LawTalkers
Page 81 of 126 « First 31717980 81 828391 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   All Hank, all the time. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=734)

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2006 04:43 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
So my choices are:

1. Let severe incompetents who don't raise my taxes keep me safe on planes; or

2. Let average incompetents tax the piss out of me and keep me safe on planes.

Make it a double.
Someday soon you'll figure out that the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility, and that when the government spends money, it's the functional equivalent of a tax increase.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-10-2006 04:43 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
It seems reasonable to me to believe that after 9/11 the office of Homeland Security was a little more focused on Terrorism than natural disasters. It was a newly created agency and it had an immediate problem to deal with, where natural disasters were not so immediate (or at least did not seem immediate). They focused on the problem at hand and put off the other stuff. Considering that we have not had one death in this country caused by Terrorism, I feel very comfortable with the OHS protecting me.

As for New Orleans, their focus was somewhere else, and they had to deal with incredibly corrupt and incompetant local politicians. If you don't believe the local politicians were corrupt and incompetant then you didn't visit New Orleans nor Louisian prior to 9/11.

So considering these facts, I think the arm chair quarterbacking and condescending ridicule of their conduct is unwarranted.
Nawwwleeens and Laweezanuhhh govt filled with incompetents? Unpossible!

Nevertheless, our Magic Govt is supposed to swoop in and rescue everyone and sprinkle pixie dust all over the streets which will eat up all that dirty seawater.

Spanky 08-10-2006 04:46 PM
Say it ain't so, Joe
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Cite please
What do you need a cite for?

1) Any Jew living anywhere in the world can move to Israel and become a citizen immediately

2) Any of the Muslim Residents (including their families and descendents) who lived in what is now Israel proper who fled during the 48 war were not allowed to return to their homes and they a forever barred from their homes.

3) The Jewish residents of what is now Isreal proper who fled the violence during the 48 war were allowed to return to their homes and become citizens of Isreal.

4) Relatives of the current muslims citizens and residents of Isreal (many of whom are the people who fled during the 48 war) are not allowed to visit their relatives in Isreal proper, let alone allowed to move there.

5) Muslim residents of the Occupied territories are not allowed to particpate in elections for the Knesset, the political body which has control over them.

6) Jewish residents (also known as the people who live in the "Jewish Settlements") of the occupied territories are allowed to participate in elections for the Knesset.

taxwonk 08-10-2006 04:47 PM
Say it ain't so, Joe
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Cite please
Quote:
The Law of Return was enacted by the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, on July 5, 1950 CE (in the Jewish calendar, 20th Tammuz 5710), and the related Law of Citizenship in 1952. These two pieces of legislation contain expressions pertaining to religion, history and nationalism, as well as to democracy, in a combination unique to Israel. Together, they grant preferential treatment to Jews returning to their ancestral homeland.

The Law of Return declares that Israel constitutes a home not only for the inhabitants of the State, but also for all members of the Jewish people everywhere, be they living in poverty and fear of persecution or be they living in affluence and safety. The law declares to the Jewish people and to the world that the State of Israel welcomes the Jews of the world to return to their ancient homeland.
Link

Quote:
More than 1,000 polling stations staffed by 17,000 officials will be open from 0700 to 1900 throughout the Israeli-occupied territories. Hundreds of international observers will monitor the process and voters will be stamped with indelible ink to prevent fraud.

Israel has said it will reduce as much as possible the travel restrictions it imposes on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. It will also reduce its military presence in Palestinian towns and withdraw from all cities ahead of voting. Some military checkpoints are to be removed and free movement afforded to candidates and their supporters.
From the BBC

andViolins 08-10-2006 04:48 PM
Kos
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You'll notice that I don't quote people from CAIR as representatives of much of anything, either.

If you and Slave want to stand by LGF as representative of the GOP, maybe I could start finding absurd comments there to use here, but I generally think that kind of argument is a waste of everyone's time. OTOH, I know how Slave loves to follow the work of Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand.
I don't believe that at any time I ever stated that LGF was representative of the GOP. I'm not sure why you even state this. However, you made a comment about LGF being investigated by the FBI. Not sure what the reason for it was, other than somehow to argue "see, they're just as crazy over there at that LGF!" However, a review of the incident, which would go deeper than simply skimming a web site such as Crooks and Liars, would show you where the alleged complaint to the FBI originated from -- CAIR.

aV

sebastian_dangerfield 08-10-2006 04:51 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Someday soon you'll figure out that the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility, and that when the government spends money, it's the functional equivalent of a tax increase.
No I won't, because your fiscal responsibility is built on taking my fucking money. The Democrats soak the fucking middle class, and you can't refute that point with a million years of research and endless bandwidth in which to reply.

1. You can't soak the rich because they shelter it.

2. You can't soak the poor because they don't have it.

3. You have to get your money from somewhere.

4. So who's left? Hmmm.

Who the fuck do you think pays all the fucking taxes in this country? Your party does a fine job running its mouth about the rich getting off easy. But it never offers a solution. Why? Because the solution is to tax the piss out of the upper middle class. Now that voters understand that, your party is running its mouth about fiscal responsibility. Sure, over time you are more fiscally "responsible." It's pretty fucking easy to come up with scads of cash when you're not shy about pandering to limousine liberals, the wretched "entitlement" class and a pack of union whores by jamming your hand into the middle classes' money.

Wealth redistribution from the upper middle to the hands of govt workers. Thaats Dem fiscal responsibility. Bush is a fuckup, no doubt. But he's not going to fuck me in the ass the way your party will, so thanks, but you can keep that fiscal responsibility of yours.

And don't tell me about how much the war is going to cost me down the road. It wo't be any more than what having a Dem in office would have cost me.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2006 04:53 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Nevertheless, our Magic Govt is supposed to swoop in and rescue everyone and sprinkle pixie dust all over the streets which will eat up all that dirty seawater.
I'd love to watch you say that in person to anyone who was in the Superdome last year. Hell, I'd love to have watched you say that in the Superdome last year. Watch by video feed, needless to say.

Spanky 08-10-2006 04:54 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you have any confidence whatsoever in DHS, it is misplaced. They have their heads up their asses. It would be a management nightmare even if they had good people in charge, but they don't. And they have no clout with the White House or Congress to get anything done. Instead, the focus is on making $$$ off government contracts. It is another disaster waiting to happen.
You state this as if your comment was an irrefutable fact as opposed to some allegations you have read somewhere (maybe on Kos?). And if what you say is true, how come there haven't been any deaths in this country caused by terrorism since 9/11.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-10-2006 04:55 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'd love to watch you say that in person to anyone who was in the Superdome last year. Hell, I'd love to have watched you say that in the Superdome last year. Watch by video feed, needless to say.
I'd only be saying what half the country was thinking.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2006 04:55 PM
Kos
 
Quote:
Originally posted by andViolins
I don't believe that at any time I ever stated that LGF was representative of the GOP. I'm not sure why you even state this. However, you made a comment about LGF being investigated by the FBI. Not sure what the reason for it was, other than somehow to argue "see, they're just as crazy over there at that LGF!" However, a review of the incident, which would go deeper than simply skimming a web site such as Crooks and Liars, would show you where the alleged complaint to the FBI originated from -- CAIR.

aV
My only point was that many of the commenters at LGF are batshit-insane froot loops, and that one can find stuff there just as crazy as what you find at Kos or DU.

I will freely admit that I don't know much of anything about the FBI angle, and wasn't even positive that it was LGF.

Spanky 08-10-2006 04:56 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
and that when the government spends money, it's the functional equivalent of a tax increase.
I couldn't agree with you more on this.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2006 05:00 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No I won't, because your fiscal responsibility is built on taking my fucking money. The Democrats soak the fucking middle class, and you can't refute that point with a million years of research and endless bandwidth in which to reply.

