Al Gore win Nobel Peace Prize

[LL2]

What a joke! Not that I care who wins a Nobel Peace prize but why not hand one to Michael Moore too.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If you believe global warming is a real threat, then certainly Gore is a reasonable choice for Nobel.

Michael Moore - I'm not a fan because he is so biased. He creates pseudo-documentaries, which he knows perfectly well people accept as factual, and then hides behind the "entertainment" designation whenever he's busted. He is superb at propoganda, a rare talent.

I've heard Moore's "Sicko" documentary is the best work he's ever done. I can't comment, but if he made a factual documentary this time, I would not be surprised if Moore recieved some non-film awards for it.

Gore-Moore 2008!

And then we'll enter the Gore-Moore Years! Gore-Moore Years!

[swede]

Yassar Arafat called to complain about the lowered standards.

[Merlin]

How many American's that have won the Nobel Peace Prize weren't flaming liberal extremists? I am assuming the keyword there is "Peace". Just what exactly has Al Gore done to promote Peace and bring anyone together in harmony? I know he has done a lot to say whatever it takes to get his face plastered all over the media. He is a compulsive liar which has been proven time and time again, yet people still believe what he says. Those people should not be allowed to vote because yes, they are that stupid.

[LL2]

How many American's that have won the Nobel Peace Prize weren't flaming liberal extremists? I am assuming the keyword there is "Peace". Just what exactly has Al Gore done to promote Peace and bring anyone together in harmony? I know he has done a lot to say whatever it takes to get his face plastered all over the media. He is a compulsive liar which has been proven time and time again, yet people still believe what he says. Those people should not be allowed to vote because yes, they are that stupid.

Hollywood loves him. I'm sure that gives him credibility.

[swede]

If New York and California are submerged because of global warming and the bass fishing gets better than how bad a thing could it be?

[mraynrand]

Someday, when we're all dead, we'll be sorry that we didn't listen to Al.


http://www.wgmd.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/gore-pray_1.jpg

[mraynrand]

Anyone see those 'record label' guidelines from Tipper? How come she didn't get the peace prize for cleaning up popular music?

http://www.fabrica.it/blog/Al-Gore-and-wife.jpg

She is pretty hot....

[Joemailman]

How many American's that have won the Nobel Peace Prize weren't flaming liberal extremists? I am assuming the keyword there is "Peace". Just what exactly has Al Gore done to promote Peace and bring anyone together in harmony? I know he has done a lot to say whatever it takes to get his face plastered all over the media. He is a compulsive liar which has been proven time and time again, yet people still believe what he says. Those people should not be allowed to vote because yes, they are that stupid.

Kettle meet...

[Freak Out]

I thought there had to be peace somewhere for there to be a prize? Oh well....next year.

Ok...you guys can go back to your scratch-n-sniff Dick Cheney posters and crank yourselves.

[Tarlam!]

I am >OK with it.

Al done good.

[Kiwon]

Yasir Arafat

Kim, Dae-Jung (after a $500 million bribe to North Korea)

Jimmy Carter

Mohamed El-Baradei

And now, Al Gore wins after months of campaigning for it.

The Nobel Peace Prize has become a pure joke. Absolutely meaningless.

[the_idle_threat]

OMG I totally want a scratch n' sniff Dick Cheney poster! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[packinpatland]

Anyone see those 'record label' guidelines from Tipper? How come she didn't get the peace prize for cleaning up popular music?

http://www.fabrica.it/blog/Al-Gore-and-wife.jpg

She is pretty hot....


So was he.......................100lbs ago.

[Harlan Huckleby]

recent winners:

2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.
2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
2004 - Wangari Maathai
2003 - Shirin Ebadi
2002 - Jimmy Carter
2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
2000 - Kim Dae-jung
1999 - Médecins Sans Frontières
1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum
1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi
1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev
1989 - The 14th Dalai Lama
1988 - United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
1987 - Oscar Arias Sánchez
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1985 - International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1984 - Desmond Tutu
1983 - Lech Walesa
1982 - Alva Myrdal, Alfonso García Robles
1981 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1980 - Adolfo Pérez Esquivel
1979 - Mother Teresa
1978 - Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
1977 - Amnesty International
1976 - Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan
1975 - Andrei Sakharov

[Harlan Huckleby]

Yasir Arafat

Kim, Dae-Jung (after a $500 million bribe to North Korea)

Jimmy Carter

Mohamed El-Baradei

And now, Al Gore wins after months of campaigning for it.

The Nobel Peace Prize has become a pure joke. Absolutely meaningless.

I doubt that you understand why any of these people were honored.

the Nobel Prize is meaningless to you, fair enough. But the award is very prestigious, it doesn't matter that some dismiss it.

[swede]

Yasir Arafat

Kim, Dae-Jung (after a $500 million bribe to North Korea)

Jimmy Carter

Mohamed El-Baradei

And now, Al Gore wins after months of campaigning for it.

The Nobel Peace Prize has become a pure joke. Absolutely meaningless.

I doubt that you understand why any of these people were honored.

the Nobel Prize is meaningless to you, fair enough. But the award is very prestigious, it doesn't matter that some dismiss it.

Harlan, Your last post deserves the Rip Torn "I use so much more of my brain than you do I can taste the subtle flavors in horse shit" award.

The Nobel Peace Prize is no longer universally prestigious.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Nobel Peace Prize is no longer universally prestigious.

no longer? you see list, when do you think it lost its prestige?

[Kiwon]

Yasir Arafat

Kim, Dae-Jung (after a $500 million bribe to North Korea)

Jimmy Carter

Mohamed El-Baradei

And now, Al Gore wins after months of campaigning for it.

The Nobel Peace Prize has become a pure joke. Absolutely meaningless.

I doubt that you understand why any of these people were honored.

the Nobel Prize is meaningless to you, fair enough. But the award is very prestigious, it doesn't matter that some dismiss it.

OMG - How did it forget Kofi Annan?

Harlan, :roll: , seriously, what are you defending? You want to take the time to explain some of the recent selections? Get real.

The Nobel folks themselves have made the award meaningless by overlooking little-known and deserving folks that are making real differences in people's lives and giving it to, let's see,.........

........a terrorist that killed innocent people and squandered billions of dollars in aid to his people via corruption,....a president that violated the constitution of his country and secretly paid off his enemy for a summit,......one of the worst U.S. presidents ever who has become the worse ex-U.S. president ever,........the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency under whose leadership nuclear weapons programs of several countries are thriving,.........the former U.N. head that prevented real reform at the U.N. from taking place by hindering investigations into the Oil-for-Food scandal, the abuses by U.N. peacekeepers, graft and influence peddling, and did nothing to stop the genocide in Dafur (or in Rwanda during the '90's) or the Iranian weapons program.

And then there's Al Gore and his film on Global Warming. It's viewing is mandatory in English schools, but this week a British judge put some stipulations on it before it is presented to the students:

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

Eleven = 11, HH.

Yes, a very deserving and impressive list of winners, indeed.

But I doubt you understand any of this.

[Tarlam!]

Kiwon,

Gore put the environment on the agendas of people that wouldn't ordinarily taken too much notice. Despite HH's "higher-than-thou" stance towards you, I share his position pertaining to the importance of the Nobel Peace Prize.

To dismiss it, I think, is a bit short sighted. Yes I had trouble with Arafat receiving the award based on his past, but, when he won it, he was genuinely working towards solving a 1000 year war.

Having sat next to an Israeli doctor on the plane from DC to Frankfurt this week, I had a chance to discuss this with someone who was there; She said, she and many of her countrymen were in awe of Arafat's attempts at achieving peace and, she is convinced if it weren't for the assassination of Rabin, peace might have become reality.

Going back to his old ways embarressed the committe, I suspect.

Anyways, Gore has done a wonderful job of getting the environment on the agenda. Whether or not this was politically motivated is a different discussion; solving the peace issue in the Middle-East is also pretty good for one's polical resumé!

[mraynrand]

Kiwon,

Gore put the environment on the agendas of people that wouldn't ordinarily taken too much notice.

Yep, China is on their toes. Al has really put it to the Chinese to reduce their polluting ways. Good job Al. Plus, the debate over global warming in the U.S. has increased peace among Americans. The labeling of the U.S. as the 'biggest polluter' (CO2) has helped spread a peaceful attitude towards the U.S. Al certainly deserved the award. Awareness is at an all time high.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Nobel prize winners sometimes look weak in hindsight. The prize is often given to encourage processes that haven't fully played out. And ANY public figure can be implicated in scandal years after recieving a prize, but that doesn't mean that their earlier work was undeserving.

Arafat & Israeli partners got a NPP for the hopeful Oslo Peace Accords, and they came damn close to succeeding. It was an obvious choice for a NPP. Kissinger & North Vietnamese negotiating partners got a NPP in early 70's for their efforts. Didn't turn out so swell five years later. Shit happens, it's a lot harder to build peace than to start a war.

And questioning Jimmy Carter's credentials shows a :shock: level of ignorance and provincialism. Carter is revered in Latin America for his successful efforts promoting democracy and human rights during and after his presidency. For a U.S. president to achieve that level of accomplishment and respect in Latin America seems unthinkable today.

I'm not done, I have more to say, just pausing for refreshment.

[mraynrand]

Jimmy Carter: The Worst Ex-President in History
By Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

During his four years in the White House, he presided over the worst economic downturn since World War II, allowed a bunch of thugs to seize our embassy and our citizens, and supported Philippine dictator Fernando Marcos, Pakistani General Zia al Huq, Saudi King Faud and many other dictators. But Jimmy Carter was a much better president than he is an ex-president.

In fact, Jimmy Carter holds the hands-down record for being the worst ex-president the United States has ever known. His post-presidential meddling in foreign affairs has cost America dearly, both in terms of international credibility and international prestige.

He defied US law by visiting Cuba, even addressing the Cuban public and handing Castro a huge propaganda victory. He oversaw the elections in Haiti, against the expressed wishes of the Clinton administration. A coup followed.

Carter once described Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito as "a man who believes in human rights." Regarding North Korea's dearly departed Kim Il-Sung, Carter found him "vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions about this country," adding "I don't see that [North Koreans] are an outlaw nation."

He was similarly generous regarding Manuel Noriega, Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceaucescu and, of course, Yasser Arafat. He said of Ceausescu and himself, "Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights."

Virtually all of the humanitarian activities of the Carter Foundation abroad have been in direct opposition to US foreign policy. Carter called Bush’s description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" was "overly simplistic and counterproductive.”

Added the man who was once attacked by a rabbit, "I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement."

His most recent adventure may be partly behind the predicted $3.00 per gallon analysts say we'll be paying for gas by year's end. Jimmy Carter went to Venezuela to 'monitor' that country's effort to recall President Hugo Chavez.

In 1992, a band of army officers led by Lt. Col. Hugo Chávez Frías attempted to overthrow President Carlos Andrés Pérez. Although court-martialed and jailed, Chávez emerged a hero.

In 1998, he was elected president on promises to clean out corruption and reduce poverty. Once in office, Chávez promoted a new consitution to consolidate his powers and began to constrain the business community, civil society, and rival politicians.

As a presidential candidate, Hugo Chávez campaigned against the "savage capitalism" of the United States. On August 10, 2000, he became the first foreign leader to visit Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War, and he allegedly aided Afghanistan's Taliban government following the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States.

At the same time, Chávez said that Cuba and Venezuela were "called upon to be a spearhead and summon other nations and governments" to fight free market capitalism.

Venezuela is also one of the countries upon which the United States is dependent for oil, and has been since the US first began relying on imported oil supplies back in 1948.

Besides supplying the United States with 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, Venezuela provides most of the petroleum consumed by U.S. allies in the Caribbean and Central America.

Regional leaders know that opposing Chávez in any significant fashion could result in less favorable sales terms or cuts in deliveries.

In September 2003, President Chávez accused the Dominican Republic of harboring Venezuelans--like former President Carlos Andrés Pérez--who allegedly might conspire against his government. Chavez then stopped oil deliveries, prompting a temporary energy crisis while Dominican officials scrambled for new suppliers.

From the perspective of American economic interests, not to mention homeland security issues, Hugo Chavez is a very bad man to have in the neighborhood. And, thanks to Jimmy Carter, Chavez isn't going away anytime soon.

Venezuela's opposition party finally forced a recall election, with opinion polls showing that voters favored his recall by a margin of more than 2 to 1.

When there were questions about possible vote tampering by the Chavez side, the opposition called for election monitors. Chavez agreed to let Jimmy Carter oversee the election, and the Carter Center headed for Caracas.

Under Jimmy Carter's watchful eye, Hugo Chavez defeated the recall attempt by a wide margin -- reflecting almost a mirror-image of the opinion polls.

While two out of three Venzuelans polled before the election wanted Chavez out, when the ballots were counted, Chavez was declared the winner by an almost exact opposite margin. "About 58 percent said 'no' to a recall, while 42 percent said 'yes,'" wrote the Washington Post.

Carter ignored a press release from the polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland Assoc. that reported, "Exit Poll Results Show Major Defeat for Chavez." The release, dated 7:30 p.m. on election day, said, "With Venezuela's voting set to end at 8 p.m. EST according to election officials, final exit poll results from Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, an independent New York-based polling firm, show a major victory for the 'Yes' movement, defeating Chavez in the Venezuela presidential recall referendum."

One of the most effective ways to monitor the fairness of an election is to employ the use of exit polls. In a nutshell, here's how exit polls work. After somebody has finished voting, a pollster will ask them how they voted. In emerging democracies, about 90% of voters participate.

By contrast, in America, where exit polls are widely used to call elections before the votes are all counted, less than 40% of voters participate.

Statistically, exit polls should mirror the actual vote, within a relatively thin margin of error.

The margin of error between Carter's certified fair-and-square ballots and the independent exit poll results constituted a swing of almost forty points -- a statistical impossibility. Chavez counted on Carter leaning his way -- Carter's history of promoting anti-American dictators is no secret.

As Stephen Hayward noted in a column at Front Page, "among his complex motivations is his determination to override American foreign policy when it suits him."

Indeed, Carter's penchant for interfering in US foreign policy is so well known it won him a Nobel Prize. Jimmy Carter will go down in history as the first US ex-president ever to be awarded a Nobel Prize for the sole purpose of conveying an insult to his country from the Nobel committee.

Gunnar Berge, chairman of the five-member committee, told reporters that giving the Peace Prize to Carter "must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq ... It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."

("How can we REALLY show how much we hate the Americans? I know! Let's give a Nobel Prize to Jimmy Carter!")

Once Chavez had stolen the election and Jimmy Carter certified the results, certain American critics (pretty much anybody with a brain) started questioning whether or not Jimmy Carter had just sold American interests down the river -- again.

Carter hit back in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece, writing;

"We are familiar with potential fraudulent techniques and how to obtain a close approximation to the actual results to assure accuracy."

Having established that Jimmy Carter is far too savvy to be conned by a mere thug like Chavez, Carter then dismissed the results of the exit polls, writing;

"During the voting day, opposition leaders claimed to have exit-poll data showing the government losing by 20 percentage points, and this erroneous information was distributed widely."

Well, that's that! The New York pollsters 'widely distributed erroneous information' -- Hugo Chavez won fair and square. Jimmy Carter says so.

Penn Schoen evidently must have cheated, although it is a reputable New York polling firm with a 20 year track record, including working for Bill Clinton in 1996, Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2001, Michael Bloomberg in 2001 and many other national political campaigns.

Why would it risk its hard-won professional reputation over an election in Venezuela? Carter doesn't explain.

Hugo Chavez is bad news from the perspective of US national security. He is bad news from the perspective of homeland security. He is bad news from the perspective of US dependence of foreign oil. And he is bad news for America's economic security.

Which makes Hugo Chavez good news from the perspective of the worst ex-president in US history.

Excerpted from the Omega Letter Daily Intelligence Digest, Volume:35: Issue 26

[mraynrand]

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/89.2/images/mcalister2b.jpg

[mraynrand]

http://www.theodoresworld.net/HostageRescueAttempt/American's_Held_hostageImage10.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't believe that the Nobel Prize has diminished in prestige internationally one iota.

What has changed is the U.S. media. The web and talk radio have made us much more fragmented. People listen to like-minded journalists and entertainers, and it distorts our view of what other people are thinking.

Most of the people in this thread are coming from a right wing, American perspective. Do you realize how narrow this perspective is compared to the world as a whole? To merlin, the Nobel Prize winners are "flaming liberal extremists". And most people in this thread are from the conservative camp. IT's a big world out there.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Jimmy Carter: The Worst Ex-President in History

Better enjoy it, he loses his crown in 15 months.

[MJZiggy]

My biggest beef with that article is that it says that Carter "allowed" the hostage crisis to happen. Using that logic, Bush "allowed" 9-11 to happen and on our own soil which makes him 100x worse.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ronald Reagan: Really a Big Douche Bag
by Ace Weebalo, Knightrider News Service

Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go.

Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go.

Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go.

Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go.

Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go.

Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go. And everywhere that Mary Went, Mary went, every where that Mary Went the lamb was sure to go.

[mraynrand]

My biggest beef with that article is that it says that Carter "allowed" the hostage crisis to happen. Using that logic, Bush "allowed" 9-11 to happen and on our own soil which makes him 100x worse.

He did in a way - he was swayed by the State department, which had argued that 'allowing' Iran to form a 'democratically elected' government was more in keeping with Carter's view's on freedom. What Carter didn' realize, being the naive guy he was (note I say naive, not stupid) was that there was to be no 'freely elected government' The military, which te Shah had allowed to take control was infiltrated with those mostly sympathetic to a more traditional hard line stance and were affiliated with the exitled khomeni. So in interests of 'free elections,' Carter was duped - or delusional, depending on how much he actually knew.

[mraynrand]

Ronald Reagan: Really a Big Douche Bag
by Ace Weebalo, Knightrider News Service

Mary Had a little lamb, little lamb,

This is much more in tune with your level of thinking HH. I understand why you posted it.

[MJZiggy]

My biggest beef with that article is that it says that Carter "allowed" the hostage crisis to happen. Using that logic, Bush "allowed" 9-11 to happen and on our own soil which makes him 100x worse.

He did in a way - he was swayed by the State department, which had argued that 'allowing' Iran to form a 'democratically elected' government was more in keeping with Carter's view's on freedom. What Carter didn' realize, being the naive guy he was (note I say naive, not stupid) was that there was to be no 'freely elected government' The military, which te Shah had allowed to take control was infiltrated with those mostly sympathetic to a more traditional hard line stance and were affiliated with the exitled khomeni. So in interests of 'free elections,' Carter was duped - or delusional, depending on how much he actually knew.

By that logic, you'd also have to look at the idea that Bush was warned about 9-11 and ignored the warning...

[mraynrand]

My biggest beef with that article is that it says that Carter "allowed" the hostage crisis to happen. Using that logic, Bush "allowed" 9-11 to happen and on our own soil which makes him 100x worse.


About 9/11. Both Clinton and Bush misunderestimated the al quaeda threat. It's that simple. They both bear some responsibility, along with the CIA for letting the terrorists get by them. The events in Iran were far more transparent, and there were plenty of people who were writing at the time (and warning) about the nature of Khomeni and the fundamentalists who were trying to seize power in Iran.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, :roll: , seriously, what are you defending? You want to take the time to explain some of the recent selections? Get real.

You know all about the warts on the recent Nobel prize winners, but my initial statement is true: you don't know the reasons why they were chosen to be honored.

I've explained Arafat & Kissinger & Carter because I knew off top of my head. Too lazy to research and justify the others. But you might want to look into it before you making glib statements suggesting they are frauds.

[the_idle_threat]

Jimmy Carter: The Worst Ex-President in History

Better enjoy it, he loses his crown in 15 months.

That's really kind of a dumb statement. You have no idea what Bush will be doing as an ex-President. It's a fair bet, though, that he won't be actively undermining U.S. foreign policy.

This makes it look like you don't even understand what's being discussed here, HH, and normally you do better than that.

[the_idle_threat]

I think the reason some here are dismissing the value of the Nobel Peace Prize is because it's such a slushy topic with undefined standards, and it seems to go to the person who does a lot of what seems to be good, even if it's ultimately unsuccessful or even futile. In other words, it's a stupid award.

I, for one, am surprised that Neville Chamberlain didn't win the award in 1938. Maybe he would have won it in 1939, if an award would have been given that year. :twisted:

[Freak Out]

Jimmy Carter: The Worst Ex-President in History

Better enjoy it, he loses his crown in 15 months.

That's really kind of a dumb statement. You have no idea what Bush will be doing as an ex-President. It's a fair bet, though, that he won't be actively undermining U.S. foreign policy.



US foreign policy and what's best for America is always debatable. I believe most of Dubya's policies are not whats best for America.

[Freak Out]

Does anyone mind if we turn this thread into another energy/foreign policy thread? :jack:

[MJZiggy]

Yes, I mind. :no: :smack: :mrgreen:


**Remember, you asked!

[the_idle_threat]

Jimmy Carter: The Worst Ex-President in History

Better enjoy it, he loses his crown in 15 months.

That's really kind of a dumb statement. You have no idea what Bush will be doing as an ex-President. It's a fair bet, though, that he won't be actively undermining U.S. foreign policy.



US foreign policy and what's best for America is always debatable. I believe most of Dubya's policies are not whats best for America.

Debating is one thing; acting is another. Debating=free speech. Acting =treason. That's the way it is when you have representative government.

[Joemailman]

Seems treason is a term thrown around rather loosely by some these days. Seems to me Carter has engaged in a public debate about foreign policy, which a lot of people don't approve of, which is fine. However, it hardly constitutes treason, IMHO.

[Joemailman]

Does anyone mind if we turn this thread into another energy/foreign policy thread? :jack:

Most of these political threads morph into something else at some point. Go for it! :clap:

[RashanGary]

We only get one earth. It's unfortunate that the rest of the world won't play fair. Greed and competitiveness is not always what is best for the world. It makes people work harder and be more efficient, but it doesn't make the world a better place in all instances. I'm a conservative, mostly because of economic issues and overall efficiency in our country, but I'm very much against the republican party when it comes to the enviornment. They want to make it possible for companies to compete. Mabe they should start devising ways to make other countries compete on a level playing field instead of making it possible for our companies to polute as much as their companies.

[RashanGary]

If Liberals could just stop supporting abortion, I'll bet it would be a long time before we see another republican president. People who support abortion probably vote on other issues. Those who oppose abortion make it a point to vote for those who agree. I thought Kerry's downfall last year was his stance on abortion.

If Rudy gets the Republican nomination, I would think it's highly probably that Hillary is our president. Rudy would lose a lot of the social conservative vote and without them, the republicans just don't have enough support to win an election.

[the_idle_threat]

Seems treason is a term thrown around rather loosely by some these days. Seems to me Carter has engaged in a public debate about foreign policy, which a lot of people don't approve of, which is fine. However, it hardly constitutes treason, IMHO.

I agree that the term is thrown around loosely by some, but not by me. I mean it here.

I have no problem with Carter or anyone else "engaging in public debate." I have a problem with Carter actually meeting with foreign leaders such as Chavez and Castro in a quasi-representative capacity as an ex-President, and undermining the foreign policy decisions of those who are actually in charge to make foreign policy decisions.

Such behavior calls into question whether or not we're serious as a country about actually having a representative government. Heck, if you don't like what the elected bosses are doing, just declare yourself morally and intellectually superior (whether or not either is actually true) and make your own separate foreign policy. It's ludicrous.

[RashanGary]

Oh, come on. This is NOT a totalitarian government. If Carter thinks Bush is a retard and wants to have discussion with other foreign leaders, that is his choice. The executive branch has all of the power that comes with the position of President. They do not have the power to control the words and actions of private citizens. Ex president or not, Carter has every right to say and do whatever the hell he pleases. If it underminds the president GOOD. That's what thsi country is all about. I will expect all of you to be equally suportive of everything Hillbilly does when he/she gets the office again. Let's see how patriotic you all are then. I'm not even a lib, but listenting to some of the hipocracy that comes out of the mouths of many conservatives makes me defend them in the name of intellectual honestly.

[the_idle_threat]

JH, you have no idea what totalitarianism is, apparently. Or what government is.

And for the record, I'm not nearly so "conservative" as you seem to think, and neither is my POV. Authoritarian might be a better word for it.

The Clintons---Bill in particular---have actually supported many of Bush's foreign policy decisions, and would presumably not support Carter's free-lancing. Bill knows exactly what Bush is up against: the fact that so many people think they know more about the world and foreign affairs than the president does just because they read the newspaper and surf the internet, while the President has staff and gets regular reports on what's going on.

Go ahead and continue believing you are smarter and better informed, JH. That belief doesn't make it so.

[RashanGary]

I never said I knew more, nor do I think I know more. Acctually, I think the threat by radical Islam is a huge threat and I also support much of Bush's foreign policy decisions.

In the same breath, Jimmy Carter can do whatever the hell he pleases and it's perfectly American.

[the_idle_threat]

If Jimmy Carter provides information---perhaps inadvertently or perhaps not---to an "enemy" foreign leader that causes harm or death to U.S. soldiers, is that "American" and his right, JH?

Not accusing Carter of this, but wondering what limits---if any---there are on your permissive thinking.

[Joemailman]

A treasonous act by Carter would be to provide aid to someone we are at war with (Al-Qaeda, Taliban, or Iraqi insurgents), or providing security secrets to any foreign leader.

[esoxx]

Jimmy Carter :lol: :lol: :lol:

Arafat deserved the Nobel Peace Prize....really.

[LL2]

My biggest beef with that article is that it says that Carter "allowed" the hostage crisis to happen. Using that logic, Bush "allowed" 9-11 to happen and on our own soil which makes him 100x worse.


About 9/11. Both Clinton and Bush misunderestimated the al quaeda threat. It's that simple. They both bear some responsibility, along with the CIA for letting the terrorists get by them. The events in Iran were far more transparent, and there were plenty of people who were writing at the time (and warning) about the nature of Khomeni and the fundamentalists who were trying to seize power in Iran.

This might be the first time I actually saw someone say that both Clinton and Bush share the responsibility of 9/11. It seems most want to blame Bush, but there were other terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 on the twin towers, plus the USS Cole, and a US Embassy in Africa. All those occured under Clintons watch, and he really didn't do anything about it.

[Joemailman]

The attempts by people like Orrin Hatch to blame Clinton for 9/11 started on about 9/14. And yet I don't recall the Clinton people trying to blame the George H.W. Bush administration for the first World Center bombing even though it happened just 5 weeks after Clinton took office. Bush, on the other hand, was in office for 8 months before 9/11, and had been briefed by the outgoing Clinton administration about the dangers posed by Bin Laden. But we now know that Bush was more interested in taking out Saddam than Bin Laden.

