• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hamfam

Junior Member
I wouldn't really compare the England / Russia situation with Israel if it were my choice. I think that'd be more of a dis-service to Israel actually. But since you did mention it, I will say that just as both, particularly England, had to give back territory because the populations made it unfeasible for them to continue their current occupation, let alone expansion, so Israel should at least stop its expansion for the same reason.

Israel, the World in fact, can not maintain the expansion of a Jewish nations borders, by stealing it from Islamic nation countries. It's not even a moral argument, it's logistical. And morally, it's wrong too.

I just think "living space" has no place in this argument at all. There's so many complicated issues, that even if both sides had completly pure intent it would be hard to overcome them, that bringing "living space" into the equation as a legitimate concern just can't even for a moment be entertained.
 
Hamfam said:
I wouldn't really compare the England / Russia situation with Israel if it were my choice. I think that'd be more of a dis-service to Israel actually. But since you did mention it, I will say that just as both, particularly England, had to give back territory because the populations made it unfeasible for them to continue their current occupation, let alone expansion, so Israel should at least stop its expansion for the same reason.

Israel, the World in fact, can not maintain the expansion of a Jewish nations borders, by stealing it from Islamic nation countries. It's not even a moral argument, it's logistical. And morally, it's wrong too.

I just think "living space" has no place in this argument at all. There's so many complicated issues, that even if both sides had completly pure intent it would be hard to overcome them, that bringing "living space" into the equation as a legitimate concern just can't even for a moment be entertained.

Fair enough. I should clarify that when I am speaking about defending Israel, the expansion issue is something I really am not a huge fan of. For me as a supporter of Israel it really is a rock and a hard place. What I mean by that is I do believe the Palestinian people should have a state of their own. In a perfect world the two could live side by side. I also realize that Israel has made peace with Jordan and Egypt and possibly working behind the scenes in some capacity with Syria. For me the sticking point is Jerusalem and I know for many Israeli's its the same thing. I also appreciate the fact that for Muslim's and not to mention the Arab Christian's Jerusalem is also critical.

I do believe that Hamas is a sticking point. Hamas continue's the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Israel which you have to have considering they represent a piece of the pie. If a govt refuses to recognize the neighbors right to exist in that land no agreement can be made. For Israel its difficult because you have to show strength and the image of not backing down and at the same time you cannot portray an image that negatively effects your message. I know I am rambling so I will stop.
 

Hamfam

Junior Member
But this is the point. There's so many complicated issues involved, that first of all, we need to kill off these outright wrong aspects; the expansions. That's how this came into this topic, that's the major point of this discussion.

We can't just have "oh, la dee da dah, yeah we'll talk about peace, meanwhile we'll just keep stealing your land, la dee dah"

The expansion and land stealing need to stop NOW. NOW, NOW NOW. Netanyahu is showing himself to be a unhanded and untrustworthy broker by allowing them to continue.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
I always chuckle whenever a conversation about Israel turns into a show of blind fielty. 'I'm a supporter of Israel' is such an empty individual statement. What other country do we have to continuously pledge affection for in the public domain? I'm a supporter of France? I'm a supporter of England?
 
scorcho said:
I always chuckle whenever a conversation about Israel turns into a show of blind fielty. 'I'm a supporter of Israel' is such an empty individual statement. What other country do we have to continuously pledge affection for in the public domain? I'm a supporter of France? I'm a supporter of England?
I'm a big supporter of Hungary and the Czech Republic, seriously. I just wish the issue wasn't so black and white with most people. It's either Pro Israel and Anti-Israel too often.
 
mAcOdIn said:
I think the main difference between Israel and the US is that all those people are still alive. We really haven't tolerated any land grabs in the last 50 years from industrialized nations. Further Israel never should have even been made, if people wanted to immigrate there and the locals were cool with it then fine but it never should have been carved up. I also question the need, not so much for a state that has a lot of Jews, but for a Jewish theocracy.

I see only two possible end game options for Israel, either they kill all the Palestinians and take all their land and get relative peace that way or Israel and Palestine merge and both groups are given equal rights and treatment, representation and all that jazz, going back to '67s borders isn't really a long term solution in my opinion.

Israel was a knee jerk reaction that never should have happened, the Jews in "Israel" at that time should have fought it out with the Palestinians there and whomever won won, but for foreign powers to carve it up and give one side weapons and shit just because in another part of their world their people were persecuted was idiotic.

