Fish Dynasty

I'm not even sure when the IRA existed, but if it wasn't in the modern era, then I am not surprised they weren't referred to as a terrorist organization. I can't think of any non-Arab-based terrorist organization that is widely known, which is why those stereotypes are somewhat accepted by mainstream society. I did remember some people label the Columbine and VT shootings as acts of terrorism, although not nearly as much as the Fort Hood shootings. Also, many already labeled the United States as the world's strongest military during the WWII era. Since you say that we have no deal being in the Middle East, I guess that means you would have absolutely no problem right now if nations such as Libya, Iraq, and Iran all had nuclear weapons? That would have a great chance at being a peaceful world where no weapons would be fired and none of the nations in the Western Hemisphere would have a chance at being harmed, right? Look, in this age, if the world's powers did not interfere to try to civilize the undeveloped world, we would be living in chaos. I'd guarantee you that the people who keep on saying that we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq, shouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan, and we shouldn't currently be involved with Iran wouldn't be saying so if they would have had a chance to see the effects of it. The IRA is a modern day group/whatever you want to call it. They ceased violence (I think?) in 2006, fighting in Belfast has been going on for several years now and it wasnt until about 2000 with the Belfast Agreement that it's really been a normal place like it is today. Ive seen first hand what it was like back in the day, although not so much as what my mom grew up with. In fact, when she was a teenager working at a factory, they planted a bomb (the IRA) and it was a whole mess. I almost didnt make it. Lol. And for the record, the IRA would be that group that you cant think of. Same applies to the nonsense that happened in Bosnia... But as the point you made.. Fort Hood is terrorism according to the media for sure... VT and Columbine are psycho kids gone crazy on campus. But they're the exact exact exact same thing. And I beg to differ, the United States emerged as a world power after WWII, although was not considered to be the most powerful country in the world. If we can have nuclear weapons, why cant they? We always talk about BS disarmament and whatever, we've still got more nuclear weapons than god. Yeah, I dont care if they have nuclear weapons. I also dont care if they blow each other to shreads. I mean... I'd do as much diplomatic action to stop that... but further than that... not our business. Oh, and btw, Iraq had nuclear weapons? I guess we walked right by them over the past decade. You can claim that we arent seeing the effects of it... but fact is you cant back it the other way. We didnt do anything at all in Iraq. It's Vietnam v2.0. When we leave, nothing will change. With an evil dictator like Saddam, they at least had a stable country. Now, with 'Westernization' people are going to be blowing up in the streets daily. Until they have their own civil war, and then they dealt with their own problems. There is reason to be in Afghanistan. Very well so, we got wacked on 9/11 and it's a response. However, there's nothing for us in Iraq. How we've handled Iran so far is appropriate. Not getting ourselves in other peoples business means not petting Israel as they destroy Palestine. If something like Iran can potentially be our business, we talk disarmament. If they dont listen, we aim at them. But then again, ask yourself, why do they hate us so much? Our actions in other people's business would answer that question. Throughout the Cold War, it was always a debate about whether the United States or Russia had more power, but most believed that the U.S. had an edge. While it may not sound politically correct, we can have nuclear weapons because we are part of the civilized world, which means we won't just fire our weapons without provocation. Unfortunately, Iran, Iraq, and Libya aren't, so they can't be trusted. See, you're automatically assuming that if they received nuclear weapons, then the weapons wouldn't come anywhere near us, which I would say is doubtful. Even if they didn't attack us though, you don't think it's a problem that there is a large region in the world where the entire population could be blown away to pieces in a matter of minutes? Not to mention the fact that even if they wouldn't fire any weapons at us, the nuclear reaction would be horrifying for all nations. The fact that you said "I also don't care if they blow each other to shreds" says it all about how you form your opinions. You would also have to be very naive to think that if we didn't interfere, Iraq wouldn't have tried to develop some sort of nuclear weapons, especially when Iran started their program. We didn't do anything at all in Iraq? What happened to that Saddam Hussein guy then? I'm not defending the Iraq War, but to say that we accomplished absolutely nothing is false. Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense. You were floating the idea of isolationism before, and now you are saying that you somewhat support the Afghanistan War and sanctions against Iran. Which one is it? Iran hates us for two reasons: first, because we support Israel (or at least have in the past, at least), and second, because they will hate the entire West unless we all convert to Islam. But what does that prove? Should we have to adjust our foreign policy according to other countries' desires? It doesn't matter if they don't like it. The popular opinion in America is that we should stand by Israel, so that is what we do.