[MJZiggy]

He tried to bomb them, he just missed....

[RashanGary]

If Jimmy Carter provides information---perhaps inadvertently or perhaps not---to an "enemy" foreign leader that causes harm or death to U.S. soldiers, is that "American" and his right, JH?

Not accusing Carter of this, but wondering what limits---if any---there are on your permissive thinking.

There are limits. I highly doubt Jimmy Carter is doing anything other than undermining the administrations credibility, which is funny more than it is hurtfull to our home security.

President Bush is the executive branch of our government. He's not the all powerfull dictator. Private citizens and other members of government alike shoudl be encouraged to publicly express differences and force him to make decisions based on the constituents.

Boo Hoo, Carter is talkign to a socialist. Who would be so scared of socialism, besides the 1% who inherit 60% of our countries wealth and know they will never leave the safe confines of wealth under the current system.

I believe in letting competitive markets drive our economy, but I also believe in social programs that fully fund education for those who can't afford it (and are capable of excelling). I like limits on monopolization. That is NOT straight capitolism. I also like government that supports the easy transition from one class to another based on performance, not on inherited wealth.


I watched a special on Christopher Comumbus the other night. He had a vision that would allow him to reach the east by travelling west, and there for discover and conquer lands with the goal of spreading christianity and gaining wealth. Columbus did find a new world, that was loaded with recouces and valuable metals. Instead of being rewarded, he died with very little and left nothing for his kids. He spent the last years of his life trying to gather deeds and rights to the land that he discovered, but instead the royal family took everything, grew their wealth and left him with nothing. That is human nature. The brilliant, forward thinker will come up with the idea, help the company and the company will use the employee, take all of the wealth that comes with the ideas and the employee will be left with very little. Wealth brings power and with power comes oppression.

Now, a doctor who busts his ass, creates a clinic and becomes a millionaire deserved everything he got. He earned it. Bill Gates earned his. Many earn it, but there are people who were born into wealth and will never lose it because it will be passed from family to family similar to the royal families of Europe. It has little to do with what they acctually accomplish, and a lot to do with greed and power. It fosters oppression and a strict, hard to budge class system. I'm all for capitalism and I'm all about transfering government control to control of the people, but I"m also a big supporter of a system that rewards ideas and brilliance, rather than a system that promotes aristocratic type power.

There is a balance. Straight capitalism sounds great. The best will rise, but it doesn't end up that way. The best rise, pass it down to their kids and then greed and security allow it to steam roll based on inheritance, not on acctual decisions and ability. Our system is pretty good. I would support less money given to the lazy and more given to those who want to pursue higher education or open buisnesses. Instead of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, they should take from the rich and give to the ambitious. This would allow the cream to rise to the top rather than having the top set in stone for the most part. It would make the old wealth seem less secure, but the American dream would be more achievable. It's not bad right now. It could be better though. The fears of certain levels of socialism are exaggerated. The uselessness of government is not, but some ideas of socialism are good if implimented correctly.

[the_idle_threat]

Good God, it's like talking to a child. I give up.

[Deputy Nutz]

If Liberals could just stop supporting abortion, I'll bet it would be a long time before we see another republican president. People who support abortion probably vote on other issues. Those who oppose abortion make it a point to vote for those who agree. I thought Kerry's downfall last year was his stance on abortion.

If Rudy gets the Republican nomination, I would think it's highly probably that Hillary is our president. Rudy would lose a lot of the social conservative vote and without them, the republicans just don't have enough support to win an election.

I really don't understand this point, what does abortion have to do with anything? Liberal supporting abortion? What the fuck?

Bush Jr. next to our last few presidents takes a pretty pro-life view point to abortion and not a thing has been done to change the laws. I think it is a stupid view for a president to express and should really have no impact on the election but I would have to say it is at least a top 10 reason why people will vote a certain way.

I am pro-choice but I voted for Bush because of his gun control policies.
How about that.

Back on subject, I don't think Bush is going to win a Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon, maybe a Crackerjack prize if he can figure out how to open up the box.

[Kiwon]

Good God, it's like talking to a child. I give up.

Idle, you have to come down to their level.

You start with colors first and then work your way up to numbers and the alphabet.

[MJZiggy]

If Liberals could just stop supporting abortion, I'll bet it would be a long time before we see another republican president. People who support abortion probably vote on other issues. Those who oppose abortion make it a point to vote for those who agree. I thought Kerry's downfall last year was his stance on abortion.

If Rudy gets the Republican nomination, I would think it's highly probably that Hillary is our president. Rudy would lose a lot of the social conservative vote and without them, the republicans just don't have enough support to win an election.

I really don't understand this point, what does abortion have to do with anything? Liberal supporting abortion? What the fuck?

Bush Jr. next to our last few presidents takes a pretty pro-life view point to abortion and not a thing has been done to change the laws. I think it is a stupid view for a president to express and should really have no impact on the election but I would have to say it is at least a top 10 reason why people will vote a certain way.

I am pro-choice but I voted for Bush because of his gun control policies.
How about that.

Back on subject, I don't think Bush is going to win a Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon, maybe a Crackerjack prize if he can figure out how to open up the box.

The deal with abortion and presidential politics is that the president appoints the Supreme Court justices, so if they keep electing pro-life presidents, the hope is that the Court becomes more conservative as far as abortion is concerned and they can get Roe v. Wade overturned. They feel that their vote on the abortion issue alone will have a specific outcome, never mind that the candidate is a complete turd. The Court might vote differently.

Why they care what the Senatorial and Gubernatorial candidate think on the issue is beyond me.

[Joemailman]

If Roe is overturned, the decision on whether to have abortion legal will likely return to the states. It is anticipated that a Supreme Court ruling reversing Roe would not outlaw abortion, but allow state governments to decide if abortion will be legal in their state. Therefore, a governors view on abortion will be crucial if Roe is overturned.

[MJZiggy]

If Roe is overturned, the decision on whether to have abortion legal will likely return to the states. It is anticipated that a Supreme Court ruling reversing Roe would not outlaw abortion, but allow state governments to decide if abortion will be legal in their state. Therefore, a governors view on abortion will be crucial if Roe is overturned.

Why the governor's and not the state legislatures. The gov may have veto power, but he can be overruled as well and I don't think he introduces legislation.

[Joemailman]

I mentioned the governor because of veto power. Certainly the state legislature races would be important too.

[Deputy Nutz]

If Roe is overturned, the decision on whether to have abortion legal will likely return to the states. It is anticipated that a Supreme Court ruling reversing Roe would not outlaw abortion, but allow state governments to decide if abortion will be legal in their state. Therefore, a governors view on abortion will be crucial if Roe is overturned.

Umm, I don't think it is going to be overturned for a while regardless of what Ron Paul thinks.

[MJZiggy]

I don't think so either which is why I thinks it's ludicrous to base your vote entirely on this one issue.

[Freak Out]

Was someone talking about abortion? How about birth control?
What the hell kind of name is Chytoria? Something her family pulled from an old issue of Fangoria?

Woman convicted of using baby as weapon during fight

October 11, 2007

ERIE, Pa. -- A jury has convicted a woman of swinging her 4-week-old son at her boyfriend during a fight and fracturing the infant's skull.

Chytoria Graham, 28, fell into the fetal position when the judge told her she faced a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence after she was convicted Wednesday of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, simple assault and child endangerment.

''Oh my God,'' Graham cried. ''Oh my God, Oh my God. No, no, no.''

Graham and her boyfriend, DeAngelo Troop, got into a fight Oct. 8, 2006, after Graham came home from a night of drinking, according to prosecutors. They said Graham grabbed the baby, Jarron, by his feet and swung him, hitting Troop and fracturing the infant's skull.

Graham had pleaded guilty in March to aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of a child, but withdrew her plea in June.

Jarron recovered and is living with Graham's family. Graham will be sentenced Dec. 12.

AP
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[LL2]

Was someone talking about abortion? How about birth control?
What the hell kind of name is Chytoria? Something her family pulled from an old issue of Fangoria?

Woman convicted of using baby as weapon during fight

October 11, 2007

ERIE, Pa. -- A jury has convicted a woman of swinging her 4-week-old son at her boyfriend during a fight and fracturing the infant's skull.

Chytoria Graham, 28, fell into the fetal position when the judge told her she faced a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence after she was convicted Wednesday of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, simple assault and child endangerment.

''Oh my God,'' Graham cried. ''Oh my God, Oh my God. No, no, no.''

Graham and her boyfriend, DeAngelo Troop, got into a fight Oct. 8, 2006, after Graham came home from a night of drinking, according to prosecutors. They said Graham grabbed the baby, Jarron, by his feet and swung him, hitting Troop and fracturing the infant's skull.

Graham had pleaded guilty in March to aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of a child, but withdrew her plea in June.

Jarron recovered and is living with Graham's family. Graham will be sentenced Dec. 12.

AP
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Stupid people! I remember watching the news a long time ago and someone was trying to escape cops and in the process slowed down to open the door and put his/ her (don't remember if it was a man or woman) baby on the road while still in the car seat. People like that should be beaten with a baseball bat!

[RashanGary]

Since this is a political thread, you knwo what annoys the piss out of me?


When people spend half of their day's thinking about and talking about who is more patriotic than who, and who supports the troops and who doesn't.

If you have some core beliefs that you believe this country should be founded around, GREAT. Support those. Abortion, civil libertys, immigration, ecomomic efficiency and how to achieve it, ect. . . .

YOu know what everyone sits around and gets all worked up about? They all sit around and go boo hoo, so and so undermined the president. So and so doesn't support the troops because they don't think we should be in war.

Then you have libs sitting around saying "President Bush want kids to die" "President Bush wants to oppress the little guy so the rich can stay rich" and so on. . . . . .

It's all a big mind game that is no more complex than the mainstream voter. It's a cluster fuck of rediculous debate that radio hosts use to stir up emotion, gain ratings and eat up 3 hours of radio per day.


Just once, I'd love to hear people with creative, somewhat original thought that pertains to the core issues of our time instead of rehashed, regurgetated bull shit from an entertainer who's job is to stir up ratings. HH comes close. myrand or whatever his name is seems to from time ot time. The majority just bitch about stupid little word games that are no where near the core of the problem, but are just interesting and emotional enough to interest the mainstream adience. Yawn. . . .

I listen to talk radio, but I pride myself on making my own ideas and maybe piecing things together to really mean something, rather than just repetitively pounding at the shallow surface of a deeper topic. I'm sure there are people here who'd knowledge of the last 20 years of current events puts mine to shame. I'm sure there are some who know more about the threat of radical Islam than I. I dont' think I'm the all knowing anwer to everything, but I know we can get a little deeper than Jimmy Carter isn't patriotic because he disagrees with the president. I know we can do better than that.

Newt Gingrich is pretty inspiring with his ideas of how to strengthen our economy. I thought that was very interesting. I brought it up once and people just sort of went on to the next political cat fight.


I think the world economy is like a big pie. There are haves and have nots. Those who can produce the best products will strive. Those who's prodcuts are too expensive or not advanced enough will falter. We're getting to a point where we have to advance our companies on a world wide basis and the politician that focuses on that will be the politician that I believe will allow all of us to financially flourish. A strong ecomonmy makes everything else possible. I just can't believe it's not a bigger issue.

[Freak Out]

I guess when the Indians and the Chinese have added a couple of billion automobiles into the oil/food chain all the bases that were building in Iraq will have turned out to be money well spent. :lol:

I was digging for some investment info and came across a story about Indian and Chinese car companies that were producing $2500 vehicles and had to do a double take when I saw some of the numbers these guys were throwing out there as far as future sales figures. If people think were pumping a bunch of crap into the air now just wait!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Gore Derangement Syndrome
PAUL KRUGMAN, October 15, 2007

On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with “that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. “cap and trade” system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain.

Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

[swede]

Is this topic still going on?

The bestowing of the Nobel Peace prize upon Al Gore was simply a politically motivated gesture by a politically motivated organization.

It was predictable and more amusing than annoying.

I'm having an enormous amount of fun with it.

The Wall Street Journal was making its own politically motivated point, and liberals like Krugman screech foul play. You see, it's not enough that Gore has been given the Nobel Peace prize. We're all supposed to concede that the granting of this award now legitimizes the "we're causing global warming" movement.

Sorry. I think Al Gore is an opportunistic attention-seeker, but I'm not outraged. I think it's hilarious that he won the coveted award.

[swede]

I shall now "Krugmanize" myself:

The swede is smarter than all of you liberals and it drives you all crazy.

[Zool]

I'd like to know what exactly a liberal is vs a conservative. I personally think all of you are fucked in the head for certain things. Does that make me independent? Do you really feel better knowing that 50% of the populace disagrees with you out of principal and what you're supposed to think being one faction or the other? Are the Dem and Repub senators seated on opposite sides of the senate so they can tell who's who? I find it all mind numbingly boring.

[MJZiggy]

I'd like to know what exactly a liberal is vs a conservative. I personally think all of you are fucked in the head for certain things. Does that make me independent? Do you really feel better knowing that 50% of the populace disagrees with you out of principal and what you're supposed to think being one faction or the other? Are the Dem and Repub senators seated on opposite sides of the senate so they can tell who's who? I find it all mind numbingly boring.

Yes, you're an independent.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The bestowing of the Nobel Peace prize upon Al Gore was simply a politically motivated gesture by a politically motivated organization.

Sweden, you never responded to my question. (shocking) You said that the Nobel Prize is no longer prestigous. This means it used to be prestigous: when was that? Back when Kissinger got a Nobel prize?

The international standing of the Nobel Prize has not diminished a bit. What has happened is that we have been divided into our little echo chambers. I listen to a lot of conservative talk radio, and they are all saying exactly the same thing about this Nobel. And the liberals have their own seperate reality.

The Nobel is indeed VERY political, but not in a liberal-conservative way. It is often intended to contribute political momentum to a hopeful process. Which is why Kissinger got a Noble . And OF COURSE Arafat got a Noble (along with Israeli partners) when a peace initiative was looking so hopeful. If he was a terrorist (as were Israeli leaders, incidentally) that is almost besides the point.
IT DOES NOT MATTER A BIT IF GORE IS A POLITICAL HACK OR PHONY OR PEDOPHILE!! He received a Noble because the committee wanted to give a political boost to a cause they deemed important to peace and stability. And secondly, they respect Gore's work.

I think this latest dust-up over the Nobel is fucking fascinating. It shows how truly out-of-step the conservative movement is in this country, relative to the rest of the world. That's not to say they are unimportant, or even wrong, but they are on their own planet. Planet Limbaugh.

And By The Way: I was roundly criticized for ripping Kiwon a new asshole; some of that criticism even came from foreigners of questionable motives. I was not doing any rectal ripping, it was more in the form of a kick in the butt. I was not saying I know more than Kiwon about the Noble winners, I wouldn't expect anybody to know about those winners off the top their heads. But before you criticize a decision, like the choice of a Nobel committee, you really ought to know WHY they made their choice. Otherwise its just shallow demagoging.

[Harlan Huckleby]

We're all supposed to concede that the granting of this award now legitimizes the "we're causing global warming" movement.

that movement is not wanting for legitimacy, other than in some increasingly isolated circles.

the political consensus to actually do something about the problem is not there, probably won't be there for years or decades. This Noble prize is a modest political endorsement.

[swede]

We're all supposed to concede that the granting of this award now legitimizes the "we're causing global warming" movement.

that movement is not wanting for legitimacy, other than in some increasingly isolated circles.

the political consensus to actually do something about the problem is not there, probably won't be there for years or decades. This Noble [sic] prize is a modest political endorsement.

If it pleases you to think so, go ahead. The current cadre of scientists feeding data into the "global warming is caused by us" machine are beholden to a system which would cut funds in a bananosecond if it became apparent they were to entertain any point of view other than the Al Gore world view.

Global warming may be a fact, but the causes and consequences are not.

Again, I am amused by Al's big payday. He'll get to fly around a lot and talk about our nice planet and mean people who drive big cars. What fun for him!

(Cut to the scene from the Mask when Jim Carrey holds up the Oscar and says, "They love me! They really love me!")

Mr. Krugman and all the Star-bellied Sneetches are welcome to think they're still the best Sneetches on the beaches. It's all part of the show, and its a good show.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Again, I am amused by Al's big payday. He'll get to fly around a lot and talk about our nice planet and mean people who drive big cars. What fun for him!

Gore is a very wealthy man, he can do whatever he wants with his time.
I don't think traveling heavily and giving the same slideshow hundreds of times would be so pleasant. Sounds like a lot of work in fact. He could have just taken a comfy, prestigous job in academia. Gore worked on this issue for decades, back when it was a thankless effort.

I expect Gore's contribution is going to stand-up pretty glowingly in history.

Unless you are right, in which case he'll be remembered as a charlatan and damn fool. :lol:

[RashanGary]

I had a post that had to do with Columbus and the elite royal family oppressing him from profiting from his skills. Turns out my observation is shared by a prestigous MIT economist.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2003/06/pdf/Acemoglu.pdf


I also touched on improving our economic system in a way that promotes the success of brilliant, skilled contributors to society, instead of having their skills used and somewhat oppressed by the elites. I said how the elite would be affraid of instituation that promotes the advance of the best and the brightest, rather than the most privilaged. This artical goes into that concept.

I thought the artical by Acemoglu was interesting and relevant, but I thought that the level of which he downplayed geography was a little excessive. I think institution combined with the population vs recource relationship are the two biggest factors. China has a lot of recources, but they also have a lot of people, splitting their pie in many more pieces. Our country has a lot of recources, with relatively few people and an instituation that promotes investment, competition as well as growth based on decisions. Therefor we have a large pie and few people to consume it, allowing us to have somewhat easy to achieve wealth.


If anyone takes the time to read that artical, I'm curious if anyone has ideas of which of our political parties' concepts jive best with this economists theory of how a country achieves and maintains wealth.

[hoosier]

The current cadre of scientists feeding data into the "global warming is caused by us" machine are beholden to a system which would cut funds in a bananosecond if it became apparent they were to entertain any point of view other than the Al Gore world view.

Remind me, who's behind this big "scientific-wing" conspiracy?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The current cadre of scientists feeding data into the "global warming is caused by us" machine are beholden to a system which would cut funds in a bananosecond if it became apparent they were to entertain any point of view other than the Al Gore world view.

Remind me, who's behind this big "scientific-wing" conspiracy?

cadre: a small unit serving as part of or as the nucleus of a larger political movement [synonym: cell]
A tightly knit group of zealots who are active in advancing the interests of a revolutionary party.

:lol: :lol: Swede is a live wire!

To be fair, I think there is a pretty large incentive for researchers to support the concept of global warming, Swede is right on that. But not extending across the planet, across thousands of studies.

The good news, or perhaps bad news, is the truth will come out. And the reality is dribbling out every day, month, year.

[MadtownPacker]

Voting must be fun.

[LL2]

Voting must be fun.

Do you get to vote? Tijuana must have some politicians?

[mraynrand]

And OF COURSE Arafat got a Noble (along with Israeli partners) when a peace initiative was looking so hopeful. If he was a terrorist (as were Israeli leaders, incidentally) that is almost besides the point.

You're so fucked in the head with moral relativism, it's a wonder you can even function. if Arafat was a terrorist? You say if for Arafat, but you are certain Israeli leaders were terrorists. beyond unbelievable.

[mraynrand]

Gore worked on this issue for decades, back when it was a thankless effort.

Decades? I thought it was global cooling the seventies. Oh, I see, he was ahead of us all. Just like with the internet.

Say, HH. If global warming is "settled science" why do we need 5 billion in climate research every year? Seems like a bit of a waste doesn't it? That 5 billion could be used to make some weapons to invade China and shut down their polluting coal burning plants. That's what Gore wants us to do, right?

[3irty1]

Gore worked on this issue for decades, back when it was a thankless effort.

Decades? I thought it was global cooling the seventies. Oh, I see, he was ahead of us all. Just like with the internet.

Say, HH. If global warming is "settled science" why do we need 5 billion in climate research every year? Seems like a bit of a waste doesn't it? That 5 billion could be used to make some weapons to invade China and shut down their polluting coal burning plants. That's what Gore wants us to do, right?

he did discover manbearpig.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b22/Derurasu/manbearpig.png

[Harlan Huckleby]

And OF COURSE Arafat got a Noble (along with Israeli partners) when a peace initiative was looking so hopeful. If he was a terrorist (as were Israeli leaders, incidentally) that is almost besides the point.

You're so fucked in the head with moral relativism, it's a wonder you can even function. if Arafat was a terrorist? You say if for Arafat, but you are certain Israeli leaders were terrorists. beyond unbelievable.

The "if" applies to the appropriatness of the word "terrorist." You have parsed my words surgically and drawn false distinctions to justify your firey speech.

Several Israeli leaders during the Arafat era (Begin, Shamir, ...) led cells back in the 1940's that planted bombs to blow up British occupiers. You can call them "terrorists" or "freedom fighters." Similar status with Arafat, and this is my point.

Some consider Kissinger a war criminal for the policies he advocated in S.E. Asia. http://www.spectacle.org/0501/kissinger.html

People who are engaged in peace-making are often warriors too. Leaders do both. The Nobel prize isn't always given as a lifetime achievement award to peace-loving individuals, it's intended as a practical tool for encouraging peaceful developments.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Decades? I thought it was global cooling the seventies.

btw, the theory on global cooling turned out to be accurate. there are other factors that overwhelm its effects.


Say, HH. If global warming is "settled science" why do we need 5 billion in climate research every year? Seems like a bit of a waste doesn't it?

your mind may be black and white, but the world is not. Just because there is an overwhelming consensus on man-made global warming doesn't mean that they have perfect models.

[RashanGary]

I always love the "If it's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it can't be true" arguement.

There are so many factors that go into planetary climate that it would be impossible to prove anything. Proving it shouldn't be required, showing that is is likely is all that is needed to start making a case for change.

As far as the arguement "who cares if the earth gets warmer", I would think the balance of the only existing livable planet in our reach is pretty important. You hate to do irreversable damage. The safest thing to do is preserve the planet the way it is so that we don't stumble upon any suprises. It could work out great, but who wants to gamble when it comes to that planet that gives us life?

[Harlan Huckleby]

As far as the arguement "who cares if the earth gets warmer", I would think the balance of the only existing livable planet in our reach is pretty important

Just to muddy the waters a bit, I do get confused about the argument that some species will die. Won't other threatened species thrive in the warmer temperatures? Seems like it would balance out. The greatest biological diversity is found in tropical climates. (I just pulled that "fact" out of my ass, but I do know that the rain forests are the most diverse ecology.) And I've read a lot of ocean fish have increased their range.

But never mind.

[SkinBasket]

I would think the balance of the only existing livable planet in our reach is pretty important. You hate to do irreversable damage. The safest thing to do is preserve the planet the way it is so that we don't stumble upon any suprises. It could work out great, but who wants to gamble when it comes to that planet that gives us life?

You ever think the planet is sick of "giving us life" and would rather we just fucking perish? Why is the possible extinction of mankind such a dramatic event for you people? We ain't gonna last forever you know and the planet you claim to care so much about will be better for it. Deal with it.

In the words of the Shatner:

Live life like you’re gonna die
Becasue you’re going to.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news
But you’re gonna die

Maybe not today or even next year
But before you know it you’ll be saying
“Is this all there was?
What was all the fuss?
Why did I bother?”

Now, maybe you won’t suffer, maybe it’s quick
But you’ll have time to think
Why did I waste it?
Why didn’t I taste it?
You’ll have time
Because you’re gonna die.

Yes it’s gonna happen because it’s happened to a lot of people I know
My mother, my father, my loves
The president, the kings and the pope
They all had hope

And they muttered just before they went
Maybe I won’t go
Live life like you’re going to die
Because you are

Maybe you won’t suffer maybe it’s quick
But you’ll have time to think
Why did I waste it?
Why didn’t I taste it?
You’ll have time
‘Cause you’re gonna die

I tell you who else left us
Passed on down to heaven no longer with us
Johnny Cash, JFK, that guy in the Stones
Lou Gehrig, Einstein, Joey Ramone
Have I convinced you yet?
Do you read my lips?
This may come as news but it’s time.
You’re gonna die.

By the time you hear this I may well be dead
And you my friend might be next
‘Cause we’re all gonna die

Maybe you won’t suffer and maybe it’s quick
But you’ll have time to think
Why did I waste it?
Why didn’t I taste it?
You’ll have time
You’ll have time, ’cause you’re gonna die
Yes, you’re gonna die
You’re gonna die, I tell you
You’re gonna die
You are going to die

[swede]

The sun is dimming.

The universe is inexorably expanding and unwinding.

Entropy rules the cosmos.

Humans are ridiculously self-centered. They want to believe that they have power and control over the geological evolution of a planet that bubbled along quite nicely for a good four billion years before they came along.

As a species our history is as finite as our own fragile lives.

That's why we enjoy things as ridiculous as football.

Roll in the hay while the sun still shines!

Edit: I can't believe Skin beat me to the "we're all gonna die any way post! :evil:

[mraynrand]

The "if" applies to the appropriatness of the word "terrorist." You have parsed my words surgically and drawn false distinctions to justify your firey speech.

distinction without a difference. You didn't use 'if' for the appropriateness of labeling Israeli leaders terrorists.



Several Israeli leaders during the Arafat era (Begin, Shamir, ...) led cells back in the 1940's that planted bombs to blow up British occupiers. You can call them "terrorists" or "freedom fighters." Similar status with Arafat, and this is my point.


The point isn't so much what you name them, as it is that you find them equivalent. People who target foreign terrorist leaders or military occupiers are not the same as those who tell their people to strap bombs on their children to blow up other women and children in restaurants. Not equivalent at all. That's why you are so screwed up. Recall the old saw - don't keep such an open mind that your brains leak out. I suspect that's what happened to you.

[Freak Out]

I would think the balance of the only existing livable planet in our reach is pretty important. You hate to do irreversable damage. The safest thing to do is preserve the planet the way it is so that we don't stumble upon any suprises. It could work out great, but who wants to gamble when it comes to that planet that gives us life?

You ever think the planet is sick of "giving us life" and would rather we just fucking perish? Why is the possible extinction of mankind such a dramatic event for you people? We ain't gonna last forever you know and the planet you claim to care so much about will be better for it. Deal with it.

In the words of the Shatner:

Live life like you’re gonna die
Becasue you’re going to.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news
But you’re gonna die

Maybe not today or even next year
But before you know it you’ll be saying
“Is this all there was?
What was all the fuss?
Why did I bother?”