Your understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is severely lacking. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict begins in earnest in 1919 at the conclusion of WWI, when continent-carving was still in vogue. The British handling of the "Palestinian Mandate" (a part of the former Ottoman Empire) made pretty much everyone hate them, and, until 1939, I feel that the Palestinians have a decent case for the lack of existence of a Jewish state in Palestine.


However, in 1939, the British attempted to wash their hands of the mess by effectively giving the Palestinians practically everything they want in the MacDonald White Paper. Hajj Amin Al-Husayni's rejection of the White Paper is a fantastic moment of hubris, a turning point that rivals the best of Shakespeare. Consider this: the White Paper is written six years after the Nazi party came to power in Germany. During those years, the steady institutionalization of Jewish repression in Germany effectively makes every Jew in Germany homeless (at best). The White Paper closes the doors to the one place promised as "The Jewish Homeland" at a time when the Jewish people desperately need a homeland. Hajj Amin Al-Husayni's rejection of the paper comes less than six months after Kristallnacht, as repression turns to violence. In four months time, Germany will invade Poland, putting the lives of 3.5 million Jews in immediate danger.

Despite this, Jews fight for the Allied cause during WWII ('We will fight the White Paper as if there is no war, and fight the war as if there is no White Paper.' -David Ben-Gurion). Meanwhile, Hajj Amin Al-Husayni makes minor diplomatic contact with Germany in anticipation of a German victory.

I believe that the events from 1919 to 1948 clearly show the necessity of a Jewish homeland. Israel is not a mistake.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Journeywalker said:
Your understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is severely lacking. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict begins in earnest in 1919 at the conclusion of WWI, when continent-carving was still in vogue. The British handling of the "Palestinian Mandate" (a part of the former Ottoman Empire) made pretty much everyone hate them, and, until 1939, I feel that the Palestinians have a decent case for the lack of existence of a Jewish state in Palestine.


However, in 1939, the British attempted to wash their hands of the mess by effectively giving the Palestinians practically everything they want in the MacDonald White Paper. Hajj Amin Al-Husayni's rejection of the White Paper is a fantastic moment of hubris, a turning point that rivals the best of Shakespeare. Consider this: the White Paper is written six years after the Nazi party came to power in Germany. During those years, the steady institutionalization of Jewish repression in Germany effectively makes every Jew in Germany homeless (at best). The White Paper closes the doors to the one place promised as "The Jewish Homeland" at a time when the Jewish people desperately need a homeland. Hajj Amin Al-Husayni's rejection of the paper comes less than six months after Kristallnacht, as repression turns to violence. In four months time, Germany will invade Poland, putting the lives of 3.5 million Jews in immediate danger.

Despite this, Jews fight for the Allied cause during WWII ('We will fight the White Paper as if there is no war, and fight the war as if there is no White Paper.' -David Ben-Gurion). Meanwhile, Hajj Amin Al-Husayni makes minor diplomatic contact with Germany in anticipation of a German victory.

I believe that the events from 1919 to 1948 clearly show the necessity of a Jewish homeland. Israel is not a mistake.
Maybe lacking but I'm aware of everything you've posted, I'm not trying to write a term paper. That's why I said the two groups there should have just fought between themselves, they didn't need anyone carving up shit for them. Oddly enough, had it went down like that we'd probably be hearing of Jewish terrorists in Israel since they seemed to adopt those tactics pretty well in the past.

I still think the concept hilarious, like carving up Spain if the Muslim population starts to get too big and it's not like there's not a historical argument to do so.
 
Journeywalker said:
...until 1939, I feel that the Palestinians have a decent case for the lack of existence of a Jewish state in Palestine.

However, in 1939, the British attempted to wash their hands of the mess by effectively giving the Palestinians practically everything they want in the MacDonald White Paper. Hajj Amin Al-Husayni's rejection of the White Paper is a fantastic moment of hubris, a turning point that rivals the best of Shakespeare. Consider this: the White Paper is written six years after the Nazi party came to power in Germany. During those years, the steady institutionalization of Jewish repression in Germany effectively makes every Jew in Germany homeless (at best). The White Paper closes the doors to the one place promised as "The Jewish Homeland" at a time when the Jewish people desperately need a homeland. Hajj Amin Al-Husayni's rejection of the paper comes less than six months after Kristallnacht, as repression turns to violence. In four months time, Germany will invade Poland, putting the lives of 3.5 million Jews in immediate danger.

I don't understand what principle is supposed to have compelled the Arab Higher Committee's acceptance of this proposal or how it was supposed to have given them "everything they want." (Why should Palestinians even have been placed in a position to need to accept or reject it, as opposed to, say, any other place in the world to which Jews had emigrated, including the US.)

Palestinians may have been better off had the proposal been accepted, but that their unforeseeable fortune was made worse by its rejection does not make its rejection wrong, immoral or anything else, so far as I can tell. It was highly inappropriate and irresponsible for the imperial powers to even endorse the idea of creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine or anywhere else. Arabs are supposed to accept joint rule imposed upon them by outside forces, but such rule is beneath Europeans or Americans?
 
PHOTOS Obama takes Brian Williams out for Mmm.....burgers.

Brian Williams is doing a special "day in the life of the Obama White House" will air next tues and wed nights I think.

610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg
 
mAcOdIn said:
Maybe lacking but I'm aware of everything you've posted, I'm not trying to write a term paper. That's why I said the two groups there should have just fought between themselves, they didn't need anyone carving up shit for them. Oddly enough, had it went down like that we'd probably be hearing of Jewish terrorists in Israel since they seemed to adopt those tactics pretty well in the past.

I still think the concept hilarious, like carving up Spain if the Muslim population starts to get too big and it's not like there's not a historical argument to do so.

I think your solution is beautiful in its simplicity. However, it's pointless in the same way as the question, "Wouldn't the world be better if Europe didn't colonize it?" In hindsight, letting the Ottoman Empire collapse and leaving the region to fend for itself seems like a wise choice, but the reality is that if England didn't screw up Palestine, France would have. I think the 1948 War, the 1967 War, and the Yom Kippur War give a pretty good indication of what a free-for-all would have looked like.

Umm, there were Jewish terrorists. See: King David Hotel Bombing, Irgun, Lehi.

scorcho said:
I always chuckle whenever a conversation about Israel turns into a show of blind fielty. 'I'm a supporter of Israel' is such an empty individual statement. What other country do we have to continuously pledge affection for in the public domain? I'm a supporter of France? I'm a supporter of England

People are passionate to defend Israel because its immediate neighbors only recognized its existence as a sovereign nation thirty years ago.

That said, while I unconditionally support Israel's right to exist, they've done plenty of shit following 1948 that I disagree with. Israel's efforts at peace through security have often sacrificed the former for the latter. However, without a Palestinian authority strong enough to stop the continued rocket attacks, Israel has nobody to broker a peace deal with.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Journeywalker said:
I think your solution is beautiful in its simplicity. However, it's pointless in the same way as the question, "Wouldn't the world be better if Europe didn't colonize it?" In hindsight, letting the Ottoman Empire collapse and leaving the region to fend for itself seems like a wise choice, but the reality is that if England didn't screw up Palestine, France would have. I think the 1948 War, the 1967 War, and the Yom Kippur War give a pretty good indication of what a free-for-all would have looked like.

Umm, there were Jewish terrorists. See: King David Hotel Bombing, Irgun, Lehi.
Sigh.

When I say "since they seemed to adopt those tactics pretty well in the past" in reference to Jewish terrorists that's meant to imply that I'm aware of their existence in the past, hence I couldn't have reference them otherwise, so I don't understand why you feel the need to educate me on that.

That said, you're right, it's easy to say "well if we only didn't do this or that" in hindsight and it doesn't mean shit now, I just hope we've learned from this.

I think the real truth is that had we left the borders alone and just left and let them work it out without picking a side no matter which side came out on top the chances of it being a movement that recruits people from around the world to bomb the West would be non existent. Maybe there'd be a Jewish State today, maybe not, I don't think it really matters. There's tons of ethnic and religious groups that don't have de facto homelands anymore, it's how things are.
 
mAcOdIn said:
When I say "since they seemed to adopt those tactics pretty well in the past" in reference to Jewish terrorists that's meant to imply that I'm aware of their existence in the past, hence I couldn't have reference them otherwise, so I don't understand why you feel the need to educate me on that.

My bad. I misinterpreted, "...we'd probably be hearing of Jewish terrorists in Israel."

Otherwise, I pretty much agree.

empty vessel said:
I don't understand what principle is supposed to have compelled the Arab Higher Committee's acceptance of this proposal or how it was supposed to have given them "everything they want." (Why should Palestinians even have been placed in a position to need to accept or reject it, as opposed to, say, any other place in the world to which Jews had emigrated, including the US.)

Don't assume that I'm defending the Mandate system. Britain/France's view of the rest of the world was completely racist and warped, but I think equating the US with the Ottoman Empire following WWI is a bit of an odd choice. The better comparison is between Palestine and the Eastern European nations created by the treaty of Versailles.

