Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Politics and Current Affairs

Politics and Current Affairs For political discussions and mudwrestling

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-22-2010, 02:05 AM   #978241  /  #551
daap-umop-bnp
peekaboo
 
daap-umop-bnp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: where the heart is
Posts: 22,282
daap-umop-bnp
Default

How about just stick with Israel, but liberalize everything.
__________________
daap-umop-bnp is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 07:16 AM   #978440  /  #552
Imaginary Mark
custom user title
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,318
Imaginary Mark
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus Potter View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by His Noodly Appendage View Post
What if the state of Israel were dissolved, and replaced with a single secular state covering the entire Israel/Palestine region that didn't distinguish between the two groups, and didn't enforce any specific religious laws?
This will only happen if the government is run entirely by robots.
or maybe it could be one robot who was really kindhearted
Imaginary Mark is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 09:46 AM   #978452  /  #553
SteveF
Pleistocene person
 
SteveF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 27,230
SteveF
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by His Noodly Appendage View Post
What if the state of Israel were dissolved, and replaced with a single secular state covering the entire Israel/Palestine region that didn't distinguish between the two groups, and didn't enforce any specific religious laws?
Good luck with that.
SteveF is online now   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 01:12 PM   #978522  /  #554
ksen
Unsullied
Admin; Master of Coin
 
ksen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Eden
Posts: 37,467
ksen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BelindaP View Post
Show me where I said anything about Zionism. You brought the movement up, not I. And, Christian Zionism might not be the right term for the Christian Religious Right movement that is controlling the politics right now. They are dispensationalists, and they run things where Israel is concerned.
No no no no. The Catholics are running the place. That's why the Supreme Court is majority Catholic. As a good Calvinist you should know this. :tut:

__________________
". . . organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy" - Matt Taibbi
ksen is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 01:13 PM   #978523  /  #555
ksen
Unsullied
Admin; Master of Coin
 
ksen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Eden
Posts: 37,467
ksen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BelindaP View Post
No, it was W. He lied his way into war in Iraq. Actually, I don't know if he was lying, or if it was the ones pulling his strings. Regardless, we would never have gotten into a war with Iraq if it weren't for him and his cronies.
You're fooling yourself. We would have gone into Iraq no matter who was President. Everyone was calling for war with Iraq at that time.
__________________
". . . organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy" - Matt Taibbi
ksen is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 01:24 PM   #978530  /  #556
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ksen View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelindaP View Post
No, it was W. He lied his way into war in Iraq. Actually, I don't know if he was lying, or if it was the ones pulling his strings. Regardless, we would never have gotten into a war with Iraq if it weren't for him and his cronies.
You're fooling yourself. We would have gone into Iraq no matter who was President. Everyone was calling for war with Iraq at that time.
No. Everyone wasn't.
VoxRat is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 01:26 PM   #978531  /  #557
ksen
Unsullied
Admin; Master of Coin
 
ksen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Eden
Posts: 37,467
ksen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksen View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelindaP View Post
No, it was W. He lied his way into war in Iraq. Actually, I don't know if he was lying, or if it was the ones pulling his strings. Regardless, we would never have gotten into a war with Iraq if it weren't for him and his cronies.
You're fooling yourself. We would have gone into Iraq no matter who was President. Everyone was calling for war with Iraq at that time.
No. Everyone wasn't.
Everyone that mattered politically. It didn't really matter that Harry Granola didn't want to go to war with Iraq. What mattered was that the leadership of both main political parties were all ready to attack Iraq.
__________________
". . . organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy" - Matt Taibbi
ksen is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 01:56 PM   #978555  /  #558
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ksen View Post
...
Everyone that mattered politically. It didn't really matter that Harry Granola didn't want to go to war with Iraq. What mattered was that the leadership of both main political parties were all ready to attack Iraq.
That's not the way I remember it. My recollection was that the Democrats - lacking spine and gonads - ignominiously caved.

But perhaps you'll provide some support for your contention and persuade me that I remember wrong.
VoxRat is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 02:02 PM   #978564  /  #559
SteveF
Pleistocene person
 
SteveF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 27,230
SteveF
Default

here's an al gore speech from the time. can't be bothered reading it myself, but should give some indication as to what he would have done:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
SteveF is online now   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 02:04 PM   #978567  /  #560
ksen
Unsullied
Admin; Master of Coin
 
ksen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Eden
Posts: 37,467
ksen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksen View Post
...
Everyone that mattered politically. It didn't really matter that Harry Granola didn't want to go to war with Iraq. What mattered was that the leadership of both main political parties were all ready to attack Iraq.
That's not the way I remember it. My recollection was that the Democrats - lacking spine and gonads - ignominiously caved.

But perhaps you'll provide some support for your contention and persuade me that I remember wrong.
Here's a site with quotes and video of people like Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Wilson, and Nancy Pelosi supporting and even calling for a war with Iraq.

Let me know if you want more.
__________________
". . . organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy" - Matt Taibbi
ksen is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 02:07 PM   #978569  /  #561
BelindaP
Senior Member
 
BelindaP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,922
BelindaP
Default

Of course they called for a war with Iraq. W and his minions told everyone that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Quaeda and provided falsified evidence to support it. Seems to me there was only one senator who was unmoved by all the lies. Lemme see. Who was that again? Some guy with a really weird last name. Rhymed with Ossama. Dang. Can't think of the name right now.
__________________
We <3 SMS.
BelindaP is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 02:11 PM   #978574  /  #562
ksen
Unsullied
Admin; Master of Coin
 
ksen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Eden
Posts: 37,467
ksen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BelindaP View Post
Of course they called for a war with Iraq. W and his minions told everyone that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Quaeda and provided falsified evidence to support it. Seems to me there was only one senator who was unmoved by all the lies. Lemme see. Who was that again? Some guy with a really weird last name. Rhymed with Ossama. Dang. Can't think of the name right now.
Trying to connect Al Quaeda with Iraq did not start with the Bush Administration. It began under the Clinton Administration, quotes showing such are in the link I provided above.

You need to decide whether or not Bush was too stupid to tie his shoes or an evil mastermind capable of fooling the leadership of the Democratic Party. Then you need to ask yourself if the Democratic leadership was so easily fooled by President Bush why on earth do you want them running shit now?
__________________
". . . organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy" - Matt Taibbi
ksen is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 02:47 PM   #978629  /  #563
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ksen View Post
...
Here's a site with quotes and video of people like Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Wilson, and Nancy Pelosi supporting and even calling for a war with Iraq.

Let me know if you want more.
Wow...
That was impressive! Did you pull all that together in response to my request? Or did you just go to a one-stop-shopping site for right-wing talking points?

That included a couple of examples that (those in Fall 2002) of Democrats spinelessly caving.

But most have to do with enforcing the sanctions that had been put in place since Gulf War I, and generally acknowledging that it would be unwise to imagine that Saddam was harmless.

I'm not contending that the Democrats look particularly good in all this. I'm just pointing out that your case that they would be just as likely to launch a war in defiance of international disapproval is poorly supported, to put it kindly.
VoxRat is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 07:33 PM   #978949  /  #564
teeth!
trollo trollini trollus est
Commissar
 
teeth!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: talkrationalo trollenda est
Posts: 47,644
teeth!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BelindaP View Post
Of course they called for a war with Iraq. W and his minions told everyone that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Quaeda and provided falsified evidence to support it. Seems to me there was only one senator who was unmoved by all the lies. Lemme see. Who was that again? Some guy with a really weird last name. Rhymed with Ossama. Dang. Can't think of the name right now.
Uh, what the fuck are you smoking?

Obama wasn't in the senate in 2003. Once he was elected to the senate, he consistently voted to continue to fund the war. And then, once he became President, he kept doing more of the same.

There were Democrats who objected to the war, but Obama was not one of them.
__________________
In the land of the talentless, the one-trick pony is king.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
I suppose it's good for society that I'm not an alpha wolf then.
teeth! is online now   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 08:53 PM   #979085  /  #565
daap-umop-bnp
peekaboo
 
daap-umop-bnp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: where the heart is
Posts: 22,282
daap-umop-bnp
Default

That's not true. He did object to the war. In 2002. He wasn't a U.S. senator yet, but he definitely opposed the war.
__________________
daap-umop-bnp is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 09:15 PM   #979112  /  #566
el jefe
Senior Member
TR Pundit
 
el jefe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 26,933
el jefe
Default

in fact, he gave an early and forceful anti-war speech in chicago that got a fair amount of attention

also all the talk of democrats continually voting to fund the war is to some degree a red herring. anyone who votes against war funding gets tarred as "not supporting the troops". so a democrat that votes against it is in danger in the next election. and forget about the fact that not many politicians would be willing to sacrifice themselves like that. the point is that a republican will win your seat and vote to restore the funding you voted against. so you've accomplished nothing, except to end your own career.
el jefe is online now   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 09:18 PM   #979115  /  #567
teeth!
trollo trollini trollus est
Commissar
 
teeth!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: talkrationalo trollenda est
Posts: 47,644
teeth!
Default

Except he didn't object when he actually had the power to change that situation. As a private citizen, I was against the war in 2002, as well. Hell, I wasn't particularly in favor of invading Afghanistan either.

Obama's voting record, however, was firmly in favor of the war. And that's really all that matters as far as I give a damn.
__________________
In the land of the talentless, the one-trick pony is king.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
I suppose it's good for society that I'm not an alpha wolf then.
teeth! is online now   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 09:19 PM   #979119  /  #568
teeth!
trollo trollini trollus est
Commissar
 
teeth!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: talkrationalo trollenda est
Posts: 47,644
teeth!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by el guapo View Post
in fact, he gave an early and forceful anti-war speech in chicago that got a fair amount of attention

also all the talk of democrats continually voting to fund the war is to some degree a red herring. anyone who votes against war funding gets tarred as "not supporting the troops". so a democrat that votes against it is in danger in the next election. and forget about the fact that not many politicians would be willing to sacrifice themselves like that. the point is that a republican will win your seat and vote to restore the funding you voted against. so you've accomplished nothing, except to end your own career.
Oh man you're totally right. I'll totally remember that next time we're criticizing the Blue Dog democrats for voting in ways that cynically protect their careers.
__________________
In the land of the talentless, the one-trick pony is king.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
I suppose it's good for society that I'm not an alpha wolf then.
teeth! is online now   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 06-22-2010, 09:20 PM   #979121  /  #569
daap-umop-bnp
peekaboo
 
daap-umop-bnp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: where the heart is
Posts: 22,282
daap-umop-bnp
Default

Do you have el guapo on ignore?

eta goddamnit never mind
__________________
daap-umop-bnp is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Reply

  TalkRational > Discussion > Politics and Current Affairs

Tags
could sanshou be the one?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org