Now, maybe you won’t suffer, maybe it’s quick
But you’ll have time to think
Why did I waste it?
Why didn’t I taste it?
You’ll have time
Because you’re gonna die.

Yes it’s gonna happen because it’s happened to a lot of people I know
My mother, my father, my loves
The president, the kings and the pope
They all had hope

And they muttered just before they went
Maybe I won’t go
Live life like you’re going to die
Because you are

Maybe you won’t suffer maybe it’s quick
But you’ll have time to think
Why did I waste it?
Why didn’t I taste it?
You’ll have time
‘Cause you’re gonna die

I tell you who else left us
Passed on down to heaven no longer with us
Johnny Cash, JFK, that guy in the Stones
Lou Gehrig, Einstein, Joey Ramone
Have I convinced you yet?
Do you read my lips?
This may come as news but it’s time.
You’re gonna die.

By the time you hear this I may well be dead
And you my friend might be next
‘Cause we’re all gonna die

Maybe you won’t suffer and maybe it’s quick
But you’ll have time to think
Why did I waste it?
Why didn’t I taste it?
You’ll have time
You’ll have time, ’cause you’re gonna die
Yes, you’re gonna die
You’re gonna die, I tell you
You’re gonna die
You are going to die

Where's the Nimoy baby!

Oh...here it is.

http://www.leonardnimoyphotography.com/2photo.htm

[MadtownPacker]

If any of you panochas are worried about the world ending I will be more then happy to take your ass out now. 8-)

[Merlin]

Kiwon,

Gore put the environment on the agendas of people that wouldn't ordinarily taken too much notice. Despite HH's "higher-than-thou" stance towards you, I share his position pertaining to the importance of the Nobel Peace Prize.

To dismiss it, I think, is a bit short sighted. Yes I had trouble with Arafat receiving the award based on his past, but, when he won it, he was genuinely working towards solving a 1000 year war.

Having sat next to an Israeli doctor on the plane from DC to Frankfurt this week, I had a chance to discuss this with someone who was there; She said, she and many of her countrymen were in awe of Arafat's attempts at achieving peace and, she is convinced if it weren't for the assassination of Rabin, peace might have become reality.

Going back to his old ways embarressed the committe, I suspect.

Anyways, Gore has done a wonderful job of getting the environment on the agenda. Whether or not this was politically motivated is a different discussion; solving the peace issue in the Middle-East is also pretty good for one's polical resumé!

I think you forgot all about the 1970's and the naive environmental laws that have been passed since. Not that all of them are bad but some of them are a joke. The issue for Gore is not the environment, it's his ego. The environment is all over the media and has been for three decades now. If this award held any creditability anymore, he would not have received it over other nominees whose LIFETIME achievements meant more to peace in the world then his 15 minutes of fame do. The problem is the MSM wanted Gore to get it, therefore it is a meaningless award that was once a prestigious award but now tainted because of idiots like Gore.

[Merlin]

Jimmy Carter: The Worst Ex-President in History

Better enjoy it, he loses his crown in 15 months.

No, he won't lose it. He is by far the worst president in US history. No other president came as close to running a country into bankruptcy as Carter did. His domestic policies were the worst on record and his foreign policies lead to the detainment of US Citizens for some 400 + days. Nothing he has to say is worth a shit, not one word. He is goo for the habitat for humanity but outside of that, he is living in some kind of ultra-dictator loving reality.

[Merlin]

My biggest beef with that article is that it says that Carter "allowed" the hostage crisis to happen. Using that logic, Bush "allowed" 9-11 to happen and on our own soil which makes him 100x worse.


About 9/11. Both Clinton and Bush misunderestimated the al quaeda threat. It's that simple. They both bear some responsibility, along with the CIA for letting the terrorists get by them. The events in Iran were far more transparent, and there were plenty of people who were writing at the time (and warning) about the nature of Khomeni and the fundamentalists who were trying to seize power in Iran.

Clinton bears the brunt of the blame on this one. He didn't do anything after the first WTC bombing, he had the same intelligence reports that Bush had. Bush was in office for 8 Months when the attacks occurred, Clinton had 8 years and did nothing. Bush can take some of the responsibility but to dismiss the inaction of the previous administration because you don't like Bush is just wrong (not that you did that here).

[Merlin]

We only get one earth. It's unfortunate that the rest of the world won't play fair. Greed and competitiveness is not always what is best for the world. It makes people work harder and be more efficient, but it doesn't make the world a better place in all instances. I'm a conservative, mostly because of economic issues and overall efficiency in our country, but I'm very much against the republican party when it comes to the enviornment. They want to make it possible for companies to compete. Mabe they should start devising ways to make other countries compete on a level playing field instead of making it possible for our companies to polute as much as their companies.

Most aren't aware that the United States has the strictest environmental policies in the world. Maybe we should take that mantra to the countries that aren't doing anything and are actually creating more pollution to get some of those Kyoto Treaty dollars from the UN. That is the reality. Another reality is that in the global market place the US cannot compete with other countries because of our environmental laws. No one is saying destroy the planet. No other president has given more money to environmental maintenance then Bush. It's a cold hard fact that gets lost in the rhetoric.

Just another spin on the same.

[swede]

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z236/dsteenswede44/cartoon1.jpg

[RashanGary]

Most aren't aware that the United States has the strictest environmental policies in the world. Maybe we should take that mantra to the countries that aren't doing anything and are actually creating more pollution to get some of those Kyoto Treaty dollars from the UN. That is the reality. Another reality is that in the global market place the US cannot compete with other countries because of our environmental laws. No one is saying destroy the planet. No other president has given more money to environmental maintenance then Bush. It's a cold hard fact that gets lost in the rhetoric.

Just another spin on the same.

Good point. I agree that republicans or Bush are not at fault. Our country seems to do a very good job. The real fight against global warming, Ozone depletion and the possible threat to life are countries like China who have little to no laws about how much garbage they can dump into our atmosphere. Fighting to level the playing field would be good for current and prospective buisnesses in our country and MUCH better for the maintenance of the planet we occupy. The answer isn't more laws against us, the answer is more universal laws as a law here just moves a buisness there and it continues at what is probably a higher rate. Bush has the right idea. He's pressuring the world to follow suit, rather than making our laws more strict which would really do nothing.

My arguement is against those who say global doesn't exist and mock poeple who value maintaining the earth.

[Harlan Huckleby]

People who target foreign terrorist leaders or military occupiers are not the same as those who tell their people to strap bombs on their children to blow up other women and children in restaurants.

How does the behavior of terrorists compare morally with the firebombing of Dresdon in WWII? Tens of thousands of INNOCENT women and children died an agonzing death. And the military rational was dubious.

I see no difference. A burned baby is a burned baby.

I don't know whether Menachem Begin killed any civilians when he led a terrorist cell in the 1940's, I assume he did, they were attacking the civil administration. It is the same strategy the Palestinians have employed.

Anwar Sadat got a Nobel Prize, he was a brutal dictator who tortured thousands.

What were we arguing about? Oh ya, you are outraged that the Nobel committee gave a prize to a man who is not only arrogant, but also a card-carrying Democrat! :lol:

[falco]

good job everyone.

lets keep on dumbing it down.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The universe is inexorably expanding and unwinding

So at the end of a terrible day, when I'm expanding and unwinding with a shroom, the universe is right there with me. That is so Zen, dude.


Entropy rules the cosmos.

you anarchist. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a pervert too. What with everything falling apart, why not explore the full garden of earthly delights? Republicans today, I shudder.


Humans are ridiculously self-centered. They want to believe that they have power and control over the geological evolution of a planet that bubbled along quite nicely for a good four billion years before they came along.

This philosophy justifies any and all polluting. I've heard this dodge from Rush, too. It's too ignorant and delusional to argue with. Like somebody putting their hands on their ears and yelling, "Nah nah nah nah nah nah!!!!"

[Freak Out]

[quote=JustinHarrell]
Most aren't aware that the United States has the strictest environmental policies in the world. Maybe we should take that mantra to the countries that aren't doing anything and are actually creating more pollution to get some of those Kyoto Treaty dollars from the UN. That is the reality. Another reality is that in the global market place the US cannot compete with other countries because of our environmental laws. No one is saying destroy the planet. No other president has given more money to environmental maintenance then Bush. It's a cold hard fact that gets lost in the rhetoric.
Just another spin on the same.

The EU has much tighter overall EHS laws and the enforcement to back them up. China has very tough laws but almost zero enforcement, the US has some tough laws but not much enforcement. Every once in a while a violation will be sent to the DOJ for enforcement of a criminal violation. The EPA budget has remained pretty stable for the last 10 years or so but Dubyas proposed cuts are going to hurt in some areas that many people are completely unaware of....and the lack of adequate management for the Superfund is almost criminal.

[mraynrand]

A burned baby is a burned baby.

That sums you up Harlan. You couldn't care about intent, ultimate goals or outcome - if a baby is burned, it's all the same. Moral equivalency, thy name is HH.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Dresden firebombing was indefensible on all of those points.

[mraynrand]

I don't know whether Menachem Begin killed any civilians when he led a terrorist cell in the 1940's, I assume he did, they were attacking the civil administration. It is the same strategy the Palestinians have employed.


You know nothing, yet you assume - and then profess to argue that it's the same strategy. What a fool. BTW, they did not employ the same strategy, whether you assume it into existence in your mind or not.

[mraynrand]

The Dresden firebombing was indefensible on all of those points.

Another blanket proclamation of Harlan. I bet you don't know what the reasoning at the time was - what factors were weighed in the push to end the war, yet you'll push forward and make an excathedral-like statement that the bombing was indefensibleon all those points. Don't you know at the time that there were those who were worried about a lot of other factors. I can see the argument that bombing Dresden wasn't necessary, but it certainly could be defensible on a number of grounds - all of them are probably unknown by you. But that's not even the point - it's another distraction of Harlan - argue an alternate point to avoid facing the fact that you have no standards.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ayn,

You have the world neatly divided into good and bad columns.

Jewish uprising against British - good.
Palestinean uprising - bad.
U.S. bombing of civilians - good.

It is you who is ignoring realities, details. Running to comfort of simple answers.

I say there is a lot of immorality in war. And it seems it is you playing moral relativist here, German babies being less sacred than Israeli babies because the cause was stronger. (very debatable point, btw, very little purpose in that Dresden bombing. )

[Harlan Huckleby]

Dresden wasn't necessary, but it certainly could be defensible on a number of grounds.

As is the Palestinean resistance defensible on a number of grounds.

[hoosier]

Most aren't aware that the United States has the strictest environmental policies in the world.

Pulling stuff out of your ass contributes to global warming.

[falco]

Most aren't aware that the United States has the strictest environmental policies in the world.

Pulling stuff out of your ass contributes to global warming.

Merlin is certainly one of the biggest polluters then.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I would not be surprised if Merlin is correct, even if the statement was anally generated.

[mraynrand]

Ayn,

You have the world neatly divided into good and bad columns.

Jewish uprising against British - good.
Palestinean uprising - bad.
U.S. bombing of civilians - good.

It is you who is ignoring realities, details. Running to comfort of simple answers.

I say there is a lot of immorality in war. And it seems it is you playing moral relativist here, German babies being less sacred than Israeli babies because the cause was stronger. (very debatable point, btw, very little purpose in that Dresden bombing. )

You really are hopeless. It's you who are reducing things to absurd simplicities. The Jewish uprising isn't necessarily good, it's just that the 'insurgents' (if you will) were not targeting women and children to achieve their goal; the Palestinians explicitly were and are. That's a huge difference. The Bombing of Dresden was done to hasten the end of the war. What calculus are you using to decide who lives and dies? Who was more valuable - German civilians or Allied soldiers? German civilians or Jews and ethnic minorities being roasted in German ovens? The objective was clear. End the war, reduce allied losses, stop the slaughter of innocents BY the Germans, get to Berlin before the Soviet Union to minimize post-war authoritarian control by the Soviets. The methods were crude and horrific, but the goals were noble.

You can't say the same thing about the Palestinians; their methods were and are deliberately, intentionally horrific, and their ultimate goal is horrific (not a Palestinian state, but destruction of Israel, the slaughter of a people). They were offered virtually everything they ostensibly 'wanted' and turned it down. This is why Lenin called guys like you USEFUL IDIOTS. Lenin knew what he wanted as did Arafat - but so long as they can get sympathetic, ignorant, hoodwinked morons to actually believe that they have some noble purpose, they can continue to fight for their cause with the support of all the useful idiots on the planet who have no capacity to distinguish between good and bad motives and causes or between good, bad, worse, and horrific methods. Lenin and Arafat loved people like you Harlan who would use burned babies as a way to equate the slaughterings of Lenin and Arafat with the bombings of Dresden or the nuking of Japan. In fact, Bin Laden himself, in a manner frighteningly similar to you, equates the bombing of Japan with the WTC bombing. You're in exclusive company, really.

[mraynrand]

Dresden wasn't necessary, but it certainly could be defensible on a number of grounds.

As is the Palestinean resistance defensible on a number of grounds.

I didn't say that 'Dresden wasn't necessary' - I said that I could see the argument. That's entirely different. The point that you don' get - either you are a total moron or you're jut puling a contrarian trick - one where you just disagree with everything (a useless weak position but it allows all sort of escapes when continuously proven wrong - this is a trick you use with Skinbasket all the time and you have admitted that you do it on purpose - making the tactic even more shameful) - Anyway, the point is that the ultimate objectives are so radically different in morality and the methods of the Palestines so horrific that the two situations are totally different (see above post). HH = UI

[Harlan Huckleby]

were not targeting women and children to achieve their goal; the Palestinians explicitly were and are.