1. You can't soak the rich because they shelter it.

2. You can't soak the poor because they don't have it.

3. You have to get your money from somewhere.

4. So who's left? Hmmm.

Who the fuck do you think pays all the fucking taxes in this country? Your party does a fine job running its mouth about the rich getting off easy. But it never offers a solution. Why? Because the solution is to tax the piss out of the upper middle class. Now that voters understand that, your party is running its mouth about fiscal responsibility. Sure, over time you are more fiscally "responsible." It's pretty fucking easy to come up with scads of cash when you're not shy about pandering to limousine liberals, the wretched "entitlement" class and a pack of union whores by jamming your hand into the middle classes' money.

Wealth redistribution from the upper middle to the hands of govt workers. Thaats Dem fiscal responsibility. Bush is a fuckup, no doubt. But he's not going to fuck me in the ass the way your party will, so thanks, but you can keep that fiscal responsibility of yours.

And don't tell me about how much the war is going to cost me down the road. It wo't be any more than what having a Dem in office would have cost me.
The current budget deficits have much more to do with tax cuts for the rich than tax cuts for the middle class. But don't let me stop you -- you're on a roll. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Any idea what government spending has done recently? That's with Republicans in charge. Republicans who passed, for example, a more expensive drug benefit to make big pharma richer.

Don't worry -- they put it on the country's credit card, and they don't figure anyone'll be around when the bill comes. At least, they won't be.

Spanky 08-10-2006 05:22 PM
Joe - Roves new best friend.
 
And the White House is going to do everything it can to keep Joe in the race.


Rove called Lieberman on voting day
Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:49pm ET

GREEN BAY, Wisconsin (Reuters) - Karl Rove, a top political adviser to President Bush said on Thursday he had called Sen. Joseph Lieberman to wish him well in the Democratic primary in Connecticut this week.

Top Republicans, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have taken the unusual step of publicly commenting on the results of the Democratic primary that Lieberman lost on Tuesday to an anti-war challenger.

"I called him. He's a personal friend," Rove told reporters traveling with Bush to Wisconsin. The call was made late Tuesday afternoon, the day of the primary won by challenger Ned Lamont, who painted Lieberman as too cozy with Bush.

Rove said he called Lieberman "and wished him well on his election that night," and that reports he had offered to help the senator were "completely inaccurate."



Bush did not know until Thursday morning about his call to Lieberman, Rove said.

Democrats see Lieberman's loss in the primary as a referendum on Bush and the Iraq war, while Republicans say it shows that Democrats are soft on national security issues.

Penske_Account 08-10-2006 05:29 PM
Hi!
 
I have to work for the rest of the day so I am out. FTR, I disagree with everything all of all y'all post, except that which I agree with.

YMMV.

Best regards,

Penkse

ps: to those who hate America and/or Israel, and you know whom you are, (1) why?; and (2) Please stop.

sgtclub 08-10-2006 05:39 PM
Say it ain't so, Joe
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
What do you need a cite for?

1) Any Jew living anywhere in the world can move to Israel and become a citizen immediately

2) Any of the Muslim Residents (including their families and descendents) who lived in what is now Israel proper who fled during the 48 war were not allowed to return to their homes and they a forever barred from their homes.

3) The Jewish residents of what is now Isreal proper who fled the violence during the 48 war were allowed to return to their homes and become citizens of Isreal.

4) Relatives of the current muslims citizens and residents of Isreal (many of whom are the people who fled during the 48 war) are not allowed to visit their relatives in Isreal proper, let alone allowed to move there.

5) Muslim residents of the Occupied territories are not allowed to particpate in elections for the Knesset, the political body which has control over them.

6) Jewish residents (also known as the people who live in the "Jewish Settlements") of the occupied territories are allowed to participate in elections for the Knesset.
Sorry - I was referring to this:
  • As for the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, those are direct violation of International law.

sgtclub 08-10-2006 05:42 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The current budget deficits have much more to do with tax cuts for the rich than tax cuts for the middle class. But don't let me stop you -- you're on a roll. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Any idea what government spending has done recently? That's with Republicans in charge. Republicans who passed, for example, a more expensive drug benefit to make big pharma richer.

Don't worry -- they put it on the country's credit card, and they don't figure anyone'll be around when the bill comes. At least, they won't be.
The current budget deficits have most to do with the outrageous fucking spending over the last 5 years.

SlaveNoMore 08-10-2006 05:49 PM
Propaganda
 
Another great compiliation of all the shenanigans found here

http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

Spanky 08-10-2006 05:49 PM
Check this out
 
in 2004, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked likely voters if they believed America was generally a fair and decent country and whether they believed the world would be a better place if more countries were like America.

Republicans agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

By contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2006 05:55 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
The current budget deficits have most to do with the outrageous fucking spending over the last 5 years.
The government has been spending more and collecting less in taxes. Sebby wanted to talk about the tax side, so I was trying to point out that notwithstanding his thought that the rich just shelter their income, taxes on the rich have been cut quite considerably, which tends to indicate that in the not-too-distant past it was possible to tax the rich.

Spanky 08-10-2006 05:57 PM
Say it ain't so, Joe
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Sorry - I was referring to this:
  • As for the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, those are direct violation of International law.
Has invading another country and occupying indefinitely ever been in compliance with international law? As far as I know, under international law, one is not allowed to invade another country and indefinitely occupy it for ones own self defense. Am I wrong?

If you believe UN resolutions equal international law then:

A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"

1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.

Penske_Account 08-10-2006 05:59 PM
Hi!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I have to work for the rest of the day so I am out. FTR, I disagree with everything all of all y'all post, except that which I agree with.

YMMV.

Best regards,

Penkse

ps: to those who hate America and/or Israel, and you know whom you are, (1) why?; and (2) Please stop.
My meeting got delayed........................

Penske_Account 08-10-2006 06:01 PM
Check this out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
in 2004, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked likely voters if they believed America was generally a fair and decent country and whether they believed the world would be a better place if more countries were like America.

Republicans agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

By contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.
translation: Republicans are patriots, Democrats hate America.

Did Rasmussen have any insight as to why the Ds hate America so? Maybe a "weird uncle sam" inappropriately fondled (as distinguished from appropriately fondled) them as children?

Penske_Account 08-10-2006 06:04 PM
Say it ain't so, Joe
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Has invading another country and occupying indefinitely ever been in compliance with international law? As far as I know, under international law, one is not allowed to invade another country and indefinitely occupy it for ones own self defense. Am I wrong?

If you believe UN resolutions equal international law then:

A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"

1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.
Spank, my earelier posts notwithstanding, the problem here is, that overtime (although not so much in 1948), the UN has become an unbridled haven for anti-semitic commie and/or socialist haters. They hate us, they hate the Jews, they hate commerce and markets, although, oddly, they like having the UN HQ in New York as opposed to some shithole third world country, presumably so they can access all our freedom and markets have to offer.

Anyhoo, they have illegitimised themselves. These are the same people who support awarding genocidal babykillers with nobel peace prises. At this point, its the law ofthe gun, maybe the god fearing good guys win!!!

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2006 06:07 PM
Check this out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
translation: Republicans are patriots, Democrats hate America.

Did Rasmussen have any insight as to why the Ds hate America so? Maybe a "weird uncle sam" inappropriately fondled (as distinguished from appropriately fondled) them as children?
http://www.alansmind.com/feces.jpg

sebastian_dangerfield 08-10-2006 06:08 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The government has been spending more and collecting less in taxes. Sebby wanted to talk about the tax side, so I was trying to point out that notwithstanding his thought that the rich just shelter their income, taxes on the rich have been cut quite considerably, which tends to indicate that in the not-too-distant past it was possible to tax the rich.
That's funny. The Journal wrote an article last month citing stats showing the rich paying more taxes than ever.

"QUOTE" not "EDIT" -- Sorry! -- t.s.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-10-2006 06:14 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The government has been spending more and collecting less in taxes. Sebby wanted to talk about the tax side, so I was trying to point out that notwithstanding his thought that the rich just shelter their income, taxes on the rich have been cut quite considerably, which tends to indicate that in the not-too-distant past it was possible to tax the rich.
My bad. I forgot. I'm rich.

I hereby retire. If I don't answer on the second ring, I'm smoking opium and jacking off. Call back later. I don't do messages.

Penske_Account 08-10-2006 06:15 PM
Check this out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
[img]http://www.alansmind.com/feces.jpg
Wow, can you go one post without politiking my personal destruction?!? Are you stalking me?

I am just calling Spanky's post as I saw it and at the same time trying to offer a psychological explanation, based on my understanding of the soft science of psychology so loved by the liberals to justify their social agenda. My udnerstanding of modern psychology is that inappropriate fondling can fuck up a kid's mind all the way into adult hood, and cause trust issues. So I was extrapolating that maybe some of these haters had uncles or other like trusted adults named Sam, in their lives as kids who inappropriatelly fondled them, and left them feeling distrustful and angry at Uncle Sam, and that as adults they mistakenly projected that anger onto another Uncle Sam, America's mascot, and by extension, America.

do you have an alternative interpration of S-pank's data?

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2006 06:15 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's funny. The Journal wrote an article last month citing stats showing the rich paying more taxes than ever.
How can I argue with a second-hand description of an article in the Wall Street Journal protesting that taxes on the rich are too high? Sir, your evidence is too formidable for me. Clearly, you win this round.

Penske_Account 08-10-2006 06:15 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
My bad. I forgot. I'm rich.
I assume you own a fractional share of a private jet then?

Adder 08-10-2006 06:16 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No I won't, because your fiscal responsibility is built on taking my fucking money. The Democrats soak the fucking middle class, and you can't refute that point with a million years of research and endless bandwidth in which to reply.

1. You can't soak the rich because they shelter it.

2. You can't soak the poor because they don't have it.

3. You have to get your money from somewhere.

4. So who's left? Hmmm.

Who the fuck do you think pays all the fucking taxes in this country? Your party does a fine job running its mouth about the rich getting off easy. But it never offers a solution. Why? Because the solution is to tax the piss out of the upper middle class. Now that voters understand that, your party is running its mouth about fiscal responsibility. Sure, over time you are more fiscally "responsible." It's pretty fucking easy to come up with scads of cash when you're not shy about pandering to limousine liberals, the wretched "entitlement" class and a pack of union whores by jamming your hand into the middle classes' money.

Wealth redistribution from the upper middle to the hands of govt workers. Thaats Dem fiscal responsibility. Bush is a fuckup, no doubt. But he's not going to fuck me in the ass the way your party will, so thanks, but you can keep that fiscal responsibility of yours.

And don't tell me about how much the war is going to cost me down the road. It wo't be any more than what having a Dem in office would have cost me.
Do you read or think at all? or just rant?

Seriously, you sound like you have been hiding in a shack since 1984.

Penske_Account 08-10-2006 06:16 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How can I argue with a second-hand description of an article in the Wall Street Journal protesting that taxes on the rich are too high? Sir, your evidence is too formidable for me. Clearly, you win this round.
I read the article Sebby is noting, and frankly, I agree with him. For now you are outvoted 2-1 Ty.

Sorry.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-10-2006 06:17 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How can I argue with a second-hand description of an article in the Wall Street Journal protesting that taxes on the rich are too high? Sir, your evidence is too formidable for me. Clearly, you win this round.
Slap yourself acrosss the face with a glove for me.

And it had better not be silk.

Adder 08-10-2006 06:18 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
You state this as if your comment was an irrefutable fact as opposed to some allegations you have read somewhere (maybe on Kos?). And if what you say is true, how come there haven't been any deaths in this country caused by terrorism since 9/11.
For the same reason that there weren't any in this country for years before 9/11: they aren't that good at attacking us here.

Mind you, that is not to say that our counterterrorism efforts haven't helped on the margins. But the primary reason there have been deaths is the terrorist limited ability to act here.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2006 06:18 PM
Check this out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
do you have an alternative interpration of S-pank's data?
I'm not looking into your cage on this one.

Penske_Account 08-10-2006 06:23 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Adder
Do you read or think at all? or just rant?

Seriously, you sound like you have been hiding in a shack since 1984.
His post, even wading through the ranting and ducking to avoid the errant spittle, is 1000% more persuasive than anything you ever posted. Your posts (still and continue) to read as if you essentially have done nothing in your life but attend school. If they were some sort of intentional internet character study of a myopic student's perspective they would be great, but unfortunately, I think that they are sincere.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-10-2006 06:23 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Adder
Do you read or think at all? or just rant?

Seriously, you sound like you have been hiding in a shack since 1984.
Oh, for fuck's sake... Think how? Like you?

Dude, listen... That your econ professor told you capitalism was flawed, and you read a few Atlantic articles on the deficit, doesn't mean you think. It means you read some shit, which is why you think you know something, which you do. But it ain't much.

I read tons of shit and process it all, and it all comes down to two things - 1. I want my money now, because no matter tha data I read, it never makes sense to bet on projections re the nation's fiscal fortunes; and 2. GOP makes my taxes go down, Dems make them go up.

I am a cynic, and a cynic takes what he can while he can grab it. I'll deal with the future then. For now, I want to keep my taxes from going up, and the best way to do it is keep the fucking Dems out of office.

Do I need to know much else?

Penske_Account 08-10-2006 06:25 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Adder
For the same reason that there weren't any in this country for years before 9/11: they aren't that good at attacking us here.
Bzzzzzzztttt. WTC I (and OK City).

Spanky 08-10-2006 06:25 PM
Say it ain't so, Joe
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Spank, my earelier posts notwithstanding, the problem here is, that overtime (although not so much in 1948), the UN has become an unbridled haven for anti-semitic commie and/or socialist haters. They hate us, they hate the Jews, they hate commerce and markets, although, oddly, they like having the UN HQ in New York as opposed to some shithole third world country, presumably so they can access all our freedom and markets have to offer.

Anyhoo, they have illegitimised themselves. These are the same people who support awarding genocidal babykillers with nobel peace prises. At this point, its the law ofthe gun, maybe the god fearing good guys win!!!
OK fine. But don't expect Muslims and Arabs to accept Israel just because it was created by a UN resolution and then say the UN is a ridiculous organization (which it is). UN resolutions do not equal international law nor are they by definition ethical.

And don't expect Muslims and Arabs to accept Israel based on some moral natural law argument. That doesn't cut the cake either.

Israel was created at the point of a gun, and people got screwed when it was created. It is the denial of this fact that has lead to the current screwed up situation of believing that if Israel is nice to its neighbors or if its neighbors "just get educated" they will change their minds. To expect the original inhabitants of what is now the state of Israel to ever want anything but its destruction, is naive, completely delusional and unrealistic.

If you are going to grab some land, expel the inhabitants and create a nation, if it is going to work, you need to have defensible borders for that nation. Israel grabbed some land, expelled the inhabitants, but then didn't grab a piece of land that was defensible and then they left the people they screwed in a position to wreck havoc on the state of Israel. .

Realizing that mistake, they are now under the delusion that if they grab the land that is necessary to make Israel defensible, they can leave the original inhabitants of that land in the place they have occupied, still hold onto the property and get the people that live there (and the rest of the world) to accept it as morally righteous and ethically defendable act. And maybe a monkey will fly out of my derriere.

Israel either needs to complete the job, expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, create a defensible state (by building a huge wall around the whole country), or just give it up and call it a day.

Am I wrong?

sebastian_dangerfield 08-10-2006 06:26 PM
Take that, Ned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
His post, even wading through the ranting and ducking to avoid the errant spittle, is 1000% more persuasive than anything you ever posted. Your posts (still and continue) to read as if you essentially have done nothing in your life but attend school. If they were some sort of intentional internet character study of a myopic student's perspective they would be great, but unfortunately, I think that they are sincere.
This is true. I like Adder, but where Ty can actually crank me with sharpened stats, and appears maleable and understanding of certain points, Adder has this titanium naivete running through his posts. It's fucking frustrating because it reminds me of college, where I had to write gibberish I didn't believe in econ papers to satisfy the professor.

Penske_Account 08-10-2006 06:27 PM
Check this out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not looking into your cage on this one.
Ty, if the esteemed mods of this board can't seek common ground in our highminded and genteel debate, then what example are we setting for the lesser people who post here? What Ty, what?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:07 AM.
Page 81 of 126 « First 31717980 81 828391 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com