In practical terms, the White Paper promised a Palestinian state in 10 years with Jews as a minority party, strictly controlled immigration of Jews into Palestine, and indicated that restrictions would have to be made on how much land Jews could buy. You have to admit, those are pretty generous terms. Even if you think the offerer isn't legitimate, all you need to do is humor them until they leave.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Journeywalker said:
My bad. I misinterpreted, "...we'd probably be hearing of Jewish terrorists in Israel."

Otherwise, I pretty much agree.
Yeah, I guess it was worded odd. What I was thinking is that Israel or no, there'd still be Jews there and they'd still probably be fighting for their homeland, so lets say they officially "lost" the struggle against the Arabs there without western backing, they would probably be the ones blowing shit up in 2009 instead of Hamas. So it's possible that even had nothing been done by the West and we just washed our hands of it we might still be in relatively the same situation.

I understand why they thought it might work out, I think the concept of an international city was also pretty smart I just don't think people can share like that. In a way I liken it to Sri Lanka where both sides have a right to exist but more importantly, they have a right to exist without rockets blowing them up in their homes or buses blowing up, so if in the end it does come down to one side or another having to push the other into the sea, I guess that's something I've resigned myself to as a member of this imperfect species.

I just wished Israel would rip off the band aid, it's pretty clear from their actions that there'll never be a real peace with them, they are going to take all the land, the least they could do is man up to it in my opinion and start looking for places for them to go instead of stringing those people along pretending there's a way they'll ease off if they'll just meet some moving goal post demands.

The problem with that of course seems to be that despite what Arab nations say they're not really the Palestinians best friends either and I don't know if there's a country that will take them.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
scorcho said:
I always chuckle whenever a conversation about Israel turns into a show of blind fielty. 'I'm a supporter of Israel' is such an empty individual statement. What other country do we have to continuously pledge affection for in the public domain? I'm a supporter of France? I'm a supporter of England?

The United States of America! Ha!

Seriously folks, I think there are two things going on here.

One, Israel's got that whole existential thing. Everyone takes for granted that France and the UK are going to be around and full of recognizably French and British people respectively. Israel, in the minds of many of its supporters, is nowhere near as securely fixed. To them, its permanence is a matter of daily struggle*.

I think if you looked at other situations where there were competing claims on land and issues of self-determination. "I support a united X." "I am a friend of the people of Y in their struggle for an independent state." Many US politicians paid lip service to Taiwan as the rightful government of China back in the day, and Decent Leftists (think Hitchens) made a big deal of referring to Kurdistan as its own political entity.


Second, AIPAC and friend have done a really good job. They put pressure on elected officials which just hasn't been balanced by a Palestinian lobby over the last few decades.

For most Congresspersons, a generic statement of support for Israel has no downside, while criticism carries big risks. Unqualified support for Israeli policy may be a long-term negative for the US, but short-term for individual politicians, it's a no-brainer.





*I think Israel is pretty much established as a political fact and that a lot of Israelis and their allies have been slow to adjust to this fact. Not that I can blame them (historical memory yadda yadda) but I think it would be easier to move things along if they realized how strong and stable their position is now.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
I should've also added if I read another note about Israel's 'existential threat' I'll punch someone. Besides having US political, financial and military support, they have the most advanced military in the region and nuclear deterrence! They can ably handle their own security in the real world, which no longer includes the fear that every ME country will gang up and invade en masse. The last two administrations treated this canard as fact, enabling Israel's aggressive behavior and essentially allowing them to dictate the terms of the relationship (though Clinton was better than 43 in this regard).

Which is why I'm glad that Obama appears to be holding a firmer line on settlements and the two-state solution. I just wish he didn't have to continually play the empty rhetoric that AIPAC helped put in place.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
i think some of you don't really understand the situation in the palestinian territory at the time of israel's creation. you guys are talking as if there were absolutely no jews there. yes, there were more muslims in the area than jews, but there were still a significant number jews in the area.. also, when you look at the partition plan, it may look like the jews got the most land, but most of that land is actually pure desert.

oh, and speaking about jerusalem.. while i agree with an international city (seems like the only way to have true peace).. it has had a majority jewish population since 1910.. and most likely even before then as well

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=000636#graph2

just some things to keep in mind.
 
As long as there is a popular notion that "Israel never should have even been made," and people that hold this belief continue to violently attack via rockets and bombs, I don't think the existential fear is totally unfounded. Israel's existence as a state may be secure, but that's a pretty empty victory when your neighbors are firing rockets at you on a daily basis.

