chicot
-
Posts
1,003 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by chicot
-
-
If you really knew your history, then you would know why Jordan is not in a rush to step in. If you knew your history, you'd also be asking why aren't Palestinians demanding a right to return to Jordan and having full rights in Jordan.
If you insist that this fight is about rights to the land as opposed to a fight about Jews in the Holy Land, then you can educate me on why the attention is only on Israel.
This is a curious form of debate. Rather than stating exactly what you mean, you hint at things and expect me to guess where you're coming from. If I guess wrong you can say that wasn't what you meant or "aha, you don't know your history after all". I'll guess that you're trying to imply that the reason that the "attention is only on Israel" is due to anti-semitism. If there really is no case against Israel and it only gets so much criticism due to anti-semitism, then why are there so many Jewish critics of Israeli policy? As for there being a problem with Jews in the holy land, Jews and Muslims have lived together in the holy land prior to the advent of Zionism in relative peace, certainly far more peacefully than did the Jews and Christians in Europe over the same period. Take a look at some of the early Zionist literature. When you have a group coming from outside, saying that you are inferior, have no rights to the land on which your people have lived for generations and making no attempt to hide the fact that they mean to displace your from your homeland, it's really unlikely to go down too well.
-
Do your own homework Sue, and start with the border partitions of the end of the British Mandate and how each country was created. Then take a read on why the Palestinians in questions left the land that is now Israel, who controlled the Gaza & West Bank lands, and the Palestinians' relationships with the Arab rulers since 1948. You may actually learn that Israel may not as bad of an occupier as the Arab cousins.
Which gets back to the main point. Palestinians have been used as pawns in the region for generations, but have repeatedly flubbed opportunities to control their destiny.
If you want to take a cynical view of an alternate universe without Israel's presence in the area, the Palestinians of Gaza & West Bank would likely have been wiped out by Syrians or Jordanians by 1970, and no one would have batted an eyelash.
Actually I know my history pretty well but I explained why I believed the histories of Syria and Jordan were not relevant, therefore the onus was on you to explain their relevance. As for why the Palestinians in question left the land that is now Israel, that is a matter of dispute. I very much doubt that what I believe is the same as what you believe and as neither of us was actually there at the time we will have to agree to disagree. What could have happened in an alternate universe doesn't really get us anywhere. Like it or not, we have to deal with the universe that we live in. Do you really believe that slaughtering Gazans by the thousand is actually going to improve Israel's security?
-
If you knew your history of the region, you would realize that the histories of Syria and Jordan are completely relevant.
Well, enlighten me then.
-
Remind me again of the long histories of the great nations of Syria and Jordan?
I am not talking about people who left the land that is now Syria or Jordan. I am talking about people who were made refugees in the chaos that followed the creation of Israeli. As such, they have the right of return. As the people I am referring to did not come from the lands now making the present-day states of Syria or Jordan, the "long histories of the great nations of Syria and Jordan" are entirely irrelevant.
-
I don't think there's ever been a serious debate on whether Jews are a race. But to your point, Gaza & WB Palestinians do not qualify for Israeli residence & citizenship, just like they don't qualify for these rights in any other neighboring country, even though they could lay the same historic claim to the lands in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon & Syria.
I would argue that those who lost their homes as a result of the creation of the state of Israel or are their descendents have a considerably greater claim to Israeli residence and citizenship than in any random Arab nation.
-
I think he's referring to religious majority of Israel, but couldn't help himself with the racial angle.
I am by no means an expert but I think there is some question of whether Jews are a race, religion or both. Still, if you prefer it I will label it "religious majority" instead. Whatever you want to call it, my reply to Tom stands - full citizenship of Israel is not and has never been on offer to all Palestinians. Would you dispute that?
-
I know that's incorrect. They're free, for example, to live in Israel, as full citizens or permanent residents.
One wonders, though, why you made a response that had absolutely no relation to my point.
Garbage. Some Palestinians have Israeli citizenship but that is something that has never been offered to Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank (nor to the wider Palestinian diaspora) as doing so would interfere with the racial purity of the Jewish state.
-
Liverpool?
Which Liverpool?
Whichever one that's weird. I thought Earnie was from the deep south.
Liverpool, UK. I think he is from the deep south but for some reason he's been over here for years.
-
Right. Earnie Shavers. It's wrong to go on like this on the Bills board, but I can't help it. He's one of my all time favs.
With regard to his punching power Ali said "Earnie hit me so hard, he shook my kinfolk back in Africa". The great Larry Holmes " Earnie hit me harder than any other fighter, including Mike Tyson. He hit me and I was face down on the canvass hearing saxophonist Jimmy Tillis." Ron Lyle "hardest I've ever been hit: Earnie Shavers. The ground came up and met me. That's all I remember".
James Tillis " Shavers hit so hard he turned horse pi$$ into gasoline. He hit me so hard he brought back tomorrow. When he hit me I was seeing pink rats and cats and animals smoking cigarettes.I was in the land of make believe."
Now if only Kiko can hit like that!
I've met Earnie Shavers. He nows works the door in bars in Liverpool (my hometown). Even though he's well into his sixties he still looks like a dude you really would not want to mess with.
-
Thank You
Not to get off topic but Ali's prime years were taken away from him. And I don't think he would have did the "Rope -a- dope" with Mike. Mike would have broke all his ribs doing that.
Ali was the greatest of All Time, in any sport ...period.
So you think Tyson was a harder puncher than Foreman? I think that's a pretty hard call to make. Foreman absolutely destroyed Frazier and Norton and I'd say they were both way better than any of the chumps Tyson was knocking out.
-
I have no reason to doubt what you say, but in this particular case I wonder if they have an "good enough excuse to protest". Reminder: Below is their excuse.
The thing is the EDL and their ilk have been around in various guises long before radical Islam became a problem. Not to put too fine a point on it, these people are morons and they have to have someone else to blame their problems on rather than look in the mirror. In the past, they would hate ethnic minorities for various reasons such as taking their jobs, getting earlier access to social housing ...etc. Now that people are (rightfully) concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism they have made that their cause celebre rather than their usual bs. Don't be fooled though - even if there was no problem with radical Islam, they would find some other stick (both metaphorical and literal in some cases) with which to beat Johnny Foreigner.
There's rational and valid ways to respond to this atrocity. Some sort of inter-communal march to show that we are all opposed to this would be a valid response. Throwing bottles at the police and trying to incite racial hatred is neither valid nor rational.
-
I would think that there might be a very violent response, and not something as trite as bottles at police. I would hope that there isn't, as the very last thing anybody wants more death of innocent people. I would hope that a more intelligent solution arises, and I want to see what you think about it:
When does radical Islam become something that must be eradicated with 0 tolerance, no different than the KKK, chicot?
If I was a lawyer in England, the first thing I would do when these guys are found guilty? File a lawsuit on behalf of the dead guy's family against their families, their mosque, everybody who belongs to it, the al-Muhajiroun group they belonged to, and everybody that was ever in that group. Hit them all in the wallet, and at the very least force them all to pay lawyers and defend themselves as a group, and individually in civil court.
You want to live in the West? Fine, but, if you want to act like this? Then welcome to our civil court system.
Easy money. That's how the Southern Poverty Law Center made all their $, and some smart British lawyer could do the same. Make it so they can't even afford printer paper, just like the SPLC did with the KKK. Make it impossible for them to radicalize anybody, because every time they meet, you sue them all, all over again. Based on what? Conspiracy to deprive the entire American people of their civil rights. I'm no lawyer, but, we do have cases like this here all the time, and while many are ridiculous, we still have them.
Why should I care if this Fs some of them over unfairly? That's the price you pay for DECADES of toleration of idiocy in the name of your religion, while doing 0 about it. A couple of lawsuits later, what are the chances that the next time somebody is screaming Jihad on the street, we see non-radical Muslim guys, who don't want to get sued, cracking heads, and thankfully, not EDL hooligans?
The solution to radical Islam MUST come from refusal to tolerate it by decent Muslims, no different than the solution to white racism MUST come from refusal to tolerate it by decent white people. These lawsuits just help kick start that 0 tolerance policy.
That seems like a much more reasonable, effective and damaging way to attack these people, than bottles and hooligan behavior.
I'd have no problem with going down the lawsuite route but I suspect (though I'm certainly no law expert) that it would be next to impossible to make anything stick.
-
It was interesting to see a group called the EDL (English Defense League) protest that night or the second night. Sounds like it could lead to sectarian wars.
The EDL are ignorant racist thugs who need very little excuse to "protest". Their reasoned response to this atrocity was to throw bottles at the police. Thankfully they have very little popular support over here.
-
I believe that you had a theory that if the younger brother was caught alive, there wouldn't be any conspiracy nuts climbing out of the woodwork.
Shall we revisit the base percentage of people who are idiots?
Alive but shot in the throat so he can't speak. Very convenient
-
I think there is a big difference between the point you are trying to make, and the reality of Mr Chavez and his rule over his country. By nationalizing at will, exerting control over all industries, centralizing power and controlling media, you ensure all citizens see a lack of oppotunity and less prosperity, while at the same time perpetual your personal power- people don't starve, they have a roof over their head, but in a resource rich country, should skimping by be enough? In Venezuela, I assume the very few enjoy the true spoils, those who are friends of the Dictator- not too mention said dictator was besties with Iran- !@#$ing Iran.....
I believe your point it that helping the poor is a good thing, and that left policies can achieve that goal... I agree to a point, but you have to cite places like the UK and Canada to make a reasonble arguement. While they have much more socialist polices than the US, they also promote opportunity and bettering of one's position in life. I have friends in both places, one in Canada that could care less ho wmuch he pays in taxes, he loves the benefits, he loves his life. My other buddy lives in Manchester, is an unabashed Welfare State supporter and can't imagine it being any other way... both, whether they choose to or not have opportunities to better themselves, and that is the difference.
The difference in opportunity. Dictators squash it, we promote it... that why people flock here, in lieu of our faults...
I'm just down the road from your buddy in Manchester - I live in Liverpool.
No, skimping is definitely not enough in a resource-rich country but it beats the hell out of starving. In 1999, 23% of the population were in extreme poverty. Not just poverty, but extreme poverty. That almost 1 in 4 were living in that condition in a country with one of the largest oil-reserves in the world is an absolute obscenity. Chavez was a reaction to what came before him. Despite his faults (and he had plenty) he did manage to improve the lives of those in most need. Moreover, he has changed the political landscape. No Venezuelan political party will ever again ignore the poor like they did in the past and that has to be a good thing.
-
This post was filled with so much poppycock, Don't even know where to begin.
So I'm going to dismantle this pile of garbage point by point.
Really? huh, that's funny, considering that I am a citizen of Bolivia, not a resident but citizen. We receive more news coming out of Venezuela than any other country in Latin America, aside from Venezuela of course, and most of the news is sympathetic to Chavez, never mind the fact that the president of our country is Evo Morales.
I'm not opposed to amending the constitution, I question his motive. He amended the constitution to end term limits, to gain full autonomy of the central bank, to facilitate the removal of supreme court justices and name his own election board. Why would he do this? I know why, and so do many other rational, knowledgeable thinking people, which is to retain control and power. No free thinking person would disagree that this was an utter and perverse abuse of power that was solely driven by his desire to retain control. I'd love to hear your spin as to his motives for this.
bull ****! You are talking out of your ass again.
http://www.reuters.c...146551720090801
Everyone that is from Latin America that has any interest in politics that isn't a kool aid drinking sympathizer of Chavez knows that he coerced, intimidated and jailed voices of opposition. When you intimidate the opposition, and effectively have state run media on your side, the ability to control message becomes much easier. You'd have to be a moron to deny that.
Also, it is a well-known fact that Chavez and his family has been involved in charges of corruption and nepotism. You disputing that?
http://www.guardian....rruption-claims
And to this:
Hold on, So their CEO Jerry Brewer is an exile? huh
http://www.linkedin....er-sr/8/829/25b
The notion that they are a bunch of "exiles" is yet again, another fabrication on your part.
Read more at
http://www.inquisitr...6YsSVkuKz9T6.99http://www.hrw.org/n...ritarian-legacy
Now that we've established that you were wrong on just about every count and that you resort to fabrications to make your points, you have no more credibility on this subject, and most likely on anything else that you opine on. Also, I would suggest the next time you decide to engage in a conversation, that you make sure you come with facts, because if you don't someone like myself who is much more knowledgeable than you (in this particular topic) will come along and embarrass you.
The only thing I got wrong was in assuming the esteemed Mr Brewer was an exile. Ok, he's not - I'll give you that. Doesn't change that the only source for this $2 billion claim that you presented in your post as fact seems to be this "CJIA" organisation" (every mention of the $2 billion I've found links back to the CJIA). Sorry, but I don't regard a single, unsubstantiated report by some obscure organisation as an open and shut case.
My spin on his motives for constitional change? Sorry, no spin. I agree that the motivation was to retain power and I disagree with it. As the same time, I think calling it an "utter and perverse abuse of power" is going over the top. It wasn't as if the changes were made solely by presidential decree - they were voted on in a referendum and approved.
The majority of the media in Venezuela is anti- rather than pro-Chavez.
http://venezuelablog.tumblr.com/post/32935872987/media-bias-in-venezuela
No, I don't dispute that there have been accusations of corruption and nepotism against Chavez, but what of it? The man had god-knows how many enemies and I have no way of knowing whether the charges are genuine or politically-motivated. I very much doubt that you do either.
I'm not embarrassed in the slightest. In fact, I would be embarrassed if I had to resort to the rude, pompous and arrogant tone you used in this or later posts. You may imagine calling people twits, morons, accusing them of "talking out of their ass" ...etc helps make your point but I really doubt it.
-
Well if the people endorse it then it must be great, as majorities have consistently demonstrated superior ability to choose responsible systems of governance which are both long-term sustainable and promote steady growth.
I'm not saying that his policies were necessarily sustainable or promote steady growth. What I am saying is that if you are living in abject poverty then the latest growth figure is of somewhat abstract importance and your immediate living conditions are of somewhat greater concern.
-
If you cared so much about the poor why would you endorse a system that all but guarantees that these people remain poor albeit slightly more comfortably? Some humanitarian you are.
The people themselves endorse it. Who am I to tell them that I know better than they do what they need?
-
You've missed the point. He built schools and soccer fields in impoverished neighborhoods. He had good intentions. It doesn't matter if your policies result in waste and don't really benefit the people you intended to help. Success is measured in how good it makes us feel that we built an escalator that runs to the top of the favela and gave the poor new soccer balls. Only the rich gain from a strengthening economy.
Damn those stupid and ignorant poor for continuing to vote for him. They should realize that it is only economic growth that matters. So what if they continue to live in abject poverty with no access to education or healthcare while the rich get even richer. Eventually the trickle-down effect will mean that their descendants might enjoy a better standard of living.
-
My, oh my, a Hugo Chavez thread and the resident Marxists show up to give him a little love. Who woulda thought it?
Thank you for your well-informed and reasoned contribution to this debate.
-
You are making a specious argument, by suggesting that who people vote for is proof positive of voting for their best self-interests. Lets not confuse populist rhetoric with tangible results. Which country do you think has one of the highest inflation rates in all of South America? Food prices have been soaring, leading to widespread shortages. When food prices rise, who do you think that hurts the most? The poor. Now magnify that times 1000 in a country like Venezuela. So when you have a charasmatic populist like Chavez, who amends the constitution to retain virtually permanent control, then takes over all the media outlets, he in fact does create state-run media, which of course suppresses his opponents rights to free speech and drives home his propaganda of fighting the imperialist Americans (which of course resonates with many uneducated South Americans), and the rich ruling class aristocrats who suck the country dry leaving the poor to fend for themselves.
So when you combine his amending of the countries constitution for his perverse intentions of control, nationalize all the major resource producers to control the purse strings, take over the media outlets for reasons of suppression and the spreading of propaganda, with his ability to connect to the people of Venezuela, it's quite normal to expect people to vote for him, despite what is best for their own self-interests.
Lets not also forget that since he has taken control, oil production has gone way down, that the most capable human capital that his country has to offer has left Venezuela, reducing their ability to succeed long-term, while amassing over 2 Billion dollars of wealth for his family, essentially robbing his country through corruption, while railing on his opponents for doing the same despite him being the largest culprit of them all.
Sorry, but I give the poor a bit more credit than you do. They know whether they are starving or not, whether they are receiving healthcare or not, whether they have access to education or not. Yes, he amended the constitution. So what? Constitution's are not actually set in stone, to remain immutable for all eternity (being from the US, I realize you'd have difficulty with that concept
). The change was voted on and passed. It's also worth remembering that despite his curbs on the media, most of the media was extremely hostile to Chavez for the whole of his presidency. Yet, he won elections in spite of this.As for this 2 billion dollars claim, find me a credible source (sorry but dubious Miami-based exiles do not count) and I'll believe it. Until then I'll regard it as propaganda and utter garbage.
-
There's a right way to improve the living conditions of the LatAm impoverished and the wrong way. Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have seen the light. The others? Not quite. Assuming that the replacement will be more level headed, you won't have the petrodollars supporting regional populists who do very little to actually improve the conditions of the poor.
I'm guessing that you would include Chavez himself in your list of "regional populists who do very little to actually improve the conditions of the poor". If so, you're on pretty shaky ground. There are many valid criticisms to be made of Chavez such as mismanaging the economy or his embrace of more or less anyone as long as they were an enemy of the US. However, not improving the conditions of the poor of Venezuela is not one of them and that is something that even most of his critics grudgingly accept. By more or less any measure you care to use the Venezuelan poor are far better off than before Chavez took over. Inequality is now the lowest in South America, poverty has been reduced from 70% to 21% and extreme poverty from 40% to 7.3%. The thousands of Cuban doctors brought in have given free healthcare to thousands who previously had virtually no access to healthcare. Illiteracy has been virtually eliminated. These are very real achievements. Yes, you can argue they may not be sustainable or that things could have been done in a more efficient way, but I think it's pretty difficult to deny their existence all together. And who is in a better situation to judge whether or not their conditions have improved than the Venezuelan poor themselves? They have given their answer by voting for Chavez again and again and again. How do you account for that?
-
Lol.................quite the little leap you made there.
I simply stated that his death was good news for his country and South America, there's no reason to disbelieve that...........no matter what you want to read into it.
.
What changes do you expect to result from his death that will beneficial to either?
-
Tough day for you and the rest of the Hugo fanboys, huh?
Not particularly. I didn't know the man personally so it doesn't have that much effect on me.
Hillary's Campaign Kickoff
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
You don't regard the West trying to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria as dangerous? I think world war III may do quite a bit to blow up your foundation and it might not be all that reversible either.