Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 10

 

2015-06-10 14:54:56
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6933

uziq wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Israel isbarely democratic, less so than Lebanon or Turkey for example, routinely provokes its neighbours, and the cold war is over - not that they were any help in that.

How is it in the interests of America, or a New Jersey Mayor even, to blindly support Israel?

That professing allegiance with Israel is as de rigeur for politicians as kissing babies is a stain on the country.
Lebanon is unstable as fuck. Even their own army can't control the violence. They have restricted laws on what religious affiliation you have to be for president, prime minister and speaker of house.

Turkey is a NATO ally, why would there be any need to reassure people about their allegiance?

Why would the stability of Israel not be in US interest? Why would instability anywhere in the world not be in US interest?
I know you cannot be this stupid. America doesn't care about 'stability' as a principle. it cares about maintaining the status quo (I.e. Pax Americana). no country goes through that much expense and dying because of the abstract notion of 'stability'. whatever the fuck stability even means in terms of world-historical processes or geopolitics, anyway (hint: nothing has ever been stable, and the people who tell you it is are those with the biggest vested interests in freezing the board game's pieces and cashing out where they are).

I also suggest you do some real reading into the current Israeli government and the policies and attitudes of Netanyahu and co. the only hope of keeping Israel from sliding into a paranoid, militaristic, bellicose, conservative, ingrown state is the Arab coalition trying to make inroads in the Knesset (ironically). and they won't have much luck with that, either.
Of course global 'stability' is aligned with US interests. It prevents major disruptions in trade, keeps shit flowing. You have to admit this is the most peaceful time in human history in terms of numbers of death from inter-state warfare. Everything is all inter-linked these days, and I'm not saying the US is doing everything out of their good will, but it does create a sense of security and stability. Same reason why countries (which have strategic interests) give them a call when shit goes haywire.

Bibi & Co has essentially gone the way of US republicans, pandering to the religious right. There's a good doco I'm sure you've seen it called the gatekeepers, pretty good insight on the shit that happens to israeli security.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2015-06-10 16:59:59
uziq
Member
+493|3669
wow another moron citing that risible pinker thesis about 'violence decreasing'. more meliorist liberal bollocks.

warfare is more diffuse now and it is waged on a different model. obviously we're not seeing the same number of casualties as 5 imperial armies in a hodgepodge of artillery shells and trenches, or 2 orderly professional armies queuing up to fire muskets into one another. we also have the atom bomb, which tends to put a mute into the omnipresent sax solo of military aggression. to say that violence has gone down globally in terms of pure output, and then justify america's foreign policy (read: self-interested meddling), is hilarious. no. stop reading Pinker he is a fuckin moran and a dumbas when it comes to studies outside of his academic provenance.
2015-06-10 18:02:32
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6849|949

It's easier to argue that instability is more aligned with US interests from a historical foreign policy perspective.  Sure, the US wants political stability in places like Ukraine, because it's historically been aligned with Russia.  But the US historically thrives on political instability - it's the only way the US hegemony can exert continuous influence on regions of material significance.  The US has benefited from political instability in Latin America and the Middle East, and we (US hegemony) is actively engaged in political disruption around the globe.  There's two interconnected policy platforms here - instability helps fuel the military industrial complex up until the point we can instill a US-friendly government...the tipping point where political stability is aligned with US interests.  But make no mistake - the US hegemony only wants stability IF it's aligned with US interests.  What good is political stability to the US if it's aligned with interests opposed to the US? 

I am of the opinion that displacement (as a restructuring of classes or actual population migrations) as a result of US foreign policy is at least as bad as traditional warfare.  Surely WW1 set Germany back decades...US foreign policy decisions (whether manifested as traditional warfare or more arcane economic strong-arm policies often pushed by trade agreements and/or international NGOs like the IMF) do the same thing on a more frequent basis to more players - it's a bigger impact and it's not as cut and dry as "boom yer dead".  It's more like, "boom, live with a severe handcuff on your way of life and little opportunity to improve".  Ironically the opposite of the supposed American dream.
2015-06-10 19:28:02
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6933

uziq wrote:

wow another moron citing that risible pinker thesis about 'violence decreasing'. more meliorist liberal bollocks.

warfare is more diffuse now and it is waged on a different model. obviously we're not seeing the same number of casualties as 5 imperial armies in a hodgepodge of artillery shells and trenches, or 2 orderly professional armies queuing up to fire muskets into one another. we also have the atom bomb, which tends to put a mute into the omnipresent sax solo of military aggression. to say that violence has gone down globally in terms of pure output, and then justify america's foreign policy (read: self-interested meddling), is hilarious. no. stop reading Pinker he is a fuckin moran and a dumbas when it comes to studies outside of his academic provenance.
i said in terms of inter-state warfare and made no comment about other types of violence that is occuring.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2015-06-10 19:44:23
Steve-0
Karma limited. Contact Admin to Be Promoted.
+215|4177|SL,UT

classic bf2s - new york / new jersey thread turned into [insert palestinian-jewish war here]
2015-06-10 20:46:36
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3937

uziq wrote:

wow another moron citing that risible pinker thesis about 'violence decreasing'. more meliorist liberal bollocks.
In Eric Hobsbawn's 'Age of Empire', he points out that there was a lot of liberal free trade types going around talking about how economic globalism was going to end wars between major powers in the late 19th and early 20th. But while they were talking about a new world peace, the major powers were stockpiling and inventing new heavy weapons. Then world war I happened.

War deaths are way down currently but the Iranians and Arabs want to nuke each other. Russia just proved that countries shouldn't give up Nuclear weapons. And North Korean taunting everyone with their new nuclear weapons is making their neighbors rearm themselves and consider getting nuclear weapons.

I can see a historian one day talking about how after the Cold War ended everyone thought major war was over, and the internet, and free trade is going to create world peace but meanwhile every middle power got nuclear weapons and made plans to use them. Then a nuclear war happened.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2015-06-11 02:36:18
uziq
Member
+493|3669

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

It's easier to argue that instability is more aligned with US interests from a historical foreign policy perspective.  Sure, the US wants political stability in places like Ukraine, because it's historically been aligned with Russia.  But the US historically thrives on political instability - it's the only way the US hegemony can exert continuous influence on regions of material significance.  The US has benefited from political instability in Latin America and the Middle East, and we (US hegemony) is actively engaged in political disruption around the globe.  There's two interconnected policy platforms here - instability helps fuel the military industrial complex up until the point we can instill a US-friendly government...the tipping point where political stability is aligned with US interests.  But make no mistake - the US hegemony only wants stability IF it's aligned with US interests.  What good is political stability to the US if it's aligned with interests opposed to the US? 

I am of the opinion that displacement (as a restructuring of classes or actual population migrations) as a result of US foreign policy is at least as bad as traditional warfare.  Surely WW1 set Germany back decades...US foreign policy decisions (whether manifested as traditional warfare or more arcane economic strong-arm policies often pushed by trade agreements and/or international NGOs like the IMF) do the same thing on a more frequent basis to more players - it's a bigger impact and it's not as cut and dry as "boom yer dead".  It's more like, "boom, live with a severe handcuff on your way of life and little opportunity to improve".  Ironically the opposite of the supposed American dream.
you're conflating Cold War foreign policy with the 'end of history' stasis and 'global stability' of post-89. you don't make a good historian. of course seeding revolt and supporting armed murderers in Latin America was advantageous for a while – but that wasn't a period of touted stability, it was a globe-spanning ideological struggle between two superpowers. the rhetoric of stability and quiet prosperity is the new neoliberal orthodoxy. and it of course suits the dominant powers (Fukuyama's infamous declaration looks asinine and wishful).

Mac, the Iranians and Arabs want to nuke each other? where do you get this Tom Clancy bollocks from. the Indians and Pakistanis are the two nuclear powers who would love to bake the other into a nuclear winter.

Last edited by uziq (2015-06-11 02:38:06)

2015-06-11 02:42:29
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Who gives a fuck what some lowly wannabe NJ gubernatorial candidate says about Israel while speaking to a Jewish congregation?  This is such a non-story it's laughable that people are bitching about it.
This. It's called pandering.
And you think its acceptable for an elected official to be pandering to a subversive fifth column?

Ken wrote:

It's easier to argue that instability is more aligned with US interests from a historical foreign policy perspective.  Sure, the US wants political stability in places like Ukraine, because it's historically been aligned with Russia.  But the US historically thrives on political instability - it's the only way the US hegemony can exert continuous influence on regions of material significance.  The US has benefited from political instability in Latin America and the Middle East, and we (US hegemony) is actively engaged in political disruption around the globe.
I don't really see how America has in any way benefited from instability in Latin America or the Middle East. Destabilising South America has lead directly to widely available cheap drugs, something America supposedly doesn't want for its population and which is very costly to deal with, and reduced trade opportunities. The domino theory was drivel in Asia, and also drivel in South America. Maybe installing fascist dictators satisfied some other asinine theory, I don't see how there was any direct benefit.

As for instability in the ME, I don't see how that's a benefit to America either, Iraq 1 cost ~$61 Billion, Afghanistan $1 Trillion, Iraq 2 $2 Trillion, the bulk of all that spending being unproductive and wasted. Where is the benefit?

The one nation which does benefit from instability is Israel, for a number of reasons.

Being surrounded by modern functioning democracies would put what Israel is into sharp relief, and they don't want that.

The only real threat to Israel is a modern, efficient military, or WMD - probably nuclear - delivered effectively. Either of those could only realistically be developed by a large and rich nation-state, hence its in Israel's interest to ensure no nearby nation comes close to parity by ensuring they fragment and become practically disfunctional. Recently that meant Iran or Iraq, and why little John Galt was sent to mess them up, the end-game having always been Iraq fracturing into three warring statelets each with a ragbag militia of small-arms, pick-up trucks and not much else.

Iran is next in the plan to cauldronise the ME, within a decade, maybe the next presidential term if its a Republicon, the US will be doing Israel's bidding and taking direct military action against Iran, while the US population are fooled into believing its somehow in their interests to be fighting Israel's enemies for them as they sit back and enjoy the show of Americans fighting and dying - again.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2015-06-11 03:03:47)

Fuck Israel
2015-06-11 03:39:04
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5575|London, England
I don't see it as all that different from Catholics tithing the Vatican or advocating for pro-life causes. Jews have always had allegiance to their religion because they've been persecuted, pogromed  and holocausted. They see other Jews with their own country and want to see them succeed. We happen to have a lot of Jews in New York  and New Jersey and they tend to be sympathetic towards Israel. I fail to see why this is outrageous.

I mostly find it sad that the Palestinian cause has provided you cover for your anti-semitism. I know you really don't give two shit about Arabs, you just hate Jews more and it's convenient to glom on.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-06-11 04:09:50
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX
Yawn, yes anyone criticising Israel and its grip on the balls of America is 'anti-semitic' - wow you really do swallow the brainwashing without blinking don't you?

You've actually gone and fought their wars for them and the penny still hasn't dropped - remarkable.

Have the Catholics formed a pressure group to strong-arm the US into providing billions in subsidy and a military umbrella which sanctions their paedophilia? There would be outrage over any of that.

Once again, whats outrageous is any politician running for office must swear his allegiance to Israel before he may proceed to step one in the democratic process. That its seen as absolutely normal is outrageous.
Fuck Israel
2015-06-11 05:21:50
uziq
Member
+493|3669

Jay wrote:

I don't see it as all that different from Catholics tithing the Vatican or advocating for pro-life causes. Jews have always had allegiance to their religion because they've been persecuted, pogromed  and holocausted. They see other Jews with their own country and want to see them succeed. We happen to have a lot of Jews in New York  and New Jersey and they tend to be sympathetic towards Israel. I fail to see why this is outrageous.

I mostly find it sad that the Palestinian cause has provided you cover for your anti-semitism. I know you really don't give two shit about Arabs, you just hate Jews more and it's convenient to glom on.
except this isn't the Ghibellines and the Guelfs and the Catholic 'state' doesn't have any real geopolitical power – soft power in terms of determining values and a social group, yes, but the Vatican is nothing like the Zionist state, which has acquired all of the worst characteristics of the original, early nation states (nationalism and chauvinism, to wit).

and the matter of Jewish support isn't anywhere near as black and white as tithes. there isn't a huge doctrinal or political disagreement within Catholicism (currently) like there is over the comparatively hot topic of Israel. many liberal Jews disagree with its inhumane treatment of arab/Palestine people, on secular-legal grounds, and many Orthodox Jews disagree with it because they believe it is an essential aspect of their people not to have a state. The zionist project has always appealed more to several demographic groups or 'tribes' of Jews more than others, e.g. the Eastern European and Russian groups, the kibbutz fanatics etc. and there's huge manoeuvring within those groups, each jostling with different political aims and even class/ethnic snobbery.

A naive or uninformed understanding of Israel as a 'place for Jews after the holocaust' leads to reductive analyses or blithe assumptions. if you don't understand the actual political makeup of the state and the very real and very present ideologies in force (as well as their opponents and detractors). if you don't look deeper into the issue then you won't understand the political process there and it's factional shades, and their subsequent dragging towards the right as Netanyahu panders to specific sub-groups with hard headed pragmatism/cynicism to win elections. to say that all Jews you know (another train journey anecdote jay?) in NY/NJ supports Israel is laughable. do you not read the New Yorker? the NYRB?

Last edited by uziq (2015-06-11 05:40:42)

2015-06-11 05:52:48
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3937

uziq wrote:

Mac, the Iranians and Arabs want to nuke each other? where do you get this Tom Clancy bollocks from. the Indians and Pakistanis are the two nuclear powers who would love to bake the other into a nuclear winter.
Have you been following the Syrian civil war closely? Iran and Saudi Arabia are engaged in a proxy war in 3 countries right now. The Saudis already said that they would develop their nuclear infrastructure if Iran acquired the bomb. They are going to at least build up their nuclear infrastructure to Iran's post nuclear deal level if the agreement is signed. The ME hasn't been this unstable in decades.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2015-06-11 08:01:04
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5575|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

I don't see it as all that different from Catholics tithing the Vatican or advocating for pro-life causes. Jews have always had allegiance to their religion because they've been persecuted, pogromed  and holocausted. They see other Jews with their own country and want to see them succeed. We happen to have a lot of Jews in New York  and New Jersey and they tend to be sympathetic towards Israel. I fail to see why this is outrageous.

I mostly find it sad that the Palestinian cause has provided you cover for your anti-semitism. I know you really don't give two shit about Arabs, you just hate Jews more and it's convenient to glom on.
except this isn't the Ghibellines and the Guelfs and the Catholic 'state' doesn't have any real geopolitical power – soft power in terms of determining values and a social group, yes, but the Vatican is nothing like the Zionist state, which has acquired all of the worst characteristics of the original, early nation states (nationalism and chauvinism, to wit).

and the matter of Jewish support isn't anywhere near as black and white as tithes. there isn't a huge doctrinal or political disagreement within Catholicism (currently) like there is over the comparatively hot topic of Israel. many liberal Jews disagree with its inhumane treatment of arab/Palestine people, on secular-legal grounds, and many Orthodox Jews disagree with it because they believe it is an essential aspect of their people not to have a state. The zionist project has always appealed more to several demographic groups or 'tribes' of Jews more than others, e.g. the Eastern European and Russian groups, the kibbutz fanatics etc. and there's huge manoeuvring within those groups, each jostling with different political aims and even class/ethnic snobbery.

A naive or uninformed understanding of Israel as a 'place for Jews after the holocaust' leads to reductive analyses or blithe assumptions. if you don't understand the actual political makeup of the state and the very real and very present ideologies in force (as well as their opponents and detractors). if you don't look deeper into the issue then you won't understand the political process there and it's factional shades, and their subsequent dragging towards the right as Netanyahu panders to specific sub-groups with hard headed pragmatism/cynicism to win elections. to say that all Jews you know (another train journey anecdote jay?) in NY/NJ supports Israel is laughable. do you not read the New Yorker? the NYRB?
Your argument is based on what intellectuals say and write in public, and it's largely meaningless. Your average voter does not fall into that category. Many of them have done their birthright trip and feel a kinship with the people there. Do you think the Orthodox would welcome the destruction of Israel? Doubt it.

And no, no train story here. I simply grew up on Long Island and about half of the people I've called friends have been Jewish (two served in the IDF). I've never heard anone express anything more than vague support for Israel.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-06-11 09:12:26
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3937
My first girlfriend was Jewish. The Jews have done more to advance civil rights than probably any other group. Nazis hate them as much as me so we kinda are in this together. I would vote for a Jewish president or other leader.

I just fucking hate Israel and how they treat Palestinians and the trouble their country causes for us. I support a Jewish state but the way Israel and its supporters acts is nauseating.

Every week at college there was a support Israel protest and a newspaper article in support of the state. They kill innocent Arabs and then turn around and act like victims. Israel is practically an apartheid state.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2015-06-11 11:05:30
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5575|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

My first girlfriend was Jewish. The Jews have done more to advance civil rights than probably any other group. Nazis hate them as much as me so we kinda are in this together. I would vote for a Jewish president or other leader.

I just fucking hate Israel and how they treat Palestinians and the trouble their country causes for us. I support a Jewish state but the way Israel and its supporters acts is nauseating.

Every week at college there was a support Israel protest and a newspaper article in support of the state. They kill innocent Arabs and then turn around and act like victims. Israel is practically an apartheid state.
Did it start out like that or was it pushed that way by incessant warfare? I'm not denying racism on the part of Zionists, but when everyone has to walk around armed because the country could be facing an attack at any time you tend to become paranoid and care less about people's rights and more willing to do anything to make you, your family and your friends safer. If the Palestinian leadership truly wanted peace and prosperity, and the other Arab nations stopped threatening war, do you really think the Israelis would go out of their way to 'kill innocents'? Doubtful.

I think the liberal need to constantly side with the underdog is misguided here.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-06-11 11:08:01
uziq
Member
+493|3669
i think it's less with siding with the underdog and more with siding with a people who have just as much of an historical claim and connection to the territory. you don't have to be a bleeding-heart liberal academic to see something wrong with being dispossessed.

also you act as if israel haven't started several wars and annexed territory in military campaigns. they didn't arm themselves to the teeth because they were afraid of their belligerent and dangerous arab neighbours (although that is now part of the convenient israeli myth). israel was born fighting and killing arabs. the very first day, with fringe zionist loonies and 'extremist' paramilitary groups going out and killing innocent people. and there have been several campaigns since then that are all about israeli tanks and warplanes rolling into a neighbour's country.

Last edited by uziq (2015-06-11 11:10:20)

2015-06-12 05:06:48
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Did it start out like that or was it pushed that way by incessant warfare?
It started out like that, the Israelis forced the Palestinians off their land at gunpoint or through terror attacks, the Israelis brought the 'incessant warfare', indiscriminate terrorism against civilians etc.
when everyone has to walk around armed because the country could be facing an attack at any time you tend to become paranoid and care less about people's rights and more willing to do anything to make you, your family and your friends safer
You're painting the Israelis as the victims when they are the aggressors. They're walking around armed because they fear payback, not unprovoked attacks, and want to keep hold of their stolen land.
If the Palestinian leadership truly wanted peace and prosperity, and the other Arab nations stopped threatening war, do you really think the Israelis would go out of their way to 'kill innocents'?
Killing innocents is what they have been doing since day one, its how Israel was created.
Some reading for you, maybe Uzique can suggest an unbiased account, not the revisionism you currently have in your head, since you say you have an interest in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

Do you still think its not outrageous that your politicians have to pander to this?

Would it be no different if American-Muslims were strong-arming tax dollars and military assistance to help ISIS run and protect their brutal and intolerant caliphate? Would you have something to say then?
Fuck Israel
2015-06-12 10:44:51
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5575|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Did it start out like that or was it pushed that way by incessant warfare?
It started out like that, the Israelis forced the Palestinians off their land at gunpoint or through terror attacks, the Israelis brought the 'incessant warfare', indiscriminate terrorism against civilians etc.
when everyone has to walk around armed because the country could be facing an attack at any time you tend to become paranoid and care less about people's rights and more willing to do anything to make you, your family and your friends safer
You're painting the Israelis as the victims when they are the aggressors. They're walking around armed because they fear payback, not unprovoked attacks, and want to keep hold of their stolen land.
If the Palestinian leadership truly wanted peace and prosperity, and the other Arab nations stopped threatening war, do you really think the Israelis would go out of their way to 'kill innocents'?
Killing innocents is what they have been doing since day one, its how Israel was created.
Some reading for you, maybe Uzique can suggest an unbiased account, not the revisionism you currently have in your head, since you say you have an interest in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

Do you still think its not outrageous that your politicians have to pander to this?

Would it be no different if American-Muslims were strong-arming tax dollars and military assistance to help ISIS run and protect their brutal and intolerant caliphate? Would you have something to say then?
Why? We already give billions to Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Jordan. Iran is up next.

Frankly, I have no sympathy for Palestinians because they allow Hamas to rule. Hamas is the quintessential real life troll. They fire rockets at Israel and then when Israel responds they get the liberal world all riled up in defense of them. I feel very strongly in favor of the right of self-determination, and thus I would like to see a Palestinian state, but the way they go about their business is stupid.

I am biased though. I fully admit it. For all their cultural foibles that drive me nuts sometimes, I haven't had any Jews try to kill me.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-06-12 10:56:58
uziq
Member
+493|3669
hamas isn't the entirety of the palestinian cause. arafat was murdered, and along with him the best chance of a moderate settlement. your understanding is fundamentally flawed (or more like plain uneducated).

you talk about self-determination and palestine jeopardising their own chances, as if they are to blame for their quandary. dilbert pretty much linked to some of the exact stuff i was talking about. irgun were far worse than hamas, and they sprung into action on the very day that the movement to form a jewish state was announced. paramilitary murder and extrajudicial killings from the get go – an unspoken, unofficial doctrine of terror, far worse and far more effective than hamas firing a few fireworks at the Us-Israel star wars-level shield tech. and these fuckers then went on to consolidate and constitute the base of the new israeli security services. you talk about palestine bringing their bad fortune upon themselves, but israel has had complete supremacy from day zero and has still proceeded to misuse its power and antagonise its neighbours. look at the golan heights for an example. it is sheer madness to support them as some underdog in the region. israel has been a pre-emptive bully with a big older brother.

Last edited by uziq (2015-06-12 10:57:23)

2015-06-12 16:10:11
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX
Hamas is the only organisation, apart from Hezbollah, which has emerged which has the balls to take on the Israelis and respond to their aggression.
Remember this argument?

Jay wrote:

when everyone has to walk around armed because the country could be facing an attack at any time you tend to become paranoid and care less about people's rights and more willing to do anything to make you, your family and your friends safer
Why wouldn't that apply to the Palestinians? They're the ones being murdered, thrown out of their homes and off their land.

Hamas and Hezbollah are direct results of Israel's actions, Israel has no cause for complaint - they created them.
Americans rant about Iranian support for Hezbollah, Iraqi support for the Palestinians - your govt sends 10x more of your tax dollars to Israel than Hezbollah gets from Iran - and you don't apparently see any issue with it.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2015-06-12 18:58:05)

Fuck Israel
2015-06-30 04:28:20
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3937
At 9:30 p.m. on the eve of his Republican presidential campaign kickoff, Gov. Chris Christie announced a change to state firearm policy on an issue that has been riling gun rights activists.

The governor also signaled support for loosening New Jersey's strict gun control laws.

Reacting to the June 3 death of 39-year-old Berlin Township woman Carol Bowne, Christie on Monday announced that acting state Attorney General John Hoffman will file a new regulation to require applications for gun permits for victims of domestic violence, other violent crimes or "those living under a direct or material threat" be processed "quickly and without delay."

Those circumstances would also count as a "justifiable need" to obtain an expedited permit to carry firearms — something rarely granted to New Jersey residents who are not retired law enforcement officers.
I don't mind the other changes but I don't like that one. I don't like concealed carry for anyone. Hate Chris Christie. Self serving narcissist.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2015-06-30 12:19:14
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6849|949

all applications should be processed quickly and without delay- after all appropriate checks are performed, of course.  Maybe he should address the bureaucratic stagnation up instead of amending a law to appease the potential votes he's expecting to get.

Chris Christie is genuinely a piece of shit.
2015-06-30 19:13:16
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5575|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

all applications should be processed quickly and without delay- after all appropriate checks are performed, of course.  Maybe he should address the bureaucratic stagnation up instead of amending a law to appease the potential votes he's expecting to get.

Chris Christie is genuinely a piece of shit.
It's not stagnation, it's institutional bias fostered by the police unions which would rather no one but themselves be armed. They sit on the permits rather than processing them. Much safer to steal people's property and shoot their dogs when people can't fight back.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-07-01 11:55:12
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3937
You talk about fighting back against the police but would be among the crowd of people panicking if some group took out a few cops. It's the same with every 'fight the power' libertarian and conservative.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2015-07-01 12:32:13
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6849|949

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

all applications should be processed quickly and without delay- after all appropriate checks are performed, of course.  Maybe he should address the bureaucratic stagnation up instead of amending a law to appease the potential votes he's expecting to get.

Chris Christie is genuinely a piece of shit.
It's not stagnation, it's institutional bias fostered by the police unions which would rather no one but themselves be armed. They sit on the permits rather than processing them. Much safer to steal people's property and shoot their dogs when people can't fight back.
That's under the broad umbrella of bureaucracy is it not?  I can't think of a better descriptor.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

You talk about fighting back against the police but would be among the crowd of people panicking if some group took out a few cops. It's the same with every 'fight the power' libertarian and conservative.
I think you are confused.  People want the police.  People want protection.  People don't want those in power taking advantage of it. It's pretty simple actually.  There's little cognitive dissonance ova hea'.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard