liberty_Index

On the life satisfaction index, the top 10 countries are European...the U.S. ranks 23rd, not first.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-happiest-countries-in-the-world.html?page=all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index

Corruption index? U.S. weighs in at 19 (well behind most of Europe):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

The index of economic freedom has the U.S. at 10th:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

Unemployment? 79th:

The U.S. is 16th in median wealth amonst OECD countries alone:

https://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2012/07/us-trails-at-least-15-oecd-countries-in.html

Education index... Again the U.S. is ranked not at # 1 but at 21st:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index

U.S. literacy rate is at 95% and well behind even Eastern european countries such as Ukraine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

global Innovation? Well the U.S. did a bit better in this category but still lags behind many of it's European counterparts:

)

Here's one the U.S. is number one at...External Debt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Here's another...Military Spending:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget

Here's an overall article explaining the deficeincy in your "The U.S. is the best" arguement:

https://crooksandliars.com/nonny-mouse/greatest-nation-earth-isnt-us

Perhaps all these articles backing up my statements are providing juvenile arguements as well? Show me a thread of proof of what you've said versus just saying it. Not everyone buys into U.S. soundbites.

That the U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens behind bars compared to any country on earth. More than those boogie men in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. That doesn't really speak of a "free" country, does it? NSA Tracking? Warrantless searches/phone taps? Knockless warrants? Lack of proper representation in the court system for those of the poorer classes. Where is the evidence that the U.S. is so great? In it's low ranking in life satisfaction surveys? Low education scores? Where is a bit of proof to what you say?

Oddly enough, many of the countries that are more successful than the U.S. have policies that are more socially supportive that those of the U.S. That the U.S. messed up public housing/support doesn't shock me in the least but it certainly holds no relation to those programs that have been successfully implemented elsewhere in the world.


----------



## Shaver

Now what's going on in this thread? Oh, it's a straight-forward slice of good old fashioned American baiting. What's next, are we going to post pictures of trampling on 'old glory'? :rolleyes2:


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> It's comments like this one, that were the cause of my asking if you've actually had any experience with cultures outside your own. You made a general comment about how great the U.S. is, but provided no proof to back it up. How is the U.S. the "Freest" country? The facts seem to state differently.
> 
> No one said that the U.S. is the worst but let's not state untrue things on the other end either. What public liberties do you assume the U.S. has over most of its European counterparts? How is it that the U.S. is "freer" let alone the "freest"? Do you have any examples of this or are you just saying it because you've heard it said by someone else that didn't have facts on their side?
> 
> First off. The U.S. didn't even make the top 10 in the 2013 State of World Liberty Index: (Hardly the "freest" now is it?)
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_World_Liberty_Index
> 
> On the life satisfaction index, the top 10 countries are European...the U.S. ranks 23rd, not first.
> 
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-happiest-countries-in-the-world.html?page=all
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index
> 
> Corruption index? U.S. weighs in at 19 (well behind most of Europe):
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
> 
> The index of economic freedom has the U.S. at 10th:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
> 
> Unemployment? 79th:
> 
> The U.S. is 16th in median wealth amonst OECD countries alone:
> 
> https://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2012/07/us-trails-at-least-15-oecd-countries-in.html
> 
> Education index... Again the U.S. is ranked not at # 1 but at 21st:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index
> 
> U.S. literacy rate is at 95% and well behind even Eastern european countries such as Ukraine:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
> 
> global Innovation? Well the U.S. did a bit better in this category but still lags behind many of it's European counterparts:
> 
> )
> 
> Here's one the U.S. is number one at...External Debt:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
> 
> Here's another...Military Spending:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget
> 
> Here's an overall article explaining the deficeincy in your "The U.S. is the best" arguement:
> 
> https://crooksandliars.com/nonny-mouse/greatest-nation-earth-isnt-us
> 
> Perhaps all these articles backing up my statements are providing juvenile arguements as well? Show me a thread of proof of what you've said versus just saying it. Not everyone buys into U.S. soundbites.
> 
> That the U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens behind bars compared to any country on earth. More than those boogie men in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. That doesn't really speak of a "free" country, does it? NSA Tracking? Warrantless searches/phone taps? Knockless warrants? Lack of proper representation in the court system for those of the poorer classes. Where is the evidence that the U.S. is so great? In it's low ranking in life satisfaction surveys? Low education scores? Where is a bit of proof to what you say?
> 
> Oddly enough, many of the countries that are more successful than the U.S. have policies that are more socially supportive that those of the U.S. That the U.S. messed up public housing/support doesn't shock me in the least but it certainly holds no relation to those programs that have been successfully implemented elsewhere in the world.


I'm curious as to the validity of these indexes. But let's assume they are valid measures of what you say. It's difficult to compare EU employment vs. U.S. employment rates as the EU has some very strange employment rules. Approximately 16% of people employed in the U.S. are employed in the public sector. Compare that to France and Germany (I'll use them as they are among the 2 largest EU economies) which are between 30-35%. Also, France has some peculiar laws about layoffs and firings. Given this, it's no wonder there is a higher employment rate in the EU, albeit an inefficient one. I suppose we could raise taxes and have more government employees, thereby putting people to work shuffling papers around. But then, who would be left to actually contribute to the economy and innovate.

Since you're fond of citing random indexes and articles, I'll point you toward this one:

https://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2013-02-01/50-most-innovative-countries.html#slide51

As for military spending, much of the technology that the world enjoys comes from military innovation from the U.S. The products and services are legion so I'll leave it to you.

The Swiss do have us on chocolate though, I'll grant that.


----------



## Shaver

^


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

I think the majority of Americans who travel abroad for work or pleasure come home with a better appreciation of what we have here in the States. It's not perfect, but I'll take it over anything else that I've seen so far.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Rich people will always have influence in government and politics. The difference is that our system has checks and balances to make sure that this does not dominate. Think of all the politicians that have been bounced out of office despite backing by organized parties and being well funded.


Yes, in the US you have equal opportunities. *Any* multi-millionaire can run for President!


----------



## Hitch

Hitch said:


> LOL another pathetic attempt at discovering moral equivalency'. Ho hum.
> 
> Was there some 'policy' you had in mind and didnt bother to post or are you just off your meds again?


 I take it you had no 'policy' in mind just you r usual chemical imbalance.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Yes, in the US you have equal opportunities. *Any* multi-millionaire can run for President!


Thank heaven that rules out most school teachers.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> Thank heaven that rules out most school teachers.


Oh, look, a smartar$e one-liner from Hitch, what a surprise! 
That was sarcasm, Hitch, in case you failed to understand. Don't worry, I have no anticipation of you actually making any kind of evidence based argument, so no pressure. On the other hand, I'm sure that you'll come out with another pointless smartar$e one-liner that doesn't bring on the discussion in any way whatsoever.


----------



## Chouan

Snow Hill Pond said:


> I think the majority of Americans who travel abroad for work or pleasure come home with a better appreciation of what we have here in the States. It's not perfect, but I'll take it over anything else that I've seen so far.


Yes, most people are most comfortable with what they're used to.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Oh, look, a smartar$e one-liner from Hitch, what a surprise!
> That was sarcasm, Hitch, in case you failed to understand. Don't worry, I have no anticipation of you actually making any kind of evidence based argument, so no pressure. On the other hand, I'm sure that you'll come out with another pointless smartar$e one-liner that doesn't bring on the discussion in any way whatsoever.(Even so chouan and just wait breathlessly for any thing I might post, strange eh? )


That was sarcasm, chouan, apparently you failed to understand.


----------



## Hitch

Snow Hill Pond said:


> I think the majority of Americans who travel abroad for work or pleasure come home with a better appreciation of what we have here in the States. It's not perfect, but I'll take it over anything else that I've seen so far.


Americans are so out of it they dont even poke fun at people who need passports to travel 200 miles.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> That was sarcasm, chouan, apparently you failed to understand.


Another pointless smartar$e one-liner, as anticipated.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Another pointless smartar$e one-liner, as anticipated.


Yet here you are slavishly waiting for another


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> Americans are so out of it they dont even poke fun at people who need passports to travel 200 miles.


 I don't need a passport to go pretty much anywhere in Europe. Nor do I need one to re-enter Switzerland. Are passports not mandatory at U.S borders with Mexico & Canada or has that freedom been reinstated?


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> I don't need a passport to go pretty much anywhere in Europe. Nor do I need one to re-enter Switzerland. Are passports not mandatory at U.S borders with Mexico & Canada or has that freedom been reinstated?


see # 5

_Was there some 'policy' you had in mind and didnt bother to post or are you just off your meds again?_


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Now what's going on in this thread? Oh, it's a straight-forward slice of good old fashioned American baiting. What's next, are we going to post pictures of trampling on 'old glory'? :rolleyes2:


Come on Shaver, didnt you think just's comparison of the the US to the PRK was apt, even the stuff of genius?


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> Come on Shaver, didnt you think just's comparison of the the US to the PRK was apt, even the stuff of genius?


You were just so proud to be a republic that I couldn't help but think that you must enjoy the high company.


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> see # 5
> 
> _Was there some 'policy' you had in mind and didnt bother to post or are you just off your meds again?_


Funny....The only people I ever hear call prescription drugs "meds" are psychiatric patients (and you seem rather comfortable and proud to use the term). LOL. And just like you hitchy, I'll answer in the manner I see fit, when I see fit, if I see fit to even do so.....


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> Funny....The only people I ever hear call prescription drugs "meds" are psychiatric patients (and you seem rather comfortable and proud to use the term). LOL. And just like you hitchy, I'll answer in the manner I see fit, when I see fit, if I see fit to even do so.....


 Poor boy.


> If any "civilized" contry should be on the brink of a "Ukraine situation, it should be the U.S. I'm sure all the true "leftisits" and "rightists" will come out in favour of such nonesense. I'm certainly looking forward to Hitch coming up with a couple one-liners to defend such policy.


I reckon you've let us know the value you put on your own OP , no surprise.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> Yet here you are slavishly waiting for another


Well, there would be no point in my waiting for an argument, or a reply, or for anything that resembled a sensible response.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Well, there would be no point in my waiting for an argument, or a reply, or for anything that resembled a sensible response.


 That makes me wonder why you're so consistently adoring.


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> Poor boy.
> 
> I reckon you've let us know the value you put on your own OP , no surprise.


I'm sorry sorry Hitch. I do understand that if you don't know how to read very well, the attached BBC article probably wouldn't do you much good. May I suggest having your "helper" read the news article to you? If so, you might be able to see how Policy has lead away from your dear republkic to an oligarchy (which was the title of the post).


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> I'm sorry sorry Hitch. I do understand that if you don't know how to read very well,( of course thats why you singled me out for comment LOL ) the attached BBC article probably wouldn't do you much good. May I suggest having your "helper" read the news article to you? If so, you might be able to see how Policy has lead away from your dear republkic to an oligarchy (which was the title of the post).


Do you lack even a single original idea?



> *What in the world?*Pieces of global opinion
> 
> *A review of the best commentary on and around the world...*
> *Today's must-rea**d*


 _May I suggest having your "helper" read the news article to you?_

Too funny.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Come on Shaver, didnt you think just's comparison of the the US to the PRK was apt, even the stuff of genius?


I have never personally met an American who didn't seem a decent sort (although the places I have visited in America have been rather selective) and, further, I am fond of American culture - albeit heavily biased towards the first sixty odd years of the 20th Century (although that probably holds true of the majority of Americans who are members here too). I have noticed, however, that the American view of the of the world and their place in it often seems the most insular and devoid of introspection of any of the countries I have visited (including Soviet states). I have no idea why this might be the case.


----------



## immanuelrx

justonemore said:


> I don't need a passport to go pretty much anywhere in Europe. Nor do I need one to re-enter Switzerland. Are passports not mandatory at U.S borders with Mexico & Canada or has that freedom been reinstated?


I have been reading some of this thread and am wondering where are the US disdain comes from. It makes no sense to me. Is it just because you feel like arguing? You are entitled to your opinions, but I am sure you are just as happy you live in Switzerland as I am that I live in the United States. Look, there are a lot of ugly americans who's answer to everything is "Merica!" and they are annoying and I understand that, but I figured we were bigger here than country bashing. You may deny it but that is what you are doing.


----------



## phyrpowr

Shaver said:


> I have never personally met an American who didn't seem a decent sort (although the places I have visited in America have been rather selective) and, further, I am fond of American culture - albeit heavily biased towards the first sixty odd years of the 20th Century (although that probably holds true of the majority of Americans who are members here too). I have noticed, however, that the American view of the of the world and their place in it often seems the most insular and devoid of introspection of any of the countries I have visited (including Soviet states). I have no idea why this might be the case.


The size and geographical variety of the country has a lot to do with it. I can drive across France or Germany in less time than I can drive across my home state. We can travel to enormous rugged mountains, and tropical beaches, and we're still in the US, dealing with other US citizens, with *very* minor cultural differences. BTW, Old Fellow, I ran across a term the other day "wogs", that was totally unfamiliar. Do you know the origin and meaning?


----------



## Chouan

It was a common expression in my youth, referring to dark skinned people of the middle east and beyond. I've no idea what the origin is.


----------



## Hitch

To be fair I asked the question below several times.

Was there some 'policy' you had in mind and didnt bother to post or are you just off your meds again?

justone refused to offer any sort of explanation.

The article contains no mention of any 'Policy'. The article contains no outline of any 'Policy*'. (*see # 33)The article contains little if anything regarding the Ukraine The word policy is used several times and never in the context of pointing toward any specific. Still the OP reads; *If any "civilized" contry should be on the brink of a "Ukraine situation, it should be the U.S. I'm sure all the true "leftisits" and "rightists" will come out in favour of such nonesense. I'm certainly looking forward to Hitch coming up with a couple one-liners to defend such policy.*

There is what could be ,provided enough english,, the allusion to a 'Policy' the author would seemingly like to have in place. That would be the granting, supposedly through some government fiat, of a far greater influence and status to liberal college professors than they currently enjoy, especially as compared to society's high achievers. Ho hum nothing new here folks.


----------



## Shaver

phyrpowr said:


> The size and geographical variety of the country has a lot to do with it. I can drive across France or Germany in less time than I can drive across my home state. We can travel to enormous rugged mountains, and tropical beaches, and we're still in the US, dealing with other US citizens, with *very* minor cultural differences. BTW, Old Fellow, I ran across a term the other day "wogs", that was totally unfamiliar. Do you know the origin and meaning?


Hmm...perhaps. Although that would be a more satisfactory explanation pre global village. I would have thought that U.S. cultural differences are potentially rather extreme - Grosse Pointe to Compton L.A. etc?

You haven't encountered the term 'wogs' before? It's etymology is obscure but almost certainly of English origin and is very probably a contraction of 'golliwog' - a racial caricature doll. These rag dolls remain popular but are commonly referred to as the truncation 'gollies' to avoid the pejorative connections.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Hmm...perhaps. Although that would be a more satisfactory explanation pre global village. I would have thought that U.S. cultural differences are potentially rather extreme - Grosse Pointe to Compton L.A. etc?
> 
> You haven't encountered the term 'wogs' before? It's etymology is obscure but almost certainly of English origin and is very probably a contraction of 'golliwog' - a racial caricature doll. These rag dolls remain popular but are commonly referred to as the truncation 'gollies' to avoid the pejorative connections.


For comparison, last week we drove , taking the most direct route possible, 928 miles round trip. This included dipping into northern California about 40 miles. So two states and nearly a thousand miles.The point being that often folks from the east coast cant really grasp the distances out here and I assume the same of Continentals.

Besides every body knows _The Golliwogs _ were John Fogerty's first band.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> I have never personally met an American who didn't seem a decent sort. ..... I have noticed, however, that the American view of the of the world and their place in it often seems the most insular and devoid of introspection of any of the countries I have visited (including Soviet states). I have no idea why this might be the case.


I would agree with this whole-heartedly. As I have said before in this forum I have never, anywhere in the world, met such genuinely friendly welcoming and friendly people. To be invited to a person's home for Christmas dinner, which happened to me in Tacoma, was an invitation that I found to be generous in the extreme. Unfortunately we sailed on the 23rd. 
On the other hand, apart from South Africa and Japan I have never seen such openly racist people as I did in the US. A person, for example, who was polite and pleasant to me in Mobile when I was asking directions, but couldn't help, turned to a black person walking past and called "Hey Ni**er!", and asked him for directions. That that word was used openly I found shocking, that the black person accepted it I found more shocking still.
I also found that the immigration officials were the most unpleasant and officious I have ever seen anywhere in the world, including the former Communist Block. Berthing at 0300, for example, and the immigration officials requiring all of the crew, without exception, to line up and be interviewed one at a time, before the vessel was cleared was not the most welcoming experience in Providence, Rhode Island, even though the place itself was really nice. Not only did all the crew have to line up before interviews took place, but nobody was allowed to leave until all the interviews had been completed. Neither was mail released until all interviews had been completed. Even North Korea wasn't as unpleasant as that!
Shaver's other point about chauvinism and ignorance of the rest of the world is also a good one. For example, in Philadelphia, watching a Royal Navy destroyer sailing past (having sent the cadet to dip our ensign) one of the shore people asked loudly what the flag was, which was probably the biggest White Ensign I've ever seen. In York last Saturday, I heard an American loudly ask his companion why there was a Roman column near the Minster. She replied that she wouldn't know, but that somebody probably put it there for some reason. The other, mostly foreign, tourists around them looked at them with contempt, to which they were oblivious.


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> To be fair I asked the question below several times.
> 
> Was there some 'policy' you had in mind and didnt bother to post or are you just off your meds again?
> 
> justone refused to offer any sort of explanation.
> 
> The article contains no mention of any 'Policy'. The article contains no outline of any 'Policy*'. (*see # 33)The article contains little if anything regarding the Ukraine The word policy is used several times and never in the context of pointing toward any specific. Still the OP reads; *If any "civilized" contry should be on the brink of a "Ukraine situation, it should be the U.S. I'm sure all the true "leftisits" and "rightists" will come out in favour of such nonesense. I'm certainly looking forward to Hitch coming up with a couple one-liners to defend such policy.*
> 
> There is what could be ,provided enough english,, the allusion to a 'Policy' the author would seemingly like to have in place. That would be the granting, supposedly through some government fiat, of a far greater influence and status to liberal college professors than they currently enjoy, especially as compared to society's high achievers. Ho hum nothing new here folks.


U.S. Policy as it refers to allowing the onset of an oligarchy compared to a democracy (oops. sorry republic). If you're too short sighted to read into anything, then what exactly is your complaint? Piss off and go find another Harry Reid article to post.

You also used the same line in response to my answering your critque on people needing a passport to go 200 miles. See # 26....Not sure how the 2 connected but again, if you don't like the topic or my responses you can go elsewhere....

Again, you are the king of the one line response. How about something backing up your own opinion (whatever that may actually be) with a few paragraphs and links showing some sort of reasoning??...


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> U.S. Policy as it refers to allowing the onset of an oligarchy compared to a democracy (oops. sorry republic). If you're too short sighted to read into anything than what exactly is your complaint? Piss off and go find another Harry Reid article to post.


Care to name said 'Policy' and perhaps even tell us the author and a co-sponsor or two? Was it right next to the Ukrainian part?

Vagueness is such a nice hiding place and comes complete with plausible deniability, perfect for a weasel.


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> Care to name said 'Policy' and perhaps even tell us the author and a co-sponsor or two?
> 
> Vagueness is such a nice hiding place and comes complete with plausible deniability, perfect for a weasel.


This from the one line Wonder. Again Hitch..Give us more than a sentence and I'll continue responding... Otherwise, I don't much care about your input into the topic.

If you're too blind to see that years of abuse have allowed what was basically a representative democracy into an oligarchy then I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you. You're fine with it..Great. I'm not. I will state my opinion and back it up. You'll state yours with nothing more than a line of words. Until you back up anything you have to say (other than a Harry reid article from a rightest publication), I consider you as worthless as your one liner posts..


----------



## Shaver

For the sake of equitable balance I will mention those people who I will happily allow to be referred to as Brits, they exhibit their beer-swilling and ignorant behavior (most especially not bothering to say 'please; and 'thank you' in the local tongue) all over Europe and are an utter embarrassment to true English people.


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> This from the one line Wonder. Again Hitch..Give us more than a sentence and I'll continue responding... Otherwise, I don't much care about your input into the topic. (LOL)


 All you need to do is identify the mysterious "Policy' you alone have discovered, list the specifics and tell us who the authors were. That should be easy for you. 


> If you're too blind to see that years of abuse have allowed what was basically a representative democracy into an oligarchy then I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you. You're fine with it..Great. I'm not. I will state my opinion and back it up.


 To repeat;All you need to do is identify the mysterious "Policy' you alone have discovered, list the specifics and tell us who the authors were


> You'll state yours with nothing more than a line of words. Until you back up anything you have to say (other than a Harry reid article from a rightest publication), I consider you as worthless as your one liner posts..


 I only responded at all to alleviate your embarrassing panting:


> If any "civilized" contry should be on the brink of a "Ukraine situation, it should be the U.S. I'm sure all the true "leftisits" and "rightists" will come out in favour of such nonesense. I'm certainly looking forward to Hitch coming up with a couple one-liners to defend such policy


(LOL)


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> For the sake of equitable balance I will mention those people who I will happily allow to be referred to as Brits, they exhibit their beer-swilling and ignorant behavior (most especially not bothering to say 'please; and 'thank you' in the local tongue) all over Europe and are an utter embarrassment to true English people.


 Some one who used to write for AutoWeek told about leaving his London tour guide job after a young American woman asked 'why do they build everything so old here?'


----------



## phyrpowr

You "Brits" missed the gist, or jest, of my post. W.O.G is "Worthy Oriental Gentleman", which British officials abroad were told to use in place of far more pejorative terms to describe the natives, who were considered inferiors. But of course, that has nothing to do with insularity or limited worldview now does it?

BTW, Shaver, the cultural distance between Mayfair and Brixton may be greater than Grosse Pointe to Compton...not going to check, in any event.


----------



## Tilton

I have very little to offer to this hilarious "debate" but didn't Switzerland somewhat recently ban the construction of minarets? And don't some towns in Switzerland segregate asylees from the rest of the population, forcing them to live in former military barracks and limit their ability to leave the compounds outside of the hours of 9 AM to 5 PM? I don't think America institutionalizes xenophobia through public policy any more. America is far from perfect, but I think every country has plenty of issues to deal with.


----------



## Hitch

Clearly the time has come to hire the famous Switzer Oligarchy Guards. You cant go wrong with such cool outfits:


----------



## justonemore

Not sure what the pope's bodyguard corps have to do with an article from the U.S. about the U.S. being an oligarchy over a democracy (or republic).. But I'm not sure the the American version of a traditional parade/D&C uniform is much better... . 
https://imageshack.com/i/n7curyp


----------



## justonemore

Tilton said:


> I have very little to offer to this hilarious "debate" but didn't Switzerland somewhat recently ban the construction of minarets? And don't some towns in Switzerland segregate asylees from the rest of the population, forcing them to live in former military barracks and limit their ability to leave the compounds outside of the hours of 9 AM to 5 PM? I don't think America institutionalizes xenophobia through public policy any more. America is far from perfect, but I think every country has plenty of issues to deal with.


The Swiss often ban pretty much anything that will mess up their skyline to include churches and buildings over certain heights. It's done by direct democracy and the government itself doesn't get to force issues on its populace (although I do understand that Americans are used to having their décisions made for them by politicians and the wealthy which is why I posted the article on the U.S. being an Oligarchy). Oddly enough, I was just reading an article that mentioned that a mayor of a U.S. city allowed all religions to come and preach in the city hall but banned an athiest from speaking.

Not quite sure how refugee rights came into play on a thread mentioning an article that states that the U.S. has sunk into an Oligarchy....

Not entirely sure about refugees but Policy everwhere needs to be rethought (The U.K. and Australia come Under regular critism on this topic as well). There are indeed military and "civil guard" barracks that are used to house refugees in Switzerland. What did you think more proper? Tents in a field? Schools? Churches? Community centers? City hall? Or something higher class like a Sofitel? I don't think they're "forced" to live there versus it being what is provided for refugee housing...What does the U.S. use? According to U.S. group Human Rights First, it seems as if U.S. refugee facilities are set up like prisons.

I notice that the U.S. "limits" benefits for refugess, as well as limiting the number of refugees it allows (i.e. only 12'000 from Africa etc.). Do you have any facts and figures as to the U.S. refugee system? Funding? Housing? Refugee rights? Does the U.S. take in refugees from all countries (I.E. Iran, Syria, etc.) or are they selective as to the flavor of the day social issues? I do know that Switzerland has taken former Guatanomo prisoners in order to help the U.S. clear up that little international crime...

It seems that refugees aren't quite as welcome in U.S. communities as you're trying to suggest as the following article mentions that U.S. communities aren't very keen on refugee centers in their communities either. The article also mentions that a former mill is being used to house refugees (are mills nicer places than a barracks?).

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/...t-in-refugee-resettlement.html?pagewanted=all

Although it's quite a bit smaller of a country, Switzerland handles about the same amount of refugees per year as the U.S. (around 50'000 a year on average over the past 10-15 years or so) but....I'm not sure Switzerland has a community gardens program set aside for "refugees to grow vegetables for their families"..

https://imageshack.com/i/neq4m4j


----------



## Shaver

phyrpowr said:


> You "Brits" missed the gist, or jest, of my post. W.O.G is "Worthy Oriental Gentleman", which British officials abroad were told to use in place of far more pejorative terms to describe the natives, who were considered inferiors. But of course, that has nothing to do with insularity or limited worldview now does it?
> 
> BTW, Shaver, the cultural distance between Mayfair and Brixton may be greater than Grosse Pointe to Compton...not going to check, in any event.


Many acronymic origins have been postulated for the term 'wog' but none are credible, in much the same manner as the word 'f**k' for which a plethora of acronyms abound but not a fragment of supporting evidence.

I would not dispute that English cultural differences are extreme, and no geographical distance is required to appreciate this. In most English cities the affluent areas bump up against the impoverished areas.


----------



## Chouan

phyrpowr said:


> You "Brits" missed the gist, or jest, of my post. W.O.G is "Worthy Oriental Gentleman", which British officials abroad were told to use in place of far more pejorative terms to describe the natives, who were considered inferiors.


Except that that is one of those invented explanations, an apocryphal made up explanation with no basis in reality. People strive to find explanations or origins of words or expressions and often, when one can't be found, make them up. Yours is such an example.



phyrpowr said:


> But of course, that has nothing to do with insularity or limited worldview now does it?


Would you like me to list the pejorative terms used by Americans for people and races perceived as inferiors? I would suggest that that some Brits used a pejorative epithet for people with dark skins means no more about Britain's world view than the fact that some Americans did.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Chouan said:


> Yes, most people are most comfortable with what they're used to.


Thankfully so.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Chouan said:


> In York last Saturday, I heard an American loudly ask his companion why there was a Roman column near the Minster. She replied that she wouldn't know, but that somebody probably put it there for some reason. The other, mostly foreign, tourists around them looked at them with contempt, to which they were oblivious.


I agree. It was very rude of the other, mostly foreign, tourists to look upon the Americans with contempt. If the shoe were on the other foot, I suspect the Americans would have shared their knowledge instead of ridiculing the questioner.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Chouan said:


> On the other hand, apart from South Africa and Japan I have never seen such openly racist people as I did in the US.


And yet we have a black President.


----------



## Shaver

Snow Hill Pond said:


> And yet we have a black President.


Almost.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Shaver said:


> Almost.


Thank you Shaver. However, curiously, his racial status (and speaking style) seems to change depending on the audience to whom he is speaking, but alas that is another topic.


----------



## immanuelrx

One question that hasn't been addressed (unless I missed it) is, why is someone in Switzerland so worried about US policy that he has to talk about it on a forum? What does it matter to you? Most likely you have read some article (as cited initially) or a couple of articles to form a skewed opinion of the United Stated. If you actually have put in the work to understand the inter workings of any country (let alone the complex machine that is the United States), there must be some underlying factor beyond the conversation at hand that has nothing to do with US policy. Stop living in absolutes (the US history of racism doesn't mean everyone today is racist, why bring it up other than a lack of substance. The influence of the rich is heavy, but does not influence everything). You sound like a man with hurt feelings doing everything you can you poke at the US. I have tried to keep my mouth shut, but this thread is too ridiculous and pointless to do so.


----------



## Kingstonian

"Serfs ruled by oligarchs" is a Paul Craig Roberts theme.

George Carlin also reflects on the futility of voting in the "American Dream" sketch.

However, it is probably not a good idea to try to discuss this on the interchange. You know what the results will be and you will antagonise much of your audience by raising the subject in the first place.


----------



## Shaver

Kingstonian said:


> "Surfs ruled by oligarchs" is a Paul Craig Roberts theme.
> 
> George Carlin also reflects on the futility of voting in the "American Dream" sketch.
> 
> However, it is probably not a good idea to try to discuss this on the interchange. You know what the results will be and you will antagonise much of your audience by raising the subject in the first place.


I believe that my colleague justonemore is attempting for the all-time record of being added to the most members' 'ignore' list at any one time.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

immanuelrx said:


> One question that hasn't been addressed (unless I missed it) is, why is someone in Switzerland so worried about US policy that he has to talk about it on a forum? What does it matter to you? Most likely you have read some article (as cited initially) or a couple of articles to form a skewed opinion of the United Stated. If you actually have put in the work to understand the inter workings of any country (let alone the complex machine that is the United States), there must be some underlying factor beyond the conversation at hand that has nothing to do with US policy. Stop living in absolutes (the US history of racism doesn't mean everyone today is racist, why bring it up other than a lack of substance. The influence of the rich is heavy, but does not influence everything). You sound like a man with hurt feelings doing everything you can you poke at the US. I have tried to keep my mouth shut, but this thread is too ridiculous and pointless to do so.


If I may, I think there's some subconcious disappointment. The USA was and still is an economic powerhouse, which raced ahead of the rest of the world after WWII. While everyone else was rebuilding to recover what was lost, we were going to the moon, feeding the world, building the most powerful military ever, creating the internet, and doing a lot of other things, mostly wonderful. It is natural to assume that a country that could accomplish so much would be filled with the best and the brightest, but when normal everyday Americans started to travel around the world, and other people saw how extremely average most Americans were and are, there would naturally be a disconnect between what was imagined and what is reality. Call it the super-model syndrome. Everyone loves a super-model until they hear her speak and realize she isn't perfect. And so, when the average Americans started to travel, it was just inevitable that we would disappoint!


----------



## justonemore

immanuelrx said:


> One question that hasn't been addressed (unless I missed it) is, why is someone in Switzerland so worried about US policy that he has to talk about it on a forum? What does it matter to you? Most likely you have read some article (as cited initially) or a couple of articles to form a skewed opinion of the United Stated. If you actually have put in the work to understand the inter workings of any country (let alone the complex machine that is the United States), there must be some underlying factor beyond the conversation at hand that has nothing to do with US policy. Stop living in absolutes (the US history of racism doesn't mean everyone today is racist, why bring it up other than a lack of substance. The influence of the rich is heavy, but does not influence everything). You sound like a man with hurt feelings doing everything you can you poke at the US. I have tried to keep my mouth shut, but this thread is too ridiculous and pointless to do so.


As the main topic I mentioned a study out of an American educational institution which shows that the state of U.S. politics has changed from being a represenatitive government to an oligarchy.

Why is someone in Switzerland worried about U.S. Policy? Really?

Not that it matters but as the U.S. government considers me their property and refuses to let me stop being one of its citizens, I have full rights to be critical of the U.S. I am also a war time veteran of the U.S. Army. This should give me a bit of say as well, shouldn't it? That I no longer feel comfortable living in the country of my birth and decided to flee the U.S. might allow a bit of room for my discussions..

BUT..

None of that is actually important compared to the devastation that U.S. Policy (in a broad sense versus a single document signed by "someone") has on the global scene. That the U.S. insists that other countries play by their rules is most certainly of interest to those not living in the U.S. From banking policies (funny that it was the u.s. that last sank the global economy), to business structures, to war & arms sales, as the U.S. wants to be 1 globally, the globe needs to pay attention to and be critical of the U.S.


----------



## justonemore

Snow Hill Pond said:


> If I may, I think there's some subconcious disappointment. The USA was and still is an economic powerhouse, which raced ahead of the rest of the world after WWII. While everyone else was rebuilding to recover what was lost, we were going to the moon, feeding the world, building the most powerful military ever, creating the internet, and doing a lot of other things, mostly wonderful. It is natural to assume that a country that could accomplish so much would be filled with the best and the brightest, but when normal everyday Americans started to travel around the world, and other people saw how extremely average most Americans were and are, there would naturally be a disconnect between what was imagined and what is reality. Call it the super-model syndrome. Everyone loves a super-model until they hear her speak and realize she isn't perfect. And so, when the average Americans started to travel, it was just inevitable that we would disappoint!


the U.S. did not create the internet. Not even close. It was created in Switzerland at a place called CERN by a Britsh scientist.

https://home.web.cern.ch/topics/birth-web.

Europeans are generally much more well traveled when compared to Americans. When were Americans travelling more? From 1950-1960? It doesn't seem to hold much bearing on this day and age. Again, as a well traveled "American" living in Europe, I can usually pick out the Americans and it really has nothing to do with "jealousy" or "high expectations"...


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

justonemore said:


> the U.S. did not create the internet. Not even close. It was created in Switzerland at a place called CERN by a Britsh scientist.
> 
> https://home.web.cern.ch/topics/birth-web.


Do you mean that Al Gore lied to us?


----------



## justonemore

Kingstonian said:


> "Surfs ruled by oligarchs" is a Paul Craig Roberts theme.
> 
> George Carlin also reflects on the futility of voting in the "American Dream" sketch.
> 
> However, it is probably not a good idea to try to discuss this on the interchange. You know what the results will be and you will antagonise much of your audience by raising the subject in the first place.


I agree and you make the most valid of points. Other than Shaver's smartalec response, I suppose I figure "why not?"..Much of my audience is antagonized but not all of it. I understand that there will never be an understanding between myself and those that have set their minds in another direction. However there are those amongst us that are not closed minded and might be able to think in different directions. Not that I want anyone to take my viewpoints or my "side" but perhaps they can research and learn more of the topic at hand. Perhaps it's more the promotion of "free thinkers".


----------



## justonemore

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Do you mean that Al Gore lied to us?


My point has always been that American politicians lie, cheat and steal, and that we as "Americans" unfortuantely accept it as part of the game. My point has also been that Americans have very little choice when it comes to allowing such. If democrats were offended by Gore's claim, their only other choice would be to vote for the opposing republican party. Under U.S. politics is that very realistic?

I believe Gore was called out on this particular lie.... wasn't he?


----------



## Tilton

justonemore said:


> The Swiss often ban pretty much anything that will mess up their skyline to include churches and buildings over certain heights. It's done by direct democracy and the government itself doesn't get to force issues on its populace (although I do understand that Americans are used to having their décisions made for them by politicians and the wealthy which is why I posted the article on the U.S. being an Oligarchy). Oddly enough, I was just reading an article that mentioned that a mayor of a U.S. city allowed all religions to come and preach in the city hall but banned an athiest from speaking.
> 
> Not quite sure how refugee rights came into play on a thread mentioning an article that states that the U.S. has sunk into an Oligarchy....
> 
> Not entirely sure about refugees but Policy everwhere needs to be rethought (The U.K. and Australia come Under regular critism on this topic as well). There are indeed military and "civil guard" barracks that are used to house refugees in Switzerland. What did you think more proper? Tents in a field? Schools? Churches? Community centers? City hall? Or something higher class like a Sofitel? I don't think they're "forced" to live there versus it being what is provided for refugee housing...What does the U.S. use? According to U.S. group Human Rights First, it seems as if U.S. refugee facilities are set up like prisons.
> 
> I notice that the U.S. "limits" benefits for refugess, as well as limiting the number of refugees it allows (i.e. only 12'000 from Africa etc.). Do you have any facts and figures as to the U.S. refugee system? Funding? Housing? Refugee rights? Does the U.S. take in refugees from all countries (I.E. Iran, Syria, etc.) or are they selective as to the flavor of the day social issues? I do know that Switzerland has taken former Guatanomo prisoners in order to help the U.S. clear up that little international crime...
> 
> It seems that refugees aren't quite as welcome in U.S. communities as you're trying to suggest as the following article mentions that U.S. communities aren't very keen on refugee centers in their communities either. The article also mentions that a former mill is being used to house refugees (are mills nicer places than a barracks?).
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/...t-in-refugee-resettlement.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> Although it's quite a bit smaller of a country, Switzerland handles about the same amount of refugees per year as the U.S. (around 50'000 a year on average over the past 10-15 years or so) but....I'm not sure Switzerland has a community gardens program set aside for "refugees to grow vegetables for their families"..
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/neq4m4j


Having worked for some years in refugee resettlement in the US, I can tell you exactly how the system works.

