Post by: Manedwolf on March 07, 2008, 11:04:19 AM
Quote
H RES 951 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 5-Mar-2008 12:26 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended
BILL TITLE: Condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, and for other purposes
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended
BILL TITLE: Condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, and for other purposes
Quote
H.RES.951
Title: Condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] (introduced 1/29/2008)
Title: Condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] (introduced 1/29/2008)
Unanimous (except for present and not voting) YEA vote...except for one. Guess who voted NAY? One vote. Just guess.
Yup.
Here's the roll.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll093.xml
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00951:@@@X
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 07, 2008, 11:19:42 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 07, 2008, 11:27:43 AM
In terms of international goodwill and just congressional procedure, it was the equivalent of letting one rip loudly in church, on purpose.
I think he's either insane, or senile at this point.
Post by: keeleon on March 07, 2008, 11:31:47 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 07, 2008, 11:44:11 AM
Until then, someone give me one good reason why anyone would oppose a condemnation of terrorism. I'd love to hear this one rationalized...
The next time some Paul supporter asks me why I think he's a nutjob, I'll point to this vote.
Post by: keeleon on March 07, 2008, 12:04:41 PM
Are they going to have a vote on whether or not the spaghetti at Olive Garden was good last night? I really do need to know the "US's" opinion.
Post by: El Tejon on March 07, 2008, 12:44:37 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 07, 2008, 01:44:51 PM
This is the same man who supported the bombing of the Osirak reactor among other things.
Post by: LAK on March 07, 2008, 02:09:17 PM
So the final word on Palestinians vs Israelis - the lives of neither, nor their childrens', are worth any more than the other.
Let's not have any more votes in our Congress over the State of Israel or Palestine - and them them fight their own battles with their blood and their money.
----------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Balog on March 07, 2008, 03:00:28 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 07, 2008, 03:04:46 PM
Post by: Balog on March 07, 2008, 03:07:28 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 07, 2008, 03:13:06 PM
Post by: Balog on March 07, 2008, 03:17:07 PM
I was never a RAVING socialist. At one point I did think welfare and such was nice. But, as you see, not anymore. Hopefuly, in about a year and six months I'll be in the US.
Well, my memory is imperfect and I just recall being pissed at you (and WildAlaska, but that's a different story...).
I've mellowed a bit since then.So what's emmigrating from Israel like? Are you going to try to become a citizen of the US, or.....?
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 07, 2008, 03:33:23 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 07, 2008, 03:48:02 PM
You know perfectly well Ron Paul refuses on principle to vote to condemn or support any foreign event. To state that he somehow hates Jews based on that is utterly ridiculous.
Who the hell said that besides you? Don't make up strawmen.
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 07, 2008, 03:57:53 PM
Okay, tell me why on earth someone would vote NAY on a symbolic condemnation of a terrorist act? They do this any time something evil happens, it says "The US condemns this".
In terms of international goodwill and just congressional procedure, it was the equivalent of letting one rip loudly in church, on purpose.
I think he's either insane, or senile at this point.
In terms of international goodwill and just congressional procedure, it was the equivalent of letting one rip loudly in church, on purpose.
I think he's either insane, or senile at this point.
Because our taxdollars pay for that group of assclowns that makes up the Congress/Senate to WORK. Not to sit around and pass imaginary legislation. What good does condeming the acts do?
We invaded Iraq for violating UN Sanctions. But we condem terrorists for attacking an ally?
Post by: thebaldguy on March 07, 2008, 04:19:22 PM
Our tax dollars wasted again...
Post by: Manedwolf on March 07, 2008, 04:30:27 PM
They probably spend less time on it than lunch. And everyone pretty much just hits "yay" and they go to the next thing on the agenda, which might indeed be something stupid like renaming a post office.
Post by: Finch on March 07, 2008, 06:35:11 PM
They probably spend less time on it than lunch. And everyone pretty much just hits "yay" and they go to the next thing on the agenda, which might indeed be something stupid like renaming a post office.
So why bother? This is just another cheap pathetic attempt to show your obvious disdane for Ron Paul.
We get it, ok. We know you don't like him.
Post by: K Frame on March 07, 2008, 07:34:37 PM
I beg your pardon?
It appears that Mr. Paul VOTED on the matter, and VOTED no.
If he applied the principle you say he does, he would have abstained from the vote. And that would have conveyed a message far closer to what you're trying to claim.
The four members who answered Present didn't vote. A 'vote' of present is an absetention.
Post by: De Selby on March 07, 2008, 07:43:10 PM
in b4 Palestine/Israel argument.
I won't start it. I promise. I do appreciate your insightful comments on Israeli life and politics when you make them here.
Good luck to you over there-I hope you and your family are okay in these hard times in your country.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 07, 2008, 11:25:33 PM
If he applied the principle you say he does, he would have abstained from the vote. And that would have conveyed a message far closer to what you're trying to claim.
He votes nay on any bills to condemn/support anything. To claim he selectively hates ISrael is a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts.
Post by: outerlimit on March 07, 2008, 11:43:17 PM
"The FINAL word on what anyone should think of Ron Paul."
Holy God no wonder this country is in such a mess.
Post by: Bigjake on March 08, 2008, 02:30:54 AM
The whole "He votes no on all foreign stuff" just further proves the guy doesn't have a clue.
Is Paul out of the race yet? The Huckster got out of the way, and Paul has vowed not to run 3rd party, what is he doing now?
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 08, 2008, 02:55:44 AM
I would vote NAY too. What's the point of this vote? The Congress should be figuring out how to stop spending so much and how to get out of this $9 trillion dollar debt that is ruining our economy.
"The FINAL word on what anyone should think of Ron Paul."
Holy God no wonder this country is in such a mess.
"The FINAL word on what anyone should think of Ron Paul."
Holy God no wonder this country is in such a mess.
The government debt didn't ruin the economy. Unscrupulous lenders and greedy borrowers did. As soon as all those loans started turning over from 5 year arms to stupid high interest rates....well it was a house of cards.
The government, however, is contributing through Ethanol production. With more and more farmers growing corn for ethanol, grain supply is dropping.
Post by: MrRezister on March 08, 2008, 04:43:26 AM
Quote
Re: The FINAL word on what anyone should think of Ron Paul.
I strongly suspect that if you bothered to ask the man instead of assuming, that he would justify this vote in pretty much exactly the same way he justifies all his supposedly "controversial" votes. Namely, by pointing out that it's not the JOB of the LEGISLATURE to condemn anyone for doing evil or stupid things. The JOB of the LEGISLATURE is to PASS LEGISLATION.
Passing a bill which says "Hey, we don't like that." isn't the same as saying "Yo, that *expletive deleted*it ain't legal. Don't do it." Believe it or not, I don't need my congressman to point out the fact that terrorism is wrong. The fact that kooky old Dr. Paul doesn't go along with everyone else without thinking about whether or not he's wasting time (and by extension, taxpayers dollars) is just fine with me, and another reason I'm glad I voted for the man.
But I appreciate you trying to do my thinking for me.
It was a nice try.
Really.
Post by: K Frame on March 08, 2008, 06:53:14 AM
If he applied the principle you say he does, he would have abstained from the vote. And that would have conveyed a message far closer to what you're trying to claim.
He votes nay on any bills to condemn/support anything. To claim he selectively hates ISrael is a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts.
And I still contend that if Mr. Paul were interested in sending a CLEAR message, instead of one that could be interpreted in any of a number of ways, he'd vote present.
While I agree that a no vote on this issue does not equal hatred for the Jews or support of the Palestinians, it still doesn't convey a good message or image.
Post by: Bigjake on March 08, 2008, 08:37:51 AM
Quote
Re: The FINAL word on what anyone should think of Ron Paul.
I strongly suspect that if you bothered to ask the man instead of assuming, that he would justify this vote in pretty much exactly the same way he justifies all his supposedly "controversial" votes. Namely, by pointing out that it's not the JOB of the LEGISLATURE to condemn anyone for doing evil or stupid things. The JOB of the LEGISLATURE is to PASS LEGISLATION.
Passing a bill which says "Hey, we don't like that." isn't the same as saying "Yo, that *expletive deleted*it ain't legal. Don't do it." Believe it or not, I don't need my congressman to point out the fact that terrorism is wrong. The fact that kooky old Dr. Paul doesn't go along with everyone else without thinking about whether or not he's wasting time (and by extension, taxpayers dollars) is just fine with me, and another reason I'm glad I voted for the man.
But I appreciate you trying to do my thinking for me.
It was a nice try.
Really.
Uh, hello! your guy participated in that stupid vote that wasn't PASSING LEGISLATION! Or didn't you read the OP?
Post by: seeker_two on March 08, 2008, 10:06:14 AM
I'd ask for a mod to close it, but he's one of the perpetuators.....
Post by: outerlimit on March 08, 2008, 05:04:41 PM
I would vote NAY too. What's the point of this vote? The Congress should be figuring out how to stop spending so much and how to get out of this $9 trillion dollar debt that is ruining our economy.
"The FINAL word on what anyone should think of Ron Paul."
Holy God no wonder this country is in such a mess.
"The FINAL word on what anyone should think of Ron Paul."
Holy God no wonder this country is in such a mess.
The government debt didn't ruin the economy. Unscrupulous lenders and greedy borrowers did. As soon as all those loans started turning over from 5 year arms to stupid high interest rates....well it was a house of cards.
The government, however, is contributing through Ethanol production. With more and more farmers growing corn for ethanol, grain supply is dropping.
So you really believe the economy is going south because of "bad loans".
WOW.
Has nothing to do with the fact that we're printing $600 trillion in Monopoly money every year?
What else do you believe about the economy that the media tells you.
Post by: outerlimit on March 08, 2008, 05:07:00 PM
Voting to not condemn evil is supporting it by default.
The whole "He votes no on all foreign stuff" just further proves the guy doesn't have a clue.
Is Paul out of the race yet? The Huckster got out of the way, and Paul has vowed not to run 3rd party, what is he doing now?
The whole "He votes no on all foreign stuff" just further proves the guy doesn't have a clue.
Is Paul out of the race yet? The Huckster got out of the way, and Paul has vowed not to run 3rd party, what is he doing now?
THis is NOT the United States of Israel, though sometimes I wonder. We need to make sure our own affairs are in order before we inject ourselves into other messes. That's why we're in the predicament we're in today.
Post by: outerlimit on March 08, 2008, 05:08:19 PM
After reading this thread, I think it is as entirely as pointless and wasteful as the resolution and vote referred to in the OP......
I'd ask for a mod to close it, but he's one of the perpetuators.....
I'd ask for a mod to close it, but he's one of the perpetuators.....
Post by: Manedwolf on March 08, 2008, 06:08:47 PM
Voting to not condemn evil is supporting it by default.
The whole "He votes no on all foreign stuff" just further proves the guy doesn't have a clue.
Is Paul out of the race yet? The Huckster got out of the way, and Paul has vowed not to run 3rd party, what is he doing now?
The whole "He votes no on all foreign stuff" just further proves the guy doesn't have a clue.
Is Paul out of the race yet? The Huckster got out of the way, and Paul has vowed not to run 3rd party, what is he doing now?
THis is NOT the United States of Israel, though sometimes I wonder. We need to make sure our own affairs are in order before we inject ourselves into other messes. That's why we're in the predicament we're in today.
Israel is an ally, and a strong one. If you start turning your back on allies, you soon find that you won't have any when you need them.
Post by: Paddy on March 08, 2008, 06:16:38 PM
The sun is setting on the Republican party. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 09, 2008, 01:56:12 AM
While I agree that a no vote on this issue does not equal hatred for the Jews or support of the Palestinians, it still doesn't convey a good message or image.
So at best, the vote above shows Ron Paul is bad at PR. So?
Post by: outerlimit on March 09, 2008, 03:03:39 AM
Voting to not condemn evil is supporting it by default.
The whole "He votes no on all foreign stuff" just further proves the guy doesn't have a clue.
Is Paul out of the race yet? The Huckster got out of the way, and Paul has vowed not to run 3rd party, what is he doing now?
The whole "He votes no on all foreign stuff" just further proves the guy doesn't have a clue.
Is Paul out of the race yet? The Huckster got out of the way, and Paul has vowed not to run 3rd party, what is he doing now?
THis is NOT the United States of Israel, though sometimes I wonder. We need to make sure our own affairs are in order before we inject ourselves into other messes. That's why we're in the predicament we're in today.
Israel is an ally, and a strong one. If you start turning your back on allies, you soon find that you won't have any when you need them.
Okay if you say so. How long will they be an ally if we stop funding their military. I could care less about them or anyone else in the middle east. What have they done for us lately.
It's supposed to be a two way street. Get real man.
Israel is an ally you say. Prove it. Please site some recent wars where we've been invaded and pIsrael has come to our aid.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 09, 2008, 05:21:13 AM
Voting to not condemn evil is supporting it by default.
The whole "He votes no on all foreign stuff" just further proves the guy doesn't have a clue.
Is Paul out of the race yet? The Huckster got out of the way, and Paul has vowed not to run 3rd party, what is he doing now?
The whole "He votes no on all foreign stuff" just further proves the guy doesn't have a clue.
Is Paul out of the race yet? The Huckster got out of the way, and Paul has vowed not to run 3rd party, what is he doing now?
THis is NOT the United States of Israel, though sometimes I wonder. We need to make sure our own affairs are in order before we inject ourselves into other messes. That's why we're in the predicament we're in today.
Israel is an ally, and a strong one. If you start turning your back on allies, you soon find that you won't have any when you need them.
Okay if you say so. How long will they be an ally if we stop funding their military. I could care less about them or anyone else in the middle east. What have they done for us lately.
It's supposed to be a two way street. Get real man.
Israel is an ally you say. Prove it. Please site some recent wars where we've been invaded and pIsrael has come to our aid.
Daily Kos is...
<- that way. Did you get lost?
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 09, 2008, 05:42:56 AM
Voting to not condemn evil is supporting it by default.
The whole "He votes no on all foreign stuff" just further proves the guy doesn't have a clue.
Is Paul out of the race yet? The Huckster got out of the way, and Paul has vowed not to run 3rd party, what is he doing now?
The whole "He votes no on all foreign stuff" just further proves the guy doesn't have a clue.
Is Paul out of the race yet? The Huckster got out of the way, and Paul has vowed not to run 3rd party, what is he doing now?
THis is NOT the United States of Israel, though sometimes I wonder. We need to make sure our own affairs are in order before we inject ourselves into other messes. That's why we're in the predicament we're in today.
Israel is an ally, and a strong one. If you start turning your back on allies, you soon find that you won't have any when you need them.
Okay if you say so. How long will they be an ally if we stop funding their military. I could care less about them or anyone else in the middle east. What have they done for us lately.
It's supposed to be a two way street. Get real man.
Israel is an ally you say. Prove it. Please site some recent wars where we've been invaded and pIsrael has come to our aid.
Ooooh! That's classy....
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 09, 2008, 06:32:29 AM
I would vote NAY too. What's the point of this vote? The Congress should be figuring out how to stop spending so much and how to get out of this $9 trillion dollar debt that is ruining our economy.
"The FINAL word on what anyone should think of Ron Paul."
Holy God no wonder this country is in such a mess.
"The FINAL word on what anyone should think of Ron Paul."
Holy God no wonder this country is in such a mess.
The government debt didn't ruin the economy. Unscrupulous lenders and greedy borrowers did. As soon as all those loans started turning over from 5 year arms to stupid high interest rates....well it was a house of cards.
The government, however, is contributing through Ethanol production. With more and more farmers growing corn for ethanol, grain supply is dropping.
So you really believe the economy is going south because of "bad loans".
WOW.
Has nothing to do with the fact that we're printing $600 trillion in Monopoly money every year?
What else do you believe about the economy that the media tells you.
Oh I didn't say that government debt isnt a contributor. But we're a consumerist economy. We buy alot of crap. Alot of it. And we use alot of services. What happens when people are struggling to make a house payment because the loan rate just doubled, or because they can't afford to fill up thier ESEWVEE? They stop buying crap.
Quote
Israel is an ally you say. Prove it. Please site some recent wars where we've been invaded and pIsrael has come to our aid.
Huh? Considering the last war we were invaded was WWII (Aleutian island chain), and Israeal wasn't even a nation then.......
Are you drunk?
Post by: outerlimit on March 09, 2008, 04:05:12 PM
I would vote NAY too. What's the point of this vote? The Congress should be figuring out how to stop spending so much and how to get out of this $9 trillion dollar debt that is ruining our economy.
"The FINAL word on what anyone should think of Ron Paul."
Holy God no wonder this country is in such a mess.
"The FINAL word on what anyone should think of Ron Paul."
Holy God no wonder this country is in such a mess.
The government debt didn't ruin the economy. Unscrupulous lenders and greedy borrowers did. As soon as all those loans started turning over from 5 year arms to stupid high interest rates....well it was a house of cards.
The government, however, is contributing through Ethanol production. With more and more farmers growing corn for ethanol, grain supply is dropping.
So you really believe the economy is going south because of "bad loans".
WOW.
Has nothing to do with the fact that we're printing $600 trillion in Monopoly money every year?
What else do you believe about the economy that the media tells you.
Oh I didn't say that government debt isnt a contributor. But we're a consumerist economy. We buy alot of crap. Alot of it. And we use alot of services. What happens when people are struggling to make a house payment because the loan rate just doubled, or because they can't afford to fill up thier ESEWVEE? They stop buying crap.
Quote
Israel is an ally you say. Prove it. Please site some recent wars where we've been invaded and pIsrael has come to our aid.
Huh? Considering the last war we were invaded was WWII (Aleutian island chain), and Israeal wasn't even a nation then.......
Are you drunk?
So then when do we get in return for our billions of dollars in welfare to the Israelis?
Post by: outerlimit on March 09, 2008, 04:09:37 PM
Voting to not condemn evil is supporting it by default.
The whole "He votes no on all foreign stuff" just further proves the guy doesn't have a clue.
Is Paul out of the race yet? The Huckster got out of the way, and Paul has vowed not to run 3rd party, what is he doing now?
The whole "He votes no on all foreign stuff" just further proves the guy doesn't have a clue.
Is Paul out of the race yet? The Huckster got out of the way, and Paul has vowed not to run 3rd party, what is he doing now?
THis is NOT the United States of Israel, though sometimes I wonder. We need to make sure our own affairs are in order before we inject ourselves into other messes. That's why we're in the predicament we're in today.
Israel is an ally, and a strong one. If you start turning your back on allies, you soon find that you won't have any when you need them.
Okay if you say so. How long will they be an ally if we stop funding their military. I could care less about them or anyone else in the middle east. What have they done for us lately.
It's supposed to be a two way street. Get real man.
Israel is an ally you say. Prove it. Please site some recent wars where we've been invaded and pIsrael has come to our aid.
Ooooh! That's classy....
If I called Obama Osama you wouldn't say anything, right?
McStain, Hillabeast, Hitlery, Hillbama, ect.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 09, 2008, 05:08:53 PM
Quote
If I called Obama Osama you wouldn't say anything, right?
McStain, Hillabeast, Hitlery, Hillbama, ect.
McStain, Hillabeast, Hitlery, Hillbama, ect.
I think its just childish and sophomoric.
See? You were wrong about about that!
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 09, 2008, 06:02:18 PM
Anyone?
Post by: Bigjake on March 09, 2008, 06:29:17 PM
I'm still waiting for a good explanation for why Ron Paul habitually takes part in votes he thinks are immoral or illegal, instead of abstaining or refusing to participate.
Anyone?
Anyone?
[cricket noise] [/cricket noise]
I posed that question way back in the thread....
Post by: outerlimit on March 09, 2008, 07:36:22 PM
I'm still waiting for a good explanation for why Ron Paul habitually takes part in votes he thinks are immoral or illegal, instead of abstaining or refusing to participate.
Anyone?
Anyone?
I guess he's there for a reason. I would like to think we send people to Washington to say "No" to big government. To draw a line in the sand. But I don't know, you'll have to ask him I guess.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 09, 2008, 11:04:48 PM
Quote
So then when do we get in return for our billions of dollars in welfare to the Israelis?
You? Nothing.
On the other hand, the money 'may only be spent on US products and services' - making it de-facto corporate welfare for people like Northrop-Grumman, and subjugating Israeli defense procurement to that.
Post by: Finch on March 09, 2008, 11:10:18 PM
I'm still waiting for a good explanation for why Ron Paul habitually takes part in votes he thinks are immoral or illegal, instead of abstaining or refusing to participate taking the cowards way out.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Let try that, it's a little more accurate.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 10, 2008, 01:28:57 AM
I'm still waiting for a good explanation for why Ron Paul habitually takes part in votes he thinks are immoral or illegal, instead of abstaining or refusing to participate taking the cowards way out.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Let try that, it's a little
If Ron Paul really believed that gov't shouldnt pass such resolutions, he should have abstained/voted present. Voting no merely participates in the vote in a manner that guarantees he will be looked at as the nut job he appears to be.
Post by: LAK on March 10, 2008, 01:57:06 AM
Quote
Huh?
Considering the last war we were invaded was WWII (Aleutian island chain), and Israeal wasn't even a nation then.......
Are you drunk?
Well, drunks are good for spending money on things that have no tangible return. We have had little or no return from anything in the mid east - let alone from the State of Israel.Considering the last war we were invaded was WWII (Aleutian island chain), and Israeal wasn't even a nation then.......
Are you drunk?
Oh wait, some of the families of our sailors did get $6 million divided between the families of 34 murdered U.S. Navy servicemen - can't recall the figure in return for the virtual destruction of one of our ships involved.
-------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 10, 2008, 03:05:49 AM
So then when do we get in return for our billions of dollars in welfare to the Israelis?
Slow down killer.
First you say they're not allies because they never helped us repel boarders.
Now you've switched your tack and you're attacking the government money we dole out unto other countries.
Which is it? Which argument are you presenting here?
what do we get in return for our billions of welfare to Africa?
We support Isreal because they are a free people surrounded by screaming jihadis.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 10, 2008, 03:19:25 AM
America shouldn't be giving money to Africa OR to Israel.
It doesn't help America, and it doesn't even help the people in the countries it's supposed to be helping.
Foreign aid, like welfare, rarely solves the problem it's intended to solve, and often exacerbates it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 10, 2008, 09:31:18 AM
Quote
screaming jihadis
I'm laying claim to that phrase right now, for if I ever start a band.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 10, 2008, 09:32:45 AM
And you are exactly correct, jamisjokey.
America shouldn't be giving money to Africa OR to Israel.
It doesn't help America, and it doesn't even help the people in the countries it's supposed to be helping.
Foreign aid, like welfare, rarely solves the problem it's intended to solve, and often exacerbates it.
America shouldn't be giving money to Africa OR to Israel.
It doesn't help America, and it doesn't even help the people in the countries it's supposed to be helping.
Foreign aid, like welfare, rarely solves the problem it's intended to solve, and often exacerbates it.
If you ignore a fire in another part of the forest, eventually, it'll come burn you, too.
Post by: LAK on March 11, 2008, 03:10:33 AM
Quote
If you ignore a fire in another part of the forest, eventually, it'll come burn you, too.
Poor analogy - and very global village. We have the technology and general knowhow to defend this country from any tangible military threat. And instead of inviting people in from questionable nations we should be booting them out - and making every effort to keep them out. Call it an effective firefighting force, and big fire breaks in depth.-------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on March 11, 2008, 03:50:34 AM
Quote
If you ignore a fire in another part of the forest, eventually, it'll come burn you, too.
Poor analogy - and very global village. We have the technology and general knowhow to defend this country from any tangible military threat. And instead of inviting people in from questionable nations we should be booting them out - and making every effort to keep them out. Call it an effective firefighting force, and big fire breaks in depth.Yeah, we sure did in 9/11 and the previous bombing of the WTC
As for keeping people out, Russia is now (or will soon be) an official enemy. I guess that means we need to deport Oleg.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 11, 2008, 03:51:55 AM
If you ignore a fire in another part of the forest, eventually, it'll come burn you, too.
So... you're saying that America should be afraid of Hamas, who are not able to *reliably hit the country they're aiming at with rockets*? Who have *killed Palestinians because their idiotic Kassam rockets flew in the wrong directions*?
But that's besides the point.
The point is the aid does not HELP Israel. It allows its military estalibmshment and government grow fat and silly with the excuse that 'America will always send more aid', while actually wasting MORE MONEY on bureaucracy than America send in in aid, while destroying Israel's indigenous military industry and taking more and more factories and design orders to America (for example, the Tavor is not made in Israel anymore).
THere are people who benefit - the Ollmert government, the IDF top tier, and the various American corporations that get to split the 2.5 gigabucks per year.
The Israeli public? Hahahahaha.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 11, 2008, 03:55:48 AM
Quote
If you ignore a fire in another part of the forest, eventually, it'll come burn you, too.
Poor analogy - and very global village. We have the technology and general knowhow to defend this country from any tangible military threat. And instead of inviting people in from questionable nations we should be booting them out - and making every effort to keep them out. Call it an effective firefighting force, and big fire breaks in depth.So I guess we should have ignored Nazi Germany as they took over all of Europe and made it into an empire, until they made the V2 into an ICBM, until they built the transatlantic jet bombers they were working on specifically to reach the United States?
Yeah, that would have worked.
Because, historically, building walls and sitting there while massive armies lay siege has worked so well in every instance. Eventually, you run out of stuff because NO RESOURCES CAN COME IN. The point is the aid does not HELP Israel. It allows its military estalibmshment and government grow fat and silly with the excuse that 'America will always send more aid', while actually wasting MORE MONEY on bureaucracy than America send in in aid, while destroying Israel's indigenous military industry and taking more and more factories and design orders to America (for example, the Tavor is not made in Israel anymore).
So it's...bad for us to aid Israel, because it makes them place design and factory orders with American military contractors, which results in more jobs for Americans in America building weapons for Israel, that they're buying. That's what you just said.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 11, 2008, 04:11:10 AM
Quote
So it's...bad for us to aid Israel, because it makes them place design and factory orders with American military contractors, which results in more jobs for Americans in America building weapons for Israel, that they're buying. That's what you just said.
So... corporate welfare is good now?
Wouldn't it be better to just... I dunno, buy more F-16's and give them to American soldiers?
Or [gasp] CUT TAXES.
Quote
So I guess we should have ignored Nazi Germany as they took over all of Europe and made it into an empire
Except Hamas, Hezbullah, Al-Quaeda, and ALL THE TERRORISTS PUT TOGETHER are not half the threat that the Nazis or the Japanese, or the Soviets were.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 11, 2008, 04:14:46 AM
Quote
So it's...bad for us to aid Israel, because it makes them place design and factory orders with American military contractors, which results in more jobs for Americans in America building weapons for Israel, that they're buying. That's what you just said.
So... corporate welfare is good now?
Wouldn't it be better to just... I dunno, buy more F-16's and give them to American soldiers?
Or [gasp] CUT TAXES.
No, no, you said it, you can't wiggle out of it now. You know it's not corporate welfare, don't equivocate or make up strawmen and red herrings!
Except Hamas, Hezbullah, Al-Quaeda, and ALL THE TERRORISTS PUT TOGETHER are not half the threat that the Nazis or the Japanese, or the Soviets were.
Really? Neither the Nazis, Japanese, nor the Soviet Union ever managed a strike on the US mainland. Al-Quaeda did, destroying two of of our iconic buildings and severely damaging the Pentagon, the former Department of War building itself, killing thousands of Americans on American soil. Nobody else has managed that. Nobody else but Al-Quaeda has ever hit the US mainland in a high-casualty, high-destruction attack since the War of 1812. They're not a threat, you say?
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 11, 2008, 04:20:59 AM
Quote
No, no, you said it, you can't wiggle out of it now. You know it's not corporate welfare, don't equivocate or make up strawmen and red herrings!
How is it not corporate welfare? US taxpayer money going to US corporations for the sole purpose of aiding those corporations... yes, seems like corporate welfare to me.
Quote
Really? Neither the Nazis, Japanese, nor the Soviet Union ever managed a strike on the US mainland.
The Soviet Union was fully capable of destroying America as it existed, if given half the chance. Happily America didn't give them that chance.
The Japanese killed more Americans, by orders of magnitude. Further, the Japanese have carried out several attacks on US mainland, through the use of bomb-laden baloons, mostly, and carried out a ground invasion of the Aleutian islands.
Quote
Al-Quada did, destroying two of of our iconic buildings and severely damaging the Pentagon, the former Department of War building itself, killing thousands of Americans on American soil. Nobody else has managed that. They're not dangerous, you say?
AQ is capable, no doubt, of causing various damage, terrorist acts, killing people and damaging property. They are not, however, capable of outright destroying American society, just as the Anarchist terrorists that operated in the US at the dawn of the 20th centuries were.
Post by: K Frame on March 11, 2008, 04:30:52 AM
Wrong.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 11, 2008, 04:37:00 AM
Quote
No, no, you said it, you can't wiggle out of it now. You know it's not corporate welfare, don't equivocate or make up strawmen and red herrings!
How is it not corporate welfare? US taxpayer money going to US corporations for the sole purpose of aiding those corporations... yes, seems like corporate welfare to me.
[
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 11, 2008, 05:00:11 AM
[/quote]
So, what exactly does the US government get here?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 11, 2008, 05:09:32 AM
"Neither the Nazis, Japanese, nor the Soviet Union"
Wrong.
Wrong.
Hm? When did any of those three hit the US mainland?
The Japanese hit Pearl Harbor, which is not the mainland. The Germans never got here. The Soviets pointed missiles at us.
That's history as I know it, at least. Unless you count the five people killed in Oregon when they messed with a grounded Japanese nuisance balloon-bomb. I don't.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 11, 2008, 05:29:35 AM
I believe a Japanese sub surfaced and shot some artillery at the coast, but I don't think they caused much damage. They also launched those balloons, but canceled the program. I understand they had no intention of invading US soil except as a diversion.
What is your standard here? Just a hit on the mainland or a high destruction attack?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 11, 2008, 05:36:14 AM
AFAIK, the last time before 2001 that happened via attack by foreign agents was when the British burnt things in the War of 1812?
The point I was making was that since Al-Qaeda managed to destroy the WTC towers, severely damage the US military headquarters, and might have taken out the Capitol or White House too if the people on Flight 93 hadn't fought with them, they most certainly are a significant threat.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 11, 2008, 05:40:57 AM
So, what exactly does the US government get here?
[/quote]
Tax revenue.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 11, 2008, 08:20:12 AM
Having a strong, civilized, democratic, non-extremist ally in the heart of the middle east is a Very Good Thing. Period.
Al Qaida is a serious threat to the United States. Period.
It astounds me that anyone would try to debate either of these two self-evident facts.
Post by: Finch on March 11, 2008, 10:12:16 AM
Al Qaida is a serious threat to the United States. Period.
Only because our attempt to destroy them is in reality going to destroy us and who we are/were as a nation. Our government is doing more damage to this nation than Al Qaida ever has or will.
Post by: seeker_two on March 11, 2008, 11:29:49 AM
Quote
screaming jihadis
I'm laying claim to that phrase right now, for if I ever start a band.
It'd be a heck of a girl band name....
Post by: MechAg94 on March 11, 2008, 05:45:01 PM
Al Qaida is a serious threat to the United States. Period.
Only because our attempt to destroy them is in reality going to destroy us and who we are/were as a nation. Our government is doing more damage to this nation than Al Qaida ever has or will.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 11, 2008, 05:46:23 PM
I would say a high-casualty attack on the US mainland itself. As in, destruction in a US city. The bringing of a war home, not offshore, not in an island offshore. The continental US.
AFAIK, the last time before 2001 that happened via attack by foreign agents was when the British burnt things in the War of 1812?
The point I was making was that since Al-Qaeda managed to destroy the WTC towers, severely damage the US military headquarters, and might have taken out the Capitol or White House too if the people on Flight 93 hadn't fought with them, they most certainly are a significant threat.
I don't disagree that they are a threat. I just take issue with the way you defined the standard. AFAIK, the last time before 2001 that happened via attack by foreign agents was when the British burnt things in the War of 1812?
The point I was making was that since Al-Qaeda managed to destroy the WTC towers, severely damage the US military headquarters, and might have taken out the Capitol or White House too if the people on Flight 93 hadn't fought with them, they most certainly are a significant threat.
Post by: De Selby on March 11, 2008, 06:38:23 PM
Micro, I support your vision of an Israel with honest government and civil rights, including the right to free speech and the right to be free from a largely undemocratic, uninterested military bureaucracy.
It must be something awful to live right next door to the gangs of Hamas and tell people "those retards can't reliably operate bottle rockets", only to hear back about what a great threat to the existence of America and Israel they are, and that's why your bosses need x billion dollars and to purchase more stuff from America.
The security hype operates in America much the same way-people try to use it to silence criticism of the government and to justify inordinate amounts of spending on "security" projects that don't contribute much to anyone's welfare or security.
Of course we don't have anything so extreme as your emergency censorship laws. Are there many in Israel who oppose it, and do you think there's any chance of it being changed this century?
Post by: K Frame on March 11, 2008, 07:32:23 PM
A Japanese submarine shelled an oil storage facility in Santa Barbara.
German submarines were active all along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts during the war, sinking numerous ships and killing quite a few American sailors.
The Japanese launched several thousand balloon bombs against the United States, killing several people.
The Germans made repeated attempts to land saboteurs and spies in the United States during the War.
Tell us, though, Maned. Just what do you define as a "high casualty attack"?
5? 50? 500? 5,000? 5,000,000?
I'll tell you what my definition of a high casualty attack is against Americans on American soil.
ONE.
Post by: outerlimit on March 11, 2008, 09:24:27 PM
Post by: LAK on March 11, 2008, 10:27:05 PM
Quote
So I guess we should have ignored Nazi Germany as they took over all of Europe and made it into an empire, until they made the V2 into an ICBM, until they built the transatlantic jet bombers they were working on specifically to reach the United States?
Yeah, that would have worked. Because, historically, building walls and sitting there while massive armies lay siege has worked so well in every instance. Eventually, you run out of stuff because NO RESOURCES CAN COME IN.
Another poor analogy. Germany? That's another subject altogether - perhaps you'd like to tackle that one in another thread.Yeah, that would have worked. Because, historically, building walls and sitting there while massive armies lay siege has worked so well in every instance. Eventually, you run out of stuff because NO RESOURCES CAN COME IN.
We do not actually need anything from any other country; and there is still nothing to stop us from receiving goods we can not make ourselves, and exporting those things others want to receive in reciprocal trade with stable, civilized countries who exercize similar controls on imports, exports and immigration. It is a grave risk, and we do not need, to have a free for all of goods, shipping companies and workers coming and bringing things into this country.
Terrorism is nothing new; if big bad Al Kidya was what your fat drunk corporate-gov is telling you, they could have easily brought this country to a somewhat chaotic standstill using a modest number of boots on the ground with some good old fashioned small arms, pyrotechnics, and what is by now old hat special forces training all over the world - and nothing more - in the same month of September 2001, or anytime immediately following.
That's IF big bad Al Kidya really "wanted to destroy the United States". Evidently not.
This is not about building walls - it is about having tangible, enforced borders. We used to have real immigration controls in this country. We really do not need any more immigrants, and we particularly only need to let anyone come here if they are a citizen of a stable civilized country. This would minimize risks and problems greatly. That and the immediate deportation of anyone found here that a) was not born here b) does not have a valid visa.
It really is not that difficult. The alternative is to watch your country disappear into the sprawling global village. Where there is a hodge podge of people with no distinctive culture, ideology or moral values (or insert your word of choice); a big free for all where "anything goes".
And in this mass of barely controlled chaos your big corporate-gov will have every excuse it needs to impose any controls on the lives of it's citizens; all in the name of the "war" on a noun that never ends.
----------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 11, 2008, 10:41:21 PM
How ironic-the one Israeli on this thread points out that all this foreign "aid" gets wasted on projects that have very little to do with real threats to the existence of either Israel or America, and that very few in the Israeli public see any benefit.
Micro, I support your vision of an Israel with honest government and civil rights, including the right to free speech and the right to be free from a largely undemocratic, uninterested military bureaucracy.
It must be something awful to live right next door to the gangs of Hamas and tell people "those retards can't reliably operate bottle rockets", only to hear back about what a great threat to the existence of America and Israel they are, and that's why your bosses need x billion dollars and to purchase more stuff from America.
The security hype operates in America much the same way-people try to use it to silence criticism of the government and to justify inordinate amounts of spending on "security" projects that don't contribute much to anyone's welfare or security.
Of course we don't have anything so extreme as your emergency censorship laws. Are there many in Israel who oppose it, and do you think there's any chance of it being changed this century?
Micro, I support your vision of an Israel with honest government and civil rights, including the right to free speech and the right to be free from a largely undemocratic, uninterested military bureaucracy.
It must be something awful to live right next door to the gangs of Hamas and tell people "those retards can't reliably operate bottle rockets", only to hear back about what a great threat to the existence of America and Israel they are, and that's why your bosses need x billion dollars and to purchase more stuff from America.
The security hype operates in America much the same way-people try to use it to silence criticism of the government and to justify inordinate amounts of spending on "security" projects that don't contribute much to anyone's welfare or security.
Of course we don't have anything so extreme as your emergency censorship laws. Are there many in Israel who oppose it, and do you think there's any chance of it being changed this century?
I wanted to write a long, long post here, but you pre-empted me epically.
As to you question: No, and no.
Israel was not founded by people like Jefferson and Franklin and Hamilton.
It was founded by guys like Ben-Gurion, who was known for being a socialist and a fan of Lenin. Even after years of Likud reform, the nation is still farther down the road of big government than most other Western nations. Right now, they're seriously planning on censoring the Internet. NO I AM NOT JOKING.
Post by: outerlimit on March 11, 2008, 11:26:48 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 12, 2008, 12:54:45 AM
Wow, I hadn't heard that. What are their plans, to filter content like China does?
The bill that was submitted in the Knesset [got Hebrew? I can link you to the relevant news articles then] was to mandate the ISPs block content from what they term the 'offensive content list', but to allow people who want the content to ask for an exception - and thus creating, of course, a national registry of porn browsers and extremists.
Post by: outerlimit on March 12, 2008, 01:05:44 AM
Wow, I hadn't heard that. What are their plans, to filter content like China does?
The bill that was submitted in the Knesset [got Hebrew? I can link you to the relevant news articles then] was to mandate the ISPs block content from what they term the 'offensive content list', but to allow people who want the content to ask for an exception - and thus creating, of course, a national registry of porn browsers and extremists.
No, that's fine, I can't read Hebrew. Thank you for explaining that. It's too bad there's so many Lieberman's and Tipper Gore's in governments these days. There is a legislator in Kentucky that wants to put an end to anonymous internet posting. Like there isn't already enough identity theft out there, he thinks you should register all of your personal details with every website you are on. He wants to stop "internet bullying"
http://www.wtvq.com/content/midatlantic/tvq/video.apx.-content-articles-TVQ-2008-03-05-0011.html
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 12, 2008, 01:06:35 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 12, 2008, 01:07:40 AM
In English.
Post by: K Frame on March 12, 2008, 06:08:25 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 12, 2008, 06:09:40 AM
A bill that would force Internet providers to block sites that contain pornography, gambling and extreme violence passed a first reading in the Knesset plenum on Wednesday.
The bill is the latest in a line of attempts by Shas to make use of its upgraded influence within the coalition since the departure of Israel Beiteinu.
Shas is also pushing a bill that would expand rabbinic courts' jurisdiction in divorce and monetary matters. In addition, Shas has demanded a boost in child allowances, which would benefit haredi families.
The Internet porn bill - authored by MK Amnon Cohen (Shas), strongly supported by Communications Minister Ariel Attias (Shas) and spiritually endorsed by party mentor Rabbi Ovadia Yosef - would require Internet users to specifically request full access to pornography. Those requesting such access would have to prove they were adults.
"Instead of parents having to actively block their children from viewing hard-core pornography and violence, pornography enthusiasts will have to be active and make a single phone call," said Cohen, the bill's initiator.
It is unclear whether those requesting full access would be blacklisted.
In the absence of such a request, the default option would block thousands of Web sites. A committee made up of members of the Education, Justice and Communications ministries would decide which sites to block.
Although Knesset legal advisers have said that it is unlikely Cohen's bill could be defended in the High Court of Justice, due to Attias' refusal to provide a list of the "harmful" sites to be blocked, the coalition has thrown its support behind the bill.
Attias rebuffed critics who compared the bill to censorship policies in Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
"The law will transform us into a type of Iran by giving the minister the authority to decide that the Shas Council of Torah Sages will determine the sites to be rejected and blocked - without any supervision or monitoring of its considerations by the Knesset," MK Gilad Erdan (Likud) said.
"We live in a democracy," said Attias in an interview with Army Radio. "Anybody who wants full Internet access can get it. We are just trying to protect our children from the sex and violence available on the Internet."
Attias, citing a recent survey, said 60 percent of minors admitted they had been exposed to porn on the Internet. Some 40% admitted they had given personal information to strangers over the Internet, and 47% said their computers were located inside their bedrooms, where parents had limited ability to monitor their surfing habits.
"These data are disturbing, and we decided to do something about it," said Attias.
The bill has to go back to the Knesset Economic Affairs Committee, then back to the plenum for final approval, a process that could take months.
Assuming the coalition stays together, the bill is expected to pass, since it enjoys support from more conservative opposition parties such as Israel Beiteinu and Likud. These parties support the bill because it is perceived as protecting wholesome family values.
MK Ran Cohen (Meretz) said he was "totally opposed" to the bill.
"It is another example of Shas's primitive approach to scientific developments. There are rabbis who are still living 2,000 years ago," he said.
MK Dov Henin (Hadash) claimed that Shas's bill was an unjustified transfer of responsibility from parents to central government.
"If parents don't want their children to view certain Internet sites, they should intervene and stop them," Henin said.
He added that the bill gave the misleading impression that the Internet would be made safe, when in reality the most dangerous Internet features were chatrooms, which would remain uncensored.
Dr. Yitzhak Kadman, head of the National Council for the Child, said he opposed the bill.
"I warned minister Attias that the present wording of the bill would cause a scare among liberal-minded Israelis who do not want the state to tell them what to do," Kadman said.
"I propose that Internet suppliers be obligated to provide parents with a variety of Internet filters free of charge. And if the parents choose to block content, they can do so in accordance with their sensibilities," he said. "But I oppose a centrally controlled censorship of the Internet."
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 12, 2008, 06:10:15 AM
Post by: De Selby on March 12, 2008, 04:59:23 PM
Well, good luck to you starting a movement for free speech and free people. I am certain that helping Israel to become truly independent, as opposed to dependent on massive corporate welfare, will help you all along in that path.
Post by: christopher on March 12, 2008, 09:12:36 PM
And alot of kids have pet rocks for parents. Once you've dumbed down society they rely more & more on a government out of control
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 12, 2008, 09:43:36 PM
Quote
Assuming the coalition stays together, the bill is expected to pass, since it enjoys support from more conservative opposition parties such as Israel Beiteinu and Likud
That's the JPost basically lying. The leadership of IB, and many Likud members [such as Gilad Erdan, the leader of the Knesset Likud, who is qujoted in the article, are opposed to the bill.
Post by: outerlimit on March 12, 2008, 10:39:12 PM
Note on the article above:
That's the JPost basically lying. The leadership of IB, and many Likud members [such as Gilad Erdan, the leader of the Knesset Likud, who is qujoted in the article, are opposed to the bill.
Quote
Assuming the coalition stays together, the bill is expected to pass, since it enjoys support from more conservative opposition parties such as Israel Beiteinu and Likud
That's the JPost basically lying. The leadership of IB, and many Likud members [such as Gilad Erdan, the leader of the Knesset Likud, who is qujoted in the article, are opposed to the bill.
The media would never lie.