Kevyn wrote:
Censured for what exactly? Palestine is not an enemy of the US and our stated foreign policy goal remains a viable two state solution with Palestine living peacefully next to Israel. She said nothing that supports Hamas.
Many people around the world have a goal of a two state solution. But the Arab Palestinians do not have a goal of a two state solution. They have been offered a two state solution on multiple occasions. They have refused each time so long as Israel still exists. Their goal is utter annihilation of the Jews around the world, starting with Israel.
Hamas is not a terrorist organization hiding within the boundaries of a Palestinian state. They are an integral part of that state's authority. You cannot support the Palestinian state without supporting Hamas. You can support those innocent Palestinians, such as young children without supporting Hamas. But they have no f**g to represent them. Waving the Palestinian f**g IS saying you support Hamas.
Skiladi wrote:
Hitler’s aim was to eliminate the Jews, not create Israel. Your comments are insane babble.
What in my reply led you to the conclusion I think Hitler's goal was to create Israel? I clearly stated the Arabs allied with Hitler to eliminate Jews. How does eliminating Jews in the middle east create a Jewish State?
pegw wrote:
AllSides multipariisan team of reviewers found Newsmax as having mostly lies for story choice. Media Bias found them to have a low degree of creditablity. Ditto for Ad Fontes. The Australian who Trump spilled the beans to was interviewed by at least 6 journalists. All major networks confirmed this story with at least 3 sources confiurming this breach of national security.
The alleged security leak is supposed to have taken place DURING his presidency. The president has the ultimate authority over what is or is not to be kept secret. So even if the conversation took place, and even if it revealed more than any teenage geek could easily find on line; it still would have been well within the powers of the president.
How many news agencies regurgitated the story has no bearing on its substance. Nor do news agencies confirm the veracity of stories anymore before reporting them.
Ri-chard wrote:
quote:
Under the Ottoman Empire, Palestinians were everyone who lived in Palestine. There were Arab Palestinians, Jewish Palestinians, Christian Palestinians, Zoroastrian Palestinians, and more. Jews lived in what was then called Palestine long BEFORE the Balfour agreement.
And for centuries in this area they traded with each other, shared sk**l sets, respected each other's customs and religious beliefs until the European jews came to this area after WWII.
Today and unknown to the Americans, the blood lines of those deciduous Christians and Jews are living in Iran and openly practice their religions.
quote: br Under the Ottoman Empire, Palestinians w... (
show quote)
Only the Ottoman Empire restricted Arabs from decimating the Jews in Palestine. Between WWI and WWII there were more and more incidents of violence and murdering of Jews by Arabs. The Arabs allied with Hitler for the purpose of eliminating the Jews. All this happened BEFORE the European Jews displaced by the war flocked home to Israel.
As for Iran's freedom of religion in Iran,
you are dreaming.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/what-its-like-to-be-a-christian-in-iran/a-19002952https://www.opendoors.org/en-US/persecution/countries/iran/https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.iranintl.com/en/202309114111
Ri-chard wrote:
The ultimate aim of The Protocols of The Learned E... (
show quote)
Under the Ottoman Empire, Palestinians were everyone who lived in Palestine. There were Arab Palestinians, Jewish Palestinians, Christian Palestinians, Zoroastrian Palestinians, and more. Jews lived in what was then called Palestine long BEFORE the Balfour agreement.
After the WWI, the region was divided between European nations, especially France and England. In the French territory the Jews were expelled. Then the English divided their territory into east and west Palestine, with the eastern side getter the larger portion. East Palestine became Iraq. The Arabs of east Palestine expelled the jews. The Arabs of west Palestine didn't want to share with the Jews so west Palestine was again divided. The larger portion became Jordan. Jordan expelled the Jews. Then came one more division of the remaining Palestine into Arab Palestine, the more valuable coastal region; and Jewish Palestine, which was renamed Israel. Despite the Jews getting the mostly barren region, they made the most of it and today from the air it appears as an island of green in a sea of brown. When they were attacked by a coalition of Arab States led by Egypt and Syria, they won the war and gained large amounts of territory. Unlike other nations who've won territory in war, they gave back nearly all the territory to the losing side.
And if you believe the Jews made up their history, why do all ancient digs confirm the supposed invented history?
jimpack123 wrote:
From a far right News media that lies more than FoxNews use to I find that it is Funny
So you don't like who is carrying the message. But what do you think about the message itself instead of who is carrying it? And can you back up wh**ever you think is the t***h?
db wrote:
your ignorance is always amusing. If you have more money then the price goes up to what people will pay for it. If people don't have money the cost should go down. Corporations are getting money from taxpayers they are now stealing it, government is giving to to them.
Try going shopping and telling the store manager you don't have the money and see how much the price is lowered.
The price goes up when demand is greater than supply. It goes down when demand is less than supply. But understand the dollar itself changes value and is worth less the higher the inflation. So what appears to be a higher price may only reflect the lower value of the dollar.
Airforceone wrote:
How does this cause inflation when you put money in the hands of the largest number of consumers.
How about Trumps wealthy tax cuts that cost over $2.4 trillion to the debt ceiling. After that tax cuts this country started to loose jobs. But I am sure you never bothered to fact check that issue. $9 billion in the hands of people that actually spend it that seems like a win win. But it’s okay I know your ignorant to facts
Now inflation is caused by the corporate elite raising prices on goods faster than wages increase.
This is why your cut and paste is ignorant to what actually cause inflation.
So please stop showing your ignorance.
How does this cause inflation when you put money i... (
show quote)
You are correct that adding wealth to the economy doesn't lead to inflation. But taking money from some to give to others is NOT adding wealth. It is redistributing it. And in each redistribution, some is siphoned off, even with no corruption, to pay for managing the distribution.
Trump's tax cuts increased revenue while at the same time reducing the taxes of small businesses and the middle class. And yes it reduced taxes for large businesses too. Businesses expanded within the borders of our country and there were lots of new start ups. There was a reduction in outsourcing. All of this added private sector jobs, which increased revenue. Spending taxpayers money does not reduce inflation. Adding jobs paid for by taxpayers does not reduce inflation or increase revenue.
Milosia2 wrote:
* Capitalism under f*****t states is extremely regulated***
This doesn’t make any sense.
The Point of a F*****t state , is to have zero regulations.
And to not be regulated by Any government.
This makes me think you haven’t got a clue , as to , what you’re even talking about.
What f*****t State has ever had zero, or even less regulation than the average? Did f*****t N**I Germany have less regulation? Did f*****t Mussolini's Italy have less regulation? Those who believe you can have totalitarian systems through deregulation must have brains like pretzels. Do you also believe that rain causes drought and snow causes heat waves?
straightUp wrote:
I agree, although I would say the bombardment of misinformation agitates them and it's the critical but laborious explanations as to why the information is false is what put their little minds to sleep. We've both been called "long winded" because of this. I'm sure you've been accused of "bloviating" that's a popular word among the i***ts on the right. It basically means they didn't read your post because it's too many words for them given their lack of interest in anything you have to say.
This has become a tactic on the right... the flood of misinformation. Another reason to cite social media as an enabler. There's an international alarm right now over this as media giants and their fact-checkers struggle to keep up with the volume of misinformation.
I think one significant component to the problem is that misinformation sells. Right wing commentary has been the most lucrative market for media content for years, largely because of it's appeal to emotion and because the emotional appeal itself lessens the need to actually make logical sense... so the content can be tailored for simple minds. The content can therefore be consumed quickly, while the emotional appeal creates an addiction that keeps the victims coming back for more.
I think our best hope is education. The more people understand about how systems work the less susceptible they will be to misinformation. Of course the American Right is already there trying to block that road, defunding public education with charter (corporate) schools and home school options where children are chained to the teachings of i***t parents.
Misinformation is a massive problem for which there is no easy answer.
I agree, although I would say the bombardment of m... (
show quote)
And who gave those media giants and fact checkers the job of deciding what was acceptable information to be available for the masses? Even if it were true that constitutional conservatives are disseminating false information, it isn't the job of the media to decide what info is going to be allowed or not.
Explain how "misinformation is a massive problem?" What massive harm is caused by information which is out of line with an approved narrative? Will hearing opposing viewpoints cause people's heads to explode? Instead of either censoring the opposing viewpoint or telling people what they should believe, let people resolve the confusion of what is or isn't true for themselves.
Charter schools are public schools. Nor are district public schools defunded to pay for charter public schools. If a student's family moves from district A to district B, the money the government paid for that student goes from the district A school to the district B school he now attends. If he switches from a district public school to a charter public school, the money again follows the student. No one is being defunded. The emotional message that our schools are being defunded is believed by those too gullible to check facts for themselves or to base their conclusions on logic.
straightUp wrote:
Soros is a boogeyman for the right. As a philanthropist, he invests in efforts to improve the human condition, which is often at odds with the quest for profit. Because of this, plutocrats oppose his actions. And because the American Right has become the easiest faction in our democracy for them to influence, they have used his history of once being associated with the N**i party when he was an adolescent as the catalyst to create a wave of opposition to anything he does. It's debatable whether he has actually damaged anything at all.
In contrast, the Koch Brothers have. After creating a fortune from raising cattle on public lands, they have funded the war against any efforts to protect the environment (another enemy of profit). The Koch Brothers have been one of the most damaging influences on American politics, not to mention the resulting harm to the health and welfare of the American people.
Soros is a boogeyman for the right. As a philanthr... (
show quote)
So how does deprosecution and decarceration improve the human condition. Does rampant crime in minority communities harm plutocrats? Or does it harm the minorities who live in those communities.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/george-soross-bad-betThe way you reference public lands you must not live in rural western America. Obama tried to take a chunk of land available for private ownership in AZ and make it public lands. Those who live in eastern states, where only a fraction of the land is public, or in urban environments, applauded the move. They couldn't understand why rural westerners were so angry and concluded we must just h**e the environment. My State has about 12% of land available for private ownership. All else is government land. Out of the available for private ownership are steep mountains and deserts, are cities, towns, suburbs, and residential rural homes. Land suitable for grazing, which isn't in high demand for other uses, is slight. The only way beef can be kept in the grocery stores is for cattle to be grazed on public lands. Permits to do so aren't free. If the l*****ts and environmentalists want to remove millions of acres from private to public, why not volunteer eastern states instead of a state which has so little land available for private ownership.
But in any case, the Koch family didn't get wealthy off cattle but off oil.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/george-soross-bad-bet
straightUp wrote:
It has also failed many times. You don't remember taxpayers bailing out banks and corporations? did you not learn about the social programs that kept people alive after capitalism crashed in 1929? Don't be such a useful i***t. These are economic systems that should be treated objectively, like block and tackle, not revered or despised like religious beliefs.
Bail outs aren't a sign of capitalism, but of mercantilism. In a capitalist society the banks would have had to sink or swim on their own merit. Yes there were some benefits to people, mostly short term, from the New Deal. But not all was good, especially long term. It took WWII to pull us out of the depression.
Milosia2 wrote:
We have never had either here.
We do have socialist tendencies.
But these are agreed by the people.
For the people.
This is different than being forced to wait in line for toilet paper.
Consent of the governed throws c*******m out on its ass. As should unregulated capitalism .
Unregulated capitalism, also known as
F*****m .
Corporations telling the government what to do,
Also known as F*****m .
We are headed toward being a
Constitutional Authoritarian government.
Whereby , the government works to protect the rich and Corporate.
How far are we from that today ??????
We essentially have no Supreme Court .how did that happen ??????
Now caught red handed lying c***ting and stealing .
They look you right in the eye and say
They’re Innocent !!!!!
Ha !
Highest court in the land , Now a cesspool used for marinating chief justices in money .
We have never had either here. br We do have socia... (
show quote)
You say unregulated capitalism is f*****m. Capitalism under f*****t states is extremely regulated. Take Germany under the National Socialists. Businesses had to get permits to operate. They then had to purchase their supplies or equipment from who the government told them to. They had to produce what and how much the government told them. They were told who they could or couldn't hire. They could have any portion of their goods, equipment, or even buildings confiscated with no reason given. They were told who they could sell to. They had high taxes. But they were still officially the owners of their businesses. That is hardly unfettered capitalism.
F*****m is one form of socialism. The means of production is controlled by the government. In c*******m, another form of socialism. The means of production is owned by the government. In capitalism the means of production is privately owned. But you have left out mercantilism, often confused with capitalism. Under mercantilism, the government protects certain businesses at the expense of others and their employees. The time of the Baron Robbers was one of almost unfettered mercantilism. In recent times, a blatant example is government bailouts of favored companies while letting others sink. True capitalism would allow them to rise or fall by their own merit.
IdahoLady wrote:
Not responding to anyone just my opinion. Why did the left love Trump until he ran for President? Because he ran as a Republican that is why. He was there best friend until then. You do know that Opra (sp) asked him years ago if he was going to run and he told her no. Not unless the country need me. We needed him and he ran. Then the left h**es him.
The left and RINOs h**e him because he threatened their gravy train.
Bad Bob wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rules-donald-trump-defrauded-202326707.html
Where did the judge get his figures from? Forbes, Palm Beach real estate experts, and the IRS all agree with the value the Trump organization have on their documents. Forbes says $350 million. Palm Beach real estate experts say more than $200 million. Property taxes weren't paid for a $19 million dollar property.
If this judge's ruling stands, NY will suffer from the loss of Trump businesses. Other businesses peripheral to the Trump businesses will suffer. Employees will be out of work. Partners will have their business pulled out from under them when they are dissolved or when Trump loses the license which allows the business to operate in NY. Revenue in both NY and Palm Beach will drop. Palm Beach will have to return taxes based on hundreds of million of dollars in property value down to $19 million in property value. Employees at Mar a Lago and many Palm Beach jobs which wouldn't exist without Mar a Lago will lose their jobs.
And these are just the ramifications I can see immediately off the top of my head.
Is getting something, anything, on Trump really worth it?