• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

And Mitt Picks...

Perfect example of why you can't win in politics. The Dems leave God out of their platform. They are roundly criticized for it by the GOP for being Godless corrupters of all that is good. So they add God back into the platform. They are booed for it at their own convention.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Perfect example of why you can't win in politics. The Dems leave God out of their platform. They are roundly criticized for it by the GOP for being Godless corrupters of all that is good. So they add God back into the platform. They are booed for it at their own convention.
Click to expand...
I saw Marc Lamont Hill on O'Reilly last night and he had a great explanation for why God was removed. Basically, it is unnecessary. It is a point of disagreement with atheists. For the religious people, they don't get their faith from the Democrat party platform, so does it matter if the platform mentions God? No. It's more inclusionary to not mention God. Not sure why the Democrats didn't just make a similar statement and leave God out.

The Jerusalem part is a whole different issue though. Not sure what happened there.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Perfect example of why you can't win in politics. The Dems leave God out of their platform. They are roundly criticized for it by the GOP for being Godless corrupters of all that is good. So they add God back into the platform. They are booed for it at their own convention.
Click to expand...
The convention goers were a lot more liberal than the average Democrat is why they were booed.

ylexot said:
The Jerusalem part is a whole different issue though. Not sure what happened there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, everyone knows Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, apparently apart from Obama, the Israeli government and the GOP?
 
ElasticNinja said:
Yeah, everyone knows Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, apparently apart from Obama, the Israeli government and the GOP?
Click to expand...
Shouldn't the Israeli government be the ones to determine where their capital is? :confused: Seems kinda silly for someone else to decide where their capital is.
 
ylexot said:
Shouldn't the Israeli government be the ones to determine where their capital is? :confused: Seems kinda silly for someone else to decide where their capital is.
Click to expand...
Well, kinda silly for them to decide their capital is on land that is not legally part of their state.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Well, kinda silly for them to decide their capital is on land that is not legally part of their state.
Click to expand...
Which parts are the "legal" parts? The ones as proposed by the UN in 1947? Maybe the ones that included West Jerusalem when Israel was established after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war? Or maybe the ones that were established after the six-day war in 1967?
 
A.Nonymous said:
Israel would disagree with you about whether that land is part of their state or not.
Click to expand...

ylexot said:
Which parts are the "legal" parts? The ones as proposed by the UN in 1947? Maybe the ones that included West Jerusalem when Israel was established after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war? Or maybe the ones that were established after the six-day war in 1967?
Click to expand...

None of them are legal. Israel never held a referendum among Palestinians to determine if they wished their country to be annexed. For all Israel like they can pass a law declaring them to have dominion over the world, doesnt make it legal.
 
ElasticNinja said:
None of them are legal. Israel never held a referendum among Palestinians to determine if they wished their country to be annexed. For all Israel like they can pass a law declaring them to have dominion over the world, doesnt make it legal.
Click to expand...
In that case, how does ANY country create legal borders?
 
A.Nonymous said:
Perfect example of why you can't win in politics. The Dems leave God out of their platform. They are roundly criticized for it by the GOP for being Godless corrupters of all that is good. So they add God back into the platform. They are booed for it at their own convention.
Click to expand...
They weren't booing God, but the Israel part. Some parts of the democratic party have always been conflicted between supporting Israel and feeling the Palestinians have been treated unjustly. The whole thing was stupid on the democrats part. They have enough problems with the Jews already. Why they would start a controversy at their convention for no reason is beyond me. On the other hand, Clinton rocked the house last night!
 
I'm seriously pumped for tonight's speeches. The first two nights have been great. I think Obama's going to get a real boost in the polls.
 
ElasticNinja said:
By agreement with their neighbours, or having an outside body arbitrate.

You claim to be Libertarian, not Republican. I'm not sure why you are defending Israel's colonialism.
Click to expand...
That's two ways. And then there are other borders that come out of conflict where the victor tells the loser what the borders are. If the loser doesn't like it, too bad. That's what happened in 1967.

Why does anyone other than Israel or its neighbors care about Israel?
 
ylexot said:
That's two ways. And then there are other borders that come out of conflict where the victor tells the loser what the borders are. If the loser doesn't like it, too bad.
Click to expand...
Awfully feudalistic.
Lets not forget it was Israel who forced the Palestinians out of where Israel made their state, while performing terrorist acts against not only Palestinians but the British too.
The Arabs made the mistake of looking to the Soviets for help which led to Britain backing Israel later on (Although these days Europe is fed up with Israel).

And does this give them the right to colonise outside their borders too? Imagine if you were Palestinian...

ylexot said:
Why does anyone other than Israel or its neighbors care about Israel?
Click to expand...
Because we are responsible for letting Israel - a developed democracy harass and steal from Palestinians.
 
Hard to find a good guy in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Both of their hands are dirty. But we need an outpost in the middle east to keep an eye on all of the oil.:rolleyes:
 
ylexot said:
That's two ways. And then there are other borders that come out of conflict where the victor tells the loser what the borders are. If the loser doesn't like it, too bad. That's what happened in 1967.

Why does anyone other than Israel or its neighbors care about Israel?
Click to expand...

Then the victor becomes loser, rinse and repeat.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The name Israel first appears in the stele of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah c. 1209 BCE, "Israel is laid waste and his seed is no more."[18] This "Israel" was a cultural and probably political entity of the central highlands, well enough established to be perceived by the Egyptians as a possible challenge to their hegemony, but an ethnic group rather than an organised state;[19] Archaeologist Paula McNutt says: "It is probably ... during Iron Age I [that] a population began to identify itself as 'Israelite'," differentiating itself from its neighbours via prohibitions on intermarriage, an emphasis on family history and genealogy, and religion.[20]"
 
ElasticNinja said:
A war they didnt ask for?!?
God, Americans really have such bad information on this subject....
Click to expand...

No body asks for a war. But the fact remains that they lost. It's how countries expand sometimes. You fight a war. You win a war. The loser loses land. That's how it works.
 
A.Nonymous said:
No body asks for a war. But the fact remains that they lost. It's how countries expand sometimes. You fight a war. You win a war. The loser loses land. That's how it works.
Click to expand...

Not since the U.N. did away with Right Of Conquest in 1974. It is now illegal to invade for land or plunder.

By the way, Right of Conquest is exactly what legitimizes the existance of Isreal and the borders drawn by the US and UK. Every land that was occupied by Allied forces at the end of WWII belonged to us. Right of Conquest clearly states it and had been the common practice since the beginning of time. The fact we do not still rule these Lands directly was at our discretion and was not up for debate. We legally owned these lands and everything in them. The 1974 UN mandate would not have stripped us of the lands we already occupied as it was not retro-active.

Call it feudal all you like it is a fact. That is exactly how it was before 1974.
 
ElasticNinja said:
You dont expel the losing population when they were the ones attacked...
Click to expand...

You obviously do not understand right of conquest. At that time we could have done anything we wanted with those lands and the people in them.

It was our decision who was given what. We could have loaded every Palistinian on a truck and moved them where ever in our territory we liked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom