Obama urges economic fairness in State Of The Union

[Ace Nova]

It's hard to keep focus on an argument when 4 different people are whining about 4 different sectors. One's talking about how his nana is the better sibling, why? well, because her brother was rich, and she wasn't, and she's my nana, so she's better. The other seems convinced that the government needs to provide for him and his own health, since he can't do it himself. He also doesn't understand what oppurtunity is, nor nicknames for restaurants like mickydicks.

So lets keep it to one attack at once, and I'll answer them, just don't go on a tangent.

As for the Debate last night, Santorum is a dolt, Gingrich understands economy, but has a terrible foreign policy, Mitt Romney is a Devil in Sheeps Clothes and Dr Paul is the only voice of reason on that stage.

So what your telling me Deeds, is you agree with a warmongering president/dictator who outright in his state of the union address asked for socialism, and essentially used the same speech 3 years running?

Here's a topic, I'd like to hear you all tell me what you think Socialism is, and what it'll lead too. I'm curious to see if you all understand the system.

I really don't think people are attacking you personally, they are responding to your original post and subsequent posts, and so far they have submitted much more factual evidence backing up their logic vs. yours. In at least the responses I gave you, I showed that you (possibly subconsciously) agreed more with the President's viewpoint and agenda vs. the one you portrayed in your original and subsequent posts.

The way I viewed the debate is that you had Santorum (most conservative) on one end and Dr. Paul (most liberal) on the other and you have the two "leading" republican candidates in the middle. The two in the middle stole the show with constant personal attacks, Santorum was the "peace maker" and Dr. Paul just said what he believed, not worrying about the opinion of the audience. I respect the fact that Dr. Paul spoke his mind and much of his logic makes sense in theory but unfortunately is way too extreme to start implementing at this time.

Dr. Paul is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, essentially, if he were elected, he would get next to nothing passed in the senate and the house and we would be dealing with a "lame duck" president for the next four years - and that's the very last thing this country needs at this time. Also, if some of his agenda would be passed at this time, it could lead to a complete global economic collapse, leading with collapse of the U.S. currency, followed by health care, etc. If you think it's bad now, you have no idea what it could be like if some of his theories would be put into legislation. Dr. Paul freely admits that it would most likely get worse before it gets better if he were to put his entire platform into legislation. I actually was a Ron Paul proponent in 2008 but now, seeing that things are getting better, I don't feel that this country is in need of that type of drastic reform...actually, it could be extremely detrimental.

[metatron]

It's hard to keep focus on an argument when 4 different people are whining about 4 different sectors. One's talking about how his nana is the better sibling, why? well, because her brother was rich, and she wasn't, and she's my nana, so she's better. The other seems convinced that the government needs to provide for him and his own health, since he can't do it himself. He also doesn't understand what oppurtunity is, nor nicknames for restaurants like mickydicks.

So lets keep it to one attack at once, and I'll answer them, just don't go on a tangent.

As for the Debate last night, Santorum is a dolt, Gingrich understands economy, but has a terrible foreign policy, Mitt Romney is a Devil in Sheeps Clothes and Dr Paul is the only voice of reason on that stage.

So what your telling me Deeds, is you agree with a warmongering president/dictator who outright in his state of the union address asked for socialism, and essentially used the same speech 3 years running?

Here's a topic, I'd like to hear you all tell me what you think Socialism is, and what it'll lead too. I'm curious to see if you all understand the system.

I really don't think people are attacking you personally, they are responding to your original post and subsequent posts, and so far they have submitted much more factual evidence backing up their logic vs. yours. In at least the responses I gave you, I showed that you (possibly subconsciously) agreed more with the President's viewpoint and agenda vs. the one you portrayed in your original and subsequent posts.

The way I viewed the debate is that you had Santorum (most conservative) on one end and Dr. Paul (most liberal) on the other and you have the two "leading" republican candidates in the middle. The two in the middle stole the show with constant personal attacks, Santorum was the "peace maker" and Dr. Paul just said what he believed, not worrying about the opinion of the audience. I respect the fact that Dr. Paul spoke his mind and much of his logic makes sense in theory but unfortunately is way too extreme to start implementing at this time.

Dr. Paul is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, essentially, if he were elected, he would get next to nothing passed in the senate and the house and we would be dealing with a "lame duck" president for the next four years - and that's the very last thing this country needs at this time. Also, if some of his agenda would be passed at this time, it could lead to a complete global economic collapse, leading with collapse of the U.S. currency, followed by health care, etc. If you think it's bad now, you have no idea what it could be like if some of his theories would be put into legislation. Dr. Paul freely admits that it would most likely get worse before it gets better if he were to put his entire platform into legislation. I actually was a Ron Paul proponent in 2008 but now, seeing that things are getting better, I don't feel that this country is in need of that type of drastic reform...actually, it could be extremely detrimental.

So what do you propose? More spending? Dr. Paul has a plan, he'll withdraw all the troops effectively cutting over a trillion off the debt in the first year. Why is American acting as an international policing force? I think Keynesian economy is what got us here in the first place, and Obama being the most keynesian since Reagan doesn't have the answer. You can't pay off credit with credit, it isn't sound logic.

[Dazey]

Also, much easier then obamacare, would be to just let people get personal tax deductions for health care. Why not take it away from insurance companies.

I'm not sure what you mean there? That's how the system works in most countries. That's what I'm arguing for. My issue is with for profit companies having the power of life and death over us based on a bottom line on a shareholders balance sheet. When I say that should be in the hands of government or local authorities it's because in that situation the person making the decision doesn't have to think about the effect it will have on the company share price. Governments are supposed to independent of the money men and in most countries this is the case to a much greater extent than in the US.

Again like I said the NHS in the UK doesn't push up private insurance premiums cos they were never allowed to get so big that the competition makes much of a difference. The big difference is that in most developed countries the private insurers learned to operate in scenario where there was already a public option. In the US it's the opposite and that's always going to be so much more difficult cos you're never going to get a govenrment lobbyist campaigning against people taking out private insurance cos if anything that benefits them as there's more to go around for everybody else. In the US I think you're probably too far down that path now which is sad.

I also, and I say this with all due respect based on what you've said, but I would have thought you would at least have some understanding for my position here. Yes it broke you financially but your Mom was in a position to pay for her treatment even though the cost was great. If she literally had no access to any money to cover those costs at the time for whatever reason then would you have begrudged her state assistance even if it was a three month wait?

Edited January 27, 2012 by Dazey Does Dallas

[Ace Nova]

So what do you propose? More spending? Dr. Paul has a plan, he'll withdraw all the troops effectively cutting over a trillion off the debt in the first year. Why is American acting as an international policing force? I think Keynesian economy is what got us here in the first place, and Obama being the most keynesian since Reagan doesn't have the answer. You can't pay off credit with credit, it isn't sound logic.

Again, when it comes to foreign policy the President's and Dr. Paul's platforms are very similar. President Obama HAS been withdrawing troops and he plans to continue to do so. He basically wants to use half the money on reducing the deficit and the other half on improving the country's infrastructure, improving roads, leading to the development of up to a million NEW jobs. Again, you are agreeing with the president on this one. You are disagreeing with primarily the republican controlled House who has been stalling the president's agenda - mostly because it is an election year and they have their own "agendas".

Edited January 27, 2012 by Kasanova King

[Dazey]

I just did a quick google for insurance costs over here and for full comprehensive medical cover for somebody my age in a similar profession it would cost about $80 a month. I've no idea what the comparison is but how does that compare to the equivalent in the US?

[metatron]

So what do you propose? More spending? Dr. Paul has a plan, he'll withdraw all the troops effectively cutting over a trillion off the debt in the first year. Why is American acting as an international policing force? I think Keynesian economy is what got us here in the first place, and Obama being the most keynesian since Reagan doesn't have the answer. You can't pay off credit with credit, it isn't sound logic.

Again, when it comes to foreign policy the President's and Dr. Paul's platforms are very similar. President Obama HAS been withdrawing troops and he plans to continue to do so. He basically wants to use half the money on reducing the deficit and the other half on improving the country's infrastructure, improving roads, leading to the development of up to a million NEW jobs. Again, you are agreeing with the president on this one. You are disagreeing with primarily the republican controlled House who has been stalling the president's agenda - mostly because it is an election year and they have their own "agendas".

see its hard to debate with this kind of misinformation. He's about to go to war with Iran, he continues to fund Israel and the Libyan rebels. Do some research.

[Ace Nova]

So what do you propose? More spending? Dr. Paul has a plan, he'll withdraw all the troops effectively cutting over a trillion off the debt in the first year. Why is American acting as an international policing force? I think Keynesian economy is what got us here in the first place, and Obama being the most keynesian since Reagan doesn't have the answer. You can't pay off credit with credit, it isn't sound logic.

Again, when it comes to foreign policy the President's and Dr. Paul's platforms are very similar. President Obama HAS been withdrawing troops and he plans to continue to do so. He basically wants to use half the money on reducing the deficit and the other half on improving the country's infrastructure, improving roads, leading to the development of up to a million NEW jobs. Again, you are agreeing with the president on this one. You are disagreeing with primarily the republican controlled House who has been stalling the president's agenda - mostly because it is an election year and they have their own "agendas".

see its hard to debate with this kind of misinformation. He's about to go to war with Iran, he continues to fund Israel and the Libyan rebels. Do some research.

You're idea of "war" with Iran and the President's agenda are two completely different things. I assure you the very last thing Obama will do is lead a "Bush - Iraq" type war against Iran. He will first lead with diplomacy, sanctions, and then possibly ally with other nations that are currently against Iran. BUT when I say "ally" it hardly means committing anywhere near the vast amount of troops and resources used in the Iraq war. Look at how the president handled the Osama Bin Laden situation...that's most likely how he would handle Iran - IF it gets to that point, get it?

Edited January 27, 2012 by Kasanova King

[mezz]

It's hard to keep focus on an argument when 4 different people are whining about 4 different sectors. One's talking about how his nana is the better sibling, why? well, because her brother was rich, and she wasn't, and she's my nana, so she's better. The other seems convinced that the government needs to provide for him and his own health, since he can't do it himself. He also doesn't understand what oppurtunity is, nor nicknames for restaurants like mickydicks.

You've actually avoided addressing anybody's points in any depth once again! Well done you! Did you actually read any of my post? Oh and what's your current situation if you don't mind me asking cos I'm looking for a reason as to why you're so utterly ignorant! So what hardships have you had to go through to get where you are today? How long have you spend working hard to get where you are now in a low paid job without benefits? Oh and I do provide for my own healthcare it comes out of my taxes every month. You say I don't understand what opportunity is yet the example we were talking about was one you provided yourself!

I came from a father who was an alcoholic and wished he didn't have a son, and a mother who went through cancer treatments through most of my youth. I saw first hand there, how the private sector works better. When they first found her to have cancer, she was given 2 choices, to go with universal health care, and wait 2-3 months for surgery, or she could pay for it herself, and get it done in 2-3 days. Needless to say, she chose to go to private sector, and for a long time, we paid that bill, and since she couldn't work, we had to live off her savings. Instead of getting mad at the system for how much it cost, I understand that injecting government into a sector will make the prices of that commodity rise, in this case, health care. Because my mother was sick, and my father a useless alcoholic, my grandparents mostly raised me. Now, I'm the manager of a successful firm, make a nice salary, and live with my wife. I'm also a politician now, joining one of Canada's political parties. I've come from nothing, and made my way.

Did I avoid your question?

Do you think you'd possibly have different opinions if you were born with an illness, unable to work, into a poor family? Work hard, invest into yourself, save?

Not everyone is born with equal chances.

[metatron]

So what do you propose? More spending? Dr. Paul has a plan, he'll withdraw all the troops effectively cutting over a trillion off the debt in the first year. Why is American acting as an international policing force? I think Keynesian economy is what got us here in the first place, and Obama being the most keynesian since Reagan doesn't have the answer. You can't pay off credit with credit, it isn't sound logic.

Again, when it comes to foreign policy the President's and Dr. Paul's platforms are very similar. President Obama HAS been withdrawing troops and he plans to continue to do so. He basically wants to use half the money on reducing the deficit and the other half on improving the country's infrastructure, improving roads, leading to the development of up to a million NEW jobs. Again, you are agreeing with the president on this one. You are disagreeing with primarily the republican controlled House who has been stalling the president's agenda - mostly because it is an election year and they have their own "agendas".

diplomacy? Diplomacy would be offering Iran help developing the nuclear reactor. Not threatening them for it.

[Ace Nova]

So what do you propose? More spending? Dr. Paul has a plan, he'll withdraw all the troops effectively cutting over a trillion off the debt in the first year. Why is American acting as an international policing force? I think Keynesian economy is what got us here in the first place, and Obama being the most keynesian since Reagan doesn't have the answer. You can't pay off credit with credit, it isn't sound logic.

Again, when it comes to foreign policy the President's and Dr. Paul's platforms are very similar. President Obama HAS been withdrawing troops and he plans to continue to do so. He basically wants to use half the money on reducing the deficit and the other half on improving the country's infrastructure, improving roads, leading to the development of up to a million NEW jobs. Again, you are agreeing with the president on this one. You are disagreeing with primarily the republican controlled House who has been stalling the president's agenda - mostly because it is an election year and they have their own "agendas".

diplomacy? Diplomacy would be offering Iran help developing the nuclear reactor. Not threatening them for it.

Haha...come on now. Diplomacy would be giving Iran other forms of technology to generate energy, including newer "green" forms (in which the rest of the world is heading to anyway, btw), removing sanctions,etc. in exchange for them halting their "nuclear" program.

Don't you find it ironic that Iran is basically the only country in the world that is insisting on developing nuclear technology while just about every other country is either reducing or eliminating theirs in favor of newer, greener ways to generate energy? (And I am trying to be objective as possible and assuming that the reason they are pursuing the technology is to generate energy, not weapons).

Edited January 27, 2012 by Kasanova King

[Dazey]

and assuming that the reason they are pursuing the technology is to generate energy, not weapons.

When they've openly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? I mean Who'd doubt their sincerity eh?

[Bromle]

Why are american so anti socialisme?

When you look at the United states status today, it's just getting worse and worse. Poverty is a problem, people don't have jobs etc.

When you look at country with high taxes and a strong goverment (not in a military sense) you see that the quality of life is quite high in those countries. (I.e Scandenavian countries)

I'm from Norway and I could easily been just another guy saying that my country is so great and all other countries are shit. Lucky for me, The United Nations says that for me But seirusly, we rank high up on their list year after year. So there has to be something that is done right here in this cold winterland. Most people say that Oil is the backbone of Norwegian fortune. I won't deny that Oil has helped our country a lot. But that is not what makes Norway a good country to live in. A lot of other countries have Oil, and most of them are ranked quite low, where there are a few super wealthy and a lot of suffering in the general population. The reason for that is that we protect our oil with really high taxes and restrictions. Ideological, the oil should only be pumped up by Norwegian oil company, be prosessed in norway becouse of the jobs and economic growth that would follow. After it was processed, it would be shipped around the world. Now the reality isn't like that, but the idea is always there, and it's always in the mind of our politicians. The Norwegian oil belonges to us, and should make us richer, not a multinational oil company.

I Digress. Back to taxes. Before we found oil, we found each other. What I mean with that statment is that our goverment, even before WWII started implementing laws and services that would make equallity a maine policy in Norway. Tax reformes and social security was established, securing people who wasn't able to work or was sick, economic stability, and enough to live a decent life. That of course isn't free, so we pay a lot of taxes. Most norwegian complain about the high taxes etc, but most of them are happy to have them when they get sick, and only has to pay a small fee when they get sick. How it workes is that if you get medical bill a year over around $300, all above that is covered by the goverment. As I understand it, in the US you get health insurance that do mostly the same ting. Only difference is that poor people without job, they get sick to.

The problem with the Sosialist model is that it isn't suitable for everyone. American for example has another culture, and there could be big problems trying to adapt a small countrys' governence in a larger country like Unitet States.

But higher taxes for the wealthy is a must either way!

[metatron]

So what do you propose? More spending? Dr. Paul has a plan, he'll withdraw all the troops effectively cutting over a trillion off the debt in the first year. Why is American acting as an international policing force? I think Keynesian economy is what got us here in the first place, and Obama being the most keynesian since Reagan doesn't have the answer. You can't pay off credit with credit, it isn't sound logic.

Again, when it comes to foreign policy the President's and Dr. Paul's platforms are very similar. President Obama HAS been withdrawing troops and he plans to continue to do so. He basically wants to use half the money on reducing the deficit and the other half on improving the country's infrastructure, improving roads, leading to the development of up to a million NEW jobs. Again, you are agreeing with the president on this one. You are disagreeing with primarily the republican controlled House who has been stalling the president's agenda - mostly because it is an election year and they have their own "agendas".

diplomacy? Diplomacy would be offering Iran help developing the nuclear reactor. Not threatening them for it.

Haha...come on now. Diplomacy would be giving Iran other forms of technology to generate energy, including newer "green" forms (in which the rest of the world is heading to anyway, btw), removing sanctions,etc. in exchange for them halting their "nuclear" program.

Don't you find it ironic that Iran is basically the only country in the world that is insisting on developing nuclear technology while just about every other country is either reducing or eliminating theirs in favor of newer, greener ways to generate energy? (And I am trying to be objective as possible and assuming that the reason they are pursuing the technology is to generate energy, not weapons).

It's cheap clean energy to a large extent, simply put. It's probably to suffice a temporary need for extra energy, that'll back fire in the near future. I agree maybe with giving them different forms of energy perhaps, but I still think closer to the Iran's would be better than isolating them. You know the saying "Keep your friends closer, your enemies closer."

As for them wanting to wipe off Israel, well I don't completely disagree. I believe the state of Israel has caused nothing but troubles for far too long. I wouldn't erradicate them, but I'd put serious pressure for a territory reform that would better suit Palestine. Having had a chance to take a trip to that part of the world, with a friend Fehr who is native of Palestine opened my eyes to what the situation actually is and what the western media is making it to be. They are ready to coexist with Israel, they just want a few lands back, and would settle down peacefully. Historically speaking Israel has been an agressor, having bombed and attacked EVERY SINGLE ONE OF IT'S NEIGHBORS! In less than 100 years.

This didn't start cause of some planes flying into some buildings.

Edited January 28, 2012 by metatron

[Dazey]

It's cheap clean energy to a large extent, simply put. It's probably to suffice a temporary need for extra energy, that'll back fire in the near future. I agree maybe with giving them different forms of energy perhaps, but I still think closer to the Iran's would be better than isolating them. You know the saying "Keep your friends closer, your enemies closer."

As for them wanting to wipe off Israel, well I don't completely disagree. I believe the state of Israel has caused nothing but troubles for far too long. I wouldn't erradicate them, but I'd put serious pressure for a territory reform that would better suit Palestine. Having had a chance to take a trip to that part of the world, with a friend Fehr who is native of Palestine opened my eyes to what the situation actually is and what the western media is making it to be. They are ready to coexist with Israel, they just want a few lands back, and would settle down peacefully. Historically speaking Israel has been an agressor, having bombed and attacked EVERY SINGLE ONE OF IT'S NEIGHBORS! In less than 100 years.

This didn't start cause of some planes flying into some buildings.

I actually agree with you on Israel, about its right to exist that is. Problem is that that's not the fault of the people who live there and it's our fault for putting it there in the first place.

[metatron]

It's cheap clean energy to a large extent, simply put. It's probably to suffice a temporary need for extra energy, that'll back fire in the near future. I agree maybe with giving them different forms of energy perhaps, but I still think closer to the Iran's would be better than isolating them. You know the saying "Keep your friends closer, your enemies closer."

As for them wanting to wipe off Israel, well I don't completely disagree. I believe the state of Israel has caused nothing but troubles for far too long. I wouldn't erradicate them, but I'd put serious pressure for a territory reform that would better suit Palestine. Having had a chance to take a trip to that part of the world, with a friend Fehr who is native of Palestine opened my eyes to what the situation actually is and what the western media is making it to be. They are ready to coexist with Israel, they just want a few lands back, and would settle down peacefully. Historically speaking Israel has been an agressor, having bombed and attacked EVERY SINGLE ONE OF IT'S NEIGHBORS! In less than 100 years.

This didn't start cause of some planes flying into some buildings.

I actually agree with you on Israel, about its right to exist that is. Problem is that that's not the fault of the people who live there and it's our fault for putting it there in the first place.

Exactly. The hatred arabs have for America is really not that complex or hard to understand, yet the media tries to twist it left and right. This is what happened essentially. One Of The newly formed UNs first action in 1947 was the seperation of palestine, effectively dividing the country, and giving the rest to the Jews who no longer wanted to live in Germany after world war 2. This effectively gave America a much needed ally in the middle east, and thus came funding. Now, Israel, as I said, has shown itself as nothing but a savage agressor since it's inception. 13 different conflicts in 75 years. 75 years of which 67 of those were years where Israel carried out Military operations against other nations.

If cubans were dropping bombs on americans everyday and the russians financed the cubans, who would the americans hate?

[Dazey]

Exactly. The hatred arabs have for America is really not that complex or hard to understand, yet the media tries to twist it left and right. This is what happened essentially. One Of The newly formed UNs first action in 1947 was the seperation of palestine, effectively dividing the country, and giving the rest to the Jews who no longer wanted to live in Germany after world war 2. This effectively gave America a much needed ally in the middle east, and thus came funding. Now, Israel, as I said, has shown itself as nothing but a savage agressor since it's inception. 13 different conflicts in 75 years. 75 years of which 67 of those were years where Israel carried out Military operations against other nations.

If cubans were dropping bombs on americans everyday and the russians financed the cubans, who would the americans hate?

Can't really argue with you there!

[metatron]

Exactly. The hatred arabs have for America is really not that complex or hard to understand, yet the media tries to twist it left and right. This is what happened essentially. One Of The newly formed UNs first action in 1947 was the seperation of palestine, effectively dividing the country, and giving the rest to the Jews who no longer wanted to live in Germany after world war 2. This effectively gave America a much needed ally in the middle east, and thus came funding. Now, Israel, as I said, has shown itself as nothing but a savage agressor since it's inception. 13 different conflicts in 75 years. 75 years of which 67 of those were years where Israel carried out Military operations against other nations.

If cubans were dropping bombs on americans everyday and the russians financed the cubans, who would the americans hate?

Can't really argue with you there!

So why are we looking at Iran like this terrible evil, when in reality they just want to prosper like the rest of us. You believe in socialist equality? put it into practice here. We've aggressed them first, and not just once either. They have a reason to dislike us, but partnering up with them might help diplomatic ties, much more then "Watch us get ready to invade you, oh, and international sanctions, here you go iran."

[Ace Nova]

It's cheap clean energy to a large extent, simply put. It's probably to suffice a temporary need for extra energy, that'll back fire in the near future. I agree maybe with giving them different forms of energy perhaps, but I still think closer to the Iran's would be better than isolating them. You know the saying "Keep your friends closer, your enemies closer."

As for them wanting to wipe off Israel, well I don't completely disagree. I believe the state of Israel has caused nothing but troubles for far too long. I wouldn't erradicate them, but I'd put serious pressure for a territory reform that would better suit Palestine. Having had a chance to take a trip to that part of the world, with a friend Fehr who is native of Palestine opened my eyes to what the situation actually is and what the western media is making it to be. They are ready to coexist with Israel, they just want a few lands back, and would settle down peacefully. Historically speaking Israel has been an agressor, having bombed and attacked EVERY SINGLE ONE OF IT'S NEIGHBORS! In less than 100 years.

This didn't start cause of some planes flying into some buildings.

I actually agree with you on Israel, about its right to exist that is. Problem is that that's not the fault of the people who live there and it's our fault for putting it there in the first place.

Exactly. The hatred arabs have for America is really not that complex or hard to understand, yet the media tries to twist it left and right. This is what happened essentially. One Of The newly formed UNs first action in 1947 was the seperation of palestine, effectively dividing the country, and giving the rest to the Jews who no longer wanted to live in Germany after world war 2. This effectively gave America a much needed ally in the middle east, and thus came funding. Now, Israel, as I said, has shown itself as nothing but a savage agressor since it's inception. 13 different conflicts in 75 years. 75 years of which 67 of those were years where Israel carried out Military operations against other nations.

If cubans were dropping bombs on americans everyday and the russians financed the cubans, who would the americans hate?

Here we go again. Every time someone anti-Israel brings up the "timeline" of events with Israel, they start with 1947, which is laughable. Apparently none of you read the Bible, because if you did, you would be aware that Israel has been the home of the Jewish people for over 3000 years. Pre 1947 the region was NOT a sovereign nation - every time someone states what you stated, they make it seem as if the UN just went in, took over land and called it Israel...which is the biggest amount of misinformation out there! Pre 1947 it was part of the British Empire and Britain decided to split Palestine mandate into two states, one Palestine and the other Israel. Even after the split, Britain limited the amount of Jewish refugees entering the state - so it wasn't like you make it seem at all - that basically "we" went in, took over the land, and every Jewish person in the world moved there.

As a matter of fact, it was Great Britain, NOT the U.S. that gave the land to Israel...because it was under British control! Since when does an "empire" not have the right to do as it pleases with its land?

Edited January 28, 2012 by Kasanova King

[Dazey]

So why are we looking at Iran like this terrible evil, when in reality they just want to prosper like the rest of us. You believe in socialist equality? put it into practice here. We've aggressed them first, and not just once either. They have a reason to dislike us, but partnering up with them might help diplomatic ties, much more then "Watch us get ready to invade you, oh, and international sanctions, here you go iran."

I think Iran is a danger to the rest of the world because they're an extremist theocracy who base their policy on bronze age fairy stories and have declared an interest in the past to develop nuclear weapons. Don't get me wrong I think Israel are just as bad but they're our fault and if Iran attacked them we'd be looking at WW3 cos the US would get involved and it would be game over! Any country that bases its policy on religion is a danger basically!

As a matter of fact, it was Great Britain, NOT the U.S. that gave the land to Israel...because it was under British control! Since when does an "empire" not have the right to do as it pleases with its land?

That's why I said it was our fault.

[metatron]

It's cheap clean energy to a large extent, simply put. It's probably to suffice a temporary need for extra energy, that'll back fire in the near future. I agree maybe with giving them different forms of energy perhaps, but I still think closer to the Iran's would be better than isolating them. You know the saying "Keep your friends closer, your enemies closer."

As for them wanting to wipe off Israel, well I don't completely disagree. I believe the state of Israel has caused nothing but troubles for far too long. I wouldn't erradicate them, but I'd put serious pressure for a territory reform that would better suit Palestine. Having had a chance to take a trip to that part of the world, with a friend Fehr who is native of Palestine opened my eyes to what the situation actually is and what the western media is making it to be. They are ready to coexist with Israel, they just want a few lands back, and would settle down peacefully. Historically speaking Israel has been an agressor, having bombed and attacked EVERY SINGLE ONE OF IT'S NEIGHBORS! In less than 100 years.

This didn't start cause of some planes flying into some buildings.

I actually agree with you on Israel, about its right to exist that is. Problem is that that's not the fault of the people who live there and it's our fault for putting it there in the first place.

Exactly. The hatred arabs have for America is really not that complex or hard to understand, yet the media tries to twist it left and right. This is what happened essentially. One Of The newly formed UNs first action in 1947 was the seperation of palestine, effectively dividing the country, and giving the rest to the Jews who no longer wanted to live in Germany after world war 2. This effectively gave America a much needed ally in the middle east, and thus came funding. Now, Israel, as I said, has shown itself as nothing but a savage agressor since it's inception. 13 different conflicts in 75 years. 75 years of which 67 of those were years where Israel carried out Military operations against other nations.

If cubans were dropping bombs on americans everyday and the russians financed the cubans, who would the americans hate?

Here we go again. Every time someone anti-Israel brings up the "timeline" of events with Israel, they start with 1947, which is laughable. Apparently none of you read the Bible, because if you did, you would be aware that Israel has been the home of the Jewish people for over 3000 years. Pre 1947 the region was NOT a sovereign nation - every time someone states what you stated, they make it seem as if the UN just went in, took over land and called it Israel...which is the biggest amount of misinformation out there! Pre 1947 it was part of the British Empire and Britain decided to split Palestine mandate into two states, one Palestine and the other Israel. Even after the split, Britain limited the amount of Jewish refugees entering the state - so it wasn't like you make it seem at all - that basically "we" went in, took over the land, and every Jewish person in the world moved there.

As a matter of fact, it was Great Britain, NOT the U.S. that gave the land to Israel...because it was under British control! Since when does an "empire" not have the right to do as it pleases with its land?

Can you build a 30 foot wall around your property? Isn't that your land? Why can't you do as you please with it?

So I guess we should give Russia back all it's land as well, I mean, the soviet union owned it all a few decades ago, so I mean, it rightfully belongs to them right?

EDIT:

fuck the russians, how about the natives, fuck they were here for thousands of fucking years as well, yet we've shafted them, and no effort has been done to make them feel better, but we care about the jews in israel, right.

Edited January 28, 2012 by metatron

[Ace Nova]

It's cheap clean energy to a large extent, simply put. It's probably to suffice a temporary need for extra energy, that'll back fire in the near future. I agree maybe with giving them different forms of energy perhaps, but I still think closer to the Iran's would be better than isolating them. You know the saying "Keep your friends closer, your enemies closer."

As for them wanting to wipe off Israel, well I don't completely disagree. I believe the state of Israel has caused nothing but troubles for far too long. I wouldn't erradicate them, but I'd put serious pressure for a territory reform that would better suit Palestine. Having had a chance to take a trip to that part of the world, with a friend Fehr who is native of Palestine opened my eyes to what the situation actually is and what the western media is making it to be. They are ready to coexist with Israel, they just want a few lands back, and would settle down peacefully. Historically speaking Israel has been an agressor, having bombed and attacked EVERY SINGLE ONE OF IT'S NEIGHBORS! In less than 100 years.

This didn't start cause of some planes flying into some buildings.

I actually agree with you on Israel, about its right to exist that is. Problem is that that's not the fault of the people who live there and it's our fault for putting it there in the first place.

Exactly. The hatred arabs have for America is really not that complex or hard to understand, yet the media tries to twist it left and right. This is what happened essentially. One Of The newly formed UNs first action in 1947 was the seperation of palestine, effectively dividing the country, and giving the rest to the Jews who no longer wanted to live in Germany after world war 2. This effectively gave America a much needed ally in the middle east, and thus came funding. Now, Israel, as I said, has shown itself as nothing but a savage agressor since it's inception. 13 different conflicts in 75 years. 75 years of which 67 of those were years where Israel carried out Military operations against other nations.

If cubans were dropping bombs on americans everyday and the russians financed the cubans, who would the americans hate?

Here we go again. Every time someone anti-Israel brings up the "timeline" of events with Israel, they start with 1947, which is laughable. Apparently none of you read the Bible, because if you did, you would be aware that Israel has been the home of the Jewish people for over 3000 years. Pre 1947 the region was NOT a sovereign nation - every time someone states what you stated, they make it seem as if the UN just went in, took over land and called it Israel...which is the biggest amount of misinformation out there! Pre 1947 it was part of the British Empire and Britain decided to split Palestine mandate into two states, one Palestine and the other Israel. Even after the split, Britain limited the amount of Jewish refugees entering the state - so it wasn't like you make it seem at all - that basically "we" went in, took over the land, and every Jewish person in the world moved there.

As a matter of fact, it was Great Britain, NOT the U.S. that gave the land to Israel...because it was under British control! Since when does an "empire" not have the right to do as it pleases with its land?

Can you build a 30 foot wall around your property? Isn't that your land? Why can't you do as you please with it?

So I guess we should give Russia back all it's land as well, I mean, the soviet union owned it all a few decades ago, so I mean, it rightfully belongs to them right?

Actually, yes, with the proper permits I could.

We don't control Russia's previous lands...so your argument does not hold water...as a matter of fact, it's the opposite when comparing it to Israel. When the Soviet Union was dissolved, they basically did the same thing that Britain did with Israel and restored it's lands to the original people of the area.

[metatron]

It's cheap clean energy to a large extent, simply put. It's probably to suffice a temporary need for extra energy, that'll back fire in the near future. I agree maybe with giving them different forms of energy perhaps, but I still think closer to the Iran's would be better than isolating them. You know the saying "Keep your friends closer, your enemies closer."

As for them wanting to wipe off Israel, well I don't completely disagree. I believe the state of Israel has caused nothing but troubles for far too long. I wouldn't erradicate them, but I'd put serious pressure for a territory reform that would better suit Palestine. Having had a chance to take a trip to that part of the world, with a friend Fehr who is native of Palestine opened my eyes to what the situation actually is and what the western media is making it to be. They are ready to coexist with Israel, they just want a few lands back, and would settle down peacefully. Historically speaking Israel has been an agressor, having bombed and attacked EVERY SINGLE ONE OF IT'S NEIGHBORS! In less than 100 years.

This didn't start cause of some planes flying into some buildings.

I actually agree with you on Israel, about its right to exist that is. Problem is that that's not the fault of the people who live there and it's our fault for putting it there in the first place.

Exactly. The hatred arabs have for America is really not that complex or hard to understand, yet the media tries to twist it left and right. This is what happened essentially. One Of The newly formed UNs first action in 1947 was the seperation of palestine, effectively dividing the country, and giving the rest to the Jews who no longer wanted to live in Germany after world war 2. This effectively gave America a much needed ally in the middle east, and thus came funding. Now, Israel, as I said, has shown itself as nothing but a savage agressor since it's inception. 13 different conflicts in 75 years. 75 years of which 67 of those were years where Israel carried out Military operations against other nations.

If cubans were dropping bombs on americans everyday and the russians financed the cubans, who would the americans hate?

Here we go again. Every time someone anti-Israel brings up the "timeline" of events with Israel, they start with 1947, which is laughable. Apparently none of you read the Bible, because if you did, you would be aware that Israel has been the home of the Jewish people for over 3000 years. Pre 1947 the region was NOT a sovereign nation - every time someone states what you stated, they make it seem as if the UN just went in, took over land and called it Israel...which is the biggest amount of misinformation out there! Pre 1947 it was part of the British Empire and Britain decided to split Palestine mandate into two states, one Palestine and the other Israel. Even after the split, Britain limited the amount of Jewish refugees entering the state - so it wasn't like you make it seem at all - that basically "we" went in, took over the land, and every Jewish person in the world moved there.

As a matter of fact, it was Great Britain, NOT the U.S. that gave the land to Israel...because it was under British control! Since when does an "empire" not have the right to do as it pleases with its land?

Can you build a 30 foot wall around your property? Isn't that your land? Why can't you do as you please with it?

So I guess we should give Russia back all it's land as well, I mean, the soviet union owned it all a few decades ago, so I mean, it rightfully belongs to them right?

Actually, yes, with the proper permits I could.

We don't control Russia's previous lands...so your argument does not hold water...as a matter of fact, it's the opposite when comparing it to Israel. When the Soviet Union was dissolved, they basically did the same thing that Britain did with Israel and restored it's lands to the original people of the area.

What about the natives, they were here thousands of years and treat them like bullfuck.

[Ace Nova]

fuck the russians, how about the natives, fuck they were here for thousands of fucking years as well, yet we've shafted them, and no effort has been done to make them feel better, but we care about the jews in israel, right.

As we grew as a nation, we realized the mistakes we made with the native people of the Americas. That's why they are given tax free (almost sovereign) lands across North America - aka, reservations....as well as many national programs (which you want to cut, btw) that aid native Americans - so yes, many efforts have been made to make them "feel better" as you put it.

[GivenToFly]

Ok, I tried to read this thread, I really did, but it's impossible. I made it about 1/3 of the way through and it made me physically sick. I'm so tired with these american ultralibertarian wackos all over the internet, if I see on more Ron Paul mention I might actually throw up. All the mainstream economists in the entire world must be idiots, but you read The Road to Serfdom, so you have it all figured out, right? Let's all go back to the gold standard.

Fucking morons..

(Don't bother replying, I'm not returning to this thread for the sake of my own sanity.)

[Dazey]

Ok, I tried to read this thread, I really did, but it's impossible. I made it about 1/3 of the way through and it made me physically sick. I'm so tired with these american ultralibertarian wackos all over the internet, if I see on more Ron Paul mention I might actually throw up. All the mainstream economists in the entire world must be idiots, but you read The Road to Serfdom, so you have it all figured out, right? Let's all go back to the gold standard.

Fucking morons..

(Don't bother replying, I'm not returning to this thread for the sake of my own sanity.)

Come back for the sake of sanity! What's wrong with taking care of those less able than ourselves is the point I think.