The Jewish terrorists were good terrorists? :D The Brittish civilians they killed had it coming, because they stood in the way of the noble cause?

The Palestinean cause is just as noble as the Israeli cause. And I disapprove of terrorism for any cause.


The Bombing of Dresden was done to hasten the end of the war....The methods were crude and horrific, but the goals were noble.

crude and horrific methods should only be used as a last resort. not the case with Dresden. There was a large measure of vengeance in that action.


You can't say the same thing about the Palestinians; their methods were and are deliberately, intentionally horrific, and their ultimate goal is horrific (not a Palestinian state, but destruction of Israel, the slaughter of a people).

hello? Dresden was intentionally horrific, designed to kill, terrorize and demoralize German civilians.

You completely dismiss the Palestinian cause. Such black and white thinking.
To say that the Palestinian people are commited to the slaughter of Jews and the destruction of Isreal is a statement of gross ignorance. Although the numbers in that camp have increased the last 10 years, unfortunately.

I am a staunch supporter of Israel; and I recognize the Palestineans as human beings deserving of a generous accomodation.


In fact, Bin Laden himself, in a manner frighteningly similar to you, equates the bombing of Japan with the WTC bombing. You're in exclusive company, really.

Let the record show that I don't believe Bin Laden's cause is noble.

And for future reference, I also am opposed to the cause of Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the ultimate objectives are so radically different in morality and the methods of the Palestines so horrific that the two situations are totally different

I disagree on both counts. I have sympathy for the Palestinean cause, their desire for self-government is legitimate.

And a bomb is a bomb whether it is delivered in a backpack in a coffee shop, or as an incindinary device dropped from an airplane on innocent civilians. They are not radically different, they are both horrific.

(I don't understand your criticism of my debating tactics, I can't follow the logic. Any suggestion that I am insincere is false. And I can't imagine myself admiting to some "trick." )

[mraynrand]

the ultimate objectives are so radically different in morality and the methods of the Palestines so horrific that the two situations are totally different

I disagree on both counts. I have sympathy for the Palestinean cause, their desire for self-government is legitimate.

And a bomb is a bomb whether it is delivered in a backpack in a coffee shop, or as an incindinary device dropped from an airplane on innocent civilians.

(I don't understand your criticism of my debating tactics, I can't follow the logic. Any suggestion that I am insincere is false.)

I don't say this with any pleasure, but I think you're very stupid. Seriously. At the very best you are morally blind, a moral fool of sorts. You can't see the difference between identifying a bomb as a bomb and judging whether the cause behind the bomb in one instance may be more justified than another. You can't see that a desire for self government is different than an evaluation of the the goals of the people seeking the self government or the difference in methods that different people seeking self government employ. It's worthless 'debating' this with you, since you apparently don't even comprehend the critical distinction between an inanimate object and a human motivation. It would be easier discussing this with Dostoyovsky's Prince Myshkin.

[mraynrand]

hello? Dresden was intentionally horrific, designed to kill, terrorize and demoralize German civilians.

You completely dismiss the Palestinian cause. Such black and white thinking.
To say that the Palestinian people are commited to the slaughter of Jews and the destruction of Isreal is a statement of gross ignorance. Although the numbers in that camp have increased the last 10 years, unfortunately.

I am a staunch supporter of Israel; and I recognize the Palestineans as human beings deserving of a generous accomodation.


You're the one who is grossly ignorant. The Palestinians got their freely elected government, Hamas. Read their literature. They are a terrorist group that wants to eliminate Israel and the Jews. WAKE UP.

Yes, Dresden was bombed for exactly the reasons you wrote - SPECIFICALLY TO BRING A SWIFT END TO THE WAR. And that end was for good reasons - that I already stated. But I've got to stop. Your idiocy is lowering my IQ.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hamas. Read their literature. They are a terrorist group that wants to eliminate Israel and the Jews.

Hamas grew in response to the foolish, expansionist policies of Ariel Sharon and other Isreali right wingers. Sharon systematically undermined moderate Palestinean leaders. Near the end of Sharon's life, he saw the futility of his ways and did a 180 degree flip. He broke from Likud, formed a new party prepared to relenquish territories. But the damage was done.

Palestineans did not vote for Hamas because of their hardline ideology. Rather, they rejected Fatah because of its rampant corruption and incompetence. This is basic stuff, you are uninformed.

Solid majorities of both Israeli and Palestinean populations support a two state solution. A fight to the death is not inevitable. The broad outlines of a settlement are there. The holdup is the political disarray and social/economic collapse of the Palestineans. Maybe you noticed they just had a little civil war. Tony Blair has been tasked by the United Nations with helping to rebuild Palestinean institutions.


Yes, Dresden was bombed for exactly the reasons you wrote - SPECIFICALLY TO BRING A SWIFT END TO THE WAR.

I don't accept that slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians was militarily significant. And the ends did not justify these means. Just as the slaughter of civilians by terrorists is not justified, even for legitimate goals.

[Kiwon]

Hamas. Read their literature. They are a terrorist group that wants to eliminate Israel and the Jews.

Hamas grew in response to the foolish, expansionist policies of Ariel Sharon and other Isreali right wingers. Sharon systematically undermined moderate Palestinean leaders. Near the end of Sharon's life, he saw the futility of his ways and did a 180 degree flip. He broke from Likud, formed a new party prepared to relenquish territories. But the damage was done.

Palestineans did not vote for Hamas because of their hardline ideology. Rather, they rejected Fatah because of its rampant corruption and incompetence. This is basic stuff, you are uninformed.

Solid majorities of both Israeli and Palestinean populations support a two state solution. A fight to the death is not inevitable. The broad outlines of a settlement are there. The holdup is the political disarray and social/economic collapse of the Palestineans. Maybe you noticed they just had a little civil war. Tony Blair has been tasked by the United Nations with helping to rebuild Palestinean institutions.

Therefore, as one can clearly see, Hamas is not a terrorist group whose literature speaks about the elimination of Israel and the Jews.

This is basic stuff, mraynrand. Get a :?:

[3irty1]

I can't believe I just read all that.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Therefore, as one can clearly see, Hamas is not a terrorist group whose literature speaks about the elimination of Israel and the Jews.

Their literature does not speak about the elimination of the Jews. But they play a sematics game: they recognize the reality of Israel but not the legitimacy. Hamas itself is divided over whether to negotiate with Israel. Hamas is not some punk terrorist group, they seek international legitimacy. They also tacitly condone acts of terrorism, no doubt about that. They do not support the peace process, they are a negative force. You can think of Hamas as the Palestinean equivalent of the Likud Party in Israeli politics.

Hamas are at war with Al Quaeda, and other (relatively) more extreme Islamic Fundamentalists. They have been purging various Fundamentalist and criminal gangs in the Gaza Strip. The recent freeing of that journalist held hostage in Gaza was the result of Hamas breaking-up a terrorist cell. Hamas being in charge of Gaza is not an entirely bad thing, it forces them to act more responsibly.

You have to keep in mind that Israel & the Palestineans have essentially been at war for 60 years. It is not surprising that you have support on both sides for a military solution. Plenty of Israelis would like to see the Palestinean population "transferred" to other Arab countries. And unfortunately, the Palestinean population grew frustrated and radical after the collapse of the peace process in the late 90's. Likud and Hamas both ascended, hand in hand, partners in extremism. Hamas was a fringe party before that era.

Hamas is going to have to be brought into the peace process, eventually. They have a lot of legitimacy in Palestineans eyes because they have been so much more competent at delivering social services than the corrupt Fatah Party, Arafat's legacy.

I have a lot of faith in the current Israeli government. Ariel Sharon was the father and guiding force of the Israeli settlement movement for 30 years. He more than anyone is responsibile for the tragic situation we see today. The current Israeli government comes from the centrist party that Sharon formed shortly before his death. A lot of lights have gone off in Israeli heads since Sharon had his dramatic epiphany.

The problem for Israel is not Hamas, even though they represent endless war. The problem is a lack of a credible alternative to Hamas. That's the problem the International community is trying to tackle now. But they shouldn't overplay their hand in isolating/vilifying Hamas, Hamas is too powerful to ignore.

[mraynrand]

Map of Israel Shown in Palestinian Colors
By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
October 18, 2007

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - At a time when Israel and the Palestinians are discussing their respective visions for the creation of a Palestinian state, the official Palestinian Authority television station has broadcast images of an Israeli map draped with a Palestinian flag.

mapThe video clip, which aired as a filler between programs on October 11, showed a map of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip colored red at the top -- with green, white and black stripes down the middle of the state. The caption read "Palestine 2007," the Palestinian Media Watch said in a release on Wednesday.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas demanded last week that the Palestinians be given a state of 6,205 square kilometers that would include the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem -- land conquered by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.

The image broadcast on the official Palestinian Authority television station reinforces those demands: "The message they [Palestinians] have conveyed to their people for years, and continue to convey on the eve of the [U.S.-hosted] conference, is that 'Palestine' exists and it replaces all of Israel," PMW said.

According to PMW, the same message is prevalent throughout children's school textbooks, children's television programs, crossword puzzles, video clips, formal symbols, and school and street names.

"The picture painted for the Palestinian population, both verbally and visually, is of a world without Israel," the group said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/cns/photo/2007/101807Palestine.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas demanded last week that the Palestinians be given a state of 6,205 square kilometers that would include the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem -- land conquered by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.

this is the Palestinean bargaining position. And the Isrealis are prepared to give something fairly close to this, I suspect.



The image broadcast on the official Palestinian Authority television station reinforces those demands: "The message they [Palestinians] have conveyed to their people for years, and continue to convey on the eve of the [U.S.-hosted] conference, is that 'Palestine' exists and it replaces all of Israel," PMW said.

According to PMW, the same message is prevalent throughout children's school textbooks, children's television programs, crossword puzzles, video clips, formal symbols, and school and street names.

"The picture painted for the Palestinian population, both verbally and visually, is of a world without Israel," the group said.


And these quotes are an interpretation of an image on TV by a right-wing Israeli advocacy group. http://www.pmw.org.il/

Ayn, there are plenty of Palestineans who would drive the Isrealis into the sea. Most of them, no doubt. That doesn't mean they have the means or ambitions to do so.

edit: that website is pretty interesting, it shows that the Palestineans really, really hate the Israelis. :shock: :shock: A political settlement can't wait for cordial relations. I think cordial relations will come, though.

[Joemailman]

Delete.

[Harlan Huckleby]

very good thing that she survived. i guess if Mushariff can stay alive, maybe they can keep her alive too. wow, what a close call.

[Joemailman]

Sorry Harlan, I moved the post to a new thread.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ya, I figured that out all by myself. :lol:

It's ok, I'll just change some of the names in my post and it will fit in here just fine. :D

[RashanGary]

God gave Israel to the Jews according to the bible.

Then Muslims overtook the land and onwed it for a couple thousand years. Then, Jews decided they wanted the land back. Jews declared war on the Arab state and took the land that god granted to the Jews back.

Palestinians get angry and continue fighting for what was theirs for hundreds of years.



For perspective, if I write a holy book saying that such and such land is supposed to be in my name, does that mean that the UN will support me? Really, that is what is happening here. The Jews think they have right to land that was not theirs for thousands of years, if ever. The UN somehow ruled that the Jews get the land. Arabs don't agree and are fighting a brutal fight to get it back.

Seems like an ugly situation of which neither side is doing any good for the world. The Jews didn't do any good killing people to get what they believed was theirs back and the Palestinians aren't doing any good killing to get it back on their end. Ultimately it's a big religious holy war. I find those who give the Jews a free pass more ignorant than HH who's saying both have done and continue to do harm.

[Harlan Huckleby]

for a second there, I thought the real Borat had checked in. (Just the multiple references to Jews. :) )

Is nice - high five!!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

God gave Israel to the Jews according to the bible.

Then Muslims overtook the land and onwed it for a couple thousand years. Then, Jews decided they wanted the land back. Jews declared war on the Arab state and took the land that god granted to the Jews back.

Palestinians get angry and continue fighting for what was theirs for hundreds of years.



For perspective, if I write a holy book saying that such and such land is supposed to be in my name, does that mean that the UN will support me? Really, that is what is happening here. The Jews think they have right to land that was not theirs for thousands of years, if ever. The UN somehow ruled that the Jews get the land. Arabs don't agree and are fighting a brutal fight to get it back.

Seems like an ugly situation of which neither side is doing any good for the world. The Jews didn't do any good killing people to get what they believed was theirs back and the Palestians aren't doing any good killing to get it back on their end. Ultimately it's a big religious holy war. I find those who give the Jews a free pass more ignorant than HH who's saying both have done and continue to do harm.

You really need to go back and learn some history.

Muslims overtook and owned it for a couple of thousand years? Say what.
THAT IS JUST FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

Considering that from 11th century BCE to approx 0 it was ruled by Jewish kingdoms/states then ruled by various empires until around the middle of the 6th century CE when Muslims conquests took it from Byzantine rule.

So, that leaves around 1400 years, of which control went from various Muslim groups..some more aligned with shieks than anything else and Crusaders (ooops, those guys aren't muslim).