The problem with your logic and this is something you have done here several times before, is that you only look at one side of the equation. You argue that intervention is needed to correct certain international problems, but never acknowledge that intervention was instrumental in causing them in the first place. Hitler became a problem largely because the US and Woodrow Wilson possessed your mentality and arrogantly thought that the US had a positive role to play in "making the world safe for democracy." The US became involved in World War I (a war it had no business fighting in), which directly led to a crushing defeat of Germany and a harsh Treaty of Versailles, instead of allowing the natural course of action to unfold (an inevitable ceasefire). The consequence of this was a decimated Germany facing a bunch of economic problems (including hyperinflation at one point), which created the conditions for Hitler to come to power. Not to mention that it was Eisenhower who said that preventive war was an invention of Hitler. It was the United States that radicalized the Muslims (including Bin Laden) and armed them against the Soviets. It was the United States who supported Saddam Hussein with money, weapons, and technology against Iran. It was the United States that occupied Muslim soil for many years prior to 9/11. And it's the United States that continues to occupy Muslim soil, while bombing it and killing scores of civilians. All of these activities were lobbied under the guise of "making us safer," but have had dire unintended consequences that have made us more vulnerable. The only "intervention" that you could be referring to would be when the British helped create the State of Israel, but the land was already their land to begin with. It didn't take any more intervention for there to be chaos in the region. For you to say that I possess the same mentality as Woodrow Wilson is unbelievable. Wilson believed in the League of Nations (or UN, in today's world), where I propose each country makes their own decisions independently. If multiple countries feel like they should be intervening in a region that is foreign to them, that is when they should form an alliance, instead of an automatic alliance. The U.S. had to get involved in WWI. Germany was out sinking our ships and trying to get Mexico to attack us, which posed a great security threat. I feel that if we would have started to get involved in WWII much sooner than we did, the consequences would have been much less severe. While some of the things that you said in your last paragraph are true (such as supporting Hussein and occupying land,) they were not the sole contributing factor to what radicalized so many in the Middle east. And if you think the drones in countries such as Pakistan haven't made us safer, you are mistaken. Their opinions wouldn't even change if we suddenly stopped the attacks. For example, look at all of the money we sent there after the recent floods, yet their attitudes still won't change a bit.

Have to agree with a lot of Penguino's points above. Anyone working in Washington will tell you that AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby is not to be messed with. They have LOADS of influence. How else do they repeatedly get people such as Obama, Hillary Clinton, and George W. Bush to speak at their annual convention? Even the NRA can't get those people to show up. Just for an example, take the recent Gaza Flotilla incident. What was the predominant discussion in the US media and among politicians? It was almost all automatically siding against the flotilla, despite the fact that it was more than 90 miles from Israel when it was boarded (which by any definition is international waters). I saw almost no one asking how Israel could attempt such a raid in the middle of the ocean without real provocation. I recall a few people talking about it, but it was almost exclusively in print media, and nonexistent on TV. I wish I still had my copy of The Israel Lobby in hand, because that book has probably 25 different incidents of politicians, academics, and journalists being punished for even mild criticism of Israel (always by groups that are considered part of the Israel lobby). There are even examples of Jewish people (including rabbis) who spoke out against Israeli government policies and were slammed by different people, and sometimes had their jobs threatened. There is absolutely no reason why this kind of dissent should be stifled in this manner. It's mostly through intimidation and threats, which disturbs me. I can't think of another US ally nation that has this kind of influence over our foreign policy (except with Saudi Arabia, but it's mostly a marriage of necessity due to our oil addiction). Blind support of Israel is destroying our Middle Eastern credibility. It also may damage relations with other allies such as Turkey, who basically broke off relations with Israel after 5 of their citizens were killed in the Gaza Flotilla raid. It disturbs me that a US citizen died on those boats as well, yet nobody in government bothered to even mention it. This is by no means saying that we should abandon Israel. What I'm trying to say is that we just can't continue to support every single thing they do as a nation. The only purpose this will serve is to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians completely impossible, and alienate our other allies. I also can't find a reason to continue massive aid to Israel, not when the majority of those funds are military in nature. AIPAC is a strong lobby, no one doubts that. But it is a myth to say that they persuade the citizens of the United States into adopting pro-Israel positions. There are several factors why a majority of Americans consider Israel one of our strongest allies, why a majority of Americans feel Israel is the victim, and why a majority would want to defend Israel in a war with Iran. AIPAC, however, is not the answer, and there is absolutely no proof to suggest that it is even plausible. The popular interest of Americans is the reason why AIPAC is so powerful, not the other way around. As for the Gaza flotilla incident, it doesn't appear that you watched many news reports about the subject. Out of all of the major news networks (Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, nightly/local reports, etc.) Fox News was about the only station where a majority of its commentators took a firm pro-Israel stance. The mere fact that some people are still blaming the incident on Israel is laughable, but that is for another time. I don't understand what some book or some Rabbi's calling out Israel has to do with anything, but if you are simply referring to the amount of pressure Palestinian supporters receive, think of how someone else would be perceived if he/she agreed with only 15% of America on a different heated issue. I'd think most people wouldn't have sympathy for that person. It disturbs me that you buy into propaganda so easily. It also disturbs me that you have seemed to put yourself in the boat with the countless others in blaming the media for the pro-Israel positions of America. And in case you haven't been paying attention recently, we don't support Issrael on every issue, which our current president has made very clear. In fact, he hasn't come out and clearly supported them on one issue, making that argument of yours look silly. I also love the fact that everyone complains about how biased America is against the Palestinians, while no one ever mentions how the Arabs feel towards the conflict. I have a feeling that if one side in a conflict is supported unanimously by the nations surrounding it, and the other side has to rely on one nation thousands of miles away that is now lowering their level of support, the final result wouldn't be too fair.

But can you name an instance where the word terrorism has been falsely used? I mean, do you not consider trying to set off a bomb in Times Square an act of terrorism? The average Arab/Muslim/whatever will be profiled as a terrorist more than the average white man without a doubt, but that doesn't mean that some random Arab will be accused of being a terrorist just for being an Arab. Timothy McVeigh was unanimously denounced as a terrorist and he was obviously white. Technically, Germany wasn't our problem yet in WWII when we decided to join the Allies. Do you think that was a bad decision? Most historians would tell you that Hitler would have had a good chance at conquering all of Europe if America didn't help out, and the United States would have probably been up next. Also, just because you are solving a problem in an area foreign to your home, that doesn't mean you aren't helping your country. It's not a matter of the word terrorism being falsely used. It's a matter of it's terms and extremity of usage. You're completely missing what I'm saying. The IRA would never be called a terrorist organization, even if technically they are recognized as one. Yet they're identical to Hezbollah. People associate "terrorist" with Arab. Hezbollah is publically labeled and denounced as such, but the IRA wasnt really. Timothy McVeigh is an exception. I dont see Columbine, or Virginia Tech, or any of the school shootings being labeled acts of 'terrorism' (although I guess they werent political so that's a different story). But my point here has nothing to do with the individual, i.e. McVeigh. It's to do with the establishment, i.e. IRA, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc., organizations. Germany was indeed our problem the minute Japan became our problem. When you put one foot into a world war, your other foot follows you in. When we were attacked by Japan, and we declared war on Japan, we declared war on Germany as its ally. And I think history is very biased towards the winners, after all the winners to write history. It was a stalemate between Germany and Russia/G.B. when the US decided to get involved. If it were not for Russia sacraficing millions of lives, the allies would've fallen as well. But as you made clear, the United States would have probably been up next. So, therefore, it was our business. Nowadays, being the world superpower, that's not a threat. We have no business in the middle east. We are sticking our nose in other peoples business and trying to make it our own business, and its pissing them off enough to want us dead too. I'm not even sure when the IRA existed, but if it wasn't in the modern era, then I am not surprised they weren't referred to as a terrorist organization. I can't think of any non-Arab-based terrorist organization that is widely known, which is why those stereotypes are somewhat accepted by mainstream society. I did remember some people label the Columbine and VT shootings as acts of terrorism, although not nearly as much as the Fort Hood shootings. Also, many already labeled the United States as the world's strongest military during the WWII era. Since you say that we have no deal being in the Middle East, I guess that means you would have absolutely no problem right now if nations such as Libya, Iraq, and Iran all had nuclear weapons? That would have a great chance at being a peaceful world where no weapons would be fired and none of the nations in the Western Hemisphere would have a chance at being harmed, right? Look, in this age, if the world's powers did not interfere to try to civilize the undeveloped world, we would be living in chaos. I'd guarantee you that the people who keep on saying that we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq, shouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan, and we shouldn't currently be involved with Iran wouldn't be saying so if they would have had a chance to see the effects of it.

I was not commenting on the frequency of the word terrorism, just the extremity/definition which it has evolved through. Nowadays, terrorism is hardly Oklahoma City anymore. That's a mad man on the loose. Terrorism, to your average American, almost always means 'that Arab guy who wants to blow us all up'. And I say that being half Arab (and half Northern Irish, talk about useful for this conversation :lol ), lets not get all sensitive here, okay? My point was that the IRA was technically labeled as a terrorist group, even though that's not what anybody would have called it. They're called resistence, rebels, etc. who use the same acts of violence to get their points across. I think it has something to do with the fact that they're white (Irish) and a group such as Hezbollah is Arab. Had this sense of hijacking planes and suicide bombings not been labeled on Arabs, I would definitely see the same sort of label on Hezbollah as you did with the IRA. Technically yes, a terrorist organization by definition, but not the same given namesake as al Qaeda (today's understood word of 'terrorist'). They're not the axis of evil, I guess that would be my point. They're certainly much more civilized as well. But them being labeled as a terrorist today gives them an image of evil in the matter. In all honesty, I dont think Sadam Hussein was a huge worry to us. Not as much of an issue as he was made out to be. Obviously now we'll never really know... He might have been a terrible man, but he was hardly a threat to us. In fact, as of recent history I cant imagine a time where trying to solve someone elses problems has actually benefitted us. But can you name an instance where the word terrorism has been falsely used? I mean, do you not consider trying to set off a bomb in Times Square an act of terrorism? The average Arab/Muslim/whatever will be profiled as a terrorist more than the average white man without a doubt, but that doesn't mean that some random Arab will be accused of being a terrorist just for being an Arab. Timothy McVeigh was unanimously denounced as a terrorist and he was obviously white. Technically, Germany wasn't our problem yet in WWII when we decided to join the Allies. Do you think that was a bad decision? Most historians would tell you that Hitler would have had a good chance at conquering all of Europe if America didn't help out, and the United States would have probably been up next. Also, just because you are solving a problem in an area foreign to your home, that doesn't mean you aren't helping your country.

The bolded part is exactly what I a referring to. The main reason why some people say it isn't a terrorist organization is because they equate groups such as Hezbollah with the Palestinians who they feel are the victims in the conflict. Are they the worst one out there? No, but that doesn't mean they don't promote terrorism. My point is that if someone hasn't received enough information on a topic like this and honestly feels that a group like Hezbollah isn't a terrorist organization (as it seemed like you had implied), it is usually extremely difficult to argue with those types of people (which is why I didn't want to get into it.) There are numerous reasons why the United States supports Israel, but to name a few: 1. Religious Christians. We are the most religious country out of all developed nations, by far. 2. They are the only nation in that region that can relate to Western Civilization. 3. Most in this country feel that Israel is the victim in the conflict. 4. That thing known as The Holocaust. 5. Isolationism has never worked in the past. As much as he wants to believe it, it isn't because of AIPAC as El Penguino might suggest. Fair enough, although the equal and opposite can be said for people over-estimating the word terrorist. Nowadays, a terrorist seems to be someone who is, of many things, savage. Im going to pick on the IRA some more, simply because it's a topic I know a little somethin on and it can relate to Western Society. They were technically a terrorist organization. Because they invoked terror. But in reality, they were rebels, and instead of trying a civil manner to get their completely understandable objectives solved, as a minority they turn to violence instead. I dont so much equate groups like Hezbollah with the Palestinian victims so much as I think they're all wrong, and the fact that Israel is seen as the 'good guys' makes them more wrong in my eyes. I dont quite get how #1 is relevant. As for #2, I think that's the grand winner. That shouldnt be any reason whatsoever to back them, however. #4 shouldnt mean anything at all. I feel bad for the Jews in the Holocaust, but 99% of those living now were not a part of it. And furthermore, Israel should be recognized as a nation, with a nation's responsibilities, not a religion. It's a shame that it's not. And finally #5, say what you'd like about isolationism. Pure isolationism might not work, but getting your nose in everyones business is potentially harmful. We can and should be everywhere peace exists, but we dont belong in the Middle East right now and we should've let them handle their own business. Well, terrorism isn't really as vague of a word. It's not like the word "racism" in this country, where it is to the point where it is thrown around constantly and everybody argues every single time it is used whether or not there is actually a racial bias. It's usually easy to tell when an act of terrorism takes place, such as the Oklahoma Bombings, 9/11, etc. I haven't heard the word "terrorism" being thrown around since the Times Square bombing attempt. I'm not too familiar with the IRA, so I can't really speak about them, but the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy weren't labeled terrorists, were they? Christian Zionism is the main reason in this country why we still support Israel as much as we do. If Europe was still religious, they would be right there with us, but they aren't like that anymore. Most of the people who immigrated to Israel right after WWII were Holocaust survivors. Since Israel was destroyed thousands of years ago, Jews had never had a nation of its own. The situation they were in wasn't like Whites or Blacks or Asians or Arabs, where they had a native land. Everywhere Jews had lived they were a minority, and racism only started to die in the Western World a little after WWII ended. That is the main reason why people have shown sympathy for the nation of Israel. While it might not sound good, solving other people's problems has usually been beneficial in the past for the United States. I mean, would you rather still have Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and all of the other crazy dictators we have removed still in power? Even if we didn't support Israel, having those people in power would be a threat to us, as well as the rest of the civilized world. It's easier said than done to try to let them handle their own business.

Because it is a sign that displays that it will be nearly impossible to convince you that the other side is correct, which makes a debate pointless. If you really doubt the fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, I find it highly unlikely that my views on the subject would have any influence on you. That's not even what we were talking about. Or was it. I dont even know, you might have been talking about something, but if you didnt simply dismiss what I'd written you'd have read that I have no idea what you're trying to say. Hezbollah is recognized as a terrorist organization by the U.S., however that doesnt mean it necessarily is. I mean, they are, but I simply wanted to point out that the word terrorism has definitely been shifted ever since 9/11. Hezbollah is certainly much more of the Provisional IRA than they are al Qaeda. Their terrorism in a sense is that of a rebel force (from the eyes of an American). They might do terrible things, but I'd still see them as having a realistic purpose other than for pure terrorism (for causes which I cannot comprehend, I mean). Anyways, I think the most important thing is that Hezbollah has stated that they have absolutely nothing wrong with the U.S. So they dont terrorize us. And why exactly do we care about Israel vs. Hezbollah? I mean... why should we align ourselves with Israel (which we do) much less get our feet wet in that mess anyways? Oh, and there's no reason to be all upset in your posts. If you dont want to reply, at least write the reason, rather than just saying "ha, I read that and now I know you're an idiot, Im not reading any more" because that's the feeling I get off of your post and it's completely inappropriate. The bolded part is exactly what I a referring to. The main reason why some people say it isn't a terrorist organization is because they equate groups such as Hezbollah with the Palestinians who they feel are the victims in the conflict. Are they the worst one out there? No, but that doesn't mean they don't promote terrorism. My point is that if someone hasn't received enough information on a topic like this and honestly feels that a group like Hezbollah isn't a terrorist organization (as it seemed like you had implied), it is usually extremely difficult to argue with those types of people (which is why I didn't want to get into it.) There are numerous reasons why the United States supports Israel, but to name a few: 1. Religious Christians. We are the most religious country out of all developed nations, by far. 2. They are the only nation in that region that can relate to Western Civilization. 3. Most in this country feel that Israel is the victim in the conflict. 4. That thing known as The Holocaust. 5. Isolationism has never worked in the past. As much as he wants to believe it, it isn't because of AIPAC as El Penguino might suggest.

Season starts this Thursday with some decent games. USA Today Top 25: 1. Alabama 2. Ohio State 3. Florida 4. Texas 5. Boise State 6. Virginia Tech 7. TCU 8. Oklahoma 9. Nebraska 10. Iowa 11. Oregon 12. Wisconsin 13. Miami 14. Penn State 15. Pittsburgh 16. LSU 17. Georgia Tech 18. North carolina 19. Arkansas 20. Florida State 21. Georgia 22. Oregon State 23. Auburn 24. Utah 24. West Virginia

And what are you basing your suggestion of our support for Israel off of? The only thing you could possibly use as evidence is that we give more in aid to Israel than to the Palestinians, but if Obama tried to cut that he would be screwed. Other than that, Obama condemned Israel for the settlements, treated Natanyahu like crap during his visit to the White House, also had Biden treat Netanyahu like crap, stayed silent on the flotilla issue, and he has basically stated the same things about security to the Palestinians as he has to the Israelis. Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush aren't presidents anymore. FYI, the British were the ones that sparked the creation of Israel, not America. Its not a surprise that you "see evil" in Israel by hanging around "Libertarian" sites. Not to mention that Fox News was about the only station, cable or non-cable, to defend Israel in the flotilla incident, even though only out of every five Americans thought it was Israel's fault. Heck, I'm actually surprised Israel still has as much support as it does, even with all of the evangelical Christians. Im going to be honest... I have a really hard time understanding what exactly you're trying to say (other than the first few lines). Our aid is reflected over the past two decades, to say the least. I dont care what Obama and his administration are doing, the point I'm trying to say is that this country, as a whole, through its recent history, has supported Israel and 'condemned' 'terrorists' such as Hezbollah. But we almost never have condemned Israel. We might not have been the best of friends with Israel, but we have certainly favored them over Palestine. And on the British sparking the creation of Israel, as you saw in my post I didnt say America. Well, I did, but I was writing in a sense of monologue, I corrected myself. The world. As in, the United Nations. British Land, but a UN mandate, correct? But everywhere after that... you lost me. But for the reference, if you think I've adopted political views off of MarlinsBaseball.com, or for anywhere off of the internet for that matter, you're mistaken. My opinoins are purely my own opinions, and the only people who have been able to shape my bias would be my parents. I'm sorry, but I stopped reading after you decided to put quotations around "terrorists" when describing Hezbollah. And would you like to explain that? I dont know why you've got such sense of hostility in something that I can barely even call an argument. Because it is a sign that displays that it will be nearly impossible to convince you that the other side is correct, which makes a debate pointless. If you really doubt the fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, I find it highly unlikely that my views on the subject would have any influence on you.

Who said we don't support Israel? I simply made a statement that corrected yours. Obama coming out and deliberately condemning Israel for their settlement expansion is the first time a U.S. president has come out and done something like that in a long time. In fact, I can't remember anyone else doing so. Not to mention the fact that he didn't support Israel during the flotilla incident even though only 19% of Americans thought it was Israel's fault, and he isn't being nearly as aggressive with Iran as some of the past presidents would have been. So I would assume that this probably isn't the best time for someone to be complaining about America's "strong support" for Israel. Also, I tend to find it odd how the so-caled "libertarians" get upset when Israel doesn't act like America's child. As for the "monster" part, I'd rather not get into that and let you have whatever opinion you might have. I think you misinterpreted what I meant by "we support Israel." I wasnt correcting you, I was setting out a fact leading into my comment. And with regards to the Obama Administration, I do like what they've done to this point. But it's not enough. We still favor Israel, when really we shouldnt have any siding in someone elses war. I dont think Israel is America's child. I think they were (the displaced Jews after WWII) the helpless scronny little kid who America (or rather the world) sheltered in their time of need, and in return they've moved on and taken advantage of us. Call me crazy, but I see evil in Israel. And Im sure a lot of people are going to hate me for saying it. And what are you basing your suggestion of our support for Israel off of? The only thing you could possibly use as evidence is that we give more in aid to Israel than to the Palestinians, but if Obama tried to cut that he would be screwed. Other than that, Obama condemned Israel for the settlements, treated Natanyahu like crap during his visit to the White House, also had Biden treat Netanyahu like crap, stayed silent on the flotilla issue, and he has basically stated the same things about security to the Palestinians as he has to the Israelis. Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush aren't presidents anymore. FYI, the British were the ones that sparked the creation of Israel, not America. Its not a surprise that you "see evil" in Israel by hanging around "Libertarian" sites. Not to mention that Fox News was about the only station, cable or non-cable, to defend Israel in the flotilla incident, even though only out of every five Americans thought it was Israel's fault. Heck, I'm actually surprised Israel still has as much support as it does, even with all of the evangelical Christians. The bulk of the libertarian opposition to Israel (particularly by reputable commentators) has little to nothing to do with the legitimacy of the state of Israel or the well-being of the Palestinians. Rather, the concern is the effect that US support of Israel has upon foreign policy and national security. They are simply advocating the best for US interests and the US alone. I don't think you understood what I meant by "Libertarians." Usually, about half of them are actually libertarians who simply want to avoid foreign conflicts and ensure national security, while the rest pretend to be libertarians. The latter half commonly has the effect of brainwashing some of the other ones.

Obama's "condemnation" is symptomatic of the same "political purposes" that Bush faced. The Neo-cons and Zionists love to try to demonize Obama as anti-Israel, but in the same speech he was speaking toward potential peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine. In the UN speech he also said: "The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians." Clearly he has the interests of Israel in mind. It seems like you and the rest of the neo-cons are try to spin this as Obama going out of his way to condemn Israel for some personal reason, and that really isn't the case. Clearly there were "political purposes" just as there were with Bush. And Bush's discussion of "impediments" actually didn't come until 2008, which isn't what I quoted previously. Do I think that in Obama's heart, he is pro-Palestinian? Probably. Do I think that he would ever adapt political positions that would strictly favor the Palestinians? Of course not, because congress/the public wouldn't allow him to do that. From what I have heard, most people have been saying that he is anti-Israel compared to our past leaders, which without a doubt is true. And I guess you have just decided to label me as a neo-con? Well, to be honest, that is the first time I have ever been called that, so congratulations.

And what are you basing your suggestion of our support for Israel off of? The only thing you could possibly use as evidence is that we give more in aid to Israel than to the Palestinians, but if Obama tried to cut that he would be screwed. Other than that, Obama condemned Israel for the settlements, treated Natanyahu like crap during his visit to the White House, also had Biden treat Netanyahu like crap, stayed silent on the flotilla issue, and he has basically stated the same things about security to the Palestinians as he has to the Israelis. Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush aren't presidents anymore. FYI, the British were the ones that sparked the creation of Israel, not America. Its not a surprise that you "see evil" in Israel by hanging around "Libertarian" sites. Not to mention that Fox News was about the only station, cable or non-cable, to defend Israel in the flotilla incident, even though only out of every five Americans thought it was Israel's fault. Heck, I'm actually surprised Israel still has as much support as it does, even with all of the evangelical Christians. Im going to be honest... I have a really hard time understanding what exactly you're trying to say (other than the first few lines). Our aid is reflected over the past two decades, to say the least. I dont care what Obama and his administration are doing, the point I'm trying to say is that this country, as a whole, through its recent history, has supported Israel and 'condemned' 'terrorists' such as Hezbollah. But we almost never have condemned Israel. We might not have been the best of friends with Israel, but we have certainly favored them over Palestine. And on the British sparking the creation of Israel, as you saw in my post I didnt say America. Well, I did, but I was writing in a sense of monologue, I corrected myself. The world. As in, the United Nations. British Land, but a UN mandate, correct? But everywhere after that... you lost me. But for the reference, if you think I've adopted political views off of MarlinsBaseball.com, or for anywhere off of the internet for that matter, you're mistaken. My opinoins are purely my own opinions, and the only people who have been able to shape my bias would be my parents. I'm sorry, but I stopped reading after you decided to put quotations around "terrorists" when describing Hezbollah.

I think I've said it before, but I have to give credit to Jimmy Carter when he took the 'controversial' statement of saying that Israel was practicing a form of apartheid in the Occupied Territories. He's right though. Even if you are an Israeli Arab and a citizen of Israel, the government still technically considers you a second-class citizen. But basically here's what you have in Israel and the territories: -Restricted freedom of movement thanks to hundreds of checkpoints/walls/etc (many of which are WITHIN actual Palestinian territory, but controlled by the IDF) -Discrimination and racism against Palestinians -Loss of property rights/no territorial sovereignty (there's literally nothing stopping the Israeli government from seizing what is technically considered Palestinian land, which has led to all of these settlements) -War crimes (there is direct evidence that Israel used phosphorus bombs in violation of international treaties during the bombing and blockade of Gaza, which is technically a war crime) -Little to no civil rights This isn't the greatest map I've seen, but it gives you an idea on the right as to how the West Bank is being chipped away by settlements. Because this is from 2006 it's a bit out of date, but it gives a general idea: - Movement is now free for the Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to Egypt. Not to mention the fact that you can say the same thing about the Israeli's being trapped in by their neighbors, although of course no one would ever want to mention that. - I don't know whether to find it laughable or sad to see so many people complain about racism and discrimination against Arabs in Israel. First of all, I doubt you have any statistics to back your claim up. Second, racism can be found in any country, and in most countries it is a lot worse than in Israel. And third, I wonder how a Jew would be treated in the Gaza Strip? Nah, it's not politically correct to question those types of things though, right? - Most (if not all) of the Palestinian settlements that Israel tears down were built illegally. Therefore, they shoudln't have any property rights since it isn't their property. - If you could name me one war in which a war crime wasn't committed, I'd like to hear about it. To give an analogy, that's like saying a congressman only voted in favor of a bill that would help a certain company because that company made a donation to his campaign. Is it wrong? Of course it is. Does it happen all the time? Of course it does. I also would want to know if, according to you, firing thousands of rockets into your neighbors land is considered a war crime? Probably not, since it was Hamas that did that, right? - Redundant, to say the least.

:lol How soon we forget. Or try to forget on purpose out of convenience: George W. Bush in 2002 (emphasis mine): "Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.� George W. Bush in 2003: "Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a contiguous territory that the Palestinians can call home." Colin Powell in 2003: "Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our satisfaction." Please. I remember exactly when he did that, and if you are comparing that to the magnitude of the condemnation by the Obama administration, you must have a short memory. If you recall, the main reason why Bush called on Israel to halt settlements was for other political purposes, such as the effect it would have on the Palestinian leadership and in the rest of the Middle East, unlike Obama's condemnation. He didn't say that stuff to criticize Israel, but was actually trying to work towards Israel's best security interests. Obama simply put it this way: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

Who said we don't support Israel? I simply made a statement that corrected yours. Obama coming out and deliberately condemning Israel for their settlement expansion is the first time a U.S. president has come out and done something like that in a long time. In fact, I can't remember anyone else doing so. Not to mention the fact that he didn't support Israel during the flotilla incident even though only 19% of Americans thought it was Israel's fault, and he isn't being nearly as aggressive with Iran as some of the past presidents would have been. So I would assume that this probably isn't the best time for someone to be complaining about America's "strong support" for Israel. Also, I tend to find it odd how the so-caled "libertarians" get upset when Israel doesn't act like America's child. As for the "monster" part, I'd rather not get into that and let you have whatever opinion you might have. I think you misinterpreted what I meant by "we support Israel." I wasnt correcting you, I was setting out a fact leading into my comment. And with regards to the Obama Administration, I do like what they've done to this point. But it's not enough. We still favor Israel, when really we shouldnt have any siding in someone elses war. I dont think Israel is America's child. I think they were (the displaced Jews after WWII) the helpless scronny little kid who America (or rather the world) sheltered in their time of need, and in return they've moved on and taken advantage of us. Call me crazy, but I see evil in Israel. And Im sure a lot of people are going to hate me for saying it. And what are you basing your suggestion of our support for Israel off of? The only thing you could possibly use as evidence is that we give more in aid to Israel than to the Palestinians, but if Obama tried to cut that he would be screwed. Other than that, Obama condemned Israel for the settlements, treated Natanyahu like crap during his visit to the White House, also had Biden treat Netanyahu like crap, stayed silent on the flotilla issue, and he has basically stated the same things about security to the Palestinians as he has to the Israelis. Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush aren't presidents anymore. FYI, the British were the ones that sparked the creation of Israel, not America. Its not a surprise that you "see evil" in Israel by hanging around "Libertarian" sites. Not to mention that Fox News was about the only station, cable or non-cable, to defend Israel in the flotilla incident, even though only out of every five Americans thought it was Israel's fault. Heck, I'm actually surprised Israel still has as much support as it does, even with all of the evangelical Christians.

Lets not sugar coat this... we support Israel. We politely ask them to stop, but when they dont give a sh*t about what we have to say they continue doing what they want. Effectively, we are supporting it by not doing anything. We created that monster. Im not referring to a monetary value, Im referring to the support. Who said we don't support Israel? I simply made a statement that corrected yours. Obama coming out and deliberately condemning Israel for their settlement expansion is the first time a U.S. president has come out and done something like that in a long time. In fact, I can't remember anyone else doing so. Not to mention the fact that he didn't support Israel during the flotilla incident even though only 19% of Americans thought it was Israel's fault, and he isn't being nearly as aggressive with Iran as some of the past presidents would have been. So I would assume that this probably isn't the best time for someone to be complaining about America's "strong support" for Israel. Also, I tend to find it odd how the so-caled "libertarians" get upset when Israel doesn't act like America's child. As for the "monster" part, I'd rather not get into that and let you have whatever opinion you might have.

I can't think of a single good reason why we are still giving them billions in aid, considering they don't need our help anymore. This isn't 1947 or even 1967. Their military could wipe the floor with the entire region's, combined. If Obama had tried to stick to his plan that the Israelis had to stop building settlements, and back it up with more than words, this would be different. But the Israelis continue building settlements into the West Bank, slowly eroding what's left of Palestinian land. Although it's not like the Israelis haven't taken land that doesn't belong to them before... Regardless, a lot of things need to change if there is any hope of an agreement. It's also tiring to hear people on both sides of the aisle in the US blaming Hamas for screwing up everything, even though they have done a pretty admirable job of not launching more attacks in the wake of the horrendous Gaza bombing and blockade. I mean seriously, Israel killed more Palestinians in the Gaza bombing and blockade than Hamas had killed in more than a decade. I can guarantee that if the IRA can reform and become a nonviolent political party, anyone can. This should be the example for the West and Hamas. IRA as in Irish Republican Army? I mean... that was random sorry lol. Always means a bunch to me whenever I see that, I love learning about it considering it's what my mother pretty much grew up with. But uhh yeah, let them fend for themselves. If anything, we should be funding Palestine with aid. God only knows half of those millitant groups would stop hating us if we supported them. And then half of the angry world could be a happy place. We do give aid to the Palestinians.

I can't think of a single good reason why we are still giving them billions in aid, considering they don't need our help anymore. This isn't 1947 or even 1967. Their military could wipe the floor with the entire region's, combined. If Obama had tried to stick to his plan that the Israelis had to stop building settlements, and back it up with more than words, this would be different. But the Israelis continue building settlements into the West Bank, slowly eroding what's left of Palestinian land. Although it's not like the Israelis haven't taken land that doesn't belong to them before... Regardless, a lot of things need to change if there is any hope of an agreement. It's also tiring to hear people on both sides of the aisle in the US blaming Hamas for screwing up everything, even though they have done a pretty admirable job of not launching more attacks in the wake of the horrendous Gaza bombing and blockade. I mean seriously, Israel killed more Palestinians in the Gaza bombing and blockade than Hamas had killed in more than a decade. I can guarantee that if the IRA can reform and become a nonviolent political party, anyone can. This should be the example for the West and Hamas. You know, if I didn't know any better I would have thought this stuff was coming from El Penguino's mouth.

Well said is right. This thing has gotten way out of hand. Mainly, the people who were so angry and frustrated when the financial documents came out were the people that were already complaining about how this franchise pockets a large portion of its money. The statements didn't prove for a fact that the team doesn't spend as much money as they can. Even if they didn't, though, what else would you like them to do? A brand new stadium is about to be finished, we have one of the best position players locked up for the next four years, one of the best pitchers signed for the next three, and we are on the verge of extending yet another high-caliber player. Not to mention we have some of the best prospects in the game.

Maybe trading Cody and leaving Maybin with no "safety net" is akin to promoting Miller over the rest of the guys in the minors: it is time to put up or shut up. Here are the keys, now show me you can drive. Beinfest has admited the Cabrera trade has not turned out the way he wanted it to and is severely disappointed in it. These final few months (into next year as well, I'd imagine for Maybin at least) will let Beinfest and company evaluate, on the major league level, the two prime aquisitions one last time. Miller pitched well today, but I bet if he struggles in his next couple of starts, he will be buried so deep in this organization he will barely see the light of day, if not traded. That is not a slight against Miller, but I think the FO is at the end of their rope with him. If Maybin follows, he may not be bured, but I bet they explore some trade options. I think Maybin has more time to "develop," but I think the FO is getting antsy. An ignorant question: What happens if Maybin doesn't work out for us? What would be our options for centerfield for the future? First off, we have to give Maybin at least one more chance to prove himself. It's highly unlikely that either Stanton or Morrison are changing positions anytime soon, so Cody is the one that had to go in order to make room for him. If he doesn't work out, we could probably find a guy in free agency that would come at a rather low price who wouldn't be that much worse than Cody (if at all.) Heck, if Maybin doesn't work out in 2011, we could always just re-sign Cody for 2012. If we don't want to spend that much, there are always potentially solid backup players in the minors who could fill in for a short period of time. A FO doesn't trade away someone though and only have one player who could possibly play a certain position (decently, at least) without a backup plan.

Wow I've never heard that one before Fish Dynasty. I don't mean to sound like an asshole but Would you care to explain why? If there's a name better than that in the MLB, I'd like to hear it. 1. Coco Crisp 2. JJ Putz 3. Boof Bonser My all-time favorite is Stubby Clapp.

Coco Crisp.

The slipper-slope argument is inappropriate. You can absolutely use reason on a case-by-case basis, and that's been the tradition in this country. Separate bathrooms prevent people from uncomfortable sexual/nudity situations. The different uniforms serve a competitive purpose. Disallowing a person's attire choice may or may not serve a reasonable purpose. I don't think it does, others may disagree. But a decision like this doesn't necessitate all the other things you mentioned, just like allowing women to go to college, to vote, to pursue (other and all) careers? etc., hasn't led to that in the past. Just as segregated bathrooms prevent people from uncomfortable situations involving nudity, segregated dress codes prevent harassment from opposers of homosexuality. Again, it works both ways. I simply can't stress it enough that while it may not be easy to view the situation and see it immediately, the concept of each segregated institution serves the same purpose, whether it is for the better or for the worse. In this society, at least we can make the argument that whites and blacks are given the same rights, based on the fact that there is no (or at least none that I can think of) institutionalized segregation anymore. How can a society, though, explain that men and women are created equal, yet in so many aspects of life they are segregated? The argument simply can't be made. And to top your point, segregation between women and men is just because men and women are not the same. They are genetically made up different, it's not the same argument as race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Anyways, I cant reproduce the name of the legislation that was voted on (either under the Clinton adm or the Reagan or the Bush, I cant remember, sorry) but this was all an issue back in the 80s//90s, and it was decided that there would be no gender integration between men and women. It sounds like you may be talking about the Equal Rights Amendment, which was proposed several different times. The debate about it was at its peak in 1972.

The slipper-slope argument is inappropriate. You can absolutely use reason on a case-by-case basis, and that's been the tradition in this country. Separate bathrooms prevent people from uncomfortable sexual/nudity situations. The different uniforms serve a competitive purpose. Disallowing a person's attire choice may or may not serve a reasonable purpose. I don't think it does, others may disagree. But a decision like this doesn't necessitate all the other things you mentioned, just like allowing women to go to college, to vote, to pursue (other and all) careers? etc., hasn't led to that in the past. Just as segregated bathrooms prevent people from uncomfortable situations involving nudity, segregated dress codes prevent harassment from opposers of homosexuality. Again, it works both ways. I simply can't stress it enough that while it may not be easy to view the situation and see it immediately, the concept of each segregated institution serves the same purpose, whether it is for the better or for the worse. In this society, at least we can make the argument that whites and blacks are given the same rights, based on the fact that there is no (or at least none that I can think of) institutionalized segregation anymore. How can a society, though, explain that men and women are created equal, yet in so many aspects of life they are segregated? The argument simply can't be made.

Okay, I lied. Ah, but the color of the jersey serves a pertinent function, namely to differentiate between competitive teams as per reasonable football rules. (At least part of) The disagreement lies in whether the dress code at the prom does with, and if it does, whether it's reasonable for a public institution to choose such rules and structure them in such a way. Although I guess you disagree about the public/private nature of the yearbook, so I suppose that's an issue, too. There's probably a answer to this, but I don't know where to find it (yet; I'm starting law school classes on Monday, so I expect to learn!). And the dress code for senior photos serves the purpose of differentiating the two sexes as per reasonable yearbook rules, just as the uniforms seperate the two football teams. It's the same thing. To put it in a larger context, either society can maintain certain gender rules, or society can be completely integrated between the sexes, which would mean (as said previously) men and women would share the same bathrooms, sports would be co-ed, etc. One can't pick and choose, however, when the two sexes should be seperated and when they should be allowed to have the same rights as each other.