Obama Sells Out to Jewish Lobby
Tiglath
"U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal"
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/18/un.israel.settlements/index.html?hpt=T2
If I was voting I would not be voting for him in 2012.
Absolutely disgusting.
Preparation for next year's election obviously includes not upsetting
the Jewish vote and, yet again, sticking it to the Palestinians.
Obama is one of the presidents who has been more forceful in
condemning Israeli settlements, to hear now that:
'[W]hile the United States agrees about "the folly and illegitimacy of
continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this
council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and
Palestinians."'
is appalling.
My country talks one more time from both sides of its mouth. Just as
it does with democracy when sides with dictators for some reason or
other, the principles we "live" by be damned.
We need a revolution here and kick out the current flavor of democracy
we have, and its huge warts.
Wart: Homeland defense is apparently defined and confined to
defending citizens against other human beings slinging led or shrapnel
in our direction. Not a daily occurrence in America, if you avoid
the bad parts of town, and much as once we had a 9/11.
Apparently a citizens' security does not include preserving their
health and defending against the biggest killers of all cancer, heart
disease, diabetes, etc.
A couple of months ago English scientists manage to control the spread
of cancer, that is, the beginning of the end for metastasis. I'd say
that a ten billion contribution for the advance of that technology
towards fruition has a much bigger potential payoff than when applied
to improving our arsenal, which is already bigger than that of all
other nations combined. If we are talking about human lives and
suffering, that it, not the continued enrichment of that you-know-what
complex.
As we see friends and family die of cancer or from the effects of its
treatment, we still let these cretins in power tell us what security
should be.
And that's just one wart.
It's high time to do it like an Egyptian.
jantero
> "U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal"
>
>
> If I was voting I would not be voting for him in 2012.
LOL. Nowadays, it's self denigrating to vote in this country, at least
in Federal elections. If you vote, you're demonstrating you're stupid
enough to be taken in by bullshit.
Last November, I tore up my mail-in ballot and threw it away.
>
> Absolutely disgusting.
>
> Preparation for next year's election obviously includes not upsetting
> the Jewish vote and, yet again, sticking it to the Palestinians.
Well, preparation for elections dates back at least to bailing out the
big banks and their corrupt chiefs, instead of taking over the banks
and seeing investigationg the corruption.
Afterall, "Lloyd Blankfein is a smart businessman".
SolomonW
> If I was voting I would not be voting for him in 2012.
>
Neither would I as Obama is a real C- in diplomacy.
By doing what he has done Obama, has angered the anti-Israelis with the
veto and at the same time insulted and worried Israel by his mucking
around.
As a result the USA now has the worst of both positions.
95 Thesen
~~~~~
Obama is first and foremost a champion of democracy. Israel has an
opposition party that is strong enough to take power at a moment's
notice.
Turkey has a strong opposition party that has not been harrassed,
threatened,
or persecuted at election time. Egypt is poised to become the third
middle
eastern state with a multiparty system.
Look across the rest of the Middle East. All one party states. Gaza
is one party, the Palestinian Authority is one party. Bahrain is one
party.
Iran is a one party dictatorship.
Obama and Hilary have to deal with sovereign states which may not meet
our
political standard. The only recourse is a diplomatic barrage of
sound bytes.
For 2 years they warned Mubarak that change was coming and that he
should
select a Vice President. For 2 years they have warned the King of
Bahrain
that trouble was brewing.
David H
~~~~~~~
SolomonW
> On Feb 19, 7:29 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:50:20 -0800 (PST), Tiglath wrote:
>>> If I was voting I would not be voting for him in 2012.
>>
>> Neither would I as Obama is a real C- in diplomacy.
>>
>> By doing what he has done Obama, has angered the anti-Israelis with the
>> veto and at the same time insulted and worried Israel by his mucking
>> around.
>>
>> As a result the USA now has the worst of both positions.
>
> ~~~~~
> Obama is first and foremost a champion of democracy.
A lie. Obama is not particularly interested in human rights or spreading
democracy, it has never been part of his agenda.
John Briggs
Whereas George W Bush...
--
John Briggs
SolomonW
And also president Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Snr all had some
commitment to human rights and spreading democracy.
John Briggs
You Americans think Irony is a girl's name, don't you?
--
John Briggs
SolomonW
I am not an American.
Tiglath
> On Feb 18, 4:50 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> > "U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal"
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/18/un.israel.settlements/index...
>
> > If I was voting I would not be voting for him in 2012.
>
> LOL. Nowadays, it's self denigrating to vote in this country, at least
> in Federal elections. If you vote, you're demonstrating you're stupid
> enough to be taken in by bullshit.
>
> Last November, I tore up my mail-in ballot and threw it away.
>
>
>
> > Absolutely disgusting.
>
> > Preparation for next year's election obviously includes not upsetting
> > the Jewish vote and, yet again, sticking it to the Palestinians.
>
> Well, preparation for elections dates back at least to bailing out the
> big banks and their corrupt chiefs, instead of taking over the banks
> and seeing investigationg the corruption.
>
> Afterall, "Lloyd Blankfein is a smart businessman".
>
>
>
Our government spent some 50 million investigating Monica's blow job,
and just about six million on the Wall Street gangsters. They sold
junk as triple A-rated securities to pension funds and whoever thought
they were to be trusted, and they got away with it.
Lucky Luciano, I mean, Lloyd Blankfein, told our Congress that he had
no moral or legal obligation to tell his customers he was betting
against the subprime crap products he was selling them. And Congress
just took it. "Ok, then."
His company, Goldman Sachs, contributed almost a million dollars to
Obama's campaign.
He should be behind bars; instead he is living a life of obscene
luxury as the government cuts teachers' pay, the funding of the arts,
etc., because it has no one to bail it out.
John Briggs
But you are in America?
--
John Briggs
SolomonW
No
Why would it make any difference if I did?
95 Thesen
~~~~~~~~~~
Solomon W,
This is good. Briggs sees the irony of Obama as Champion of
Democracy.
And you are blind, Solomon.
Israel is a democracy by American definition but it is a chauvinist
aggressor
state by every other definition. Probably 50% of our allies fall into
the category
of chauvinist one party aggressor states, but we cannot pick and
choose
except according to self interest. That's the hard fact of modern
diplomacy
in a world full of nuclear hardware.
We cannot sit in judgement of Israel because the Jews are land hungry
greedy jackals who are hated by millions. We cannot sit in judgement
of
the Palestinian or Gaza Authority because they are one party
dictatorships
who ruthlessly suppress opposition factions. In an immoral landscape
we
have to be guided by our own self interest. We have to respect an
Egypt
without Hosni Mubarak and a Bahrain with a fascist King. We have to
be
practical and pragmatic. Above all, we have to keep preaching the
Novus
Ordo Seclorum to all those who lack a voice and a vote in their
futures.
Obama and Hilary do exactly that.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~
William Black
>
> We cannot sit in judgement of Israel because the Jews are land hungry
> greedy jackals who are hated by millions. We cannot sit in judgement
> of
> the Palestinian or Gaza Authority because they are one party
> dictatorships
> who ruthlessly suppress opposition factions.
Oh yes we bloody can.
In a world where a representative democracy does not make war on any
other representative democracy it makes sense to be allied to people who
won't start shooting at you because they have internal problems.
Tyrannies need to be destroyed.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
jantero
> On 02/25/2011 05:36 PM, 95 Thesen wrote:
>
>
>
> > We cannot sit in judgement of Israel because the Jews are land hungry
> > greedy jackals who are hated by millions. We cannot sit in judgement
> > of
> > the Palestinian or Gaza Authority because they are one party
> > dictatorships
> > who ruthlessly suppress opposition factions.
>
> Oh yes we bloody can.
>
> In a world where a representative democracy does not make war on any
> other representative democracy it makes sense to be allied to people who
> won't start shooting at you because they have internal problems.
Democracies don't fight with each other?
Ancient Athens made war on anybody they felt like. Some of the other
Greek city-states they faught were probably "democratic".
The War of 1812 was faught between the US and Britain, both were at
least somewhat democratic at the time.
The US Civil War was faught between two democratic political entities.
The US and Israel have very little in common. The US is a secular
nation which should not support ancient mythical land claims based on
suppossed messages from supernatual beings.
The only good thing about the arab Israeli dispute, is that it should
be of no interest to the US.
William Black
> On Feb 25, 6:00 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 02/25/2011 05:36 PM, 95 Thesen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> We cannot sit in judgement of Israel because the Jews are land hungry
>>> greedy jackals who are hated by millions. We cannot sit in judgement
>>> of
>>> the Palestinian or Gaza Authority because they are one party
>>> dictatorships
>>> who ruthlessly suppress opposition factions.
>>
>
>
>> Oh yes we bloody can.
>>
>> In a world where a representative democracy does not make war on any
>> other representative democracy it makes sense to be allied to people who
>> won't start shooting at you because they have internal problems.
>
> Democracies don't fight with each other?
>
> Ancient Athens made war on anybody they felt like. Some of the other
> Greek city-states they faught were probably "democratic".
Read what I wrote.
I said 'representative democracy'.
>
> The War of 1812 was faught between the US and Britain, both were at
> least somewhat democratic at the time.
Great Britain was certainly not a representative democracy at that time.
It was the height of the 'rotten boroughs'.
>
> The US Civil War was faught between two democratic political entities.
Nope.
The Confederacy held no elections.
> The US and Israel have very little in common.
Except representative democracy.
Which is what matters.
The US is a secular
> nation which should not support ancient mythical land claims based on
> suppossed messages from supernatual beings.
Neither does Israel.
The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
jantero
> On 02/26/2011 08:38 AM, jantero wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 6:00 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 02/25/2011 05:36 PM, 95 Thesen wrote:
>
> >>> We cannot sit in judgement of Israel because the Jews are land hungry
> >>> greedy jackals who are hated by millions. We cannot sit in judgement
> >>> of
> >>> the Palestinian or Gaza Authority because they are one party
> >>> dictatorships
> >>> who ruthlessly suppress opposition factions.
>
> >> Oh yes we bloody can.
>
> >> In a world where a representative democracy does not make war on any
> >> other representative democracy it makes sense to be allied to people who
> >> won't start shooting at you because they have internal problems.
>
> > Democracies don't fight with each other?
>
> > Ancient Athens made war on anybody they felt like. Some of the other
> > Greek city-states they faught were probably "democratic".
>
> Read what I wrote.
> I said 'representative democracy'.
Do you ever get anything right?
Definition, " REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. A form of government where
the powers of the sovereignty are delegated to a body of men, elected
from time to time, who exercise them for the benefit of the whole
nation. "
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Representative+democracy
Britain and the US both imperfectly fit that description in 1812.
There never has been, and never will be, a perfectly representative
democracy, where nobody can raise a challenge to how "represntative"
the elections are.
Gerrymandering, the influence of vested interests, bribes, etc. These
factors are always present, everywhere.
> > The War of 1812 was faught between the US and Britain, both were at
> > least somewhat democratic at the time.
> Great Britain was certainly not a representative democracy at that time.
>
> It was the height of the 'rotten boroughs'.
Your reference to internal problems like "rotten boroughs", could be
extended to virtually any democracy's internal workings to say it
wasn't actually a "representative democracy".
There never has been, and never will be, a perfectly representative
democracy.
" Democracy of sorts had existed in England for centuries - as far
back as 1432, Henry VI passed statues declaring who was eligible to
vote (male owners of land worth at least 40 shillings, or a freehold
property - perhaps half a million people nationwide). "
Nowadays in the US, subservience by the Congress and the President to
big money interests is used by some people, with a degree of
validitiy, to claim it isn't a representative democracy.
The fact is, Britain and the US, at the time of the War of 1812, had
governments where the powers of the sovereignty were delegated to a
body of men, elected from time to time, who exercised them for the
benefit of the whole nation -- which fits the legal definition of
"representative democracy".
> > The US Civil War was faught between two democratic political entities.
>
> Nope.
>
> The Confederacy held no elections.
LOL. WRONG AGAIN.
Jesus, do you actually know any history?
Just months before the war, the nation had held elections, and those
elected in the South were predominantly for slavery and seccession.
Then, during war, the Confederacy did indeed hold elections.
" Jefferson Davis was elected to a 6-year term as President of the
Confederate States of America on November 6, 1861. He was inaugurated
on February 22, 1862. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis
"Elections for the First Confederate Congress were held on November 6,
1861. While Congressional elections in the United States were held in
even-numbered years, elections for Confederate Congressman occurred in
odd-numbered years. The First Confederate Congress met in four
sessions in Richmond.
Because of the defeat of the Confederacy in 1865, only two
Congressional elections were ever held; the Second Confederate
Congress was selected in November 1863 but served only one year of its
two-year term. The final session of the Confederate Congress adjourned
on March 18, 1865. That month, one of its final acts was the passage
of a law allowing for the emancipation and military induction of any
slave willing to fight for the Confederacy. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_Confederate_States
Both the North and the South used almost identical Constitutions,
which were the most democratic in the world at the time.
> > The US and Israel have very little in common.
>
> Except representative democracy.
>
> Which is what matters.
No, the form and nature of governement in Israel and the US is a lot
different.
" Politics of Israel takes place in a framework of a parliamentary
democracy[1], whereby the Prime Minister of Israel is the head of
government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised
by the government. Legislative power is vested in the Knesset. The
Judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature. The
political system of the State of Israel and its main principles are
set out in 11 Basic Laws. Israel does not have a written constitution.
[2] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel
In the US, the President, who in practice has the power to wage war,
is not selected from the legislature - he's elected by an electoral
college, which is heavily influenced by a direct popular vote, and the
Constitution is a big factor in US politcs.
There are no religious parties in the US, and the US has
Constitutionally based separations regarding governemnt and religion.
Israel has religious/Zionist parties that exert much influence - they
hold 28 pct of the seats in Israeli legislature.
See below for a description of each.
" Yisrael Beiteinu (Hebrew: ישראל ביתנו, lit. Israel is Our Home)
is a nationalist political party in Israel. The party describes itself
as "a national movement with the clear vision to follow in the brave
path of Zev Jabotinsky",[8] the founder of Revisionist Zionism.
Shas (Hebrew: ש״ס) is an ultra-orthodox religious political party in
Israel, primarily representing Sephardic and Mizrahi Haredi Judaism.
United Torah Judaism (Hebrew: יהדות התורה המאוחדת, Yahadut HaTorah
HaMeukhedet; UTJ) is an alliance of Degel HaTorah and Agudat Israel,
two small Israeli Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) political parties in the
Knesset. It was first formed in 1992.
The Jewish Home (Hebrew: הבית היהודי, HaBayit HaYehudi) is a new
right-wing national religious Zionist political party in Israel. It
was formed by a merger of the National Religious Party, Moledet and
Tkuma in November 2008. However, after its top representative was
placed 17th on the new party's list, Moledet broke away from the
party, and instead ran on a joint list with Hatikva called the
National Union.[1] Tkuma also rejoined the National Union whereas the
Ahi faction have joined Likud. "
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Israel
And....
" Religious parties in Israel
The religious parties aim to establish a Jewish State governed by the
Jewish religious code, the Halacha. Some parties do not recognize the
legitimacy of the State of Israel and are thereby making a concession
towards their ideology by participating to the democratic electoral
proceeding. They explain it by the necessity to access to political
power to create a religious State. All of them consider the pursuit of
the Jewish colonization on the territory of Great Israel as legitimate
("Eretz Israel") and are opposed to the creation of a Palestinian
State, except Shass and to a certain degree Deguel Hatorah.
Some parties are ethnically distinguished between Sephardi and
Ashkenazi. The distinction between belonging to a Zionist party or not
exists but does not have any consequence. "
http://www.medea.be/index.html?page=2&lang=en&doc=351
xx
> The US is a secular
>
> > nation which should not support ancient mythical land claims based on
> > suppossed messages from supernatual beings.
>
> Neither does Israel.
>
> The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
Bizarrely Wrong.
In the wake of the pogroms and genocides of the 1800's and 1900's,
many Jews left Europe to go to the bilical homeland that mythology
said a supernatural being had given them a few thousand years before.
Why didn't the Zionists pick Madagascar, or New Zealand, or Brooklyn?
Well, ok, many did pick Brooklyn....
And, again, here are the religious/Zionist parties currently making up
28 pct of the Israeli legislature.
" Yisrael Beiteinu (Hebrew: ישראל ביתנו, lit. Israel is Our Home)
is a nationalist political party in Israel. The party describes itself
as "a national movement with the clear vision to follow in the brave
path of Zev Jabotinsky",[8] the founder of Revisionist Zionism.
Shas (Hebrew: ש״ס) is an ultra-orthodox religious political party in
Israel, primarily representing Sephardic and Mizrahi Haredi Judaism.
United Torah Judaism (Hebrew: יהדות התורה המאוחדת, Yahadut HaTorah
HaMeukhedet; UTJ) is an alliance of Degel HaTorah and Agudat Israel,
two small Israeli Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) political parties in the
Knesset. It was first formed in 1992.
The Jewish Home (Hebrew: הבית היהודי, HaBayit HaYehudi) is a new
right-wing national religious Zionist political party in Israel. It
was formed by a merger of the National Religious Party, Moledet and
Tkuma in November 2008. However, after its top representative was
placed 17th on the new party's list, Moledet broke away from the
party, and instead ran on a joint list with Hatikva called the
National Union.[1] Tkuma also rejoined the National Union whereas the
Ahi faction have joined Likud. "
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Israel
;-) Just that list of parties and their descriptions negates Black's
claim about the similarity between US and Israel's political
affinities...
William Black
>> Read what I wrote.
>> I said 'representative democracy'.
>
> Do you ever get anything right?
Yes.
More than you have here.
> Definition, " REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. A form of government where
> the powers of the sovereignty are delegated to a body of men, elected
> from time to time, who exercise them for the benefit of the whole
> nation. "
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Representative+democracy
>
> Britain and the US both imperfectly fit that description in 1812.
Britain at that time certainly does not.
>>> The War of 1812 was faught between the US and Britain, both were at
>>> least somewhat democratic at the time.
>
>> Great Britain was certainly not a representative democracy at that time.
>>
>> It was the height of the 'rotten boroughs'.
>
> Your reference to internal problems like "rotten boroughs", could be
> extended to virtually any democracy's internal workings to say it
> wasn't actually a "representative democracy".
Nope.
> There never has been, and never will be, a perfectly representative
> democracy.
True.
>
> Nowadays in the US, subservience by the Congress and the President to
> big money interests is used by some people, with a degree of
> validitiy, to claim it isn't a representative democracy.
Not anyone sane.
>>> The US Civil War was faught between two democratic political entities.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> The Confederacy held no elections.
>
> LOL. WRONG AGAIN.
> Jesus, do you actually know any history?
>
> Just months before the war, the nation had held elections, and those
> elected in the South were predominantly for slavery and seccession.
But the war started and the Confederacy had no elected legislatture.
> Then, during war, the Confederacy did indeed hold elections.
>
> " Jefferson Davis was elected to a 6-year term as President of the
> Confederate States of America on November 6, 1861. He was inaugurated
> on February 22, 1862. "
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis
No oposition.
They had election like that in Libya now and again...
>>> The US and Israel have very little in common.
>>
>> Except representative democracy.
>>
>> Which is what matters.
>
> No, the form and nature of governement in Israel and the US is a lot
> different.
They're a lot more similar to each other than to anyone else in the
region, except Turkey.
>> The US is a secular
>>
>>> nation which should not support ancient mythical land claims based on
>>> suppossed messages from supernatual beings.
>>
>> Neither does Israel.
>>
>> The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
>
> Bizarrely Wrong.
>
> In the wake of the pogroms and genocides of the 1800's and 1900's,
> many Jews left Europe to go to the bilical homeland that mythology
> said a supernatural being had given them a few thousand years before.
If you read about the early pioneers in Israel theywere mostly Communists.
> And, again, here are the religious/Zionist parties currently making up
> 28 pct of the Israeli legislature.
Ain't democracy a bitch...
jantero
> On 02/26/2011 11:10 PM, jantero wrote:
>
> >> Read what I wrote.
> >> I said 'representative democracy'.
>
> > Do you ever get anything right?
>
> Yes.
>
> More than you have here.
>
> > Definition, " REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. A form of government where
> > the powers of the sovereignty are delegated to a body of men, elected
> > from time to time, who exercise them for the benefit of the whole
> > nation. "
> >http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Representative+democracy
>
> > Britain and the US both imperfectly fit that description in 1812.
>
> Britain at that time certainly does not.
According to you. But the source I cited, which is just a little more
credible, says:
" Democracy of sorts had existed in England for centuries - as far
back as 1432, Henry VI passed statues declaring who was eligible to
vote (male owners of land worth at least 40 shillings, or a freehold
property - perhaps half a million people nationwide). "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7457965/General-Electio...
> >>> The War of 1812 was faught between the US and Britain, both were at
> >>> least somewhat democratic at the time.
>
> >> Great Britain was certainly not a representative democracy at that time.
>
> >> It was the height of the 'rotten boroughs'.
>
> > Your reference to internal problems like "rotten boroughs", could be
> > extended to virtually any democracy's internal workings to say it
> > wasn't actually a "representative democracy".
>
> Nope.
Well, I think you're credibilty on this is just about as high as when
you claimed the Confederacy never held elections...
>
> > There never has been, and never will be, a perfectly representative
> > democracy.
>
> True.
>
>
>
> > Nowadays in the US, subservience by the Congress and the President to
> > big money interests is used by some people, with a degree of
> > validitiy, to claim it isn't a representative democracy.
>
> Not anyone sane.
>
> >>> The US Civil War was faught between two democratic political entities.
>
> >> Nope.
>
> >> The Confederacy held no elections.
>
> > LOL. WRONG AGAIN.
> > Jesus, do you actually know any history?
>
> > Just months before the war, the nation had held elections, and those
> > elected in the South were predominantly for slavery and seccession.
>
> But the war started and the Confederacy had no elected legislatture.
But you said "The Confederacy held no elections", and I showed you
were wrong.
Now you say "the Confederacy had no elected legislature", as though
that's relevant.
But all the states had their legislatures, that voted.....
And then the Confederacy as a whole held elections, contrary to what
you claimed.
You can't get anything right.... ;-))
> > Then, during war, the Confederacy did indeed hold elections.
>
> > " Jefferson Davis was elected to a 6-year term as President of the
> > Confederate States of America on November 6, 1861. He was inaugurated
> > on February 22, 1862. "
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis
>
> No oposition.
> They had election like that in Libya now and again...
Black thinks Jefferson Davis was a Qadafi like figure, with little
support, the head of country that couldn't trust to arm its own
citizens..
Even when Lee surrendered after 4 years of bloody attritional warfare,
many wanted to fight on.
Even the victoious Union, which could have hanged the Confederate
President Davis, treated him leniently becasue it understood the
support he had in the South and the ill feeling that his execution
would create.
Every time he posts, his credibility goes further into negative
territory.
>
> >>> The US and Israel have very little in common.
>
> >> Except representative democracy.
>
> >> Which is what matters.
>
> > No, the form and nature of governement in Israel and the US is a lot
> > different.
>
> They're a lot more similar to each other than to anyone else in the
> region, except Turkey.
LOL. So now the US is also similar to Turkey.....
So we should support Turkey in its objections to having its ship
boarded and citizens killed, as happened last year?
> >> The US is a secular
>
> >>> nation which should not support ancient mythical land claims based on
> >>> suppossed messages from supernatual beings.
>
> >> Neither does Israel.
>
> >> The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
>
> > Bizarrely Wrong.
>
> > In the wake of the pogroms and genocides of the 1800's and 1900's,
> > many Jews left Europe to go to the bilical homeland that mythology
> > said a supernatural being had given them a few thousand years before.
>
> If you read about the early pioneers in Israel theywere mostly Communists.
And that's why the US has affinity to Israel?
> > And, again, here are the religious/Zionist parties currently making up
> > 28 pct of the Israeli legislature.
>
> Ain't democracy a bitch...
It is when its acting out bizarre superantualist myth beliefs that
victimize other populations, as Israel has been doing.
As I said before, the US has no reason to be supporting Israel.
The US is a secular state, whoase constitution requires a separation
of "religion" and government.
Paul J Gans
>On 02/26/2011 08:38 AM, jantero wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 6:00 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/25/2011 05:36 PM, 95 Thesen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> We cannot sit in judgement of Israel because the Jews are land hungry
>>>> greedy jackals who are hated by millions. We cannot sit in judgement
>>>> of
>>>> the Palestinian or Gaza Authority because they are one party
>>>> dictatorships
>>>> who ruthlessly suppress opposition factions.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Oh yes we bloody can.
>>>
>>> In a world where a representative democracy does not make war on any
>>> other representative democracy it makes sense to be allied to people who
>>> won't start shooting at you because they have internal problems.
>>
>> Democracies don't fight with each other?
>>
>> Ancient Athens made war on anybody they felt like. Some of the other
>> Greek city-states they faught were probably "democratic".
>Read what I wrote.
>I said 'representative democracy'.
>>
>> The War of 1812 was faught between the US and Britain, both were at
>> least somewhat democratic at the time.
And from the British point of view, we were provoking them by attempting
to limit their supply of trained sailors. Of course the US had a
different view.
But often not mentioned in the US history books is that Britain had
a fellow named Napoleon on their minds at the time and their need for
sailors was severe.
>Great Britain was certainly not a representative democracy at that time.
>It was the height of the 'rotten boroughs'.
>>
>> The US Civil War was faught between two democratic political entities.
>Nope.
>The Confederacy held no elections.
>> The US and Israel have very little in common.
>Except representative democracy.
>Which is what matters.
>The US is a secular
>> nation which should not support ancient mythical land claims based on
>> suppossed messages from supernatual beings.
>Neither does Israel.
>The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
And the country still is majorly secular.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
William Black
> On Feb 26, 11:21 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Britain and the US both imperfectly fit that description in 1812.
>>
>
>> Britain at that time certainly does not.
>
> According to you. But the source I cited, which is just a little more
> credible, says:
>
> " Democracy of sorts...
Athens had 'democracy of sorts', it also had slavery...
> Black thinks Jefferson Davis was a Qadafi like figure, with little
> support,
Ask any black man how much support he had...
> Even when Lee surrendered after 4 years of bloody attritional warfare,
> many wanted to fight on.
Some did.
It didn't change anything...
>>>>> The US and Israel have very little in common.
>>
>>>> Except representative democracy.
>>
>>>> Which is what matters.
>>
>>> No, the form and nature of governement in Israel and the US is a lot
>>> different.
>>
>
>> They're a lot more similar to each other than to anyone else in the
>> region, except Turkey.
>
> LOL. So now the US is also similar to Turkey.....
Oh dear, you're not terribly bright are you...
> So we should support Turkey in its objections to having its ship
> boarded and citizens killed, as happened last year?
Not bright at all...
>>>> The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
>>
>>> Bizarrely Wrong.
>>
>>> In the wake of the pogroms and genocides of the 1800's and 1900's,
>>> many Jews left Europe to go to the bilical homeland that mythology
>>> said a supernatural being had given them a few thousand years before.
>>
>
>
>> If you read about the early pioneers in Israel theywere mostly Communists.
>
> And that's why the US has affinity to Israel?
No, That's because they're both representitave democracies...
William Black
> William Black<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Neither does Israel.
>
>> The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
>
> And the country still is majorly secular.
>
Don't confuse the idiot with facts, he doesn't like them.
jantero
> On 02/27/2011 12:47 AM, jantero wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 11:21 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Britain and the US both imperfectly fit that description in 1812.
>
> >> Britain at that time certainly does not.
>
> > According to you. But the source I cited, which is just a little more
> > credible, says:
>
> > " Democracy of sorts...
Black is snipping away passages of what I posted, and sticking in
rubbish.
He's pretending Britain was not a Democracy at the time of the War of
1812. I had posted the following clip:
" Democracy of sorts had existed in England for centuries - as far
back as 1432, Henry VI passed statues declaring who was eligible to
vote (male owners of land worth at least 40 shillings, or a freehold
property - perhaps half a million people nationwide). "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7457965/General-Electio...
> Athens had 'democracy of sorts', it also had slavery...
Now, in a history group, he's implying that Athens was not a
democracy, because it had slavery.....
He should go out and inform all those history departments in
universities worldwide, that they're teaching the wrong stuff, and
have been for centuries...
>
> > Black thinks Jefferson Davis was a Qadafi like figure, with little
> > support,
>
> Ask any black man how much support he had...
LOL.
Instead of just admitting he was wrong in saying democracies never go
to war with each other, he wants to pretend that the Confederacy,
which he has previously incorrectly claimed never held elections,
wasn't a democracy becasue black slaves didn't support the elected
president of the Confederacy.
Why not just claim that there have been no democracies in history
until womens suffrage?
Or that there still are not any democracies until illegal immigrants,
children, inmates in prisons and insane asylums etc are allowed to
vote?
Afterall, they're all affected by governemnt, so in a pure democracy,
they should be able to vote, too.
> > Even when Lee surrendered after 4 years of bloody attritional warfare,
> > many wanted to fight on.
>
> Some did.
>
> It didn't change anything...
Yes it did, fool. That was the point I was making!
Jesus christ.
The POINT WAS THAT JEFFERSON DAVIS (presdient of the Confederacy) HAD
A GREAT DEAL OF SUPPORT - Lincoln and Grant and others in the Union
leadership understood that, and the interests of ending fighting,
Davis (and Lee and other Confederate leaders) were not pursued and
hung for treason.
What was "changed" was not getting hanged for treason.
> >>>>> The US and Israel have very little in common.
>
> >>>> Except representative democracy.
>
> >>>> Which is what matters.
>
> >>> No, the form and nature of governement in Israel and the US is a lot
> >>> different.
>
> >> They're a lot more similar to each other than to anyone else in the
> >> region, except Turkey.
>
> > LOL. So now the US is also similar to Turkey.....
>
> Oh dear, you're not terribly bright are you...
Now you're saying you're not too bright - that's correct.
Antero
> >>> No, the form and nature of governement in Israel and the US is a lot
> >>> different.
Black
> >> They're a lot more similar to each other than to anyone else in the
> >> region, except Turkey.
Antero
> > LOL. So now the US is also similar to Turkey.....
You're lost..... you weren't be able to get the reference, and still
won't be to, will you?
>
> > So we should support Turkey in its objections to having its ship
> > boarded and citizens killed, as happened last year?
>
> Not bright at all...
Uh huh, sure.
> >>>> The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
>
> >>> Bizarrely Wrong.
>
> >>> In the wake of the pogroms and genocides of the 1800's and 1900's,
> >>> many Jews left Europe to go to the bilical homeland that mythology
> >>> said a supernatural being had given them a few thousand years before.
>
> >> If you read about the early pioneers in Israel theywere mostly Communists.
>
> > And that's why the US has affinity to Israel?
>
> No, That's because they're both representitave democracies...
No, according to your own wriggling and mangling of history and the
use of the term "representative democracy", they aren't.
Here you again wilingly and blindly stumble into a giant pit, that
you, Willy, dug.... ;-))
Willy, it is YOU who wanted to hair split definitions of democracy
regarding my claim that democracies have indeed gone to war with each
other in the past, and you want to claim Israel and the US are
reprentative dfemocarcies, and therefore natural allies.
But United Nations investigators and human rights groups have pointed
out that Israel is an apartheid state.
Can an apartheid state be a considered a "representative democracy",
and therefore by your reasoning, a natural ally of the US?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy
""" The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been
compared by United Nations investigators, human rights groups and
critics of Israeli policy to South Africa's treatment of non-whites
during its apartheid era.
Israel has also been accused of committing the crime of apartheid.
The definition of the crime of apartheid includes acts that were never
attributed to the South African regime. [2] During the apartheid era,
some South African officials and newspapers compared the two states
and said that Israel also practiced apartheid.[3][4][5] Critics of
Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied
West Bank (including Jerusalem) including Jewish-only settlements,
separate roads, military checkpoints, discriminatory marriage law, the
West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheap labour, Palestinian
West Bank enclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and
access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli
residents in the Israeli-occupied territories resembles some aspects
of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's
occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are
contrary to international law.[6] Some commentators extend the
analogy, or accusation, to include Arab citizens of Israel, describing
their citizenship status as second-class.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
""""
Another source: Haaretz, "Israel's apartheid is worse than South
Africa's"
The system preserving this apartheid is more ruthless as it is
equipped with the lie of being 'temporary.'
By Yitzhak Laor
"""' The system preserving this apartheid is more ruthless than that
seen in South Africa, where the black were a labor force and could
therefore also make a living. It is equipped with the lie of being
"temporary." Occasionally, Israel's indifference comes up with
allegations against the Palestinians. """
<chuckle>
jantero
> On 02/27/2011 07:36 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> >> Neither does Israel.
>
> >> The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
>
> > And the country still is majorly secular.
>
> Don't confuse the idiot with facts, he doesn't like them.
I think we know who the idiot is here, idiot.
You've been shown to be a liar, and an idiot, many times in this
group.
A recent example, just upthread, idiot, is your claim that the
Confederacy never held elections.
Few are stupid enough to claim that.
And, idiot, do secular states have 28 pct of their legislature
comprised of religious parties?
Here are the religious/Zionist parties currently making up
28 pct of the Israeli legislature.
" Yisrael Beiteinu (Hebrew: ישראל ביתנו, lit. Israel is Our Home)
is a nationalist political party in Israel. The party describes
itself
as "a national movement with the clear vision to follow in the brave
path of Zev Jabotinsky",[8] the founder of Revisionist Zionism.
Shas (Hebrew: ש״ס) is an ultra-orthodox religious political party in
Israel, primarily representing Sephardic and Mizrahi Haredi Judaism.
United Torah Judaism (Hebrew: יהדות התורה המאוחדת, Yahadut HaTorah
HaMeukhedet; UTJ) is an alliance of Degel HaTorah and Agudat Israel,
two small Israeli Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) political parties in the
Knesset. It was first formed in 1992.
The Jewish Home (Hebrew: הבית היהודי, HaBayit HaYehudi) is a new
right-wing national religious Zionist political party in Israel. It
was formed by a merger of the National Religious Party, Moledet and
Tkuma in November 2008. However, after its top representative was
placed 17th on the new party's list, Moledet broke away from the
party, and instead ran on a joint list with Hatikva called the
National Union.[1] Tkuma also rejoined the National Union whereas the
Ahi faction have joined Likud. "
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Israel
Another thing, you flailing idiot, do representative democracies
practice apartheid.
Go do your ahistorical clown act elsewhere.
Published 01:11 08.11.09
Israel's apartheid is worse than South Africa's
The system preserving this apartheid is more ruthless as it is
equipped with the lie of being 'temporary.'
By Yitzhak Laor
" The system preserving this apartheid is more ruthless than that
seen in South Africa, where the black were a labor force and could
therefore also make a living. It is equipped with the lie of being
"temporary." Occasionally, Israel's indifference comes up with
allegations against the Palestinians. "
wiki:
" The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been
compared by United Nations investigators, human rights groups and
critics of Israeli policy to South Africa's treatment of non-whites
during its apartheid era. Israel has also been accused of committing
the crime of apartheid. The definition of the crime of apartheid
includes acts that were never attributed to the South African regime.
[2] "
Idiot.
William Black
> On Feb 27, 2:46 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He's pretending Britain was not a Democracy a
That's not what i said.
What's more you know it.
Your distortions have made a nonsense of any argument you may have had.
>>>> If you read about the early pioneers in Israel theywere mostly Communists.
>>
>>> And that's why the US has affinity to Israel?
>>
>> No, That's because they're both representitave democracies...
>
> No, according to your own wriggling and mangling of history and the
> use of the term "representative democracy", they aren't.
Well.
Yes they are, and you denying it won't actualy change reality.
> But United Nations investigators and human rights groups have pointed
> out that Israel is an apartheid state.
I love the way comentators switch from the UN always being right to the
UN always being wrong depending on which side of the fence they're sitting.
William Black
> On Feb 27, 2:46 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 02/27/2011 07:36 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>
>>> William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Neither does Israel.
>>
>>>> The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
>>
>
>>> And the country still is majorly secular.
>>
>> Don't confuse the idiot with facts, he doesn't like them.
>
>
> I think we know who the idiot is here, idiot.
>
He's off again.
Israel is not a theocracy no matter how often you say it is.
jantero
> On 02/27/2011 10:24 PM, jantero wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 2:46 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > He's pretending Britain was not a Democracy a
>
> That's not what i said.
>
> What's more you know it.
Bullshit.
Black:
> In a world where a representative democracy does not make war on any
> other representative democracy it makes sense to be allied to people who
> won't start shooting at you because they have internal problems.
( Readers should recall the following incident: The USS Liberty
incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research
ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and
Israeli Navy torpedo boats, on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War.
[2] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval
officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 170 crew
members, and severely damaged the ship.[3] At the time, the ship was
in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi
(29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][4]
Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued
reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli
confusion about the identity of the USS Liberty.[5] Some survivors, in
addition to some U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials involved in
the incident continue to dispute these official findings, saying the
Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was not a mistake,[6] and it remains
"the only maritime incident in U.S. history where [U.S.] military
forces were killed that was never investigated by the [U.S.]
Congress."[7] )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident )
From the prior discussion:
Antero:
Democracies don't fight with each other?
Ancient Athens made war on anybody they felt like. Some of the other
Greek city-states they faught were probably "democratic".
The War of 1812 was faught between the US and Britain, both were at
least somewhat democratic at the time.
The US Civil War was faught between two democratic political
entities.
The US and Israel have very little in common. The US is a secular
nation which should not support ancient mythical land claims based on
suppossed messages from supernatual beings.
> Your distortions have made a nonsense of any argument you may have had.
You said the Confederacy didn't hold elections and was not a
democracy, and I showed you were wrong about that, too.
So who's distorting what, Willy?
Are you going to harp on the difference between "representative
democracy" and "democracy", in your claim that Britain was not a
democracy at the time of thew War of 1812?
Do you actually know anything at all about history? Do you have the
capability of mounting factual logical arguments?
Are you capable of not lying?
Definition, " REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. A form of government where
the powers of the sovereignty are delegated to a body of men, elected
from time to time, who exercise them for the benefit of the whole
nation. "
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Representative+democracy
" Democracy of sorts had existed in England for centuries - as far
back as 1432, Henry VI passed statues declaring who was eligible to
vote (male owners of land worth at least 40 shillings, or a freehold
property - perhaps half a million people nationwide). "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7457965/General-Electio...
>
> >>>> If you read about the early pioneers in Israel theywere mostly Communists.
>
> >>> And that's why the US has affinity to Israel?
>
> >> No, That's because they're both representitave democracies...
>
> > No, according to your own wriggling and mangling of history and the
> > use of the term "representative democracy", they aren't.
>
> Well.
>
> Yes they are, and you denying it won't actualy change reality.
>
> > But United Nations investigators and human rights groups have pointed
> > out that Israel is an apartheid state.
> I love the way comentators switch from the UN always being right to the
> UN always being wrong depending on which side of the fence they're sitting.
Your reply is laughable and irrelevant and amounts to accepting that
the claim that Israel practices apartheid is substantive.
Here's what I posted (not only from the UN, but from an Israeli,
posted on Haaretz website:
Willy, it is YOU who wanted to hair split definitions of democracy
regarding my claim that democracies have indeed gone to war with each
other in the past, and you want to claim Israel and the US are
reprentative dfemocarcies, and therefore natural allies.
But United Nations investigators and human rights groups have pointed
out that Israel is an apartheid state.
Can an apartheid state be a considered a "representative democracy",
jantero
> On 02/27/2011 10:35 PM, jantero wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 2:46 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 02/27/2011 07:36 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> >>> William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Neither does Israel.
>
> >>>> The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
>
> >>> And the country still is majorly secular.
>
> >> Don't confuse the idiot with facts, he doesn't like them.
>
> > I think we know who the idiot is here, idiot.
>
> He's off again.
>
> Israel is not a theocracy no matter how often you say it is.
You aren't very good at using deceptive arguments.
I never claimed Israel was a theocracy, and people who have just been
glancing over this thread will know that.
I did point out that the geographic area on which Israel was founded,
and areas into which it is constanly expanding, are the same locale in
which a jewish myth book claims a supernatural being gave ownership to
the jewish people, about 3000 years ago.
And, I did point out that 28 pct of the Israeli legislature is now
made up of Zionsit / religious parties, very much at variance with US
politics and its Constitutional prohibitions regarding mixing politics
and religion.
And then, after your repeated claims about "representative democracy",
using that as a reason the US should support Israel, I pointed some
very substantive claims that Israel is practicing apartheid.
Keep digging.......;-))
Here's the apartheid stuff agian, enjoy....
Can an apartheid state be a considered a "representative democracy",
and therefore by your reasoning, a natural ally of the US?
First, a piece re. the UN, then a piece from an Israel commntator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy
""" The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been
compared by United Nations investigators, human rights groups and
critics of Israeli policy to South Africa's treatment of non-whites
during its apartheid era.
Israel has also been accused of committing the crime of apartheid.
The definition of the crime of apartheid includes acts that were
never
attributed to the South African regime. [2] During the apartheid era,
some South African officials and newspapers compared the two states
and said that Israel also practiced apartheid.[3][4][5] Critics of
Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied
West Bank (including Jerusalem) including Jewish-only settlements,
separate roads, military checkpoints, discriminatory marriage law,
the
West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheap labour, Palestinian
West Bank enclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and
access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli
residents in the Israeli-occupied territories resembles some aspects
of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's
occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which
are
contrary to international law.[6] Some commentators extend the
analogy, or accusation, to include Arab citizens of Israel,
describing
their citizenship status as second-class.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
""""
Another source: Haaretz, "Israel's apartheid is worse than South
Africa's"
The system preserving this apartheid is more ruthless as it is
equipped with the lie of being 'temporary.'
By Yitzhak Laor
"""' The system preserving this apartheid is more ruthless than that
seen in South Africa, where the black were a labor force and could
therefore also make a living. It is equipped with the lie of being
"temporary." Occasionally, Israel's indifference comes up with
allegations against the Palestinians. """
<chuckle>
>
> --
> William Black
>
> "Any number under six"
>
> The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
> Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
> single handed with a quarterstaff.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Friedman
<f9e45e0e-8ed3-4b6c...@o14g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
jantero <jante...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And, I did point out that 28 pct of the Israeli legislature is now
> made up of Zionsit / religious parties, very much at variance with US
> politics and its Constitutional prohibitions regarding mixing politics
> and religion.
>
Could point me at where in the Constitution it is forbidden to mix
politics and religion? The First Amendment merely says that "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
That doesn't prevent a candidate from telling the voters to vote for him
because of his religion, or to vote against his opponent because of the
opponent's religion, and candidates have sometimes done so. It doesn't
prevent someone from organizing a political party around a religious
position. It certainly doesn't limit the number of legislators who can
be supporters of some religious position.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
David Friedman
<ea48bd5c-05f3-47cf...@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
jantero <jante...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The US and Israel have very little in common. The US is a secular
> nation which should not support ancient mythical land claims based on
> suppossed messages from supernatual beings.
>
The US doesn't support "ancient mythical land claims ... ." The US
supports Israel for two reasons:
1. It's the only modern, developed, reasonably democratic country in the
area, and happy to ally with us.
2. Supporting it has political payoffs in the U.S., mainly in support
from American Jews.
Rather like one of the main reasons the US opposed apartheid in South
Africa.
jantero
wrote:
> In article
> <ea48bd5c-05f3-47cf-b61f-6f7bd4374...@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jantero <jantero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The US and Israel have very little in common. The US is a secular
> > nation which should not support ancient mythical land claims based on
> > suppossed messages from supernatual beings.
>
> The US doesn't support "ancient mythical land claims ... ." The US
> supports Israel for two reasons:
When the US supports Israel with money, weapons, diplomatic measures
in the UN and elsewhere, threats of war, it supports a state which was
created by the Zionist movement.
Here is the Britannica on Zionism:
" Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation
and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient
homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”).
Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter
part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the
ancient nationalist attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion
to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of
ancient Jerusalem was called Zion. "
Notice: "ancient homeland of the Jews", which is described in the
Torah / OT myth books as the land area
given to the Hebrews by a supernatural being.
Many in Israel currently base their right to lands in the region, and
expansion of Israel, on this ancient mythical land claim - the lands
ownership being assigned by a supernatural being circa 3000 yrs ago.
The Zionists didn't say they wanted a place in Arizona, Kansas, in the
then Soviet Union (which Stalin offered), Europe, or S. America, etc.,
THE ZIONISTS CHOSE THE AREA THAT THE JEWISH MYTH BOOKS SAID SOME SORT
OF "GOD" GAVE THEM THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE.
After the persecutions, including those associated with the crusades,
the Russian pogroms, the Nazi genocide, it's completely understandable
why the jews in those regions would want out, and perhaps to have
their own state.
However, the place the Zionists wanted was the ancient land area that
their myths said a supernatural being had given them, which was
already occupied by other people, instead of some other unoccupied
land area.
Does the US allow native American tribes to send people in and set up
their own states on occupied lands they proclaim to be theirs based on
ancient claims? Does anyone anywhere do that?
The question is - why should the US be supporting something like
this? I'm not advocating the US invade Israel and herd the Israelis
off soemwhere.
I'm saying it should not support land claims of a state ultimately
based on ancient mythical claims of ownership based on a supernaturasl
being's pronouncements 3000 yrs ago.
Is that dificult to understand?
> 1. It's the only modern, developed, reasonably democratic country
in the
> area, and happy to ally with us.
Of course they're happy to ally with the US. They get free money,
weapons, protection, diplomatic cover, etc.
As for "reasonably democratic", yes, if you're of the right ethnic /
religious group.
> 2. Supporting it has political payoffs in the U.S., mainly in support
> from American Jews.
Yes, many of us are well aware of New York Times editorials, and
AIPAC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC
" In 2005, a Pentagon analyst pled guilty to charges of passing US
government secrets to two AIPAC staffers in what is known as the AIPAC
espionage scandal. Both staffers were later fired.[5]
In 1984 the FBI investigated after Israeli Minister of Economics Dan
Halpern passed stolen classified US government documents to AIPAC
outlining trade secrets of major US industries lobbying against the US-
Israel Free Trade Area.[6] "
> Rather like one of the main reasons the US opposed apartheid in South
> Africa.
>
> --http://www.daviddfriedman.com/http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
jantero
wrote:
> In article
> <f9e45e0e-8ed3-4b6c-886f-d2a40f45f...@o14g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jantero <jantero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > And, I did point out that 28 pct of the Israeli legislature is now
> > made up of Zionsit / religious parties, very much at variance with US
> > politics and its Constitutional prohibitions regarding mixing politics
> > and religion.
> Could point me at where in the Constitution it is forbidden to mix
> politics and religion?
You could have answered that yourself, with a quick google search.
Since you seem to be unaware of the dangers of injecting religion into
politics, let me point out to you that at its founding, the US was
essentially a protestant christian nation.
For a long time, a Protestant terrorist organization flourished in the
US (the klu klux klan) which had very little liking for catholics and
jews.
In current times, religious strife in Ireland, the Balkans, the middle
east, India, Pakistan all point to the danger of combining religion
and politics.
Some of the original American colonies were set up with the purpose of
having one particluar version of religion in charge, and they
persecuted people of other religions.
A number of Quakers were put to death in Massachucets just for
practicing Quakerism. There was religious freedom for the particular
cult in charge, but not for any other cults.
This situation of established religions was essentially done away with
at the start of the Amerrican Revolution, in 1776.
This situation would have been in the minds of the Founders.
Also, the Salem witch trails, which resulted in the religious /
judicial murder of 20 people, had occured only 2 or 3 generations
back, in 1692, and probably also would have weighed in the minds of
the Founders.
The separation of politics and religion has never been absolutely
precise in America, but most people with common sense and a knowledge
of history, and current events, understand that the language in the
Constitution and subsequent Court rulings on it, have served the
country well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
" The phrase separation of church and state (sometimes "wall of
separation between church and state"), attributed to Thomas Jefferson
and others, and since quoted by the Supreme Court of the United
States, expresses an understanding of the intent and function of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof ....", while Article VI specifies that "no religious
Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public
Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular
government is sometimes credited to the writings of English
philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and
state" in this context is generally traced to an 1 January 1802 letter
by Thomas Jefferson, "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Main article: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
The Establishment Clause prohibits the federal, state or municipal
establishment of an official religion or other preference for one
religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over
non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the
federal government. Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the
states). However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth
century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment
and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the
promotion of religion by the states. In the Board of Education of
Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994),
Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that
"government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to
irreligion."[1]
<snip>
David Friedman
<0968f00f-db68-4a32...@t15g2000prt.googlegroups.com>,
jantero <jante...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > jantero <jantero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > And, I did point out that 28 pct of the Israeli legislature is now
> > > made up of Zionsit / religious parties, very much at variance with US
> > > politics and its Constitutional prohibitions regarding mixing politics
> > > and religion.
>
>
> > Could point me at where in the Constitution it is forbidden to mix
> > politics and religion?
>
> You could have answered that yourself, with a quick google search.
I did. There is no such principle in the Constitution, as I pointed out.
There is a much weaker principle, limiting the interference of Congress
in matters of religion.
What you were complaining about was the fact that many of the Israeli
legislators were from religious parties. In the U.S. context that would
not violate any Constitutional prohibition.
William Black
> ( Readers should recall the following incident: The USS Liberty
> incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research
> ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and
> Israeli Navy torpedo boats, on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War.
> [2] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval
> officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 170 crew
> members, and severely damaged the ship.[3] At the time, the ship was
> in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi
> (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][4]
> Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued
> reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli
> confusion about the identity of the USS Liberty.[5] Some survivors, in
> addition to some U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials involved in
> the incident continue to dispute these official findings, saying the
> Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was not a mistake,[6] and it remains
> "the only maritime incident in U.S. history where [U.S.] military
> forces were killed that was never investigated by the [U.S.]
> Congress."[7] )
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident )
>
Ah, I wondered where you were coming from...
jantero
wrote:
> In article
> <0968f00f-db68-4a32-94e1-9e775eeda...@t15g2000prt.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jantero <jantero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > jantero <jantero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > And, I did point out that 28 pct of the Israeli legislature is now
> > > > made up of Zionsit / religious parties, very much at variance with US
> > > > politics and its Constitutional prohibitions regarding mixing politics
> > > > and religion.
>
> > > Could point me at where in the Constitution it is forbidden to mix
> > > politics and religion?
>
> > You could have answered that yourself, with a quick google search.
> I did. There is no such principle in the Constitution, as I pointed out.
> There is a much weaker principle, limiting the interference of Congress
> in matters of religion.
No you didn't - you sophomorishly missed the point and apparenlty
couldn't understand the references I posted.
You looked at the text in the Constitution and didn't look at what
kind of court rulings were subsequntly made in reference to them.
That's like looking at the "right to bear arms" language in the
Constituion, and imaging some interpretation in your own mind and
thinking that's how the whole thing must work.
Again, how did you miss this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_Un...
" The phrase separation of church and state (sometimes "wall of
separation between church and state"), attributed to Thomas Jefferson
and others, and since quoted by the Supreme Court of the United
States, expresses an understanding of the intent and function of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of
the
United States. The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof ....", while Article VI specifies that "no religious
Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public
Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly
secular
government is sometimes credited to the writings of English
philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and
state" in this context is generally traced to an 1 January 1802
letter
by Thomas Jefferson, "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Con...
Main article: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
The Establishment Clause prohibits the federal, state or municipal
establishment of an official religion or other preference for one
religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over
non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the
federal government. Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education
(1947)
incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against
the
states). However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth
century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment
and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the
promotion of religion by the states. In the Board of Education of
Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994),
Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that
"government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to
irreligion."[1]
> What you were complaining about was the fact that many of the Israeli
> legislators were from religious parties. In the U.S. context that would
> not violate any Constitutional prohibition.
Again, you sophomorishly miss the point. It's not becasue they are
*from* religious parties.
It's becasue they and their parties are *injecting religious
fantsies*, like a land grant from a supernatural being 3000 yrs ago,
into politics and state actions, in current times.
Here, look at the below Isralei political parties, what they are named
and what they are about, they make up 28 pct of the Israeli
legislature.
There are also substantive claims of Israel creating an apartheid
state in Israel.
The US has absolutely no business supporting apartheid or injection of
3000 yr old religious fantsies into land grabs.
jantero
> On 02/28/2011 01:17 AM, jantero wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ( Readers should recall the following incident: The USS Liberty
> > incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research
> > ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and
> > Israeli Navy torpedo boats, on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War.
> > [2] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval
> > officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 170 crew
> > members, and severely damaged the ship.[3] At the time, the ship was
> > in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi
> > (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][4]
> > Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued
> > reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli
> > confusion about the identity of the USS Liberty.[5] Some survivors, in
> > addition to some U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials involved in
> > the incident continue to dispute these official findings, saying the
> > Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was not a mistake,[6] and it remains
> > "the only maritime incident in U.S. history where [U.S.] military
> > forces were killed that was never investigated by the [U.S.]
> > Congress."[7] )
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident )
>
> Ah, I wondered where you were coming from...
I was showing you up (again), for your ignorance of history.... that's
where I was coming from.
Here's what I was replying to:
Black:
> In a world where a representative democracy does not make war on any
> other representative democracy it makes sense to be allied to people who
> won't start shooting at you because they have internal problems.
Antero:
David Friedman
<c76dddb6-6795-45e5...@t15g2000prt.googlegroups.com>,
jantero <jante...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 9:48 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0968f00f-db68-4a32-94e1-9e775eeda...@t15g2000prt.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > jantero <jantero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > jantero <jantero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > And, I did point out that 28 pct of the Israeli legislature is now
> > > > > made up of Zionsit / religious parties, very much at variance with US
> > > > > politics and its Constitutional prohibitions regarding mixing politics
> > > > > and religion.
> >
>
>
> > > > Could point me at where in the Constitution it is forbidden to mix
> > > > politics and religion?
> >
> > > You could have answered that yourself, with a quick google search.
>
>
> > I did. There is no such principle in the Constitution, as I pointed out.
> > There is a much weaker principle, limiting the interference of Congress
> > in matters of religion.
>
> No you didn't - you sophomorishly missed the point and apparenlty
> couldn't understand the references I posted.
>
> You looked at the text in the Constitution and didn't look at what
> kind of court rulings were subsequntly made in reference to them.
And what court rulings found that it was unconstitutional for
congressmen to be elected in part on the basis of their religion? For a
political party to be based on a religion? For a candidate to campaign
on the basis of religious claims--to say, for instance, that we ought to
oppose the Communists because they are godless?
That was what you were complaining about in the Israeli context.
...
I should by now know better than to try reasonable argument with a
fanatic.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
jantero
wrote:
> In article
> <c76dddb6-6795-45e5-b594-43058abe3...@t15g2000prt.googlegroups.com>,
> jantero <jantero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Now you're lying.
Here's what I said that you replied to:
> And, I did point out that 28 pct of the Israeli legislature is now
> made up of Zionsit / religious parties, very much at variance with US
> politics and its Constitutional prohibitions regarding mixing politics
> and religion.
You're not very good at this.
Here is the Britannica on Zionism:
""" Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation
and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient
homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”).
Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter
part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the
ancient nationalist attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion
to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of
ancient Jerusalem was called Zion. "
Notice: "ancient homeland of the Jews", which is described in the
Torah / OT myth books as the land area
given to the Hebrews by a supernatural being. ""
Is it dificult for you to see that Zionism is a projection of religion
into politics and governmental actions, David?
> I should by now know better than to try reasonable argument with a
> fanatic.
Well, let's just say that you've been shown up before, and it didn't
take fanatcism, just knowledge.... ;-))
You really aren't very good at this sort of thing David....
In your preparation for "reasonable argument", did you come across
this article on former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and his
concerns about Israeli apartheid?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/03/barak-apartheid-palestine-peace
" Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, last night delivered an
unusually blunt warning to his country that a failure to make peace
with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish
majority or an "apartheid" regime. "
Speaking of apartheid (already long in effect):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy
" Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States, Camp David
Accords negotiator, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and author of the 2006
book entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, maintained in that book
that Israel's options included a "system of apartheid, with two
peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each
other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by
depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. This is the policy
now being followed ..."[159] Carter has also argued that the Israeli
system is in some cases more onerous than that of the apartheid
government of South Africa.[160][161] Carter's use of the term
"apartheid" has been calibrated to avoid specific accusations of
racism against the government of Israel, and has been carefully
limited to the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. For instance, in a
news release, Carter described discussing his book and his use of the
word "apartheid" with the Board of Rabbis of Greater Phoenix, and
noted, "I made clear in the book's text and in my response to the
rabbis that the system of apartheid in Palestine is not based on
racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land
and the resulting suppression of protests that involve violence."[162]
[163] "
But then....
" The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been
compared by United Nations investigators, human rights groups and
critics of Israeli policy to South Africa's treatment of non-whites
during its apartheid era. Israel has also been accused of committing
the crime of apartheid. The definition of the crime of apartheid
includes acts that were never attributed to the South African regime.
[2] During the apartheid era, some South African officials and
newspapers compared the two states and said that Israel also practiced
apartheid.[3][4][5] Critics of Israeli policy say that "a system of
control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank (including Jerusalem)
including Jewish-only settlements, separate roads, military
checkpoints, discriminatory marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use
of Palestinians as cheap labour, Palestinian West Bank enclaves,
inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and
resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-
occupied territories resembles some aspects of the South African
apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute
forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to
international law.[6] Some commentators extend the analogy, or
accusation, to include Arab citizens of Israel, describing their
citizenship status as second-class.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] "
" Geoffrey Wheatcroft has noted that, historically, Israeli officials
had mulled the possibility of adopting the South African apartheid
model as one that the state of Israel itself might emulate. In the
late 1970s "(t)hey didn't wish to copy what was once called 'petty
apartheid', the everyday harassment of black South Africans, but
'grand apartheid', the Nationalists' attempt to conjure away the
problem of minority rule by dividing the country into supposedly
autonomous cantons or 'homelands'."[134]
Uri Davis wrote in 1987 that apartheid in Israel is a legal reality,
even though it has a different legal structure than in the Republic of
South Africa. He asserts that where the Republic of South Africa had
an official value system of apartheid and made a key legal distinction
between "white", "coloured", "Indian" and "black", Israel has an
official value system of Zionism and makes a key legal distinction
between "Jew" and "non-Jew". He suggests that this distinction is made
in a two-tier structure that had concealed Israeli apartheid
legislation for "almost four decades" at the time when he wrote.[135]
Uri Avnery applies parts of the analogy to "the reality in the
occupied Palestinian territories" which he describes as "in many
respects similar to reality under the apartheid regime," but warns
that there are also important differences between the two conflicts.
[136]
According to Hirsh Goodman, David Ben-Gurion said on Israeli radio
after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War that Israel would become an apartheid
state if it did not "rid itself of the territories and their Arab
population as soon as possible".[137] "
William Black
Just another fanatic...
End of conversation.
Tiglath
>
> The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
Namely?
Zionism has a non-trivial religious faction.
Many so-called secular Zionists keep peppering their speeches with
references to the Torah to justify the land confiscation from
Palestinians that has and keeps taking place .
Call it secular or what have you but there is not getting away from
the fact that Zionism is a political movement that has embraced the
concept of the "Promised Land," and the Zionists alleged right to it
is based purely on religion.
A spade is not brush, same as Antizionism is not Antisemitism.
Failure to make that distinction remains a jaded tactic to evade
legitimate criticism of Israel.
jantero
> Just another fanatic...
LOL. You had to follow David's lame retreat in claiming people who
defeat you in argument, are "fanatics".
I was showing you up (again), for your ignorance of history in your
claim about democracies not shooting at each other by pointing out the
attack on USS Liberty by Israeli warplanes.... I mean talk talk about
stepping into "it".... ;-))
Too bad Margaret Thatcher is off the scene...
What did they call it, when the old girl put you phony liberals on the
run?
Didn;t they call say the old girl was "handbagging" you?
Hilarious!
>
> End of conversation.
>
> --
> William Black
>
> "Any number under six"
>
> The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
> Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
William Black
> On Feb 26, 1:54 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
>
> Namely?
>
> Zionism has a non-trivial religious faction.
>
Without a doubt.
But it is not as important as the secular political commitment to a
Jewish homeland that is safe.
When the then Major Jabotinsky said farewell to the Jewish Legion he
didn't mention traditional religion at all, he's talking about a
secular society.
"Far away, in your home, you will one day read glorious news, of a free
Jewish life in a free Jewish country - of factories and universities, of
farms and theatres, perhaps of MPs and Ministers. Then you will lose
yourself in thought, and the paper will slip from your fingers; and
there will come to your mind a picture of the Jordan Valley, of the
desert by Raffa, of the hills of Ephraim by Abuein. Then you shall stand
up, walk to the mirror, and look yourself proudly in the face..."
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and bucklr men he could beat
Tiglath
> On 03/02/2011 04:41 AM, Tiglath wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 1:54 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The founders of Israel were determinedly secular.
>
> > Namely?
>
> > Zionism has a non-trivial religious faction.
>
> Without a doubt.
>
> But it is not as important as the secular political commitment to a
> Jewish homeland that is safe.
Importance is hard to gauge here, and easily missed.
The choice of Palestine for the Jewish homeland, instead of say
Bavaria -- a much better choice -- is purely religious. Now, once
the choice has been made the settling effort and state security can be
as secular as you want, but it's still under the mantle of a religious
quest.
Israel has more than its fair share of factions of all kinds. I am
most familiar with the businesslike people of Tel Aviv, who are
indistinguishable from Europeans. There are also quite a few
Palestinian sympathizers. But they there are also other groups and
notoriously the rabid settlers who spoil it for everybody. It's not
black and white, but from the outside Israel is viewed as a block, and
citizens who may not agree with some of the stuff Israel does are
guilty of it by association, same as I am guilty of my country's sins
likewise, and for which jihadists want me dead regardless of my
Palestinian sympathies.
In sum, saying that Zionism is secular, is like saying that there are
civilians in the Vatican.
William Black
> In sum, saying that Zionism is secular, is like saying that there are
> civilians in the Vatican.
>
Civilians?
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
James Beck
wrote:
>On Feb 18, 8:49 pm, jantero <jantero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 4:50 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal"
>>
>> >http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/18/un.israel.settlements/index...
>>
>> > If I was voting I would not be voting for him in 2012.
>>
>> LOL. Nowadays, it's self denigrating to vote in this country, at least
>> in Federal elections. If you vote, you're demonstrating you're stupid
>> enough to be taken in by bullshit.
>>
>> Last November, I tore up my mail-in ballot and threw it away.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Absolutely disgusting.
>>
>> > Preparation for next year's election obviously includes not upsetting
>> > the Jewish vote and, yet again, sticking it to the Palestinians.
>>
>> Well, preparation for elections dates back at least to bailing out the
>> big banks and their corrupt chiefs, instead of taking over the banks
>> and seeing investigationg the corruption.
>>
>> Afterall, "Lloyd Blankfein is a smart businessman".
>>
>>
>>
>
>Our government spent some 50 million investigating Monica's blow job,
>and just about six million on the Wall Street gangsters. They sold
>junk as triple A-rated securities to pension funds and whoever thought
>they were to be trusted, and they got away with it.
Once Ralph Cioffi (Bear Stearns) was acquitted of fraud in November
2009, the likelihood of seeing a lot of prosecutions went way down. If
you can't get a jury to convict in federal court (90%-95% conviction
rate), in a hostile environment, there probably isn't much evidence to
be had.
There's not a high probability that the evidence matches the
sensationalism anyway. The exotic structured products at the center of
attention produced a smallish percentage of the losses. Eighty percent
of the mark-to-market losses were in plain vanilla securities that
have been around for decades: 40% mortgages; 10% corporate bonds; 30%
basic mortgage-type bonds; 20% exotics (IMF). In addition, the equity
value of the structured products is so sensitive to the underlying
mortgages and/or bonds that small mistakes wipe out all of the
*equity*, never mind profits. Sales commissions don't come close to
offsetting them. An incentive to cheat has to be created out of whole
cloth.
For example, in the case the SEC brought against Goldman, the sales
team allegedly told potential *equity* buyers that another hedge fund
manager would be taking an equity position, too. If the allegations
were true, Goldman let the hedge fund manager pick shaky mortgages for
the fund, which he actually planned to bet against. Goldman bet
against it, too. More accurately, they fully hedged their exposure
(you may recall that that made them look like geniuses). They didn't
make any money on the deal, at least not directly. On the other hand,
10 years ago, about 70% of Wall Street's profits were in the form of
institutional relationships. If you set up a deal under which one
institution can fleece other investors, I'll bet you'd have a very
strong institutional relationship with that institution long into the
future. A multi-billion dollar hedge fund is a more valuable
institutional relationship than a couple of small European banks. You
do the math. I don't expect to see many like that. Most bankers don't
have much imagination.
I would have preferred to see some prosecutions under the National
Bank Act for commercial banks whose subsidiaries issued subprime
mortgages, but I don't expect to see that, either. The current
regulatory structure permitted it. I have little use for federalism in
banking.
One of the reasons there has been so little prosecution of the banks
is that the *were* behaving as if it were business as usual. They
discovered that that was wrong when Bernanke upended Greenspan's
policy of increasing liquidity at every sign of trouble. The tide went
out and they got caught swimming naked. Likewise, the SEC's decisions
to first loosen the mark-to-market rule in 2002 then tighten it in
2007 caught them flat-footed.
Statistically speaking, the root problem was a speculative bubble in
real estate. Not surprisingly the bad mortgages are concentrated in
states with laws that permit borrowers to walk away from mortgages
they don't want, with few or no consequences. They took out liar loans
to speculate on both commercial and residential real estate. That
created an artificial shortage that supported the bubble. It's costly
to retroactively prosecute speculators, particularly since the bubble
itself was caused by loose monetary policy and a federal homeownership
campaign.
Anyway, I don't expect to see many prosecutions.
By the way, most of the AAA paper has done reasonably well through
this. It ought to. In addition to insurance, most of it had
substantial subordination (25%-30%), which seems to have been enough
to protect the senior tranches from loss of principal. That's not to
say that there were no losses at the top of the waterfall. Some of
Bear Stearns AAA's got downgraded to junk. Citi will also probably get
screwed on some of the AAA paper they're holding. It seems that the
equity originator (whose position has been wiped out) found a loophole
in the contract. Rather than settling for a total loss, they took a
little bribe from a buyer to liquidate the collateral at rock bottom
prices. The senior tranche holders are suing, but the contract is what
it is.
OTOH, deals that had relatively high collateral defaults or got
downgraded have been forced to start using income to pay down the AAA
principal, amortizing/ deleveraging the transactions early. It is also
useful to understand that these deals are constructed in the way they
are because it makes good sense. The federal government's bailout of
the car industry looks virtually the same. The CLO market started to
recover in 2010.
>Lucky Luciano, I mean, Lloyd Blankfein, told our Congress that he had
>no moral or legal obligation to tell his customers he was betting
>against the subprime crap products he was selling them. And Congress
>just took it. "Ok, then."
Of course he doesn't. Why would he? He is *selling* it to them. He's
implicitly betting against whatever he sells. Once it's in the
secondary market, traders, including the ones at Goldman, should be
expected to buy if they think an asset will appreciate and sell it
otherwise. That's what they do after all. They might be on either side
many times during the life of the asset.
OTOH, Blankfein's comment is pure, red herring. He doesn't have a
legal obligation to tell people he's betting against something. That's
obvious. He does have an obligation to tell them that he's letting
someone else that wants to bet against it pick the collateral. Now, if
you could just prove it...