When it comes to US policy in the region, I agree with Obama's firm stance on settlements. Israel and Palestine need to know that when we say "No more settlements," we mean "No more settlements." During the Clinton years, there was an implicit asterisk attached to these statements; I'm glad Obama has discarded it.
 

APF

Member
Bush-Clinton Policy Talk Strikes a Congenial Tone

TORONTO — Former President Bill Clinton really misses the presidency. “All of a sudden nobody plays a song,” he told an audience here on Friday, referring to “Hail to the Chief,” the anthem played at presidential events.

Former President George W. Bush hardly misses it at all. “Free at last,” he proclaimed before the same crowd at the Metro Toronto Convention Center. “I like being in Texas, and I do not miss the spotlight.”

But that was practically where the differences stopped as the two former presidents appeared for the first time on a stage together to discuss national and international policy. Each earned more than an estimated $150,000 for the appearance.

Some 6,000 people — or their corporate employers — paid from $200 to $2,500 to attend the event, a rare chance to see two former presidents, who served in succession, square off from opposite sides of the political spectrum.

What they got instead, while no less historic, was a glimpse of the strange-bedfellows-for-the-moment friendship between the two men, once bitter rivals.

Mr. Clinton made it clear from the start that he would avoid any major clashes with Mr. Bush, telling the crowd that the agreed-upon moderator, Frank McKenna, the former Canadian ambassador to the United States, would try to meet their expectations by turning the convention hall into a gladiators’ coliseum, but “we’ll do our best to thwart them.”

And as they settled into overstuffed chairs, Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton became something of an ex-presidents’ support group, avoiding direct critiques of each other, or, for that matter, their future club member, President Obama (“I want you to understand that anything I say is not to be critical of my successor,” Mr. Bush said, “there are plenty of critics in American society.”)

When Mr. Clinton said one of his biggest regrets was the lack of United States action during the mass killings in Rwanda, saying “I have no defense,” Mr. Bush responded, “I think you’re being a little tough on yourself.” He added that Mr. Clinton’s lament that he should have sent troops ignored the fact that such deployments are not so simply done.

When Mr. Bush, in response to a question from Mr. McKenna — who shared his question topics with the former presidents beforehand — defended his policy toward the Darfur region of Sudan, Mr. Clinton got his back, in return. “I think he did about all he could do,” he said.

When Mr. McKenna raised the issue of Mr. Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy dealing with gay men and lesbians in the military, Mr. Bush said, “President Clinton handled it the right way.”

Mr. Clinton, however, said he no longer supported the policy and said his views on same-sex marriage, which he has opposed, were evolving.

And the two men had slightly different views on the trade embargo on Cuba. Mr. Bush made clear, gently, that he is less open to the opening of relations than Mr. Obama, and Mr. Clinton said he wanted to believe better relations were possible, joking that his view was “more like that of the current secretary of state,” his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

If there was anything that even bordered on a sharp exchange, it was the discussion over Iraq.

Mr. Clinton said he would have preferred for Mr. Bush to have given weapons inspectors more time in Iraq before invading and, in the meantime, “concentrated on Afghanistan.”

Mr. Bush said, with a hint of irritation, “I don’t buy the premise that our attention was distracted,” a rejection of the argument that the Iraq war came at the expense of progress in Afghanistan. Neither war was popular with the hundreds of protesters outside the center, though most of their vitriol was directed at Mr. Bush.

Afterward, even audience members who said they were awed by the experience of watching two former United States presidents on stage at the same time expressed surprise at the level of congeniality.

Indeed, though rarely reported upon, relations between the two men had begun to thaw significantly midway through Mr. Bush’s second term, after Mr. Bush teamed up Mr. Clinton and his father, the first President George Bush, on relief efforts after the tsunami in Asia and then, Hurricane Katrina.

Aides to Mr. Bush said he warmed to Mr. Clinton as his predecessor formed an affectionate bond with his father.

Mr. Clinton, meanwhile, offered frequent advice, sneaking into the White House for a secret lunch as early as 2007 to discuss Mr. Bush’s postpresidential plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/us/politics/30bush.html
 
Journeywalker said:
Don't assume that I'm defending the Mandate system. Britain/France's view of the rest of the world was completely racist and warped, but I think equating the US with the Ottoman Empire following WWI is a bit of an odd choice. The better comparison is between Palestine and the Eastern European nations created by the treaty of Versailles.

It's not a better comparison for the point I'm making, which is that Palestinians--a population itself struggling for independence from colonial powers--had this imposed on them because of their relative powerlessness, and that this isn't really a fair or principled basis for shifting alliances or sympathies, in my opinion. You wouldn't have faulted the US, for example, for rejecting a proposal that part of New York be designated for "joint rule."

Journeywalker said:
In practical terms, the White Paper promised a Palestinian state in 10 years with Jews as a minority party, strictly controlled immigration of Jews into Palestine, and indicated that restrictions would have to be made on how much land Jews could buy. You have to admit, those are pretty generous terms. Even if you think the offerer isn't legitimate, all you need to do is humor them until they leave.

I don't think that's necessarily true (about humoring them until they leave, which they would not have done). Hindsight is 20/20, and the Palestinians may--and I stress may--have been better off had they accepted it, but there are things you are not taking into account, especially considerations of good faith, i.e., on the part of the imperial powers as well as the Jewish population (whose desire for a homeland right there in Palestine was well known). And, again, given the overriding issue about why Palestinians (as opposed to anybody else in the world) were put to this choice, I don't fault its rejection.
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
I've been trying to post a new thread about The Young Conservatives' rap video, but frankly, I'm lost for words. This is seriously awkward.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8

Serious C:
I rep the northeast, and I'm still a young con
Let your voice release, you don't have to be Obamatrons
I debate any poser who don't shoot straight
The government spending needs to deflate
Ya ideas are lightweight,
ya careers in checkmate
I frustrate. I increase the pulse rate
I hate when, government dictatin', makin'
statements, 'bout how to be a merchant,
How to run a restaurant, how to lay the pavement
Bail out a business, but can't protect an infant
Deficiencies are blatant, young con treatment

I stand one man,
outnumbered at my college
Thank you Miss Cali for reminding us of marriage
Can't support abortion, and call yourself a Christian
I support life, you're a puzzled politician
Terrorists were imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay,
and now they're in our neighborhoods, planning out doomsday
No such thing as utopia, no government can control ya, baby ya,
Reap the benefits hard work and self reliant
Listen to Stiltz, my dude's a lyrical giant

Stiltz:
I'm 6'9" head and shoulder above the rest
Liberals playin' checkers, I'm playin' chess
My conservative view is drill baby drill
You can say you hate me but
I'm praying for you still
My dislike for thee mosdef is not hyperbole
Taxes are the subject and I will spit them verbally
I'm just livin' life a conservative philosophy
Sorry Hilary not a right wing conspiracy
We need more women with intellectual integrity
I'm talkin Megyn Kelly not Nancy Pelosi
My main motto is you best work hard
It's not the hand you were given,
but how you lay down ur cards
I don't speak lies but I spit the facts
28% the new capital gains tax
Porkulus bill lacks a few stats
The more money we spend, the more mine is worth Jack
The Bible says we're a people under God,
Usin' radar for radical Jihad
AIG was hooked up by Chris Dodd
A classy gift ain't an Ipod
The standards of my crew ain't republicans dude
I'm reppin' Jesus Christ and conservative views
Study history and true conservative moves
Every single time they refuse to lose
I am starting to see a modern day Jimmy Carter
When really nothin' but a Reagan era starter

Serious C:
Yo, We Americans son
Hit ya with some knowledge
The movement has begun
Everyone can succeed
Because our soldiers bleed for us
I said it in the verse,
now I'll say it in the chorus

Stiltz:
We young conservatives son
Hard work is our motto
The movement has begun
EVERYONE can succeed cause our soldiers bleed, daily
My views are rock solid, no chance you can break me

Serious C:
Phase me, make me, into something that ain't me
Serious C can't nobody shake me
great like the Gatsby, poppin posers like acne
Don't matter if your gay, straight, Christian, Muslim
There's one thing we all hate, its called socialism.
It's loathsome, and America ain't the outcome,
Raise taxes on the people, ya gonna
feel symptoms, problems
I gotta message for a young con:
superman that socialism and waterboard that terrorism

Stiltz:
I fulfill the role that's inherently mine
Teaching politics through my rap and my rhyme
I'm signing off this track with a question in mind
How will this country get its precious change in time?
Three things taught me conservative love
Jesus, Ronald Reagan, plus Atlas Shrugged
Savin' our nation from inflation devastation
On my hands and my knees prayin for salvation

Serious C:
Yo, We Americans son
Hit ya with some knowledge
The movement has begun
Everyone can succeed
Because our soldiers bleed for us
I said it in the verse,
now I'll say it in the chorus

Stiltz:
We young conservatives son
Hard work is our motto
The movement has begun
EVERYONE can succeed cause our soldiers bleed, daily
My views are rock solid, no chance you can break me.
 
empty vessel said:
It's not a better comparison for the point I'm making, which is that Palestinians--a population itself struggling for independence from colonial powers--had this imposed on them because of their relative powerlessness, and that this isn't really a fair or principled basis for shifting alliances or sympathies, in my opinion. You wouldn't have faulted the US, for example, for rejecting a proposal that part of New York be designated for "joint rule."