From the 15th century on it was part of the Ottoman empire.I would hardly classify the Ottoman Empire as Muslim considering it was multi-ethnic and multi-religious and viewed itself as the heir to both roman and islamic traditions. Perhaps you need to talk to them about their evacuation of Muslims and Jews from Spain to the safety of Ottoman lands during the Spanish Inquisition.

We can call them a muslim empire, but then I would expect you to call the british empire the Christian Empire.

Please explain why jews left israel/palestine. Oh, and while you are at it, I guess you should try and learn that jews had been living continuously in palestine since they first arrived there.

And, after that try researching "aliyah" and when the zionist movement started.

What war did "the jews" declare on the arab state. Oh, btw, let's stop saying Jews and call them israelis if that is what you are referring to.

What war did the Israeli's enact?

[Scott Campbell]

Oh, btw, let's stop saying Jews and call them israelis if that is what you are referring to.



Yeah, this is PackerRats. Let's keep it politically correct fellas.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Tyrone, I don't get why you are being so argumentive.

Any honest person recognizes that the Palestineans took it up the butt in the 1940's. What do you suppose the right of return issue is about? That was certainly a war, even if saying the Jews (and that term is perfectly descriptive) declared war on the Arabs is inaccurate. The Arabs would see the formation of Israel as an act of war.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Oh, btw, let's stop saying Jews and call them israelis if that is what you are referring to.



Yeah, this is PackerRats. Let's keep it politically correct fellas.

Scott, this has nothing to do with being PC.

Jews didn't declare war...I certainly don't recall american jewry, etc. declaring war.

[RashanGary]

All I'm saying is both sides could afford some chilling the hell out. The Jews are so damn stubborn about the land that they think god gave them that they are willing to go through this silly ongoing fight. The palestinians just got their land stolen 50 years ago, so they might still be a little bitter about it. It wasn't exactly a peacefull overtaking.


Do you really think the evil, empire building, colonizing, oppressing world has gone on for this long and now we're the great gods of goodness in the new world? I think you forget how we got this place. We're not gods of goodness. We're looking out for our interests the same way they are looking out for theirs. I'm OK with it. I'd rather it be us than them controlling the world and enjoying the riches. Be honest with yourself though. We're not the chosen people doing gods work over here. That would be human nature to assume that. I'm sure the Muslims think they are doing the same thing. Who's right? The winner will determine that untill the next uprising.

Let's hope it's us because I don't want to be praying to ala while I pick cotton for Osama Bin Laden. I'd rather see them struggle in poverty while 8% of our population revels in millionaire status and the rest have a good shot at getting it. Worst case here, you live a comfortable life with enough food, internet and TV to keep you busy with no real worries. I'm not ready to give what we have up. I'm sure they're ready to take it and spread their version of goodness (which probably greatly favors their people)

The world of tranferring powers will continue on forever. Let's try to keep it in our hands so our kids can enjoy the good life the way we have. Us having everything and everyone else having nothing isn't some act of kindness. It's an act of self serving motives, just like it's always been and always will be. Enjoy it, we're on top for the time being.

Ultimately, that's why I'll vote conservative. They are worried about the good of us. Libs are too concerned with other people. It's easy to be all good and kind when you think it can never be taken away. If those pussy's have control for too long, we'll lose control and I gaurantee Osama wouldn't be so fucking concerned for the poor American citizens. IT's a dog eat dog world. Bush has that much figured out.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, I don't get why you are being so argumentive.

Any honest person recognizes that the Palestineans took it up the butt in the 1940's. What do you suppose the right of return issue is about? That was certainly a war, even if saying the Jews (and that term is perfectly descriptive) declared war on the Arabs is inaccurate. The Arabs would see the formation of Israel as an act of war.

I don't think I'm being argumentative.

The term Palestinians is pretty misleading. They weren't a real entity back in the 1800s when the first aliyah started. You are acting like there were no jews there. There were plenty. They had been resettling the area from the spanish inquistion on. Whole communities of northern euro jewry relocated to palestine. By the end of ww2 palestine is 1/3 third jew.

Second, the idea of a jewish state started around ww1. The proposal was for 2 states.

Third, the arabs or whatever you want to call them didn't have a country..it wasnt' theirs. So, nothing was taken from them.

War: then let them declare it on the british or the league of nations or the UN. They are the culprits.

Finally, while their are certainly atrocities on both sides...lets get serious. Starting with the riots in 1920, the Jaffa riots which despite the idea of arabs/jews living together in the Soviet Union of Palestine somehow led to murder of jews, the arab revolt of 39 which led the british to cap jewish immigration, etc.

The U.N. declared two countries with jerusalem being an international city. 5 arab countries then attacked. I make no mention of palestinians because they weren't a country..just a bunch of loosely affiliated arabs.

Some arabs left, others stayed. But, there was no direct policy by the gov't of kicking out arabs or attacking those living in Israel.

[RashanGary]

There is a big world pie. My goal of selecting governemnt is voting for the group of people who will give us the biggest piece possible whatever it takes. Vote conservative if you want more. Vote lib if you want to be kind and sweet to the world only to find out they aren't so kind and sweet when they get on top.

[RashanGary]

You are right that it was British controlled, and then Britain so admirable backed out (out of kindness and gods work of course) (they controlled it in the name of god too, we whiteys are the worlds good doers of course and all of it is in the name of the generous Jesus. We can do no wrong)

When they backed out, Jews were coming off some pretty attrocious shit. Makes sense to give them the better end of the deal. If I was getting the raw end, it wouldn't make me feel any better about it though.

This is a Jew / Muslim thing though. If you don't associate Israel with Jew then you are naive.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

All I'm saying is both sides could afford some chilling the hell out. The Jews are so damn stubborn about the land that they think god gave them that they are willing to go through this silly ongoing fight. The palestinians just got their land stolen 50 years ago, so they might still be a little bitter about it. It wasn't exactly a peacefull overtaking.


Do you really think the evil, empire building, colonizing, oppressing world has gone on for this long and now we're the great gods of goodness in the new world? I think you forget how we got this place. We're not gods of goodness. We're looking out for our interests the same way they are looking out for theirs. I'm OK with it. I'd rather it be us than them controlling the world and enjoying the riches. Be honest with yourself though. We're not the chosen people doing gods work over here. That would be human nature to assume that. I'm sure the Muslims think they are doing the same thing. Who's right? The winner will determine that untill the next uprising.

Let's hope it's us because I don't want to be praying to ala while I pick cotton for Osama Bin Laden. I'd rather see them struggle in poverty while 8% of our population revels in millionaire status and the rest have a good shot at getting it. Worst case here, you live a comfortable life with enough food, internet and TV to keep you busy with no real worries. I'm not ready to give what we have up. I'm sure they're ready to take it and spread their version of goodness (which probably greatly favors their people)

The world of tranferring powers will continue on forever. Let's try to keep it in our hands so our kids can enjoy the good life the way we have. Us having everything and everyone else having nothing isn't some act of kindness. It's an act of self serving motives, just like it's always been and always will be. Enjoy it, we're on top for the time being.

Ultimately, that's why I'll vote conservative. They are worried about the good of us. Libs are too concerned with other people. It's easy to be all good and kind when you think it can never be taken away. If those pussy's have control for too long, we'll lose control and I gaurantee Osama wouldn't be so fucking concerned for the poor American citizens. IT's a dog eat dog world. Bush has that much figured out.

Dude, very few jews are basing anything on the bible. That is just ridiculous. Only orthodox jews would say anything like that.

That would be akin to talking about america and manifest destiny today. Sure a few right wing loons who believe in british-israelism might believe it, but pretty much every sane judeo/christian doesn't.

Palestinians: There were no such people until after the declaration of Israel. That is a joke. A bunch of disparate tribes aren't a people. That would be like calling all the native americans indians and thinking that they all want to live together. Palestinian identity has never been an exclusive one..with Arabism, religion, and local loyalties all playing a part.

Granted, the idea of a palestinian people started in the 20s, but it really the term came to signify not only a place of origin but shared past and future after the 48 exudus and 67 exudus.

The term palestinian was coined by the brits and used for anyone regardless of race,creed or color who lived in that area. So, any christian or jew living there is a palestinian.

Ask yourself what exactly is a palestinian. They ask themselves that and can't come to an agreement.

Of course it wasn't peaceful. The arabs attacked. The Israelis defended themselves. Note that i say arab, not palestinian.

goodness: of course not. That is why i can't even fathom why you would vote for bush/conservative. You are just about ensuring that we would have more strife.

It is in our best interests to promote fairness and equality for everyone. We get to sell them products, etc. Keeping ourselves rich ensures poverty and destitution for others..which only breeds contempt for us and terrorism.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are right that it was British controlled, and then Britain so admirable backed out (out of kindness and gods work of course) (they controlled it in the name of god too, we whiteys are the worlds good doers of course and all of it is in the name of the generous Jesus. We can do no wrong)

When they backed out, Jews were coming off some pretty attrocious shit. Makes sense to give them the better end of the deal. If I was getting the raw end, it wouldn't make me feel any better about it though.

This is a Jew / Muslim thing though. If you don't associate Israel with Jew then you are naive.

God: Give it a rest. The british empire was hardly conquering in the name of the lord. This isn't spain in the new world. I understand your point, but it isn't applicable here.

Deal: The U.N. constructed 2 states..no one got a better deal. The mandate to create a jewish homeland started way before "attrocious" shit happened.

It is hardly a jew/muslim thing. I know more muslims and jews than you. Jews and muslims are cousins. That is a convenient excuse that right wing muslims and jews use. Moreso muslims. The great majority of arabs just want to live in peace today. The palestinian/israel issue is hardly one of religion. It may be something Syria, etc. use to whip up their people into a frenzy, but Arafat, etc. never couched their conflict as being religious.

The arabs..not palestinians woulda objected just as hard to a christian state.

Israel is of course a jewish country...though, more or equal amounts of arabs than jews currently. But, to say jews did this or that is erroneous. Call them Israeli jews, isreali, etc.

Or i guess since america is a christian country it would be fair to say that christians declared war on Iraq?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think I'm being argumentative.

The term Palestinians is pretty misleading. They weren't a real entity back in the 1800s when the first aliyah started. You are acting like there were no jews there.

you are defending the right of Isreal to exist when nobody has challenged this. I know Zionism goes back to 1800's, that really doesn't change anything.

but that's ok, get it off your chest.


Some arabs left, others stayed. But, there was no direct policy by the gov't of kicking out arabs or attacking those living in Israel.

I suppose this is true in the same sense that American Indians were free to hang around and integrate peacebly with white settlers.

The Palestineans were encouraged to flee, no doubt about this. Not through official government policy, perhaps.

By the same token, the lingering Palestineans have been treated well within Israel.

I admire the Israelis, they have the most dynamic democracy in the world. And I like to argue so much, I feel like an honorary Jew. :)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I don't think I'm being argumentative.

The term Palestinians is pretty misleading. They weren't a real entity back in the 1800s when the first aliyah started. You are acting like there were no jews there.

you are defending the right of Isreal to exist when nobody has challenged this. I know Zionism goes back to 1800's, that really doesn't change anything.

but that's ok, get it off your chest.


Some arabs left, others stayed. But, there was no direct policy by the gov't of kicking out arabs or attacking those living in Israel.

I suppose this is true in the same sense that American Indians were free to hang around and integrate peacebly with white settlers.

The Palestineans were encouraged to flee, no doubt about this. Not through official government policy, perhaps.

By the same token, the lingering Palestineans have been treated well within Israel.

I admire the Israelis, they have the most dynamic democracy in the world. And I like to argue so much, I feel like an honorary Jew. :)

No, i'm not justifying an existence. I'm talking about a people. The idea that there was this homogenous, unified people called palestinians is ridiculous. Just as pan-arabism proposed by Nasser was ridiculous.

Do you remember Pan arabism. LOL Or do you remember when pan arabism was a solid foundation of the palestinian movement.

Flee: Not really. Of course their are gonna be bad seeds on both sides. But, only 3/4 of a mill left. Most stayed and were treated decently.

Poor analogy with indians. It would be better to have used french or spanish.

In theory they have full citizenship rights. In practice they suffer extensive discrimination, ranging from denial of land use, diminished job opportunities and lesser social benefits. But, that is no different than any minority in any country. We could be talking about turks in germany.

Honary Jew: Excellent. Will you be growing horns and killing christian babies to make your matzoh you hooked nose jew bastard. :twisted:

[Harlan Huckleby]

The idea that there was this homogenous, unified people called palestinians is ridiculous.

no, not ridiculous. they're A-rabs with some regional distinctions. Traditionally the best educated people in the Arab world. They have as much claim to nationality as Lybians, or Yemenis, or Shitte Iraqis.



Just as pan-arabism proposed by Nasser was ridiculous .

You just got done saying "You seen one A-rab, you seen um all" and now you are mocking the notion that Arabs might see themselves as one people.
Maybe ridiculous in that it didn't pan-out, no pun in intended. But no more ridiculous than any other fucking nation. Why, I feel a song coming on:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...



Flee: Not really. Of course their are gonna be bad seeds on both sides. But, only 3/4 of a mill left. Most stayed and were treated decently.

Great! Then Israel should have no problem allowing full right of return to all displaced Palestineans. :lol: :lol:



Poor analogy with indians. It would be better to have used french or spanish.

Well, whatever it was, I think it's more productive to recognize the bitter sense of injustice on the part of the Palestineans than to deny it. You are obviously reading out of a history book that is very generous to the Israelis. There are very different interpretations that reasonable, honest people have made.



