Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:



Dershowitz: Obama Will Go Down In History As One Of The Worst Foreign Policy Presidents Ever

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz slammed President Obama for "stabbing Israel in the back" on Monday morning's edition of 'Fox & Friends.'

"[History will see President Obama] as one of the worst foreign policy presidents ever," Dershowitz said.

"He called me into the Oval Office before the inauguration -- he said he wanted my support, and he told me he would always have Israel's back," Dershowitz said. "I didn't realize what he meant: That he would have Israel's back so he could stab them in the back."

He continued: "What he did was so nasty, he pulled a bait and switch. He told the American public this is all about the settlements deep in the West Bank. And yet, he allowed he representative to the U.N. to abstain --which is really a vote for-- a resolution that says the Jews can't pray at the Western Wall, Jews can't live in the Jewish Quarter [of Jerusalem] where they have lived for thousands of years. And he's going to say, 'Whoops! I didn't mean that!' Well read the resolution! You're a lawyer, you went to Harvard Law School."

He also said: "This will make peace much more difficult to achieve because the Palestinians will now say 'we can get a state through the UN'."

Seeing how much Americans hate the idea of Russia influencing US politics, I wonder why nobody says anything about how much Isreal does it. Any time the US does something Isreal doesn't like, it spends millions to send lobbyists to change US politicians to be pro-Isreal over pro-American. I understand politicians are mostly pro-money but still I feel like this should be a bigger scandal than it is. Yet, we just accept that a president must have the approval of Isreal to be considered good.

 whembly wrote:

UN resolution 242 is effectively neutered and absolutely encourages the PA to NOT negotiate with Israel.

242 has always been ineffective so who cares, and the Palestinians already have bordering on zero faith in negotiating with Israel.

Worst part, Obama does this on his way out. Purely a spiteful dick move.

THe US has been backing away from its unilateral support for Israel since the Bush Administration when Israel went back on their word (or as someone from Havard might say "stabbed us in the back"). Acting like this is some last minute reversal from Obama is why that comment is sad. Because it shows a complete lack of knowledge about US foreign policy with regards to Israel to the point that even the basic timeline apparently is unknown to the speaker.

The Palestinians already have every reason not to negotiate with Israel. I don't know why people continue to not comprehend this. Israel is the "invader" to them. In what American fantasy film do the heroes ever negotiate with the invading foreign force? Never mind the Palestinians tried that route twice and basically not nowhere already. The Palestinians have been banking on getting the UN to end the conflict since Arafat took over in the 80s because they have no faith that negotiating with Israel will get them a working resolution. They've tried and they pretty much quit after the Taba Summit in 2001 went dud. The only thing that could bring them back at this point is for Israel to halt settlement construction, but Israel isn't going to do that without assurance that the violence will stop which the Palestinians who agree with them are unable to deliver. It's the catch-22 of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Yeah, the whole thing is super messy. Heck, even DS9 had whole seasons based around it, 20 years ago.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

UN resolution 242 is effectively neutered and absolutely encourages the PA to NOT negotiate with Israel.

242 has always been ineffective so who cares, and the Palestinians already have bordering on zero faith in negotiating with Israel.

Worst part, Obama does this on his way out. Purely a spiteful dick move.

THe US has been backing away from its unilateral support for Israel since the Bush Administration when Israel went back on their word (or as someone from Havard might say "stabbed us in the back". Acting like this is some last minute reversal from Obama is why that comment is sad. Because it shows a complete lack of knowledge about US foreign policy with regards to Israel to the point that even the basic timeline apparently is unknown to the speaker.

How do you figure that? This isn't the first time a resolution like this was brought up... every time, the US vetoed it.

Obama admin only has 3 weeks left, and he has every right to conduct his foreign policies in the manner they see fit. But, I can't help to wonder the timing of this. They're throwing a huge monkey wrench into the process while on the way out of the door. <--- that's the dick move.

