| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 04/30/2011 : 06:23:50 AM
|
quote:
[i]IMHO there isn't now nor ever been a Palestinian State. We should have taken Canada and Mexico.
The Palestinians built homes in Jordan and the government bulldozed them and ran the Palestinians out of Jordan.
I am fan of Sarah Pallin. Ask her a question and she generally directly answers. Few politicians do likewise.
Palestinians would tell you differently, and they had their own nation, under the British arrangements, and they are a semitic people.
Israel was not a nation, but there was Judea. I don't know how one could write off a whole people unless there was a lot of Zionism and neocon thinking behind it. The Palestinians are people, one should realize. They are not expendable, like the Jewish community was during WII. One could ask how many of them should be killed to make Israel's life a happier one. All of them? Some of them? Who gets to do the killing?
Before the advent of Zionism, the Palestinians and the Jews of Palestine lived in relative peace. No one likes to think about that, because it is too inconvenient. The Palestinians had been there a long, long time. They have rights, too, and that includes a right to be treated like people, who have homes, and the means to live. True Republicans believe in the rights of dignity in a people. Why the urge to make Palestinians an exception?
And, no, we never ought to have taken any more land from other countries. That smacks of jingoism and barbarity. That is not American in nature, as delineated by Jefferson. If you carried out the notion of conquering peoples to a logical conclusion, then we would take over the world, or at least be an accurate imitation of the USSR, the bully of eastern Europe. Did you ever think of simply leaving people alone?
Sarah Palin is a politician who is the amateur's amateur when it comes to foreign policy. She takes her marching orders from AIPAC, literally. I truly hope that she fails in the 2012 primaries, as it looks like she will, although her winning of losing does not define her. She does not know what nation she supports, really. The USA or Israel. She recently made a trip there, looking for their approval and money. She'd be better off reading the US Constitution. Not too far back, she was insisting that the Geneva Conventions be banned in one part of the world, and that there should be more crimes against humanity. Not too sharp of an idea. I don't think that is rational. I can go into the details later of her latest verbal misfire.
When I grew up as a Republican, I never heard a Republican talk like her. The GOP did not run around advocating that a state be forced to give up it's own land. In fact, Eisenhower forced just the opposite to happen. So, here we have Palin versus Ike. No contest, and I think most people would agree, and certainly the informed world would agree with Ike's position on that troubled part of the world. He would have been shocked at Palin's statements. How can one seriously go against the Geneva Conventions, and advocate crimes against humanity. But, that's what neocons like Palin do. Is this the best the GOP can do as of late?
The only reason she is still running around is that she was used as a counter-weight against McCain's age and liberal tendencies. She was not chosen for her gravitas. She does speak plainly, but she might consider being more cryptic when she is far too obsequious to another nation.
Still, we all have our favorite politicians, just as we do favorite NFL teams.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
|
jbsnc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/30/2011 : 6:47:31 PM
|
WarmSkin,
I hereby remove your authority to establish statehood for nomadic peoples. As Mark Twain stated after touring much of the area in around Jerusalem (paraphrased) the striking feature was the absence of people, mile after mile of no one. Empty.
I viewed Wikipedia’s ‘List of Parties to the Geneva Conventions’ and found no entry for the State of Palestine. I viewed the United Nations Member State list and found no entry for the State of Palestine. Therefore, there isn’t a Palestinian State. Q.E.D.
I regret revoking your authority but do so to help you.
Happy Nuding.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 153 |
|
|
|
rahel
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/30/2011 : 7:10:26 PM
|
One more time Warmskin, you need some education. You do not know what you are writing about.
rahel
|
|
Country: Canada
| Posts: 93 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/01/2011 : 03:14:49 AM
|
Rahel, I thought you were never going to speak to me again, according to a previous post. I'm glad you changed your mind and came back!!.  We need your voice in this thread.
I believe you need to pay particular attention to what is going on. The Palestinians are real people, and it would be silly to state otherwise, despite the phenomenol bigotry Israel has for Palestinians. Would you like me to quote a goodly number of absurd, hateful, and bigoted statements from Israeli leaders? Always happy to oblige. Of course, it would not set well with those around the world who favor genocide, but don't want to be found out.
Bad news for Israel (but good news for the rest of the world, and its humanitarians). Read it here:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/04/30/israel-slams-bombing-of-gas-pipeline-palestinian-reconciliation-and-egypt-strongly-responds/
While originally, the neocons and the Likudniks thought that the Arab people rebelling would be a good thing for Israel, that was a false prediction. Just the opposite has happened - the bought-and-paid-for despots are being deposed, with emphasis on Mubarak. The successor government is now going to open the border between Egypt and Palestine.
That means that Israel's death-grip over the "non-humans" in Palestine will be relaxed to a good degree. When one thinks about it, that is the best thing to happen since the ending of the horrible holocaust committed by the Nazis on the Jewish community. What does go around comes around, it seems. Of course, there have been many other holocausts, like the holocaust against the Armenians. I hope to see the complete abolishment of genocides in my lifetime, or near-genocides by lunatic states. I might add that America committed near genocide on Native Americans, that somewhat resembles what Israel wants to see happening in Palestine right now.
What does this have to do with the original thread? Good question. Glad someone asked!! Plenty.
It's decision time for the Tea Party. What is their exact aggregate nature. I say "aggregate" because they are a collection of individuals. Does the Tea party stand against genocide or brutal treatment of an occupied people, as do I?
And, yes, Virginia, Palestine is occupied by a ruthless Israeli Zionist IDF. One needs to live in Palestine for perhaps a year to appreciate the jack-booted thugs who have life and death power over the Palestinians. Palestine is very frequently referred to as Occupied Palestine. Occupation is not good, unless you're talking about one's job or career.
Will Tea Party listen to the likes of a neocon Sarah Palin, or to the dwindling Pat Buchananites (who served honorably in the Nixon and Reagan administrations)? If they choose the latter, they could help save America and its soul, or oganic essence of utter neutrality. He would restore us back to what we were before we became so corrupted.
One can see and hear the frequent speeches by Palin and Bachmann before Tea Party groups. I can guarantee they are not listening to the Tea Party, but are trying to lead it. To understand someone, you have to listen and not talk, except to ask questions that help you understand what they want. The good Lord gave us two ears and only one mouth. There is a lesson in there somewhere.
While Palin is a bit of fresh air to the political scene as a whole, personality-wise, that air is also being polluted by her weird outlook on the world. She should stick to being a governor of Alaska where she nicely took on the entrenched politicians. That part of her I love. Then she had to mess that all up by going international.
Pat Buchanan is a different type. He should be giving speeches to the Tea Party. He knows the motives of other nation-states very well. He's had real-world experience, as Ross Perot would say. He's 10 times the conservative that Palin pretends to be, as a whole. His whole message is from the old, more loved GOP of the Reagan days. When Buchanan asked Reagan on the latter's last day in office, what Reagan's worst mistake was, Reagan commented (to the best of my memory, and I can look it up) was the stationing of troops that were killed in Lebanon in October 1983. I remember that day well. It was a teachable moment. We chose to not learn. Reagan learned, quite thankfully. I hope the Tea Party learned something from that day.
Palin or Pat Buchanan. That is the fork in the road. If they take the wrong road, they'll be just another me-too group.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/01/2011 : 04:29:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by jbsnc
WarmSkin,
I hereby remove your authority to establish statehood for nomadic peoples. As Mark Twain stated after touring much of the area in around Jerusalem (paraphrased) the striking feature was the absence of people, mile after mile of no one. Empty.
I viewed Wikipedia’s ‘List of Parties to the Geneva Conventions’ and found no entry for the State of Palestine. I viewed the United Nations Member State list and found no entry for the State of Palestine. Therefore, there isn’t a Palestinian State. Q.E.D.
I regret revoking your authority but do so to help you.
Happy Nuding.
You're funny!! Hahaha. Okay, your juvenile joke's over. Now, go streak across a nudist resort while wearing clothes. It would be more substantial.
The Palestinians have lived in the Palestine region of many centuries. Perhaps, like the Isrealis, you think they are not human. They have farmed that area for centuries, while the "Isrealis" left the area that comprised Judea a long time ago. Some would argue that the Romans forced them out. A lot of them stayed behind, just as they stayed behind in England after the 1200s, when they were kicked out of Britain.
Parts of that area are not given to farming, and so, voila, you find no Palestinians. Golly, what a revelation!! Depends on what area you're in when you go to old Palestine.
So, keep up with putting down the occupied state of Palestine, and maybe they'll all die as one might wish. Israel was hardly a state, except that is was planned by Theodor Herzl in the 1800s. He and his ilk conned a lot of folks into creating ersatz Israel. His successors committed heinous and notorious acts of mass murder to gain official status. Of course, real Jews had lived side by side with the Palestinians for a long time. It worked well, until your stated heroes came along and began the slow attemtps at genocide of the Palestinians.
I stand for decent treatment of innocents across the world, while your statement are associated with lunatic leaders that Israel has produced. Your statements are necessarily associated with some of the worst behavior the world has seen.
Your statements border on complete lunacy. You're not the administrator, guy. So, I will continue to post, and will correct my statements as told me by the admin. Isn't that awfully arrogant of your statements to suggest that you have absolute power over this forum? I really don't know how to account for that, honestly, I don't. Maybe you like to make jocular statements when people's lives are at stake in the Mideast. I hope not. I don't clown around in such matters, and I'm grateful for that.
So, go ahead and make statements that support slow genocide of innocents. I'll make my statements about supporting a people who are this day trapped in the world's biggest concentration camp - Palestine. That remark was stated by a well-known Republican, by the way. '
So, for you, the choice is between American values or Israeli values. They are not the same, even though AIPAC spends a lot of money trying to convince Americans that is the case. I have a stronger mentality than to buy that nonsense.
You seem to be a member of the Likud party, based solely on your statements. I don't see one iota of philosophy that could be based on the Founding Fathers of the USA, in your statements.
Don't worry, though, read my previous post about Egypt's future plans for the Palestinian border.
One thing you don't or can't realize in your statements it that Israel has a fanstastic PR departement, and their leaders are obnoxiously pushy. Read the Truman diaries for yourself, and don't take my word for it. The Palestinians have been taking a back seat to Israel in that department. They are more my kind of people. Do I mean all Israelis are that way. No!!! There are some who are loving towards the Palestinians as a caring adult can be, and actually go do Palestine to help rebuild the homes that facist, apartheid Israel bombed on many occasions.
As I stated before, if the Amish people had settled there instead of the Zionists, there would never been a problem. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. The Amish have no swords, and thus live by peaceful means. What a realization.
Keep on making statements that indirectly support cruelty, barbarims, apartheid, de-humanization, genocide, and more goodies like that. I'll oppose that sort of statement with a clear conscience.
Your point is void, because the UN re-enforced Palestine with their settlement. Eisenhower vigorously defended the integrity of the border of Palestine when Israel arrogantly built unlawful settlements in Palestine. Ike kicked them out, by promising to make Israel lose money. Little, petulant Ben-Gurion lost that round to Ike. He didn't know who Ike was, but he was humiliated by finding out Ike's resolution. Some people are just too pushy for their own good, and thus keep themselves from being included in the civilized world.
Instead of supporting Israel at all costs, how about supporting America, and its original essence, with your next statements? Who wants a corrupted America that grovels in the gutter to please Israel, which will never really be pleased, based on it's short history and behavior, so far.
It's the only state in the Mideast who has attacked us our military, as a nation. Of course, I don't mean terrorists who don't represent a nation's government. Read the history of the USS Liberty. Remember to support the people who attacked it. I don't, but we have opposite points of view, so I'm guessing by your statements that you support the attack of the US Navy, as long as it is done by our specially ally.
Here is the definitive website about that:
http://www.gtr5.com/
Do you support our navy guys? I hope so, and could graciously assume you do, if you live in America. (don't know where you live, and it's none of my business) This web site was written by a naval officer who was aboard the USS Liberty when Israel attacked it. Now, you might say, "Golly, that was a long time ago." Not so, because it was a defining moment as to how the USA has surrendered to these militaristic people, and still do today, in Congress and the White House. The USS Liberty attack dwarfed the USS Cole attack, and lasted about as long as the attack on Pearl Harbor.
I would love to listen to the necon GOP speak on this topic, while recognizing only the facts, and not the canned PR from our special ally. But, who in Congress is not for sale and can speak the honest truth. Only a few, sadly.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/01/2011 : 06:44:43 AM
|
Here is an interesting article that might cause severe cognitive-dissonance in the supporters of unbridled, facist Zionism, that the many in the GOP support more fiercely than they support the USA.
http://www.moveoveraipac.org/2011/04/why-im-going-to-move-over-aipac-a-young-jewish-perspective/
Pay attention, jbsnc; you might learn something. Just remember to love the USA on occasion. It could be a good county once again.
As for the Tea Party, will they listen to this woman at the provided link? As time goes on, I predict they will dislike her more and more. That is because of bubbleheads like Palin and Bachmann giving more speeches to them. In Palin's own words (from the 2008 debate), "You betcha." Intellect at its finest.
Any Tea Partier with his/her brain working full gear will dismiss the neocons who are no more or less than wolves in sheep's clothing, leading them to abandon the orginal intent of America. That is the naked truth.
Okay, jbsnc, you can go back to pretending you're the forum admin. Hey, if it makes you happy, I'm all for it. I did the same thing when a was a little boy, and I had fun doing at that time!!! Of course, as an older boy back when, I stopped that silly habit long ago.
If the ersatz GOP would nominate Ron Paul, I would join that party, but you can't nominate a guy who would get rid of the deficit; the party bosses would not go for that, and neither would AIPAC. The GOP knows who it must answer to, as Palin indicated in her first attempt at being vice-president. (still laughing at her 2008 national debut) Hint -- one of her first speeches after her nomination was to AIPAC, where all cowardly politicians are invited to grovel.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
homenude
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/01/2011 : 6:25:38 PM
|
Warmskin asked,
"Something to ponder for you. Do you think American troops should put their life on the line everytime a neocon can think up a new war, when the bulk of neocons were and are too cowardly to serve in the Armed Forces?"
I have pondered the question and concluded that it contains a classic illustration of an ad hominem argument, which is a common logical fallacy. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html If someone asserts a proposition, his or her life experiences have not a thing in the world to do with whether their argument is true or not.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 56 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/01/2011 : 7:17:51 PM
|
No, HN, it points out the gross hypocrisy and cowardice of the neocons. what they tell us is -- let's you and him go do in a war for our purposes.
I'd laugh myself silly if I saw Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, and their ilk, be forced to jump out of an Air Force plane, wearing uniforms, having MRE's, and an M-14. You have to admit, deep down inside, that would be a funny site, after they safely hit the ground and went around looking for enemies of the USA.
One of the finest Republicans of the last century, Ike, told just those kind of un-Americans, that if they wanted to start a pre-emptive war, they could go fight and die in it.
You have to admit, Eisenhower knew a little something about war, and was the last president to stand up to these sick neocons. Reagan came in in second place, when he confessed that sending troops to Lebanon (or anywhere else in the region) was his biggest mistake.
Time for folks to stand up for America, and not for some little prima donna foreign country that is nothing like America.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/04/2011 : 02:09:35 AM
|
Cafferty is quite likely blowing smoke. While the Ron Paul percentage has grown among Republican voters, I strongly doubt that it has doubled from around 5.58 percent before. Even with twice the previous level, a one-ninth proportion is unlikely to have enuf concentration in delegate-districts, which are most often existing US Congress or State Senate territories.
Last time 5.58% was too scattered, earning only 1.6% of the Party's delegates. My guess is that with the diffusion of his support as an "also-ran" in most states, this might earn 4% of the delegates.
Haley Barbour might have made an excellent President. He'd still make a good VP nominee.
It is all up to the Republican voters.
/////////////////////////
By the way, of course Eisenhower did not side with the Neocons of his time, as they were then Democrats, until many switched to oppose Carter in the '70s. That, in reverse, is why both Clintons. Gore, Kerry and Obama never got their suppport. Their prime 2010 candidate is Ambassdor Bolton since none of the other Republicans come close to them on issues, and, generally, the Tea Partiers like Bachmann and Palin share only a paltry few side issues. That faction has lost out badly as newer groups have risen. Most of their main figures have died or retired in the past few years.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/05/2011 : 03:08:56 AM
|
As with the Socialist Party, it never had much success in the ballot box, but it was an influential group, far beyond their small numbers.
So it is with Ron Paul. It's more fashionable to criticize the FED, and he even convinced the country that we ought to audit these illegal megabankers. I would not be surprised if a lot of his other principles are starting to sink in. The media has warmed up to him more since the days of the last primary season. One reason for that is that he has been quite correct about events that he predicted and spoke about.
FOX had it in for him, because of Peter Chernin, news executive, with neocon leanings, and of Rupert Murdoch, a notorious neocon. No wonder they kept Paul of their its primary debate. They took some heat for it, to be sure. Still the other networks seem him as quixotic and not having both feet on the grouond, yet his opinions are turning out to be on target and accurate.
Neil Cavuto's first interview of Ron Paul was little more than a hit piece on Paul. Later, after the overwhelming Democrat victory, Cavuto treated Paul with a good deal of respect, and others have begrudgingly inclined toward him more. Being consistently right, in general, will eventually get the attention of a journalist's better sense of things.
The GOP faithful are still unsure of Paul, but as they get to know of him, and of his principles, and how honest he is, they might think better of him. They still have a lot of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth about him. They are not used to the traditional GOP message of old.
They are going to have to make the choice between a small, quiet gov't, or an overactive, interventionist gov't. The Tea Party will also eventually have to come to some clear headed decisions on how to save money and taxes. Paul offers them a lot in that direction.
This time around, the "nut" factor will be less for Paul. The thinkers in the GOP will have seen he has been right all along. The question is, do they dare admit it?
I will end this particular contribution with this unrelated mind-picture. Remember the days of the color-coded terrorist threat level? In what way did this scheme make material changes in one's life during the day of that particular color? I'm trying to think of just one thing I did differently on a given day, when the color changed from green to yellow, of from yellow to red. It made for good mind-conditioning, though. I'm glad that the Obamster got rid of that silly thing. Hey, that is one thing Obama-man did right. The next right thing he can do is leave the White House.
Below is a quote by someone else.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/05/2011 : 5:15:52 PM
|
When did Rupert Murdock become a Neocon? Like yourviews on Palin and Bachmann, that is absolutely ridiculous. His and their views in many fields are totally at odds with the Neocon world-view,
You really ought to reserve the term Neocon for those people who fit the description, besides being Hawksn on Israel. You are getting pretty strange.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/06/2011 : 04:10:34 AM
|
I can't help but think that you think that you need to be a card-carrying neocon to qualify to be one. Murdoch is fiercly pro-Israel, and fits the neocon mold perfectly. He is all for the wars we have today. That is old news. Trust me on that one.
Palin and Bachmann are pro-war hawks, even though the Iraq war was a completely useless war. They still back it, today. Shows what level of intellect they have. As demonstrated quite clearly by me, Palin is fanatically pro-Israel, and anti-Geneva conventions. She qualifies quite clearly to be a neocon. Remember, you don't have to have an official neocon card. She talks like one, thinks like one, acts like one, and simply is one. She has spent a lot of time at AIPAC meetings. I'm desperately trying to think of something about her that is not from the neocon playbook. Bachmann is less intense than Palin, and at least knows what nation's lapel button to wear, unlike Palin.
Bachmann has appeared on stage with Ron Paul, but thinks Paul's rational and sane objections to the neocon wars are too remote from the GOP concept of them. From that, we can deduce that she is all for the wars. She will tell you that she is pro-war and staunchly pro-Israel, while Paul is neutral about Israel.
I'm trying to think of another non-neocon in the 2008 primaries, other than Ron Paul. Whether or not the neocon operatives in the previous White Houses are in power or not, their ideals have been made an integral part of the GOP, today, with a few notable exceptions. Former governor Gary Johnson is a non-neocon, although I'm not sure if he is an official Republican or not. He's running for president for 2012. Johnson and Paul base their entire outlook on original American principles, and are not influenced by other nations' schemes.
Below is a quote by someone else.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 3:20:28 PM
|
In the "General Political" thread there is an exposition of a Tea Party move among Congressional Republicans to try to trim back the President's powers to act in the current three undeclared wars.
The question is whether to snub the Pres. by declaring war on AlQueda and the Taliban, which would, in their view be required to correct the situation rather than continue with the current situation.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Tea Party Ten Point Platform
I've never met her, but I do think she is a caring, loving person. 