In theory they have full citizenship rights. In practice they suffer extensive discrimination, ranging from denial of land use, diminished job opportunities and lesser social benefits. But, that is no different than any minority in any country. We could be talking about turks in germany.

I don't know exactly what it is like to be an Arab in Israel. But I know they are doing well economically relative to other countries. And the Israeli courts seem very independent and fair, I often read about rulings favoring Arabs.
The Arab political parties are informally discriminated against. Israeli governments will never include Arab parties unless they already have a Jewish parlimentary majority. It's an unwritten rule that keeps the Arabs from ever having important influence. But I expect that will change some day, after all the percentage of Arabs in Israel keeps rising.

[RashanGary]

This is another subject, but I love how people appologize and justify the European colonization of most of the world, but get their panties in a bunch when Muslims want to do the same thing.

I'm all about stopping those overreligious bastards from taking over the world, but they aren't some EVIL hate group like nothing the world has ever seen. They fit pretty nicely into the pattern that has been going on as long as history has been recorded. We only see how good and rightious we are and the only reason we are good and rightious is because we have nothing to gain by fighting to take something. We have everything we want and need right now. It's very easy to play the "we're morally superior to you" card when we have everything and they have nothing.

I'm not proposing giving anything to anyone. In fact, I like my life and if we have to oppress a few Arabs to keep it, I don't mind. I know they'd do it to us if they had the chance. I have an issue with those who talk about these war groups like they are the devil and we are doing gods work over here. Puh-leez, them trying to take over the world is no more evil than what has been going on since the beginning of recorded history. It's great that we are fighting to keep what we have, all the great empires held it as long as they could. However, those taking over the empires are rarely looked at as evil. They are usually looked at as playing the game the way it was meant to be played.

[mraynrand]

goodness: of course not. That is why i can't even fathom why you would vote for bush/conservative. You are just about ensuring that we would have more strife.

It is in our best interests to promote fairness and equality for everyone. We get to sell them products, etc. Keeping ourselves rich ensures poverty and destitution for others..which only breeds contempt for us and terrorism.

At least Ty knowns his Mideast history. I don't agree with your assessment about conservatives and strife, at least in relation to the future of the Mideast. If you look at what's gone on at State under Rice, she's really driven out the uber-conservatives, in particular the so called 'neo-cons.' The State department is going to push for a two state solution, and I don't think that will change at all with either HillBilly or Giuliani in the White House.

But I completely disagree on the 'keep us rich' ensuring poverty and destitution for others, etc. The ideological battle is not over wealth and exploitation - many of the terrorists that have attacked the U.S., U.S. interests, and the west in general have been very well-educated, well-off or even extremely wealthy people. Sure, they will rile the poor as a mechanism to create or expand unrest, but really, it's an idealogical battle, not an issue of poverty and destitution. The creation of hatred for the west comes from a concerted propaganda machine that works like a self-propagating loop relying on isolation and insulation - so it can work even in the heart of France, England the Netherlands, etc. where Islamic cultures become walled off from the surrounding culture. In some examples, it's not even propaganda - Islamic leaders just point to the extremes of western culture (pornography in particular) and their followers instinctively know that the west is corrupt. Isolation prevents them from seeing any mitigating evidence. In cases where they interact with the best of the west (such as our military in Iraq), they probably get a completely different idea about Americans and the west. But those encounters are too few.

With respect to business, I think a lot of what looks like exploitation to us, looks like opportunity to other countries and the people in those countries. The problem is that business has no ethics, and so isn't necessarily linked with the best American values. A lot of these big, multinational companies would effectively sell their grandmothers if they thought they could get a better deal. Still, free markets are better than the alternative, but we still have to make sure that Free Markets are as Fair as possible. But I think it's a mistake to argue that U.S. companies trying to make a cheap buck results in destitution. Even though some exploitation occurs, the overall result is a 'rising waters lifts all boats' effect. We just have to do a better job of preventing exploitation without crippling the markets.

[RashanGary]

The nutty leaders may have some crazy ideas drummed up by some literal interperatation of "insert Holy Book", but the mass following that usually accompanies war is poverty driven.


Poverty = Misery = "WHY US" = Lean on God = suseptable to doing anything in gods name = about half of all wars

Take away desperation and poverty and you get a bunch of good doers. Add in desperation and severe poverty and people start acting a little different. NOt to say the leaders aren't just crazy to begin with, but the mass following is usually driven by poverty, making the crazy leader seem less crazy to all.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The idea that there was this homogenous, unified people called palestinians is ridiculous.

no, not ridiculous. they're A-rabs with some regional distinctions. Traditionally the best educated people in the Arab world. They have as much claim to nationality as Lybians, or Yemenis, or Shitte Iraqis.



Just as pan-arabism proposed by Nasser was ridiculous .

You just got done saying "You seen one A-rab, you seen um all" and now you are mocking the notion that Arabs might see themselves as one people.
Maybe ridiculous in that it didn't pan-out, no pun in intended. But no more ridiculous than any other fucking nation. Why, I feel a song coming on:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...



Flee: Not really. Of course their are gonna be bad seeds on both sides. But, only 3/4 of a mill left. Most stayed and were treated decently.

Great! Then Israel should have no problem allowing full right of return to all displaced Palestineans. :lol: :lol:



Poor analogy with indians. It would be better to have used french or spanish.

Well, whatever it was, I think it's more productive to recognize the bitter sense of injustice on the part of the Palestineans than to deny it. You are obviously reading out of a history book that is very generous to the Israelis. There are very different interpretations that reasonable, honest people have made.



In theory they have full citizenship rights. In practice they suffer extensive discrimination, ranging from denial of land use, diminished job opportunities and lesser social benefits. But, that is no different than any minority in any country. We could be talking about turks in germany.

I don't know exactly what it is like to be an Arab in Israel. But I know they are doing well economically relative to other countries. And the Israeli courts seem very independent and fair, I often read about rulings favoring Arabs.
The Arab political parties are informally discriminated against. Israeli governments will never include Arab parties unless they already have a Jewish parlimentary majority. It's an unwritten rule that keeps the Arabs from ever having important influence. But I expect that will change some day, after all the percentage of Arabs in Israel keeps rising.

1. Sorry, but palenstians aren't a group. They don't have much a common history, etc. They didn't share common beliefs, religion etc.

Saying they are all arabs means nothing. That is like saying germans and french should unite as they are all (pick one) white, christian, euro, etc.

You say they are all arabs, yet that is my point. All arabs aren't the same. If so, why do they need their own country.

2. Somehow you missed my point and got it all wrong. I'm saying the exact opposite. All the arabs are different. My point would be that palestinians should be allowed to come back to israel, but if you think they shoud get a country based on their shared heritage, etc then that is wacky. If you want to give them a country..no problem with that here. But, to tell me it is because the are a displaced "people" not a chance. If you were to tell me that you were creating several small countries for each sub pali group i'd be with that as well.

Calling all these arabs who lived in palestine (an arbitrary country at best...like most of that world that the euro's created) as one cohesive group is like saying that all the people who lived in Iraq a cohesive group.

3. Well, nice of you to not address the point and use it to further a different agenda. I don't think you'd find many israeli's opposed to any palestinian living in israel as peaceful citizen.

4. Injustice. There have been abuses on both sides. However, there is no way that you can spin it that the jews living on that soil since the 1600s started the violence.

There were those who were united against the british/turks and viewed palestinians as their ally.

There were those that started terrorist organizations as a reaction to violence against themselves.

As I have written, most of the violence perpetrated against the jews in pali/israel weren't palestinians.

I have no problem addressing the wrongs of the past. But, to place them strictly on israel is ridiculous. It wasn't israel that forced Balfour document, etc.

And, if it wasn't for ridiculous leaders on both sides it would have been solved long ago. Course, the palistinian leadership has been worse than the israeli. And, you have other arab leaders who purposely sabotage the process.

As said many times, the palestinians have never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

goodness: of course not. That is why i can't even fathom why you would vote for bush/conservative. You are just about ensuring that we would have more strife.

It is in our best interests to promote fairness and equality for everyone. We get to sell them products, etc. Keeping ourselves rich ensures poverty and destitution for others..which only breeds contempt for us and terrorism.

At least Ty knowns his Mideast history. I don't agree with your assessment about conservatives and strife, at least in relation to the future of the Mideast. If you look at what's gone on at State under Rice, she's really driven out the uber-conservatives, in particular the so called 'neo-cons.' The State department is going to push for a two state solution, and I don't think that will change at all with either HillBilly or Giuliani in the White House.

But I completely disagree on the 'keep us rich' ensuring poverty and destitution for others, etc. The ideological battle is not over wealth and exploitation - many of the terrorists that have attacked the U.S., U.S. interests, and the west in general have been very well-educated, well-off or even extremely wealthy people. Sure, they will rile the poor as a mechanism to create or expand unrest, but really, it's an idealogical battle, not an issue of poverty and destitution. The creation of hatred for the west comes from a concerted propaganda machine that works like a self-propagating loop relying on isolation and insulation - so it can work even in the heart of France, England the Netherlands, etc. where Islamic cultures become walled off from the surrounding culture. In some examples, it's not even propaganda - Islamic leaders just point to the extremes of western culture (pornography in particular) and their followers instinctively know that the west is corrupt. Isolation prevents them from seeing any mitigating evidence. In cases where they interact with the best of the west (such as our military in Iraq), they probably get a completely different idea about Americans and the west. But those encounters are too few.

With respect to business, I think a lot of what looks like exploitation to us, looks like opportunity to other countries and the people in those countries. The problem is that business has no ethics, and so isn't necessarily linked with the best American values. A lot of these big, multinational companies would effectively sell their grandmothers if they thought they could get a better deal. Still, free markets are better than the alternative, but we still have to make sure that Free Markets are as Fair as possible. But I think it's a mistake to argue that U.S. companies trying to make a cheap buck results in destitution. Even though some exploitation occurs, the overall result is a 'rising waters lifts all boats' effect. We just have to do a better job of preventing exploitation without crippling the markets.

Rand,

I wrote quickly and therefore didn't really say what i meant to say.

By no means am i advocating that we can't stay rich and happy. But, a policy designed to keep us rich while keeping others poor is tragic.

While i agree that there is a propaganda machine, you are missing the key point. People that are well off (fat and happy) are way less susceptible to that kind of proganda. Furthermore I wasn't targeting that section of the world. It doesn't matter where you are. If there are poor destitute people they are a target for: communism, terrorism...basically any "negative" ism you choose.

Look, in our country we have the KKK. While there are plenty of upper middle class white folks who aren't to keen on minorities very few join that org our fall sway to other radical white supremacy orgs. Why? Education, but also because they are doing well. You can't preach about how minorities are taking your job, ruining this country when your base is happy, wealthy and driving a kick ass car. While you may get some, you don't build a base on these people.

The people who fall sway to this are those whose lives suck.

Exploitation: well, you and i are basically on the same page. I'm just a bit more cynical/realistic than you. I do think they exploit, and i'm not sure about the rising waters. i don't see much progress for the average person in oil producing countries. The progress comes from a benevolent leader...but, that is just vested self interest.

The problem, and i do blame this on the repubs..starting with Reagan...has been a very hands off policy towards biz, especially in regards to litigation. There are almost no monopoly cases anymore..and there are companies that should be taken to task over this. There are no real penalties for bad/borderline behavior (shell companies, not paying taxes, etc.).

Looking at this current admin...not one company has been taken to court over Iraq...missing money, overcharging, fraudelent charging, etc. That is a travesty. We as taxpayers are lining the pockets of somebody.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The nutty leaders may have some crazy ideas drummed up by some literal interperatation of "insert Holy Book", but the mass following that usually accompanies war is poverty driven.


Poverty = Misery = "WHY US" = Lean on God = suseptable to doing anything in gods name = about half of all wars

Take away desperation and poverty and you get a bunch of good doers. Add in desperation and severe poverty and people start acting a little different. NOt to say the leaders aren't just crazy to begin with, but the mass following is usually driven by poverty, making the crazy leader seem less crazy to all.

Yes, exactly.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think you'd find many israeli's opposed to any palestinian living in israel as peaceful citizen.

you're way off here. the main issue that broke-up the Oslo Accords was the right of return. The ONLY reason the Israelis are pursuing seperation and accomodation recently is demographic pressure, they are backpedaling in hopes of preserving a Jewish majority state. See me after class if you are still confused on this point.


I have no problem addressing the wrongs of the past. But, to place them strictly on israel is ridiculous. It wasn't israel that forced Balfour document, etc.

Will you be hosting a Palestinean family in your home? :D Come on, the Israelis are the only party that can solve the problem. it is not just a matter of righting past wrongs; there's the current festering, dangerous conditions.


As said many times, the palestinians have never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

It seems like the Palestinean expecations always lag reality by about 5 or 10 years.

But these realities have been shaped by the Israeli settlement program , a policy designed to make a negotiated settlement impossible. Isreal has been schizophrenic. Recently the demographic threat seems to be narrowing differences between Israeli right and left, they are ready to deal.

I agree with Arafats decision to reject Oslo, but they should have kept on negotiating. They came close to an agreement. But hell broke out as Arafat made a terrible decsion, and he was joined in idiocy by right-wing, Greater Isreal types.

[swede]

This Rathskellar talk is still going on?

Let's just bust it up, head back to Mifflin Street, and we'll twist a few.

Later we can go the Food Co-op and see what the hairy-pitted hotties are up to.