First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
War criminals are becoming The Arbiturs of Law
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 10/30/09 , edited 10/30/09
Very powerfull hard hitting article from a wise American. I posted many articles by this guy but I would like to share this with you guys. We really have to be aware of what is really going on and all the lies put out there to protect war criminals from getting in trouble. Just because someone is a certain race, religion, or gender doesn't mean they are granted immunity for their crimes.

War Criminals Are Becoming The Arbiters Of Law

By Paul Craig Roberts

October 12, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- The double standard under which the Israeli government operates is too much for everyone except the brainwashed Americans. Even the very Israeli Jerusalem Post can see the double standard displayed by “all of Israel now speaking in one voice against the Goldstone report”:

This is the Israeli notion of a fair deal: We’re entitled to do whatever the hell we want to the Palestinians because, by definition, whatever we do to them is self-defense. They, however, are not entitled to lift a finger against us because, by definition, whatever they do to us is terrorism.

“That’s the way it’s always been, that’s the way it was in Operation Cast Lead.

“And there are no limits on our right to self-defense. There is no such thing as ‘disproportionate.’

“We can deliberately destroy thousands of Gazan homes, the Gazan parliament, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, courthouses, the only Gazan flour plant, the main poultry farm, a sewage treatment plant, water wells and God knows what else.

“Deliberately.

“Why? Because we’re better than them. Because we’re a democracy and they’re a bunch of Islamo-fascists. Because ours is a culture of life and theirs is a culture of death. Because they’re out to destroy us and all we are saying is give peace a chance.

“The Goldstones of the world call this hypocrisy, a double standard. How dare they! Around here, we call it moral clarity.”

A person would never read such as this in the New York Times or Washington Post or hear it from any US news source. Unlike Israeli newspapers, the US media is a complete mouthpiece for the Israel Lobby. Never a critical word is heard.

This will be even more the case now that the Israel Lobby, after years of effort, has succeeded in repealing the First Amendment by having the Hate Crime Bill attached to the recently passed military appropriations bill. This is the way the syllogism works:

It is anti-semitic to criticize Israel. Anti-semitism is a hate crime. Therefore, to criticize Israel is a hate crime.

As the Jerusalem Post notes, this syllogism has “moral clarity.”

Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations, John Sawers, stepped into the hate crime arena when he told Israel Army radio that the Goldstone report on Israel’s military assault on Gaza contains “some very serious details which need to be investigated.” A year from now when the Anti-Defamation League has its phalanx of US Department of Justice (sic) prosecutors in place, Sawers would be seized and placed on trial. Diplomatic immunity means nothing to the US, which routinely invades other countries, executes their leaders or sends them to the Hague for trial as war criminals.

In the meantime, however, the Israeli government put Sawers and the UK government on notice that British support for the Goldstone Report would result in the destruction of the double standard that protects the West and Israel and create a precedent that would place the British in the dock for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“London,” declared the Israeli government, “could find itself in handcuffs if it supports the document [the Goldstone report].”

Once the DOJ’s hate crime unit us up and running, “self-hating Jews,” such as leaders of the Israeli peace movement and Haaretz and Jerusalem Post journalists, can expect to be indicted for anti-semitic hate crimes in US courts.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/30/09 , edited 10/30/09
Don’t you have any original material, or is your anti-Israeli political activism entirely limited to mass borrowings of propaganda? I actually got my hopes up when I saw the title because I’ve been considering the very same topic. Consider that Zimbabwe is a member of the United Nations Human Rights Watch despite an abhorrent record.

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

As far as the propagandist’s criticism, plenty of nations outlaw hate speech. Plenty of people in Israel criticize Israel everyday without any problem.

Khaled Abu Toameh, for example, has repeatedly spoken out against Israel’s occupation and military actions. A Westbank born Palestinian he was a senior reporter for al-Fajir, the PLO’s media front. Khaled says that working for a Palestinian ‘news’ source made him feel threatened and says that several of his peers were attacked or harassed for their stories. He was told what to write, most of it anti-Israel propaganda. Lucky for him, he was born in Westbank so he was considered and Israeli. Khaled now works for the Jerusalem posts and says, quote:


Yet in two years at the Jerusalem Post my editors have never told me what to write. I can function as a journalist at the Jerusalem Post in a way that many Palestinians have tried to function under Arafat, but have failed


Blocking hate speech doesn’t negate free speech. People have a right to go around without being verbally assaulted. That’s not something your precious Norman Finkelstein can handle. I know, I know. Israel, America, Harvard, and every scholar who ever disagreed with him or expressed a negative opinion of his political activism are just Zionists. All Zionists are racist against the Arabs so of course they’ll hate Norman Finkelstein. It’s one vast conspiracy. Norman Finkelstein’s failure as a legitimate scholar has nothing to do with his harassing students, being an arrogant prick, or his academic dishonesty.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 10/30/09 , edited 10/30/09
Ok I am back sorry had a lot of shit to do today. Dude after reading what you typed what are you trying to get at and how does that pertain to the topic at all? Why are you telling me about a palestinian posting on Jerusalem post? Is the article saying anyone in Israel cant criticize that country.? DID i not show you on numeroeus threads on numerous occasions articles in Hareetz supporting my points? Dude seriously if you dont like what I post and going to cry about it then gtfo my goodness I am tired of bumping heads with you everytime someone talks about your favorite country. I can gaurentee 100% is this article was in favor of Israel you would agree with me. You call things bullshit but dont elaborate and you prove nothing. Just like you did on the zeigest thread you prove nothing at all but just try to play into the crowd calling everything bs. Just what in this article is not true to the current situation? Israel killed 1300 civilians half of them children during Operation Cast lead and Goldstone who is a south african Jew mind you was going to try Israel for war crimes. Imagine a Jew trying Israel the home of Jews for warcrimes. Instead of addressing this issue you spiral off topic talking about a Palestinian reporter. This article criticizes how in America there is no criticism of Israel in our media.

What do you think about Goldstone report? If you have no answer and going to bitch and moan when someone makes a thread criticizing Israel despites the hundreds of threads you made talking about arabs and Palestinians. Grow up I am tired of having to argue with you all the time. Everytime you respond to me it is in some form of attack. If I am not here then you would talk about me behind my back to someone else. Thing is I hate getting into these discussions with you because I still do hold some respect for you for making this forums interesting with your topics. You talk about Normand Finkelstine but dont prove why he is a failed scholar. Just what is he saying is false? Is he a failed scholar because he is a Jew who doesnt support Israel so instead of thinking of some racist name to call him which you cant now he just fails altogether?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 10/31/09
We already know all about the US government's strong ties with Israel and how they're reflected in the media and people. It's not really anything new. Great scholars like Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappé and Noam Chomsky are probably considered to be hateful anti-Semites by alot of people, despite the fact that they're all Jews. That's how bad it is. I doubt the bill you're talking about is as ridiculous as the article puts it, because there are lots of credible people criticizing Israel (like those 3 scholars), I don't think they can all be thrown in jail.

Israel commits war crimes, tortures, enforces apartheid, is ridiculously oppressive, all which means it has no regard for the Geneva conventions or any international law, and yet the US government and media are still fully supportive of it. But the US itself is much worse than Israel when it comes to the Geneva conventions, international law, war crimes, and just generally being a destructive force in the world. So obviously it's not surprising a country like the US is so supportive of a country like Israel. It's the mentalities of the (properly-informed) people in the US who are so supportive of Israel that really blow my mind. The US has its own war criminals that are never going to pay for their crimes, so it's not really surprising that the Israeli ones are being protected.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly why and how Israel has such control of US media and government. Why has the US been so interested in Israel?

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_17.shtml

It's been the top recipient of US aid since 1967, and has been given the most since WW2? And alot of it is military aid. Maybe the US just wants a strong ally in the Middle East? Even if it did, it's still a ridiculous amount of aid and support, and the reason why the media can't criticize Israel still isn't explained by that.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/31/09

drizza wrote:

Ok I am back sorry had a lot of shit to do today. Dude after reading what you typed what are you trying to get at and how does that pertain to the topic at all? Why are you telling me about a palestinian posting on Jerusalem post? Is the article saying anyone in Israel cant criticize that country.? DID i not show you on numeroeus threads on numerous occasions articles in Hareetz supporting my points? Dude seriously if you dont like what I post and going to cry about it then gtfo my goodness I am tired of bumping heads with you everytime someone talks about your favorite country. I can gaurentee 100% is this article was in favor of Israel you would agree with me. You call things bullshit but dont elaborate and you prove nothing. Just like you did on the zeigest thread you prove nothing at all but just try to play into the crowd calling everything bs. Just what in this article is not true to the current situation? Israel killed 1300 civilians half of them children during Operation Cast lead and Goldstone who is a south african Jew mind you was going to try Israel for war crimes. Imagine a Jew trying Israel the home of Jews for warcrimes. Instead of addressing this issue you spiral off topic talking about a Palestinian reporter. This article criticizes how in America there is no criticism of Israel in our media.

What do you think about Goldstone report? If you have no answer and going to bitch and moan when someone makes a thread criticizing Israel despites the hundreds of threads you made talking about arabs and Palestinians. Grow up I am tired of having to argue with you all the time. Everytime you respond to me it is in some form of attack. If I am not here then you would talk about me behind my back to someone else. Thing is I hate getting into these discussions with you because I still do hold some respect for you for making this forums interesting with your topics. You talk about Normand Finkelstine but dont prove why he is a failed scholar. Just what is he saying is false? Is he a failed scholar because he is a Jew who doesnt support Israel so instead of thinking of some racist name to call him which you cant now he just fails altogether?


Eep, touchy much? I don’t know where you get this delusion that I’m 100% pro-Israel. In fact, Digs and I frequently bump heads over MSN because whenever we discuss this topic I frequently criticize Israel quite harshly. As far as Norman Finkelstein, have you ever even read any of his books? Well, that’s a completely different topic.

I don’t agree with everything that’s pro-Israel. I’ve criticized pro-Israel articles on Crunchy Roll before. I’ve even criticized pro-Israel propaganda while talking to you specifically. But that’s exactly why I’ve abandoned all tact when talking with you. Because you only ever seem to see what you want to see.

I mean, like your comment in this very post about the Zeitgeist discussion. Aside from the fact that Ansar literally cited an article from a website about crop circles to prove that Chertoff’s mother was a super secret agent, not just a secret agent but Israel’s FIRST, I actually did respond to his arguments with arguments and contradicting sources. In fact, you acknowledge that in the thread:


I am still swaying on his side although your info seems credible


I didn’t just call anything bull shit. I demonstrated many things to be bullshit with arguments as well as sources, and you just didn’t want to accept them.

Drizza, seriously, sometimes I can’t figure out how your brain operates. I mean, during the elections you actually argued about people pointing out Obama’s Muslim heritage to say that we shouldn’t elect him. Yet, Ansar says that because Chertoff is a Jew and his father an Israeli Chertoff is therefore suspicious and that’s completely different. It’s prejudice to profile Muslims but not Jews? Hell, it’s MORE prejudice to stereotype somebody based on race than religion since religion is something you actually adopt of your own volition while race is a hereditary condition.

But whenever I would refute, and if you read it I refuted his evidence, statistics, and ‘arguments,’ many times, he simply shuffled around and then cycled back to the beginning.

I’m having a hard time bringing myself even to talk about this with you anymore. I don’t see how you could be swayed by Ansar’s argument unless you are prejudice against Jews. Just like saying, “This guy’s suspicious. Look, his father was an Iranian! His mother was a Muslim so she must’ve been in Al Qaeda and here’s a known, extroversive website about a Muslim takeover of the world to prove it,” wouldn’t convince you that Obama was betraying his nation.

And you can argue that I was generically defaulting his information based on faulty sources, but that was going back and forth between us. He did it just as much as I did, maybe more. And yet, whenever I decided to leave the nut in his shell, you praised him for his argument and called it a wonderful read.

Maybe I’ll come post some more, but I think perhaps we each need a cooling off moment. I need to collate my response and its Halloween. Happy that, by the way. I may come back through here and make a response.

Honestly though this is starting to appear more like a squabble between us than a debate so perhaps it’d be more apropos to address it via private messages. Maybe we’re both just need to explain ourselves to the other over a calmer conversation.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/31/09

Yei wrote:

We already know all about the US government's strong ties with Israel and how they're reflected in the media and people. It's not really anything new. Great scholars like Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappé and Noam Chomsky are probably considered to be hateful anti-Semites by alot of people, despite the fact that they're all Jews. That's how bad it is. I doubt the bill you're talking about is as ridiculous as the article puts it, because there are lots of credible people criticizing Israel (like those 3 scholars), I don't think they can all be thrown in jail.

Israel commits war crimes, tortures, enforces apartheid, is ridiculously oppressive, all which means it has no regard for the Geneva conventions or any international law, and yet the US government and media are still fully supportive of it. But the US itself is much worse than Israel when it comes to the Geneva conventions, international law, war crimes, and just generally being a destructive force in the world. So obviously it's not surprising a country like the US is so supportive of a country like Israel. It's the mentalities of the (properly-informed) people in the US who are so supportive of Israel that really blow my mind. The US has its own war criminals that are never going to pay for their crimes, so it's not really surprising that the Israeli ones are being protected.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly why and how Israel has such control of US media and government. Why has the US been so interested in Israel?

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_17.shtml

It's been the top recipient of US aid since 1967, and has been given the most since WW2? And alot of it is military aid. Maybe the US just wants a strong ally in the Middle East? Even if it did, it's still a ridiculous amount of aid and support, and the reason why the media can't criticize Israel still isn't explained by that.


Our interest in Israel began during the Cold War. Russia was going around and spreading communism and we wanted to isolate that. We responded by trying to spread democracy, and we had some success. Japan is the best example, I think. They were so dedicated to their Mikado that when they surrendered the only thing they asked for in return, their only condition, was that Hirohito stay in power. So, we agreed and then McArthur was placed in charge of Japan. In no time they became a prospering pro-western democracy and Hirohito lost power without being usurped. Since then they’ve prospered like never they had before. Russia also made some progress.

Russia tried to win over the Middle East for communism, it’s a strategic position. We tried to take over the Middle East for democracy, it has oil. We failed in every case except for Israel. Israel’s really a strategic ally against Russia. I said in another thread that I think the cold war is still being waged and that the Israeli-Arab conflict is actually a part of it, or at least related to it. I stand by that. I mean, it’s even in our literature. The Left Behind book features Israel experiencing a miraculous military triumph over Russia.

Indeed, in the Six Day War, Yom Kippur War, and virtually every Arab-Israeli war the United States has been pro-Israel and Russia pro-Arab.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 10/31/09 , edited 10/31/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

Our interest in Israel began during the Cold War. Russia was going around and spreading communism and we wanted to isolate that. We responded by trying to spread democracy, and we had some success. Japan is the best example, I think. They were so dedicated to their Mikado that when they surrendered the only thing they asked for in return, their only condition, was that Hirohito stay in power. So, we agreed and then McArthur was placed in charge of Japan. In no time they became a prospering pro-western democracy and Hirohito lost power without being usurped. Since then they’ve prospered like never they had before. Russia also made some progress.

Russia tried to win over the Middle East for communism, it’s a strategic position. We tried to take over the Middle East for democracy, it has oil. We failed in every case except for Israel. Israel’s really a strategic ally against Russia. I said in another thread that I think the cold war is still being waged and that the Israeli-Arab conflict is actually a part of it, or at least related to it. I stand by that. I mean, it’s even in our literature. The Left Behind book features Israel experiencing a miraculous military triumph over Russia.

Indeed, in the Six Day War, Yom Kippur War, and virtually every Arab-Israeli war the United States has been pro-Israel and Russia pro-Arab.


The US, trying to spread democracy? I can understand wanting Israel as an ally, and wanting to have influence in that important part of the world, but the US does not support democracy and it's actions in all those countries it meddled with after WW2 were probably not because it genuinely cared for and wanted to help those countries become democratic.

The US itself isn't really a democracy, so I don't know how it could be believable that it's interested in spreading it. Saying it wants to spread democracy is a nice front though, they said that after the war in Iraq started and no weapons of mass destruction were found, suddenly the whole point of the war was "oh, we just wanted to spread democracy to Iraq and the Middle East." It's just a front, and that's very important for you to keep in mind when thinking about the Cold War.
Posted 10/31/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:

We already know all about the US government's strong ties with Israel and how they're reflected in the media and people. It's not really anything new. Great scholars like Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappé and Noam Chomsky are probably considered to be hateful anti-Semites by alot of people, despite the fact that they're all Jews. That's how bad it is. I doubt the bill you're talking about is as ridiculous as the article puts it, because there are lots of credible people criticizing Israel (like those 3 scholars), I don't think they can all be thrown in jail.

Israel commits war crimes, tortures, enforces apartheid, is ridiculously oppressive, all which means it has no regard for the Geneva conventions or any international law, and yet the US government and media are still fully supportive of it. But the US itself is much worse than Israel when it comes to the Geneva conventions, international law, war crimes, and just generally being a destructive force in the world. So obviously it's not surprising a country like the US is so supportive of a country like Israel. It's the mentalities of the (properly-informed) people in the US who are so supportive of Israel that really blow my mind. The US has its own war criminals that are never going to pay for their crimes, so it's not really surprising that the Israeli ones are being protected.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly why and how Israel has such control of US media and government. Why has the US been so interested in Israel?

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_17.shtml

It's been the top recipient of US aid since 1967, and has been given the most since WW2? And alot of it is military aid. Maybe the US just wants a strong ally in the Middle East? Even if it did, it's still a ridiculous amount of aid and support, and the reason why the media can't criticize Israel still isn't explained by that.


Our interest in Israel began during the Cold War. Russia was going around and spreading communism and we wanted to isolate that. We responded by trying to spread democracy, and we had some success. Japan is the best example, I think. They were so dedicated to their Mikado that when they surrendered the only thing they asked for in return, their only condition, was that Hirohito stay in power. So, we agreed and then McArthur was placed in charge of Japan. In no time they became a prospering pro-western democracy and Hirohito lost power without being usurped. Since then they’ve prospered like never they had before. Russia also made some progress.

Russia tried to win over the Middle East for communism, it’s a strategic position. We tried to take over the Middle East for democracy, it has oil. We failed in every case except for Israel. Israel’s really a strategic ally against Russia. I said in another thread that I think the cold war is still being waged and that the Israeli-Arab conflict is actually a part of it, or at least related to it. I stand by that. I mean, it’s even in our literature. The Left Behind book features Israel experiencing a miraculous military triumph over Russia.

Indeed, in the Six Day War, Yom Kippur War, and virtually every Arab-Israeli war the United States has been pro-Israel and Russia pro-Arab.

The good old Sun Tzu's Art of War in diplomatic strategy; the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

However, I wished that strategists on both sides back then would've realized that that Sun Tzu's Art of War was more of a philosophy rather than actual strategy. For while "If you know both yourself and your enemy, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss", I would argue that when you know your enemy is just like yourself, you can win over everyone without a single conflict.

Stupid Iron Curtain is stupid.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/1/09
Interesting topic as always, about the stupidy of human beings. What I mean is about occupation because of political move not about religions.
Why?
People always using religions as a reason, motive and excuse to conducting their war. They feel like having rights to killing another people and thinking they will be blessed by their God for committing such inhuman acts, over and over again from past century. Whereas in religion teaching, there is no such order to kill innocent people just because we hate them. Moreover, just because their ancestors did very bad thing to our ancestors or they had' historical rights' doesn't mean we have rights to avenge our people. When any of us think that way, you don't have any rights to live in this world, because you're no longer humans. May God reminds us what kind of tragedies we've been made day by day in another world. 'Reap what you sow'

I can't believe people still have prejudices, sentiments and biased when it comes to religions. People thinks Israel represents Jews, Al-Qaeda is a movement based on Islamic teaching when if fact, both of them can only doing things of brutality and made tragedies of tragedies in mankind's history while it's supposed to be a place for us living peacefully without discrimination among us. When we hate what Israel doing, we're being called anti-semitic. When we hate what US doing, we're being called communist. When we hate Islam teaching, we're being called Islamphobia.
There's no such thing, the time we're being prejudice, the more we're lost our way to understand and to love other people. Sadly, this is the most exact time, we're in the most condition to solve everything with blood.

From youtube:
A group of Orthodox Jews protesting against Zionism, Israel, and AIPAC outside the annual conference of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)
You will find related videos that condemn terrorist act, occupation and killing innocent people from Muslims, Jews, Christian and all people on the world. That's why, what Al-Qaeda, Israel(occupation) and US occupation(Bush's regime) cannot be a representative of its people. We have to know this clearly, so we won't harm people without fully knowing them.

All people around the world always wanted a peace, eternal peace since we're exist until we're extinct. People fighting over here and there, past and future always have motive that brings benefit to itself, not other people. That's why, we shouldn't condemn them because of their belief, but because of their act. We have to be united, as people who worship God of peace and merciful to against people who've been wearing mask to giving religions bad name. Isn't that very reasons why religions exist? To seek peace of ourselves and the world.

I am just a mere child, who gradually losing faith to humanity and her only wish is a slice of peace.
Not only me, people of the world who don't have power to do it, composed their souls and they flowing air with their voice.

Currently, I can't be online to often since my big brother was in hospital due to his serious illness that could send his lives to Almighty God and leaving this pathetic world forever. That's why, as his little sister, I request your prayer to the ones considered themselves as religious people here and also to people that holds any belief, even to Atheist. However, I could promised to you, I will reply in this thread and to another thread as well even if the worst situation happens. This is the place I can express my voice and sharing opinions before I do the 'real act' to the world.

Isn't this the very reason why human exist? For helping others, for providing your shoulders to weak people, for living in happiness and promoting Eternal Peace. We're not in animal kingdom, whereas more numbers more strength, more strength more rights, more rights more greed, more greed more destruction. If you are in the more strength side and can't agree with my wish for peace and still having prejudice and negative sentiments, you are more than welcome to disagree and debate it with me. But you always have my peace and love whenever you're willing to embrace the world.

Peace be upon you forever.
We are exist together and will be extinct together. Light and Darkness within human beings.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 11/1/09 , edited 11/1/09
Ok Seraph now that the fued is over the main reason why I posted this and the authors main gripe was is the Goldstone Report. I will explain in more detail when I have time (gotta focus on my school). But a brief summary was a South African Judge by the name of Richard Goldstone who is a Jew (it is important to note he is a jew to show there is no antisemitism or bias against Jews/Israel going on here). In the lastest Pal/Israel conflict Israel killed 1300 civilians and half of them were children. This was called Operation cast lead I am pretty sure most of you guys remember it was last year december up untill late january I believe. Not only that is explained a lot about Israels terrorism against the Palestinian people. Basically he was going to try both Israel for war crimes and Palestine as well for launching rockets into Israel. Now of course Israel is highly disappointed in the report as well as the United States. Hamas and many Palestinians supported this report. The report is 600 pages long I mean I doubt anyone will read all of that.

The real disappointment comes from Fatah leader Mahmoud Habbash who withdrew from the report as well. It wasn't like he met with Africans or Asains to come to his decision, the man met with Western European powers who almost always agree with Israel http://www.counterpunch.com/baroud10152009.html. These types of decisions by fatah further proves they are working alongside with Israel and United States. I mean here is when you can finally prosecute Israel horrendous crimes against your civilains yet you dismiss it alongside with Israel? You was not even representing your people. This angered hamas and many Palestinians as well. But while continued occupation goes, the bombs dropped on densely populated communties with the force being so great it sounds like an earthquake, Fatah wants to continue politically attacking Hamas. I will elaborate more when I get time.

@Ryu I know how much you look up to your big brother especially from our conversations. Insha'Allah he will recover from his illness.

@Seraph God honest truth I hate small arguements with you because like I said without you there forums would get even worse. Right now many topics arent interesting unless it comes from you, Yei makes good topics and small amount of others. A lot of stuff you say I have a large angering disagreement with but the good thing is a learning process for me to accept ones opinion. A first I was really bashful now I am toning down more. I toned down to the point I just dont even respond your opinion is yours and nothing I can do to change it vice versa.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/2/09

Yei wrote:

The US, trying to spread democracy? I can understand wanting Israel as an ally, and wanting to have influence in that important part of the world, but the US does not support democracy and it's actions in all those countries it meddled with after WW2 were probably not because it genuinely cared for and wanted to help those countries become democratic.

The US itself isn't really a democracy, so I don't know how it could be believable that it's interested in spreading it. Saying it wants to spread democracy is a nice front though, they said that after the war in Iraq started and no weapons of mass destruction were found, suddenly the whole point of the war was "oh, we just wanted to spread democracy to Iraq and the Middle East." It's just a front, and that's very important for you to keep in mind when thinking about the Cold War.





I think that your perspective demonstrates a finite view of history. What about the Open Door Policy? Whenever the Japanese defeated China in war the Russian, European, and Asian imperials all came rushing in like a flock of vultures. It was the United States that interfered on behalf of the Chinese. We began sending “Open Door Notes,” to the Europeans, Japanese, and Russians urging them to honor previously existing treaties in the area and to give all proceeds from tariffs to the Chinese people. The Europeans actually accepted, as did the Japanese, but the Russians refused. We managed to force them to accept our Open Door Policy by announcing that everybody had accepted it to the world. That way, if Russia did not accept it they’d be the odd man out, the bad guys. They were forced to cooperate in order to save face.

You should read my thread on Isolationism and Imperialism in American history in which I lay out several other clear cut historical examples in which the United States went to war to defend the rights of conquered nations and to establish democracy at our expense.

http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-563681/imperialism-isolationism-and-everything-in-between/


In the Korean War of 1950 we fought the Chinese and North Koreans for the sake of democracy, with absolutely no other motive. In the Vietnam War we were again defending the South Vietnamese democratic nation from the invasion of the North Vietnamese communists, and we had no other interest except to bring them democracy. In at least the first case we had the United Nation’s backing us.

