We're not talking about 'the war' enough

[Neeek]

1153432589[/unixtime]]
Of course, the Supreme Court could just rule the "may not be declared unconstitutional" clause to be itself unconstituational (which it is since it's taking away the judicial branch's powers).

Actually, any such clause is definitionally invalid. The Constitution is *the* highest law in the land. Nothing Congress passes can supercede it. For something to have such a clause, and have it, you know, count, it would require amending the Constitution.

[Crissa]

I'm still confused why it's so important that 'Liberals' stand up in this war.

It's not like even Hillary Clinton is part of the majority party, or the Administration.

And it's not like they can say defending your borders is bad in theory.

...Though they could say that blockading foreign ports and bombing airports which are held by a third party is a bad thing...

...But wouldn't that make us even more the minority party?

And so you should say 'the two are the same!' without noting that if the administration was in different hands, things could be said or dealt with, differently?

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

Because for the Democrats, it is key that the Jewish Vote knows that the Democratic party is behind them and the only country where the government in power shares the same faith they do. The Democratic party knows that they have to reaffirm their faith to the Jewish vote.>HERE< is a link showing how important the Democrats felt the Jewish vote was in the last Presidential election. As the link highlights, the issue is that much of the Jewish vote is in battleground states, and the opinion is that if they give up the Jewish vote, they might as well toss in the Presidential election.

I agree, I'm sure that there are some liberal Democratic congressmen out there where the offensive doesn't sit well with them. However, I'm sure that the Minority Whip told them, "Look, if you vote against Israel, there's a good chance that the Jewish PACs are going to label you an anti-Zionist. Due to need for the Jewish vote in these battleground states, the Democratic party can't afford to have any appearance of being anti-Zionist. Thus, if the label sticks on you, then we're going to not give you any party funding for commercials and in fact may have to support challengers in the primary." Yes, a politician can be liberal (or conservative for that matter), but the key is that they are politicians. Like all politicians, they want to be re-elected. Taking away party funding and/or supporting challengers wakes them up really quick. That's how you get a 410-8 vote.

[PhoneLobster]

Even if the jewish voting block matters one jot in comparison to much larger blocks, like say unions, its still a mugs game being a mindless backer for Israel.

No matter where it gets your party, or not, in the short term in the long term Israel goes ballistic and whichever party is in power at the time when the US gets stiffed with a big pile of CONSEQUENCES is in the shit.

Its like appealing to that insane voting base that wants the federal government to basically shut down and cease to exist. You can try and play to that nutter audience but ultimately the majority would get really really pissed off when the country ceases to function.

And like I said, Clinton did a lot reigning in Israel, apparently even Reagan managed to tell Israel to back off on bombing Beirut at least once. And did either of them sacrifice the jewish vote to do it?

Or did Clinton actually build support in the jewish community as he played a high profile role in bringing peace to the region? 'Cause as insular and fanatically murderous as many pro Israeli types are on the whole for the actual you know generally sane jewish community peace in Jerusalem must have played over pretty damn well.

[Crissa]

1153569967[/unixtime]]Its like appealing to that insane voting base that wants the federal government to basically shut down and cease to exist. You can try and play to that nutter audience but ultimately the majority would get really really pissed off when the country ceases to function.

And yet we still have a Republican Majority and the whole theme on this war is 'blame Liberals for not standing up to it.'

How's this work, exactly?

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

Its the "Look over there its a UFO" strategy of political ideology.

Point out something bad their guy is actually doing and someone points over your shoulder and shouts out "But your guy who isn't in power is not not doing it is he! And look a UFO!".

Or in this case as far as I can tell, "The former president loosely allied to your faction either lost the Israel vote and thus the presidency or was just as bad, even though both are not actually true. And why hasn't Dean solved the middle east crisis now he is like chair of the whatsi or whatever it is, that means he is more responsible than party in control of everything right?"

No where near as cunning as our Liberal party's (different Liberals) "can't answer hypothetical questions and every question is hypothetical because I deny all knowledge of everything including my own ministerial arse" gambit.

[power_word_wedgie]

1153569967[/unixtime]]Even if the jewish voting block matters one jot in comparison to much larger blocks, like say unions, its still a mugs game being a mindless backer for Israel.

No matter where it gets your party, or not, in the short term in the long term Israel goes ballistic and whichever party is in power at the time when the US gets stiffed with a big pile of CONSEQUENCES is in the shit.

The thing is that as a politician you're wanting to stay in power today regardless of the possible consequences tomorrow. Politicians want the power, and the only way that they can keep it is to keep being re-elected. It's the old Milton addage, "I'd rather rule Hell than serve in Heaven."

Its like appealing to that insane voting base that wants the federal government to basically shut down and cease to exist. You can try and play to that nutter audience but ultimately the majority would get really really pissed off when the country ceases to function.

The thing is that it has to do with traditional voting bases. The Jewish vote has traditionally voted for Democrats, and with the Republicans trying to court this vote, the last thing the Democrats want to lose is this voting base. Guess which party usually holds the more liberal members ...

Hey, how else do you explain a 410-8 vote for Israel in the US House or Representatives? Not many measures carry that kind of overwhelming support, and I really doubt that there are 410 Conservative members in the US House of Representatives.

And like I said, Clinton did a lot reigning in Israel, apparently even Reagan managed to tell Israel to back off on bombing Beirut at least once. And did either of them sacrifice the jewish vote to do it?

The thing is that for their elections, they won with such comfortable margins that the Jewish vote wasn't as big of an impact. The 21st century is different. The last two presidential elections resulted in extra days of checking votes in battleground states. The last thing that either party wants to do is do anything that will alienate the Jewish vote figuring that they are based in New York and Florida. Both states hold a large amount of electorial votes.

Or did Clinton actually build support in the jewish community as he played a high profile role in bringing peace to the region? 'Cause as insular and fanatically murderous as many pro Israeli types are on the whole for the actual you know generally sane jewish community peace in Jerusalem must have played over pretty damn well.

Traditionally, when a President has been successful in pressuring Israel, it is usually on an issue like settlements on occupied lands. This is an issue where the Jewish community is divided pretty evenly, and thus the President can support the other side due to this division. As for being rocketed by Hamas and Hizbollah, having soldiers kidnapped, and Israel's existance, there really isn't a fragmented Jewish community on these issues.

[Username17]

Remember that Jews aren't the only people with a stake in Israel. It's very important to those with Social Democrat leanings in American politics to maintain a country in Palestine where Jews can claim the right of return. That's important to a lot of people.

But the most fascist elements in our country want to make sure that there is a strong and crazy Israel that will feel its oats so strongly that it will knock over the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Temple. Because then (and only then) can there be animal sacrifices in the Tmple so that the Antichrist can convince people to stop doing animal sacrifices in order to anger Jehova and start the end times war.

Got that? A substantial portion of Bush's base feels that it is in their best interest for Israel to be well armed and crazy beligerent. They believe that if this is done with enough gusto they will be sucked directly into heaven on a pillar of light.

Attempting to reign in Israel's genocidal leanings can get a flaming cross on your lawn. Weird but true.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

1153617843[/unixtime]]
No where near as cunning as our Liberal party's (different Liberals) "can't answer hypothetical questions and every question is hypothetical because I deny all knowledge of everything including my own ministerial arse" gambit.

Just a note, our Liberal party is actually a conservative party who must've gotten confused when they picked their name. Their strategy really is to deny all knowledge and blame the ministers though. Exactly why its good that the government has no idea what its actually doing I'm not sure. Seems to me they're claiming they aren't in the wrong because they're incompetant.

[Neeek]

1153635835[/unixtime]]
Seems to me they're claiming they aren't in the wrong because they're incompetant.

That sounds so familiar...

[Draco_Argentum]

Can you post a link to something corroberating the temple rebuild nutcases? Thats just too nuts to go unsupported. Unfortunately I can see it being true seeing people think D&D teaches you magic. Probably the same people.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

Be scared. And Rapture-ready! {OK, unhinged}

They say

Red Heifer: The Bible predicts that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem. Ever since the 70 AD destruction, one major roadblock barring the reconstruction of the Temple is the fact that the Temple Mount area has been defiled by warfare. In order to cleanse the tribulation Temple Mount for worship, the Jews will need the ashes of a pure red heifer. Numbers chapter 19 describes how King Solomon cleansed the first Temple with the ashes of a specially prepared red heifer. (Numbers 19:2-9)

[Neeek]

Wow. The crazy is all over the place there.

[Maj]

For some reason, we have the hubris to believe that we can make Jesus arrive sooner by instigating the events prophesied in the Bible.

[Draco_Argentum]

Just like all good fundamentalist Christians that site is both crazy and hypocritical. Can anyone link those beliefs with someone in the Republicans who actually matters?

[Username17]

Can anyone link those beliefs with someone in the Republicans who actually matters?

How about the President of the United States?

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sec ... e]Although many Christians consider the money-centered word of faith theology to be a form of heresy, the Republican Party has embraced TBN’s audience as a valuable constituency. Rabbi Lapin, who himself has met personally with President Bush, told the Prospect that Hagee “without question, yes, absolutely” has the ear of the White House. But he declined to identify any officials by name, claiming “there’s a lot of sensitivity in government circles about the so-called religious right.” TBN has made much of its own Republican connections, touting network founder Paul Crouch’s relationship with John Ashcroft (they attended the same church as children) -- and the Republicans have returned the compliment.

In his 1999 campaign memoir, Bush recalls feeling “spellbound” by the preaching of Dallas-based TBN televangelist T.D. Jakes, whom he has since invited to participate in official White House events. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has lauded TBN’s efforts to expand its broadcasting into China. TBN’s lawyer is Colby May, who also serves as counsel to the American Center for Law and Justice, a group founded by Pat Robertson, whose president Jay Sekulow, a converted Jew, advised Bush on his Supreme Court nominees. May also represents certain members of Congress on legislative initiatives and helped draft the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, which, if passed, would lift the ban on electioneering from the pulpit. Its chief sponsor, Congressman Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, has appeared on Praise the Lord to promote the bill. Other guests on TBN programming have included Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican; Texas gop co-chairman David Barton; and Oliver North, the radio host and Iran-Contra scandal celebrity. [/quote]

[power_word_wedgie]

1153694850[/unixtime]]Just like all good fundamentalist Christians that site is both crazy and hypocritical. Can anyone link those beliefs with someone in the Republicans who actually matters?

The best that I can do is what Frank eluded to in his link:

>WIKIPEDIA on George Bush, about 2/3rd the way down<

Bush moved with his family to Washington, D.C. in 1988, to work on his father's campaign for the U.S. presidency. He worked with Lee Atwater and Doug Wead to develop and coordinate a political strategy for courting conservative Christians and evangelical voters, who were seen as key to winning the nomination and the election. Delivering speeches at rallies and fundraisers, Bush met with representatives of conservative and religious organizations on behalf of his father.

And ever since then, Bush has been courting the evangelical vote. I can't blame him - hey, he's a two-term president, so it must have helped a little. So there's no doubt that Bush is saying quite a bit that courts this vote.

And then we make the indirect link to evangelical groups are usually the ones wanting to raise the temple. However, I think that this is usually the best you can do - after all, politicians don't usually want to go too far out on limbs.

[PhoneLobster]

after all, politicians don't usually want to go too far out on limbs.

No politicians NEVER go out on a limb, especially on the right wing side of things where no one ever calls them out on it, I mean they have that much sense and integrity they don't NEED anyone to tell them when some right wing mouth frothing cultist is too scary or not...

Ladies and gentlement the next ilegitimate president of the united states of America.
Not on a Limb full of crazy

Over here Opus Die (enemyof democracy, equality and sanity) is totally not branch stacking to take control of our ruling junta.
Like So

And of course there would never be a bipartisan group of your ruling elected politicians who would crown an insane cultist king of America in a washington government building for any reason...

As demonstrated by this

Look politicians do go out on all sorts of crazy limbs for religious nutters, and not always even for good electoral reasons (Indeed money and media influence are often bigger factors, along with honestly being stark raving mad nutters themselves).

Bush's links with all sorts of WEIRD end of days cult christianity stuff and his own apparent messiah complex are pretty common knowledge compared to the above limbs not being gone onto.

And these are NOT "indirect links" Rove has been trumpetting the amazing Bush electoral strategy of appealing to only one single interest group (insane american christian nut bags) for how many years now? I mean these insane nut bags have been to the white house more times than certain famous corrupt bribe merchants.

Come on I mean have you heard some of the stuff King George actually says?
This is the BBC

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

For some reason, we have the hubris to believe that we can make Jesus arrive sooner by instigating the events prophesied in the Bible.

My guess is that that isn't exactly the mindset they have.

Jesus wouldn't be arriving sooner… no, he'd merely be arriving. Nothing's being sped up; instead, steps are being taken to ensure arrival because that's these people's agenda and some of the circumstances for doing look pretty good right now.

It'd be like if you were some bad-ass fortune teller and told me, "Chan, you are fated to die," and I said, "Yep," and totally shot myself in the face. Probably not what you expected, but your prophecy sure came true.

The Bible doesn't mention anything about genetically engineering a red heifer and scattering its ashes on the temple mount from a helo--but, then again, could the Bible really be expected to mention something like that?

[Draco_Argentum]

In all seriousness thats grounds for setting up a militia to protect sundry freedoms and rights. Also the pro-sanity side needs to snag a solid public support base and a good chunk of mid level military officers and enlisted.

[PhoneLobster]

In further talking about the war news lets talk about this.

In its ongoing war on the universe at large Israel has bombed a UN observation post killing a bunch of UN observers.

They say it was an accident and that they know nothing about it because war is confusing and the enquiry will satisfy everyone at some distant point in the future.

The UN says it was deliberate. After all they had been coordinating with Israeli forces to avoid this very event.

So bad enough story right?

Well along comes our excellent public broadcasters lateline news program and our news guy interviews a typical Israeli public relations rep.

The following interesting additions come out.

Most likely the bombing was done with some of their most supposedly surgically accurate laser guided missiles from an Israeli jet.

Israel has been doing similar "surgical" strikes against red cross ambulances. And shelling UN posts all along the border with artillery fire.

To say the UN observation post location was known to Israel is an understatement, its been there for decades.

The UN post was heavily marked as a UN outpost. Not only were there signs everywhere but the whole place was painted blue and white with a giant "UN" on the roof.

The outpost had been under very heavy Israeli artillery fire all day long and the men there had been desperately on the phone with Israeli forces all day trying to get them to stop.

So in otherwords as part of a general anti international observer/intervention intimidation campaign Israel has been bombing red cross ambulances, shelling UN observation posts and when that wasn't enough basically decided to torpedo one directly.

Now you tell me who the criminals and terrorists are.

[Crissa]

Now, who cursed about the situation in Iraq? President Bush? No, he said: "Hizbollah has got to stop this shit." - Not Isreal. Our administration has blocked called for a ceasse-fire, the US the only one that's holding out on this.

And topical, in today's Wall Street Journal, an open link between Zionism and the administration: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 009242.php

Earlier this week, Democrats refused to hear the President of Iraq until he denied statements supporting continued fighting in Lebanon.

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

Earlier this week, Democrats refused to hear the President of Iraq until he denied statements supporting continued fighting in Lebanon.

-Crissa

Not entirely accurate. Yes, Democrats are incensed with al-Maliki's position, but it is because he is (a) refusing to condemn Hizbollah and (b) being critical of Israel.

ABC News Article

At the same time, leading House and Senate Democrats said they were incensed by al-Maliki's position on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Al-Maliki has condemned what he called Israel's "hostile acts" in Lebanon and said the international community has not done enough to stop it.

The House and Senate last week overwhelmingly approved resolutions in support of Israel, which began heavy attacks on Hezbollah sites in Lebanon two weeks ago after Hezbollah forces crossed into northern Israel, killed eight Israeli soldiers and captured two.

Al-Maliki sidestepped a direct question at a White House news conference Tuesday about his position on Hezbollah, the guerrilla group that dominates south Lebanon.

"Here, actually, we're talking about the suffering of a people in a country. And we are not in the process of reviewing one issue or another, or any government position," al-Maliki said.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he doubted he would attend al-Maliki's address, and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi hinted she too would boycott the speech. "Unless Mr. Maliki disavows his critical comments of Israel and condemns terrorism, it is inappropriate to honor him with a joint meeting of Congress," said Pelosi, D-Calif.

As for the bombing of a UN outpost, it was an accident. After all, all this did was force Israel to apologize for the incident, not something that they were wanting to do. Heck, the US planes shot up our own tanks in recent engagements by mistake. I agree that UN peacekeepers told the Israeli forces numerous times that they were getting close to their position, but the peecekeepers also admitted that Hizbollah guerillas were moving around their position as well. Heck, earlier this week, Egeland (UN Humanitarian Chielf) stated his frustration that Hizbollah was using civilians as human shields.

Finally, back to the original question, ABC News showed that over the same time period more people had died in Iraq in sectarian violence than died in Lebanon. Maybe that is the reason why they don't talk about it as much. (However, over the last few days, it has been the lead story in the news.)

[PhoneLobster]

I see the "look there's a UFO" line of defense again.

And also someones being insanely credulous if they believe for a second that that bombing was remotely accidental.

Didn't I just outline in detail the many insanely high impediments you would have to ignore to believe the Israeli story?

I mean A GIANT UN SYMBOL ON THE ROOF.

THEY WERE ON THE PHONE ALL DAY TELLING THEM TO QUIT IT ALREADY...

A DECADES OLD OUTPOST.

I can't keep typing this in capitals you know. Its another one of those issues. Some people want to believe what they want to believe regardless of all precedent and evidence.

Thats what the Israelis depend on when they spin an incident like this, they need you to choose to ignore the facts and believe them simply because you want to.

Indeed they seemed a little shocked this time round when it didn't work as widely as it usually does.

Edit: and for gods sake...

I agree that UN peacekeepers told the Israeli forces numerous times that they were getting close to their position

Not getting close to, SHELLING THEM DIRECTLY.

As they have been directly shelling UN outposts accross the entire border.

[power_word_wedgie]

Let's put it this way: If they were shelling the UN outposts, what was Israel's goal in doing that?

And that's the point. It doesn't make sense. In fact, it makes more sense that they were being shelled by:

1) Bombs from planes travelling fast to evade surface-to-air weaponry. Also, there's a difference between laser-guided bombs and camera-guided bombs.

2) Artillery where the equipment is shelling via coordinates given to them, not a LOS.