I did not watch last night’s debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton that according to news reports was quite contentious. Philip Weiss looked closely at what Jake Tapper said was a ‘historic moment’ in American politics. For once a leading candidate deviated from the stance of uncritical support for whatever Israel does and instead balanced support with criticisms of its disproportionate response to attacks that had especially left Gaza devastated and caused an immense amount of suffering for the Palestinian people.
It was of course Sanders who voiced this critical support and who criticized Clinton for her failure to recognize that Palestinians had rights too and for her speech to the Israel lobby group AIPAC. He said that we cannot afford to continue to be one-sided.
Weiss’s report is a must-read and at the end he quotes Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace who said:
It was heartening to hear the beginning of a much needed conversation about Israel’s disproportionate use of force against Palestinians in Gaza during the Democratic debate tonight. Today showed that the movement for Palestinian rights is shifting the discourse at the highest political levels. However, there is still a long way to go before we see our political leaders take courageous steps not just to recognize the humanity of Palestinians but to take action to secure their rights.
There is no question that the nature of the discussion on the Middle East has changed in the last few years and for the better. If I had to pick a turning point I would say it was the publication in 2007 of the book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt and the firestorm it generated that broke open the discussion in mainstream politics and media.
Ha! Sanders is quite obviously antisemi… er…
Yet another issue on which Hillary held a conservative position, until Bernie’s progressive stance polled better. Phase 2 of this usual pattern will be for Hillary to pretend she was always this progressive, but couldn’t say so until recently because the political climate only recently permitted it. And phase 3 will be the investigation of her excuse, and the discovery that it is not very plausible / a complete lie.
Well, Trump has said (that’s the great thing about Trump! He says so many things!) he’d cut military aid to israel, and cut “defense” spending 50% Is he antisemitic?
Nick Gotts@#1: the default attack label you’re looking for is “self-hating jew”
Which means, yeah, antisemitic because you can’t be a rational jew and question israel’s policies. File under: “orwellian verbal judo, totalitarianism”
Well, except it wasn’t Hillary that took the progressive position…
Because making the central tenet of your religion the occupation of a stretch of desert makes perfect sense. Can’t be a good Jew without liking that pointless exercise obviously.
The “self hating Jew Sanders” doesn’t seem to have any problem accepting the communist principles/planks first spelled out by the Jew Marx. He (like other control freaks) wants to appear on the side of the downtrodden while at the same time selling his brand of Communist control.
As Lenin so honestly said, “The goal of socialism is communism”.
@ 6 Randall Lee
You forgot the bit about sapping and impurifying all of our precious bodily fluids.
As Lenin so incorrectly said*
@6. Randall Lee : Did you forget a sarcasm / Poe tag or were you actually being serious?
PS. This confirms the Lenin quote : http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/vladimirle136421.html FWIW.
Of course, not all the Socialists -- even not all the original Russian Marxists -- agreed with that and it isn’t necessarily so. Look up Mensheviks for instance & of course Trotsky too.
@ 5. Blood Knight in Sour Armor : “Because making the central tenet of your religion the occupation of a stretch of desert makes perfect sense.”
Israel has more than just desert ecosystems including mountains and coastal plains. Wikipedia notes :
Holmes,. In fact, Friedrich Engels makes this rather clear in The Principles of Communism, which is usually one of the first suggested books for people wanting to learn about communism.
… “Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.”
In Marxist thought, society is said to move in stages of development. For instance, feudalism creates wealth and when technology is developed and implemented the two combine to create the material conditions necessary for capitalism to arise. Then capitalism (coupled with technological innovation) allows for the next societal development. This next development is socialism. So, to summarize this paragraph; society moves in such a way that feudal society leads to capitalist society which leads to socialist society which leads to communist society.
^ Not that deserts can’t also have a wide and diverse range of plant life among other things natch.
However, whilst half of Israel consists of the Negev desert and the Judean desert is also extensive there’s a lot of Israel that isn’t just desert too :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Israel
& https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_of_Israel
Note that the early Jewish pioneers and refugees planted pine forests among other things that made a formerly neglected wasteland bloom.
But when will the Palestinians recognise their own humanity and the humanity of the Israelis they keep attacking and brain-washing their children to hate and consider Jews subhuman and utterly evil?
Courageous steps like Israeli PM Ehud Barak offering the Arabs almost everything they demanded only for the Palestinians to turn that down? Of Yitzhak Rabin, Ariel Sharon and Binyamin Netanyahu offering the Arabs land for peace only to get deception and renewed wars aimed at exterminating the small Jewish state instead?
Rights like the right to live in peace and security free from constant terrorist attacks?
I think before anything else happens all the Islamists terrorism from the Arab side needs to cease permanently and the Arabs need to show that they are genuine in accepting the legitimacy of the Jewish people’s right to live in the ancestral and culturally and historically significant Jewish homeland and that the Arab side is serious about wanting co-existence and peace. What serious concessions and peace offers have Hezbollah, Hamas and the PLO ever made?
@#11 :
Read more: https://proxy.freethought.online/singham/2016/04/15/a-historic-moment-in-yesterdays-democratic-debate/#ixzz45xhCNIC9
See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_National_Fund#Afforestation
@ 11 StevoR
“Pioneers”?! I thought the area had always been Jewish since forever and ever. Your propaganda is slipping Stevo.
@ ^ There have been different Jewish pioneers of different parts of Israel and at different times as should be obvious to those who know Israeli history :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel
I’ve never said “forever and ever” only for most of history -- certainly since the Davidic kingdom and thousands of years before Mohammad the Dark Age warlord and founder of Islam was born and unleashed his imperialist (Sultanate-ist? Khalifate~ist?) invading armies to conquer the neighbouring lands. The Jewish people have had a long and continuous presence in Israel since recorded history really began.
A lot of specifically Ashkenazim Jews have since made Aliyah* (“ascent” -- return from “diaspora” exile to Israel, the traditional Jewish homeland) and in doing so pioneered, reforested and made habitable places that were often barren and uninhabited following centuries of Ottoman ruled Arab neglect and abandonment.** Those were the “pioneers” who I was referring to in #11.
* See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah#Zionist_Aliyah_.281882_on.29
* Contemprary records such as Mark Twain’s observations during his travels in israel during the ottoman era :
@ 15 StevoR
I feel a little bit guilty, like shooting fish in a barrel.
source: freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2014/05/06/us-hypocrisy-on-open-display-in-ukraine/#comment-2033746
source: freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2014/04/26/the-israel-palestinian-issue-in-rap/#comment-1994653
source: freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2014/09/02/israel-illegally-annexes-even-more-palestinian-land/#comment-2888039
source: freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2014/05/07/is-israel-more-like-apartheid-south-africa-or-colonial-algeria/#comment-2033793
All bolding mine.
By the way, Stevo; there’s a handy graphic on Wikipedia that shows political control of Jerusalem over time.
See the blue bits? That’s Jewish control. It’s not exactly “most of history” is it?
Now see the green bits? That’s Muslim control. See how it is indeed most of history over the past 1,400 years?
Maybe that will give you a new perspective on why Muslim Palestinians view Palestine as their homeland.
@15, to be more complete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah
(Etc…)
Yes, I meant that she was she became much more progressive on the matter relative to her earlier position. She used to be with Israel to the hilt, only recently has she had to moderate this stance somewhat.
______________
I wasn’t disputing whether Lenin said those words, I was disputing whether those words were correct. That is, I dispute that the goal of socialism is necessarily communism. You know, the point you then make in reply, as if I hadn’t already said just that.
But your next passage really demonstrates that you aren’t arguing honestly, yet again. In reply to #5, which makes the point that it is a matter of religious mandate to Israelis that they inhabit that particular part of the world, you spout a complete irrelevence:
Who gives a flying fuck whether ‘desert’ accurately describes the regional ecosystems?? But, well done on dodging another point and wasting time with a diversion.
Which you then continue into another post, proving yet again you can’t post in a calm and collected manner, but simply blurt out everything in random order, as and when it occurs to you, without once pausing to think before hitting post.
______________
See above, where I reply to #9 StevoR.
______________
Probably when Israel affords them the same respect, i.e. not for the forseeable future. Or are you ignorant of the fact that racism is rampant amongst Israelis, regarding Palestinians as cockroaches?
How gracious of them to offer to return a small subset of what was annexed illegally.
Except they are frequently attacked, even invaded… by Israel.
Your approach to this conflict is purely that the victim needs to stop struggling, and then maybe the attacker will consider ending the beating. You are a disgusting bully apologist.
______________
Are you aware of how the early Israel-precursors came into that land in the first place? By conquest no less bloody. Or have you forgotten their own legends that tell of what befell the Canaanites?
The Jewish tribe are only one in a long line of many peoples that have slaughtered for that land. Their claim is not special.
P.S.
Your dishonesty is on parade again when you choose a source that focuses solely on Jewish occupancy of that land.
Holms, whether communism is the understood and intended goal of every individual socialist is not the issue. The outcome of socialism is and always will be communism.
So you shoot a guy in the leg and he bleeds to death and dies. You are charged with murder and you argue it wasn’t your goal to murder him. Your intentions were otherwise.
Socialism is the shot in the leg.
This nation was shot in the leg many times long ago. Social Security is one such shot. Hows that working out?
@ ^ Holms : But when you ignore that Jewish history and occupancy that;s just cool in your own mind becoz ..well, why exactly?
Actually, the Jewish claim kinda *is* a lot more special than that of the Babylonians and Romans and British and Ottomans and Arabs and a whole lot of other previous rulers for a lot of good reasons involving their cultural and historical realities as you’d know if you knew and appreciated any real history here.
Except factcheck here. NO Certainly not for no reason or unprovoked. You can’t really invade ladn you already own and self defense is always a legitimate cassus belli. Here’s a hint for your Arabist mates, stop the terorist shit and the indiscriminate firing of rockets at civilians and , hey, guess what? You probably won’t get wars inresponse to, well, you doing that stuff.
What a flawed and erroneous premise you spout there. And how it dodges the question yet again.
No Israel’s occupation of its old lands of Judea and Samaria is not illegal and it was indeed more than extraordinarily gracious and generous of the Israeli side to offer its defeated genocide -seeking Arab foes who already have about a metric shit-tonne plus of territory under their control (Cough, Jordan, Gaza, Syria, Egypt, etc… ) anything at all. Let alone about 95% of their ridiculously unrealistic ambit claim. How self-destructively, hatefully bonkers do you have to be to turn that down? Seriously, please do tell.
Oh yeah, coz the language the Arabs use against the Jewish state is so wonderfully calm and measured and non-prejudicial and shit huh? What a schmuck you are.
Also, you do seem to have totally missed the point and historical objective facts I referred to there about y’know all those peace offers and Israel giving up so much land already for so little and with such horrific results yet again. Hey, Holms, what do you think happened when Israel voluntarily exited Gaza again -- forcing its own people out for peace and the Arab’s sake, precisely and whose fault do you think that was? How do explain what happened next there exactly and out of morbid curiosity how are you planing on making that Israel’s fault somehow eh?
People who pedantically give a toss about factual accuracy maybe?
A category it seems that does not include you.
Yet you actually neither said that nor provided any supporting evidence to back up what you said. Par for your course, or so I’ve found from experience in discussing stuff with you.
Nothing wrong with her old position nor really reason for her to change. Most US citizens aren’t on the Far Left Israel-bashing fringe and see things a lot more clearly than you among others here do so. Good for her. All the more reason to support Hillary Clinton as POTUS. Of course, the alternatives -- realistic alternatives that is (i.e. not Sanders) -- are even more supportive of Israel’s current policy directions than she is. Except maybe Trump -- who knows what dafuck Trump really thinks or wnats or will do. Ya gunna support him then Holms?
Wrong. All governments contain elements of socialism, because all governments require it to exist at all. The question is only to what extent the government adops socialistic policies, and the world shows that this leads to communism in only a small minority of cases.
______________
And yet not any more special than the people that lived there already, i.e. the Palestinians. Certainly not so special that they get to annex whatever land they wish.
And it has been demonstrated time and time again that you have been single-mindedly ignoring all history that is not in accord with your pro-Israel bias.
Amazing. If they already owned the land, why did they need to bulldoze so many houses? Oh right, the Palestinians sneakily put their own building on the land that Israel never ceased owning in absentia for about two thousand years.
And no, the pretense of self defense is falsified in the event that you are the attacker.
You continue the libel that I am allied or friendly with the terrorists. This demonstrates yet again your complete indifference to honesty, and also puts your simplistic morality on display. I am not the friend of Hamas or whatever just because I criticise Israel.
As for the substance of that quoted text, I could just as easily say “Here’s a hint for your Israeli mates, stop the annexation shit and the indiscriminate dropping bomb on civilians and , hey, guess what? You probably won’t get rockets inresponse to, well, you doing that stuff.”
Again, you have the craven mentality of the sycophant sucking up to the school bully: “he is only stomping on you because you are defending yourself! Stop that and then maybe he will take his boot off your neck!”
Yes it is. The ancient Israeli state ceased to be; new tenants occupied the land and had done so for many centuries. The ancient Jewish tribe that eventually became Israel was only one among many, and they are not entitled to simply murder their way back onto the land. Your reasoning is becoming increasingly simpleminded, by the way.
Nope, offering a partial return on stolen land is not gracious.
I did not defend the arabs that are anti-semitic, I merely pointed out that the Israelis are also bigoted. Returning to the arabs and reasserting that they are bigots does not address anything.
Another non-sequitur,; it remains that your objection for ‘accuracy’ did not address the point being made.
Are you now trying to say that I need to provide evidence for claiming that not all socialism leads to communism, even though you agree with this point? Amazing. You are so mixed up, you can’t even keep track of a simple conversation. You muppet.
Odd, then, that it isn’t dead.
@StevoR#21
The settlement building is illegal under international law- that’s not controversial, there are World Court rulings, etc backing that up. That’s also an ugly way of thinking. Not offering Arabs in the Palestinian Territories anything at all is means they should either stay under military occupation indefinitely, or be killed or evicted into other countries (i.e. ethnic cleansing). If you can start thinking of Israelis and Palestinians/Arabs as full people, rather than one as good and the other as monsters, you might sound less like a tribal supremacist.
I also think you overestimate Israel’s generosity. Pretty much all the concessions have come from the Palestinian side, from the standpoint of international law. The 1967 boundaries are internationally recognised as Israel’s borders. The PLO has repeatedly agreed to grant Israel more land beyond those boundaries, and have conceded that many (if not most) West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements will be annexed to Israel in a final agreement. Those are major concessions.
Regarding the Camp David talks specifically, Israel’s Foreign Minister at the time has since said he would have rejected Israel’s proposal there had he been Palestinian. It essentially broke the West Bank into two or three parts, and kept most valuable land in Israeli control. After those negotiations failed, negotiations began in Taba in January 2001, which smoothed over a lot of the concerns. Indeed, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators both said they had never been closer to a final peace settlement. Those talks were called off by the newly elected right-wing Israeli government of Sharon.
There’s a fairly good analysis of the negotiations here if you’re interested.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/322/visions_in_collision.html
@ 23 Nick, you seem to have misunderstood the analogy. The free republic envisioned by those living at the time of the founders is dead. Socialism here has already resulted in a state of Communism without the masses even being aware.
A brief read of the Communist manifesto by Marx and a little research will prove that all ten planks of the manifesto are presently law in the US. They took us without ever firing a shot.
@22 Holms writes, “Wrong. All governments contain elements of socialism, because all governments require it to exist at all. The question is only to what extent the government adops socialistic policies, and the world shows that this leads to communism in only a small minority of cases.”
Holms, I agree that all governments contain some elements of socialism. It is upon this promissory superstition that Governments are initially consented to.
The problem is that all compelled socialism is communism in the totalitarian sense.. Where voluntary socialism is practiced it remains Communism.
The US form of socialism however is compelled. A brief read of the Communist manifesto by Marx and a little research will prove that all ten planks of the manifesto are presently federal law in the US. The Communists took us over years ago without ever firing a shot.
Mmm, and in the space of a mere two replies, you’ve already repeated what appears to be a rehearsed line. And a factually incorrect one at that -- has the government nationalised its industries? No, in fact America is one of the world’s most privatised nations, with even basic government functions licensed off to for-profit corporations.
Holms questions, “has the government nationalised its industries?”
As a matter of fact they have. It was done surreptitiously, creating the illusion of private industry when in actuality very very little private industry still exists.
5USC552(a)(13) defines federal personnel in a manner that legally defines and includes everyone with a Social Security #. If you work anywhere that requires you to submit a SS# you are working in a federally regulated business, which is for all intents and purposes an arm of the greater federal corporation. These regulations effectually convert that business into a federal trade or business as defined in Title 26.
Recently I had a local police officer admit that they are aware of the fact that the SS# converts one into a government employee.
Top this off with the fact that all these federally regulated business utilize the fraudulent federal script issued by the Fed, and it becomes clear that every person with a SS# is actually working for the greater US corporation.
When the miners historically were compelled to accept company tokens as compensation, tokens that could only be spent at the company store, they were corporate slaves. When employees today are compelled to accept the evidence of the bankers fraud as their compensation, they too have been converted into nationalized corporate slaves of the bank.
@Randall Lee
So is there any social safety net or government regulation of economic activity COULDN’T be called communist? You seem to have watered down the word ‘communist’ to the point of meaninglessness.
Ho hum, we’ve got a serious glibertarian fruitcake in Randall Lee. Not worth taking seriously, of course.
Randall Lee: Officer, do you realise that the SS# converts one into a government employee?
Local police officer: Huh?
Randall Lee: *15 minute diatribe, replete with quotes from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Castro…*
Local police officer: Yeah, yeah. Now move along guy, I’ve got work to do.
Randall Lee@25,
I understood you are a sad, deluded numpty from your first comment.
Well yes. For example, women now have the vote, and slavery has been abolished*.
OK, here are the 10 demands of the Communist Manifesto:
Numbers 1, 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are so clearly not part of US law, it’s hard to fathom how even someone as far removed from reality as you could claim that they are. 4 is clearly a reference to local circumstances at the time the Manifesto was written, hence irrelevant. Whether 2 holds depends what you mean by “heavy”. As for 5, the Federal Reserve is a state bank, but does not have a monopoly of credit creation. 7 has happened to some extent, but has also been reversed to a considerable extent over the past few decades.
Conclusion: your claim is ludicrous, deluded garbage. If you want to be taken at all seriously, you’ll need to drop it, along with idiocies such as insisting that everyone with a social security number is a federal employee. And grow up.
*Yeah, yeah, I know you’ll deny this and claim it’s been universalised, because you really are that stupid.
Randall Lee reminds me irresistably of the novel and film I am Legend, in which the central character is the only non-vampire left. Similarly, Randall Lee seems to have discovered that everyone except him is a communist.
@ Nick Gotts
Lol. I was kidding @7, but “money is a communist plot” was even loonier than I anticipated.
Let’s have a look at that then. 5 U.S. Code § 552a:
“(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).”
Nope.
On the Israel issue, if any prick tells you Jews had that land 4000 years before, the correct response is that Jews back then looked much more like Palestinians than modern Israelis. So there is no validity to a special claim for the Israeli Occupation over say the Polish Occupation.
Fixed it for you.
… because he’s the only candidate (or at least, see above, the only one who gives a f**k about politicial correctness) who has the n-word privileges to say something like that. Everyone know that if anyone else said it, would definitely get them tagged with the toxic, impossible-to-shake-off label “anti-semitic”. Trump gets away with it because he doesn’t give a f**k about the opinions of people who do that kind of labelling… which goes some way to explain his otherwise baffling popularity.
@StevoR, 21:
First, congratulations for apparently posting sober this time.
This is the dictionary definition of “special pleading”, rendered all the more hilarious by the actual, unselfconscious and apparently unironic use of the word “special”. And it’s the single worst opening I’ve ever seen to a sentence that’s trying to be persuasive of a point.
Nick, can’t you do any better than stooping to grade school tactics of calling names (glibertarian fruitcake, deluded numpty, stupid, removed from reality, ludicrous) and trying to belittle someone or an idea. I always know I am on the winning side of the argument when the best my opponent can do is engage in ad hominem.
I sometimes wonder if intellects like yours are worth explanations. So I won’t waste my time with much detail. Here is the short version. Believe what you will, it will not change the record of facts.
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes (yearly rent to maintain the illusion of ownership). Also the Bureau of Land Management. Are you so deluded to think you really own your property in the US? SENATE DOC 43, also known as Resolution 62 from April of 1933 that reads as; “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual ownership is only by virtue of Government, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State “income” taxes. We call it “paying your fair share”. Nick, it doesn’t have to be heavy, although I would argue it is, just graduated, which you seem to overlook.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes. A right cannot be taxed. ALL Rights of inheritance were abolished and replaced with a regulated privilege to inherit subject to terms that are revised from time to time.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public “law” 99-570 (1986);
Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without constitutional due process. And if the liberal communists don’t like constitutional due process then they should work to properly amend the portions with which they disagree by the lawful processes set forth therein. Until then…………
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.
We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver’s licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.
7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
We call it the Social Security Administration (conversion of all potential SS recipients into government personnel) and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank (the Fed) has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920’s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.
People are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome-Based “Education” .
So whether the planks are law in the US or not, is a matter of more than mere delusion. Again believe what you will.
Randall Lee@39,
Exactly the sort of stupid drivel I expected from you. I can answer most of it with a single, simple point: limitations on the rights of private property owners are not the same as the abolition of private property. All you are doing is redefining words and phrases with generally accepted meanings, then pretending that these redefinitions correspond to what Marx and Engles intended, or for that matter to what any communist or socialist has ever intended, when it is entirely obvious to anyone with an ounce more sense than a cuckoo clock that this is dishonest and delusional crap. I’m sure you often meet with derision such as mine, and then smugly tell yourself that this means you are on the right side of the argument. You would do well to consider that it might mean that you are simply not worth taking seriously.
Further to #40, Randall, you might also consider the following. If the USA is already a communist state, you cannot have any objection to that state actually confiscating all private property, making exactly the same goods and services available (or unavailable) for everyone, directing everyone as to where they should live and what work they should do, obliging all parents to send their children to public schools, and so forth. Your whole positions depends on the ridiculous claim that communism has been fully achieved, so nothing can possibly make the USA more communist.
@16. Silentbob : Nice to know you actually read what I’ve written. Okay, I guess I did say those things and they clearly apply as a certain value of “always” and “forever” -- you do get how metaphor works right?
To be precise Jewish history goes back many thousands of years as does their presence in Israel and of the existing claimants to their land the Jewish people’s claim is far longer and stronger than that of the Arabs on many grounds including priority, cultural importance, history of developing and building the nation and its infrastructure and environment, ethical and compassionate grounds and jewish political systems democratic and rationally based nature and the various alternatives for both peoples -- the Arabs already have a heap of other land which is more important to them and that they already control and live in and can migrate to whereas the Israelis people face being exterminated and their culture destroyed if Israel falls.
@38. sonofrojblake : Yet the point is valid and I have provided plenty of evidence and logic to show why. Yes, Israel is a special case here -- and that is an objective fact based on historical and political and other realities.
@36. John Smith :
So back then the Israelites and Jewish people had homicide-suicide bombers, fired rockets at innocent civilians, and followed supported a Jihad on the rest of the planet like the Palestinians do? Or had a democratically elected leadership and space launch facilities and the internet and were an advanced Western state with sophisticated laws of justice and ethcis like the modern Israelis? What does that even mean “looked like” eh?
If you mean there’s some genetic relationships and similarities and ancestral connections going back hundreds of years probably but so what?
@ 42 StevoR
*sigh*
The word you’re looking for in your second sentence is “hyperbole” not “metaphor”.
In your reply to sonofrojblake you don’t understand what the word “objective” means. It means something that is true regardless of opinion. Value judgements — such as whether or not Israel is “special” — cannot be objective because the criteria upon which the judgement is based are subjective.
Apparently not as sophisticated as the United Nations.
What this response of yours displays is a lack of awareness of what an ad hominem actually is. Your overly simplistic reasoning runs thus:
1. The ad hominem fallacy involves insulting your opponent in an argument.
2. My opponent just insulted me, and we are arguing.
3. Therefore, it was an ad hominem fallacy.
Here is the reason Nick did not commit an ad hominem fallacy, and the flaw in your denunciation: all ad hominem attacks involve insults, but not all insults constitute an ad hominem fallacy. An insult is only fallacious in this manner if it is used as the basis for rebutting your position in an argument. Calling you incorrect ‘because you are too stupid to be correct’ is a fallacious argument, because the rebuttal does not involve a response to your actual argument, but instead rests on asserting that you are incorrect because of your claimed stupidity.
On the other hand, if a person were to directly address your reasoning -- your premises and arguments from those premises -- and established that they exhibited abysmal logic, and then called you stupid on the basis of your demonstrably poor reasoning, then it is not an ad hominem fallacy. The rebuttal did not rest on the assertion of stupidity, rather, the assertion of stupidity arose from the rebuttal.
Here, I’ll take a stab at your reasoning as a demonstration.
Notice that the ‘plant of communism’ at the top of that quote requires that there is a policy of confiscating property from all emigrants and rebels. Your attempt to establish this point rests on asset seizure laws, but it remains that there is no policy of removing the assets from all new arrivals.
That plank has not been met.
Your reasoning is stupid. This is not an ad hominem fallacy.
#43 Me
Oops, messed some of the bolding. Oh well, good enough.
Those of us that regularly reply to you at length read your posts do read your posts in full. I do at any rate. I know you like to pretend otherwise, that we reply to you without bothering to read your inanity in full, but I suspect this is merely a defense mechanism on your part.
This really just emphasises how lax you are with your writing, that you simply blurt our whatever brainfart is on your mind as and when each occurs to you; and also how terrible you are at keeping track of the things you’ve said.
This is also a good demonstration of why it pays to be cautious in making absolute statements.
To rebut one by one… Priority:
It has been pointed out to you that while the Israelis have history in the region, so too do the Palestinians. The Arabic peoples did not spontaneously appear fully formed with no ancestors of course, which means that they too come from ancient ancestors in that and nearby regions. Every time you say that the Jewish history goes back ‘further’ than that of the Palestinians is to forget this basic fact of history: All peoples are the product of even older history. Palestinians and Jews came from the same even older forbears -- the various peoples of the Fertile Crescent, including the Canaanites.
Modern Jews and modern Arabs are all descendants of the peoples of that reagion that predate the terms ‘Jew’ or ‘Arab.’ The historical claim you keep trying to establish for Israel is bunk, based on a misapprehension of how historical teaching works.
(See how a read your drivel and then showed why it is drivel? It’s because I actually bother to read your drivel.)
Cultural importance:
Jesus fucking christ are you truly claiming that a culture can be ‘more important’ than another? Classic imperialist attitutude, and precisely the reasoning that led to European explorers shitting on, and displacing, the natives of many continents. Including Australia.
Oh! and including Israel shitting on and displacing Palestinians. I guess your sympathy for the Aboriginal Australians is a sham then? Either that, or you need to give up the idea that any culture gets to shit on any other, as those two concepts are mutually incompatible.
History of developing and building the nation and its infrastructure and environment:
Oh look, more garbage straight from the imperialist playbook. I’m not kidding, StevoR; this is specifically the reasoning that led to the European settlers deeming themselves superior to the natives: look at these savages leaving their environs undeveloped, unbuilt. You could not be a more blatant shill for imperialism, and yet you claim to staunchly oppose such things. Lucky Israelis I guess, getting all these perfect demonstrations of special pleading on their behalf.
Again, one of these needs to go, as they are not compatible: do people get to be displaced because they do not develop the land? This means you are a not the friend you claim to be for Australian Aborigines. Or do people get to keep their land, even if they don’t do as much as they could with it? This means you need to drop this argument as a defense of Israel.
Ethical and compassionate grounds:
Sorry, but being mistreated does not entitle a cultural group to subsequently mistreat another group. Not only is this nonsensical to begin with, but it also leads to this exceedingly obvious question: once a group has claimed the right to shit on another group, does that group, having just been shat upon, now have the right to do the same? Your reasoning, when carried to its logical conclusion, directly leads to an endless cycle of cruelty and war.
Your argument is essentially ‘an eye for an eye,’ which is bad enough, but worse is the fact that -- yet again -- you only make this argument on behalf of your special interest group. How nice for Israel, to have such a biased shithead as yourself strenuously doing all he can to excuse every Israeli atrocity. As Mano noted earlier, you should really look into that hasbara gig.
… and jewish political systems democratic and rationally based nature and the various alternatives for both peoples:
Sorry, this one is just word salad. Maybe take the advice I’ve offered multiple times in the past: don’t just blurt, think about what you are saying and how best to convey your meaning.
Arabs already have a heap of other land:
…So what? This does not entitle those with less to steal any at all. Or do you believe that theft is not theft if it is done to a rich person? I’m guessing not, so chalk this up as yet another exemption from logic granted to Israel and Israel only.
Here’s a perfect example of your oblivious style of argument by brainfart. sonofrojblake demonstrated that your argument was a case of special pleading. Special pleading is a logical fallacy. He crushed you in post 38 and not only do you not realise it, you even agree with and affirm it in your reply!
Mano, a post of mine seems to have disappeared into the ether. It is possible that it was vanished because it had swearing? Here it is again with editing for some of the language, hopefully this does not double post. If both turn up, please accept this version, as it has been revised:
#43 Me
Oops, messed some of the bolding. Oh well, good enough.
I know you like to pretend otherwise, that we reply to you without bothering to read what we quote and if we would only stop to read it we would all be converted by your brilliance, but I suspect this is merely a defense mechanism on your part. Those of us that regularly reply to you at length do read your posts in full, it’s just that your arguments are riddled with terrible logic.
This really just emphasises how lax you are with your writing, that you simply blurt our whatever brainfart is on your mind as and when each occurs to you; and also how terrible you are at keeping track of the things you’ve said.
This is also a good demonstration of why it pays to be cautious in making absolute statements.
To rebut one by one… Priority:
It has been pointed out to you that while the Israelis have history in the region, so too do the Palestinians. The Arabic peoples did not spontaneously appear fully formed with no ancestors, they too come from ancient ancestors in that and nearby regions. Every time you say that the Jewish history goes back ‘further’ than that of the Palestinians is to forget this basic fact of history: All populations are the product of even older populations, all history periods have ever deeper origins. Palestinians and Jews came from the same even older forbears -- the various peoples of the Fertile Crescent, including the Canaanites.
Modern Jews and modern Arabs are all descendants of the peoples of that reagion that predate the terms ‘Jew’ or ‘Arab.’ The historical claim you keep trying to establish for Israel is bunk, based on a misapprehension of how historical teaching works.
Cultural importance:
Jesus christ are you truly claiming that a culture can be ‘more important’ than another? Classic imperialist attitutude, and precisely the reasoning that led to European explorers killing and displacing the natives of many continents. Including your own Australia.
Oh! and including Israel killing and displacing Palestinians. Were the European settlers truly the superior culture, and hence entitle to do whatever they wished to the lesser Aborigines? I guess your sympathy for the Aboriginal Australians is a sham then, and you must give up any pretense of such. Either that, or you need to give up the idea that any culture is ever entitled to crush any other, as those two concepts are mutually incompatible… but then this means you need to give up this argument as a defense for Israel.
History of developing and building the nation and its infrastructure and environment:
Oh look, more garbage straight from the imperialist playbook. I’m not kidding, StevoR; this is specifically the reasoning that led to the European settlers deeming themselves superior to the natives: “look at these savages leaving their environs undeveloped, unbuilt.” You could not be a more blatant shill for imperialism, and yet you claim to staunchly oppose such things. Lucky Israelis I guess, getting all these perfect demonstrations of special pleading on their behalf.
Again, one of these claims needs to go, as they are not compatible: do people get to be displaced because they do not develop the land? This means you are a not the friend you claim to be for Australian Aborigines. Or do people get to keep their land, even if they don’t do as much as they could with it? This means you need to drop this argument as a defense of Israel.
Ethical and compassionate grounds:
Sorry, but being mistreated does not entitle a cultural group to subsequently mistreat another group. Not only is this nonsensical to begin with, but it also leads to this exceedingly obvious question: once a group has claimed the right to mistreat on another group, does that group, having just been mistreated upon, now have the right to do the same? Your reasoning, when carried to its logical conclusion, directly leads to an endless cycle of cruelty and war.
Your argument is essentially ‘an eye for an eye,’ which is bad enough, but worse is the fact that -- yet again -- you only make this argument on behalf of your special interest group. How nice for Israel, to have such a biased shithead as yourself strenuously doing all he can to excuse every Israeli atrocity. As Mano noted earlier, you should really look into that hasbara gig.
… and jewish political systems democratic and rationally based nature and the various alternatives for both peoples:
Sorry, this one is just word salad. Maybe take the advice I’ve offered multiple times in the past: don’t just blurt, think about what you are saying and how best to convey your meaning.
Arabs already have a heap of other land:
…So what? This does not entitle those with less to steal any at all. Or do you believe that theft is not theft if it is done to a rich person? I’m guessing not, so chalk this up as yet another exemption from logic granted to Israel and Israel only.
Here’s a perfect example of your oblivious style of argument by brainfart. sonofrojblake demonstrated that your argument was a case of special pleading. Special pleading is a logical fallacy. He crushed you in post 38 and not only do you not realise it, you even agree with and affirm it in your reply!
P.S.
See how I read your drivel, quoted it extensively, and then showed why it to be drivel? Hopefully you will drop the pretense that we don’t address what you say.
Hmm, two post attempts vanishing into the ether. Luckily I don’t have to rewrite it, as I wrote it to .txt first, but I will try later. Mano, is there a length limit perhaps? It was a long post, but then again I have made many long posts here.
Holms @#47,
I apologize for my error. As you will see, I have banned StevoR from this site. But this is the first time I have banned someone and I mistakenly sent to the trash any comment that included even just the word StevoR.
I have corrected it.
No worries, and good riddance.