In World War One we had no interest except to do what was right and defend the democratic European countries. We had no economic incentive, and it wasn’t as if we felt threatened. Actually, we were making ourselves filthy rich by remaining neutral. Because we weren’t involved the United States became the primary supplier to both sides for munitions, weapons, equipment, uniforms, blankets, rations, medicines, and pretty much everything else. After we got involved we started the Food and Drug Administration Board, limiting the supply of food. We, as a nation, began having “Meatless Mondays,’ and “Powerless Tuesdays,” and we plunged ourselves headlong into an economic recession that lasted until the Roaring Twenties.

In World War II we had no interest in the war in Europe, but who do you think dominated amongst the some 3 million allied troops flooded into Normandy? It was the Americans who liberated France, a democratic nation, for the sake of democracy and liberation. Who do you think cleared the way to Italy through North Africa? It was Dwight D. Eisenhower, our General.

After the war we spent 12.5 billion dollars in sixteen cooperating countries. What interest do you think we had in spending our money on other nations? You know what they had in common? They were or became democratic nations.

You can say that our interest in Kuwait during the First Gulf War were only oil, but it was yet another war in which we had UN backing, and we liberated Kuwait.

Today we send 20 billion dollars in foreign aid to Iraq every single year. That’s more than six times the amount Israel receives. Why are we doing this? The answer is obvious: we do this to establish a stable, democratic government.

I also don’t know where you got this idea that we’re not a democratic nation. Just as a matter of simple fact the United States of America is a constitutional, representative democracy. Even if we weren’t, though we quite clearly are, we still view ourselves as such. So, there would still be a perceived interest in the spread of democracy.


Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/2/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:

The US, trying to spread democracy? I can understand wanting Israel as an ally, and wanting to have influence in that important part of the world, but the US does not support democracy and it's actions in all those countries it meddled with after WW2 were probably not because it genuinely cared for and wanted to help those countries become democratic.

The US itself isn't really a democracy, so I don't know how it could be believable that it's interested in spreading it. Saying it wants to spread democracy is a nice front though, they said that after the war in Iraq started and no weapons of mass destruction were found, suddenly the whole point of the war was "oh, we just wanted to spread democracy to Iraq and the Middle East." It's just a front, and that's very important for you to keep in mind when thinking about the Cold War.





I think that your perspective demonstrates a finite view of history. What about the Open Door Policy? Whenever the Japanese defeated China in war the Russian, European, and Asian imperials all came rushing in like a flock of vultures. It was the United States that interfered on behalf of the Chinese. We began sending “Open Door Notes,” to the Europeans, Japanese, and Russians urging them to honor previously existing treaties in the area and to give all proceeds from tariffs to the Chinese people. The Europeans actually accepted, as did the Japanese, but the Russians refused. We managed to force them to accept our Open Door Policy by announcing that everybody had accepted it to the world. That way, if Russia did not accept it they’d be the odd man out, the bad guys. They were forced to cooperate in order to save face.

You should read my thread on Isolationism and Imperialism in American history in which I lay out several other clear cut historical examples in which the United States went to war to defend the rights of conquered nations and to establish democracy at our expense.

http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-563681/imperialism-isolationism-and-everything-in-between/


In the Korean War of 1950 we fought the Chinese and North Koreans for the sake of democracy, with absolutely no other motive. In the Vietnam War we were again defending the South Vietnamese democratic nation from the invasion of the North Vietnamese communists, and we had no other interest except to bring them democracy. In at least the first case we had the United Nation’s backing us.

In World War One we had no interest except to do what was right and defend the democratic European countries. We had no economic incentive, and it wasn’t as if we felt threatened. Actually, we were making ourselves filthy rich by remaining neutral. Because we weren’t involved the United States became the primary supplier to both sides for munitions, weapons, equipment, uniforms, blankets, rations, medicines, and pretty much everything else. After we got involved we started the Food and Drug Administration Board, limiting the supply of food. We, as a nation, began having “Meatless Mondays,’ and “Powerless Tuesdays,” and we plunged ourselves headlong into an economic recession that lasted until the Roaring Twenties.

In World War II we had no interest in the war in Europe, but who do you think dominated amongst the some 3 million allied troops flooded into Normandy? It was the Americans who liberated France, a democratic nation, for the sake of democracy and liberation. Who do you think cleared the way to Italy through North Africa? It was Dwight D. Eisenhower, our General.

After the war we spent 12.5 billion dollars in sixteen cooperating countries. What interest do you think we had in spending our money on other nations? You know what they had in common? They were or became democratic nations.

You can say that our interest in Kuwait during the First Gulf War were only oil, but it was yet another war in which we had UN backing, and we liberated Kuwait.

Today we send 20 billion dollars in foreign aid to Iraq every single year. That’s more than six times the amount Israel receives. Why are we doing this? The answer is obvious: we do this to establish a stable, democratic government.

I also don’t know where you got this idea that we’re not a democratic nation. Just as a matter of simple fact the United States of America is a constitutional, representative democracy. Even if we weren’t, though we quite clearly are, we still view ourselves as such. So, there would still be a perceived interest in the spread of democracy.


Wait, you seriously think the US is a democracy? Aren't you supposed to be studying political science?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk8pxyAWTBk

The US is a polyarchy. Going to vote between two specially chosen candidates every 4 years is not a democracy. A democracy is a country where power is given to the people, the US political system's sole purpose is to keep the people on top happy. This is very basic, well-known information. Maybe because you're actually in the US you don't see it.

I know how you hate scholars with an agenda and who are biased, so I strongly recommend you look at what Noam Chomsky has to say. His job for decades has just been to do research, find the facts, and tell it like it is. That's why he is considered to be the most important intellectual in the world and is one of the most cited men of all time in academic journals.

Of course you should already know all about him, but if you don't, either read his books or watch his lectures or interviews on Youtube. The best thing would be to watch the documentary about him giving his very important lectures and it's also about how influential he has been for the last 30 years.

If you're serious about political science and this Cold War assignment you're doing, learn something from Noam Chomksy, that's all I can say.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/2/09 , edited 11/2/09
I am studying political science, and despite what Noam Chomsky claims the United States is a democratic nation. Our technical classification is a constitutional republic. To cite the CIA world fact book we are a: “Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition.”

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Youtube is always fun, but a seven minute bite of a political activist’s speech should not completely sculpt your view of an entire nation, Yei. Not to attack you or to go ad hominem, but you seem to do this a lot. You want to believe something so you find anything that agrees with it and looks official and cite it as evidence.

For example, you brought up the Michael Moor documentary “Sicko,” and acted like it provided an accurate depiction of health insurance in the United States. Then, I pointed out several problems in it and showed that you can do the same thing to the Canadian healthcare system by bringing up the Canadian version of “Sick,” “Dead Meat.” You called Dead Meat propaganda but said that the cases brought up in Sicko still have to be explained away, but you didn’t acknowledge the cases brought up by Dead Meat.

You heard Norman Finkelstein and his little entourage of political activists say that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was premeditated. While this is in fact a real historical theory, and many scholars and historians believe it, it’s still jut a theory. Yet, you adopt it as fact and just seem to ignore the entire other end.

Noam Chomsky may say something, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. The term ‘constitutional representative democracy,’ applies very well to the United States system. Hints, we have democratic elections. Because while our system is not a pure democracy, it still has a strong democratic basis, as the CIA World Fact Book clearly points out in the above posted link.


The US is a polyarchy. Going to vote between two specially chosen candidates every 4 years is not a democracy. A democracy is a country where power is given to the people, the US political system's sole purpose is to keep the people on top happy. This is very basic, well-known information. Maybe because you're actually in the US you don't see it.


You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. There’s not just one kind of democracy. What you describe was a very primitive, elementary form of democracy. It’s not applicable to modern, developed nations. If you’d ever actually researched the term polyarchy you’d see that most nations that we consider to be democracies today are a form of polyarchy, but the term polyarchy is not mutually exclusive to all forms of democracy.

Let me educate you for a moment. A representative democracy is a democracy in which the power to select the people who make the decisions is given to the people. A constitutional system is a system in which the primary institution is subject to checks and balances to prevent tyranny. So, a constitutional theocracy would be a government in which the primary institute is the church but there are checks and balances applied to its authority.

A constitutional, representative democracy then would be a system in which the people are given the power to choose who gets to make the decision but where that power is subject to checks and balances. That means that the people of the United States are given power, but that they must use this power in accordance with an exterior administration.

For example, if the majority got together and agreed to eradicate the minority the government would step in to prevent this, because that’s what is called a ‘tyranny of the majority.’

However, if the government decided to violate the rights of either the minority or the majority the people are afforded the right to overthrow the government--hints the second amendment to the United States constitution; moreover, we are also afforded a legal, civil, and peaceable means to achieve to overpower any wing of the government without actually rebelling.

We are, by definition, a constitutional, representative democracy. It’s a bastardized democracy but it still has the strong democratic element within it.


I know how you hate scholars with an agenda and who are biased, so I strongly recommend you look at what Noam Chomsky has to say. His job for decades has just been to do research, find the facts, and tell it like it is. That's why he is considered to be the most important intellectual in the world and is one of the most cited men of all time in academic journals.


Professionally speaking Noam Chomsky is not a scholar, he’s a political activist. His job is to get people to take action that he sees fit. Even in that video you posted Noam Chomsky is saying, “if you want to live in a democratic society, then XYZ.”


Of course you should already know all about him, but if you don't, either read his books or watch his lectures or interviews on Youtube. The best thing would be to watch the documentary about him giving his very important lectures and it's also about how influential he has been for the last 30 years.


You know damn well that I already know about Chomsky. Have you ever even read his books, or are you just smoke-blowing based on youtube videos?


If you're serious about political science and this Cold War assignment you're doing, learn something from Noam Chomksy, that's all I can say.


Right, because nobody who hasn’t studied Chomsky can be a serious political scientist? Dude, just because this guy is your god doesn’t mean he has to be my god.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/3/09 , edited 11/3/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

I am studying political science, and despite what Noam Chomsky claims the United States is a democratic nation. Our technical classification is a constitutional republic. To cite the CIA world fact book we are a: “Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition.”

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Youtube is always fun, but a seven minute bite of a political activist’s speech should not completely sculpt your view of an entire nation, Yei. Not to attack you or to go ad hominem, but you seem to do this a lot. You want to believe something so you find anything that agrees with it and looks official and cite it as evidence.


Who said that video sculpted my view of the entire nation? He just explains it better than I can, I'm not citing anything.

Okay, the CIA fact-book says it's a “constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition?" Well that just proves it's not a democracy. "strong democratic tradition" doesn't mean it's a democracy. Voting every 4 years from a group of specially chosen people is technically democratic, I agree. If a country lets it's citizens vote on what tie it's dictator should wear, I guess that's democratic, but that doesn't make the country a democracy.


For example, you brought up the Michael Moor documentary “Sicko,” and acted like it provided an accurate depiction of health insurance in the United States. Then, I pointed out several problems in it and showed that you can do the same thing to the Canadian healthcare system by bringing up the Canadian version of “Sick,” “Dead Meat.” You called Dead Meat propaganda but said that the cases brought up in Sicko still have to be explained away, but you didn’t acknowledge the cases brought up by Dead Meat.

You heard Norman Finkelstein and his little entourage of political activists say that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was premeditated. While this is in fact a real historical theory, and many scholars and historians believe it, it’s still jut a theory. Yet, you adopt it as fact and just seem to ignore the entire other end.


I really don't get how any of this is relevant, but I think I should straighten some things out.

I never acted like Sicko provided an accurate depiction of anything, I just asked about some of the cases shown in the movie. I didn't even have to mention the movie to ask about those types of cases. Dead Meat is propaganda because it makes huge ridiculous claims that are lies and randomly brings up a politician in California and how they are evil, while comparing Canada to North Korea and Cuba. I didn't say the cases shown in it were lies, I did acknowledge them.

I didn't get information on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine from Finkelstein. Lots of things in history could still be considered to be just a theory that many scholars and historians believe in.




Noam Chomsky may say something, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. The term ‘constitutional representative democracy,’ applies very well to the United States system. Hints, we have democratic elections. Because while our system is not a pure democracy, it still has a strong democratic basis, as the CIA World Fact Book clearly points out in the above posted link.


According to the CIA fact-book, it only has "strong democratic traditions." That's really nice, but just because there's some sort of voting going on doesn't mean the actual political system is democratic. Does it have some democratic aspects? Yes it does.


A representative democracy is a democracy in which the power to select the people who make the decisions is given to the people.


Ok, let's break down the way politics in the US work.

The only people we have to choose from to be president, the only people who can run, are the ones funded and backed by the same concentration of power. No one else can run, or stands any chance other than the people specially chosen by the wealth of the nation. So yes, maybe I can pick who leads my country, but I wouldn't call it a democracy if my only choices were, let's say Hitler or Stalin. None of those represent me at all.

So we have these specially chosen candidates, whoever wins they're going to do what the concentration of power wants them to do. Public opinion is irrelevant. What the people want is irrelevant, the candidates do not represent the people at all, they represent the big wealthy special interests who put them in their position. This is very obvious actually.

Public opinion polls make this very clear, the best example is the 2004 election where everything the public cared about was ignored. For years the majority of the population wanted health care fixed, John Kerry never even mentioned the issue because he wasn't interested in what the people wanted, health care back then wasn't an issue his money powers wanted him to mention. A Gallup poll asked why people were voting for Bush or Kerry and only 6 percent of the Bush voters and 13 percent of the Kerry voters made their decisions because of the candidate's "agendas/ideas/ platforms/goals." That’s how the political system prefers it. Often the issues that are most important in people’s minds don’t enter at all clearly into the debate. People vote for Bush cause he's a Christian, people vote for Kerry cause he's not republican, for McCain because he'll support Israel more, Obama cause he's black, no one knows or seems to be concerned with what the candidates' actual agendas and plans for the country are. And this is the result of many years of carefully excluding the public from political affairs by manipulating their mentalities. Alot of people didn't even know who stood where on many issues. The majority of Americans were supportive of the Kyoto Protocols, and half the people who said they were voting for Bush said they thought he supported them too.

You can look at what public opinion was over the last 30 years in fact, see how many people supported all the military action the US carried out and just about every other thing the government and politicians were doing. Things are done without any care of what the people think, because it's not a democracy, the people's opinions are irrelevant. The majority of Americans supported following the UN instead of going into Iraq the way they did. The majority said "countries should have the right to go to war on their own only if they (have) strong evidence that they are in imminent danger of being attacked." But the Bush administration didn't care about what the people thought, because they didn't represent the people. 98% of the population could have been against the war, and it wouldn't matter, it's irrelevant.

Go check out more polls and research and see what public opinion has been in the past 30 years and how well it's been "represented." Take note of all US action and policies, see who's making the decisions and what factors come into play. The government and the major politicians, have not, and do not represent the people at all. The only thing that matters is what the concentration of power wants, even if 100% of the public is against what it wants. That's not a democracy, it's the illusion of a democracy.

And the majority of the country would actually agree with this. Many polls in the past have said that 80% of the population thinks the government is run by a few big interests only looking out for themselves. 95% think the government should pay more attention to public opinion, but they still don't.






You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. There’s not just one kind of democracy. What you describe was a very primitive, elementary form of democracy. It’s not applicable to modern, developed nations. If you’d ever actually researched the term polyarchy you’d see that most nations that we consider to be democracies today are a form of polyarchy, but the term polyarchy is not mutually exclusive to all forms of democracy.


Obviously most nations today are polyarchies. The US is very clearly best described as a polyarchy and doesn't meet the requirements for it to be a democracy. George Bush even had the power to forget about the Constitution and do whatever he wanted in his administration, so it's very clearly best described a polyarchy.





You know damn well that I already know about Chomsky. Have you ever even read his books, or are you just smoke-blowing based on youtube videos?


No actually I don't. Chomsky is very popular in Canada, right now I'm reading 'Failed States' which I know you would love.




Right, because nobody who hasn’t studied Chomsky can be a serious political scientist? Dude, just because this guy is your god doesn’t mean he has to be my god.


I love how you always make these sorts of weird exaggerations. No offense, but you always seem to be short tempered.. And the other thing is you seem like the average conservative American who's scared of change and is threatened by an ideas outside what you want to believe. Kind of like the wanting simplicity and ignorance is bliss thing. I know you're not really like that type of conservative at all, but every once in a while you really seem like you're in that position.

You don't have to listen to anything Chomsky had to say, but it's just convenient to have all the facts put together so articulately for us. You can do all the research and find all the facts he presents if you want, but the reason why he's the most cited man alive is because his job is to basically get up everyday, read 6 newspapers, dig up all the research and facts of the past and present and he summarizes all of it quite nicely.

And about me wanting to believe things, I don't want to believe anything. The idea that the US is run the way it is and has been doing all these horrible things to other countries over the years is not something I want to believe, if anything I want to believe the opposite because that would be nicer. But IMO the facts are very clear, and you don't need to be a genius to figure out that all the power not just in the US but in the world is concentrated into a small group of people who want to control everyone else. That's just common sense.

btw, can you explain the US's support for horrifying regimes over the last half century during the cold war? If it supported and wanted to spread democracy, even though it clearly is not democratic itself, then why did it fully support, fund, and put into power so many murderous regimes and dictators?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/3/09

Who said that video sculpted my view of the entire nation? He just explains it better than I can, I'm not citing anything. Okay, the CIA fact-book says it's a “constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition?" Well that just proves it's not a democracy. "strong democratic tradition" doesn't mean it's a democracy. Voting every 4 years from a group of specially chosen people is technically democratic, I agree. If a country lets it's citizens vote on what tie it's dictator should wear, I guess that's democratic, but that doesn't make the country a democracy.


That doesn’t prove that it’s not a democracy because the term democracy is not mutually exclusive with republic. In fact, our form of republic is just a representative democracy. You said that a democracy is a system in which the people are given power. That’s true. Now let just take a quick swing, for convenient learning, over to the Wikipedia page for the term republic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

Right there in the first sentence it says that the people are given power. Because indeed if you look up the definition of republic: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic you’ll find that it’s just a proper term for representative democracy.


According to the CIA fact-book, it only has "strong democratic traditions." That's really nice, but just because there's some sort of voting going on doesn't mean the actual political system is democratic. Does it have some democratic aspects? Yes it does.


No, it doesn’t just have some democratic aspects. The main institution is democratic. The senators are elected democratically. The house representatives are elected democratically. The president is elected democratically. There’s a restriction on that third election, but the elected members of the senate have the power to impeach the third as a counter-balance that puts the power back in the hands of the people. The Supreme Court is a body of appointed justices who get their job through elected officials, so we still indirectly have a decision as to who is put in this position.

Yei, with all due respect you don’t know what you’re talking about. Why’re you arguing with me? You might as well be telling me that our national currency is the peso. While you may have a theory as to why the Peso is the real currency of control, the documented and accepted fact is that the US dollar is the currency of the United States. And while you may have this theory as to why we don’t count as a democracy, the fact is we are by the very definition of the term a representative, constitutional democracy.

And this is all a moot point anyway. Because the whole argument forked off from your accusation that America has no motivation to spread democracy because it’s not a democracy. But as we’ve clearly demonstrated, whether or not we’re a democracy, we view ourselves as such so the motive would be enforced by this real or imputed status.