Maybe not "better," but certainly more reasonable. You are equating the role of a victor in WWI to that of a district within a failed empire on the losing side of the War to End All Wars. If you honestly don't see the difference between those roles, there's no point to continue.

empty vessel said:
I don't think that's necessarily true (about humoring them until they leave, which they would not have done). Hindsight is 20/20, and the Palestinians may--and I stress may--have been better off had they accepted it, but there are things you are not taking into account, especially considerations of good faith, i.e., on the part of the imperial powers as well as the Jewish population (whose desire for a homeland right there in Palestine was well known). And, again, given the overriding issue about why Palestinians (as opposed to anybody else in the world) were put to this choice, I don't fault its rejection.

I think the fact that the British left when they promised they would (1948) counters the assertion that leaving is something "they would not have done." I discount considerations of good faith because they are symmetric. Every party had ligitimate reasons to distrust the other parties. It is bald favoritism to only consider the good faith (or lack thereof) of two of the parties.

You ask, "Why Palestine?" as if the events and people of history are index cards. The problem is self-evident. There are two groups of people living in the same area. They both claim a right to independently rule the area.
 
Mr. Clinton made it clear from the start that he would avoid any major clashes with Mr. Bush, telling the crowd that the agreed-upon moderator, Frank McKenna, the former Canadian ambassador to the United States, would try to meet their expectations by turning the convention hall into a gladiators’ coliseum, but “we’ll do our best to thwart them.”


Awww. Why not? Clinton should've pushed his domestic accomplishments right in Bush's face.
 

Hootie

Member
Deus Ex Machina said:
PHOTOS Obama takes Brian Williams out for Mmm.....burgers.

Brian Williams is doing a special "day in the life of the Obama White House" will air next tues and wed nights I think.
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0eVMfyib6X2f9/610x.jpg[IMG]
[IMG]http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02224bz060fk8/610x.jpg[IMG]
[IMG]http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/032Kf5Q1oOe07/610x.jpg[MG]
[IMG]http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08DQ5dr2vH0Bl/610x.jpg[IMG]
[IMG]http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/03EN5jn34Y6BL/610x.jpg[IMG]
[IMG]http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/03Rq67o5SAgzx/610x.jpg[IMG]
[IMG]http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0gP69NUfjA9Ns/610x.jpg[IMG]
[IMG]http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bed9KR6ei5eH/610x.jpg[IMG]
[IMG]http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/01bGc478bvgfF/610x.jpg[IMG]
[IMG]http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/01Nb2C74YA1l4/610x.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]

As epic as this stuff is, I can't help but feel bad for the guy. I mean, he will NEVER again be able to just walk into a store or restaurant and just be a normal person. Of course, he has the advantage of being the most powerful and most protected man on the face of the earth, but still....
 

NetMapel

Guilty White Male Mods Gave Me This Tag
One Canadian's comment on CTV's website is "Clinton is such a bad president that they elected Bush twice." :lol :lol :lol I don't know why, but I found that comment to be very funny.
 
PantherLotus said:
Newt Doubles Down: Sotomayor Worldview 'Un-American'

gingrich-confused-529-490.jpg


Gingrich Digs In On Sotomayor-Bashing
By Eric Kleefeld - May 29, 2009, 4:31PM
Newt Gingrich does not seem to be deterred by the new message of the Republican leadership, such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), that he and Rush Limbaugh should stop calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist.

Gingrich has now sent out a fundraising e-mail, asking for help to send blast faxes to every member of the Senate demanding that the Sotomayor nomination be defeated. He even says that she shouldn't even get a vote in the Senate, but should just have to withdraw.

Gingrich warns that all of American civilization is at stake here. "If Civil War, suffrage, and Civil Rights are to mean anything, we cannot accept that conclusion," he writes. "It is simply un-American. There is no room on the bench of the United States Supreme Court for this worldview."

###​


Wow. He's really spending his chips here isn't he?

At this point, I think Limbaugh & Gingrinch really just don't care about the GOP . . . they just care about themselves. And they are out to sell books, public speaking gigs, radio ratings, etc. For them getting 20% of the American public doesn't mean they will lose elections, it means a massive audience of far-right people for their wares.

I means seriously . . . they are bashing a latino justice with top of the class from an Ivy league school credentials that was originally nominated by George HW Bush. This is a lose-lose issue for the GOP. She is going to be approved and this hard-right bashing will just alienate latinos (who are the largest and growing minority) from the GOP and alienate centrists due to the ridiculous over-statements of the right (latino KKK? Really?).
 
LovingSteam said:
I do believe that Hamas is a sticking point. Hamas continue's the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Israel which you have to have considering they represent a piece of the pie. If a govt refuses to recognize the neighbors right to exist in that land no agreement can be made. For Israel its difficult because you have to show strength and the image of not backing down and at the same time you cannot portray an image that negatively effects your message. I know I am rambling so I will stop.

So what do you think of the fact that Israel's current leading party, the Likud, refuses to recognize any Palestinian state at all? They say the Jordan River is Israel's eastern border, period. Is that any different?

The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.
http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

As you say . . . If a govt refuses to recognize the neighbors right to exist in that land no agreement can be made.
 
NetMapel said:
One Canadian's comment on CTV's website is "Clinton is such a bad president that they elected Bush twice." :lol :lol :lol I don't know why, but I found that comment to be very funny.

Just as funny as Republicans saying Clinton inherited an awesome economy from Reagan. :lol
 
speculawyer said:
At this point, I think Limbaugh & Gingrinch really just don't care about the GOP . . . they just care about themselves.

Limbaugh has never cared about the GOP. Newt probably hasn't since they tarred and feathered him and ran him out of town.
 
speculawyer said:
At this point, I think Limbaugh & Gingrinch really just don't care about the GOP . . . they just care about themselves. And they are out to sell books, public speaking gigs, radio ratings, etc. For them getting 20% of the American public doesn't mean they will lose elections, it means a massive audience of far-right people for their wares.

I means seriously . . . they are bashing a latino justice with top of the class from an Ivy league school credentials that was originally nominated by George HW Bush. This is a lose-lose issue for the GOP. She is going to be approved and this hard-right bashing will just alienate latinos (who are the largest and growing minority) from the GOP and alienate centrists due to the ridiculous over-statements of the right (latino KKK? Really?).

I don't think Limbaugh cares about the health of the party; the more it struggles, the more he remains a prominent voice.

Gingrich...I don't know if he really wants to be president, or just likes attention. He probably thinks that what he's doing is working, which makes it even more comical.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
scorcho said:
Not sure if this has been posted, but a very candid interview with former Ambassador Indyk. Gets into Clinton's failed ME peace efforts, Bibi's lost Washington influence and Syria's role in the process.


Martin Indyk said:
That is why I say that Netanyahu will reach an agreement with Syria. The left wing will be with him because of the agreement, and as a right wing leader he will enjoy the support of the right wing.

Netanyahu negotiated with Assad. Once again, behind our backs. He made more progress than Rabin and Peres. Assad calculated—like his son now—that Netanyahu could pass an agreement that the left wing would find it difficult to pass. That is the irony of the Middle East.

That's basically the same dynamic I'm talking about where Ahmadinejad's re-election might give the US a better shot at negotiating a peace. It's dependent on him actually wanting to negotiate, natch.
 
speculawyer said:
At this point, I think Limbaugh & Gingrinch really just don't care about the GOP . . . they just care about themselves. And they are out to sell books, public speaking gigs, radio ratings, etc. For them getting 20% of the American public doesn't mean they will lose elections, it means a massive audience of far-right people for their wares.

Limbaugh and Gingrich don't care about the "GOP". They care about a particular version of conservatism that gives them great power and sway among the base of that party. The GOP is a tool that is only useful as along as it aligns with that particular ideology. A moderate or inclusive version of the GOP is something they are vehemently against.
 
cjdunn said:
Clinton's need for acceptance is bordering on pathological.

While on a separate level I actually agree with you those events aren't the place to have in your face confrontations and Clinton has always been pretty consistent with his non-combative stance. He only gets heated if he feels he is being unfairly attacked.
 
Hootie said:
As epic as this stuff is, I can't help but feel bad for the guy. I mean, he will NEVER again be able to just walk into a store or restaurant and just be a normal person. Of course, he has the advantage of being the most powerful and most protected man on the face of the earth, but still....
Showing up unannounced is the best way to foul any opportunist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom