***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[True Blues]

I dunno if you should base your whole outlook on a friend who spoke to some Palestinians

Look up pallywood. There's a giant PR war fought.

I'm sure Israelis to plenty of terrible things, but there's two sides. Hamas stores rockets in civilian area's on purpose. They want citizens bombed so they can go on the PR battle.

Either way all I'm saying is I think carter is biased and you could find better books. That's it. You can be knowledgable and biased at the same time. People on both sides are.

I hope I made it clear that my outlook on the matter wasn't changed, his was.

My training in conflict management is limited compared to other disciplines in Political Science, so I don't want to offer a definitive opinion either way. I will say three things, though:
1. UN Resolution 181 (1949) probably transferred too much land to Israel.
2. Concessions need to be made from leadership on both sides, but religious extremism makes compromise difficult-- particularly given the historic antipathy between Israeli-Palestine (that is, you grow to hate the other side not knowing why).
3. Much of what we read/see/hear in the popular discourse regarding the conflict is filtered through a pro-Israeli lens (for reasons that have been discussed in similar threads on NT and elsewhere).

 

[Kimchi Papi]

lol those are quotes. It was just the first link that popped up in google.

Fox news didnt make up quotes from jimmy carter's staff .

The top part is all my own words before i even looked for the quotes

Are you sure Fox didn't make them up?

Glad you took my rebuttal in stride...A lot of guys in this thread (& others) take things so got damn defensively...

 

[david bowman]

I hope I made it clear that my outlook on the matter wasn't changed, his was.
My training in conflict management is limited compared to other disciplines in Political Science, so I don't want to offer a definitive opinion either way. I will say three things, though:
1. UN Resolution 181 (1949) probably transferred too much land to Israel.
2. Concessions need to be made from leadership on both sides, but religious extremism makes compromise difficult-- particularly given the historic antipathy between Israeli-Palestine (that is, you grow to hate the other side not knowing why).
3. Much of what we read/see/hear in the popular discourse regarding the conflict is filtered through a pro-Israeli lens (for reasons that have been discussed in similar threads on NT and elsewhere).

Ehh. Everyone is biased. But fox is on another level its common knowledge.


I dont know how much of a pro Israel bias there is world wide

In America? Yes there is. But every other outlet always shows the jews as being the ones at fault. When i watch BBC i do not get a pro israel vibe

Think about it you got african countries involved in their own genocide denouncing israel at the UN. That takes balls.

Most times the war ends we hear about media backlash. So so america is super biased. But most of the world is biased to in the other.direction

You hear more criticism about israel, syria, or the congo?

 

[rashi]

The stuff you listed doesn't really have much to do with his term right?
I think his point was that carter is a known Muslim sympathizer. He's been accused of being anti Semitic a bunch of times. Just not an unbiased view of the conflict. I've read parts of that lobbiest book and it's a much more important and unbiased than anything carter could say.
I remember when he said that Israel shouldn't be a Jewish nation because "only" 80 percent of the nation was Jewish. Meanwhile there are over 50 nations where Islam is the official religion. Most of those countries have citizens with other religions. But of course Jimmy has no issue with that.

Anyone who says anything against the Zionist regime or AIPAC is labeled a "Anti-Semite".

Overlooking the fact that Carter was president, doesnt discredit his knowledge on the Middle East, I was actually surprised how well written and how much info it had. Granted, I knew a lot of it, but it was an interesting read. Conservatives have said he "plagiarized" the book, but like I said, anyone who had previous knowledge already knew a lot of the info.

My training in conflict management is limited compared to other disciplines in Political Science, so I don't want to offer a definitive opinion either way. I will say three things, though:
1. UN Resolution 181 (1949) probably transferred too much land to Israel.
2. Concessions need to be made from leadership on both sides, but religious extremism makes compromise difficult-- particularly given the historic antipathy between Israeli-Palestine (that is, you grow to hate the other side not knowing why).
3. Much of what we read/see/hear in the popular discourse regarding the conflict is filtered through a pro-Israeli lens (for reasons that have been discussed in similar threads on NT and elsewhere).

You have to understand something. Zionism is a nationalistic political movement, there will be no concessions. Zionism wants to eliminate the Palestinians and I'm not even over sensationalizing the issue. Look at Netanyahu's best homie, Avigdor Leiberman, such a terrible human being. The man wants rid Palestine of Arabs.

 

[david bowman]

oh stop it. if they wanted to eliminate them they could in about 3 days

and lets say you are right and they do want to exterminate them. Are you going to argue that Hamas wouldn't kill everyone in Israel if they had the means? Their entire existence is to destroy israel. 

meanwhile the palestinians are used by governments like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria as a distraction. You really think israel the root of alllll their misery lol. Not their own repressive governments who still kill gays in the middle of the street and stone women. All the wealth on the top.

If Carter left the Holocaust out of a book about the Israeli/Palestinian problem then he isn't fit to talk about it. It's literally the main reason Israel exists. So either he was omitting it on purpose or he's not well versed enough on the subject to write a book.

every Jew you find saying they want to kill all the palestinians I can show you a palestinian saying the same thing. But Israeli's actually condemn their own government. Make movies saying that the treatment of palestinians is wrong. protest on behalf of them. criticize their government.

I'm sure a palestinian would be treated very well if he made a movie saying that Israel has a right to exist. yeah right. Hamas killed their own damn people in the FATAH camp during the last war. And I bet you couldn't care less.

Guess what. There is a war going on in Syria where palestinians are killing other palestinians. Where is the media onslught? 700 killed palestinians already.

700!

but people are going insane over 150 killed by israeli's and half are confirmed terrorists. People have a very interesting tunnel vision with israel. It is what it is.

This article is 3 days old. Wheres the thread? there was one when israel was involved.

[article=""]
BEIRUT — For decades, the Palestinians who fled to Syria after the Arab-Israeli wars were seen as loyal supporters of the ruling Assad family, which provided a safe and stable haven to them and their representatives.

But the bloody conflict inside Syria  is now playing out among the country’s 500,000 Palestinians, in the form of shifting alliances and heavy fighting in the country’s largest refu­gee camp, known as Yarmouk, on the outskirts of Damascus.
[/article]

At least 700 Palestinians across the country have been killed since the uprising  began, according to opposition groups. As the violence ramps up, the Palestinian community is being forced to choose sides, adding another unpredictable element to a murky conflict.

“Some Palestinians have been part of the revolution from the beginning, and some groups have sided with the regime,” said Nadim Houry, the deputy Middle East director for Human Rights Watch. “But sometimes even when they’re not part of it, the fight comes to them.”

Washington post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...8d57c6-3577-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_story.html

 

[david bowman]

Back to american politics


Norquist said that would violate his pledge, and added that Republicans who were talking about such deals -- on the grounds that they will get reforms to entitlement programs and the tax system in return -- are essentially living in a fantasy world.

"Quote unquote, the Republicans who are open to tax increases, every one of them has sugar plum dancing fairies in their head of fundamental entitlement reform, and some of them, fundamental tax reform," Norquist said, predicting that Obama would never go as far as the GOP would like in trimming programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

In a situation that Norquist compared to the standoffs before World War I, he predicted that the GOP won't budge and Obama would push the nation over the "cliff," which starts at the turn of the year.

"In World War I, everybody will tell you we didn't mean that to happen -- the guns of August -- everybody misjudged what everybody else was going to do, and how everybody would react," Norquist said, adding that the president is "way overplaying" the hand dealt to him by voters earlier this month.

"Obama has misread this election just as he misread the first one," Norquist said, adding that many supporters on the left are pushing Obama to stand firm, unlike in 2010 when he kept all the Bush cuts and 2011 when the debt ceiling deal included no taxes.

"I think there's a danger Obama pushes harder," Norquist said. "Remember the last two times we had these arguments he collapsed completely. [Now] he's back, mad."



Grover is fighting back.

 

[True Blues]

I hope I made it clear that my outlook on the matter wasn't changed, his was.
My training in conflict management is limited compared to other disciplines in Political Science, so I don't want to offer a definitive opinion either way. I will say three things, though:
1. UN Resolution 181 (1949) probably transferred too much land to Israel.
2. Concessions need to be made from leadership on both sides, but religious extremism makes compromise difficult-- particularly given the historic antipathy between Israeli-Palestine (that is, you grow to hate the other side not knowing why).
3. Much of what we read/see/hear in the popular discourse regarding the conflict is filtered through a pro-Israeli lens (for reasons that have been discussed in similar threads on NT and elsewhere).

Ehh. Everyone is biased. But fox is on another level its common knowledge.


I dont know how much of a pro Israel bias there is world wide

In America? Yes there is. But every other outlet always shows the jews as being the ones at fault. When i watch BBC i do not get a pro israel vibe

Think about it you got african countries involved in their own genocide denouncing israel at the UN. That takes balls.

Most times the war ends we hear about media backlash. So so america is super biased. But most of the world is biased to in the other.direction

You hear more criticism about israel, syria, or the congo?

Good point.

 

[7thave btn 31stn33rd st]

Grover norquist.

 

[bandit country]

Ehh. Everyone is biased. But fox is on another level its common knowledge.
I dont know how much of a pro Israel bias there is world wide
In America? Yes there is. But every other outlet always shows the jews as being the ones at fault. When i watch BBC i do not get a pro israel vibe
Think about it you got african countries involved in their own genocide denouncing israel at the UN. That takes balls.
Most times the war ends we hear about media backlash. So so america is super biased. But most of the world is biased to in the other.direction
You hear more criticism about israel, syria, or the congo?

How much money does the United States give Syria and the Congo on a yearly basis?

 

[david bowman]

PERTH, AUSTRALIA U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that the U.S. will provide an additional $30 million in humanitarian aid to Syria, bringing the total U.S aid to the war-torn nation to $200 million.

Clinton made the announcement in Western Australia, where she is attending an annual summit with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and their Australian counterparts.


It isn't nearly the same amount of Israel. But Israel is an ally. It really comes down to that

We are ally's with Britian and they committed some of the worst atrocities known to mankind. Don't hear people questioning our allegiance. And we had wars against them.

When it comes down to it Britain could be the main one to blame for the middle east More than anyone else

Fact is we have ally's and they will be treated differently. The lobby also has a lot to do with it. But don't get it twisted, The US benefits too. The Israeli weapons that are made with money from America? Well we get that technology too. And we have it tested through Israel as in the iron dome so we already know its capabilities. I assume Mossad and the CIA exchange info regularly.

I guess things can change. And one day maybe the US won't be ally's with Israel. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[bandit country]

Humanitarian aid is not the same as subsidizing a sovereign nation's civilian killing munitions.

And LOL @ not questioning Britain. You can feel free to Google Bandit Country. You're preaching to the choir. They've been burning Union Jacks in New York for well over a century. IRA speakers used to sell out the Garden for Christ's sake.

 

[i lax bro]

Whats a good rate to tax those making above 250k+ a year? Obviously 50% won't work, as seen in the UK...

"its greedy to keep what you earn, but not greedy to take what you did not."

 

[ccastro02]

just thought this was funny

 

[pig love]

 

[Nike Jordan]

[h1]A Visual History of Presidents Awkwardly Meeting the Losers They Defeated[/h1]

Elspeth Reeve 12:44 PM ET

President Obama and Mitt Romney will have lunch together in the White House Thursday, part of a quadrennial tradition in which we celebrate the peaceful transition of power (or four more years of the same power) and simultaneously watch the former foes' faces for signs of gloating or petulance. The White House says there will be no press coverage of Obama and Romney's meeting, but luckily we have a long photo archive of past presidents' microexpressions giving away exactly how they feel about the other guy. Before we get to this year's afternoon of awkwardness, here's a visual history of the awkward handshakes and fake smiles of post-election meetings past.

Big bubble of personal space. The distance kept them civil when John McCain and President-elect Obama met November 17, 2008 in Chicago.

But even at that distance, grimaces are hard to hold back.

Looking on with... not quite pride. John Kerry watches George W. Bush's second inauguration January 20, 2005.

Half-hugs. An awkward not-quite embrace between Al Gore and Bush December 20, 2000.

Here you go, big guy. President Clinton gave Bob Dole the presidential Medal of Freedom on January 17, 1997, to honor Dole's heroism in World War II. Clinton looks magnanimous, Dole looks happy. But you sense just a teeny bit of the bittersweet in the way Dole holds his head as he gets his consolation prize.

Microexpressions. George H.W. Bush looks on as Clinton is inaugurated January 21, 1993. Bush looks happy.

But closeup, he's a little more wi****l.

His lack of enthusiasm was more apparent in their first post-election meeting on November 18, 1992.

Do I really have to shake that hand? Michael Dukakis and Bush shake hands after meeting at Bush's residence December 2, 1988.

It burns, it burns! Dukakis still wasn't loving it September 23, 1989, when they met at a Boston meeting of the Catholic Lawyers Guild.

Just joking, joking, I'm not joking. Jimmy Carter "jokes" that Ronald Reagan is one minute early for their meeting November 20, 1980.

Nice enough to your face. Gerald Ford does not look as excited to be there as Carter at Carter's inauguration January 20, 1977.

Not having it behind your back. In the audience for Carter's ceremony, Ford was less cautious about his facial expression.

Revenge. Curiously, the Associated Press archive does not show George McGovern meeting with Richard Nixon after the 1972 election. But it does have this beauty from August 8, 1974:

Staged. A depressingly well-staged photo from November 8, 1968 of Richard Nixon with Hubert Humphrey.

At the inauguration, Lyndon Johnson didn't look so happy.

 

[RustyShackleford]

McCain and Papa Bush look so blown. Dat handshake Bush gave Big WIlly

Poor Kerry

 

[essential1]

Some people's lack of understanding of Europe's problems is baffling.

 

[ninjahood]

obama back on da campaign trail....for da fiscal cliff....yea, sounds like we surfing right off that *****.

 

[david bowman]

obama back on da campaign trail....for da fiscal cliff....yea, sounds like we surfing right off that *****.

It really does. Even a few of the talking heads share that sentiment.

The market's reaction might have worse damage than any of the actual cuts. The gridlock was cited as one of the main reasons we got our credit downgraded. So after another election if the world sees the same ****..... it makes us look very bad.

 

[gmills23]

Thanks bro.

 

[pig love]

McCain and Papa Bush look so blown. Dat handshake Bush gave Big WIlly
Poor Kerry

Why poor Kerry? Because he had to watch his cousin give a speech?

Those two running together wasn't a conflict of interest, oh no.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Why poor Kerry? Because he had to watch his cousin give a speech?
Those two running together wasn't a conflict of interest, oh no.

I never heard of this so I Googled it.

16th cousins, 3 times removed. Your paranoia knows no limits

 

[wr]

I never heard of this so I Googled it.
16th cousins, 3 times removed. Your paranoia knows no limits

One big unhappy family

 

[pig love]

I never heard of this so I Googled it.
16th cousins, 3 times removed. Your paranoia knows no limits

This is typical. Dude says "I didn't know that."

Looks it up, finds out it's true and comes back to say how paranoid I am.

It really depends on which article you read whether or not they are 5th, 9th, 11th, 13th or even 16th cousins. 2 or 3 times removed, it's all there. It's true though, huh?

 

[RustyShackleford]

This is typical. Dude says "I didn't know that."
Looks it up, finds out it's true and comes back to say how paranoid I am.
It really depends on which article you read whether or not they are 5th, 9th, 11th, 13th or even 16th cousins. 2 or 3 times removed, it's all there. It's true though, huh?

I looked it up because I didn't know it before I wanted to make sure you weren't talking out your ***.

And how is being distant cousins a conflict of interest?

It is a irrelevant fact that you're blowing up to be important. I DOESN'T MEAN/PROVE ****. That's why I called you paranoid