The only people we have to choose from to be president, the only people who can run, are the ones funded and backed by the same concentration of power. No one else can run, or stands any chance other than the people specially chosen by the wealth of the nation


First off, the president is largely a figurehead. His main role is to make suggestions to congress. Ultimately the decisions fall into the legislative branch. For example, McCain promised to lower taxes when he ran for president. In all actuality, the president cannot lower taxes. He can simply ask congress to do so. The president does not make laws. He’s the master and commander of our troops, the head of our intelligence agencies, and if he’s lucky he’ll get to nominate a supreme court justice. Even with his nomination a justice cannot take seat until he’s been approved by congress.

Second off, your statement is factually false. The only restrictions placed on who can run for president: they must be over thirty three and a natural born citizen. Other than that anybody who can rally support can run for president. Political parties are useful tools for rallying support but even those do not show any form of favoritism. They nominate people who demonstrate their ability to raise funding and gather support. One example often brought up is that today we have a senator who was a single mother on welfare before she took her office, and if she had such an ambition she could probably run quite successfully for president.


So yes, maybe I can pick who leads my country, but I wouldn't call it a democracy if my only choices were, let's say Hitler or Stalin. None of those represent me at all.


True, but we’re not restricting potential candidates. Anybody with popular support can run.


So we have these specially chosen candidates, whoever wins they're going to do what the concentration of power wants them to do.


We’re the ones who choose the candidates. We just created political parties because it’s easier. Rather than having to think about each individual issue we can just declare ourselves a rep or dem.


Public opinion is irrelevant.


Not true in the least.


What the people want is irrelevant, the candidates do not represent the people at all, they represent the big wealthy special interests who put them in their position. This is very obvious actually.


The only thing that’s obvious is that you’re really, desperately stretching on this quest to find some vague way in which to declare yourself correct….oh, and that we’re a democracy. What the people want is completely relevant and if what you were saying was true then politicians wouldn’t make such a fuss out of pleasing the lower and middle class citizens. But they do, because what the people want is entirely relevant.


Public opinion polls make this very clear, the best example is the 2004 election where everything the public cared about was ignored


I think you’re talking about the 2000 elections. And like I said we’re constitutional. We don’t succumb to the tyranny of the majority. That’s where checks and balances come in. That has happened a total of four times in the history of our nation. The elector college usurped the popular polls.


For years the majority of the population wanted health care fixed, John Kerry never even mentioned the issue because he wasn't interested in what the people wanted, health care back then wasn't an issue his money powers wanted him to mention.


Right, and polls show that the majority of Americans are against gay marriage. So, if we legalize gay marriage we’re a dictatorship comparable to Stalin or Mussolini? But again, if you want a candidate who will fix the health care system you need only support candidates who want to fix the health care system. Our current secretary of state, majority representative, president, and vice president are all addressing this precise complaint.


A Gallup poll asked why people were voting for Bush or Kerry and only 6 percent of the Bush voters and 13 percent of the Kerry voters made their decisions because of the candidate's "agendas/ideas/ platforms/goals." That’s how the political system prefers it


According to the Gallup Poll that’s how the people prefer it.


Often the issues that are most important in people’s minds don’t enter at all clearly into the debate


I don’t think that’s true. Whenever the people want something bad enough they definitely have the power to push for it. Sometimes it takes a while. For example, we wanted civil rights. We pushed and we got them. We wanted pre-natal genocide, we pushed and we got it. We wanted health care reform…we’re in the process of getting it.


People vote for Bush cause he's a Christian, people vote for Kerry cause he's not republican, for McCain because he'll support Israel more, Obama cause he's black, no one knows or seems to be concerned with what the candidates' actual agendas and plans for the country are


This only means that you do not agree with their reasons for voting, not that they’re being denied suffrage, being restricted, or that we’re not a democracy. Maybe the people WANT a Christian? Maybe we want a black guy. Maybe we want somebody who’ll support Israel? In fact, we do want to support Israel. We do like Christians, and we do indeed love black people. :D


And this is the result of many years of carefully excluding the public from political affairs by manipulating their mentalities


Bah, now we’re wandering back into the ever meaningless conspiracy theory bullshit. Look, nobody excluded the public. We have what’s called the “fourth wing,” to monitor the government. We have muckrakers, yellow journalists, lobbyists, political activists, free media. The only reason anyone’s excluded is because they don’t care enough to be included.


Alot of people didn't even know who stood where on many issues.


I don’t know why. Fact Checker had a long list of every imaginable political issue and a diagram showing where each candidate stood in promise and practice alike. Obama and McCain spent literally billions on publicizing their opinions. Obama did a fucking infomercial describing where he stood. The people don’t know because they don’t care. The information is right there for whoever wants to see it. If they choose not to look then that’s their prerogative, but the ignorant of the constituents in no way whatsoever negates the status of our electoral system as a democracy.

You basically said, “These people voted for McCain because they want to support Israel, I don’t agree that their reasoning is significant so it’s a dictatorship.”

You’ve spent the bulk of your post arguing that the constituents are ignorant, and they are. But how does that in anyway demonstrate that the government is not democratic? What evidence do you have of this vast conspiracy to alienate the people and enforce that exclusion for years?

You have none because it’s a contrivance, you just really, really, really want to be right when you’re simply, factually, wrong.


The majority of Americans were supportive of the Kyoto Protocols, and half the people who said they were voting for Bush said they thought he supported them too.


So our voters are ignorant, but they’re voters nevertheless.

Look, I don’t have time to address all of this right now but there was one other thing I wanted to get at:


And the other thing is you seem like the average conservative American who's scared of change and is threatened by an ideas outside what you want to believe. Kind of like the wanting simplicity and ignorance is bliss thing. I know you're not really like that type of conservative at all, but every once in a while you really seem like you're in that position.


Often times my opinion does happen to coincide with the conservative end of the spectrum. Other times I have highly liberal opinions. You know as well as I do that I have and continue to change my perspective on various issues. You yourself were the one who changed my religious perspective that homosexuality was a sin. You’ve seen how far I’ve matured on the Israel issue. You know that I’ve been a long support of gay rights, fighting global warming, against capital punishment, supporting legal drugs and prostitution, and against abortion. (Which I still consider a liberal opinion.)
I am short tempered and often childishly so. This is especially true whenever my life is stressing as the internet is often my outlet for venting frustration. I apologize for that, it’s something I actively seek to correct in myself.

The only reason I can see for you stereotyping me as intellectually dishonest and mentally cowardly is because you have a preconceived image of conservatives as being these ignorant, angry people. So, whenever somebody expresses a conservative opinion you subconsciously associate them with that notion.

I should get around to the rest of your post later, K?

First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.