Obama or McCain?

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

can an american explain the israel thing to me please ?
why are they exempt from criticism, why can they oppress the palestinians with total support from whichever party is in power?
i just dont get it, they never seem to be pulled back into line, beyond criticism.
not condoning suicide bombings etc in any way.

lets create another situation that is using different names and locations.
the mormons brass everyone off in the u.s. as they own all the businesses in utah so everyone turns against them. after the dust up is over it is decided that the mormons should have a homeland of their own, so they all rock up in lancashire taking over chorley and settling around the big white mormon cathedral there(yes thats what it is, a lot will have seen it from the motorway without realising what it is), they then start to drive the lancastrians out of the county (this does still include merseyside by the way), we can go back in and help to build up their businesses and improve their lives, but we can all live in camps around the outskirts of their borders without a pot to piss in between us.
would that be acceptable ?
would we be expected to just sit back and take it all from them ?
and more to the point,"does anyone think for a minute that we would just sit back and take it from them ? "
would the world expect us to not fight back ?
would the u.s. approve of us being treated like that ?

i just get the impression from various news channels that israel is more often than not the aggressor over there without anything being done, and these are usually pro-israeli channels i.e. american ones.

maybe i'm missing something which is why i ask for an explanation.

 

[sotnas]

can an american explain the israel thing to me please ?
why are they exempt from criticism, why can they oppress the palestinians with total support from whichever party is in power?
i just dont get it, they never seem to be pulled back into line, beyond criticism.
not condoning suicide bombings etc in any way.

lets create another situation that is using different names and locations.
the mormons brass everyone off in the u.s. as they own all the businesses in utah so everyone turns against them. after the dust up is over it is decided that the mormons should have a homeland of their own, so they all rock up in lancashire taking over chorley and settling around the big white mormon cathedral there(yes thats what it is, a lot will have seen it from the motorway without realising what it is), they then start to drive the lancastrians out of the county (this does still include merseyside by the way), we can go back in and help to build up their businesses and improve their lives, but we can all live in camps around the outskirts of their borders without a pot to piss in between us.
would that be acceptable ?
would we be expected to just sit back and take it all from them ?
and more to the point,"does anyone think for a minute that we would just sit back and take it from them ? "
would the world expect us to not fight back ?
would the u.s. approve of us being treated like that ?

i just get the impression from various news channels that israel is more often than not the aggressor over there without anything being done, and these are usually pro-israeli channels i.e. american ones.

maybe i'm missing something which is why i ask for an explanation.

Aren't the Jews some of the most generous funding contributors fo both parties? I guess that explains a lot, doesn't it?

 

[Welton Toffee]

Obama please.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Aren't the Jews some of the most generous funding contributors fo both parties? I guess that explains a lot, doesn't it?

it does, it suggests that the u.s. are not the defenders of the free world that they claim to be, they are the defenders of the subscribing world. i purposely avoided using the J word as if you are speaking against them it makes it sound anti-semetic, or it gives them the chance to turn it that way.

 

[toffeestillidie]

it does, it suggests that the u.s. are not the defenders of the free world that they claim to be, they are the defenders of the subscribing world. i purposely avoided using the J word as if you are speaking against them it makes it sound anti-semetic, or it gives them the chance to turn it that way.

Reidy to a large extent i agree with you. Israel are a developed nation, and industrial democracy, which means there's absolutely no need to send them the billions of dollars that we do send in aid money. I don't really view either side of the issue as correct, its a conflict fuel by both religion and hatred, and when either of those are present on both sides, the best thing to do is always not to get involved.

That being said, the palestinian government is rather insane. Part of the reason is that, in response to the many things the israeli's have done to them over the years, as a defense mechanism the people have pretty much chosen the most insane radicals they can. If you look into it (i'll try to find links in a bit), the palestinian government have rejected a great deal of completely reasonable offers from the Israelis. As I understand it, many other middle east nations won't even support the palestinians (though apparently Putin does, go figure).

Also, while i agree with your assessment of how the american government caters to its sponsors, as thats manifested clearly in our drug, labour, and oil policy, i think what's more in play is the fact that with this whole "War on Terror" bollocks, the government and the american media have successfully, without directly saying it, painted all muslims in the middle east as the "bad guys" so to speak. The words muslims, islamists, islamofacists etc have been spoon-fed to the american public from day one of this whole ordeal, to the point where any action against them will be immediately recognized as part of the war on terror. Thats the reason why american's so readily accepted the invasion of iraq, it made sense to them that it was part of the war on terror because they're another middle east nation, one with muslims in it. Maintaining this pseudo-holy-war is probably also a large reason for why we're still backing israel.

Also, don't quote me on this, and Tx Bill you can check me on this, but as I understand it, doesn't the bible say that the christians will reclaim the holy land from (either the jews or israelites, i'm not sure what it calls them). At any rate, for that to ever happen, the palestinians would have to be out of the way first, so that could play a roll.

 

[Cal]

I see myself as a pretty sound president.

 

[chicoazul]

I see myself as a pretty sound president.

I would vote for you, I well would.

 

[sotnas]

it does, it suggests that the u.s. are not the defenders of the free world that they claim to be, they are the defenders of the subscribing world. i purposely avoided using the J word as if you are speaking against them it makes it sound anti-semetic, or it gives them the chance to turn it that way.

I couldn't care less about that anti-semitic crap. WWII is long gone. And even at the time Hitler's purposes were not religious. It was purely economical, a very significant part of Germany's wealth was in the hands of jews. Besides, I don't think Hitler's actions and thoughts reflect what the vast majority of religious people think.

I live in Portugal and here the religion issue is not an issue. In our history we've (christian kings, not me personally, though) chased jews in the middle age because of their wealth which was wanted by the "holy" church. And that was that.

Even during the dictatorship, which was a period of heavy catholic church's influence, the jews were never the target of any prejudice. Just like the muslims never were.

It's hard to me to accept and to understand this religion matter on the USA.

It's hard for me to accept that a state like Israel has been created at the expense of the Palestinian's aspirations to become an independent state.

We know that in the middle east the Al-Cora is subverted to fit the interests of the leaders. Knowing that I believe the american rulers should enlight the citizens about the Al-Cora. Especially because a significant part of the population is of islam creed. Instead, they instigate this witch hunt on their own people.

I can give you an example that shows the muslims are not so bad or anyworse than christians, before Portugal settled the border we know today, the kings had to fight the muslims out. Every muslim who remained in the newly won territories would be forced to convert themselves to chrisitianity. But when the muslims won any territory they wouldn't force christians to turn muslims, they would just collect an extra tax for not being muslim. And that tax would never be of unbearable value.

I say the US just crop what they've seeded.

Btw, isn't strange the christian americans hold a grunge on muslims but not on jews? After all, it were the jews who crucified Jesus Christ, not the muslims....

Oh I get it, it's not about religion...it's just greed. Greed...uhhh, hey isn't greed one of the seven sins?

 

[neonleon]

it does, it suggests that the u.s. are not the defenders of the free world that they claim to be, they are the defenders of the subscribing world. i purposely avoided using the J word as if you are speaking against them it makes it sound anti-semetic, or it gives them the chance to turn it that way.

[Poor language removed] me what a quote! is that yours Reidy? I'm gonna use that.

"the u.s. are not the defenders of the free world...they are the defenders of the subscribing world."

a peach of a quote.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

Barack Obama has a first name that sounds similar to Baracas which was Mr Ts name in The A Team so i go for him over some old git.

Thats my well thought out educated take on US politics.

 

[neonleon]

I'm not getting on that damn campaign fool!

*said in faux Mr T accent.

 

[TX Bill]

I didnt think Obama was exposed at Saddleback last week at all, thats the Republicans peddling their bullshit.

Take a look at the audience at Saddleback, it was clearly McCain territory and he preached to his congregation.

Go back and watch it again mate.

And this time, pay attention not to the audience, but to the answers that each candidate gave.

 

[TX Bill]

ToffeestillIdie.

I would have read your entire post but unfortunately, you started with "I wish Europe could elect our President."

That's liberal left wing thinking if I ever saw it.

Yes, naturally the Europeans know what's better for our country than the Americans do.

Please.

 

[TX Bill]

Honestly I don't see any sort of diversity in the american political system. Only 2 parties and only 2 candidates?

I don't see the point.

About those two, I'd say Obama. I guess foreign affairs must take a turn. This whole Georgia thing must be pretty embarassing to the USA. At least it has exposed the duality of treatment of similar situations in other occasions.

Obama would rock the american society. I think he would be a breath of fresh air to every other countries. He's black and for that matter he would be some sort of breakthrough. He's got charisma and everyone would hear him for sure. Could be a great step towards world peace.

Clinton's years were very good ones for the economy with some positive effects in Europe also. So I think people expect the same sort of return for having a Democrat in the White House.

Republicans always seem too close to the warfare industry or to the oil companies. And these two branches together are like a fox in the barn. It'll always bring trouble.

But having Bush in the White House may be as valuable as having Homer in the driving seat of the nation. So, I guess it can't get any worse.

About religion...well, this is always a delicate matter, but I'd say christians are no better than all the other (I'm a christian, for that matter).

TX when you say things like you've never seen christians flying planes through buildings, I'd say that I've never watched a muslim air striking New York City or that I've never seen a muslim starv christians to death. And I've heard of christians and jews who did that. It's a dangerous field when you come into these kind of thoughts.

Sorry mate, don't give me this conspiracy theory crap. We had it on the old TW forum and I'd rather not see unproven allegations thrown foward as fact. When it's proven as fact that those who flew the planes into the Twin Towers were members of Al Qaida and Muslim terrorists, don't tell me you've never seen Muslims fly planes into New York City.

Dangerous thought?

I'd say what you submitted above would be considered "dangerous thought."

I already know where you stand in the political spectrum. What's funny is you know less about my stated religioius preference than I do and yet you go on about it as if you do.

"I've heard of Christians doing that." Great quote. Where's the link? Give me the proof that "radical Christians" are going around and by force, trying to impose their religious beliefs on others as "radical Muslims" are. Where are the murders? Where are the beheadings? Where are the terrorist actions in the name of God?

You can't. Let's be very clear here. If there were in fact Christians going around and killing people in the name of Jesus Christ, in this day and age, it would be all over the news, the internet, the papers, you name it. It would be front page material. You know it. I know it. So why aren't we seeing those stories? Simple really. Cause it isn't happening.

I'm a Christian. End of.

We don't go around killing people. End of.

If you need to have that explained to you, then really there's no help for you now is there? But if you'd like to continue to have a go at my religious beliefs, you're welcome to do so. But I'd tell you to take your own advice in the process and be careful as you'll continue to tread in "dangerous thought" territory.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I don't want to get into generalisations about a mass populous as that would be daft. Bill has identified himself as a Christian here and thus far I've found him to be super chap and I can't really find any bad thoughts about him.

However as I've said elsewhere there are some Christians that do scare the crap out of me. James Kopp for instance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2816973.stm for those not familiar). There are some radical evangelists (they seem mostly to be evangelists) that hold incredibly strong views on subjects such as abortion and homosexuality and will go to violent means to voice those views. Sadly incidents like those above aren't uncommon as this Wiki entry highlights - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#Incidents_in_the_United_States. For the record I am pro-choice on the matter of abortion, but even if I was not the matter remains one of law in America (and elsewhere) and these people taking vigilante action on it sits very uneasily with me.

Likewise there has been similar aggresive rhetoric aimed at homosexuals. Not sure Ted Haggard will still preach that particular line but he and others have damned homosexuals in the past and given the Bible's aggressive views on gay people there have no doubt been many sermens hoping they burn in hell and so forth.

It's this that gives me the willies. I don't really care what people get up to in their private life. If they're not breaking the law and not hurting me, what business is it of mine? Yet some Christians feel the need to dictate how others live their life. We're fortunate in Britain that we're relatively secular but it really scares me that the US political world is becoming so attached to religious lobby groups that things like Intelligent Design will gain legal traction. Especially sad considering the clear division of church and state as laid out in the constitution.