The Palestinians already have every reason not to negotiate with Israel. I don't know why people continue to not comprehend this. Israel is the "invader" to them. In what American fantasy film do the heroes ever negotiate with the invading foreign force? Never mind the Palestinians tried that route twice and basically not nowhere already. The Palestinians have been banking on getting the UN to end the conflict since Arafat took over in the 80s because they have no faith that negotiating with Israel will get them a working resolution. They've tried and they pretty much quit after the Taba Summit in 2001 went dud. The only thing that could bring them back at this point is for Israel to halt settlement construction, but Israel isn't going to do that without assurance that the violence will stop which the Palestinians who agree with them are unable to deliver. It's the catch-22 of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Sucks to be them. The real lesson, is don't go to war, or you'll likely lose territories.

You might want to brush up on your history. Where has Palestine gone to war with Isreal? Also I should see you retracting from any arguement against whatever Russia and China has done at this point by your logic.

Edit: and immigration, because how do you think Isreal managed to exist in the first place (other than through the use of terror campaigns).

 whembly wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

I dont know we had someone on the R team openly posting anti semetic rhetoric for a bit.

well that didn't last long

Who?

I honestly can't remember his name, but I do remember the guy. I think he got banned from the OT. He was the full on "Trump is the best" guy, IIRC, and the only geneuanly racist donkey-cave I can remember in the OT. I'll see any of the posts survived the cleansing fire.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
You might want to brush up on your history.

Answer this: How did Israel gain the contested areas?

Where has Palestine gone to war with Isreal?

Never said that they did, Palestine State didn't even exist.

Also I should see you retracting from any arguement against whatever Russia and China has done at this point by your logic.

Russian with Crimea? When did Ukraine attack Russia? As for China... you talking about Tibet?

Edit: and immigration, because how do you think Isreal managed to exist in the first place (other than through the use of terror campaigns).

Oo

Not even sure where you're going with this...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

I dont know we had someone on the R team openly posting anti semetic rhetoric for a bit.

well that didn't last long

Who?

I honestly can't remember his name, but I do remember the guy. I think he got banned from the OT. He was the full on "Trump is the best" guy, IIRC, and the only geneuanly racist donkey-cave I can remember in the OT. I'll see any of the posts survived the cleansing fire.

I know who that poster is now.

 whembly wrote:
This isn't the first time a resolution like this was brought up... every time, the US vetoed it.

Yes, we're finally learning our damned lesson when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict. We're in the way.

But, I can't help to wonder the timing of this.

Because the UN concludes session with the closing of the year?

You do realize that this proposal has been bouncing around for years right? The UN has been getting fed up with Israel's non-chalant attitude for years. Ariel Sharon either by foolishness or sabotage helped torpedo the last effort at a lasting peace when he made a public spectacle of a visit to the Temple Mount, and people have been talking about a response ever since.

They're throwing a huge monkey wrench into the process while on the way out of the door. <--- that's the dick move.

No. They're making a vain attempt to remove the monkey wrench from the process. The US' support for Israel is one of the longest standing walls between achieving a resolution. Israel has had freedom to act cruelly and heartlessly because we support them regardless of anything approaching reality. There will never be peace for a lot of reason, but one of them is that the US refuses to take the matter seriously and supports Israel uncritically (and even suicidally to our own interests) is one of them. The best thing we can do is remove ourselves from the equation. Seriously. How have we still not learned that our presence isn't making things in the Middle East better? At most we've just keep them from getting worse and we can't even seem to do that anymore.

Our efforts have done nothing to bring an end to the conflict. Clinton foolishly tried and failed in his own last year, and ever since we've been gradually pulling back from our pre-Second Intifada position because it's untenable. It's damaging our own foreign relations for the sake of a party that has made it clear it has no interest in resolving its own conflict.

The real lesson, is don't go to war, or you'll likely lose territories.

They're already losing the territories.

So no. The lesson is that Israel should have resolved this ages ago. They had all the cards, all the bargaining chips that really mattered, and the international support and unity to get it done and instead they've chosen at every turn not to resolve it (really it would be better to say that certain parties have done everything in their power to sabotage any peace effort on their own end, which is just great because the Palestinians have the same problem). The lesson is solve your own gak. I really don't care to continue wasting my country's political capital and beneficial foreign policy ventures for the sake of an increasingly "we're the real problem now" country who seems to interpret the Palestinians foolishness 80 years ago as carte blanch to do as it pleases with no regard for the costs to itself or anyone else.

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
You might want to brush up on your history.

Answer this: How did Israel gain the contested areas?

Through invasion and by then use of colonists, dozing over Palestinian settlements, using the IDF to force Palestinians from their homes and occupying them, and then just generally arresting and shooting those that disagreed. If your talking about the wars, what does Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq have to do with Palestinian land?

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Where has Palestine gone to war with Isreal?

Never said that they did, Palestine State didn't even exist.

Palestine did exist, that is bad history and propaganda to justify the seizure of land by Isreal. The "land without a people for a people without a land" is still a complete and utter lie. You also stated having your land taken wouldn't happen if you didn't go to war.

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Also I should see you retracting from any arguement against whatever Russia and China has done at this point by your logic.

Russian with Crimea? When did Ukraine attack Russia? As for China... you talking about Tibet?

Palestine never attacked Isreal but you're okay with Isreal invading and seizing land. So whenever Russia and China does it (Chrimea, South China Sea, Tibet, possibly Tiawan) you should be silent because you have already expressed that its, just how it is.

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Edit: and immigration, because how do you think Isreal managed to exist in the first place (other than through the use of terror campaigns).

Oo
Not even sure where you're going with this...

Isreal exists due to mass immigration into Palestine and then the use of militia to force Palestinians off the mutually used land. As your okay with that then you shouldn't fear it.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
You might want to brush up on your history.

Answer this: How did Israel gain the contested areas?

Through invasion and by then use of colonists, dozing over Palestinian settlements, using the IDF to force Palestinians from their homes and occupying them, and then just generally arresting and shooting those that disagreed. If your talking about the wars, what does Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq have to do with Palestinian land?

So, Israel the aggressor in the Six-Day War?

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Where has Palestine gone to war with Isreal?

Never said that they did, Palestine State didn't even exist.

Palestine did exist, that is bad history and propaganda to justify the seizure of land by Isreal. The "land without a people for a people without a land" is still a complete and utter lie. You also stated having your land taken wouldn't happen if you didn't go to war.

Not really...The name “Palestine” was the name the conquering Romans gave to the old lands that is now Israel and surronding nations. Which was done to obliterate the Jewish presence in the Holy Land! Romans... such cheeky chaps... fast forward to early 1920,League of Nations proclaimed that Palestine (used to describe the regional area, rather than a country) was to be a homeland for the Jews. Around the same time, Lebanon was made a place for Arab Christians, and Syria and Iraq were to be homelands for Arab Moslems. Therefore, the British carved up the lands...

To the Arab people as a whole no such entity as “Palestine” ever existed prior to the early 20th century and there was certainly never an ancient Palestinian Arab nation prior to what is now modern Palestinian state.

These were more like the famous Arab Bedouin... decentralised nomads who has had 'Hatfields and McCoys' discords spanning generations.

Fun fact: After 1948, Arab countries kicked out the Jews out of their counties... but, you don't really hear much about that. 'Tis why it's called the Silent Exodus.

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Also I should see you retracting from any arguement against whatever Russia and China has done at this point by your logic.

Russian with Crimea? When did Ukraine attack Russia? As for China... you talking about Tibet?

Palestine never attacked Isreal but you're okay with Isreal invading and seizing land. So whenever Russia and China does it (Chrimea, South China Sea, Tibet, possibly Tiawan) you should be silent because you have already expressed that its, just how it is.

Erm... never said Palestine attacked Isreal... 'Palestine' as a state never really existed. It were the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanianss during the Six-Day war. Which is how Israel came into control of those disputed territories.

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Edit: and immigration, because how do you think Isreal managed to exist in the first place (other than through the use of terror campaigns).

Oo
Not even sure where you're going with this...

Isreal exists due to mass immigration into Palestine and then the use of militia to force Palestinians off the mutually used land. As your okay with that then you shouldn't fear it.

Blame the league of nations and Britain. In 1948, they both said "Jews" this is your land. So, that's where they went.

Nothing here to say "I'm okay with it or not"... that's what happened. I can't change it.

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
You might want to brush up on your history.

Answer this: How did Israel gain the contested areas?

Through invasion and by then use of colonists, dozing over Palestinian settlements, using the IDF to force Palestinians from their homes and occupying them, and then just generally arresting and shooting those that disagreed. If your talking about the wars, what does Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq have to do with Palestinian land?

So, Israel the aggressor in the Six-Day War?

Well, since you specified the Six Day war, *technically* yes...



That said, lets be real here all around. The Palestinians dont have their gak together and arent in any position to form a real functioning state that can keep order internally and peace on the borders and are as apt to fight each other as the Israelis, the other Arab states like keeping the conflict alive for political reasons but have no interest in helping anything and certainly dont care about the actual fate of the Paleetinians, and the Israeli government is fine with the frozen permaconflict and thumbing their nose at the rest of the world and building settlements that nobody sees as legal in what is by any standard a straight up colonialist land grab, while the US has pretty much just done whatever Israel asked until recently giving them a shield to do whatever they really want. Nobody in power anywhere on any side has any incentive to bring about a resolution, and all sides have been and continue to be intractable jerks about anything even remotely related just because.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
You might want to brush up on your history.

Answer this: How did Israel gain the contested areas?

Through invasion and by then use of colonists, dozing over Palestinian settlements, using the IDF to force Palestinians from their homes and occupying them, and then just generally arresting and shooting those that disagreed. If your talking about the wars, what does Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq have to do with Palestinian land?

So, Israel the aggressor in the Six-Day War?

Well, since you specified the Six Day war, *technically* yes...

Heh... touche...

My point being, was those lands were acquired as a result of a waging defensive warfare.

That said, lets be real here all around. The Palestinians dont have their gak together and arent in any position to form a real functioning state that can keep order internally and peace on the borders and are as apt to fight each other as the Israelis, the other Arab states like keeping the conflict alive for political reasons but have no interest in helping anything and certainly dont care about the actual fate of the Paleetinians, and the Israeli government is fine with the frozen permaconflict and thumbing their nose at the rest of the world and building settlements that nobody sees as legal in what is by any standard a straight up colonialist land grab, while the US has pretty much just done whatever Israel asked until recently giving them a shield to do whatever they really want. Nobody in power anywhere on any side has any incentive to bring about a resolution, and all sides have been and continue to be intractable jerks about anything even remotely related just because.

I don't know about that...

They had their chances in the meetings from 2000 and on...

So, at this point, if UN or the Hague or whomever forces Israel to destroy themselves... we're going to see Israel throw her hands up in the air and just unilaterally act to her own interests.

Israel can do that... and I've always thought that the US were the moderating forces to prevent Israel from doing that...

Now? Why should they listen to Obama and the UN?

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Palestine did exist, that is bad history and propaganda to justify the seizure of land by Isreal. The "land without a people for a people without a land" is still a complete and utter lie.

The land you speak of was owned by the nations of Jordan and Egypt, not any entity called Palestine. Much of it was unoccupied at that point in time.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Palestine never attacked Isreal but you're okay with Isreal invading and seizing land.

Once again, the land was part of the nations of Jordan and Egypt, not Palestine. Palestine as a government entity did not exist before Israel took control of that land.

To recap: in the 1960s several Muslim countries decided it was be a good idea to band together and attempt to push Israel into the sea. Israel thought that was a very very bad idea. The Muslim coalition was soundly defeated during the Six Day War and Israel took a lot of land from both Jordan and Egypt. Eventually Israel gave back land to Egypt after the historic peace agreement facilitated by President Jimmy Carter (one of the actually good things he did as President). Jordan did not participate and thus no land was returned to that country. Israel is now building settlements in the land they took from Jordan.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
So whenever Russia and China does it (Chrimea, South China Sea, Tibet, possibly Tiawan) you should be silent because you have already expressed that its, just how it is.

Your argument just hit a degree of failed logic seldom seen here in the Off Topic - and that's an incredibly high bar to vault.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
...
North Korea is a rational state, you just don't know what you are talking about. Again, read more on North Korea and understand geopolitics instead of marching about making ignorant claims and tooting your horn.

This is a regime run by a leader so reckless and inhumane that he prioritizes nuclear weapons and missiles over the well-being of the North Korean people.

Antony J. Blinken
Deputy Secretary of State
Seoul, South Korea
October 28, 2016

https://www.state.gov/s/d/2016d/263872.htm

I like your qoute, it neatly shows you don't know what state or geopolitical rationality means haha. I like when someone uses a citation to prove that they don't know what they are doing.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-missile-programs-rational.html

Read this, then expand from there.

From your own link...

North Korea’s nuclear program, some analysts believe, is designed to halt an American invasion by first striking nearby United States military bases and South Korean ports, then by threatening a missile launch against the American mainland. While North Korea does not yet have this ability, analysts believe it will within the next decade.

This is the culmination of North Korea’s rationality, in something known as desperation theory.

Under this theory, when states face two terrible choices, they will pick the least bad option — even if that choice would, under normal conditions, be too costly to consider.

In North Korea’s case, that means creating the conditions for a war it would most likely lose. And it could mean preparing a last-ditch effort to survive that war by launching multiple nuclear strikes, chancing a nuclear retaliation for the slim chance to survive.

North Korea’s leaders tolerate this danger because, in their calculus, they have no other choice. The rest of us share in that risk — vanishingly small, but nonzero — whether we want to or not.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
....You do know that other foreign nations have nukes don't you? And they may also be prepared to use them in retaliation, or even preemptively against a foreign power, particularly one who is theatening them, encircling them, and has used them before. Even if that opponent is the mighty US of A....

I think you should demand a refund from where ever you learned geopolitics from. That isn't how it works. No nation will attempt a preemptive strike against the US. .... Nations will always choose to be bullied over being annihilated.

Before you got hung up on my use of the word "rational", this was the point I was trying to make. Your article makes it clear at the end that North Korea is likely to pre-emptively attack the US, if it felt that it was its last chance to survive.

Finally, could you dial back the condescending tone a bit too, that would be appreciated. You may disagree me with, but that's no reason to be rude.

And to think that I couldn't imagine them any more revolting...


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alt-right-groups-will-revolt-if-trump-shuns-white-supremacy-leaders-say/ar-BBxBM9X?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=ASUDHP

They.Got.Snooker'ed!

Please do revolt away.

Lol. Those nazi's think we're scared on them? They can go feth themselves.

 Breotan wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Palestine did exist, that is bad history and propaganda to justify the seizure of land by Isreal. The "land without a people for a people without a land" is still a complete and utter lie.

The land you speak of was owned by the nations of Jordan and Egypt, not any entity called Palestine. Much of it was unoccupied at that point in time.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Palestine never attacked Isreal but you're okay with Isreal invading and seizing land.

Once again, the land was part of the nations of Jordan and Egypt, not Palestine. Palestine as a government entity did not exist before Israel took control of that land.

To recap: in the 1960s several Muslim countries decided it was be a good idea to band together and attempt to push Israel into the sea. Israel thought that was a very very bad idea. The Muslim coalition was soundly defeated during the Six Day War and Israel took a lot of land from both Jordan and Egypt. Eventually Israel gave back land to Egypt after the historic peace agreement facilitated by President Jimmy Carter (one of the actually good things he did as President). Jordan did not participate and thus no land was returned to that country. Israel is now building settlements in the land they took from Jordan.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
So whenever Russia and China does it (Chrimea, South China Sea, Tibet, possibly Tiawan) you should be silent because you have already expressed that its, just how it is.

Your argument just hit a degree of failed logic seldom seen here in the Off Topic - and that's an incredibly high bar to vault.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/119/the-middle-east-conflict-a-brief-background
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/06/17/top-ten-myths-about-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/

It was a nation with out a state (by Western standards). Your recap isn't supported by actual history. The land be densely or sparsely populated is irrelevant. Just because there was no specific central government does not excuse invasion and occupation. Isreal is currently forcing people out of land that is lived in by people, land that doesn't in any form legal or otherwise even belong to Isreal.

My arguement isn't failed, your bias prevents you from accepting anything other than what you want to believe.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-republicans-propose-rules-punish-broadcasting-photography-chamber-floor-n700396
That's fething stupid. Just because you disagree with the minority, doesn't mean you should try and silence them, you morons.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
It was a nation with out a state (by Western standards). Your recap isn't supported by actual history. The land be densely or sparsely populated is irrelevant. Just because there was no specific central government does not excuse invasion and occupation. Isreal is currently forcing people out of land that is lived in by people, land that doesn't in any form legal or otherwise even belong to Isreal.

My arguement isn't failed, your bias prevents you from accepting anything other than what you want to believe.

Israel took the Golon Heights from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Gaza strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. Egypt accepted the U.S. brokered peace treaty and got the Sinai back. Neither Syria nor Jordan have signed a peace agreement with Israel and thus land taken from them has not been returned.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Just because you disagree with the minority, doesn't mean you should try and silence them, you morons.

Of course it doesn't.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-republicans-propose-rules-punish-broadcasting-photography-chamber-floor-n700396
That's fething stupid. Just because you disagree with the minority, doesn't mean you should try and silence them, you morons.

This becomes much more interesting if you misread "photography" as "pornography".

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-republicans-propose-rules-punish-broadcasting-photography-chamber-floor-n700396
That's fething stupid. Just because you disagree with the minority, doesn't mean you should try and silence them, you morons.

Eh, there are already official cameras and microphones to record what goes on in Congress. When Congress is in session, everyone on the floor should have their phones turned off or left with their aids outside the room. They should be legislating, not looking at cat pictures on Facebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-republicans-propose-rules-punish-broadcasting-photography-chamber-floor-n700396
That's fething stupid. Just because you disagree with the minority, doesn't mean you should try and silence them, you morons.

This becomes much more interesting if you misread "photography" as "pornography".

Anthony Weiner isn't in Congress anymore, right?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Liberal ideology is pretty much anti American to the point that even when the US succeeds, it has to fail.

This is one of the most offensive, insulting, and uneducated comments I've seen in this thread.

You must be pretty new to the thread then, that's about middle of the pack.

Just recieved a piece in the mail saying that I should write my congressman and tell him to do what Trump wants from some generic sounding group and the front is a picture of Trump holding up his right hand like he is doing a Nazi salute. No I don't think Trump is a Nazi, but I do think that whoever made this mailer chose that picture for the implications. This is the first time I recall ever getting a political mailing when there wasn't an election either.

You know, when someone asked, "When did Israel and Palestine ever go to war?" I went to look up the Seven Days War to find out who Israel fought against relatively recently, because I couldn't remember for sure.

Turned out, not Palestine, no, because Israel went to war with Lebanon and Palestinian militant groups were merely involved in the conflict.

And that was in 1993. I would've been... :: checks specific dates :: ...4 years old when that happened.

And according to Wikipedia, which is like consulting an encyclopedia, Iran and Syria funded Hezbollah in that war.

Also, on a side note, doesn't the separation of church and state being a part of the US constitution mean that the USA never has to worry about Sharia Law being a thing that happens in the USA, even if most of the country goes Muslim? Things like Sharia Law are actually unconstitutional in the USA, even though a lot of radical Christian groups like to pretend that their government is obligated to obey the rules of the most popular religion in the country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-republicans-propose-rules-punish-broadcasting-photography-chamber-floor-n700396
That's fething stupid. Just because you disagree with the minority, doesn't mean you should try and silence them, you morons.

Eh, there are already official cameras and microphones to record what goes on in Congress. When Congress is in session, everyone on the floor should have their phones turned off or left with their aids outside the room. They should be legislating, not looking at cat pictures on Facebook.

Have people not heard of C-Span?

This stems from when Democratic lawmakers staged a sit-in, and Republicans shut off the C-span cameras and mics to try and silence them.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
The land be densely or sparsely populated is irrelevant.

Of course it's irrelevant.

The USA fits 320 million people into its territory.

Canada fits 35 million people into its way bigger territory.

And if you wanted to, you could cram all seven billion humans into Rhode Island with enough room for them all to stand up and jump in unison. You wouldn't EVER want to do that though, because billions of people would die as a result of 7 billion people being in Rhode Island and trying to all get back to their homes, since our transportation systems can't handle moving that many people from one place to another at once.

XKCD had an article about that, actually, and it's a pretty interesting read.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/8/

He also did an article about how likely it would be for a US Presidential election to actually end up in a tie.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/19/

Essentially it's so unlikely that if you're basing your decision on who to vote for, or whether to abstain (i.e. not vote one way or another at all) or not, on the idea that your one vote could be the deciding factor in a Presidential election, uh, you should probably be making decisions based on the possibility of being struck by a bale of cocaine jettisoned by a smuggler in an aircraft fleeing the DEA, then hit by a tornado a few seconds later, and finally obliterated by a falling meteorite, all at pretty much the same time. It's just as likely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
This stems from when Democratic lawmakers staged a sit-in, and Republicans shut off the C-span cameras and mics to try and silence them.

Why were they allowed to do that to begin with? Why weren't they punished for it afterwards?

Maybe you don't actually have a right to be aware of the real-time developments of your government's decisions, and finding out about them later is just as good?

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Liberal ideology is pretty much anti American to the point that even when the US succeeds, it has to fail.

This is one of the most offensive, insulting, and uneducated comments I've seen in this thread.

You must be pretty new to the thread then, that's about middle of the pack.

No, I've been in the various political threads since before you even joined DakkaDakka.

To make a blanket statement to the effect that liberals are anti-American is, in itself, a completely un-American thing to say.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
This stems from when Democratic lawmakers staged a sit-in, and Republicans shut off the C-span cameras and mics to try and silence them.

Why were they allowed to do that to begin with? Why weren't they punished for it afterwards?

Because (AFAIK) here was nothing in the rules against the sit-in. And what are you going to do, arrest senators for sitting on the floor? It wasn't any more disruptive than an of Ryan's stunts.

Maybe you don't actually have a right to be aware of the real-time developments of your government's decisions, and finding out about them later is just as good?

I also don't have the "right" to know what is in the food I eat, but it's generally a good idea. I believe that all public workings, such as senate debates, hearings, votes, ect, should be public. We need to be able to hold lawmakers acountable.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
This stems from when Democratic lawmakers staged a sit-in, and Republicans shut off the C-span cameras and mics to try and silence them.

Why were they allowed to do that to begin with? Why weren't they punished for it afterwards?

Because (AFAIK) here was nothing in the rules against the sit-in. And what are you going to do, arrest senators for sitting on the floor? It wasn't any more disruptive than an of Ryan's stunts.

No.

I'm asking why the people who shut off the cameras weren't punished.

Maybe you don't actually have a right to be aware of the real-time developments of your government's decisions, and finding out about them later is just as good?

I also don't have the "right" to know what is in the food I eat, but it's generally a good idea. I believe that all public workings, such as senate debates, hearings, votes, ect, should be public. We need to be able to hold lawmakers acountable.

You still know about the sit-in, yes?

You still know who shut off the cameras, yes?

The Democrats who wanted to make their points clear still tweeted about it afterwards, yes?