On the most basic level, refugees admitted to the US are allocated to contracting agencies that facilitate the resettlement (USCCB, USCRI, LIRS, etc.). These agencies find housing for the refugees (usually apartments) and the refugees receive interest-free loans to cover expenses and also receive social benefits such as welfare and medicaid. The agencies also provide mental health services and access to cultural integration programs (eg. BRYCS). Employment is typically found by tapping into the network of refugees resettled by whatever agency but the US Office of Refugee Resettlement also has about a $13mil budget for employment services. Refugees have the opportunity to receive naturalized citizenship and immediately upon arrival have all the same rights as any other legal resident. Nowhere in the US are refugees segregated from the general population or have their movements restricted during certain hours. Some locations are more receptive to refugees than others, yes - for example, Minneapolis, MN and Detroit, MI have both been very receptive to Somalian refugees and now have large, thriving Somali communities.

In the US, refugee numbers are set for certain classes of refugees - so many for victims of gender-based violence, so many for victims of torture and human trafficking, so many for Special Immigrant Juvenile cases, so many for Unaccompanied Refugee Minors, etc.


----------



## justonemore

Tilton said:


> Having worked for some years in refugee resettlement in the US, I can tell you exactly how the system works.
> 
> On the most basic level, refugees admitted to the US are allocated to contracting agencies that facilitate the resettlement (USCCB, USCRI, LIRS, etc.). These agencies find housing for the refugees (usually apartments) and the refugees receive interest-free loans to cover expenses and also receive social benefits such as welfare and medicaid. The agencies also provide mental health services and access to cultural integration programs (eg. BRYCS). Employment is typically found by tapping into the network of refugees resettled by whatever agency but the US Office of Refugee Resettlement also has about a $13mil budget for employment services. Refugees have the opportunity to receive naturalized citizenship and immediately upon arrival have all the same rights as any other legal resident. Nowhere in the US are refugees segregated from the general population or have their movements restricted during certain hours. Some locations are more receptive to refugees than others, yes - for example, Minneapolis, MN and Detroit, MI have both been very receptive to Somalian refugees and now have large, thriving Somali communities.
> 
> In the US, refugee numbers are set for certain classes of refugees - so many for victims of gender-based violence, so many for victims of torture and human trafficking, so many for Special Immigrant Juvenile cases, so many for Unaccompanied Refugee Minors, etc.


Thank you for the excellent info but it sounds that you are speaking about life after "refugee processing". If someone made it to U.S. shores and asked for refugee status that didn't fall into one of the mentioned categories, (gender-based violence, so many for victims of torture and human trafficking, so many for Special Immigrant Juvenile cases, so many for Unaccompanied Refugee Minors) are they given all these U.S. benefits or are they held somewhere unti lthe U.S. decides what to do with them? Are American taxpayers paying direct housing/medical/training/etc for every Mexican or Iranian that comes in and claims asylum or are they processed through a facility first?


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> Not sure what the pope's bodyguard corps have to do with an article from the U.S. about the U.S. being an oligarchy over a democracy (or republic).. But I'm not sure the the American version of a traditional parade/D&C uniform is much better... .
> https://imageshack.com/i/n7curyp


Has your god (sic) rendered you color blind?


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> Has your god (sic) rendered you color blind?


" If I apprehend salvation and flee it, your prayers are merely an indiscretion. Invest them elsewhere; in any case, we do not serve the same gods. If mine are impotent, there is every reason to believe yours are no less so. Even assuming they are as you imagine them, they would still lack the power to cure me of a horror older than my memory.

E. Cioran "The Trouble with Being Born"

god to me will always be lower case....

Which outfît would provide better movement for hand to hand combat? Both are outdated as military uniforms and used as decorative purposes only. The Swiss Guards are only the pope's bodyguards but unless you have some type of specialist military training I'd be willing to bet that they'd most likely mess you up (goofy outfits or no).


----------



## phyrpowr

Chouan said:


> Except that that is one of those invented explanations, an apocryphal made up explanation with no basis in reality. People strive to find explanations or origins of words or expressions and often, when one can't be found, make them up. Yours is such an example.
> 
> Would you like me to list the pejorative terms used by Americans for people and races perceived as inferiors? I would suggest that that some Brits used a pejorative epithet for people with dark skins means no more about Britain's world view than the fact that some Americans did.


Wait a minute; in an earlier post you said you had no idea of the origin of the word "wog", but I *must* be wrong? And you seem to have no problem applying your anecdotal instances to the whole of my country.

I give up, and acknowledge that all Europeans are highly educated, well travelled, and totally lacking in prejudice, from the Swiss banker opening his vaults to Israeli investigators, to the Parisiennes embracing Midlands soccer fans, to the great Balkan love fest.


----------



## Langham

phyrpowr said:


> Wait a minute; in an earlier post you said you had no idea of the origin of the word "wog", but I *must* be wrong? And you seem to have no problem applying your anecdotal instances to the whole of my country.
> 
> I give up, and acknowledge that all Europeans are highly educated, well travelled, and totally lacking in prejudice, from the Swiss banker opening his vaults to Israeli investigators, to the Parisiennes embracing Midlands soccer fans, to the great Balkan love fest.


On the subject of Wogs (a term bandied about a lot in my childhood, but seldom nowadays) your explanation might be correct (if Wikipedia is to be believed), but there are various explanations:



> Wog in the UK is usually regarded as a racially offensive slang word referring to a dark-skinned or olive-skinned person from Africa or Asia and, therefore, it is not generally used. It can be applied to any darker-skinned people, but is used generally to refer to peoples of the East Indies and India, as well as immigrants from the Middle-East and Mediterranean. Most dictionaries refer to the word as derogatory and offensive. The real meaning of WOGS is found in the employment of the local indigenous while the Suez Canal was under construction in the late 1890's. The local indigenous were employed to work on the canal and were provided with uniforms which were stenciled on the back "Workers on Government Service" = WOGS.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP]
> The origin of the term is unclear. It was first noted by lexicographer F.C. Bowen in 1929, in his _Sea Slang: a dictionary of the old-timers' expressions and epithets_, where he defines coonwogs as "lower class Babu shipping clerks on the Indian coast."[SUP][1][/SUP] Unsupported folk etymology has long explained it as being an acronym for "Westernised (or "Wily") Oriental Gentlemen"[SUP][2][/SUP] used by the British in India and Pakistan, referring to the educated indigenous populace. Many dictionaries say "wog" derives from the golliwogg, a blackface minstrel doll character from a children's book published in 1895, or from _pollywog_, a maritime term for someone who has not crossed the equator.
> The saying "The wogs begin at Calais" (implying that everyone who is not British is a wog) appears to date from the First World War, but was popularised by George Wigg, Labour MP for Dudley, in 1949 when in a parliamentary debate concerning the Burmese, Wigg shouted at the Conservative benches, "The Honourable Gentleman and his friends think they are all 'wogs'. Indeed, the Right Honourable Member for Woodford [i.e. Winston Churchill] thinks that the 'wogs' begin at Calais."


----------



## Mike Petrik

justonemore said:


> Just another study backing up the points I've made in several of my past posts concerning the lack of freedoms and democracy in the U.S.
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
> 
> If any "civilized" contry should be on the brink of a "Ukraine situation, it should be the U.S. I'm sure all the true "leftisits" and "rightists" will come out in favour of such nonesense. I'm certainly looking forward to Hitch coming up with a couple one-liners to defend such policy. Although I'm only linking to a BBC article based on a Princeton study, Petrik will claim that my post shows a disregard for "truth" . I'm sure the righties will state that it's "liberal media & liberal univerities" that drive the info. As for me. I will once again claim that the U.S. has nothing to do with honor, integrity, justice, fairness, democracy, freedom, etc. These days the "American Dream" is nothing more than a bunch of propagnda to make everyone fall in line. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech? These fall in line to the current political mode (any opposition to special interest groups such as religions, sexual preferences, race, etc are automatically seen as racist, sexist, etc). If there is no taxation without representation and only the rich are being represented where does that leave the other 299.9 million people in the U.S.? Campaign Finance reform? Well that's obviously unconstituitional according to the "rightest" U.S. supreme court (who is probably more than happy to get outside funding as well). Freedom from religion? Just ask any group outside mainstream Christianity and Judaism how free they are to practice their religions. Christian Scientists? Muslims? Branch Davidians? Mormans? It seems that all have had direct interference from the U.S. government. The right to bear arms? Well this one is all over the place. Who even knows what the rules and régulations are anymore? Obviously it's a special interests game that costs $100s of millions per year. Freedom of the press? Only when the topic is ok with the government and the owners of such publications. Could you imagine how great the U.S. of A. could be if the politicians actually did what they were paid to do? If money was well spent versus waisted (the mayor of Chicago has recently run up almost a $million in travel expenses alone). For goodness sakes, how much waste and abuse of power will the Amewrican people take before rising up and changing something that has obviously gone wrong? Torture. Secret prisons. Imprisonment without trial. Murder of civilians in countries far away from American shores. 1st in military spending yet last in education, health care, and infrastructure. There are so many laws passed each year in the U.S. that the basic Citizen is probably guilty of violating a few each year (even by accident). Tax codes are draconian at best and the average family almost need to hire Professional accountants just to file a basic form. I myself haven't lived in the U.S. for 10 years but am somehow expected to support the U.S. government (and its illegal war machine).


LOL. Yet another predictably boring rant. When you eventually do your time in purgatory, perhaps you will have to listen to a loop of this recording until God agrees to an audience: 




Given your amusingly overwrought disdain for the United States of America and your plainspoken disgust at paying taxes to support it, why don't you just renounce your citizenship? Give me an address and I'll gladly ship you the paperwork.


----------



## Tilton

justonemore said:


> Thank you for the excellent info but it sounds that you are speaking about life after "refugee processing". If someone made it to U.S. shores and asked for refugee status that didn't fall into one of the mentioned categories, (gender-based violence, so many for victims of torture and human trafficking, so many for Special Immigrant Juvenile cases, so many for Unaccompanied Refugee Minors) are they given all these U.S. benefits or are they held somewhere unti lthe U.S. decides what to do with them? Are American taxpayers paying direct housing/medical/training/etc for every Mexican or Iranian that comes in and claims asylum or are they processed through a facility first?


I think a few wires are getting cross here. When I said "etc." on the refugee categories, those categories go on and on following the designations created by UNHCR, so if UNHCR says someone is a refugee, there is a quota for them. Some quotas have a bit more "float" than others (namely the special classes I listed above as those are typically the highest priority) so if we don't get that many gender-based violence application, those slots don't just not get filled, they get filled at the last minute with other classifications. If one were to show up on the door step of the US, that person would be an asylee and not a refugee. It is preferable to be a refugee as that designations means that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has validated the claim for the refugee status (this is a world-wide designation - a refugee resettled in Switzerland or Australia has met the same qualifications as a refugee resettled in the US or Canada). For asylum seekers, things are different and, unless the asylee is an unaccompanied minor (which is the population I actually used to work with), asylees are pretty much on their own in terms of resettlement services. Generally speaking, asylum seekers will be admitted into the country, but must file for asylum and cannot legally work or receive any benefits until either asylum is granted or 150 days have passed without a decision being returned on the application for asylum (those persons with a rejected asylum application lose work authorization at the time of notification unless they file an appeal). After obtaining asylum, one can receive permanent residency and work authorization (aka green card) after one year, at which time the naturalization process can begin if the asylee so wishes. Asylum status holders have access to public benefits at the same level (including time constraints and requirements such as proof of seeking employment) as anyone else in the country but are not granted access to the State Department's interest-free loans administered by the resettlement agencies. Certain circumstances exist for asylees from certain countries. Eg. Cuban/Haitian immigrants have the wet foot/dry foot policy and if they are lucky enough to get a foot on terra firma, they are granted immediate asylum and Mexican asylum seekers have a significant onus to prove their need for the status and many are turned away without much processing. To qualify for asylum, you have to be persecuted on the basis of your race, religion, social group, political affiliation, gender, or nationality in your home country or country of origin. So, while your cousin offering you a job in LA that would bring you out of excruciating poverty in Mexico might be cause for immigrating, it does not meet the definition of asylum.


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> LOL. Yet another predictably boring rant. When you eventually do your time in purgatory, perhaps you will have to listen to a loop of this recording until God agrees to an audience:


Nice comeback & exactly as expected. I suppose in such holy non-sense I'll see you whenever you may rise from hell. Any chance you can come up with an example of a "non-predictable rant/post" that you've started? I suppose not as it seems you only support the U.S. Republican agenda..


----------



## Shaver

Snow Hill Pond said:


> If I may, I think there's some subconcious disappointment. The USA was and still is an economic powerhouse, which raced ahead of the rest of the world after WWII. While everyone else was rebuilding to recover what was lost, we were going to the moon, feeding the world, building the most powerful military ever, creating the internet, and doing a lot of other things, mostly wonderful. It is natural to assume that a country that could accomplish so much would be filled with the best and the brightest, but when normal everyday Americans started to travel around the world, and other people saw how extremely average most Americans were and are, there would naturally be a disconnect between what was imagined and what is reality. Call it the super-model syndrome. Everyone loves a super-model until they hear her speak and realize she isn't perfect. And so, when the average Americans started to travel, it was just inevitable that we would disappoint!


SHP my friend, what a marvelous piece of satire. I rather wish I'd written it myself.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> I agree and you make the most valid of points. Other than Shaver's smartalec response, I suppose I figure "why not?"..Much of my audience is antagonized but not all of it. I understand that there will never be an understanding between myself and those that have set their minds in another direction. However there are those amongst us that are not closed minded and might be able to think in different directions. Not that I want anyone to take my viewpoints or my "side" but perhaps they can research and learn more of the topic at hand. Perhaps it's more the promotion of "free thinkers".


Smart Alec?!

You wound me.

I thought I was sticking up for you.............


----------



## Mike Petrik

justonemore said:


> Nice comeback & exactly as expected. I suppose in such holy non-sense I'll see you whenever you may rise from hell. Any chance you can come up with an example of a "non-predictable rant/post" that you've started? I suppose not as it seems you only support the U.S. Republican agenda..


Yes of course, but again where would you like me to ship you the paperwork?


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> LOL. Yet another predictably boring rant. When you eventually do your time in purgatory, perhaps you will have to listen to a loop of this recording until God agrees to an audience:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given your amusingly overwrought disdain for the United States of America and your plainspoken disgust at paying taxes to support it, why don't you just renounce your citizenship? Give me an address and I'll gladly ship you the paperwork.


YES? REALLY? Do you have governmental powers that will allow me to do so? I've already claimed here that the U.S. government disallows such and I am basically "owned" or as we might say....A slave... I am more than happy to do so...Please allow me... Show me your great powers Petrik or otherwise I will continue to pursue a course for America that I find correct (and you are under u.s. "democracy" free to do the same). I have already contacted embassies in Spain, Switzerland and Slovakia.. I suppose your powers are somehow greater?


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Smart Alec?!
> 
> You wound me.
> 
> I thought I was sticking up for you.............


My apologies. Now that you mention it, I'm certain perhaps that I am indeed looking to have the record of the "ignore" button....:devil:


----------



## immanuelrx

justonemore said:


> As the main topic I mentioned a study out of an American educational institution which shows that the state of U.S. politics has changed from being a represenatitive government to an oligarchy.
> 
> Why is someone in Switzerland worried about U.S. Policy? Really?
> 
> Not that it matters but as the U.S. government considers me their property and refuses to let me stop being one of its citizens, I have full rights to be critical of the U.S. I am also a war time veteran of the U.S. Army. This should give me a bit of say as well, shouldn't it? That I no longer feel comfortable living in the country of my birth and decided to flee the U.S. might allow a bit of room for my discussions..
> 
> BUT..
> 
> None of that is actually important compared to the devastation that U.S. Policy (in a broad sense versus a single document signed by "someone") has on the global scene. That the U.S. insists that other countries play by their rules is most certainly of interest to those not living in the U.S. From banking policies (funny that it was the u.s. that last sank the global economy), to business structures, to war & arms sales, as the U.S. wants to be 1 globally, the globe needs to pay attention to and be critical of the U.S.


Thank God I didn't have time to respond to your reply when I first read it. I would have been kicked of the forum. You are not a "war time veteran." Stop. Just stop. Even if you deployed while your (1 term only i presume) time in the Army, you were never a war time veteran. What war did you participate in? WWII? Korean War? Vietnam War? you served in no war and at best are a combat veteran like myself. Your comments are a disgrace and a slap in the face to all the true war time veterans. Your military card might work with the general populous, but not with fellow service members. And on top of that, there is a big difference between a staff officer deployed to work on reports for a year vs an infantry man going into harms way once to twice a day. You perception of reality is a telling factor of why you post such garbage. US policy is not the issue here, your bad experiences while in the US is the real issue that you have yet to resolve. Yes, someone who lives in Switzerland that is so angry about US policy as you are intact is a question that needs to be asked. Good job a deflecting most of all I brought up. It says a lot.

One last thing. I see you deleted your talk about the government owning you and not letting you go or some other garbage. You signed a contract, you put yourself in that situation. Nothing annoys me more than the people who sign up and shortly realize it isn't a picnic serving your country. They complain their whole time in. I am no longer replying to your ignorance as I value being a part of this community too much. I hope you fine resolution with your issues because it seems to be truly eating away at you.


----------



## justonemore

immanuelrx said:


> Thank God I didn't have time to respond to your reply when I first read it. I would have been kicked of the forum. You are not a "war time veteran." Stop. Just stop. Even if you deployed while your (1 term only i presume) time in the Army, you were never a war time veteran. What war did you participate in? WWII? Korean War? Vietnam War? you served in no war and at best are a combat veteran like myself. Your comments are a disgrace and a slap in the face to all the true war time veterans. Your military card might work with the general populous, but not with fellow service members. And on top of that, there is a big difference between a staff officer deployed to work on reports for a year vs an infantry man going into harms way once to twice a day. You perception of reality is a telling factor of why you post such garbage. US policy is not the issue here, your bad experiences while in the US is the real issue that you have yet to resolve. Yes, someone who lives in Switzerland that is so angry about US policy as you are intact is a question that needs to be asked. Good job a deflecting most of all I brought up. It says a lot..


U.S. Army. 25th ID Light (That's Schofield Barracks in Hawaii should you not have any actual experience in such matters)... Call it what you want but it was infantry in a time of war. I was 11B (basic training and AIT training at Fort Benning ,Ga.) ....I am allowed to wear a medal on my dress uniforms concerning such...Are you? One look at my profile would show that I'm too young for any action before 1990 and in fact I joined at 18 in 1990 fully knowing that the U.S. was at combat, war, or wahtever you decide to call it. Again, I have been rewarded medals from the U.S. Army for such. Should I ever decide to again wear my unifrom, I would be justified in wearing such....Would you?



immanuelrx said:


> One last thing. I see you deleted your talk about the government owning you and not letting you go or some other garbage. You signed a contract, you put yourself in that situation. Nothing annoys me more than the people who sign up and shortly realize it isn't a picnic serving your country. They complain their whole time in. I am no longer replying to your ignorance as I value being a part of this community too much. I hope you fine resolution with your issues because it seems to be truly eating away at you.


That was in relation to my desire to no longer be associated with the U.S. .... not the U.S. military. Pay attention... I served my 4 year active duty contract and continued on with a contract of 4 years more in the Guard (In my time all service members were required to 8 years of duty be it active, reserve, guard, or IRR). Come on big man..Tell me some of your military expériences and how I'm not a U.S. Army vet....


----------



## Mike Petrik

justonemore said:


> YES? REALLY? Do you have governmental powers that will allow me to do so? I've already claimed here that the U.S. government disallows such and I am basically "owned" or as we might say....A slave... I am more than happy to do so...Please allow me... Show me your great powers Petrik or otherwise I will continue to pursue a course for America that I find correct (and you are under u.s. "democracy" free to do the same). I have already contacted embassies in Spain, Switzerland and Slovakia.. I suppose your powers are somehow greater?


The United States allows any citizen to renounce his citizenship. If you are living abroad, you need only visit an embassy a couple times to fill out some paperwork. Hundreds of people do it every year, mostly for tax reasons. Your inability to accomplish this would seem mysterious, but have you tried toning down the emotion a bit? Perhaps the clerks believe you to be unbalanced?


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> The United States allows any citizen to renounce his citizenship. If you are living abroad, you need only visit an embassy a couple times to fill out some paperwork. Hundreds of people do it every year, mostly for tax reasons. Your inability to accomplish this would seem mysterious, but have you tried toning down the emotion a bit? Perhaps the clerks believe you to be unbalanced?


Nice personal insult (once again).. Actually the U.S. allows no one to be "stateless"..As I've mentioned several times in the past (but perhaps you're too umbalanced to have noticed)... Perhaps you've been paying too much attention to your prayers?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Shaver said:


> SHP my friend, what a marvelous piece of satire. I rather wish I'd written it myself.


Thanks for the out. Yes, it was satire!


----------



## Mike Petrik

justonemore said:


> Nice personal insult (once again).. Actuially the U.S. alloiws no one to be "stateless"..As I've mentioned several times in past but perhaps you're too umbalanced to have noticed..,. Maybe you've been paying too much attention to your prayers?


Ah, no insult intended at all. You are just an emotional guy. But thanks for clearing that up for me. The problem isn't that the US won't let you leave; the problem is that on other country will let you in. It all does make more sense now.


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> Ah, no insult intended at all. You are just an emotional guy. But thanks for clearing that up for me. The problem isn't that the US won't let you leave; the problem is that on other country will let you in. It all does make more sense now.


Actually... it's more of an issue that I wish to give allegiance to no government or political system. I am pretty much guaranteed Swiss citizenship whenever I desire....Thanks for misunderstanding it... You persepective makes much more sense now...But.. I am still the modern day version of a slave whether you like to admit it or not. I wish no association with the U.S: but am forced into it by the U.S. ....Expat= modern day slave which =giving my money and time to a system I have repeadedtly stated I don't believe in, (which is a place I haven't lived in for 10 years )or "benefitted" from.

Unbalanced = emotional? Ha. That's most certainly a conservative American viewpoint if I've ever heard one. I agree that just as any human, emotion plays a part in my life. If I tortured and killed your family would you not be "emotional" as well? When I have to see daily, little girls of 6, that have been burned by Israeli phospourous grenades, or have had their spinal columnes destroyed by U.S. drones (I get the honor of seeing a little girl and her father go through rehabiliation daily thanks to U.S. drones)..It affects me... I would think the best idea is for Americans to see the same things on a daily basis as well. Perhaps if you got to live daily with the horrors caused by your government, you might think twice before being so supportive of everything that comes out of the U.S. (but perhaps no one has deemed you worthy enough to have children with?)

The last time I was in London (6 years ago by now I suppose), I was accosted by those that stated I had blood on my hands. I was an American and American bombs killed 5 family members of the guy. How about you see and live the reality before you start calling names and bringing religion into the matter?


----------



## Tilton

Come on, man. Get real. The modern day version of a slave is an actual slave. Slavery exists all over the world and not the kind of philosophical slavery you're talking about - but the actual working in the fields 14 hours a day with no pay and no rights kind of slavery. You made the same sort of claim several months ago when you claimed to be a refugee (which you also are not). Talk like that trivializes the real victims of slavery and persecution. You weren't forced to leave the US under legitimate persecution and you aren't forced to remain a US citizen - you're free to come and go to the US as you wish as you are in Switzerland and you're also free to renounce your citizenship so long as another country is willing to have you. By your argument, we're all slaves to the world. Oh, sweet irony! We are all slaves to this awful place called earth which gives us life but from which we shall never escape!


----------



## justonemore

Tilton said:


> Come on, man. Get real. The modern day version of a slave is an actual slave. Slavery exists all over the world and not the kind of philosophical slavery you're talking about - but the actual working in the fields 14 hours a day with no pay and no rights kind of slavery. You made the same sort of claim several months ago when you claimed to be a refugee (which you also are not). Talk like that trivializes the real victims of slavery and persecution. You weren't forced to leave the US under legitimate persecution and you aren't forced to remain a US citizen - you're free to come and go to the US as you wish as you are in Switzerland and you're also free to renounce your citizenship so long as another country is willing to have you. By your argument, we're all slaves to the world. Oh, sweet irony! We are all slaves to this awful place called earth which gives us life but from which we shall never escape!


A slave is someone that is forced to work for free or forced to pay taxes that have no benefit....If I am forced to give my money and time to a something I don't believe in (let alone live in), then I am no less than a slave. You want to live in the U.S. You "believe" in it. You "benefit" from it. fine. I do not. I wiped my hands of the U.S. 10 years ago and the government still insist that I belong to them (despite repeated attempts on my part to state otherwise). It is no less than ownership or slavery... Call it what it is... I'm not living there nor am I using any of your precious social systems such as roads, hospitals, SS, etc,.. Should you have the power to release me from such BS obligations, I will gladly sign any paper you have(as long as it doesn't obligate me to other systems I may not believe in). Slaves to the world? Nope...But all U.S. expats are slaves to the U.S. until they are "cleared " for renouncement (not one other country taxes non-resident citizens or forces them to take citizenship elsewhere before renounciation)..oh.. The "taxes and charges" of renounciation are exorbitantly expensive (but what can one expect from a country that is considered an oligarchy by it's own educational institutions?)... To me, the U.S. arguement equals....Before you cn divorce a christian you have to prove your faith to judaism (or buddism, hinduism, etc.). Really?

Again..I left the U.S. in fear of political persecution. It doesn't meet U.S. or international standards as to refugee staus but I can still consider myself a refugee for political reasons whether it fits your definition or not(of course most Americans probably don't consider Assange and Snowden as political refugees either).

Refugees-Assylees, etc...Just as any other "layman" I find the various définitions in a particular field rather odd and misleading. It seems the U.S. is rather selective as to its refugees. Of course it helps that most U.S. bombing victims would reach another country first (and therefore "legally" have to declare refugee status in that country).Just out of curiousity.. How many refugees did you handle that had children with limbs blown off from U.S. bombings? Have you ever dealt with 6 y.o victims of Israeli phospherous attacks? I don't know if you have a classification for such. Are they automatically given entrance, a suite at the luxor, and full U.S. benefits?


----------



## sbdivemaster

justonemore said:


> ...I'm not living there and using any of your precious social systems, roads, hospitals, etc,.. Should you have the power to release me from such BS obligations, I will gladly sign any paper you have(as long as it doesn't obligate me to other systems I may not believe in)....


Here, I'll help you out:

The US cares not whether, after renouncing your US citizenship, you give allegiance to another government or not. You just might not be able to enter the US (or a whole bunch of other nations) - from your disdain, sounds like that would be A-OK with you.

Grow a pair and follow in the footsteps of Garry Davis and hundreds of thousands other human beings. Renounce your US citizenship and become a World Citizen. 100% approved by your beloved UN and their UDHR.

No one, or law, is stopping you. Put your money where your mouth is. Garry Davis did.


----------



## Shaver

Would it be inflammatory, at this point, for me to inquire as to the whereabouts of the Third Reich's gold? :rolleyes2:


----------



## justonemore

sbdivemaster said:


> Here, I'll help you out:
> 
> The US cares not whether, after renouncing your US citizenship, you give allegiance to another government or not. You just might not be able to enter the US (or a whole bunch of other nations) - from your disdain, sounds like that would be A-OK with you.
> 
> Grow a pair and follow in the footsteps of Garry Davis and hundreds of thousands other human beings. Renounce your US citizenship and become a World Citizen. 100% approved by your beloved UN and their UDHR.
> 
> No one, or law, is stopping you. Put your money where your mouth is. Garry Davis did.


Check it out a bit more hero. I am not allowed to give up U.S. citizenship before announcing allegiance to another country. If it's not U.S. law then it's u.s. policy. Try the u.s. state department website perhaps? I know. I've tried it 3 times (as already mentioned).


----------



## Langham

This is about the US taxation system, isn't it? I believe it is a straightforward business to renounce US nationality, even if that renders a person stateless, however it will have no effect on your tax obligations. US taxation arrangements of expatriates seem highly unfair by European standards, if not draconian. Most Europeans choosing to live abroad need pay no tax to their country of origin, except for certain types of income arising there - dividends, rent etc. In some instances it can be possible to arrange one's circumstances to avoid paying tax altogether, although it is not exactly straightforward.


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> This is about the US taxation system, isn't it? I believe it is a straightforward business to renounce US nationality, even if that renders a person stateless, however it will have no effect on your tax obligations. US taxation arrangements of expatriates seem highly unfair by European standards, if not draconian. Most Europeans choosing to live abroad need pay no tax to their country of origin, except for certain types of income arising there - dividends, rent etc. In some instances it can be possible to arrange one's circumstances to avoid paying tax altogether, although it is not exactly straightforward.


I would have to make above a certain amount in order to have to pay taxes to the U.S. directly. While this may some day become a concern, it is not at the moment (nor most likely in the future). As stated, I have ethical reasons for no longer wishing to be associated with the U.S. I also have ethical reasons for not wishing to be associated with other countries. I have tried 3 times to renounce, and 3 times I have been refused with the excuse that I would be stateless and it wouldn't be allowed by U.S. standards.


----------



## sbdivemaster

justonemore said:


> Check it out a bit more hero. I am not allowed to give up U.S. citizenship before announcing allegiance to another country. It's U.S. law. Try the u.s. state department website perhaps?


Please point to the code section which requires allegiance to another nation before renouncing US citizenship.

You have it entirely backwards. It is required for you to renounce citizenship BEFORE announcing allegiance to another country. The only thing that will happen is you will become stateless.



justonemore said:


> Actually... it's more of an issue that I wish to give allegiance to no government or political system.


This seems to be your desire. No?

Garry Davis did it. No one is stopping you either.

Direct from :



> Renunciation of U.S. Nationality
> 
> A. THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT
> 
> Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law governing the right of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily
> 
> "(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state , in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State" (emphasis added).
> 
> B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION
> 
> A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
> 
> appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
> in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
> sign an oath of renunciation
> 
> Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.
> 
> C. REQUIREMENT - RENOUNCE ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
> 
> a person seeking to renounce U.S. citizenship must renounce all the rights and privileges associated with such citizenships. In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998),the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because he wanted to retain the right to live in the United States while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen.
> 
> D. DUAL NATIONALITY / STATELESSNESS
> 
> Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country. Even if not stateless, former U.S. citizens would still be required to obtain a visa to travel to the United States, or show that they are eligible for admission pursuant to the terms of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP). Renunciation of U.S. citizenship may not prevent a foreign country from deporting that individual to the United States in some non-citizen status.
> 
> E. TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION
> 
> Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial obligations previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.
> 
> F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS
> 
> Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship.
> 
> G. IRREVOCABILITY OF RENUNCIATION
> 
> Finally, those contemplating a renunciation of U.S. citizenship should understand that the act is irrevocable, except as provided in section 351 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1483), and cannot be canceled or set aside absent successful administrative or judicial appeal. (Section 351(b) of the INA provides that an applicant who renounced his or her U.S. citizenship before the age of eighteen can have that citizenship reinstated if he or she makes that desire known to the Department of State within six months after attaining the age of eighteen. See also Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 50.20).


Get cracking, champ.


----------



## justonemore

sbdivemaster said:


> Please point to the code section which requires allegiance to another nation before renouncing US citizenship.
> 
> You have it entirely backwards. It is required for you to renounce citizenship BEFORE announcing allegiance to another country. The only thing that will happen is you will become stateless.
> 
> This seems to be your desire. No?
> 
> Garry Davis did it. No one is stopping you either.
> 
> Direct from US State Department website:
> 
> Get cracking...


And when they refuse me again I can give them your name and number as a reference as to how the system is supposed to work?


----------



## Langham

I too looked at the US State Department website before responding, and the fact that you might become stateless is specifically addressed.


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> I too looked at the US State Department website before responding, and the fact that you might become stateless is specifically addressed.


The state department website does indeed seem to contradict what I've been told. Others appear to have had the same experience as I have but of course there's Garry Davis to show that not everyone expériences the same. We'll have to see what Bern says in the near future.


----------



## sbdivemaster

justonemore said:


> And when they refuse me again I can give them your name and number as a reference as to how the system is supposed to work?


You can't fight your own battles? You can refer them to the US Code.

Again, Garry Davis did it. Henry Martyn Noel did it. No one is stopping you.


----------



## justonemore

sbdivemaster said:


> You can't fight your own battles? You can refer them to the US Code.
> 
> Again, Garry Davis did it. Henry Martyn Noel did it. No one is stopping you.


Well thank you. I suppose it's something I can look further into. Do you think I can sue for being told otherwise (I even have a letter refusing such out of Slovakia)? I suppose I should just refer to U.S. code number...What code number was that?


----------



## sbdivemaster

Here's a few more:

Mike Gogulski

Thomas Jolley

Harmon Wilfred

Joel Slater



justonemore said:


> Well thank you. I suppose it's something I can look further into. Do you think I can sue for being told otherwise (I even have a letter refusing such)?


You'll have to inquire with an attorney as to the merits of a suit against the USDoS.

You can thank me later - preferably after you renounce your US citizenship


----------



## Tilton

justonemore said:


> A slave is someone that is forced to work for free or forced to pay taxes that have no benefit....If I am forced to give my money and time to a something I don't believe in (let alone live in), then I am no less than a slave. You want to live in the U.S. You "believe" in it. You "benefit" from it. fine. I do not. I wiped my hands of the U.S. 10 years ago and the government still insist that I belong to them (despite repeated attempts on my part to state otherwise). It is no less than ownership or slavery... Call it what it is... I'm not living there nor am I using any of your precious social systems such as roads, hospitals, SS, etc,.. Should you have the power to release me from such BS obligations, I will gladly sign any paper you have(as long as it doesn't obligate me to other systems I may not believe in). Slaves to the world? Nope...But all U.S. expats are slaves to the U.S. until they are "cleared " for renouncement (not one other country taxes non-resident citizens or forces them to take citizenship elsewhere before renounciation)..oh.. The "taxes and charges" of renounciation are exorbitantly expensive (but what can one expect from a country that is considered an oligarchy by it's own educational institutions?)... To me, the U.S. arguement equals....Before you cn divorce a christian you have to prove your faith to judaism (or buddism, hinduism, etc.). Really?
> 
> Again..I left the U.S. in fear of political persecution. It doesn't meet U.S. or international standards as to refugee staus but I can still consider myself a refugee for political reasons whether it fits your definition or not(of course most Americans probably don't consider Assange and Snowden as political refugees either).
> 
> Refugees-Assylees, etc...Just as any other "layman" I find the various définitions in a particular field rather odd and misleading. It seems the U.S. is rather selective as to its refugees. Of course it helps that most U.S. bombing victims would reach another country first (and therefore "legally" have to declare refugee status in that country).Just out of curiousity.. How many refugees did you handle that had children with limbs blown off from U.S. bombings? Have you ever dealt with 6 y.o victims of Israeli phospherous attacks? I don't know if you have a classification for such. Are they automatically given entrance, a suite at the luxor, and full U.S. benefits?


So you are truly convinced that you and others like you were being subjugated and repressed to the point that you felt your life was in danger? From what you say, you are using "persecution" a bit too loosely. There is an enormous difference between disagreeing with the ruling party and being persecuted for your beliefs. On the other hand, if, say, you were an Army deserter and you felt that being prosecuted as such was persecution for your beliefs, then I guess you might have an argument.

Regarding the children, given my language skills, all of the kids I worked with were from Central America and they were all asylees and not refugees. The child you give as an example would fall into many categories and would apply for whichever category would be able to expedite the case most rapidly. As an aside, I had very, very few bombing victims. Many of the youngsters whose cases I had were kidnapped, forced to work as a domestic worker and sex slave, bought, sold, raped innumerable times, missing limbs or appendages (often lopped off for proof of life in ransoms), witnessed the murder whole families (and sometimes forced to commit them), pimped out, and forced to work as drug mules. I'd say you could pick any 3-5 of those and you'd have an average 12 year old girl receiving status through one of the 8 national programs set up for unaccompanied alien minors. So, no, no phosphorous burns and not many bombing victims, but I focused on a different part of the world where that stuff isn't the concern. There is no doubt they exist in the US.

Also, distance to another country has nothing to do with where a refugee is resettled and nor does the country where refugee status was given. All refugee allocations from on-site (ie. at the refugee camp or in-country where the refugees are) processing centers is done by third-party groups with an understanding of which countries have capacity for how many and which types of cases (eg. the US could say "we have the ability to take a lot of mental health cases" and Switzerland can say "we can handle 20% of our allocations to be physically disabled").


----------



## justonemore

Tilton said:


> So you are truly convinced that you and others like you were being subjugated and repressed to the point that you felt your life was in danger? From what you say, you are using "persecution" a bit too loosely. There is an enormous difference between disagreeing with the ruling party and being persecuted for your beliefs. On the other hand, if, say, you were an Army deserter and you felt that being prosecuted as such was persecution for your beliefs, then I guess you might have an argument.
> 
> Regarding the children, given my language skills, all of the kids I worked with were from Central America and they were all asylees and not refugees. The child you give as an example would fall into many categories and would apply for whichever category would be able to expedite the case most rapidly. As an aside, I had very, very few bombing victims. Many of the youngsters whose cases I had were kidnapped, forced to work as a domestic worker and sex slave, bought, sold, raped innumerable times, missing limbs or appendages (often lopped off for proof of life in ransoms), witnessed the murder whole families (and sometimes forced to commit them), pimped out, and forced to work as drug mules. I'd say you could pick any 3-5 of those and you'd have an average 12 year old girl receiving status through one of the 8 national programs set up for unaccompanied alien minors. So, no, no phosphorous burns and not many bombing victims, but I focused on a different part of the world where that stuff isn't the concern. There is no doubt they exist in the US.
> 
> Also, distance to another country has nothing to do with where a refugee is resettled and nor does the country where refugee status was given. All refugee allocations from on-site (ie. at the refugee camp or in-country where the refugees are) processing centers is done by third-party groups with an understanding of which countries have capacity for how many and which types of cases (eg. the US could say "we have the ability to take a lot of mental health cases" and Switzerland can say "we can handle 20% of our allocations to be physically disabled").


Again. Thank you for the information based on your experience. In no way do I discount what you have done versus mentioning that what you have done is not perhaps the end all. What one reads on-line & what one expériences is perhaps not the same as others have experienced and I appreciate you taking the time to explain your viewpoint versus giving off oneliner insults.

Does fear of loss of freedom & liberty come into play with refugee status or is it only fear of death? I thought political persecution applied to countries that spied on their citizens and harrassed them for holding political viewpoints contrary to that of the government (i.e. Chinese dissidents). Does a whistleblower like Snowden have a right to asylum or political refugee staus? What about Assange when there is questionable concern as to the staus od his arrest warrant? Or is this only good for "Army deserters"?

A 2 minute search reveals this from canada concerning 1st safe country agreements.....

Safe Third Country Agreement Canada has an agreement with the United States where people who want to make a refugee claim must do so in the first safe country they arrive in. This means that if you enter Canada at a land border from the United States, you cannot make a refugee claim in Canada. In some cases this rule does not apply (for example, if you have family in Canada).

https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/inside/apply-who.asp

Any thoughts on why that article I provided earlier claims that refugees coming into the U.S. are put into prison like institutions?


----------



## Langham

justonemore said:


> Well thank you. I suppose it's something I can look further into. Do you think I can sue for being told otherwise (I even have a letter refusing such out of Slovakia)? I suppose I should just refer to U.S. code number...What code number was that?


I believe you might well be able to sue the US State Department or the US embassy for damages, provided you can establish some form of loss or suffering arising from their negligent misrepresentation. It might prove advantageous to retain US citizenship at least until you have pursued this action.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Langham said:


> This is about the US taxation system, isn't it? I believe it is a straightforward business to renounce US nationality, even if that renders a person stateless, however it will have no effect on your tax obligations. US taxation arrangements of expatriates seem highly unfair by European standards, if not draconian. Most Europeans choosing to live abroad need pay no tax to their country of origin, except for certain types of income arising there - dividends, rent etc. In some instances it can be possible to arrange one's circumstances to avoid paying tax altogether, although it is not exactly straightforward.


The United States taxes its citizens on their worldwide income subject to a credit for foreign taxes paid. A US citizen living abroad may prospectively avoid US tax (assuming no income connected to the US) by renouncing his citizenship, though unrecognized gains attributable to prior periods may be taxed as a consequence of the renunciation (and IIRC the individual is expected to certify that he properly paid US tax for the past 5 years). The US system is indeed aberrant in that most nations tax income sourced to their own jurisdiction only.


----------



## Langham

^ I am very far from being an expert on the US tax system, but I learnt quite a lot about it while I was working, rather coincidentally, in Switzerland. I myself was able to pay very little in the way of tax, as I was exempt even from Swiss taxes, but my American colleagues by comparison were very sorely afflicted.


----------



## Tilton

justonemore said:


> Again. Thank you for the information based on your experience. In no way do I discount what you have done versus mentioning that what you have done is not perhaps the end all. What one reads on-line & what one expériences is perhaps not the same as others have experienced and I appreciate you taking the time to explain your viewpoint versus giving off oneliner insults.
> 
> Does fear of loss of freedom & liberty come into play with refugee status or is it only fear of death? I thought political persecution applied to countries that spied on their citizens and harrassed them for holding political viewpoints contrary to that of the government (i.e. Chinese dissidents). Does a whistleblower like Snowden have a right to asylum or political refugee staus? What about Assange when there is questionable concern as to the staus od his arrest warrant? Or is this only good for "Army deserters"?
> 
> A 2 minute search reveals this from canada concerning 1st safe country agreements.....
> 
> Safe Third Country Agreement Canada has an agreement with the United States where people who want to make a refugee claim must do so in the first safe country they arrive in. This means that if you enter Canada at a land border from the United States, you cannot make a refugee claim in Canada. In some cases this rule does not apply (for example, if you have family in Canada).
> 
> https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/inside/apply-who.asp
> 
> Any thoughts on why that article I provided earlier claims that refugees coming into the U.S. are put into prison like institutions?


Canada refers to asylum seekers as in-country refugees whereas the US pretty strictly follows UNHCR definitions, so that's the difference there and as I said before, a UNHCR designated refugee is a much better status to have than an asylum seeker.

The fear of loss of freedom is applicable if there is a targeted effort to deprive freedom from certain specific groups. Fear of such must be accompanied by demonstrable threats of such and it has to be targeted at certain groups rather than populations as a whole, for the most part. If you were a target of COINTELPRO, for instance, you'd be able to make that case.

I'll admit I didn't read the whole article you posted earlier, but in the US, refugees are not placed in government-owned housing. The group I worked for, which resettled 1mil+ refugees since the 70's, put refugees in apartments, rowhouses, and detached houses which were typically in ethnically-similar neighborhoods. The refugees were free to take the stipend and find their own home immediately, or after having gotten back on their feet. I am unaware of any resettlement agency in the US that places any restrictions whatsoever on when and where their clients can travel, work, or live. The cities they are placed in usually ask for X number of refugees and there are plenty of cities and towns that want them (immigrants are significantly more likely to be small business owners when compared to the general US population, so they become more desirable in depressed areas like Detroit or Minneapolis, the two examples I gave earlier). I will read the rest of the article later tonight when I get home.

EDIT: Re: Snowden/Assange: no, not by UN standards. The difference is that they broke laws which are not protected acts from a human rights perspective. Now, domestic policy in Russia or Ecuador might allow them to receive refugee status in those countries, but don't give them status from UNHCR, which is the world-wise authority on immigration and refugee issues. I don't know a lick of Russian and Ecuadorian domestic immigration policy, so I'm no help there, but countries are not bound to strictly follow UNHCR policies - UNHCR basically serves as a contractor for refugee processing and individual nations can make decisions as they wish. If the US wanted to, they could come up with their own processing system or discontinue their current refugee policies all together. FWIW, I have had several friends work in UNHCR processing offices and as investigators in Burma, Nepal, Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, and Sudan/South Sudan. It is a crazy job.


----------



## justonemore

Tilton said:


> Canada refers to asylum seekers as in-country refugees whereas the US pretty strictly follows UNHCR definitions, so that's the difference there and as I said before, a UNHCR designated refugee is a much better status to have than an asylum seeker.
> 
> The fear of loss of freedom is applicable if there is a targeted effort to deprive freedom from certain specific groups. Fear of such must be accompanied by demonstrable threats of such and it has to be targeted at certain groups rather than populations as a whole, for the most part. If you were a target of COINTELPRO, for instance, you'd be able to make that case.
> 
> I'll admit I didn't read the whole article you posted earlier, but in the US, refugees are not placed in government-owned housing. The group I worked for, which resettled 1mil+ refugees since the 70's, put refugees in apartments, rowhouses, and detached houses which were typically in ethnically-similar neighborhoods. The refugees were free to take the stipend and find their own home immediately, or after having gotten back on their feet. I am unaware of any resettlement agency in the US that places any restrictions whatsoever on when and where their clients can travel, work, or live. The cities they are placed in usually ask for X number of refugees and there are plenty of cities and towns that want them (immigrants are significantly more likely to be small business owners when compared to the general US population, so they become more desirable in depressed areas like Detroit or Minneapolis, the two examples I gave earlier). I will read the rest of the article later tonight when I get home.


I look forward to further information. As I mentioned when you first brought the topic up, I'm no expert but it does appear that improvements are needed everywhere.

That a country with 1/50th of the U.S. population (and a very small fraction of its space) brings in the same amount of refugees, is hardly something to scoff at (even if their facilities are somewhat dated).

Speaking of space... As mentioned, Switzerland is quite small (It could easily fit into Lake Michigan). One of its assets is tourism. This is because oif its natural beauty. As such, they are quite against anything being highlighted against their skyline. Most cities do this. I'm from Chicago and can remember several political fights over "skyscrapers" that would be allowed to be built. Many U.S. communities make demands on property maintenance and appearence do they not? I think I remember a battle in the chicago area that concerned Church bells being sounded only at certain times on certain days (no matter the religion). I myself feel that direct democracy is fine. If the populace says no, then why should the government (which is there to represent the populace) be able to say yes? Not allowing minerets on the skyline is quite a bit different from not allowing mosques or religious services, is it not? I don't wish to get into all the religious persecution that exists in the states but it is there and it is much more restrictive than many other countries. The same applies for many other civil rights (i.e homosexuality).


----------



## MaxBuck

What a silly thread. Five pages in a few days, just to banter back and forth over one person's hyperbolic rants about his hatred for his birth nation? Odd stuff.

I consider myself a patriotic American, and love this country, but I'll acknowledge that other countries have some advantages over us (as well as disadvantages). Each to his own, and no place is perfect. (Kauai comes pretty close, though ...)

As for Switzerland, I found it to be a fairly unfriendly and expensive place. But the food and drink were outstanding. Perhaps I'll get back soon to see whether those impressions still hold.


----------



## justonemore

MaxBuck said:


> What a silly thread. Five pages in a few days, just to banter back and forth over one person's hyperbolic rants about his hatred for his birth nation? Odd stuff.
> 
> I consider myself a patriotic American, and love this country, but I'll acknowledge that other countries have some advantages over us (as well as disadvantages). Each to his own, and no place is perfect. (Kauai comes pretty close, though ...)
> 
> As for Switzerland, I found it to be a fairly unfriendly and expensive place. But the food and drink were outstanding. Perhaps I'll get back soon to see whether those impressions still hold.


Hmm.. the OP was over an article that mentioned that the U.S. is not a democracy versus an oligarchy...The article mentioned a study from a highly respected U.S. educational institution... That others have chosen to banter back and forth on unrelated issues is just part of life on the internet.

I too consider myself a patriotic American. I have spent a good amount of time in service to my fellow Americans (have you?). I just happen to consider that America is no longer patriotic to its citizens. That the rights of the indivdual has goine the path to the rights of people with the funds to bribe public officials. I am no longer represented as a Citizen versus represented as a byproduct of a politician's wallet (i.e. billions to israel for millions of israeli campaign funds).

Ha. After 4 years of military service in Hawaii I find it rather strange that you'd find Kauai almost ideal but Switzerland "expensive and unfriendly". I find both to be almost the same cost Wise but with Hawaii being a place that non-natives stand a good chance of geting beaten for being non-natives. The views are both mountainous and most have water somehere or another. I do admit that the Hawaiian climate was quite preferable (other than the "piss" rain that occurs Nov-March).

Outside of Michelin and gault Millau starred restaurants/hôtels, Food, drink and service in Switzerland are some of the worst I have ever experienced. Unless you're interested in a vacation outside of these factors, I would suggest you save your money and vacation elsewhere.


----------



## Langham

justonemore said:


> ...Not allowing minerets on the skyline is quite a bit different from not allowing mosques or religious services, is it not? ...


I believe the minaret is a fairly important part of a mosque. Not allowing them slightly puts the kibosh on observance of the muslim religion. I felt this decision cast the Swiss in a rather xenophobic light - I would have readily believed it of the Austrians, but not the Swiss.

Mind you, if we were allowed direct democracy here, anything might happen.


----------



## Kingstonian

Langham said:


> I believe the minaret is a fairly important part of a mosque. Not allowing them slightly puts the kibosh on observance of the muslim religion. I felt this decision cast the Swiss in a rather xenophobic light - I would have readily believed it of the Austrians, but not the Swiss.
> 
> Mind you, if we were allowed direct democracy here, anything might happen.


As you point out, lots in the UK and France etc. etc. are not too keen on allowing Muslims to gain a stronghold in their countries. Admittedly it is rather late, but at least the Swiss cater to the wishes of their native population first.

Lots of commentators try to browbeat the populace with political correctness; some countries are more susceptible than others. Muslim countries are hardly bastions of tolerance, so what goes around...

Switzerland is a fine country and they are choosy about who they let in - which is a good thing in my book. All German speaking areas are attractive particularly Austria and Southern Germany though the weather is warmer in Southern Europe of course.


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> I believe the minaret is a fairly important part of a mosque. Not allowing them slightly puts the kibosh on observance of the muslim religion. I felt this decision cast the Swiss in a rather xenophobic light - I would have readily believed it of the Austrians, but not the Swiss.
> 
> Mind you, if we were allowed direct democracy here, anything might happen.


O.K. I'd agree if the swiss hadn't voted several times to keep crosses off of churches as well (albeit in a local versus national manner) and towers out of the cities (despite housing Crunch issues). There may be a point that a few don't agree with putting a religious symbol that isn't historically swiss as well. It's a bit more complex than the Swiss are a bunch of racists. Again, the allowance of buildings is up for approval from any community. I couldn't put a big cross or mineret on my house in chicago if it violated régulations. Simple as that. The fact is that many people in the U.S. and Switzerland have to get permission from city planners in order to even paint their buildings certain colors.


----------



## Kingstonian

justonemore said:


> Ha. After 4 years of military service in Hawaii I find it rather strange that you'd find Kauai almost ideal but Switzerland "expensive and unfriendly". I find both to be almost the same cost Wise but with Hawaii being a place that non-natives stand a good chance of geting beaten for being non-natives. The views are both mountainous and most have water somehere or another. I do admit that the climate was quite preferable (other than the "piss" rain that occurs Nov-March).
> 
> Outside of Michelin and gault Millau starred restaurants/hôtels, Food, drink and service in Switzerland are some of the worst I have ever experienced. Unless you're interested in a vacation outside of these factors, I would suggest you save your money and vacation elsewhere.


I disagree Switzerland used to be the best place to ski when the exchange rates were more favourable. The hotels in Davos, Wengen etc. are superb - far better than French ski resorts. The World Economic Forum meets in Davos for a good reason.

If you had just mentioned your years in the military - but not the oligarchy business the response would be "Thank you for your service." It is one of those things Americans say like " Have a nice day."


----------



## Langham

Kingstonian said:


> As you point out, lots in the UK and France etc. etc. are not too keen on allowing Muslims to gain a stronghold in their countries. Admittedly it is rather late, but at least the Swiss cater to the wishes of their native population first.
> 
> Lots of commentators try to browbeat the populace with political correctness; some countries are more susceptible than others. Muslim countries are hardly bastions of tolerance, so what goes around...
> 
> Switzerland is a fine country and they are choosy about who they let in - which is a good thing in my book. All German speaking areas are attractive particularly Austria and Southern Germany though the weather is warmer in Southern Europe of course.


I too like Switzerland - a lot in fact, and as my wife's family are Swiss, I have been there many times. However, I feel freedom of religious observance is a sine qua non.

But what do you mean about the Swiss being choosy about whom they let in? Last time I was there (in Geneva) it was seething with a lot of obnoxious filthy-rich from various places farther east, swanning around from bank to restaurant to night-club.


----------



## Kingstonian

Langham said:


> I too like Switzerland - a lot in fact, and as my wife's family are Swiss, I have been there many times. However, I feel freedom of religious observance is a sine qua non.
> 
> But what do you mean about the Swiss being choosy about whom they let in? Last time I was there (in Geneva) it was seething with a lot of obnoxious filthy-rich from various places farther east, swanning around from bank to restaurant to night-club.


I meant who the Swiss grant citizenship to. Germany also had the "gastarbeiter" status for migrant workers who would not be welcome in normal circumstances, but as far as I am aware it has never resorted to kicking them out once there is no work for them.


----------



## justonemore

Kingstonian said:


> I disagree Switzerland used to be the best place to ski when the exchange rates were more favourable. The hotels in Davos, Wengen etc. are superb - far better than French ski resorts. The World Economic Forum meets in Davos for a good reason.
> 
> If you had just mentioned your years in the military - but not the oligarchy business the response would be "Thank you for your service." It is one of those things Americans say like " Have a nice day."


Umm. The hôtels in Davos, Gstaad, and St Maurice are designed for a bit different crowd compared to the average tourist. Ski resorts here are of course a main draw & well done but that says nothing as to service. I think the best service is usally provided by Asian properties followed by the Americans. In all honesty, I've had better service out of 5* hôtels in Morocco compared to a few of the same designated properties in Switzerland. Again, that's just my experience.

I don't really need thanks for my service. I did it for an ideology that I believed in (and still do). My fellow Americans can agree or disagree with me and that was part of my ideology when deciding to join the Army. I have always believed in giving back to my community (as long as they were willing to give in return) and this shows in the fact that I not onlyserved in the military but as a volunteeer firefighter as well. I disagree with my country becoming an Oligarchy and have a hard time understanding why my fellow Americans wouldn't be concerned about such.


----------



## Langham

^^ I myself enjoyed Swiss citizenship for a while, but sadly it proved temporary and the privilege was swiftly revoked when my circumstances changed. No messing about there.


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> ^^ I myself enjoyed Swiss citizenship for a while, but sadly it proved temporary and the privilege was swiftly revoked when my circumstances changed. No messing about there.


I hope you mean residency versus citizenship? The only way that has been discussed in revoking citizenship would be if an immigrant commits a rather serious crime such as murder (again, I belive this was only discussed and not actually law). Résidents on the other hand are expected to leave if a work/education permit expires or if a family situation drastically changes (i.e. my wife and children are swiss. if I were to divorce I would still be allowed residency Under the "family unification act" but absent of children I might be expected to leave if I resided here under x amount of time).


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> " If I apprehend salvation and flee it, your prayers are merely an indiscretion. Invest them elsewhere; in any case, we do not serve the same gods. If mine are impotent, there is every reason to believe yours are no less so. Even assuming they are as you imagine them, they would still lack the power to cure me of a horror older than my memory.
> 
> E. Cioran "The Trouble with Being Born"
> 
> god to me will always be lower case....
> 
> Which outfît would provide better movement for hand to hand combat? Both are outdated as military uniforms and used as decorative purposes only. The Swiss Guards are only the pope's bodyguards but unless you have some type of specialist military training I'd be willing to bet that they'd most likely mess you up (goofy outfits or no).


Have you ever heard the term 'Redcoat"?


----------



## Tilton

MaxBuck said:


> Kauai comes pretty close, though ...


Working for a company based in Maui, living in Hawaii is actually very real and somewhat constant possibility for me. At first it seemed like a great idea, but then... Island fever is a real thing, my friend. I don't think I could live on Maui, at about half the size of Rhode Island, much less the even smaller Kauai.


----------



## Hitch

As my sacrifice to the greater good I'll try it out for you Tilton


----------



## Langham

justonemore said:


> I hope you mean residency versus citizenship? The only way that has been discussed in revoking citizenship would be if an immigrant commits a rather serious crime such as murder (again, I belive this was only discussed and not actually law). Résidents on the other hand are expected to leave if a work/education permit expires or if a family situation drastically changes (i.e. my wife and children are swiss. if I were to divorce I would still be allowed residency Under the "family unification act" but absent of children I might be expected to leave if I resided here under x amount of time).


Yes, I meant residency.


----------



## phyrpowr

Shaver said:


> Would it be inflammatory, at this point, for me to inquire as to the whereabouts of the Third Reich's gold? :rolleyes2:


I sort of did, indirectly, and it was ignored. Hint: it rhymes with Durich


----------



## Shaver

^ Surely not? 

Not Switzerland - the land of the brave and the home of the free?

No, wait! Hang on...I'm getting muddled up here, aren't I?


----------



## Shaver

I have noticed that our home location no longer appears at the top right hand of our posts. I wonder why? Could it be something to do with this particular thread.................................?


----------



## Chouan

Snow Hill Pond said:


> I agree. It was very rude of the other, mostly foreign, tourists to look upon the Americans with contempt. If the shoe were on the other foot, I suspect the Americans would have shared their knowledge instead of ridiculing the questioner.


The contempt shown was the rolling of eyes, tutting, shaking of heads kind of contempt, especially as there was a plaque on the column explaining its significance and context. My point was, however, that the Americans, having committed their gaff were oblivious to both their own crassness and to the consequent attitude and reaction of those around them.


----------



## Chouan

phyrpowr said:


> Wait a minute; in an earlier post you said you had no idea of the origin of the word "wog", but I *must* be wrong? And you seem to have no problem applying your anecdotal instances to the whole of my country.


To paraphrase a quote of an American, "there are known knowns and there are known unknowns....". The origin of "wog" is unknown. It is, however, known that your explanation is a fairly modern invention. British colonial administrators referred to the natives as "natives" or the "indigenous population". The use of derogatory expressions for people of other races was frowned upon as being both impolite and as evidence of a lack of education and of gentlemanly status on the part of the person using such an expression. The expression "native" would have said all that was needed to be said.


----------



## Chouan

Snow Hill Pond said:


> And yet we have a black President.


Your point being?


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Your point being?


He's dim Snow you probably need to spell it out.


----------



## gaseousclay

Tilton said:


> Come on, man. Get real. The modern day version of a slave is an actual slave. Slavery exists all over the world and not the kind of philosophical slavery you're talking about - but the actual working in the fields 14 hours a day with no pay and no rights kind of slavery.


tell that to Cliven Bundy


----------



## gaseousclay

Hitch said:


> He's dim Snow you probably need to spell it out.


your cheap shot aside, Chouan's point is that even though we have a 'black' president racism still exists. surely you watch Fox News?


----------



## Chouan

gaseousclay said:


> your cheap shot aside, Chouan's point is that even though we have a 'black' president racism still exists. surely you watch Fox News?


Quite. Britain had a Prime Minister of mixed race in 1812, which is of no more value in an argument about the US being an oligarchy or being racist than that of a mixed race person being President of the US.


----------



## SG_67

gaseousclay said:


> your cheap shot aside, Chouan's point is that even though we have a 'black' president racism still exists. surely you watch Fox News?


Editorial opposition to policy is now a basis for racism?


----------



## Hitch

gaseousclay said:


> your cheap shot aside, Chouan's point is that even though we have a 'black' president racism still exists. surely you watch Fox News?


I cant belive it. Do you mean to tell me there are still some blacks in America who dont like Mexicans? Just because they are Mexicans? The horror!


----------



## Tiger

gaseousclay said:


> ...Chouan's point is that even though we have a 'black' president racism still exists. surely you watch Fox News?


Can you please share with us who it is that you believe to be racist, i.e., are you making a rather abstract point that racism exists in all groups, or are you intimating that there's one (or more) particular groups that are racist? While you're at it, care to share who you believe is being victimized by the alleged racism?

Thanks - it's hard to discuss these types of topics when only scant comments are posted without any elaboration...


----------



## Shaver

Oh goody! This thread is up and running again.

Let's have a brief interjection from my favourite German/American Jew, take it away Kurt....

You gentlemen who think you have a mission
To purge us of the seven deadly sins
Should first sort out the basic food position
Then start your preaching, that's where it begins

Your lot who preach restraint and watch your waist as well
Should learn for once, the way the world is run
However much you twist or whatever lies that you tell
Food is the first thing, morals follow on

So first make sure that those who are now starving
Get proper helpings when we all start carving

What keeps mankind alive? What keeps mankind alive?
The fact that millions are daily tortured
Stifled, punished, silenced and oppressed
Mankind can keep alive thanks to its brilliance
In keeping its humanity repressed

And for once you must try not to shirk the facts
Mankind is kept alive by bestial acts

,,

,
,
,

,
,


----------



## gaseousclay

Tiger said:


> Can you please share with us who it is that you believe to be racist, i.e., are you making a rather abstract point that racism exists in all groups, or are you intimating that there's one (or more) particular groups that are racist? While you're at it, care to share who you believe is being victimized by the alleged racism?
> 
> Thanks - it's hard to discuss these types of topics when only scant comments are posted without any elaboration...


it's not who I believe to be racist but those that are racist, namely, conservative white Americans with a chip on their shoulder. unless you're living in your own bubble then you're never going to see it or acknowledge that racism has never gone away and probably never will. I forget who said it but it goes something like this, "not all Republicans are racist, but all racists are Republican," or something to that effect. We've seen it dominate the media in the last 2 presidential elections and it continues to surface. Cliven Bundy is a great example, but then again, no one is surprised that a white, entitled freeloader like him plays the victim. all you need to do is look to Tea Party rallies or any of Bundy's supporters. What I find galling is when people like Bundy use racial expletives and then feign outrage when they're called out on it. it's the hypocrisy of some in the conservative movement that makes a mockery of our country and all it stands for.


----------



## MaxBuck

gaseousclay said:


> it's not who I believe to be racist but those that are racist, namely, conservative white Americans with a chip on their shoulder. unless you're living in your own bubble then you're never going to see it or acknowledge that racism has never gone away and probably never will. I forget who said it but it goes something like this, "not all Republicans are racist, but all racists are Republican," or something to that effect. We've seen it dominate the media in the last 2 presidential elections and it continues to surface. Cliven Bundy is a great example, but then again, no one is surprised that a white, entitled freeloader like him plays the victim. all you need to do is look to Tea Party rallies or any of Bundy's supporters. What I find galling is when people like Bundy use racial expletives and then feign outrage when they're called out on it. it's the hypocrisy of some in the conservative movement that makes a mockery of our country and all it stands for.


So Al Sharpton isn't a racist? Meir Kahane wasn't a racist? Please. Those who believe their own race or ethnic group is somehow superior as a group to others is a racist by definition, and that includes a whole lot of people who may not appear on the surface to be so.

All of us can find more faults with the human being we see in the mirror than in those we view out the window, if we only have the courage to admit it. And we'd be better people IMO if correcting them were where we spent our energies. I'll admit I'm no better than anyone else in doing so, but all this finger-pointing (including my own) has me exhausted.


----------



## justonemore

MaxBuck said:


> So Al Sharpton isn't a racist? Meir Kahane wasn't a racist? Please. Those who believe their own race or ethnic group is somehow superior as a group to others is a racist by definition, and that includes a whole lot of people who may not appear on the surface to be so.
> 
> All of us can find more faults with the human being we see in the mirror than in those we view out the window, if we only have the courage to admit it. And we'd be better people IMO if correcting them were where we spent our energies. I'll admit I'm no better than anyone else in doing so, but all this finger-pointing (including my own) has me exhausted.


Agreed. I find many African-Americans to be just as racist as Euro-Americans used to be(are). The fact that euro-americans are automatically charged (and assumed guilty) of "hate crimes" while african americans enjoy the freedom to beat whoever they please (without similar charges) is simply disgusting. Assault is assault no matter who is the victim and who is the perpetrator (to include sex, sexual orientation, and religious affiliations). Nor in my thoughts does any group deserve préférences in hiring and education based off of these factors (versus merit). If a Euro-American can go to jail for using the "N" word then an African-American should spend the same amount of time for calling Euro-Americans "crackers", or "white bread", etc.


----------



## SG_67

gaseousclay said:


> it's not who I believe to be racist but those that are racist, namely, conservative white Americans with a chip on their shoulder. unless you're living in your own bubble then you're never going to see it or acknowledge that racism has never gone away and probably never will. I forget who said it but it goes something like this, "not all Republicans are racist, but all racists are Republican," or something to that effect. We've seen it dominate the media in the last 2 presidential elections and it continues to surface. Cliven Bundy is a great example, but then again, no one is surprised that a white, entitled freeloader like him plays the victim. all you need to do is look to Tea Party rallies or any of Bundy's supporters. What I find galling is when people like Bundy use racial expletives and then feign outrage when they're called out on it. it's the hypocrisy of some in the conservative movement that makes a mockery of our country and all it stands for.


You honestly can't believe what you're saying can you? The only person living in a bubble might just be you! You seem to see racism at every turn and I suppose if you massage the facts enough you might just be able to make a tortured connection between all things racist and anyone who may hold an opposite view from our current president. It's a convenient trope and scores with a segment of the population. But for those who can actually think for themselves it shows a very slavish devotion to an outmoded way of thinking. In fact, it betrays a lack of thought.

As for Mr. Bundy, his biggest sin is that he's old and from a generation who is not only dying, but thankfully taking some of it's old attitudes about race with it. I'm going to go out on a limb and challenge you on the "racial expletive" comment. He really did no such thing. He used the word "*****" several times but I would remind you that it was only 1-2 generations ago when African-Americans would refer to themselves as ****** and this was the accepted and proper form. We don't think in these terms any longer, but to use a term that due to his age he may still think is appropriate does not make someone an automatic racist, nor does the word qualify as a racial expletive. I don't know what's in his heart, but I know what came out of his mouth. It was in-artful, but it's a stretch to say it was a racial expletive.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> You honestly can't believe what you're saying can you? The only person living in a bubble might just be you! You seem to see racism at every turn and I suppose if you massage the facts enough you might just be able to make a tortured connection between all things racist and anyone who may hold an opposite view from our current president. It's a convenient trope and scores with a segment of the population. But for those who can actually think for themselves it shows a very slavish devotion to an outmoded way of thinking. In fact, it betrays a lack of thought.
> 
> As for Mr. Bundy, his biggest sin is that he's old and from a generation who is not only dying, but thankfully taking some of it's old attitudes about race with it. I'm going to go out on a limb and challenge you on the "racial expletive" comment. He really did no such thing. He used the word "*****" several times but I would remind you that it was only 1-2 generations ago when African-Americans would refer to themselves as ****** and this was the accepted and proper form. We don't think in these terms any longer, but to use a term that due to his age he may still think is appropriate does not make someone an automatic racist, nor does the word qualify as a racial expletive. I don't know what's in his heart, but I know what came out of his mouth. It was in-artful, but it's a stretch to say it was a racial expletive.


Hmmm. The current generation of African-Americans often refer to themselves as the main "N" word. Is it ok if I do the same? What if I were a bit older than mr. Bundy? Surely someone with his net worth reads the news & keeps abreast of current events (or hires someone to do so)? He seems to enjoy a rather large team of lawyers which have so far helped him avoid paying his share of taxes for use of public lands. If it was normal to drag "*******" behind a truck in his day & age, is it ok for his generation to still do so? You seem to be in the habit of defending old rich people that contribute nothing to society but slave wages for the working poor. Perhaps you need to get out and pick some cotton free of charge while living in deplorable conditions & being told who you can marry & when. Should your wife & children be sold off, I assume you'd have no problem with it? Oops. Wait. I forgot that you are the great veteran that knows better than what the Army awards other veterans so we should obviously accept your word as to what is proper.


----------



## sbdivemaster

It must be a Nevada thing...


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Hmmm. The current generation of African-Americans often refer to themselves as the main "N" word. Is it ok if I do the same? What if I were a bit older than mr. Bundy? Surely someone with his net worth reads the news & keeps abreast of current events (or hires someone to do so)? He seems to enjoy a rather large team of lawyers which have so far helped him avoid paying his share of taxes for use of public lands. If it was normal to drag "*******" behind a truck in his day & age, is it ok for his generation to still do so? You seem to be in the habit of defending old rich people that contribute nothing to society but slave wages for the working poor. Perhaps you need to get out and pick some cotton free of charge while living in deplorable conditions & being told who you can marry & when. Should your wife & children be sold off, I assume you'd have no problem with it? Oops. Wait. I forgot that you are the great veteran that knows better than what the Army awards other veterans so we should obviously accept your word as to what is proper.


Has Mr. Bundy been dictating terms of marriage or selling his fellow human beings into bondage?

Where do you find such hyperbole by the way? Dragging people behind trucks? You make it sound as though this is a common occurrence.

And where do you get the idea that I'm a vet? I'd love to continue "debating" this but I'm afraid your stream of consciousness ramblings and complete non sequiturs really are exhausting. Perhaps this is your strategy; bore me to the point where I give up.


----------



## SG_67

sbdivemaster said:


> It must be a Nevada thing..[\QUOTE]
> 
> How much more worldly the majority leader must be than a Nevada rancher.
> 
> It's not a Nevada thing...no. It's a latent form of racism that still exists and is occasionally is on full display by many a Democrat in leadership positions.
> 
> What does our "first black president" have to say about it:


----------



## Hitch

gaseousclay said:


> it's not who I believe to be racist but those that are racist, namely, conservative white Americans with a chip on their shoulder. unless you're living in your own bubble then you're never going to see it or acknowledge that racism has never gone away and probably never will. I forget who said it but it goes something like this, "not all Republicans are racist, but all racists are Republican," or something to that effect. We've seen it dominate the media in the last 2 presidential elections and it continues to surface. Cliven Bundy is a great example, but then again, no one is surprised that a white, entitled freeloader like him plays the victim. all you need to do is look to Tea Party rallies or any of Bundy's supporters. What I find galling is when people like Bundy use racial expletives and then feign outrage when they're called out on it. it's the hypocrisy of some in the conservative movement that makes a mockery of our country and all it stands for.


LMWAO



> West Virginia's Democratic United States Senator Robert C. Byrd was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title of Kleagleand Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter. After leaving the group, Byrd spoke in favor of the Klan during his early political career. Though he claimed to have left the organization in 1943, Byrd wrote a letter in 1946 to the group's Imperial Wizard stating "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd defended the Klan in his 1958 U.S. Senate campaign when he was 41 years old.[SUP][9][/SUP]


----------



## Tiger

gaseousclay said:


> it's not who I believe to be racist but those that are racist, namely, conservative white Americans with a chip on their shoulder. unless you're living in your own bubble then you're never going to see it or acknowledge that racism has never gone away and probably never will. I forget who said it but it goes something like this, "not all Republicans are racist, but all racists are Republican," or something to that effect. We've seen it dominate the media in the last 2 presidential elections and it continues to surface. Cliven Bundy is a great example, but then again, no one is surprised that a white, entitled freeloader like him plays the victim. all you need to do is look to Tea Party rallies or any of Bundy's supporters. What I find galling is when people like Bundy use racial expletives and then feign outrage when they're called out on it. it's the hypocrisy of some in the conservative movement that makes a mockery of our country and all it stands for.


Along with MaxBuck, I too am exhausted. Your words above are as ludicrous as I've ever read on the Interchange. Last year, I dealt with some similar nonsense spewed by other race baiting jackasses, and as usual, their intellectual and moral bankruptcy was all that was proffered.

The bubble that *you *live in has rendered your brain and your senses inoperative. Be thankful that I don't have the inclination or energy to skewer your inane ramblings.

By the way, seems strange that a staunch defender of the racially oppressed is stereotyping "conservative white Americans." Your hypocrisy is exceeded only by your obtuseness, Mr. Farrakhan...


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> And where do you get the idea that I'm a vet? .


My apologies. I mistook you for another forum member.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> My apologies. I mistook you for another forum member.


Whoa there, horsey! This is the Interchange. If there's one thing we won't tolerate here it's apologies. You should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## Kingstonian

https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/02/plutocrats-v-oligarchs/

However, it is one thing to draw attention this, but a lot more difficult to change it in favour of the majority.

You also have lobbies with a pernicious influence such as AIPAC.


----------



## SG_67

Journalism at its finest!

I love how Bernie Sanders lament money in politics:

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000528&type=I

I guess some people only believe in money and politics when it's the unions giving the money.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> Journalism at its finest!
> 
> I love how Bernie Sanders lament money in politics:
> 
> https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000528&type=I
> 
> I guess some people only believe in money and politics when it's the unions giving the money.


The amounts you quote above are chicken feed compared to the amounts oligarchs are spending to buy influence. They get it all back with interest of course, by way of favourable legislation etc.


----------



## Hitch

Kingstonian said:


> The amounts you quote above are chicken feed compared to the amounts oligarchs are spending to buy influence. They get it all back with interest of course, by way of favourable legislation etc.


How about some of those names and dollar amounts K?


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> The amounts you quote above are chicken feed compared to the amounts oligarchs are spending to buy influence. They get it all back with interest of course, by way of favourable legislation etc.


Money is money&#8230;.be it from an "oligarch" or a union. And who are these people whom you consider to be oligarchs? Is a public sector union who throws it's weight and money behind a candidate who when in office peddles legislation which in turn favors and puts that money back in the unions pockets count as "getting it back with interest"?

We don't have oligarchs in this country the way, say, Russia or China have. We have corporations, many of which are publicly traded, have boards, shareholders with voting power, the SEC, FTC, government oversight at the federal, state and local level.

If it were that simple to just throw cash around, there would be no need for corporations to have huge legal departments to ensure compliance.


----------



## Tilton

Kingstonian said:


> The amounts you quote above are chicken feed compared to the amounts oligarchs are spending to buy influence. They get it all back with interest of course, by way of favourable legislation etc.


I'm curious how US campaign donations are reported on to the UK audience.

This may be of some interest to you: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php


----------



## Kingstonian

Here is just one oligarch:-

https://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2014/03/31/war-party-oligarch/


----------



## justonemore

Kingstonian said:


> Here is just one oligarch:-
> 
> https://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2014/03/31/war-party-oligarch/


That one person can spend $92 million on influencing an election that should be held in the interets of the general public, is no less than disgusting. Oh well. I guess the "neutral" U.S. supreme court has spoken and such is just fine and dandy. Lifetime service of a politically appointed S.C. is one of the reasons I happily ignore my past association with the U.S.


----------



## Gurdon

*Dog Whistle Politics*

I recommend "Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism & Wrecked the Middle Class," by Ian Haney Lopez.

The author details the invention of the Republican Party's southern strategy and the evolution of racism in American politics from the hateful overt race-baiting of the mid 20th Century to the subtle version that allowed Regan to get away with referring to "welfare queens in Cadiliacs" and "young bucks buying tee bone steaks with food stamps." Politicians of both parties now employ coded racism, the Supreme Court has incorporated it into opinions, and decent people engage in it.

I do not beileve a serious discussion of American racism is possible without taking into account Mr. Lopez's arguments.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Shaver

Thank you Gurdon for the recommendation, I was not aware of this volume. It very much puts me in mind of the coded apocalyptic references little Bush was fond of lacing his speeches with in order to appeal to bonkers Christians.


----------



## Tilton

Gurdon said:


> I recommend "Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism & Wrecked the Middle Class," by Ian Haney Lopez.
> 
> The author details the invention of the Republican Party's southern strategy and the evolution of racism in American politics from the hateful overt race-baiting of the mid 20th Century to the subtle version that allowed Regan to get away with referring to "welfare queens in Cadiliacs" and "young bucks buying tee bone steaks with food stamps." Politicians of both parties now employ coded racism, the Supreme Court has incorporated it into opinions, and decent people engage in it.
> 
> I do not beileve a serious discussion of American racism is possible without taking into account Mr. Lopez's arguments.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


While I've never used the term "welfare queen," in high school I worked for a landscaping company that had a contract with a landlord that owned about 60 Section 8 properties and it was not uncommon to see late-model, fully loaded Silverado pickups, Cadillac Escalades, etc. parked out front by the inhabitants, huge flat panel TVs inside the home hooked up to the latest gaming systems, and residents to be at home mid-week during the day smoking pot or drinking beer with their friends. Race wasn't much of a factor - blacks and whites were equal offenders, but I did notice that the latino inhabitants were more likely to have jobs, crappy cars, and take more pride in the upkeep of their domiciles (in fact, a lot of them would already have mowed and maintained their yards by the time we arrived) whereas the other residences would literally throw trash into their own back yard.


----------



## SG_67

Both parties use race and take into account the politics of race when crafting a message or designing a strategy for winning elections. Democrats seem to be much more overt, but that's another matter. 

As for welfare fraud, which I will use as an umbrella term to refer to anyone gaming the system, it will occur and will always occur as long as we have a government intent on giving out goodies and political favors in order to please an electorate. All the more reason to starve the beast of this. 

As for the "welfare queen" Reagan mentioned, she actually did exist and her transgressions were far worse than just welfare fraud. 

I think it's a cop out, though, to ascribe racial motives to being against social programs such as this. There was a wonderful piece on 60 minutes a few months ago about people gaming the social security disability system. They profiled a town in West Va., majority white population, where this sort of thing was rampant and in particular one attorney who was the king of facilitating this. Tom Coburn was interviewed and he was as outraged at this than anything else. 

This sort of thing occurs on both sides of the aisle and as long as D.C. is swimming around in money, that money will go into the pockets of those who can benefit the politicians who can keep them in power, be it minorities, corporations, activists and yes, even widows and orphans!


----------



## Gurdon

SG_67,

Are you unfamiliar with the GOP's "southern strategy? 

As to Regan's "welfare queen," I am not as sure as you are that she existed, but the point is not whether she was a fabrication but that the reference to welfare was made in a way that communicated a racist message to the intended white recipients. Likewise, Regan's reference to a "young buck," buying steak with food stamps was clearly racist. It was subsequently softened to young man for the stump speech, with the reference to food stamps retained to convey the racist message.

As to your closing paragraph, I presume you are OK with the present practice of politicians (of both parties) to channel money to the wealthiest segment of our populace. Tax breaks are fine for the 1%. Public education and universal healthcare are undeserved.

Gurdon


----------



## SG_67

Gurdon said:


> SG_67,
> 
> Are you unfamiliar with the GOP's "southern strategy?
> 
> As to Regan's "welfare queen," I am not as sure as you are that she existed, but the point is not whether she was a fabrication but that the reference to welfare was made in a way that communicated a racist message to the intended white recipients. Likewise, Regan's reference to a "young buck," buying steak with food stamps was clearly racist. It was subsequently softened to young man for the stump speech, with the reference to food stamps retained to convey the racist message.
> 
> As to your closing paragraph, I presume you are OK with the present practice of politicians (of both parties) to channel money to the wealthiest segment of our populace. Tax breaks are fine for the 1%. Public education and universal healthcare are undeserved.
> 
> Gurdon


I'm well familiar with the GOP southern strategy. I'm not an apologist for the use of race in politics, but as long as people employ identity politics then we will have, guess what, the infusion of race in politics! Both parties try to take advantage of this.

For every GOP, Reagan or other real or perceived race baiting comment you find, I will find one just as egregious from the Dems (Joe Biden's "put y'all back in chains", Al Sharpton, Rep. Bennie Thompson calling Justice Thomas an Uncle Tom...shall I go on?). I'm not trying to equivocate or justify it on either side. Merely pointing out that race is used as a cudgel, crutch and otherwise strategy by both parties. It's unfortunate but I'm afraid it's the truth.

As for the "welfare queen":

Click here


----------



## Hitch




----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> View attachment 11268


And your point is? It looks to me rather like comparing policies of the Liberal Party in 1865 with the policies of the Liberal Democrats in 2014. Entirely meaningless beyond being a smartar$e soundbite sort of point.


----------



## Kingstonian

This thread has drifted away from the original topic and onto racism in politics.

"Divide and rule" as a diversionary tactic?


----------



## Kingstonian

On further investigation, the book does seem to be saying that race is used as a diversion to get voters to buy into policies that are in the interests of the one per cent.

"What's the matter with Kansas.How conservatives won the heart of America." suggests that morality issues are used to pull off the same trick in a state that was once(late 19th century) regarded as radical/left wing


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> This thread has drifted away from the original topic and onto racism in politics.
> 
> "Divide and rule" as a diversionary tactic?


You're witnessing first hand how our politics operates. At some point, ideas become meaningless and the easiest thing to go for is race.

More than any other factor, race is the defining characteristic of our politics.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> And your point is? It looks to me rather like comparing policies of the Liberal Party in 1865 with the policies of the Liberal Democrats in 2014. Entirely meaningless beyond being a smartar$e soundbite sort of point.


Im not the least surprised with your reaction to historical facts.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I'm curious as to the validity of these indexes. But let's assume they are valid measures of what you say. It's difficult to compare EU employment vs. U.S. employment rates as the EU has some very strange employment rules.* Approximately 16% of people employed in the U.S. are employed in the public sector. Compare that to France and Germany (I'll use them as they are among the 2 largest EU economies) which are between 30-35%.* Also, France has some peculiar laws about layoffs and firings. Given this, it's no wonder there is a higher employment rate in the EU, albeit an inefficient one. I suppose we could raise taxes and have more government employees, thereby putting people to work shuffling papers around. But then, who would be left to actually contribute to the economy and innovate.


I could remember reading this a while ago and meant to comment, then mislaid the post; now I've found it.

FRance and Germany do have 30-35% of workers in the public sector, about twice as many as in the US. On the other hand, health education and transport, in the sense of trains and buses are publicly owned in those countries, so that all people employed in Health, education (primary, secondary, tertiary and university) railways and buses, road and rail construction and maintenance, and the military, of course, are included in the 30-35% figure. If you added employees in the US involved in those areas of work you'll find that your figure of 16% would be much bigger. Add dock workers, state owned in Germany and France, as part of the rail transport system, and the number grows further. 
You also appear to think that only employees in the private sector create wealth and innovate, and that only private sector employment is efficient, in that you seem to think that European employment is inefficient? Any evidence for that, or anything to support that view? I'd be surprised to see any justification for your view that French and German universities don't innovate!


----------



## Tilton

Chouan said:


> I could remember reading this a while ago and meant to comment, then mislaid the post; now I've found it.
> 
> FRance and Germany do have 30-35% of workers in the public sector, about twice as many as in the US. On the other hand, health education and transport, in the sense of trains and buses are publicly owned in those countries, so that all people employed in Health, education (primary, secondary, tertiary and university) railways and buses, road and rail construction and maintenance, and the military, of course, are included in the 30-35% figure. If you added employees in the US involved in those areas of work you'll find that your figure of 16% would be much bigger. Add dock workers, state owned in Germany and France, as part of the rail transport system, and the number grows further.
> You also appear to think that only employees in the private sector create wealth and innovate, and that only private sector employment is efficient, in that you seem to think that European employment is inefficient? Any evidence for that, or anything to support that view? I'd be surprised to see any justification for your view that French and German universities don't innovate!


Generally speaking, public transportation employees - to include operators, maintenance workers, and others, from top to bottom - in the US are government (municipal [City of ____], regional conglomerate [WMATA, the tri-jurisdictional governmental transportation agency in DC], etc.) employees and, similarly, academic instructors in public school systems (about 92% of US children attend public schools) are employed either by the state, county, or city, placing them firmly within the "public sector." Military, unless a private contractor, is obviously public as well.

To SG's point, though, in the US, at least, the public sector doesn't really create wealth so much as it creates needless, inefficient bureaucracy and bloated payrolls. Certainly, it is capable of innovation in some areas (NIH, universities, etc.) but the vast majority of major innovation comes from private firms.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> I could remember reading this a while ago and meant to comment, then mislaid the post; now I've found it.
> 
> FRance and Germany do have 30-35% of workers in the public sector, about twice as many as in the US. On the other hand, health education and transport, in the sense of trains and buses are publicly owned in those countries, so that all people employed in Health, education (primary, secondary, tertiary and university) railways and buses, road and rail construction and maintenance, and the military, of course, are included in the 30-35% figure. If you added employees in the US involved in those areas of work you'll find that your figure of 16% would be much bigger. Add dock workers, state owned in Germany and France, as part of the rail transport system, and the number grows further.
> You also appear to think that only employees in the private sector create wealth and innovate, and that only private sector employment is efficient, in that you seem to think that European employment is inefficient? Any evidence for that, or anything to support that view? I'd be surprised to see any justification for your view that French and German universities don't innovate!


I don't think your breakdown really applies. Obviously everyone taken collectively that works in a given economy represents 100% of the people working. It actually does matter that there is a higher percentage working in the public sector vs. the private sector.

It is simply a fact that the public sector does not really create wealth. It provides services. We do need public sector; police, fire, military. We need judges and prosectors. None of these people really produce anything except for a service needed by society.

The question is not a matter of what industry rests more in the private vs. public sector. The point is that the multiplier effect of money is lost in the public sector. As for dock workers and truckers, I recall in the 1990's and 2000's when France came to a virtual shut down when the truckers went on strike. Any economy so centrally planned and executed and that employs such a large % of the population is bound to have these sorts of shocks.


----------



## Gurdon

SG_67 said:


> I don't think your breakdown really applies. Obviously everyone taken collectively that works in a given economy represents 100% of the people working. It actually does matter that there is a higher percentage working in the public sector vs. the private sector.
> 
> It is simply a fact that the public sector does not really create wealth. It provides services. We do need public sector; police, fire, military. We need judges and prosectors. None of these people really produce anything except for a service needed by society.
> 
> The question is not a matter of what industry rests more in the private vs. public sector. The point is that the multiplier effect of money is lost in the public sector. As for dock workers and truckers, I recall in the 1990's and 2000's when France came to a virtual shut down when the truckers went on strike. Any economy so centrally planned and executed and that employs such a large % of the population is bound to have these sorts of shocks.


The private sector contracts to provide public services, such as refuse collection, school bus transportation, bus service, prisons, contract military and intelligence work, to mention a few. Are these individuals somehow making contributions to the economy that their public employee counterparts are not making?

I do not know enough about military and intelligence contracting to discuss the costs or whether there is savings to the taxpayer in farming those tasks out to private contractors. (I rather doubt, however, that we taxpayers benefit.) As to local services that are contracted out, the major cuts in cost seem to be in wages paid to the workers, whether they be sanitation workers or bus drivers. In the case of Foothill Transit, a private company providing bus service to the eastern part of the LA metro system and integrated into that system, the major difference is in the lower pay of the drivers for Foothill Transit.

I believe you are incorrect about the multiplier effect. How is spending by public employees not properly considered within the ambit of multiplier effect? It doesn't matter who pays the salary of a bus driver, that individual is going to spend his or her pay purchasing goods and services. Actually, it does matter. The publicly employed driver will have more to spend than the privatized driver which means that the public employee's multiplier effect will be the larger.

Don't the providers of services you mentioned as needed earn wages and spend them in the economy? Doesn't the spending of all these workers generate demand for goods and services the meeting of which creates wealth? And isn't that the process to which the term multiplier effect refers?

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon

Shaver said:


> Thank you Gurdon for the recommendation, I was not aware of this volume. It very much puts me in mind of the coded apocalyptic references little Bush was fond of lacing his speeches with in order to appeal to bonkers Christians.


You're welcome. I think the book might help foreigners understand the complexity of American culture and politics. Racism is considered by many, if not most,white Republicans, including the members of the Supreme Court, to be individual utterances and actions, any or all of which have the same value, irrespective of the race or class/status of the offender or the offended.

Thus the blatherings of Rev. Sharpton, or the considered and restrained remarks of President Obama are deemed by white Republicans, and the black justice of our Supreme Court, to be equally racist and no more or less racist than the blatherings of Cliven Bundy. To me there is a difference between a non-white individual ranting or talking about race, and a white person saying things that clearly reflect the continuity of institutionalized, if not culturally imbedded, racism that is still with us.

It is a somewhat subterranean business. As an older certified WASP, with ancesters predating the revolution by somewhat over 100 years, people sometimes say things to me that are astoundingly grossly racist in the older vulger style because they assume that I must agree with them. (It is sometimes a side effect of dressing reasonably well. Many in the town we used to live in assumed that I must be conservative because I looked really white and was usualy seen in a jacket and tie.)

In any event, Dog Bone Politics is good political history. It's author did not, however, tell me what I'd hoped to learn, which is why the US is so dreadfully and thoroughly racist in terms of white bigotry towards non-whites. I grew up amongst racially prejudiced white people and work hard to overcome and grow out of the racism one absorbs under such circumstances. I still don't understand. Most of the people who are racist whom I know well are decent people.

BTW, I very much enjoyed your providing Christian sources of socialist principles. As one unchurched I suffer from a lack of more than a superficial acquaintence with Christian scripture. I sent my children to an Episcopalian grammer school in order that they might be familiar with the source for much of our cultural heritage/baggage. It doesn't seem to have hurt them.

Cheers,
Gurdon


----------



## Shaver

^ Thank you again, Gurdon. 

I have always considered the Bible a tool with which to sharpen one's reason, an instigator (if one permits it) of profound thought. However, as any moral philosophy it must be approached with trepidation. For the Scripture does not provide answers it provides questions, this is its central virtue. 

If Jesus were a member of AAAC doubtless he would be accused of trollery.


----------



## Kingstonian

Gurdon said:


> You're welcome. I think the book might help foreigners understand the complexity of American culture and politics. Racism is considered by many, if not most,white Republicans, including the members of the Supreme Court, to be individual utterances and actions, any or all of which have the same value, irrespective of the race or class/status of the offender or the offended.


This is all very well, but it is discussing racism as a stand alone issue and not linking it to the topic - oligarchy.

Dear old Richard Nixon used to be very rude about all and sundry and he is on tape doing so. However, I suspect himself and Carter were possibly the last presidents to be their own men and not front men for powerful interests behind the throne.

In the UK, it used to be possible to be prejudiced but not have to throw your lot in with the very rich. So the docker's union backed Enoch Powell when he spoke out about non-white immigration.
Nowadays unions have all the usual PC baggage - whereas many members are still only really concerned about pay, job security, pensions etc.

I suspect those who set up the Co-operative movement 150 years ago never suspected the troubles it would find itself in now. It was just about self help for the masses and prudent financial practice. Other issues were for individuals themselves. To be honest, the Co-op's troubles are not linked to issues of race but more lack of control and a get-rich-quick, chancer's approach to business. Much the same as the rest of the Banksters really. It is just that you always expected more from the Co-op.


----------



## Kingstonian

Anyway, what about the old Southern Democrat tradition?

I thought you were able to hold fixed views on race and moral issues but not act in the interests of the one per cent.

When did the two begin to go hand in hand?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I don't think your breakdown really applies. Obviously everyone taken collectively that works in a given economy represents 100% of the people working. It actually does matter that there is a higher percentage working in the public sector vs. the private sector.


Yes, perhaps. However, my point was that there are a significant number of people working in the US who are not classed as working in the public sector, but who would be classed as such if they were doing exactly the same job in France of Germany. Virtually all those working in education, at all levels, including universities. Virtually all of those working in health (it is my understanding that health in the US is run privately, as a business) all of those working in docks, air traffic control, scheduled passenger transport by road and rail, and all construction and maintenance of all forms of transport infrastructure (it is my understanding that in the US, ports and docks, rail and bus transport outside of municipalities is privately owned, as are the contractors who build and maintain US transport systems). Thus many of those you class as private sector workers in the US would be public sector workers in Europe, thus your comparison of percentages isn't correct.



SG_67 said:


> It is simply a fact that the public sector does not really create wealth. It provides services. We do need public sector; police, fire, military. We need judges and prosectors. None of these people really produce anything except for a service needed by society.


And your point here is? What is wrong with people producing a service? I would rather have a health system that is designed to provide a service to the population than a health system that is designed to make a profit!



SG_67 said:


> The question is not a matter of what industry rests more in the private vs. public sector. The point is that the multiplier effect of money is lost in the public sector. As for dock workers and truckers, *I recall in the 1990's and 2000's when France came to a virtual shut down when the truckers went on strike*. Any economy so centrally planned and executed and that employs such a large % of the population is bound to have these sorts of shocks.


The lorry drivers in France are in the private sector, so I can't see what your point is. The French economy isn't centrally planned, just that areas that are thought to be strategic and essential, such as docks and railways, have always been considered to be too important to be in private hands. Indeed, in Germany and France the docks and railways were all built by the state and have remained in state control. I doubt that there are more efficient port or rail systems anywhere else in the world.
As far as the lorry drivers strike is concerned, it was an exercise of workers' solidarity, and what is wrong with that?


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Yes, perhaps. However, my point was that there are a significant number of people working in the US who are not classed as working in the public sector, but who would be classed as such if they were doing exactly the same job in France of Germany. Virtually all those working in education, at all levels, including universities. Virtually all of those working in health (it is my understanding that health in the US is run privately, as a business) all of those working in docks, air traffic control, scheduled passenger transport by road and rail, and all construction and maintenance of all forms of transport infrastructure (it is my understanding that in the US, ports and docks, rail and bus transport outside of municipalities is privately owned, as are the contractors who build and maintain US transport systems). Thus many of those you class as private sector workers in the US would be public sector workers in Europe, thus your comparison of percentages isn't correct.


I don't disagree with you regarding whether employees are public or private sector and the percentages between Europe and the U.S. I'm simply stating that the number matters.



> And your point here is? What is wrong with people producing a service? I would rather have a health system that is designed to provide a service to the population than a health system that is designed to make a profit!


Nothing wrong with providing a service as long as it's a service that's really needed and that it's delivered in an efficient manner. The private sector is more efficient and more innovative. I will often get international students interning with me who marvel at the services available here that are not available to them in Europe. They are amazed that a patient can go get an MRI on the same day or can call and make an appointment with a specialist and be seen in the same week.



> The lorry drivers in France are in the private sector, so I can't see what your point is. The French economy isn't centrally planned, just that areas that are thought to be strategic and essential, such as docks and railways, have always been considered to be too important to be in private hands. Indeed, in Germany and France the docks and railways were all built by the state and have remained in state control. I doubt that there are more efficient port or rail systems anywhere else in the world.
> As far as the lorry drivers strike is concerned, it was an exercise of workers' solidarity, and what is wrong with that?


Nothing wrong with worker solidarity but the public should be able to flex it's muscle as well. Workers' solidarity, as romantic as it may sound to the left, can get out of control and become tantamount to blackmail. When commerce in a given country stalls or slows then society shouldn't be toothless to exert control.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Nothing wrong with worker solidarity but the public should be able to flex it's muscle as well. Workers' solidarity, as romantic as it may sound to the left, can get out of control and become tantamount to blackmail. When commerce in a given country stalls or slows then society shouldn't be toothless to exert control.


Ummm. Isn't society (in theory) supposed to be represented by the government? If society is allowed to interfere in worker's issues, then would they also not be allowed to interfere in business issues? If a union can be told that they only have a certain amount of rights, then can a business not be told the same? No unions, you can't ask for $1'000 an hour. No business, you can't pay people only $2.20 an hour... Kind of the same thing isn't it? Or is it ok when big business hurts those from the society it profits from?

As a "chicagoan" didn't your mortal democratic enemy (mayor Rahm) actually try to bust up the Chicago teacher's union? Did he not advocate closing schools, lowering funds, etc? Tom e, the guy seems to be the typical Americanm politician by taking advatage of the many for his own view of "whatever". I find so very little difference between the repukes and democraps that the debate makes me queesy.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Nothing wrong with providing a service as long as it's a service that's really needed and that it's delivered in an efficient manner. The private sector is more efficient and more innovative. I will often get international students interning with me who marvel at the services available here that are not available to them in Europe. They are amazed that a patient can go get an MRI on the same day or can call and make an appointment with a specialist and be seen in the same week.
> 
> .


What European countries are you trying to reference?


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Nothing wrong with providing a service as long as it's a service that's really needed and that it's delivered in an efficient manner. The private sector is more efficient and more innovative. I will often get international students interning with me who marvel at the services available here that are not available to them in Europe. They are amazed that a patient can go get an MRI on the same day or can call and make an appointment with a specialist and be seen in the same week.
> 
> .


Hmm. One of my favorite U.S. memories stem from the private energy company charging me for services not provided (They had been charging 2 appartments and the public areas to my bill). Not only did it take hours upon hours on the phone (no office service was "available" either), but I had to pay the idiotic sum in advance in order to keep them from ruining my credit and turning off my services (right at winter in the Chicago area). Private sector utilities rock. "Pay up or shut the Fu*k up, we're right until proven wrong in a court of law" (and the U.S. court system is of course biased towards those poor suckers that can't afford lawyers versus big business and their $multi-million law firms, right?... right?...). The several hundreds extra that I had to pay in "fines" was especially wonderful. After lawyer fees, I got less than half my money back (ohhh sweet justice) after another 60 days that the company was allowed to make interest upon...


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I don't disagree with you regarding whether employees are public or private sector and the percentages between Europe and the U.S. I'm simply stating that the number matters.


I was pointing out that numbers in Europe and the US, or at least percentages, aren't actually that dissimilar, once the anomalies of your two percentages are sorted out.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Nothing wrong with providing a service as long as it's a service that's really needed and that it's delivered in an efficient manner. The private sector is more efficient and more innovative. I will often get international students interning with me who marvel at the services available here that are not available to them in Europe. They are amazed that a patient can go get an MRI on the same day or can call and make an appointment with a specialist and be seen in the same week.


The private sector is more efficient? Says who? More innovative? says who? Was the WWW developed by a person in the private or public sector?
Which medical services are not available to them in Europe? Of course patients can get an MRI on the same day, as long as they or their private health care can pay. I can do that here in the UK if I'm willing go to private and pay enough.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Nothing wrong with worker solidarity but the public should be able to flex it's muscle as well. Workers' solidarity, as romantic as it may sound to the left, can get out of control and become tantamount to blackmail. When commerce in a given country stalls or slows then society shouldn't be toothless to exert control.


You appear to be advocating some kind of fascist control of workers's rights here. I thought that Americans believed in peoples' rights? Are you suggesting that workers should be forbidden to strike?


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> You appear to be advocating some kind of fascist control of workers's rights here. I thought that Americans believed in peoples' rights? Are you suggesting that workers should be forbidden to strike?


Not at all, but there needs to be equity. There's no counter party risk to the consumer or to the corporation when workers go on strike.

In my opinion, public sector unions should be limited in scope and prohibited from supporting or giving money to political candidates of either party. Also, I would like to see all states become "Right to Work" states. People should be free to choose whether or not to join a union. The notion that someone is forced into an association with someone else or a group by virtue of where they choose to work is inherently un-American!

A word about public sector unions. There are states where government employees (teachers, etc.) have their unions dues directly subtracted from their paychecks and given to the union. This is tantamount to colonial times when the state collected taxes to support the Church. The separation clause in the First Amendment was geared more toward stopping this than anything else.


----------



## justonemore

Chouan said:


> The private sector is more efficient? Says who? More innovative? says who? Was the WWW developed by a person in the private or public sector?
> Which medical services are not available to them in Europe? Of course patients can get an MRI on the same day, as long as they or their private health care can pay. I can do that here in the UK if I'm willing go to private and pay enough.


****. Here in Switzerland insurance is mandated. If a Dr. demands it, tests are done the same day. There is no waiting when waiting isn't needed. If you are considered lower risk, you'll wait compared to others that are considered high risk (Although the U.S. system would allow those with big money access first,I'm sure). Is the Swiss system without fault? Not at all, but it's stil better than anything offered in the U.S. I'm no obummerr fan, but why (other than minor personal gain) anyone would be against universal health care is beyond the pale.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> .
> 
> In my opinion, public sector unions should be limited in scope and prohibited from supporting or giving money to political candidates of either party. Also, I would like to see all states become "Right to Work" states. People should be free to choose whether or not to join a union. The notion that someone is forced into an association with someone else or a group by virtue of where they choose to work is inherently un-American!
> .


Ok. So do you also disagree with billionaires( the cock brothers) and 3rd party interests ( Israel) giving money to U.S. political candidates? The repukes on the supreme court seem to think otherwise...


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Ok. So do you also disagree with billionaires( the cock brothers) and 3rd party interests ( Israel) giving money to U.S. political candidates? The repukes on the supreme court seem to think otherwise...


Resorting to vulgarity and veiled anti Semitic references is no way to get your point across. I think my conversation with you, at least on this topic, is over.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Resorting to vulgarity and veiled anti Semitic references is no way to get your point across. I think my conversation with you, at least on this topic, is over.


 boo hoo. Refuse to answer and call yourself correct of democratic issues. So nice to live in whatever world you decide upon versus that based upon the truth. The fact that you dislike Union funding but find private funding acceptable (while calling others anit-semitic and vulgar) speaks to your racist and vulgar viewpoint "toi-même". If you had any validity, you'd answer the question. Instead you hide away.

Ok. The Koch brothers are allowed to donate multi-millions to political causes..Why not the unions...Answer please...

Isreal has nothing to do with domestic U.S. politics. Why should they be allowed to donate millions to political causes? answer please...

Perhaps it is you being biased, racist, supremist, ?

That I disagre with the U.S giving almost a $tzrillion per year to Israel has nothing to do with Anti-semitism... Nor does the fact that many non-israeli Jews disagree with Israel and its political aspirations...

That you have failed in your debate and have resorted to name calling is nothing shocking.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> The private sector is more efficient? Says who? More innovative? says who? Was the WWW developed by a person in the private or public sector?
> Which medical services are not available to them in Europe? Of course patients can get an MRI on the same day, as long as they or their private health care can pay. I can do that here in the UK if I'm willing go to private and pay enough.


The internet was the brain child, not of Al Gore, but of DARPA. The government is good at creating infrastructure, which I consider the internet to be. The government didn't create Apple, Microsoft or Amazon. Much the same way as the government builds roads but didn't invent nor does it manufacture cars that drive on them.

As for healthcare, you said it! You can have access if you're willing to go private. How many in the U.K. Have that option? Canada had to change it's laws to allow people to purchase private health insurance as before that, Canadians were coming here for tests and surgery (elective of course) due to wait times.

Public healthcare is great at taking care of emergent cases but we're pretty darned good at it as well. If someone blows out their ACL, however, why should they wait months in order to be operated on? They should receive the same attention and same consideration as anyone else. Why should the system designate who deserves treatment before another?


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> ****. Here in Switzerland insurance is mandated. If a Dr. demands it, tests are done the same day. There is no waiting when waiting isn't needed. If you are considered lower risk, you'll wait compared to others that are considered high risk (Although the U.S. system would allow those with big money access first,I'm sure). Is the Swiss system without fault? Not at all, but it's stil better than anything offered in the U.S. I'm no obummerr fan, but why (other than minor personal gain) anyone would be against universal health care is beyond the pale.


"Waiting isn't needed", "lower risk".

Who determines these things? I'll take the system we have here over anyone else's. When the Swiss population reaches 350 million then let's compare notes.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> "Waiting isn't needed", "lower risk".
> 
> Who determines these things? I'll take the system we have here over anyone else's. When the Swiss population reaches 350 million then let's compare notes.


Ummm. Drs. over insurance companies? I suppose your "vetted" god knows more than the "scientific" community at hand? Take what you like, but until Romneycare has been impmented in the U.S., the Swiss system is much better . Take the same system and do it 40 times over. Is simple math too hard for you and your politicians?

I will die here when it is my time. Under supervision of experienced medical drs. Without any problem of "insured" or "uninsured". My dr. will do the best for me, and when life states that the end has come, I will accept the end of my life. I suppose your previous religious viewpoints accept that everyone will reach one of 3 basic levels and therefore life is of no importance to you?


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Resorting to vulgarity and veiled anti Semitic references is no way to get your point across. I think my conversation with you, at least on this topic, is over.


This is not the first time j1m has been the recipient of accusations of anti-semetism. However, we never seem to get to the bottom of exactly why. I am hoping you will be kind enough to illuminate me?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> The internet was the brain child, not of Al Gore, but of DARPA. The government is good at creating infrastructure, which I consider the internet to be. The government didn't create Apple, Microsoft or Amazon. Much the same way as the government builds roads but didn't invent nor does it manufacture cars that drive on them.


Al Gore? What does he have to do with anything? Tim Berners-Lee, sorry, Sir Tim Berners-Lee is credited with the invention of the internet, whilst working for a government funded research institute. You appear to think that infrastructure is somehow not productive or innovative, whilst things that use the infrastructure are. Curious distinction.



SG_67 said:


> As for healthcare, you said it! You can have access if you're willing to go private. How many in the U.K. Have that option? Canada had to change it's laws to allow people to purchase private health insurance as before that, Canadians were coming here for tests and surgery (elective of course) due to wait times.


In the UK? Everybody, if one has enough money.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> This is not the first time j1m has been the recipient of accusations of anti-semetism. However, we never seem to get to the bottom of exactly why.* I am hoping you will be kind enough to illuminate me?*


Of all the "3rd party interests" that lobby our government, why is Israel mentioned?

I think the gentleman in question should explain why he chose Israel. Widows and orphans lobby the government. Individuals lobby the government. Civil organizations, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, the oil industry, the pot lobby, immigrant rights activists, military contractors. Why single out Israel?

And I would ask that no one offer up the trope of our support for Israel throughout various administrations. We support the U.K, Germany, Japan and various other countries both economically and with military and diplomatic assistance. No one every mentions the U.K., German or Japan lobby.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Of all the "3rd party interests" that lobby our government, why is Israel mentioned?
> 
> I think the gentleman in question should explain why he chose Israel. Widows and orphans lobby the government. Individuals lobby the government. Civil organizations, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, the oil industry, the pot lobby, immigrant rights activists, military contractors. Why single out Israel?
> 
> And I would ask that no one offer up the trope of our support for Israel throughout various administrations. We support the U.K, Germany, Japan and various other countries both economically and with military and diplomatic assistance. No one every mentions the U.K., German or Japan lobby.


Hmm. The fact that the majority of our "welfare money" goes to a country that pays milions/billions to influence U.S. politicians for $billions/trillions of aid is of no importance to you ( and your political party)is O.K.? Israel pays an absurd amount of money to influence U.S. policies (which is against any type of reprensentational ideology). Why anyone let alone Israel? Well because I don't believe that anyone (including those that let the bin laden fmily escape during the bushy period) should escape international law... the 2 Bushies, Obama. Reagan, etc. should be before an international court.

Take responsibility and then preach ethics... Ohterwise.. Shut the F up.,


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Of all the "3rd party interests" that lobby our government, why is Israel mentioned?
> 
> I think the gentleman in question should explain why he chose Israel. Widows and orphans lobby the government. Individuals lobby the government. Civil organizations, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, the oil industry, the pot lobby, immigrant rights activists, military contractors. Why single out Israel?
> 
> And I would ask that no one offer up the trope of our support for Israel throughout various administrations. We support the U.K, Germany, Japan and various other countries both economically and with military and diplomatic assistance. No one every mentions the U.K., German or Japan lobby.


 Hmmm.. is it 'singling' though or merely an illustrative example?

J1M was being vulgar though, I'll grant you that.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Not at all, but there needs to be equity. There's no counter party risk to the consumer or to the corporation when workers go on strike.


All a worker has to bargain with is his labour. If the worker withdraws their labour it is their right to do so. How can a state withdraw that right without denying workers their rights?



SG_67 said:


> 1) In my opinion, public sector unions should be limited in scope and prohibited from supporting or giving money to political candidates of either party. 2) Also, I would like to see all states become "Right to Work" states. People should be free to choose whether or not to join a union. The notion that someone is forced into an association with someone else or a group by virtue of where they choose to work is inherently un-American!


1) Why? If corporations can give money to political organisations of their choice, why shouldn't unions? 
2) Are they not free to choose in the US? They're free to choose in Europe; most European workers realise that it is their interests to be a union member.



SG_67 said:


> A word about public sector unions. There are states where government employees (teachers, etc.) have their unions dues directly subtracted from their paychecks and given to the union. This is tantamount to colonial times when the state collected taxes to support the Church. The separation clause in the First Amendment was geared more toward stopping this than anything else.


My union dues are directly paid to my union, in the same way that my taxes, my National Insurance and my pension contributions are. I see no problem with this.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Al Gore? What does he have to do with anything? Tim Berners-Lee, sorry, Sir Tim Berners-Lee is credited with the invention of the internet, whilst working for a government funded research institute. You appear to think that infrastructure is somehow not productive or innovative, whilst things that use the infrastructure are. Curious distinction.


Infrastructure is productive but it's private industry that is able to create based on the platforms created. I'm not suggesting that government does not have a role in doing things like funding basic research and other projects that benefit society as a whole, but imagine is the government created the internet, then created the computers, software and website that we could visit. How well do you think that would work? How advanced do you think the internet would be if the applications that used it were closed off to private competition and innovation?



> In the UK? Everybody, if one has enough money.


On average, some 85% of the U.S. population is covered by insurance. About 16% of that is Medicaid. The remaining 15% who are not covered, many are migrant or immigrant workers for whom it is not available and others choose not to. Even those who are not covered and who are on Medicaid receive adequate treatment for emergent cases. Thanks to a for profit system, there are plenty of providers and facilities that provide pro bono services in under privileged communities.

And as by your claim of "Everybody" what do you think that tells you about how people wish the system were organized?

Everyone is for reducing costs and controls on healthcare expenditures until they are the one's who are sick. Then they want every test known to man and they want it right away. One can not have a gold plated healthcare system on an aluminum can budget (my apologies to commodities traders who may suggest the price of aluminum is going up).


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Hmmm.. is it 'singling' though or merely an illustrative example?
> 
> J1M was being vulgar though, I'll grant you that.


OOF. Could you please define "vulgar"as to the present conversation?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Of all the "3rd party interests" that lobby our government, why is Israel mentioned?
> 
> I think the gentleman in question should explain why he chose Israel. Widows and orphans lobby the government. Individuals lobby the government. Civil organizations, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, the oil industry, the pot lobby, immigrant rights activists, military contractors. Why single out Israel?
> 
> And I would ask that no one offer up the trope of our support for Israel throughout various administrations. We support the U.K, Germany, Japan and various other countries both economically and with military and diplomatic assistance. No one every mentions the U.K., German or Japan lobby.


The US supports the UK economically does it? Not, I would suggest with direct financial or military aid. The US sells us stuff, they don't give it to us. US diplomatic assistance? Only if it fits in with US foreign policy. I didn't notice much US diplomatic assistance when we really needed it in 1956, or in 1982. 
I would suggest that there isn't a significant group of British-Americans, German-Americans, or Japanese-Americans who lobby the US to send vast amounts of direct aid and money from US taxpayers to support Britain, Germany or Japan. This is the case, however, with America's relationship with Israel. I would suggest, therefore, that to use Israel as an example is perfectly valid.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> OOF. Could you please define "vulgar"as to the present conversation?


The "COCK" brothers? Read your posts, sir, before hitting submit.


----------



## Shaver

^ That's the one I was referring to. 

Not that I really mind too much one way or the other, you understand.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> The "COCK" brothers? Read your posts, sir, before hitting submit.


I already stated my fault on this. You have yet to give an answer as to if they are the best people to be in charge of U.S. Policy versus the "unions" that you seem to despise.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Infrastructure is productive but it's private industry that is able to create based on the platforms created. I'm not suggesting that government does not have a role in doing things like funding basic research and other projects that benefit society as a whole, but imagine is the government created the internet, then created the computers, software and website that we could visit. How well do you think that would work? How advanced do you think the internet would be if the applications that used it were closed off to private competition and innovation?


You seem to think that it is all or nothing, that if the government had a role in innovation then private enterprise couldn't. I think you'll find that there's a role for both public and private sectors in innovation. An example, the first commercial jet aircraft, the De Havilland Comet was designed and developed by the British government in its post-war planning role in about 1943, under Brabazon, the Air Minister, as far as I can remember. Innovation by the public sector.



SG_67 said:


> On average, some 85% of the U.S. population is covered by insurance. About 16% of that is Medicaid. The remaining 15% who are not covered, many are migrant or immigrant workers for whom it is not available and others choose not to. Even those who are not covered and who are on Medicaid receive adequate treatment for emergent cases. Thanks to a for profit system, there are plenty of providers and facilities that provide pro bono services in under privileged communities.


So you, clearly, think that running a hospital for profit is ethical.



SG_67 said:


> And as by your claim of "Everybody" what do you think that tells you about how people wish the system were organized?


It tells me that nearly everybody is happy with the system as it is, but that people can access private medicine if they're wealthy enough. I've found that the NHS has always been adequate for my, and my family's health needs.



SG_67 said:


> Everyone is for reducing costs and controls on healthcare expenditures until they are the one's who are sick. Then they want every test known to man and they want it right away. One can not have a gold plated healthcare system on an aluminum can budget (my apologies to commodities traders who may suggest the price of aluminum is going up).


This comment shows, I think, your prejudice against public health care. The NHS in Britain, and the equivalents in France and Germany work very well. The majority of people in European countries which have public health care are very content with the public health care systems that are in place. The only people who appear to be opposed to it are those who share your own views on government. Usually wealthy people who object to their taxes helping the poor and the disabled.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> All a worker has to bargain with is his labour. If the worker withdraws their labour it is their right to do so. How can a state withdraw that right without denying workers their rights?


No one is saying that their right to do so needs to be withdrawn. I'm simply stating that the scales are tipped in favor of the workers and unions. Unions can be just as abusive as capitalists can. I'm all for an even playing field. If workers go on strike, then a company should have the right to bring in workers to fill those jobs and keep the company going until the strike is settled. The government should not compel a worker to join a union by virtue of where that person is employed. That's all I'm saying.



> 1) Why? If corporations can give money to political organisations of their choice, why shouldn't unions?
> 2) Are they not free to choose in the US? They're free to choose in Europe; most European workers realise that it is their interests to be a union member.


Unions do give money, and that's fine. Public sector unions should not be allowed to given the unique nature of their relationship with their employer. The employer is not bargaining across the table with his/her money. It's an unfair game with the scales tipped far in favor of the worker.

No, they are not free to choose in many cases. In some states, the public sector union dues are extracted from the workers pay by the government and given to the union. In non-right to work states, a worker is compelled to "join" a union by virtue of place of employment. The worker can choose to never vote, participate or otherwise engage in union activity but still must pay dues.



> My union dues are directly paid to my union, in the same way that my taxes, my National Insurance and my pension contributions are. I see no problem with this.


Union dues are not taxes, at least not here. The state should not act as a tax collector on behalf of a private organization. What other private organization has as it's collection agency the state?


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> Of all the "3rd party interests" that lobby our government, why is Israel mentioned?
> 
> I think the gentleman in question should explain why he chose Israel.


https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

It is the elephant in the room. The old trick of raising anti semitism if it is mentioned just does not work any more.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby
> 
> It is the elephant in the room. The old trick of raising anti semitism if it is mentioned just does not work any more.


It actually does work because we provide military assistance to a multitude of countries. Israel is unique in that it is a functioning democracy in the midst of a vipers nest of extremists. We have a strategic interest in helping to maintain her, not to mention that Jews have been persecuted along a spectrum ranging from denial of citizenship, jobs to an attempt to exterminate them for the past 3000 years.

As for the "Israel lobby" if they were so effective why is Jonathon Pollard still in jail? People mention the "Israel lobby" as though it's some shadowy organization the same way they mention Opus Dei.

Lot's of people and countries lobby the U.S. government for various things. Israel is no different.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> Lot's of people and countries lobby the U.S. government for various things. Israel is no different.


"Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain."

Opus Dei comparison is laughable. How much aid do they receive?

Opus Dei does not try to get the US to start wars on it's behalf either.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb62Lk7JKM4


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> It actually does work because we provide military assistance to a multitude of countries. Israel is unique in that it is a functioning democracy in the midst of a vipers nest of extremists. We have a strategic interest in helping to maintain her, not to mention that Jews have been persecuted along a spectrum ranging from denial of citizenship, jobs to an attempt to exterminate them for the past 3000 years.
> 
> As for the "Israel lobby" if they were so effective why is Jonathon Pollard still in jail? People mention the "Israel lobby" as though it's some shadowy organization the same way they mention Opus Dei.
> 
> Lot's of people and countries lobby the U.S. government for various things. Israel is no different.


Does the u.s. government dedicate $trilions per year to the vatican & opes dei because they give $millions pewr year in political donations? ? Follow the money. That I disagree with the U,.S. giving political favoritism to Israel over political donations, has nothing to do with being "anti-semitic". My only bias is that any religious group outside of the U.S. is able to buy u.s. politicians. You obviously seem to believe that outsider interests are more important than the interests of your fellow Americans. As such, you were certainly correct when you denied Veteran status. As an American, Americans will always be first to me, Trillions to Israel is an insult to my service when I see my brothers and sisters starving and going without medical care so that the Israelis can live in splendor (when compared to many in the U.S.)

Israel is very different... They are the only country allowed to pass on millions of dollars to U.S. politicians in exchange for trillions of U.S. dollars in military, and political support... Monetary support of Israel is the only example where we alow another country to gain money from loans (interest rates go to israel and not the U.S. taxpayer).

Will the repukes & democraps please answer the question? Why is it ok for the koch brothers and israel to pay billions to influence u.s. politics while unions consisisting of u.s. workers should be considered "unamerican" and void of the rights that they demand as people that live within and are therefore forced to support the U.S. system??... Do you support Israel over American rights?


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> "Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain."
> 
> Opus Dei comparison is laughable. How much aid do they receive?
> 
> Opus Dei does not try to get the US to start wars on it's behalf either.
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb62Lk7JKM4


We give as much combined to Pakistan, Egypt and Jordan. Does anyone speak of the PEJ lobby? There's a benefit to providing stability in the Middle East and Israel has been our one steadfast ally there.

During the 1990 Gulf War, they sat by at our behest when Saddam lobbed Scud missiles into civilian populations. Egypt and other Gulf states indoctrinate their youth with anti-Semitic teachings and TV shows at the institutional level.

Israel is a flourishing country with a highly developed economy and they've done this with the security guarantees we've provided. They have a burgeoning tech sector and they are a trading partner with us. We should be supporting them and I don't see what's wrong with that.

As for Opus Dei, I was merely making the comparison that people use the term "Israel lobby" as though it's some nefarious, shadowy puppet master. While it is certainly cold comfort to think that way for those pre-disposed to believing such things, it's hardly a valid argument.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> We give as much combined to Pakistan, Egypt and Jordan. Does anyone speak of the PEJ lobby? There's a benefit to providing stability in the Middle East and Israel has been our one steadfast ally there.
> 
> During the 1990 Gulf War, they sat by at our behest when Saddam lobbed Scud missiles into civilian populations. Egypt and other Gulf states indoctrinate their youth with anti-Semitic teachings and TV shows at the institutional level.
> 
> Israel is a flourishing country with a highly developed economy and they've done this with the security guarantees we've provided. They have a burgeoning tech sector and they are a trading partner with us. We should be supporting them and I don't see what's wrong with that.
> 
> As for Opus Dei, I was merely making the comparison that people use the term "Israel lobby" as though it's some nefarious, shadowy puppet master. While it is certainly cold comfort to think that way for those pre-disposed to believing such things, it's hardly a valid argument.


The Cold War is over. A US proxy is no longer needed in the Middle East. Now the tail is wagging the dog and US is an Israeli proxy.

Unqualified support for Israel only damages the interests of ordinary Americans who get blamed nearly as much as the Israelis themselves.

You might as well bomb the Israeli nuclear plant at Dimona as threaten Iran over non existent nuclear bombs. They are more of a liability in the region now.

Israel is no friend of the US as the USS Liberty incident demonstrates. https://www.usslibertyveterans.org

Opus Dei again. It is nothing like the Israel Lobby.

Discussion of the Lobby has been limited in the media. Mearsheimer and Walt came under predictable attack - but all the evidence is out there. Politicians are usually frightened to say anything for fear of damaging their careers.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> We give as much combined to Pakistan, Egypt and Jordan. Does anyone speak of the PEJ lobby? There's a benefit to providing stability in the Middle East and Israel has been our one steadfast ally there.
> 
> During the 1990 Gulf War, they sat by at our behest when Saddam lobbed Scud missiles into civilian populations. Egypt and other Gulf states indoctrinate their youth with anti-Semitic teachings and TV shows at the institutional level.
> 
> Israel is a flourishing country with a highly developed economy and they've done this with the security guarantees we've provided. They have a burgeoning tech sector and they are a trading partner with us. We should be supporting them and I don't see what's wrong with that.
> 
> As for Opus Dei, I was merely making the comparison that people use the term "Israel lobby" as though it's some nefarious, shadowy puppet master. While it is certainly cold comfort to think that way for those pre-disposed to believing such things, it's hardly a valid argument.


Fine. Does the rest of the U.S. agree with you on giving money to Israel when U.S. children are stârving? or is it a "political" arguement that has very little support outside of those that have benefited politcally from "monetary "gifts"? I admit to being anti-israeli policy & always have. American money should be spent on Americans. Do you really think that israeli citizens deserve more than the Americans that are supporting them? Is your idea of democracy s to support wealthy israelis over poor americans? I myself find it to be state forced support of a terrorist country. OH. As an athiest, I don't care as to religion versus action.


----------



## Kingstonian

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/why-the-term-israel-first_b_1252789.html


----------



## Tilton

justonemore said:


> Fine. Does the rest of the U.S. agree with you on giving money to Israel when U.S. children are stârving?


Perhaps so. In college, I knew many kids who went on mission trips to bring food, water, medical services, etc. to children throughout Central America. Meanwhile, not 100mi away, many, many Appalachian people - people in their own country, in their own back yard - were living at the same level as those they traveled to help but did they offer to make the hour and a half drive and put that airfare money towards doing more good? Of course not.


----------



## Tilton

Kingstonian said:


> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/why-the-term-israel-first_b_1252789.html


I definitely get the point, but I would suggest trying to persuade others with articles not written by the most biased and agenda-serving organization in America (Media Matters, not HuffPo).


----------



## Kingstonian

Tilton said:


> I definitely get the point, but I would suggest trying to persuade others with articles not written by the most biased and agenda-serving organization in America (Media Matters, not HuffPo).


Well many American media outlets would not touch such a story with a barge pole, so you take your article where you find it.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> No one is saying that their right to do so needs to be withdrawn. I'm simply stating that the scales are tipped in favor of the workers and unions. Unions can be just as abusive as capitalists can. I'm all for an even playing field. If workers go on strike, then a company should have the right to bring in workers to fill those jobs and keep the company going until the strike is settled. The government should not compel a worker to join a union by virtue of where that person is employed. That's all I'm saying.


Nobody is saying that unions can't be as abusive, but I don't see how the scales are tipped towards the unions. If a worker withdraws their labour because of a dispute with an employer how is that unfair? I would suggest that the American use of strikebreakers is not a good example of industrial relations, any more than the "truck" system was, and it was only when US industry was unionised that those kind of abuses were stopped.



SG_67 said:


> Unions do give money, and that's fine. Public sector unions should not be allowed to given the unique nature of their relationship with their employer. The employer is not bargaining across the table with his/her money. It's an unfair game with the scales tipped far in favor of the worker.


You appear to think that unions are only ever dispute over money. How is it an unfair game? The employee withdraws their labour and goes without pay, how are the scales tipped in their favour?



SG_67 said:


> No, they are not free to choose in many cases. In some states, the public sector union dues are extracted from the workers pay by the government and given to the union. In non-right to work states, a worker is compelled to "join" a union by virtue of place of employment. The worker can choose to never vote, participate or otherwise engage in union activity but still must pay dues.


That doesn't sound very "American" to me. Perhaps the US isn't as "free" as so many Americans seem to think if that is the case.



SG_67 said:


> Union dues are not taxes, at least not here. The state should not act as a tax collector on behalf of a private organization. What other private organization has as it's collection agency the state?


Union dues aren't taxes in the UK either, but there is an amicable agreement between my employer and my union.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Nobody is saying that unions can't be as abusive, but I don't see how the scales are tipped towards the unions. If a worker withdraws their labour because of a dispute with an employer how is that unfair? I would suggest that the American use of strikebreakers is not a good example of industrial relations, any more than the "truck" system was, and it was only when US industry was unionised that those kind of abuses were stopped.


The employer should be able to use leverage against the employee if the employee offers to withhold labor. Then there's risk on both sides. Often times, these disputes are settled and the employee is given back pay for the time they were on strike. Hardly the shared risk associated with a free market economy. And it's often the state that enforces this



> You appear to think that unions are only ever dispute over money. How is it an unfair game? The employee withdraws their labour and goes without pay, how are the scales tipped in their favour?


Asked and answered.



> That doesn't sound very "American" to me. Perhaps the US isn't as "free" as so many Americans seem to think if that is the case.


You and I agree on this point!



> Union dues aren't taxes in the UK either, but there is an amicable agreement between my employer and my union.


With the state acting as the collector? The difference is whether it is voluntary or state mandated. It's not even so much that the state just collects the money. It's the circumstances under which the dues are paid; they are mandated by law! If you work for a public sector union (teachers, etc.), you are required by law to pay union dues and those dues are deducted from you check, by the state, and given over to the union.

This was a big bone of contention in Wisconsin. Now that the state no longer collects dues and the association is voluntary, guess what? People aren't joining the unions.


----------



## Shaver

Speaking of Israel, did anyone watch the Eurovision Song Contest Semi-final last night?

Mei Finegold is easily the best entry. And a thrilling looking member of the Tribe to boot. 
*

Go Israel! 
*


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> The US supports the UK economically does it? Not, I would suggest with direct financial or military aid. The US sells us stuff, they don't give it to us. US diplomatic assistance? Only if it fits in with US foreign policy. I didn't notice much US diplomatic assistance when we really needed it in 1956, or in 1982.
> I would suggest that there isn't a significant group of British-Americans, German-Americans, or Japanese-Americans who lobby the US to send vast amounts of direct aid and money from US taxpayers to support Britain, Germany or Japan. This is the case, however, with America's relationship with Israel. I would suggest, therefore, that to use Israel as an example is perfectly valid.


In military planning, procurement, NATO as well as with trade...yes.

As for diplomatic assistance, you can go on about the Suez crisis but could we talk about something from the last 40 years? In 1982, the US did offer behind the scenes support and intelligence support to the UK.

As for Germany, Japan and the UK, none are surrounded by dictators who believe their very existence on earth, let alone in a neighboring state of there own, to be abhorrent.

There have been plenty of times when the US has disagreed with Israel and I would suggest that this administration probably has been the most hostile so I guess the "lobby" isn't as effective all the time.


----------



## SG_67

Gurdon said:


> You're welcome. I think the book might help foreigners understand the complexity of American culture and politics. Racism is considered by many, if not most,white Republicans, including the members of the Supreme Court, to be individual utterances and actions, any or all of which have the same value, irrespective of the race or class/status of the offender or the offended.
> 
> Thus the blatherings of Rev. Sharpton, or the considered and restrained remarks of President Obama are deemed by white Republicans, and the black justice of our Supreme Court, to be equally racist and no more or less racist than the blatherings of Cliven Bundy. To me there is a difference between a non-white individual ranting or talking about race, and a white person saying things that clearly reflect the continuity of institutionalized, if not culturally imbedded, racism that is still with us.
> 
> It is a somewhat subterranean business. As an older certified WASP, with ancesters predating the revolution by somewhat over 100 years, people sometimes say things to me that are astoundingly grossly racist in the older vulger style because they assume that I must agree with them. (It is sometimes a side effect of dressing reasonably well. Many in the town we used to live in assumed that I must be conservative because I looked really white and was usualy seen in a jacket and tie.)
> 
> In any event, Dog Bone Politics is good political history. It's author did not, however, tell me what I'd hoped to learn, which is why the US is so dreadfully and thoroughly racist in terms of white bigotry towards non-whites. I grew up amongst racially prejudiced white people and work hard to overcome and grow out of the racism one absorbs under such circumstances. I still don't understand. Most of the people who are racist whom I know well are decent people.
> 
> BTW, I very much enjoyed your providing Christian sources of socialist principles. As one unchurched I suffer from a lack of more than a superficial acquaintence with Christian scripture. I sent my children to an Episcopalian grammer school in order that they might be familiar with the source for much of our cultural heritage/baggage. It doesn't seem to have hurt them.
> 
> Cheers,
> Gurdon


You're correct. Racism exists on many levels. It exists in the hearts and minds of those who harbor such beliefs and until a generation or two ago in the U.S., it was codified.

There's no doubt that racism exists. It's an unfortunate fact of life. It exists in other countries as well and amongst other cultures. We've tried to grapple with it and have done so on a very public stage. I think Condoleeza Rice once called it America's birth defect. I think the analogy is correct; it's like original sin.

However, I take issue with your statement, or perhaps you're reflecting the authors conclusions, regarding thorough racism toward non-whites. There is certainly still tension in this country when it comes to race, but I would direct you to the % of whites who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

No other nation in the world is capable of re-inventing itself quite like we are. Within 5 years we went from being at war with Germany and Japan, in fact annihilating two Japanese cities, to being allies with them and having normalized trade with them. We fought a bloody civil war and within a generation no one was really talking about the south and north as politically distinct entities or on the verge of rebellion. There was no southern "separatist" movement afoot after the civil war. We've gone from segregated bathrooms, lunch counters and buses in the south to now having elected representatives, mayors, senators and local leaders. Fifty years ago we had no black business leaders but now we do. These may not seem like large strides, but they are certainly better than the status quo a generation ago.

So I take issue with the "dreadful and thoroughly" racist culture reference. It will be interesting to see how views on this will have changed a generation from now when the baby boom generation has all but died off.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> The Cold War is over. A US proxy is no longer needed in the Middle East. Now the tail is wagging the dog and US is an Israeli proxy.
> 
> Unqualified support for Israel only damages the interests of ordinary Americans who get blamed nearly as much as the Israelis themselves.
> 
> You might as well bomb the Israeli nuclear plant at Dimona as threaten Iran over non existent nuclear bombs. They are more of a liability in the region now.
> 
> Israel is no friend of the US as the USS Liberty incident demonstrates. https://www.usslibertyveterans.org
> 
> Opus Dei again. It is nothing like the Israel Lobby.
> 
> Discussion of the Lobby has been limited in the media. Mearsheimer and Walt came under predictable attack - but all the evidence is out there. Politicians are usually frightened to say anything for fear of damaging their careers.


Politicians are afraid of speaking out on any number of topics, it's not a phenomenon limited to discussions on Israel. Trust me, if rescuing kittens from trees became a political topic, you'd find politicians vacillating on the merits of using ladders vs. cutting the tree down, afraid of the "kitty street"!

I don't agree with your point of unqualified support, as though they are the only country we give unqualified support to. We do so with any number of allies, but none are under the constant threat of annihilation quite like Israel. Trust me, if Israel ceased to exist, the Arabs would war amongst themselves again. As long as dictators exist, some outside threat has to be manufactured to hold the society together and take their minds off the fact that they are living a medieval existence during a time of financial and technological prosperity. Arab countries have completely closed themselves off to the west.

They have no capacity for creation or innovation. Their technology is purchased from the west, and believe it or not, Israel does business with these countries although it's not something openly embraced:
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3308116,00.html

As for bombing the Israeli reactor? Are you seriously comparing a nuclear Iran with a nuclear Israel. Which country has openly called for the annihilation of the other. Perhaps it's just talk, but when you're just one MRBM away from devastation, talk takes on a new meaning.

It's really interesting the way Israel gets dogged sometimes in both the media as well as those who harp on about the Israel lobby. It's interesting because for all purposes Israel is a liberal democracy. I find it somewhat ironic that a Shia Muslim is more free to practice his/her religion in Israel than in Saudi Arabia, in fact you would probably be executed in the latter. Women are allowed to vote, drive, go to school and otherwise are integrated into both society and the economy. If there's a fire in a Israeli school for girls, they won't have to burn to death because God forbid they come out without their heads covered.

So these are Israel's neighbors. We're bordered by an extremely friendly government to the north and a relatively harmless 3rd world country to the south. We are blessed by the stopping power of two oceans and we have the most advanced economy and military in the world. Israel exists as a small strip of land bounded from all sides by openly hostile regimes. Can you blame them for having a lobby and trying to get some assistance from the only friend they have?


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> Politicians are afraid of speaking out on any number of topics, it's not a phenomenon limited to discussions on Israel.


Richard Nixon may disagree.



SG_67 said:


> I don't agree with your point of unqualified support, as though they are the only country we give unqualified support to.


Maybe you are in denial in your own little dream world then?


SG_67 said:


> As for bombing the Israeli reactor? Are you seriously comparing a nuclear Iran with a nuclear Israel. Which country has openly called for the annihilation of the other. Perhaps it's just talk, but when you're just one MRBM away from devastation, talk takes on a new meaning.


Ask Mordechai Vanunu how serious Israel is about its nuclear reactor
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/20/israel-mordechai-vanunu-hero-edward-snowden
There are plenty of loonies in Israel who would nuke first if they got the chance. The worrying thing is the more hard line ones are the ones who seem to gain political power.



SG_67 said:


> It's really interesting the way Israel gets dogged sometimes in both the media as well as those who harp on about the Israel lobby. It's interesting because for all purposes Israel is a liberal democracy.


A nominally liberal democracy that is slightly less liberal than apartheid South Africa. At least the SA government did not encourage settlement of lands in black homelands or encircle them and then attempt to starve them into submission.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> Richard Nixon may disagree.
> 
> Maybe you are in denial in your own little dream world then?
> 
> Ask Mordechai Vanunu how serious Israel is about its nuclear reactor
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/20/israel-mordechai-vanunu-hero-edward-snowden
> There are plenty of loonies in Israel who would nuke first if they got the chance. The worrying thing is the more hard line ones are the ones who seem to gain political power.
> 
> A nominally liberal democracy that is slightly less liberal than apartheid South Africa. At least the SA government did not encourage settlement of lands in black homelands or encircle them and then attempt to starve them into submission.


https://electronicintifada.net/content/palestinian-israeli-parliament-we-resist-politically/8292

https://www.nationalreview.com/article/364746/arabs-are-prominent-israels-government-deroy-murdock

I wonder what the SA parliament looked like during the Apartheid era?


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Politicians are afraid of speaking out on any number of topics, it's not a phenomenon limited to discussions on Israel. Trust me, if rescuing kittens from trees became a political topic, you'd find politicians vacillating on the merits of using ladders vs. cutting the tree down, afraid of the "kitty street"!
> 
> I don't agree with your point of unqualified support, as though they are the only country we give unqualified support to. We do so with any number of allies, but none are under the constant threat of annihilation quite like Israel. Trust me, if Israel ceased to exist, the Arabs would war amongst themselves again. As long as dictators exist, some outside threat has to be manufactured to hold the society together and take their minds off the fact that they are living a medieval existence during a time of financial and technological prosperity. Arab countries have completely closed themselves off to the west.
> 
> They have no capacity for creation or innovation. Their technology is purchased from the west, and believe it or not, Israel does business with these countries although it's not something openly embraced:
> https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3308116,00.html
> 
> As for bombing the Israeli reactor? Are you seriously comparing a nuclear Iran with a nuclear Israel. Which country has openly called for the annihilation of the other. Perhaps it's just talk, but when you're just one MRBM away from devastation, talk takes on a new meaning.
> 
> It's really interesting the way Israel gets dogged sometimes in both the media as well as those who harp on about the Israel lobby. It's interesting because for all purposes Israel is a liberal democracy. I find it somewhat ironic that a Shia Muslim is more free to practice his/her religion in Israel than in Saudi Arabia, in fact you would probably be executed in the latter. Women are allowed to vote, drive, go to school and otherwise are integrated into both society and the economy. If there's a fire in a Israeli school for girls, they won't have to burn to death because God forbid they come out without their heads covered.
> 
> So these are Israel's neighbors. We're bordered by an extremely friendly government to the north and a relatively harmless 3rd world country to the south. We are blessed by the stopping power of two oceans and we have the most advanced economy and military in the world. Israel exists as a small strip of land bounded from all sides by openly hostile regimes. Can you blame them for having a lobby and trying to get some assistance from the only friend they have?


You have yet to respond as to why it-s ok for the U.S. to give billions to Israel versus spending it on their own suffering populace. The same money given to Israel could be used for feeding, educating and housing U.S. children. Instead it is spent for a terrorist warlike society to do as they please. There is very little benefit for the average American to have their tax money spent on Israelis over fellow Americans. TAlk about a socialist, welfare state and my thoughts go directly to U.S. support of Israel. You on the other hand think it-s ok to suppress union viewpoints while accepting those of American Big Business


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> This is not the first time j1m has been the recipient of accusations of anti-semetism. However, we never seem to get to the bottom of exactly why. I am hoping you will be kind enough to illuminate me?


Still no response to this one. Easier to insult and run away then to actually back up said insult. Sad to say but it seems par for the course with such gents.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67,

^ So now you are highlighting the fig leaf used to pretend this is a democracy.

Politicians who have no real power whatsoever.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> SG_67,
> 
> ^ So now you are highlighting the fig leaf used to pretend this is a democracy.
> 
> Politicians who have no real power whatsoever.


The power rests with the people. The people are sovereign.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> The power rests with the people. The people are sovereign.


You just gerrymander it so that Palestinians never get a majority. Pack them into smaller occupied territories and keep your fingers crossed.

"The phrase "demographic bomb" was famously used by Benjamin Netanyahu in 2003[94] when he noted that, if the percentage of Arab citizens rises above its current level of about 20 percent, Israel will not be able to maintain a Jewish demographic majority. Netanyahu's comments were criticized as racist by Arab Knesset members and a range of civil rights and human rights organizations, such as the Association for Civil Rights in Israel."


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> You just gerrymander it so that Palestinians never get a majority. Pack them into smaller occupied territories and keep your fingers crossed.
> 
> "The phrase "demographic bomb" was famously used by Benjamin Netanyahu in 2003[94] when he noted that, if the percentage of Arab citizens rises above its current level of about 20 percent, Israel will not be able to maintain a Jewish demographic majority. Netanyahu's comments were criticized as racist by Arab Knesset members and a range of civil rights and human rights organizations, such as the Association for Civil Rights in Israel."


Every nation deserves a state. Israel is a Jewish state and the Jews need a state. I would encourage you to take a look at the past 2000 years of persecution of Jews as they've never really had a state where they can live at peace and worship God without fear of persecution.

Jascha Heifetz was once asked "why are there so many great Jewish violin players?" He answered by saying that it was the one instrument that they could take with them if they were ever run out of where they were. Why do you think so many Jews are in the gold and diamond business? It's because they've never been able to open shops as frequent outbursts of anti-Semitism would wipe out their communities. They needed a business that was relatively portable and they could take with them on the run.

I'm sure there are extremists on the Jewish side who believe the only good Arab is a dead Arab, but on whole you see the nation struggling to maintain it's borders, it's identity and it's culture within an incredibly hostile neighborhood. Imagine how quickly they would be overrun were we to pull our support of them.

Your in the UK. How would you feel if France were to come across the channel and try to lay claim to its ancient territorial rights per the Norman Conquest. In the process, banning the Anglican church, re-orienting schools and establishing the Catholic church as the official church. English would be forbidden and French would become the official language. You would have to renounce the sovereign and pledge your allegiance to the French King or you wouldn't be able to work.

A nation without a state is a tragedy and no other peoples in history have suffered this tragedy as uniquely as the Jews. So excuse them for wanting a state.

The Palestinians chose to leave Israel in droves in 1948 in advance of war being declared. They thought their Arab brethren would liberate them and return them to their rightful lands. They were wrong! The "occupied territories" were won during the 1967 six-day war and are rightful spoils of war. Is Wales an occupied territory?

What about Texas or California? Are they occupied?


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Every nation deserves a state. Israel is a Jewish state and the Jews need a state. I would encourage you to take a look at the past 2000 years of persecution of Jews as they've never really had a state where they can live at peace and worship God without fear of persecution.
> 
> Jascha Heifetz was once asked "why are there so many great Jewish violin players?" He answered by saying that it was the one instrument that they could take with them if they were ever run out of where they were. Why do you think so many Jews are in the gold and diamond business? It's because they've never been able to open shops as frequent outbursts of anti-Semitism would wipe out their communities. They needed a business that was relatively portable and they could take with them on the run.
> 
> I'm sure there are extremists on the Jewish side who believe the only good Arab is a dead Arab, but on whole you see the nation struggling to maintain it's borders, it's identity and it's culture within an incredibly hostile neighborhood. Imagine how quickly they would be overrun were we to pull our support of them.
> 
> Your in the UK. How would you feel if France were to come across the channel and try to lay claim to its ancient territorial rights per the Norman Conquest. In the process, banning the Anglican church, re-orienting schools and establishing the Catholic church as the official church. English would be forbidden and French would become the official language. You would have to renounce the sovereign and pledge your allegiance to the French King or you wouldn't be able to work.
> 
> A nation without a state is a tragedy and no other peoples in history have suffered this tragedy as uniquely as the Jews. So excuse them for wanting a state.
> 
> The Palestinians chose to leave Israel in droves in 1948 in advance of war being declared. They thought their Arab brethren would liberate them and return them to their rightful lands. They were wrong! The "occupied territories" were won during the 1967 six-day war and are rightful spoils of war. Is Wales an occupied territory?
> 
> What about Texas or California? Are they occupied?


Ok. You have a pet cause. Excuse me for not supporting it over the needs of actual Americans. You are well behind in explaining any real reason that American taxpayers should suffer over a religious group that isn-t allowed by the 1st amendment to actually influence U.S. society over any other religion *past suffering or no.

As per your theory, shouldn-t we that believe in greek mythogoly be able to claim Mt. Olympus

You seem to think that every religion needs a state over every race. Make yourself clear please sir. Judaism is a religion, not an actual race. Israel is a country and not a religion.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> The Palestinians chose to leave Israel in droves in 1948 in advance of war being declared.


Ever heard of Deir Yassin ? I am sure you have.

https://www.deiryassin.org/mas.html


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> Ever heard of Deir Yassin ? I am sure you have.
> 
> https://www.deiryassin.org/mas.html


I suppose you and I could go back and forth about atrocities on both sides. No really sure what Israeli wrestlers in Munich had to do with anything either, but they too were killed. Shall I provide a link? Of course not, because you know it well enough. The fact is that man Palestinians left in anticipation of the war thinking they would return victorious riding in the vanguard of the Arab armies that came to their aid.

The founding of a state is sometimes an ugly thing. There's no Stern Gang now, just like we're not tarring and feathering Brits walking down 5th ave. in New York looking for deals.

So let's bring the conversation back to the hear and now. Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state?


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> I suppose you and I could go back and forth about atrocities on both sides. No really sure what Israeli wrestlers in Munich had to do with anything either, but they too were killed. Shall I provide a link? Of course not, because you know it well enough. The fact is that man Palestinians left in anticipation of the war thinking they would return victorious riding in the vanguard of the Arab armies that came to their aid.
> 
> The founding of a state is sometimes an ugly thing. There's no Stern Gang now, just like we're not tarring and feathering Brits walking down 5th ave. in New York looking for deals.
> 
> So let's bring the conversation back to the hear and now. Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state?


Sure. Vatican state exists as a Catholic state. It doesn-t mean that the world allows them to do whatever thy please in the name of their stated religion...if you haven-t bothered to notice all the Vatican controversies recently... Same with all the muslim countries. Plenty of problems with the muslims as well isn-t there..Do we allow them to do what they want in the name of religion...Israel is a country and their chosen religion is very much secondary compared to their obligations under international law and that of general human decency... That the tax dollars of my friends and family go to a crackpot religion is beyond my belief as a supporter of the 1st amendment...

Still no response as to why U.S. unions should be refused political influence over the Israelis_

Still no proof as to how anzthing I-ve written is Anti semetic...

You seem to talk big right up to the point that proof is asked for. Then zou run awaz...Come on big shot...Prove your point or take it back... Or should I mention that you are a racist bastard and alow others to accept it without question....

The international community does not agree with your viewpoint that land overtaken by Israel belongs to Israel. Suck it up and realize that Israel is commiting crimes under international law by continued building in an area of high contention...That Israel refuses to follow international law in face of continued violence does not speak well for their intentions.


----------



## Kingstonian

justonemore said:


> .. That the tax dollars of my friends and family go to ayz crackpot religion is beyond my belief as a supporter of the 1st amendment...


In a nutshell. It also affects us in the UK who are under the thumb of the US and get dragged into wars with it.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67,

Are you Jewish yourself?


----------



## Hitch

Kingstonian said:


> SG_67,
> 
> Are you Jewish yourself?


Are you anti-semitic yourself?


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> SG_67,
> 
> Are you Jewish yourself?


Not really sure why it would matter. Can one's support be based on political considerations and a basic moral solidarity with a Nation without actually being a member of that group?


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> Not really sure why it would matter. Can one's support be based on political considerations and a basic moral solidarity with a Nation without actually being a member of that group?


I will take that as a "yes" then.


----------



## justonemore

Kingstonian said:


> SG_67,
> 
> Are you Jewish yourself?


I would hope that as he claims to be an American, that his religious preferences wouldn-t influence him to agree with policies that are damaging to the average American voter over a welfare recipient state such as Israel.


----------



## Kingstonian

Hitch said:


> Are you anti-semitic yourself?


Hitch are you Jewish yourself?

I would be interested to know the background to your interest in this issue


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> Are you anti-semitic yourself?


Ooops. More anti semitic, antigod name calling in order to support the viewpoint of the religious righties....Good job Hitch. You still rank number one of bs


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> I will take that as a "yes" then.


Take it for whatever you want. I don't think I've predicated anything I've advocated on any divine right.

I find it curious that you would want to know my religious background. Would you care to explain the genesis of that question?


----------



## justonemore

I would still like proof as to the slander of SG 67. Should the name calling not be justified, an apology is in order. Short of such, I think a mod will need to be in touch with those that call names and run away. Logical respectable debate does not allow for defamation of character.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> I would still like proof as to the slander of SG 67. Should the name calling not be justified, an apology is in order. Short of such, I think a mod will need to be in touch with those that call names and run away.


My good man, I've resisted responding to you because:

1) you're vulgar

2) you're quite boring

I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you and I apologize for hurting your feelings. I'll leave you to ponder this for a few seconds before you return again to boring me.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> I find it curious that you would want to know my religious background. Would you care to explain the genesis of that question?


Well you have not actually said " it says in the bible", however your first paragraph is interesting. It may suggest a religious take on it - either Jewish, or fundamentalist Christian of the type who believe Jews must return to Jerusalem before The Rapture can take place

"Every nation deserves a state. Israel is a Jewish state and the Jews need a state. I would encourage you to take a look at the past 2000 years of persecution of Jews as they've never really had a state where they can live at peace and worship God without fear of persecution. "

Just trying to figure out your mindset.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> My good man, I've resisted responding to you because:
> 
> 1) you're vulgar
> 
> 2) you're quite boring
> 
> I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you and I apologize for hurting your feelings. I'll leave you to ponder this for a few seconds before you return again to boring me.


Actually it was not I,but a different beyond senior status member of this forum that asked you to support your name calling. You have refused to do so. Apologies should go not only to me, but to the others on the forum that you have insulted by slandering people without any sort of proof. Or is Shaver a Bore&Vulgar and underserving to response as well....My feelings have little to nothing to do with the fact. That zou desire not to respond to valid points that contradict your position is no shock at all. You obviously support Israel over the U.S. and believe that giving upwards of a \trillion a year to a religiously affiliated country to be acceptable at the cost of your fellow Americans. Israel can and should pass billions into the U.S. electorate, while unions should shut up and be ignored. Your point has indeed been made clear. Speak of boredom...You should bore yourself.. That the Koch brothers can control the economy further than millions of Americans is vulgar in its own right. Speak up and debate logically.... or leave the debate... Again.., Provide proof of your slander or apologize to the forum...If its beyond your capabilities, perhaps a senior mod can act as a censor


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> Well you have not actually said " it says in the bible", however your first paragraph is interesting. It may suggest a religious take on it - either Jewish, or fundamentalist Christian of the type who believe Jews must return to Jerusalem before The Rapture can take place
> 
> "Every nation deserves a state. Israel is a Jewish state and the Jews need a state. I would encourage you to take a look at the past 2000 years of persecution of Jews as they've never really had a state where they can live at peace and worship God without fear of persecution. "
> 
> Just trying to figure out your mindset.


So the only logical conclusion for my views is that I'm a religious zealot? You can stand on enlightened logic and reason but if someone disagrees, he is blinded by religious fanaticism?

The Jews deserve a state; yes. Christians and Muslims already have the benefit of states with defensible borders.

Perhaps I should say that the Hebrews deserve their own state. Would I incur the same from you? Do the French deserve a state? Do the Slavs, Hindus, Japanese?

Again, not really sure what my religious persuasion has to do with any of these. Have I sought an answer for your views in the religion you practice?


----------



## justonemore

He bored himself with the thought that CHARITY in all cases but Israel should be given by the individual versus being forced upon the populace by the state as a tax. Hipocrates need no logical reasoning. Helping out with medical bills for African American children is obviously socialism compared to paying the same amount out to a country that ignores international law.


----------



## SG_67

Hippocrates was a Greek physician.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Hippocrates was a Greek physician.


How boring to take on a minor issue versus the main thrust of the argument. No reason as to why it is considered socialism when supporting Americans through tax dollars yet it is ok to force tax dollar support for Israel and it is not to be considered as a type of socialism. Which you seem to despise. At least for non Israel related issues..... Your argument....American funded and supported unions should have no political influence. Israeli eelction donations should be allowed to go unchecked. Yawn.... To force you to pay for an American childs education is socialism, but you forcing me to pay for Israels war crimes equals.....


----------



## SG_67

It's not a minor issue. You don't even know the difference between Hippocrates and a hypocrite! 

It's somewhat difficult to have an adult conversation with someone who obviously doesn't even have a grasp of the basics of the language let alone the ability to form a cogent and interesting argument not fraught with hyperbole and utter nonsense.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> It's not a minor issue. You don't even know the difference between Hippocrates and a hypocrite!
> 
> It's somewhat difficult to have an adult conversation with someone who obviously doesn't even have a grasp of the basics of the language let alone the ability to form a cogent and interesting argument not fraught with hyperbole and utter nonsense.


I know, lets attack an irrelevant mistyping so that we can ignore the main thrust of the argument. It's been done before in this forum, as has the "I won't respond because I'm bored with the poster".


----------



## Hitch

Kingstonian said:


> Hitch are you Jewish yourself?
> 
> I would be interested to know the background to your interest in this issue


Gallic.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> I know, lets attack an irrelevant mistyping so that we can ignore the main thrust of the argument. It's been done before in this forum, as has the "I won't respond because I'm bored with the poster".


You're assuming it's a type-o.

Even giving the benefit of the doubt, I fail to see the "main thrust of the argument". It's basically random leftist ranting cobbled together and each post is just a re-arranging of the words.

The U.S. is a hypocritical nation. Our people are starving and the rich keep getting richer. We give too much aid to Israel because we are in the pocket of the Israel lobby.

I've basically summed up the "main thrust of the argument". Not really sure where else to go with it.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> So the only logical conclusion for my views is that I'm a religious zealot? You can stand on enlightened logic and reason but if someone disagrees, he is blinded by religious fanaticism?


A possible reason for your views may be religion. You seem to wilfully ignore some strong objections to your position.



SG_67 said:


> The Jews deserve a state; yes. Christians and Muslims already have the benefit of states with defensible borders.
> 
> Perhaps I should say that the Hebrews deserve their own state. Would I incur the same from you? Do the French deserve a state? Do the Slavs, Hindus, Japanese?


Jews were living in Palestine pre 1948 with no need of a state of Israel.

Why do they need a state instead of peacefully coexisting with the Palestinians, as they did in many other Middle Eastern countries too?



SG_67 said:


> Again, not really sure what my religious persuasion has to do with any of these. Have I sought an answer for your views in the religion you practice?


I told you why religious persuasion may be relevant, but you chose not to answer.

I am not Jewish, or Muslim. I do not have a dog in this fight.

However, I do get very cheesed off with the UK getting dragged into other peoples' conflicts because of being under US - and therefore Israeli - influence.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> A possible reason for your views may be religion. You seem to wilfully ignore some strong objections to your position.


I'm not ignoring objections, I just don't agree with your conclusions. Is agreement the only solution to willfully ignoring an argument?



> Jews were living in Palestine pre 1948 with no need of a state of Israel.


Jews were living in Germany too during the 1920's and 30's.



> Why do they need a state instead of peacefully coexisting with the Palestinians, as they did in many other Middle Eastern countries too?


Why do the Palestinians need a state? Can't they just peacefully co-exist? When you travel abroad aren't you glad to return to your homeland. Amongst people you share a common heritage, religion, culture and history? By the way, I feel the same way for the Kurds but we're just not talking about them.



> I told you why religious persuasion may be relevant, but you chose not to answer.


Asked and answered.



> I am not Jewish, or Muslim. I do not have a dog in this fight.


Yet why is it assumed that I am Jewish?



> However, I do get very cheesed off with the UK getting dragged into other peoples' conflicts because of being under US - and therefore Israeli - influence.


If you feel that way, lobby your MP.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> Why do the Palestinians need a state? Can't they just peacefully co-exist?.


Because they were living there for centuries before they were forcibly driven off?

Why can the Jews not live peacefully among them like they did before 1948 and like they did in many other Middle Eastern countries?

Why should money and opportunism be a justification for driving a people of their land under the spurious Balfour agreement?



SG_67 said:


> If you feel that way, lobby your MP.


British MPs are all mostly bought and paid for - Conservative Friends of Israel, Labour Friends of Israel, Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel etc., etc. Not as bad as in the USA - but bad enough.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfw5aLYiq5k


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> Because they were living there for centuries before they were forcibly driven off?
> 
> Why can the Jews not live peacefully among them like they did before 1948 and like they did in many other Middle Eastern countries?
> 
> Why should money and opportunism be a justification for driving a people of their land under the spurious Balfour agreement?
> 
> British MPs are all mostly bought and paid for - Conservative Friends of Israel, Labour Friends of Israel, Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel etc., etc. Not as bad as in the USA - but bad enough.
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfw5aLYiq5k


My goodness! Is there anything the Israel lobby cannot do?

You don't care for your government's actions so you blame the Jews?

Why can't the Jews live peacefully among them? They're trying to!

Should a Jew be content with a few crumbs thrown his way? History is replete with the violent births of nations and I for one have no problem with that. Empires have been invaded and wars have been fought for all of human history for the sake of a homeland.

Should the Gauls just have accepted Roman rule. I suppose you and I will not understand the problem as both England and the United States have long been able to sit back and participate in conflicts on the continent for the establishment of nations with unique identities.

But for some reason Jews aren't afforded this same right.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> My goodness! Is there anything the Israel lobby cannot do?
> 
> You don't care for your government's actions so you blame the Jews?
> 
> Why can't the Jews live peacefully among them? They're trying to!
> 
> Should a Jew be content with a few crumbs thrown his way? History is replete with the violent births of nations and I for one have no problem with that. Empires have been invaded and wars have been fought for all of human history for the sake of a homeland.
> 
> Should the Gauls just have accepted Roman rule. I suppose you and I will not understand the problem as both England and the United States have long been able to sit back and participate in conflicts on the continent for the establishment of nations with unique identities.
> 
> But for some reason Jews aren't afforded this same right.


A homeland? No problem. At the expense of the American taxpayer while denying American citizens basic comforts. Big problem. Especially as the U.S. political system is supposed to be divorced from religion. You keep crying about socialist policies but have yet to explain how supporting a religious group in their illegal bid to grow their homeland is a more acceptable use of my tax dollars. I don't dare ask $5 from you to build a park for the neighborhood kids, but you have the nerve to demand everyone pay 1000s more for Israeli mayhem? Man your priorities are backwards. Are you really an American or do you just play one on this site? As someone living in Chicago, the ghettos of Chicago should be your priority over funding illegal Israeli settlements.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> You don't care for your government's actions so you blame the Jews?


Aggressive Zionists and weak politicians who are biddable.


SG_67 said:


> Why can't the Jews live peacefully among them? They're trying to!


They could have lived peaceably in the pre1948 state. What they are really trying to do is push the Palestinians out and extend their boundaries to what they see as a Greater Israel.


SG_67 said:


> Should a Jew be content with a few crumbs thrown his way?


Code for " I don't care if it is Jewish wrong doing." - "My country right or wrong"

In other words, Israel Firster territory.


----------



## Hitch

Kingstonian said:


> SG_67,
> 
> Are you Jewish yourself?


Are you anti-semitic yourself?


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> Are you anti-semitic yourself?


It is interesting that one's support for a political cause has to be linked to one's religious beliefs.

This really does reach it's height when it comes to Israel.

I'm surprised no one has asked if I'm circumcised!


----------



## Hitch

SG_67 said:


> It is interesting that one's support for a political cause has to be linked to one's religious beliefs.
> 
> This really does reach it's height when it comes to Israel.
> 
> I'm surprised no one has asked if I'm circumcised!


Pretty soon anyone who dares insist the holocaust happened will be the kook.


----------



## SG_67

Hitch said:


> Pretty soon anyone who dares insist the holocaust happened will be the kook.


The way some are carrying on, it's as though they've forgotten about it.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> Aggressive Zionists and weak politicians who are biddable.


They're everywhere! It's because of the Israel lobby that I can't park in the city for free on Sundays anymore! And the ban on plastic bags, that too! One Jew in particular tried to ban big gulps. What's next?



> They could have lived peaceably in the pre1948 state. What they are really trying to do is push the Palestinians out and extend their boundaries to what they see as a Greater Israel.


Let's have a history lesson: The British mandate in Palestine would have ended sooner than later after WWII. A blood bath would have ensued and the Jews would have faced extinction there too. Any nation that just witnessed the genocide of 6 million of its members is going to be facing a sense of urgency to establish a state in order to protect them.



> Code for " I don't care if it is Jewish wrong doing." - "My country right or wrong"
> 
> In other words, Israel Firster territory.


I'm sorry but this is totally incoherent and so I'm afraid I can't comment.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> They're everywhere! It's because of the Israel lobby that I can't park in the city for free on Sundays anymore! And the ban on plastic bags, that too! One Jew in particular tried to ban big gulps. What's next?


 Do not try to duck the issue. The Lobby has specific aims, as you know well.



SG_67 said:


> Let's have a history lesson: The British mandate in Palestine would have ended sooner than later after WWII. A blood bath would have ensued and the Jews would have faced extinction there too. Any nation that just witnessed the genocide of 6 million of its members is going to be facing a sense of urgency to establish a state in order to protect them.


Yes let's have a history lesson. There were Jews all over the Middle East before Israel and no bloodbath.



SG_67 said:


> I'm sorry but this is totally incoherent and so I'm afraid I can't comment.


It means you are an apologist for the state of Israel and refuse to accept valid criticism.

But you knew this already.


----------



## Pentheos

The Israeli lobby drank my milkshake.

(What a ridiculous conversation you guys are having.)


----------



## Kingstonian

Pentheos said:


> The Israeli lobby drank my milkshake.
> 
> (What a ridiculous conversation you guys are having.)


Are you SG _67 in disguise?

See point one above.

_ The Lobby has specific aims, as you know well._


----------



## justonemore

Kingstonian said:


> Are you SG _67 in disguise?
> 
> See point one above.
> 
> _ The Lobby has specific aims, as you know well._


Some of these people remind me of that scene in "The Wizard Of Oz" where the dog has pulled back the curtain & the deception has been revealed. The "wizard's" response? Tell them to ignore the man behind the curtain.

I would happily give up my milkshake for the return of all the U.S. welfare checks going to Israel.


----------



## Hitch

Kingstonian said:


> SG_67,
> 
> Are you Jewish yourself?


Are you anti-semitic yourself?

Third attempt.


----------



## Kingstonian

Hitch said:


> Are you anti-semitic yourself?
> 
> Third attempt.


Do try to keep up:-

www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0kWAqZxJVE

Although you may of course think this stuff still works....


----------



## Kingstonian

Anti semitism? Here is an interesting Israeli film on the topic:-

https://archive.org/details/Defamation-FrenchVostfrFullMovie

Mind you, only the French site still has it. It disappeared from You Tube etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_(film)


----------



## justonemore

Kingstonian said:


> Anti semitism? Here is an interesting Israeli film on the topic:-
> 
> https://archive.org/details/Defamation-FrenchVostfrFullMovie
> 
> Mind you, only the French site still has it. It disappeared from You Tube etc.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_(film)


Playing the race/religion card without any type of substantiation is an American favorite... A few of our American members remind me of these 2 guys (and with internet anonymity they could be):

https://imageshack.com/i/nf5b3dij

https://imageshack.com/i/nflk5jj


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Actually it was not I,but a different beyond senior status member of this forum that asked you to support your name calling. You have refused to do so. Apologies should go not only to me, but to the others on the forum that you have insulted by slandering people without any sort of proof. *Or is Shaver a Bore & Vulgar and underserving to response as well*....My feelings have little to nothing to do with the fact. That zou desire not to respond to valid points that contradict your position is no shock at all. You obviously support Israel over the U.S. and believe that giving upwards of a \trillion a year to a religiously affiliated country to be acceptable at the cost of your fellow Americans. Israel can and should pass billions into the U.S. electorate, while unions should shut up and be ignored. Your point has indeed been made clear. Speak of boredom...You should bore yourself.. That the Koch brothers can control the economy further than millions of Americans is vulgar in its own right. Speak up and debate logically.... or leave the debate... Again.., Provide proof of your slander or apologize to the forum...If its beyond your capabilities, perhaps a senior mod can act as a censor


Ahem. That is a question which I would prefer that no-one were to answer. :redface:

At any rate, SG_67, would you mind explaining why justonemore is, in your view, anti-semitic?


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Ahem. That is a question which I would prefer that no-one were to answer. :redface:
> 
> At any rate, SG_67, would you mind explaining why justonemore is, in your view, anti-semitic?


I challenge you to find any thing I've posted to suggest that, let alone blatantly stating that.

This is the problem, Shaver. To make a stand for Israel automatically casts one in the role of a zionist and anyone disagreeing with him an anti-semite. I'm perfectly content to believe that justonemore feels the way he does based on cold, calculated real politik. Just the same way as I should not be assumed a zionist.

As for the food fight referenced, I'm not going to engage with someone who calls the Koch brothers, the "cock" brothers. I don't know the Koch brothers, nor have I had them over for dinner, so it's not as though I'm personally insulted. It's just that when some resort to speaking like pre-pubescent school boys, I tend to become disinterested.

I do, however, agree whole heartedly with his last post. Many in this country are quick to race bate and the two gentleman pictured are poster boys for this.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> *I challenge you to find any thing I've posted to suggest that, let alone blatantly stating that.
> *
> This is the problem, Shaver. To make a stand for Israel automatically casts one in the role of a zionist and anyone disagreeing with him an anti-semite. I'm perfectly content to believe that justonemore feels the way he does based on cold, calculated real politik. Just the same way as I should not be assumed a zionist.
> 
> As for the food fight referenced, I'm not going to engage with someone who calls the Koch brothers, the "cock" brothers. I don't know the Koch brothers, nor have I had them over for dinner, so it's not as though I'm personally insulted. It's just that when some resort to speaking like pre-pubescent school boys, I tend to become disinterested.
> 
> I do, however, agree whole heartedly with his last post. Many in this country are quick to race bate and the two gentleman pictured are poster boys for this.


Isn't the post, reproduced below, suggesting that?



SG_67 said:


> Resorting to vulgarity and veiled anti Semitic references is no way to get your point across. I think my conversation with you, at least on this topic, is over.


Anyway, I agree with both of you gentlemen that Jackson and Sharpton are shameful characters.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Isn't the post, reproduced below, suggesting that?
> 
> Anyway, I agree with both of you gentlemen that Jackson and Sharpton are shameful characters.


Well it seems you are quicker at searching than I am as this is the exact post I was looking for as well.


----------



## SG_67

Constant references to the "Israel lobby" and how they control politicians everywhere is a tried an true anti-semitic rant. 

I'm not suggesting he is anti-semitic. But he is using anti-semitic propaganda. 

"Israel lobby" is the new Jewish cabal. This has been going on for centuries. It's been used to persecute Jews, much like the blood libel during the middle ages. 

There is nothing unique about AIPAC. There are hundreds of organizations in Washington lobbying and jockeying for position. Some are more successful than others. But for some reason AIPAC gets singled out. 

So I will stand behind what I said. He was making anti-semitic references. Israel lobby is the new blood libel, or cabal. It's a more genteel expression of an ugly notion that has unfortunately not left our thinking, although it has left our lexicon. 

I don't know what is in his heart, but I don't have a problem calling out his references.


----------



## Shaver

^ Well I believe, nay expect, that J1M will be along shortly to defend himself. 

However he is hardly quoting from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or speaking of Reptilians, is he?


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> ^ Well I believe, nay expect, that J1M will be along shortly to defend himself.
> 
> However he is hardly quoting from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or speaking of Reptilians, is he?


No he is not. But "Israel lobby" has become another way of referencing the Jewish cabal.

Until the 1960's or so, using the "N" word in reference to African Americans, at least in the south and in some parts of the north, was considered normal. It had been used so often, so much and for so long that people used it interchangeably with more culturally appropriate terms. Why? because when a term is used for so long it loses it's meaning and is considered standard terminology.

So Israel lobby has become a morphed form of previously uglier terms, yet it still holds meaning. Unfortunately, many people reference it without thinking. I'm suggesting he's using the term without any regard for the history and it's hidden meanings.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> No he is not. But "Israel lobby" has become another way of referencing the Jewish cabal.
> 
> Until the 1960's or so, using the "N" word in reference to African Americans, at least in the south and in some parts of the north, was considered normal. It had been used so often, so much and for so long that people used it interchangeably with more culturally appropriate terms. Why? because when a term is used for so long it loses it's meaning and is considered standard terminology.
> 
> So Israel lobby has become a morphed form of previously uglier terms, yet it still holds meaning. Unfortunately, many people reference it without thinking. I'm suggesting he's using the term without any regard for the history and it's hidden meanings.


Ok, so if we wish to speak of the Israel lobby what are we permitted to call them?


----------



## SG_67

Listen to what you're saying. "The Israel Lobby". 

As though it's a monolith. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not implying anything about you. But this is an example of how language matters and how words and phrases can be used as short hand. 

Much like those who suggest that the term "welfare mothers" refers to African Americans on whole. Or how the term Liberal carries with it a list of assumptions, or conservative for that matter. 

The problem with "The Israel Lobby", unfortunately, carries with it centuries of persecution which reached it's zenith during holocaust. 

There is AIPAC, certainly. Do they spread money around and try to gain influence? Absolutely! Just like the widows and orphans lobby, the green lobby, trade Unions and a host of other special interests.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Listen to what you're saying. "The Israel Lobby".
> 
> As though it's a monolith. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not implying anything about you. But this is an example of how language matters and how words and phrases can be used as short hand.
> 
> Much like those who suggest that the term "welfare mothers" refers to African Americans on whole. Or how the term Liberal carries with it a list of assumptions, or conservative for that matter.
> 
> The problem with "The Israel Lobby", unfortunately, carries with it centuries of persecution which reached it's zenith during holocaust.
> 
> There is AIPAC, certainly. Do they spread money around and try to gain influence? Absolutely! Just like the widows and orphans lobby, the green lobby, trade Unions and a host of other special interests.


Have a care! The Green lobby may take offence at your describing them as the Green lobby.


----------



## Hitch

Kingstonian said:


> SG_67,
> 
> Are you Jewish yourself?


Are you anti-semitic yourself?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Constant references to the "Israel lobby" and how they control politicians everywhere is a tried an true anti-semitic rant.
> 
> I'm not suggesting he is anti-semitic. But he is using anti-semitic propaganda.
> 
> "Israel lobby" is the new Jewish cabal. This has been going on for centuries. It's been used to persecute Jews, much like the blood libel during the middle ages.
> 
> There is nothing unique about AIPAC. There are hundreds of organizations in Washington lobbying and jockeying for position. Some are more successful than others. But for some reason AIPAC gets singled out.
> 
> So I will stand behind what I said. He was making anti-semitic references. Israel lobby is the new blood libel, or cabal. It's a more genteel expression of an ugly notion that has unfortunately not left our thinking, although it has left our lexicon.
> 
> I don't know what is in his heart, but I don't have a problem calling out his references.


No, it isn't. It is an expression to describe those in Washington, or Whitehall, who lobby in favour of Israel. There is nothing anti-semitic about the expression, nothing at all.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Listen to what you're saying. "The Israel Lobby".
> 
> As though it's a monolith. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not implying anything about you. But this is an example of how language matters and how words and phrases can be used as short hand.
> 
> Much like those who suggest that the term "welfare mothers" refers to African Americans on whole. Or how the term Liberal carries with it a list of assumptions, or conservative for that matter.
> 
> The problem with "The Israel Lobby", unfortunately, carries with it centuries of persecution which reached it's zenith during holocaust.
> 
> There is AIPAC, certainly. Do they spread money around and try to gain influence? Absolutely! Just like the widows and orphans lobby, the green lobby, trade Unions and a host of other special interests.


I'll have to take this one on in shifts. I'll have to edit in order to redo any mistakes and add in relevant text. Should anyone think this is because I don't know any different, you are more than welcome to claim boredom with my posts.

The Israeli lobby, exists. It is no secret. There is no hidden racism in mentioning them. They spend millions of dollars buying U.S. Policy makers (to ensure the fact they continue to get $billions-trillions in U.S. tax payer money every year). This lobbying also influences politicians to allow the atrocities commited by Israel to continue due to having U.S. friends with veto powers in the U.N. security council . The Israelis in fact spend more in lobbying than the NAACP, and while I am no fan of the NAACP, they are at least representing 55 million (African) Americans versus 8 million Israelis. All of this comes at the cost of the voice of ordinary Americans. . Outsider interests have no place in American élections especially to the extent as is shown by Israel.

That lobbying from American institutions exist is fine and dandy. They are representing Americans and not outsiders. I would support any Americans right to voice their thoughts and be represented by a group. I support no one outside of the U.S. having a right to come before the interests of actual Americans, living in America.

In addition, while you have no problem with the extremely wealthy controling U.S. Policy and law...I do. I have said so previously. I will state it again..The super rich do not deserve to buy politicians in order to get rid of unions just because they find them to be a greater expense then a $60 million election donation. The people of the U.S., as a semi-representative democracy have that right. Should the U.S. become a direct democracy, foreign/wealthy funding becomes less important..but.... The U.S. does not allow the public to vote on pretty much any issue other than "republican or democrat". To me Israel is a country and has nothing to do with religion. Iran is a country and has nothing to do with religion. The U.S. is a country and has nothing to do with religion. Whatever deity the populace takes on should have no influence over general international laws. Israel is no exception. Iran is no exception. The U.S. is no exception. The vatican is no exception.

While those that hold religious biases think that Israel has existed for centuries... My map seems to state otherwise. Unless students of greek mythology are allowed to claim Mt. Olympus, religious claims for real estate mean very little to me.

The BS theory that Israel should be immune from critisms and prosecution of its International Crimes (due to religious background) is no less than disgusting. That the Israelis feel that they can commit such crimes while being funded and supported by Americans that have less benefits than they do (have you seen the amount of socialist policies that Americans support for Israelis over the same policies for Americans?), is equally disgusting. Killing 1000's in response to rock attacks is more than over the top, it is a war crime. Using phosporous grenades on civilians is beyond the pale and also an internaional war crime. Taking military action without taking responsibility is an insult to the international community. I don't care who commits thèse crimes, nor do I care about their religious préférences. It is wrong from just about any point of view and that is why they are illegal from an international viewpoint.

Thesea rea all claims I've been making for years on this site. Not once has anyone been able to show that I am against those that hold to the Jewish faith. In fact, I have strongly supported traditional Jews in their desire not to serve in the Israeli military agaist their religious convictions.

anything further is conceptual BS meant to discredit critics of Israel and their manner of trying to exist in the international community.

Should you really doubt my words, they are only based on the U.N. (which is understandably denounced more so by Israel than any other country world wide.

Ohh. I also have a huge problem with Israel's attitude that they can do what they please without actually taking responsibilty. Neither denying or accepting an action is nothing less than cowardly. If israel is so justified, why not proudly announce it in front of the international community? ooops..That's right..Because it's criminal...

After all that. Should you wish to apologize for calling me anti-semitic, and state that you fully support Israel, it's international war crimes, and the funding that it pays into/recieves from the U.S. system,.. Well, I'll just disagree and state that you have a right to do so (which was partially protected by my service in the U.S. military). I find it sad that you care less about Americans than you do about Israelis but I'm sure the U.S. has plenty of Russians, Iranians, etc. that think the same.

ohh. I would also disagree with The Vatican giving millions in direct election donations to influence Policy. I would also disagree with giving the vatican up to a $trillion in yearly U.S. taxpayer funded benefits. I have (and do) disagree with Vatican supported crimes (I need hardly mention the controversial crimes allowed by the Vatican that the world seems not to support either).


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> No, it isn't. It is an expression to describe those in Washington, or Whitehall, who lobby in favour of Israel. There is nothing anti-semitic about the expression, nothing at all.


I can't speak for how things work across the pond, but foreign governments and foreigners are not allowed to support or to give money to American politicians. Foreign governments and individuals may do so through formal diplomatic channels.

So we're back to "the Israel lobby". Are immigrants rights activists or supporters the "Mexico lobby"? Is the NAACP the "black lobby"?

Politicians support certain causes for a multitude of reasons, mostly because they deem it in their personal interest. If I'm a congressman in south Florida and have a heavily Jewish population, of course I'm going to listen to my constituency and if they are concerned about Israel then I'll be concerned as well.

My complaint is with "the Israel lobby" statement. If one wants to use it as short hand then I think one needs to familiarize himself with all the baggage that the term carries with it.

And by the way, for all the nefarious power they wield, this administration doesn't seem that friendly to them.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> I can't speak for how things work across the pond, but foreign governments and foreigners are not allowed to support or to give money to American politicians. Foreign governments and individuals may do so through formal diplomatic channels.
> 
> So we're back to "the Israel lobby". Are immigrants rights activists or supporters the "Mexico lobby"? Is the NAACP the "black lobby"?
> 
> Politicians support certain causes for a multitude of reasons, mostly because they deem it in their personal interest. If I'm a congressman in south Florida and have a heavily Jewish population, of course I'm going to listen to my constituency and if they are concerned about Israel then I'll be concerned as well.
> 
> My complaint is with "the Israel lobby" statement. If one wants to use it as short hand then I think one needs to familiarize himself with all the baggage that the term carries with it.
> 
> And by the way, for all the nefarious power they wield, this administration doesn't seem that friendly to them.


What you really mean is that the current admin isn't as friendly as past admins. The fact is that Israel is still allowed to ignore international law and have no repurcussions whatsoever thanks to its association with a member of the Security Council that holds perm. veto power. There has been no threat of (let alone real) restrictions to Israel over its illegal policies.

In the middle of peace talk Israel has often decided to build more housing in sites determined to be against international law.. I guess that's all fine and dandy? Why? Because of the country or their "religion"? You seem to be going off of policies that are factually much more racist than anything else I've seen here.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> I'll have to take this one on in shifts. I'll have to edit in order to redo any mistakes and add in relevant text. Should anyone think this is because I don't know any different, you are more than welcome to claim boredom with my posts.
> 
> The Israeli lobby, exists. It is no secret. There is no hidden racism in mentioning them. They spend millions of dollars buying U.S. Policy makers (to ensure the fact they continue to get $billions-trillions in U.S. tax payer money every year). This lobbying also influences politicians to allow the atrocities commited by Israel to continue due to having U.S. friends with veto powers in the U.N. security council . The Israelis in fact spend more in lobbying than the NAACP, and while I am no fan of the NAACP, they are at least representing 55 million (African) Americans versus 8 million Israelis. All of this comes at the cost of the voice of ordinary Americans. . Outsider interests have no place in American élections especially to the extent as is shown by Israel.
> 
> That lobbying from American institutions exist is fine and dandy. They are representing Americans and not outsiders. I would support any Americans right to voice their thoughts and be represented by a group. I support no one outside of the U.S. having a right to come before the interests of actual Americans, living in America.
> 
> In addition, while you have no problem with the extremely wealthy controling U.S. Policy and law...I do. I have said so previously. I will state it again..The super rich do not deserve to buy politicians in order to get rid of unions just because they find them to be a greater expense then a $60 million election donation. The people of the U.S., as a semi-representative democracy have that right. Should the U.S. become a direct democracy, foreign/wealthy funding becomes less important..but.... The U.S. does not allow the public to vote on pretty much any issue other than "republican or democrat". To me Israel is a country and has nothing to do with religion. Iran is a country and has nothing to do with religion. The U.S. is a country and has nothing to do with religion. Whatever deity the populace takes on should have no influence over general international laws. Israel is no exception. Iran is no exception. The U.S. is no exception. The vatican is no exception.
> 
> While those that hold religious biases think that Israel has existed for centuries... My map seems to state otherwise. Unless students of greek mythology are allowed to claim Mt. Olympus, religious claims for real estate mean very little to me.
> 
> The BS theory that Israel should be immune from critisms and prosecution of its International Crimes (due to religious background) is no less than disgusting. That the Israelis feel that they can commit such crimes while being funded and supported by Americans that have less benefits than they do (have you seen the amount of socialist policies that Americans support for Israelis over the same policies for Americans?), is equally disgusting. Killing 1000's in response to rock attacks is more than over the top, it is a war crime. Using phosporous grenades on civilians is beyond the pale and also an internaional war crime. Taking military action without taking responsibility is an insult to the international community. I don't care who commits thèse crimes, nor do I care about their religious préférences. It is wrong from just about any point of view and that is why they are illegal from an international viewpoint.
> 
> Thesea rea all claims I've been making for years on this site. Not once has anyone been able to show that I am against those that hold to the Jewish faith. In fact, I have strongly supported traditional Jews in their desire not to serve in the Israeli military agaist their religious convictions.
> 
> anything further is conceptual BS meant to discredit critics of Israel and their manner of trying to exist in the international community.
> 
> Should you really doubt my words, they are only based on the U.N. (which is understandably denounced more so by Israel than any other country world wide.
> 
> Ohh. I also have a huge problem with Israel's attitude that they can do what they please without actually taking responsibilty. Neither denying or accepting an action is nothing less than cowardly. If israel is so justified, why not proudly announce it in front of the international community? ooops..That's right..Because it's criminal...
> 
> After all that. Should you wish to apologize for calling me anti-semitic, and state that you fully support Israel, it's international war crimes, and the funding that it pays into/recieves from the U.S. system,.. Well, I'll just disagree and state that you have a right to do so (which was partially protected by my service in the U.S. military). I find it sad that you care less about Americans than you do about Israelis but I'm sure the U.S. has plenty of Russians, Iranians, etc. that think the same.
> 
> ohh. I would also disagree with The Vatican giving millions in direct election donations to influence Policy. I would also disagree with giving the vatican up to a $trillion in yearly U.S. taxpayer funded benefits. I have (and do) disagree with Vatican supported crimes (I need hardly mention the controversial crimes allowed by the Vatican that the world seems not to support either).


Please point out where the "Vatican" has received trillions of dollars in taxpayer funds. You've been reading too Dan Brown novels my friend.

As for Israel getting trillions of dollars? That's prima fascia absurd and on those grounds alone enough to suggest you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about and that your reasoning, and I'm being generous in calling it that, is based on fantasy and fiction.

Israelis don't kill 1000's in response to rock attacks. If Israel wanted to, they would and could wholesale slaughter Palestinians. But they don't. Is there collateral damage when targeting terrorists? Of course. If terrorists would stop hiding amongst civilians then perhaps this would happen less.

War and conflict are ugly things. But every country has a right to defend itself. So please find a credible source that cites an Israeli massacre of 1000's in response to some stones being thrown.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Please point out where the "Vatican" has received trillions of dollars in taxpayer funds. You've been reading too Dan Brown novels my friend.
> 
> As for Israel getting trillions of dollars? That's prima fascia absurd and on those grounds alone enough to suggest you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about and that your reasoning, and I'm being generous in calling it that, is based on fantasy and fiction.
> 
> Israelis don't kill 1000's in response to rock attacks. If Israel wanted to, they would and could wholesale slaughter Palestinians. But they don't. Is there collateral damage when targeting terrorists? Of course. If terrorists would stop hiding amongst civilians then perhaps this would happen less.
> 
> War and conflict are ugly things. But every country has a right to defend itself. So please find a credible source that cites an Israeli massacre of 1000's in response to some stones being thrown.


Ummm. I stated that I wouldn't support U.S. Vatican funding same as that which we see with funding for Israel.. You made the racist claim and I am stating that be it Israel or the Vatican (both who desire religious affilitaion over country status) do not deserve U.S. funding for either their religious or "we are a country" viewpoints. Is it not biased/racist/anti-catholic that the Vatican can be critized and denied funds compared to Israel?


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Ummm. I stated that I wouldn't support U.S. Vatican funding same as that which we see with funding for Israel.. You made the racist claim and I am stating that be it Israel or the Vatican (both who desire religious affilitaion over country status) do not deserve U.S. funding for either their religious or "we are a country" viewpoints. Is it not biased/racist/anti-catholic that the Vatican can be critized and denied funds compared to Israel?


Then simply state that you don't support any foreign aid instead or references to the "Israel lobby" and how they control and influence our politics.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Then simply state that you don't support any foreign aid instead or references to the "Israel lobby" and how they control and influence our politics.


I will happily do so once again. I support no foreign aid to anyone as long as U.S. citizens are suffering (let alone up to $1 trillion per year without interest or demands as to expenditures of such funds). I do question why Israel is immune from the normal standards that are required to meet U.S. tax payer funded welfare.

One of my my main problems with Israel (over any other country that asks for/needs U.S. aid), is the amount of influence they have over U.S. politicans and the policies that are decided upon due to such. For some reason or another, you appear to deny that anything such as lobbying from Israel even exists. Did the U.S. supreme court not state that it's o.k. for pacs/super pacs/ private interests/ etc. to not list donors and amount of donations? Where, if I may ask, have you found it to be against U.S. law for U.S. lawmakers to not be lobbied by those with Israeli interests over those of the U.S. (i.e. non-americans)? What law covers this? Perhaps I am sadly mistaken and if so, I will happily admit my errors, but I have seen noithing that states that outside interests are forbidden from lobbying American politicians (nor anything that punishes U.S. politicians for doing so).

Just in case you missed it.. I am against many U.S. policies that allow the murder of non-combatants (i.e. civilians, women, children etc) be it drones or Financial/military support to a country that often ignores international law when it comes to military actions(i.e. Israel). In fact, I would think thaI am almost more neutral than the country I live in (although I am more than willing to be called out on any biases other posters may think I have).

Another thing.. Israel has a much better "social" system than the U.S. There citzens are better educated, have better health care plans, there is lkess homelessness, less unemployment, etc... Why should U.S. money go to those that are better off? We laugh at Reagan's "Welfare Queen" but this is a much worse example of such abuse... Without doubt, the average Israeli gets more benefits (socialism) and is much better off ( capitialism) than the avergae American...

Should you like to start a discussion about other countries that get U.S. aid, I would be more than willing to list any detractors I have as to the idea.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> I will happily do so once again. I support no foreign aid to anyone as long as U.S. citizens are suffering (let alone up to $1 trillion per year without interest or demands as to expenditures of such funds). I do question why Israel is immune from the normal standards that are required to meet U.S. tax payer funded welfare.
> 
> One of my my main problems with Israel (over any other country that asks for/needs U.S. aid), is the amount of influence they have over U.S. politicans and the policies that are decided upon due to such. For some reason or another, you appear to deny that anything such as lobbying from Israel even exists. Did the U.S. supreme court not state that it's o.k. for pacs/super pacs/ private interests/ etc. to not list donors and amount of donations? Where, if I may ask, have you found it to be against U.S. law for U.S. lawmakers to not be lobbied by those with Israeli interests over those of the U.S. (i.e. non-americans)?
> 
> Just in case you missed it.. I am against many U.S. policies that allow the murder of non-combatants (i.e. civilians, women, children etc) be it drones or Financial/military support to a country that often ignores international law when it comes to military actions(i.e. Israel).


American citizens are free to lobby their government for whatever cause they hold dear. I'm sure the Sierra club lobbies on behalf of the rain forests. We give money to a variety of countries including China (and I'm talking foreign aid, not trade).

As for undue influence of Israeli interests over our politicians, where do you get this stuff? What is undue or excess influence? There are roughly 5 million Jews in this country. Five million of a population of 350 million. Yet according to you they secretly control politicians.

You're comments are utterly ridiculous and border on contemptuous.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> American citizens are free to lobby their government for whatever cause they hold dear. I'm sure the Sierra club lobbies on behalf of the rain forests. We give money to a variety of countries including China (and I'm talking foreign aid, not trade).
> 
> As for undue influence of Israeli interests over our politicians, where do you get this stuff? What is undue or excess influence? There are roughly 5 million Jews in this country. Five million of a population of 350 million. Yet according to you they secretly control politicians.
> 
> You're comments are utterly ridiculous and border on contemptuous.


Only because your biases desire to take them as so. You seem utterly incapable of defending your positions (and that of your pet causes) versus heading towards personal insults and ignoring factual debates (hence the hippocrates vs hypocrites sideline you decided to take by calling me too ignorant to know the difference). You have been called out on this from 3 members with more seniority than yourself and have refused any logical arguement. I would be more than happy to provide resources should you be willing to do the same. Can you handle a head to head debate or will you go running toward the race card once again? I asked for your sources on several issues. Can you give them or are you bluffing? That the topic becomes "boring or crude" whenever you aren't capable of giving a real thought to the matter is somewhat telling.

What's more. I have never hidden my contempt for Israeli Policy. Not once. I proudly participate in refusing to buy anything from areas being held against international law (& even extending to the whole of Israel). Even with that being said..It has nothing to do with Judaism versus the policies of a country that is considered a "pariah state" within the eyes of the international community.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Only because your biases desire to take them as so. You seem utterly incapable of defending your positions (and that of your pet causes) versus heading towards personal insults and ignoring factual debates. You have been called out on this from 3 members with more seniority than yourself and have refused any logical arguement. I would be more than happy to provide resources should you be willing to do the same. Can you handle a head to head debate or will you go running toward the race card once again? I asked for your sources on several issues. Can you give them or are you bluffing?


I didn't realize these fora were subject to a caste system of seniority.

You're the one suggesting undue influence so I believe it's incumbent on you to prove what you're saying.

I've been quite restrained and have even been asked if I'm a Jew!

Debates involve facts. Your rantings are hyperbolic and even vulgar.

So you've made claims of undue influence. Please provide specifics.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> I didn't realize these fora were subject to a caste system of seniority.
> 
> You're the one suggesting undue influence so I believe it's incumbent on you to prove what you're saying.
> 
> I've been quite restrained and have even been asked if I'm a Jew!
> 
> Debates involve facts. Your rantings are hyperbolic and even vulgar.
> 
> So you've made claims of undue influence. Please provide specifics.


Umm. When members that contribute heavily to a society are insulted and ask for information from those that are new and have contributed little (to nothing), while not mandatory, it may be considered polite to respond to such. Again. You insulted the forum by bringing up anti-semitism where it didn't exist. As such, the community at large has a right to question you as to such. You have been asked several times and ignored the community demands. No one (to my knowledge) has made any formal complaint to a mod. but personal insults aren't usually acceptable without a due apology. Even as a Super Member, I did so with the Koch brothers reference... But.... You have refused to do with your anti-semite comment (& went further with the hippocrates vs hypocrites statement). Seniority may not be the issue but your lack of actual respect is...

Speaking of seniority...It is only because you are a newer member that I accept such personal insults. Were you of a more senior member level, I would be asking mods and Andy himself to censor you and your unfounded BS. Should you think it can't happen, I welcome you to look at past posters that have offered nothing of interest versus personal attacks.

You have refused to even respond to questions asked. It is now up to you to prove a bit of your BS debate. Give us some facts over opionins and I'll bring it on. Just 1. Just one good source. Perhaps as an expert as to U.S. campaign finance laws you can quote the statute forbidding direct funding from outsider interests (as was your earlier claim)?

ooops..Sorry. Was it I who asked your religion or are you trying to gain unfounded sympathy to your cause? I will again mention that I care nothing about religion. I will "try" to use an upper-case "G" for those I highly respect, but otherwise, don't try to tell me Stephen King is any more correct in his books than Terry Prachett (or the bible, koran, torah, Tripitaka, vidas, book of morman, etc....)

I don't care what anyone's délusions are. And as a matter of fact... Before you accused me of Anti-semitism (as well as now), you had no idea as to my religious background. I may indeed have a Jewish background and not wish to advertise it (just as many here don't wish to advertise their religious backgrounds be it muslims, hindu, christian, or jew). I suppose you'd think it o.k. to call an anti-zionist jew, anti-semitic?

The only example you've given as to my "vulgarity" is the Koch brothers issue...Can you come up with anything more than that or are you stuck beyond reasoning from making a logical arguement to your other points?

You know... Î'd love for you to come up with the factors as to you're statement that "god has been vetted". Any nice journal articles on that one? While I'll try to ignore the fact that such a thing was given by biased "theologians" (people that study religion I believe), I'd love to see the documentation. Again, as a secondary thought...Did they happen to mention which "god" was vetted? Should I be muslim, hindu, christian, jew? I've been waiting at least a month or so for you to repond to this simple question and perhaps this would be a good start to our "logical", "non-vulgar" debate???? Come on man, answer the questions asked to previous debates before demanding people provide further answers as per your demands. I'll run you 30 links as to the criminality of Israel (hint...most come from the U.N [which of course Israel refuses to comply with]) as soon as you can provide a single article linked to the vetting of god...


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Umm. When members that contribute heavily to a society are insulted and ask for information from those that are new and have contributed little (to nothing), while not mandatory, it may be considered polite to respond to such. Again. You insulted the forum by bringing up anti-semitism where it didn't exist. As such, the community at large has a right to question you as to such. You have been asked several times and ignored the community demands. No one (to my knowledge) has made any formal complaint to a mod. but personal insults aren't usually acceptable without a due apology. Even as a Super Member, I did so with the Koch brothers reference... But.... You have refused to do with your anti-semite comment (& went further with the hippocrates vs hypocrites statement). Seniority may not be the issue but your lack of actual respect is...
> 
> Speaking of seniority...It is only because you are a newer member that I accept such personal insults. Were you of a more senior member level, I would be asking mods and Andy himself to censor you and your unfounded BS. Should you think it can't happen, I welcome you to look at past posters that have offered nothing of interest versus personal attacks.
> 
> You have refused to even respond to questions asked. It is now up to you to prove a bit of your BS debate. Give us some facts over opionins and I'll bring it on. Just 1. Just one good source. Perhaps as an expert as to U.S. campaign finance laws you can quote the statute forbidding direct funding from outsider interests (as was your earlier claim)?
> 
> ooops..Sorry. Was it I who asked your religion or are you trying to gain unfounded sympathy to your cause? I will again mention that I care nothing about religion. I will "try" to use an upper-case "G" for those I highly respect, but otherwise, don't try to tell me Stephen King is any more correct in his books than Terry Prachett (or the bible, koran, torah, Tripitaka, vidas, book of morman, etc....)
> 
> I don't care what anyone's délusions are. And as a matter of fact... Before you accused me of Anti-semitism (as well as now), you had no idea as to my religious background. I may indeed have a Jewish background and not wish to advertise it (just as many here don't wish to advertise their religious backgrounds be it muslims, hindu, christian, or jew). I suppose you'd think it o.k. to call an anti-zionist jew, anti-semitic?
> 
> The only example you've given as to my "vulgarity" is the Koch brothers issue...Can you come up with anything more than that or are you stuck beyond reasoning from making a logical arguement to your other points?
> 
> You know... Î'd love for you to come up with the factors as to you're statement that "god has been vetted". Any nice journal articles on that one? While I'll try to ignore the fact that such a thing was given by biased "theologians" (people that study religion I believe), I'd love to see the documentation. Again, as a secondary thought...Did they happen to mention which "god" was vetted? Should I be muslim, hindu, christian, jew? I've been waiting at least a month or so for you to repond to this simple question and perhaps this would be a good start to our "logical", "non-vulgar" debate???? Come on man, answer the questions asked to previous debates before demanding people provide further answers as per your demands. I'll run you 30 links as to the criminality of Israel (hint...most come from the U.N [which of course Israel refuses to comply with]) as soon as you can provide a single article linked to the vetting of god...


"God has been vetted?" I'm not even sure what that means.

It seems like the only one who's upset or insulted is you. I'm certainly under no obligation to sit by and have to explain myself to anyone due to the number of posts that I have. Perhaps in your world high school politics matter but I fail to see your point in any of this.

You're the one who has insisted that certain groups have undue influence, you use juvenile language such as "repukes" and "democraps" and I won't even mention the one that really got your ire! I doubt that was a type-o on your part and even though you apologized, it doesn't change the fact that you resort to childish language to get your point across.

You've mentioned that Israelis have massacred thousands for Palestinians throwing stones, that Israelis have committed war crimes, and the list goes on. The U.N. has a long list of failures and ridiculous utterances. They are hardly an organization to be taken seriously and are largely irrelevant. Here's a short list of just how ridiculous the U.N. is:

The U.N. Commission on the Status of Women:

Member states include: Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, China

The U.N. International Law Commission:

Member states include: China, Russia, Qatar

China is a member of the "World Intellectual Property Organization" within the U.N.

And the list goes on, so spare me the righteous indignation of the U.N. and it's findings of warm crimes against Israel. The U.N. is made up of it's member states and the bulk of those states are 3rd world dictatorships and banana republics.

As to your background, I could care less. I never accused you of being an anti-semite but your language certainly has a underlying anti-semitism to it. It's likely that you're not thoughtful enough in your language (Hippocrates vs. hypocrite) that you don't even pick up on it.

As to U.S. political finance laws, it is illegal for foreign governments, individuals, organizations and businesses to give money to political candidates or parties. They can of course meet with officials but they cannot give money. If you suspect this or have proof of this, then I suggest you contact your local U.S. Attorney's office.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> "God has been vetted?" I'm not even sure what that means.
> 
> .


Well I'll have to admit tha tit's possible that I am once again confusing you with a like minded member on this issue. I'll look it up and give you the curtesy of an apology should I be mistaken. I do remember that It was in the same thread that Hitch called me a "god hater".

Yes. The U.N. is a joke to all those that wish to deny any type of international authority.>Strange however that the U.S. and Israel are members and have supposedly agrred to follow international law... Though you seem to think it's more a case of....Join em and screw em? All of the member states you mentioned have had less international criminal records within the last 10-20 years compared to Israel (but of course the U.N. is anti-semiric right?). In your thoughts there should be no critism of Israel and whatever they do should be just fine in the eyes of the international community, correct? And you base this not on Israel being a member country of the international community but because they are based in Judaism? And anyone that disagrees is obviously anti-semitic?

Did the U.S. supreme court not rule that political donations do not be accounted for? especially in concern to "superpacs"? Again, I admit that I could be mistaken, but if not, then it hardly seems that the system allows for the accountability that you seem to suggest.


----------



## SG_67

Please get your facts straight and hone your arguments accordingly. Can you blame me for not taking you seriously?

To your other point, there is no such thing as "International Law" or the "International Community". Nations exist within a chaotic system. International Law is as good as Santa's naughty and nice list; it's fictitious. As for those nations having less of an "international criminal record" in the past 10-20 years than Israel, this again is a seriously ridiculous statement. International crime and violations of international law are meaningless comments. 

Nations act in their own interests and that is the only law that matters. Any government, of any country that abdicates it's own interests for the sake of the "international community" or "international law" deserves to be other thrown. Even our own Citizen of the World President has resisted pushing forward with the "Law of the Seas" treaty because he knows that it would be the U.S. at a disadvantage.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

This is a monster of a discussion. All I want to say is this.

Isn't it strange that the USA is the only "Republic" in the supposed western world, whose President holds supreme power in exactly the same way as all the communist democratic republics have done over the decades and still do, in parts of Africa, Asia and some points south of the US in the Americas e.g. Cuba! 

Every European republic, east and west, EVEN Russia has a President AND a Prime Minister.
Every European monarchy has a Monarch AND a Prime Minister


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

SG_67 said:


> To your other point, there is no such thing as "International Law"


Yes there is. The fact that the USA, China and Israel choose to constantly ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist for the rest of the world.


----------



## SG_67

The Ameican President hardly holds supreme power!

We are a republic with 3 co-equal branches of government. Presidents have been impeached, ignored, presidencies have been derailed by a free press. Presidents have been blocked by courts (FDR) and the congress (too many times to mention). Congress is independent and funds the government. 

Read the Federalist papers and you'll see Hamilton, Madison and Jay arguing for a strong executive. True, in the United States the role of head of government and head of state is resident in one person, but that person hardly wields supreme power in the way that dictators do. 

If absolutely nothing else, our Presidents are limited to at most 8 years in office. Presidents Putin, Mugabe, Castro (both brothers now I guess), not to mention a multitude of Colonels and Generals around the world are hardly limited in such a way.


----------



## SG_67

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes there is. The fact that the USA, China and Israel choose to constantly ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist for the rest of the world.


I'll repeat. There is no such thing as International Law. One cannot ignore something that doesn't exist. You may say it exists, but in fact it does not.

Those who observe it are quite powerless to do anything else and so appeal to it. Great Powers create their own rules within the international system. Anyone who appeals to international law does so from a position of weakness and fecklessness, including the U.S. when it claims that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is a violation of international law.

Read the Milean dialogue in Thucydides. I'm not suggesting the exercise of ruthless power is appropriate, but it is the norm. Nations are bounded only by their own conscience and their perception of what is in their own interest.

The international system is "nasty, brutish and short". We may not like it but it's the truth. Ask the Poles and the many partitions it's had to endure throughout its history.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> I'll repeat. There is no such thing as International Law. One cannot ignore something that doesn't exist. You may say it exists, but in fact it does not.
> 
> Those who observe it are quite powerless to do anything else and so appeal to it. Great Powers create their own rules within the international system. Anyone who appeals to international law does so from a position of weakness and fecklessness, including the U.S. when it claims that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is a violation of international law.
> 
> Read the Milean dialogue in Thucydides. I'm not suggesting the exercise of ruthless power is appropriate, but it is the norm. Nations are bounded only by their own conscience and their perception of what is in their own interest.
> 
> The international system is "nasty, brutish and short". We may not like it but it's the truth. Ask the Poles and the many partitions it's had to endure throughout its history.


So if the neighbors of Israel decided to end the experiment (and the u.s voted to stop sending $trillion welfare checks), it would be fine if the imaginary international community ignored it?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

SG 67 
Have you ever been a UN mission? I have
Have you ever been on a Nato exercise? I have
Have you ever been on an EU or UN exercise? I have
Have you ever been on a UN exercise? I have
Have you ever been on active service during an armed conflict? I have

And do you know what, all the US troops I met were bound by and following international law, in exactly the same way as we were, in the form of various pieces of UN and Nato legislation, on human rights and freedoms to the Geneva Convention to the UN conventions on the rights of women and children in peace and war and so on.


You may not like it or agree with it, but 99% of the world adheres to the international legislation that is set by the UN, EU, AU etc. and all their various bodies and other global agencies - IMO, Unicef, OCHA, IAEA and so on.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> So if the neighbors of Israel decided to end the experiment (and the u.s voted to stop sending $trillion welfare checks), it would be fine if the imaginary international community ignored it?


Trillion? Are you confused again?

But to your larger point, I wouldn't say it would be fine, but it would certainly lead to a bloodbath. My guess is, deep down inside they could really care less about Israel. Israel is an easy excuse and a convenient whipping boy to take the heat off of themselves and their failures.

Left to their own devices and absent Israel, the Arab nations (and I include Iran although it is not Arab) would likely war amongst themselves. I think the Sunni/Shia conflict would probably dwarf anything the Middle East has seen in the past 60 years.

Of course, we may choose to sit back but I'll guarantee the Chinese and the Russian will not. So the question becomes: Who do we want to have influence in that part of the world? Who do we want controlling the straits of Hormuz? Who do we want controlling the Levant and the eastern Mediterranean?


----------



## SG_67

Earl of Ormonde said:


> SG 67
> Have you ever been a UN mission? I have
> Have you ever been on a Nato exercise? I have
> Have you ever been on an EU or UN exercise? I have
> Have you ever been on a UN exercise? I have
> Have you ever been on active service during an armed conflict? I have
> 
> And do you know what, all the US troops I met were bound by and following international law, in exactly the same way as we were, in the form of various pieces of UN and Nato legislation, on human rights and freedoms to the Geneva Convention to the UN conventions on the rights of women and children in peace and war and so on.
> 
> You may not like it or agree with it, but 99% of the world adheres to the international legislation that is set by the UN, EU, AU etc. and all their various bodies and other global agencies - IMO, Unicef, OCHA, IAEA and so on.


U.S. Forces participate in multi-national coalitions, sometimes under tactical command of multi-national commanders but are always under the operational command by the U.S.

As for the rest, I applaud your participation in these endeavors. It does not change the fact that there is no such thing as international law. There are agreements, treaties, consensus, but not Law. Law assumes the power to coerce and there is no coercive international body. There is no thing as international legislation as their is no international legislative body, taxing body or police force.

Agreeing freely to work with other countries and agreeing freely to cooperate and respect other countries is done so under a voluntary basis and not by coercion or mandate.

The Geneva Conventions are matter but what happens when there is a violation? It's the victors that write history and the victors that bring the deposed to trial.

I don't recall Curtis LeMay, General Marshall or Harry Truman being brought up on war crimes charges for the fire bombing of Tokyo or the the destruction of the cities of Nagasaki or Hiroshima. I'm not suggesting that they should have, but I'll guarantee had the Axis powers won, this would have happened.

My point stands, the strong write the rules and the weak are subject to them, at least in the international system. That's the way it has been for all of human history and nothing is changed. We're just more polite about it now.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

Also the EU, UN and Nato all require fees from their members.

But more importantly tell me what your objection is to the noble idea of countries following global laws that improve society?


----------



## SG_67

Earl of Ormonde said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law
> 
> Also the EU, UN and Nato all require fees from their members.
> 
> But more importnantly tell me what your objection is to the noble idea of countries following global laws that improve society?


I understand the notion of International Law, but has anyone sent in a police force to Moscow to arrest Vlad the Impaler? No! Why, because international law is only worth the paper it is printed on. It means nothing unless people choose to comply with it. Disregard it, and nothing happens unless another country chooses to impose it's will upon you.

Bashar Assad and Saddam Hussein both used chemical weapons on their own people. This was, and still is, a violation of "International Law". Assad is still in power and there is no one knocking on his door with an arrest warrant. In Saddam's case we know what happened.

North Korea is essentially a gulag state yet no one is doing anything about it. I'm sure the Dear Leader is in violation of at least a few International Laws. Saudi Arabia does not allow women to drive, a clear violation of human rights. The list goes on and has gone on before.

You can quote, cite, define, show, write, talk about, rely on, appeal to, make reference to international law in as full throated a manner as you wish. It just doesn't exist functionally, only in theory.

As for your second point, it's a utopian fantasy. Whose definition of noble? I believe all nations are treated equally in the U.N., no? What is noble and proper in Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Eritrea, Burma, Cuba, North Korea and Brunei (where you can now be killed for being gay) differs quite a bit from our concept of nobility of action. Whose definition of noble ideals shall we use? The wests? I'm all for it, but then what's the point of the U.N. if it includes nations that don't share our values?

Global laws? What about freedom of religion? Shall we impose that aspect of Global Law on Saudi Arabia, Iran and China? Shall we impose the global law of human rights on North Korea? How should we do that? Should we invade? Should we ask? Should we appeal to "the better angels of their nature"?

If all nations are equal, do the Saudi's have a right to impose their version of Global Law on our country and how we deal with women, religion, gays and culture. Should we ban bikinis on our beaches because it is decadent and Haram? Should we ban the press or movies that have nudity in them?

Should we monitor churches to make sure that only the proper form of religion is taught?

Your notion of international law and the nobility you espouse if a uniquely western notion. Shall we forgo centuries of our own culture to incorporate the culture of others into our civil and criminal codes?

Nations exist within a chaotic framework and we form alliances based on our interests. Some of these alliances are long lasting (NATO, etc.), some are ad hoc such as when we accepted help from Syria during the first Gulf War.


----------



## Hitch

Blame the US has been and will be the go to remedy for any and all objections.


----------



## Kingstonian

The Israel Lobby -AIPAC in particular - would have to have registered itself an agent of a foreign power had Senator Fulbright prevailed:-

"Former Senator William Fulbright, in the 1970s, and former senior CIA official Victor Marchetti, in the 1980s, contended that AIPAC should have registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)FARA requires those who receive funds or act on behalf of a foreign government to register as a foreign agent. However, AIPAC states that the organization is a registered American lobbying group, funded by private donations, and maintains it receives "no financial assistance" from Israel or any other foreign group." 

I think registration would make sense. The amount of funds they offer to lobby,as evidenced by the Adelson story earlier in this thread, would justify that. 

As for SG_67, he has become more desperate as he gets drawn out. Hopelessly clinging to old redundant themes as the thread progresses.

Classic Hasbara troll behaviour.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> The Israel Lobby -AIPAC in particular - would have to have registered itself an agent of a foreign power had Senator Fulbright prevailed:-
> 
> "Former Senator William Fulbright, in the 1970s, and former senior CIA official Victor Marchetti, in the 1980s, contended that AIPAC should have registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)FARA requires those who receive funds or act on behalf of a foreign government to register as a foreign agent. However, AIPAC states that the organization is a registered American lobbying group, funded by private donations, and maintains it receives "no financial assistance" from Israel or any other foreign group."
> 
> I think registration would make sense. The amount of funds they offer to lobby,as evidenced by the Adelson story earlier in this thread, would justify that.
> 
> As for SG_67, he has become more desperate as he gets drawn out. Hopelessly clinging to old redundant themes as the thread progresses.
> 
> Classic Hasbara troll behaviour.


So they're basically lying? AIPAC doesn't directly contribute money. They support other pro-Israel PACS, and by the way, there is nothing wrong with what AIPAC does. It's nothing different from what any other lobbying group does. They have to file with the IRS like any other political advocacy organization and they are bound by the same laws and rules. If they break those rules, then they should be prosecuted accordingly.

As for trolling behavior? Please, come on! There's no desperation occurring here. I keep getting asked questions and I try to answer them. Perhaps I sound redundant as those I'm engaging with continue to trot out the same arguments, just dressed differently.

Please tell me where and how I've been a troll. I've been consistent in my views and thus far have only responded to those who have challenged what I've said. Trolling behavior? Hardly.

Is this what happens when you don't agree with someone? Call them a troll and be done with it?


----------



## Hitch

Kingstonian said:


> Anti semitism? Here is an interesting Israeli film on the topic:-
> 
> https://archive.org/details/Defamation-FrenchVostfrFullMovie
> 
> Mind you, only the French site still has it. It disappeared from You Tube etc.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_(film)


Perhaps you've been misunderstanding the question ,I'll repeat; _Are you _, _yourself?_


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Perhaps you've been misunderstanding the question ,I'll repeat; _Are you _, _yourself?_


That's a difficult question for anyone to answer Hitch.

Apparently, I have discovered in this thread, merely using the words 'Israel' and 'lobby' can transform one into an anti-semite........

.
.

.
.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> AIPAC doesn't directly contribute money. They support other pro-Israel PACS, and by the way, there is nothing wrong with what AIPAC does. It's nothing different from what any other lobbying group does.


It is nothing short of buying politicians. Then using them to put the interests of a foreign power ahead of the United States. " Nothing wrong with" it? It is downright scandalous.



SG_67 said:


> As for trolling behavior? Please, come on! There's no desperation occurring here. I keep getting asked questions and I try to answer them. Perhaps I sound redundant as those I'm engaging with continue to trot out the same arguments, just dressed differently.
> 
> Please tell me where and how I've been a troll. I've been consistent in my views and thus far have only responded to those who have challenged what I've said. Trolling behavior? Hardly.


Classic excuses for Israel. Failure to acknowledge its wrongdoing at all. The Israeli victimhood narrative - going all the way back to who knows when. This is straight out of the Hasbara play book. The only difference is, they have given up on many of them because they no longer work. The David versus Goliath theme is one example.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

SG_67 said:


> because international law is only worth the paper it is printed on. It means nothing unless people choose to comply with it. Disregard it, and nothing happens unless another country chooses to impose it's will upon you.


Then we are in agreement. 
We were simply coming at it from 2 different angles, mine that "international law" does exist and most countires follow it, yours I now see I also agree with that if a sovereign state choses to ignore some item of "international law" then the world can only impose political and trade sanctions & not much else. Unless of course a military intervention is initiated to force the offender to comply, usually with the purpose being protection or liberation of a third party e.g. Gulf War (Kuwait)


----------



## Kingstonian

Shaver said:


> Apparently, I have discovered in this thread, merely using the words 'Israel' and 'lobby' can transform one into an anti-semite.......


"Beyond Chutzpah. On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History". Norman Finkelstein.

"In this book he analyses "The Not-So-New "New Anti-Semitism"" from published sources. Finkelstein argues that the spectre of a "new anti-semitism" has been invented by supporters of Israel to brand any serious criticisms of Israel's human rights abuses as anti-semitism. The aim, Finkelstein contends, is to silence criticisms of Israeli policies and to provide a cover for that country's expansionistic and illegal policies in the Palestinian territories. "


----------



## SG_67

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Then we are in agreement.
> We were simply coming at it from 2 different angles, mine that "international law" does exist and most countires follow it, yours I now see I also agree with that if a sovereign state choses to ignore some item of "international law" then the world can only impose political and trade sanctions & not much else. Unless of course a military intervention is initiated to force the offender to comply, usually with the purpose being protection or liberation of a third party e.g. Gulf War (Kuwait)


I would have to agree with you. States make a choice to follow what is considered international law. Mostly non major powers as they have no other option. Major powers don't and have shown this to be the case in the past.

Military force, or the threat of it, is still the only way to get one state to comply with the will of another.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> I would have to agree with you. States make a choice to follow what is considered international law. Mostly non major powers as they have no other option. Major powers don't and have shown this to be the case in the past.
> 
> Military force, or the threat of it, is still the only way to get one state to comply with the will of another.


And when Russia takes over most of the Ukraine, the globe should find it accepatble Under such "natural laws" (heck, there is no international law afterall, and as such there can be no consideration of illegal additions to one's boundries).. And Under laws of nature, it is just fine to exterminate racial and religious groups that don't fit into the new order. Thus complaints of the Ukrainian Jewish community should be ignored. Your reasoning allows that Hitler was just doing his job. Should you try to state otherwise, it would appear that you desire to play both sides of the aisle. What has yet to be made clear is if your arguement is religious or political (or both)? It seems that you accept that Israel can do what it likes under natural law but should be protected by the non-existing international community because they desire to be recognized as a "Jewish state". But..They should not follow other international ideologies because they are once again... a "Jewish state"... According to you... Your fellow Americans should suffer for Israel because the "Jews" (and many Jews disagree), deserve (after all the centuries of "murder and abuse") their own bespoke country, based on some ancient hoooha nonsense. The world should simply comply with such requests while ignoring the same type of requests from others. Israels association with a bunch of self dedicated murderers (the U.S.) therefore allows that atrocities equal to Hitler are now fine? Really? this is your arguement? The main anti-semite in this debate seems to be you... I fully support those that believe in judaism, you seem to only support Israel and its false ideolgy as to what judaism really is. As the righties like to say..."You can't have your cake and eat it too".


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> And when Russia takes over most of the Ukraine, the globe should find it accepatble Under such "natural laws" (heck, there is no international law afterall, and as such there can be no consideration of illegal additions to one's boundries).. And Under laws of nature, it is just fine to exterminate racial and religious groups that don't fit into the new order. Thus complaints of the Ukrainian Jewish community should be ignored. Your reasoning allows that Hitler was just doing his job. Should you try to state otherwise, it would appear that you desire to play both sides of the aisle. What has yet to be made clear is if your arguement is religious or political (or both)? It seems that you accept that Israel can do what it likes under natural law but should be protected by the non-existing international community because they desire to be recognized as a "Jewish state". But..They should not follow other international ideologies because they are once again... a "Jewish state"... According to you... Your fellow Americans should suffer for Israel because the "Jews" (and many Jews disagree), deserve (after all the centuries of "murder and abuse") their own bespoke country, based on some ancient hoooha nonsense. The world should simply comply with such requests while ignoring the same type of requests from others. Israels association with a bunch of self dedicated murderers (the U.S.) therefore allows that atrocities equal to Hitler are now fine? Really? this is your arguement? The main anti-semite in this debate seems to be you... I fully support those that believe in judaism, you seem to only support Israel and its false ideolgy as to what judaism really is. As the righties like to say..."You can't have your cake and eat it too".


Oh my friend, you are passionate indeed! Unfortunately you lack reason and the ability to critically think.

I am not suggesting that any of the things you've outlined are appropriate or good in any way. My argument is simply that great powers do as they please unless deterred. And what deters? Not international law as evidenced by what Germany did, what Russia is doing now or did when they were the Soviet Union.

The world indeed operates under the laws of nature and the international environment is "nasty, brutish and short" as Hobbs contends. Deterrence is achieved through force. In the case of lesser powers, economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure works. In the case of great powers, it must and usually comes down to military force.

I don't think Hitler would have conceded his plans for conquest based on a stern letter from England and France. Nor has Vlad really taken into consideration calls to observe "international norms" and "laws" in his Reconquista. Our options are either to shut up and put up a token protest. Short of military action there's not much we can do.

Why does China not move against Taiwan? Is it because they are afraid of how it will be viewed or is it because of our security guarantees? Why has Russia not rolled into Estonia or Latvia? Is it because they're afraid of how the world will see it or is it because they are NATO countries now with the full security guarantee that it brings with it.

As far as this thread is concerned and your involvement in it, I'm through with you. Present something reasoned and cogent and perhaps we'll talk. Continue to rant if you will and I'll just ignore you.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Oh my friend, you are passionate indeed! Unfortunately you lack reason and the ability to critically think.
> 
> I am not suggesting that any of the things you've outlined are appropriate or good in any way. My argument is simply that great powers do as they please unless deterred. And what deters? Not international law as evidenced by what Germany did, what Russia is doing now or did when they were the Soviet Union.
> 
> The world indeed operates under the laws of nature and the international environment is "nasty, brutish and short" as Hobbs contends. Deterrence is achieved through force. In the case of lesser powers, economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure works. In the case of great powers, it must and usually comes down to military force.
> 
> I don't think Hitler would have conceded his plans for conquest based on a stern letter from England and France. Nor has Vlad really taken into consideration calls to observe "international norms" and "laws" in his Reconquista. Our options are either to shut up and put up a token protest. Short of military action there's not much we can do.
> 
> Why does China not move against Taiwan? Is it because they are afraid of how it will be viewed or is it because of our security guarantees? Why has Russia not rolled into Estonia or Latvia? Is it because they're afraid of how the world will see it or is it because they are NATO countries now with the full security guarantee that it brings with it.
> 
> As far as this thread is concerned and your involvement in it, I'm through with you. Present something reasoned and cogent and perhaps we'll talk. Continue to rant if you will and I'll just ignore you.


sure. You have stated everything you possibly can & the discusssion is over. You play both sides of the coin and resort to name calling once again. You have proven only your own point of view versus anything that should be found acceptable in the modern world. If you like to be compared to the natural world, go play with the monkeys. That you favor having 22 million U.S. children go to bed hungy has not yet been explained other than "israel deservesto be its own state and therefore U.S. funding should be priortized to them). You have refused to address any of the sociual implications against your "home country" (you do claim to live in chicago right?) compared to giving U.S.taxpayer dollars to some foreign state that claims "religious preference". Speak up or shut up. If you are bored, it is because you have bored yourself...

Just out of curiousity.... Have you ever spent a minute of your life dedicated to the society that you live in? Beyond perhaps working in a soup kitchen (which you have never admitted to doing & would of course find to be socailism in any case), have you perhaps spent time in the military? The police force? As a volunteer firefighter? Can you claim anything (beyond taxes) as to your benefit of society? Or are you just another leech that doesn't admit to government aid(Just curious of course)?... Any benefit at all? Do you spend your weekends growing gardens for poor Americans? Just one example. Or.. Do you just take from society and expect that they should give to your pet causes? It's a simple question... What do you give to those that have given to you? I do hope yopur response is more than "nothing".... It should be at leat something (other than "taxes" of course")... No response? Then you are nothing more than a leech on society and your viewpont is as equal to any other that has no actual investment in the society mentioned. If you want to be Isreli (and accept the murder rate), go live in Israel. If you want to be an American, then start supportîng Americans over murderous idiots that live only from the funds from the country you live in.... Can you give an answer as to why you think 22 million of your neighbor's children should go to bed hungry versus Americans funding the 8 million people that have no actual claim to U.S.tax payer money??? OOps. >Don't forget that the 8 million Israelis already live in a "socialist" sytem that most U.S. taxpayers have been trained to ignore and therfore have no benefit from... Why should the 8 million Israelis have better benefits that thoise that pay for there freedom? Any clue as to why??


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> So the only logical conclusion for my views is that I'm a religious zealot? You can stand on enlightened logic and reason but if someone disagrees, he is blinded by religious fanaticism?
> 
> The Jews deserve a state; yes. Christians and Muslims already have the benefit of states with defensible borders.
> 
> Perhaps I should say that the Hebrews deserve their own state. Would I incur the same from you? Do the French deserve a state? Do the Slavs, Hindus, Japanese?
> 
> Again, not really sure what my religious persuasion has to do with any of these. Have I sought an answer for your views in the religion you practice?


You seem to think think that Nation States are a reasonable thing, rather than artificial constructs that lead to nationalism and racism. Do the Hebrews deserve a Nation State? Do "the Hebrews" even exist as a nation rather than as a people of antiquity? I would suggest that the Jewish population of Israel are neither homogeneous nor Hebrew. In any case, are there any nations that have a deserved nation state? If France was a nation state, it would include Wallonia, but wouldn't include Elsass, Lotharingia, Breizh, Catalunya, Iparralde or Corsica. Is there a Slav nation state, or a Hindu nation state? There aren't. There are countries in which a majority of the people are Slavs, or Germans, or Hindus, but nation states are neither desirable nor necessary. As far as religious states are concerned, the only Christian state I know of is the Vatican, yet there are people living there who aren't Christians. There are states in which the majority are followers of Islam, some even call themselves an Islamic Republic, yet people of other religions live in those states. There have been attempts to establish true nation states, which have all failed, and which have sometimes led to horrific violence. The establishment of nation states doesn't lead to peace, it leads to Balkanisation, which doesn't lead to peaceful coexistence!


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> You seem to think think that Nation States are a reasonable thing, rather than artificial constructs that lead to nationalism and racism. Do the Hebrews deserve a Nation State? Do "the Hebrews" even exist as a nation rather than as a people of antiquity? I would suggest that the Jewish population of Israel are neither homogeneous nor Hebrew. In any case, are there any nations that have a deserved nation state? If France was a nation state, it would include Wallonia, but wouldn't include Elsass, Lotharingia, Breizh, Catalunya, Iparralde or Corsica. Is there a Slav nation state, or a Hindu nation state? There aren't. There are countries in which a majority of the people are Slavs, or Germans, or Hindus, but nation states are neither desirable nor necessary. As far as religious states are concerned, the only Christian state I know of is the Vatican, yet there are people living there who aren't Christians. There are states in which the majority are followers of Islam, some even call themselves an Islamic Republic, yet people of other religions live in those states. There have been attempts to establish true nation states, which have all failed, and which have sometimes led to horrific violence. The establishment of nation states doesn't lead to peace, it leads to Balkanisation, which doesn't lead to peaceful coexistence!


I'm not suggesting that it's a perfect endeavor and true it leads to violence, but violence amongst peoples of differing backgrounds, be it ethnic, political or otherwise goes back to antiquity, long before the notion of a Nation State came about. There was no border dispute between Cain and Abel.

People form communities based on shared values, interests and heritage. These communities evolve into nations and the state forms as a function of the nations will. As human beings we are imperfect and at times, unfortunately more often than not, that imperfection results in conflict and war.

As for France, Germany and any number of modern nation states, you act as though these sprang out of the ether as though from the head of Zeus. Remember the bloody wars and conflicts through the centuries, some minor and some all consuming that have given rise to what we call the modern nations and states. Chances are within our lifetime we will see something like this again, if not in Europe, then somewhere else.

Jews want a state they can call their own as well. Somewhere they can feel as though they belong with cultural and political institutions in line with their beliefs. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I'm not suggesting that it's a perfect endeavor and true it leads to violence, but violence amongst peoples of differing backgrounds, be it ethnic, political or otherwise goes back to antiquity, long before the notion of a Nation State came about. There was no border dispute between Cain and Abel.
> 
> People form communities based on shared values, interests and heritage. These communities evolve into nations and the state forms as a function of the nations will. As human beings we are imperfect and at times, unfortunately more often than not, that imperfection results in conflict and war.
> 
> As for France, Germany and any number of modern nation states, you act as though these sprang out of the ether as though from the head of Zeus. Remember the bloody wars and conflicts through the centuries, some minor and some all consuming that have given rise to what we call the modern nations and states. Chances are within our lifetime we will see something like this again, if not in Europe, then somewhere else.
> 
> Jews want a state they can call their own as well. Somewhere they can feel as though they belong with cultural and political institutions in line with their beliefs. That's all I'm saying.


Yet France and Germany aren't "nation states", as I indicated earlier.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Yet France and Germany aren't "nation states", as I indicated earlier.


I use the term "nation state" somewhat loosely. By nation I'm referring to the ethnic make-up. In todays age with borders being what they are, the term has lost some of it's meaning and is thought of as somewhat Archaic.

If by French we mean that people who speak French as their primary language and who share a common cultural and political heritage, then France is the state where the French nation resides. Just like the Germans and those who consider themselves to be English.

If you look at Quebec it's interesting. The people there still see themselves as French, or French-Canadian vs. just Canadian so this notion of a "Nation" is still something that is relevant.

We may think of these things as quaint and you may suggest that the nation-state, in it's classic form is unnecessary, but we say that knowing that there are states with defined borders where a nation can feel at home. There are certainly countries that are polyglot, such as India, but the state is held together with regional autonomy in different districts.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> You seem to think think that Nation States are a reasonable thing, rather than artificial constructs that lead to nationalism and racism. Do the Hebrews deserve a Nation State? Do "the Hebrews" even exist as a nation rather than as a people of antiquity? I would suggest that the Jewish population of Israel are neither homogeneous nor Hebrew. In any case, are there any nations that have a deserved nation state? If France was a nation state, it would include Wallonia, but wouldn't include Elsass, Lotharingia, Breizh, Catalunya, Iparralde or Corsica. Is there a Slav nation state, or a Hindu nation state? There aren't. There are countries in which a majority of the people are Slavs, or Germans, or Hindus, but nation states are neither desirable nor necessary. As far as religious states are concerned, the only Christian state I know of is the Vatican, yet there are people living there who aren't Christians. There are states in which the majority are followers of Islam, some even call themselves an Islamic Republic, yet people of other religions live in those states. There have been attempts to establish true nation states, which have all failed, and which have sometimes led to horrific violence. The establishment of nation states doesn't lead to peace, it leads to Balkanisation, which doesn't lead to peaceful coexistence!


Extremely well said sir, I agree with every word.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I use the term "nation state" somewhat loosely. By nation I'm referring to the ethnic make-up. In todays age with borders being what they are, the term has lost some of it's meaning and is thought of as somewhat Archaic.
> 
> If by French we mean that people who speak French as their primary language and who share a common cultural and political heritage, then France is the state where the French nation resides. Just like the Germans and those who consider themselves to be English.
> 
> If you look at Quebec it's interesting. The people there still see themselves as French, or French-Canadian vs. just Canadian so this notion of a "Nation" is still something that is relevant.
> 
> We may think of these things as quaint and you may suggest that the nation-state, in it's classic form is unnecessary, but we say that knowing that there are states with defined borders where a nation can feel at home. There are certainly countries that are polyglot, such as India, but the state is held together with regional autonomy in different districts.


Only France is not, and never has been a nation state with defined borders, any more than Spain, or Germany is. France developed organically over time, and there are no clearly defined borders; even the Pyrenees aren't a clear border. There are regions of France in which French *is not* the primary language and regions of other countries in which French *is* the primary language, as I pointed out above. Most French people will identify themselves primarily in terms of their "pays", as a Breton, as a Catalan, as a Gascon, for example, then that they're French. Walloons, native of Wallonie in Belgium speak French as their primary language, but are Walloons, then Belgians.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Only France is not, and never has been a nation state with defined borders, any more than Spain, or Germany is. France developed organically over time, and there are no clearly defined borders; even the Pyrenees aren't a clear border. There are regions of France in which French *is not* the primary language and regions of other countries in which French *is* the primary language, as I pointed out above. Most French people will identify themselves primarily in terms of their "pays", as a Breton, as a Catalan, as a Gascon, for example, then that they're French. Walloons, native of Wallonie in Belgium speak French as their primary language, but are Walloons, then Belgians.


I think the French government would argue with you over it's borders.

And yes, states do develop their borders organically and over time, and nothing is more organic to the development of borders than war, unfortunately. I don't disagree that there are people who speak different languages within the borders of the French state, just the same as there are places in Los Angeles where people speak Spanish, but we don't consider those areas part of Mexico or Central America and we don't consider Cuban sections of South Florida as a separate nation.

I'm not suggesting that these boundaries (both ethnic and geographical) are perfect and pristine. But the inhabitants of these regions do have a state that protects their interests and provides security. The Walloons in Belgium probably aren't persecuted like the Kurds in Northern Iraq or the Jews living in pre-war Eastern Europe.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I think the French government would argue with you over it's borders.


I don't mean its current borders, but your idea that a nation state has natural borders, within which a nation resides and beyond which is a different nation.



SG_67 said:


> And yes, states do develop their borders organically and over time, and nothing is more organic to the development of borders than war, unfortunately. I don't disagree that there are people who speak different languages within the borders of the French state, just the same as there are places in Los Angeles where people speak Spanish, but we don't consider those areas part of Mexico or Central America and we don't consider Cuban sections of South Florida as a separate nation.


The difference is that, for example, Bretons speak Breton as their primary language, and identify themselves as Bretons over an identity as Frenchmen. They don't consider themselves as of a nation beyond the political frontiers of modern France, but as Bretons. France is a historical political construct made up of regions that were once ruled, more or less, by the King of France, some French, others of other ethnic/cultural origins.



SG_67 said:


> I'm not suggesting that these boundaries (both ethnic and geographical) are perfect and pristine. But the inhabitants of these regions do have a state that protects their interests and provides security. The Walloons in Belgium probably aren't persecuted like the Kurds in Northern Iraq or the Jews living in pre-war Eastern Europe.


But that doesn't make them nations or nation states.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> There was no border dispute between Cain and Abel.


Cain and Abel now.



SG_67 said:


> Jews want a state they can call their own as well. Somewhere they can feel as though they belong with cultural and political institutions in line with their beliefs. That's all I'm saying.


You are using the word Jew when what you really mean is Zionist.

Not all Jews want a state of Israel - either for political reasons, or sometimes on religious grounds.

https://ijsn.net

https://www.nkusa.org

Furthermore, not all Zionists are the ultra hard liners that comprise the current Israeli government and the Israel Lobby within the US. It is just that the others do not get the same amount of publicity.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> Cain and Abel now.


The first war!



> You are using the word Jew when what you really mean is Zionist.
> 
> Not all Jews want a state of Israel - either for political reasons, or sometimes on religious grounds.


You're correct. But enough do that there is a state. And there are enough that people emigrate there.

https://ijsn.net

https://www.nkusa.org



> Furthermore, not all Zionists are the ultra hard liners that comprise the current Israeli government and the Israel Lobby within the US. It is just that the others do not get the same amount of publicity.


The Israeli government has had it's share of doves as well and there is typically a pretty robust debate about how to deal with issues of war and peace.

I'm not suggesting that Israel is not without it's problems but it does exist within an incredibly hostile neighborhood with an existential threat that few, if any countries, face today.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I use the term "nation state" somewhat loosely. By nation I'm referring to the ethnic make-up. In todays age with borders being what they are, the term has lost some of it's meaning and is thought of as somewhat Archaic.
> 
> If by French we mean that people who speak French as their primary language and who share a common cultural and political heritage, then France is the state where the French nation resides. Just like the Germans and those who consider themselves to be English.


Actually, the concept of a nation state is very modern. It was one of the political constructs of the Revolution, which also developed the concept of nationalism. Under the Ancien Regime the people of France were subjects of the King. If the monarchy was to be overthrown there had to be a source of legitimacy for the authority that replaced it, that legitimacy was the "nation", hence the Kingdom of France, a collection of quasi-autonomous provinces subject to a common King became France, and the idea of a nation, ruled by Paris, was imposed on the country. It was resisted, but was imposed by force, but, also, was never fully accepted.
My point being that the concept of a nation state has always been an artificial construct, and is, in terms of polities a very modern one.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Actually, the concept of a nation state is very modern. It was one of the political constructs of the Revolution, which also developed the concept of nationalism. Under the Ancien Regime the people of France were subjects of the King. If the monarchy was to be overthrown there had to be a source of legitimacy for the authority that replaced it, that legitimacy was the "nation", hence the Kingdom of France, a collection of quasi-autonomous provinces subject to a common King became France, and the idea of a nation, ruled by Paris, was imposed on the country. It was resisted, but was imposed by force, but, also, was never fully accepted.
> My point being that the concept of a nation state has always been an artificial construct, and is, in terms of polities a very modern one.


You're correct of course and the last vestige of the ancien regime was Austria-Hungary.

The idea that a nation is entitled to its own state is certainly post napoleonic in the way we understand it. But although those peoples were ruled by foreign kings, concessions were made nonetheless to local customs, language and laws. At times this turned bloody as in the 30 years war.

Your point is well taken that nations and their states are complex things and what defines a nation is also complex.

Few others peoples (and I use this term realizing that there are probably some exclusions) have been so devoid of a homeland and still fewer have felt like strangers in a strange land than the Jews. On the part of many there is a yearning to have what every other ethnic group or religion has, and that's a homeland.

The spiritual home of Catholicism is the Vatican, that of the Muslims is Mecca (at least Sunni). In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, each country has it's own national church and a patriarch. The religion and the nation are intimately woven together.

There are Jews who feel the same way and want what every other religious or ethnic group has.

That's the only point I'm trying to make.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> Few others peoples (and I use this term realizing that there are probably some exclusions) have been so devoid of a homeland and still fewer have felt like strangers in a strange land than the Jews. On the part of many there is a yearning to have what every other ethnic group or religion has, and that's a homeland.
> 
> There are Jews who feel the same way and want what every other religious or ethnic group has.
> 
> That's the only point I'm trying to make.


Zionism is a relatively modern, late nineteenth century idea. Few concepts have been the cause of so much trouble. It is debatable whether Ashkenazi Jews even came from that part of the world in the first place.

It is wrong that America has allowed money to further this idea that benefits so few at the expense of so many.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> Zionism is a relatively modern, late nineteenth century idea. Few concepts have been the cause of so much trouble. It is debatable whether Ashkenazi Jews even came from that part of the world in the first place.
> 
> It is wrong that America has allowed money to further this idea that benefits so few at the expense of so many.


The entire notion of nationalism is relatively new and was on full display in 1848. The notion of Zionism is just a product of that revolutionary period.

Mind you, Jews were precluded from participating in many institutions throughout Europe, and although tolerated, were certainly not integrated. Many had to convert in order to hold posts at universities, government and a host of other occupations. Seen in that light, one cannot blame them for wanting their own state.

I won't debate you on the merits of aid to Israel as this ground had been covered and further arguing it would be futile.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> The entire notion of nationalism is relatively new and was on full display in 1848. The notion of Zionism is just a product of that revolutionary period.
> 
> Mind you, Jews were precluded from participating in many institutions throughout Europe, and although tolerated, were certainly not integrated. Many had to convert in order to hold posts at universities, government and a host of other occupations. Seen in that light, one cannot blame them for wanting their own state.
> 
> I won't debate you on the merits of aid to Israel as this ground had been covered and further arguing it would be futile.


But they had no more *right* to their own state than Walloons, or Bretons, or Catalans, or any other minority within a state, and only have one as a direct result of American political and economic assistance. Nobody is denying that they were persecuted on religious grounds, but so were Huguenots in France and Catholics in Ireland. The Kurds have been persecuted on racial and religious grounds but they don't appear to been entitled to their own state. Why the difference? 
It is one of the fictions developed by the Nazis that the Jews were a race that led to their persecution on racial grounds. Sadly, the Zionists have developed that racist racial view further. As Kingstonian has pointed out, however, there are significant racial and cultural differences between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic and Hasidic Jews, such that it is clear that they are not of a common origin.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

SG_67 said:


> Why has Russia not rolled into Estonia or Latvia?


Why would they re-invade the three Baltic States? Thery pulled out of them in 91. But you are correct about the safety and protection that Nato membership imparts. 
Which was why there were two Nato exercises in Georgia in 2012, one outside Tblisi on an old Russian military base, the other one a full-scale military training exercise right on the Russian border, with a combined Georgian-Nato force. I was on one of them. It was simply Georgia saying to Russia, "Look, see these guys training here with us, those are Nato troops!" Georgia is a very open country socially, very pro-west and very keen to become a Nato member. I felt it when I was there, walking around in uniform in the capital city the locals couldn't do enough for us, no threat at all, very relaxed,the Georgians were very keen to make all the Nato, EU and UN officers and troops very welcome. There were even some DHS and Fema officers there, who taught me how to drink Jack Daniels!


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> . There were even some DHS and Fema officers there, who taught me how to drink Jack Daniels!


Is there a method of drinking J.D. that doesn't consist of tossing it down and chasing it with a beer?:devil:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> Is there a method of drinking J.D. that doesn't consist of tossing it down and chasing it with a beer?:devil:


LOL! Well the US govt officers I was with from the DHS and Fema sipped it slowly over ice! And I can recommend that method....:drunken_smilie:


----------



## Tilton

Only somewhat relevant, but interesting nevertheless: https://live.wsj.com/video/anti-sem...25.html#!9F86CFE6-1503-4585-AF34-5B4B8AFA5425


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> Actually, the concept of a nation state is very modern.


Exactly. And Stalinism was very heavily a supporter of it.


----------



## Kingstonian

Tilton said:


> Only somewhat relevant, but interesting nevertheless: https://live.wsj.com/video/anti-sem...25.html#!9F86CFE6-1503-4585-AF34-5B4B8AFA5425


Well the ADL and Abe Foxman see anti semitism all over the place.

Finklestein is quite amusing when describing Foxman.

Here is the clip. It is also very powerful stuff "warmongers from Martha's Vineyard, warmongers from The Hamptons etc".

At the same time you need to remember that The Israel Lobby conspired to get him denied tenure at his university.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcWIaYJGlOQ


----------



## Acct2000

Earl of Ormonde said:


> LOL! Well the US govt officers I was with from the DHS and Fema sipped it slowly over ice! And I can recommend that method....:drunken_smilie:


That is certainly a lot less harsh than drinking it straight.

With all the wonderful beer you have in Europe, it's interesting that you find time to drink other things.

Of course, there is wonderful wine, too. (I'm just a craft beer fan; it's really cool, though when you can get your hands on some of the stuff made in Belgium or some of the other places. Alas, we had a restaurant that had over 200 bottled beers from around the world on their menu locally, but they closed. Sigh.)


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

forsbergacct2000 said:


> That is certainly a lot less harsh than drinking it straight.
> 
> With all the wonderful beer you have in Europe, it's interesting that you find time to drink other things.


Yes, but this wasn't in Europe or a "good beer country" it was in Georgia, where import spirits & import beer are the safest thing to drink. The local watery beer is like American beer, bloody awful. And the Georgian vodka is terrible.


----------



## justonemore

forsbergacct2000 said:


> That is certainly a lot less harsh than drinking it straight.
> 
> With all the wonderful beer you have in Europe, it's interesting that you find time to drink other things.
> 
> Of course, there is wonderful wine, too. (I'm just a craft beer fan; it's really cool, though when you can get your hands on some of the stuff made in Belgium or some of the other places. Alas, we had a restaurant that had over 200 bottled beers from around the world on their menu locally, but they closed. Sigh.)


The nice thing about shooting Jack straight is that the suffering is done in a few seconds verus being spread out over half an hour. If I have to drink something that sends shivers down my spine (even before it goes in my mouth), I want it done with about the same time it starts. Unless I'm out with much younger collègues, I'll take a beer over the harder stuff any day.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> That's a difficult question for anyone to answer Hitch.
> 
> Apparently, I have discovered in this thread, merely using the words 'Israel' and 'lobby' can transform one into an anti-semite........
> 
> .
> .
> 
> .
> .


Every bit as hard as saying yes or no.

Hmmm Israel,, lobby. Did it work?


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Every bit as hard as saying yes or no.
> 
> Hmmm Israel,, lobby. Did it work?


You would have to direct this query toward SG_67 for he seems to have the final say-so as to who is, and is not, a hate criminal.


----------



## immanuelrx

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes, but this wasn't in Europe or a "good beer country" it was in Georgia, where import spirits & import beer are the safest thing to drink. *The local watery beer is like American beer, bloody awful.* And the Georgian vodka is terrible.


Well that is a reckless blanket statement! I am sure you have tried all American beer and that is how you are able to make such a statement.


----------



## Chouan

immanuelrx said:


> Well that is a reckless blanket statement! I am sure you have tried all American beer and that is how you are able to make such a statement.


Something of a sweeping generalisation I fear. However, in the Earl's defense, nearly all American beer that is sold in Europe is pi$$-poor. I know that there is a wave of micro-breweries setting up in the US and that there are very many good beers and ales being brewed, now. But for as long as I can remember the only US beers easily available have been the usual dreadful stuff, like Bud, etc.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> You would have to direct this query toward SG_67 for he seems to have the final say-so as to who is, and is not, a hate criminal.


Hardly. Those things are matters of conscience.

I'm simply stating when one compares an open lobbying organization, with a website, IRS filings and regular audits with a shadowy cabal then it's worth considering if there's a hidden meaning.

One can choose to hide behind the term "Israel lobby" if they choose thinking it is safe, but I'm afraid the term has become a surrogate for those who a generation or two ago would have been just as comfortable using the term "Jewish banker conspiracy".

There are those that would suggest that the term "welfare mom" is code for African Americans. Therefore they would suggest that their is still latent racism in this country. I won't argue that point but then it's just as true that there is latent anti semitism remaining in many corners of the world and the term Israel lobby is a code for its expression.

That someone uses it without being an anti Semite does not change what the term has come to imply.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Hardly. Those things are matters of conscience.
> 
> I'm simply stating when one compares an open lobbying organization, with a website, IRS filings and regular audits with a shadowy cabal then it's worth considering if there's a hidden meaning.
> 
> One can choose to hide behind the term "Israel lobby" if they choose thinking it is safe, but I'm afraid the term has become a surrogate for those who a generation or two ago would have been just as comfortable using the term "Jewish banker conspiracy".
> 
> There are those that would suggest that the term "welfare mom" is code for African Americans. Therefore they would suggest that their is still latent racism in this country. I won't argue that point but then it's just as true that there is latent anti semitism remaining in many corners of the world and the term Israel lobby is a code for its expression.
> 
> That someone uses it without being an anti Semite does not change what the term has come to imply.


Many lobby groups really are shadowy cabals, that is just the way of the political world, nothing to get too excited about.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> Many lobby groups really are shadowy cabals, that is just the way of the political world, nothing to get too excited about.


I'm not sure about the shadowy cabal characterization but even if I concede that, few carry the burden of that term quite like Jews and Israel.

I'm suggesting that those looking to use that term had better consider it's deeper and uglier meaning. Of course everyone is free to express himself.

When the term is coupled with the outright controlling of politicians, the political machinery of a state and other nonsense then I think it should invite some scrutiny.


----------



## Shaver

^ The euphemism treadmill proceeds apace.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

immanuelrx said:


> Well that is a reckless blanket statement! I am sure you have tried all American beer and that is how you are able to make such a statement.


Lighten up dude! Reckless? WTF, I wasn't talking about world poverty!

I was making a lighthearted comparison to American beer in general & its stereotype of being weak & bad. In the same way that most of the plastic-paddies in the USA bleive in the stereotypes that the IRA were fighting a glorious war against the Brtis & that all the Irish eat corned beef & cabbage & that green guinness flows in Dublin on St. Patrick's Day.

Get over yourself!


----------



## Acct2000

immanuelrx said:


> Well that is a reckless blanket statement! I am sure you have tried all American beer and that is how you are able to make such a statement.


I think this is a fair statement about the quality of European beers before the popularity of American Craft Beers started making them available. I'm sure that is what the Earl was referring to.

Edit: Oops; European beers were diverse and flavorful all along. It's the American Craft Beers that were new.

(edited for clarity)


----------



## justonemore

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I think this is a fair statement about the quality of European beers before the popularity of American Craft Beers started making them available. I'm sure that is what the Earl was referring to.


I would guess so as well. There is a big difference between the American Craft Beers of the current day and age and what existed just a few years ago (I.E. miller, budweiser, coors, etc.). I would still claim that major European brewers do a better job than the major American brewers. I would also think that many European micro.brews are better than the American Micro-brews. This has nothing to say as to there being no decent American beers. There are several.... But... From what I've tasted, there are less than whatr we can find elsewhere...


----------



## immanuelrx

Chouan said:


> Something of a sweeping generalisation I fear. However, in the Earl's defense, nearly all American beer that is sold in Europe is pi$$-poor. I know that there is a wave of micro-breweries setting up in the US and that there are very many good beers and ales being brewed, now. But for as long as I can remember the only US beers easily available have been the usual dreadful stuff, like Bud, etc.


That's unfortunate. Bud, Miller, Coors and the like are pretty crappy beers. I don't feel bad you all in Europe at all though. You guys have some great brews as well.


----------



## immanuelrx

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Lighten up dude! Reckless? WTF, I wasn't talking about world poverty!
> 
> I was making a lighthearted comparison to American beer in general & its stereotype of being weak & bad. In the same way that most of the plastic-paddies in the USA bleive in the stereotypes that the IRA were fighting a glorious war against the Brtis & that all the Irish eat corned beef & cabbage & that green guinness flows in Dublin on St. Patrick's Day.
> 
> Get over yourself!


What can I say, I love my beer. 

besides, isn't pointless stances and overreaction the theme of this thread? I was just trying to fit in.......


----------



## Chouan

immanuelrx said:


> That's unfortunate. Bud, Miller, Coors and the like are pretty crappy beers. I don't feel bad you all in Europe at all though. You guys have some great brews as well.


We have indeed. Nevermind the massive variety of British beers and ales, there are some wonderful continetal brews available. I particularly like Pelforth and Jeanlain from France, and Afflingem from Belgium as well as the various superb Czech beers, Urquell, Budvar etc.
Some months ago my eldest son had a night out with friends in Cambridge, staying with them overnight. The following morning he asked to be brought home as he was feeling "poorly". My wife, thoughtfully, put some plastic bags in the back of the car, just in case. It was a very good idea, as he needed them!
A couple of weeks later he bought me a bottle of Belgian Trappistenbier (330cl), which I enjoyed whilst watching some football. It was delicious, really nice, but I could feel my cheeks glowing as I drank it. After I'd finished it I told him how good it was (and I can't even begin to do so in words) he told me to read the label, whereupon I found that it was 9.2% alcohol. No wonder my cheeks were glowing! He then told me that the night he was unwell he'd had three bottles before his pals had arrived! A litre at 9.2% to start the night! No wonder he was ill!


----------



## immanuelrx

Chouan said:


> We have indeed. Nevermind the massive variety of British beers and ales, there are some wonderful continetal brews available. I particularly like Pelforth and Jeanlain from France, and Afflingem from Belgium as well as the various superb Czech beers, Urquell, Budvar etc.
> Some months ago my eldest son had a night out with friends in Cambridge, staying with them overnight. The following morning he asked to be brought home as he was feeling "poorly". My wife, thoughtfully, put some plastic bags in the back of the car, just in case. It was a very good idea, as he needed them!
> A couple of weeks later he bought me a bottle of Belgian Trappistenbier (330cl), which I enjoyed whilst watching some football. It was delicious, really nice, but I could feel my cheeks glowing as I drank it. After I'd finished it I told him how good it was (and I can't even begin to do so in words) he told me to read the label, whereupon I found that it was 9.2% alcohol. No wonder my cheeks were glowing! He then told me that the night he was unwell he'd had three bottles before his pals had arrived! A litre at 9.2% to start the night! No wonder he was ill!


I had recently eaten at a place called Dogfish Head brewing & eats. It is the restaurant of Dogfish head brewery if you are familiar with the company (If you are not I highly suggest them. Good beer all around.) They had some beers there they don't distribute nation-wide. I had a stout and an IPA they carried there. Both were 15-20% alcohol. I normally drink for taste only, but I had to give it a try. I had never had any beer above 9%. They were good, but nothing I would drink regularly. Needless to say, I was in a good mood afterwards. :biggrin:


----------



## Tilton

immanuelrx said:


> I had recently eaten at a place called Dogfish Head brewing & eats. It is the restaurant of Dogfish head brewery if you are familiar with the company (If you are not I highly suggest them. Good beer all around.) They had some beers there they don't distribute nation-wide. I had a stout and an IPA they carried there. Both were 15-20% alcohol. I normally drink for taste only, but I had to give it a try. I had never had any beer above 9%. They were good, but nothing I would drink regularly. Needless to say, I was in a good mood afterwards. :biggrin:


If it wasn't the one in Rehoboth, you missed out. That's the best of the lot and, I believe, the only one actually owned by Dogfish Head. Excellent place, though, with very good beers.


----------



## immanuelrx

Tilton said:


> If it wasn't the one in Rehoboth, you missed out. That's the best of the lot and, I believe, the only one actually owned by Dogfish Head. Excellent place, though, with very good beers.


It was the one in Rehoboth. They said that was the only Dogfish head restaurant. It is amazing! I just go for the beer, but the food is good as well. They just featured a coffee stout called "Mr. Bean" this month. It is delicious!


----------



## Acct2000

Chouan, the only British beers I've had are the Samuel Smith and a Gooseberry beer from Scotland. They were both phenonmenal!

Immanuelrx, I love coffee stouts!


----------



## immanuelrx

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Chouan, the only British beers I've had are the Samuel Smith and a Gooseberry beer from Scotland. They were both phenonmenal!
> 
> Immanuelrx, I love coffee stouts!


The Samuel Smith Oatmeal Stout is one of my favorites!


----------



## Tilton

immanuelrx said:


> It was the one in Rehoboth. They said that was the only Dogfish head restaurant. It is amazing! I just go for the beer, but the food is good as well. They just featured a coffee stout called "Mr. Bean" this month. It is delicious!


Well, there are some franchised spots around DC - they are called "Dogfish Head Alehouse." Good for burgers and hanging around, but the food isn't half as good as the Rehoboth spot. For a while, I lived about a $7 cab ride from the Falls Church location, so I was somewhat of a regular. The upside is they carry all of the hard-to-get beers. I think there is one in Rockville, too.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> When the term is coupled with the outright controlling of politicians, the political machinery of a state and other nonsense then I think it should invite some scrutiny.


I agree, although they will not welcome such scrutiny.

Furthermore, a system of checks and balances should be put in place,with a cap on what can be spent, to prevent the buying of politicians.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> I agree, although they will not welcome such scrutiny.
> 
> Furthermore, a system of checks and balances should be put in place,with a cap on what can be spent, to prevent the buying of politicians.


There is a system of checks and balances. It's called elections. That people are apathetic and go into the voting booth and vote based on identity, religion, race or whatever other reason or rationale that informs their opinion, then we end up with what we have. I don't see the stifling of free speech as a means of codifying a responsibility that rests with the electorate.

By the way, I feel this way about any elected official. Be it someone with whom I agree with politically or those that I disagree with. I don't cast my vote based on race, religion, claims of piety but rather I will do my homework by looking at their platform and their previous public service record (votes cast, etc.).


----------



## Shaver

immanuelrx said:


> The Samuel Smith Oatmeal Stout is one of my favorites!


I was once employed by Samuel Smith, a proper old fashioned brewery with dray horses making deliveries in the town.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> There is a system of checks and balances. It's called elections. That people are apathetic and go into the voting booth and vote based on identity, religion, race or whatever other reason or rationale that informs their opinion, then we end up with what we have. I don't see the stifling of free speech as a means of codifying a responsibility that rests with the electorate.


It is not stifling of free speech.

It is a limit on million dollar propaganda offensives. It is not OK for rich people to just buy a political outcome.

"Politicians are put there to give you the illusion of choice"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> It is not stifling of free speech.
> 
> It is a limit on million dollar propaganda offensives. It is not OK for rich people to just buy a political outcome.
> 
> "Politicians are put there to give you the illusion of choice"
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q


Are you suggesting that people are gulled into voting a particular way because of an ad put out either by a rich person or organization? If so, then the voter gets what he deserves.

By the way, there are plenty of cases where the big money did not make the impact it was intended to.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> If so, then the voter gets what he deserves.


That is an unsavoury outlook on the political process.

A shyster's charter.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> That is an unsavoury outlook on the political process.
> 
> A shyster's charter.


Perhaps, but freedom entails a sense of responsibility. Government by it's very nature is going to be subject to corruption and inefficiency. This goes back to antiquity. It is sad, but it is also human and therefore to suggest a system where it can be suppressed is a fool's errand.

The best we can do is put it to the voter. Despite all failings, shortcomings and other faults, we usually get it right in the end.

The political process is by it's very nature an unsavory one where people involved often have to make choices they are not completely comfortable with. Bargaining and compromise are the essence of politics.


----------



## immanuelrx

Shaver said:


> I was once employed by Samuel Smith, a proper old fashioned brewery with dray horses making deliveries in the town.


My goodness. If Samuel Smith delivered in where I lived I would be broke. What are a few of your favorite SS beers Shaver? I am sure you have tried your fair share.


----------



## Shaver

immanuelrx said:


> My goodness. If Samuel Smith delivered in where I lived I would be broke. What are a few of your favorite SS flavors Shaver?


 I do not drink ales, I never really acquired a taste for it. However, those in the know, always spoke highly of the acclaimed Taddy Porter.


----------



## immanuelrx

Shaver said:


> I do not drink ales, I never really acquired a taste for it. However, those in the know, always spoke highly of the acclaimed Taddy Porter.


Their Taddy Porter is quite tasty. Man, I want a beer now! Is 11:30 am too early?


----------



## Shaver

immanuelrx said:


> Their Taddy Porter is quite tasty. Man, I want a beer now! Is 11:30 am too early?


It is nearly 5pm over here so........:thumbs-up:


----------



## Acct2000

I have a bottle of the Taddy Porter waiting for the right moment to try it. I love the Samuel Smith Oatmeal Stout. The Organic Chocolate Stout is also magnificent. I've really enjoyed every Samuel Smith's beer I ever tried.

Alas, I have flu symptoms pretty bad today, so the Taddy Porter will have to wait until next week!


----------



## immanuelrx

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I have a bottle of the Taddy Porter waiting for the right moment to try it. I love the Samuel Smith Oatmeal Stout. The Organic Chocolate Stout is also magnificent. I've really enjoyed every Samuel Smith's beer I ever tried.
> 
> Alas, I have flu symptoms pretty bad today, so the Taddy Porter will have to wait until next week!


I have seen the Organic Chocolate Stout a few times but have yet to try it. I guess I will have to pick up a bottle today while I am at Whole Foods. Get well!


----------



## Kingstonian

To be fair to Sam Smith's, their beers are cheap and their pubs in London are very attractive (The Princess Louise, Cittie of Yorke , Dover Castle etc.) It is nearly as cheap as Wetherspoons, but all drinks served are Sam Smiths brands - including spirits.

Unfortunately their ales are not very nice - Old Brewery bitter etc. So I usually drink elsewhere.

Actually the "etc." is redundant. I did ask for pint of Museum in Cittie of Yorke, to be told they had stopped brewing it years ago. So now it is just Old Brewery bitter as the remaining draft ale. I don' t drink bottled beers in pubs.


----------



## immanuelrx

Kingstonian said:


> To be fair to Sam Smith's, their beers are cheap and their pubs in London are very attractive (The Princess Louise, Cittie of Yorke , Dover Castle etc.) It is nearly as cheap as Wetherspoons, but all drinks served are Sam Smiths brands - including spirits.
> 
> Unfortunately their ales are not very nice - Old Brewery bitter etc. So I usually drink elsewhere.
> 
> Actually the "etc." is redundant. I did ask for pint of Museum in Cittie of Yorke, to be told they had stopped brewing it years ago. So now it is just Old Brewery bitter as the remaining draft ale.* I don' t drink bottled beers in pubs*.


I would hope not. Drinking bottled beers in a pub is almost a travesty!


----------



## immanuelrx

Tilton said:


> Well, there are some franchised spots around DC - they are called "Dogfish Head Alehouse." Good for burgers and hanging around, but the food isn't half as good as the Rehoboth spot. For a while, I lived about a $7 cab ride from the Falls Church location, so I was somewhat of a regular. The upside is they carry all of the hard-to-get beers. I think there is one in Rockville, too.


Huh.... I wonder why they told me the Rehoboth beach location was the only restaurant? I didn't know I had 3 restaurants closer. I will have to check them out. Thanks for the heads up!


----------

