â it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.â that is exactly what you do. You continuoulsy attach everything to Nazis. Persistently insisting america is facist I presume, as it can't really be Nazi when I show you the point with AMERICA IS GREAT etc you post that You are bordering on hypochrisy now as well
OK, we obviously disagree. Israel cannot be "occupying" their own country. Even you say "palestine is a fictitious state"...so how can they be occupied if they don't exist? And....did not the Israelis offer the PA a homeland? And did they not turn down the offer because 98% was not enough? And, for the final time....please....TF, tell me honestly what you think would happen if the Palestinians had the weapons and the power that Israel has. How long would Israel exist? What part of 98% would the Israelis be offered if the shoe were on the other foot? What was the sole intention of the attack on Israel by the surrounding Arab nations in 1948? What was there STATED OBJECTIVE? And again in 1954. And in 1967. And in 1973? Does a country have the right to defend itself? Was America given it's independence by Britain or did it fight for it? So yes, Israel fought with Great Britain too. As did India. As did essentially a whole empire on which the "sun never set". You say Israel is imperialistic and wishes to expand? Seems like all they have proposed is to RETURN captured lands. Some not strategic, like the Sinai. Some very strategic and very settled after 35 years like the Golan. (Hey, they have skiing there...how could a country willingly give that up???) But most importantly...who refused to accept the peace proposals that would have ended it all over two years ago? There are crazies on both sides. Rabin wanted peace and was murdered by extremist jews. Sadat wanted peace and was murdered by arab extremists. Neither side is blameless. Neither side will ever get 100% satisfaction. But 98% seems pretty reasonable. Especially for a "country" that has zero. Hard to believe that this could be an offer turned down in total. Do you think Arafat is the right guy at the right time (right now?) I have always agreed with you that Sharon is a thug. Lots of thugs in Israel. But again, the Israeli people are frightened into believing they need a ruthless leader to deal with a ruthless and unpredictable and uncivilized (referring to suicide bombers) enemy. Are there decent "palestinians"? No doubt there are. The Israelis are NOT at war with the Palestinian people any more than the American people want to be at war with the Iraqi people. It is about the leaders. Arafat wants Israeli blood. And no peace. Saddam wants everyone's blood. Including his own citizens. His own families' in many cases. Get it straight TF.....no one in their right mind does NOT want the fighting and terror to end in Israel. No one is safe and no one is getting what they want now. There have been peace offers. There have been treaties. There has been great effort to end the strife. But yet the PA finds every offer, every treaty, every effort to be inadequate. So the bloodshed continues. It is always easy to blame the stronger party of any conflict. In this case Israel is the stronger party. But they made themselves so. They created a country. Arafat wants to take it away. Why did not the Palestinians create a country in Jordan and the West Bank when they were there and had the same opportunities that the jews had in Israel for the past 55 years? Could it be because it is just easier to take than to create? And again, do the Arabs in Israel have rights to vote and hold office? They do. Are they a minority? They are. But Israel is a theocracy. So they haven't much power as things are. But since the vast majority of jews in Israel are secular jews, the theocratic policies stand to be struck down eventually. If the arabs wished for peace, they could work for it within the system even in Israel itself. In the US, it was the change in attitude among the people that brought about the end of the Viet Nam conflict. The end of the Nixon administration. The end of slavery. This is what is possible in a democracy. Israel may be a theocratic state, but still, they are a democracy. Actually more so than is the US technically. So things can and will change for the better when reasonable minds and reasonable solutions are given a chance. Isreal wants to maintain a cultural continuity. Not a right wing theocratic oppressive bullying state. But when you (a country, a person, any group) are pressed to the wall, you first defend yourself. It takes freedom of movement to achieve movement. Four years ago; three years ago; there was peace and the hope for a final resolution of the Palestinian dilemma. Now there is no apparent hope. Why is that? Who's choice was is to refuse an offer of peace? An offer of a real homeland? What is reasonable? You said yourself that "Palestine is a fictitious state". A few months ago they should have been celebrating their "Independence Day". Instead, they were killing teenagers in Discos and Pizza parlors. Makes a lot of sense! There are no winners now in Israel. Everyone is losing. What is the sense of this? Peace, rs7
Madison. Of course you are correct. I mentioned that it was about state's rights. Do you think that explaining the Electoral College to an Arab living in France is really worth the time and effort? I have no real feelings one way or the other about the system. It will benefit different ideologies at different times. But really, the "states rights" issue is a bit archaic IMO. But not enough so to argue about. I believe states SHOULD have some limited autonomy. But go explain the concept to a non American. And the arguments pro and con states rights. Remember Lester Maddux? What did you think about states rights in his interpretation of the issue? (for one example). Democrats now? Sure they are the most vocal. It cost them the election. If it went the other way, it would be the Republicans. (as I believe it was after the 1960 election, which was an electoral college landslide for JFK, but a less than 1% majority vote overall against Nixon, who would have assuredly asked for a recount if not for the electoral college element). So it cuts both ways. Besides, the EC was not totally about states rights. It was about practical matters involving the lack of communications in those days. States voted, sent their voted representatives to congress to submit the votes, and hence the system made sense. There were no mass communications. No computers. No phones or any practical way to have an election result of the whole country calculated in any reasonable amount of time. So even today, because of the technology of the 18th century, we don't really get the final vote until the electoral college votes well after a month has passed since the general election. So it is not a one issue thing. But so far it has worked fairly well, and there is enough justification for the system to not be abandoned. And so we have a president elected who came in second in the popular vote. According to the rules. And that is very important. If you agree to rules, you need to play by them. No one that mattered disputed the outcome of the election based on electoral votes. The Florida thing was a different issue entirely. But not suitable for discussion here. A debate worth having once, but a dead horse now. Peace, rs7
Jewish Immigration to Germany Germany has the fastest-growing Jewish population outside Israel. Since 1990, more than 100,000 Jews from former Soviet Union countries have joined the 30,000 Jews in Germany. The German government reports that with the decline of the Russian economy in recent months, the numbers of refugees is increasing. Germany is more attractive than Israel to former Soviet Jews who are not very religious or for those married to non-Jews, according to the director of the Jewish Cultural Association in Berlin. http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/entireissues/feb_1999mn.html Jewish communities in Germany ... http://www.talmud.de/gemdeu.htm
great points. there are always at least two valid opposing arguments for any non-scientific issue, and at least one other that hasn't occurred to you yet. also, imo, the best way to test your own conclusion is to try to argue the opposite side.
Holy s** rs7 - you really do type fast! I agree that a discussion of the Electoral College is enough for its own thread (and its own board, if it goes into Maddux and state's rights, I think!) - and not in line with this one... I was just trying to defend the system a bit, as it has been beaten down a lot in the press since the 2000 election...