>> ^blankfist:
WHAT?! Do my lying eyes deceive me?! Did rougy just say these are matters that should be handled from a self-governing community? How Libertarian that was of you!


There was a movement to establish a Libertarian enclave in New Hampshire, I think, many years ago. Is that still active?

Anyway, I hope it happens. I honest to God hope it happens, and I want as many Libertarians to move there and start living according to the code of their political views.

And I predict that in a very, very short period of time the place will be nothing more than a petulant grove of warring wasp nests, each wanting what's only best for them.

I disagree with Pprt's stance not only because of what I have outlined above but primarily because his approach does not provide a solution to the problem, which is insuring the security of civilians on both sides. Essentially what his stance advocates is the blank check towards Israel's continued aggressive tactics when dealing with the Palestinian people, which have been going on for 60 years and have created more and more instability and friction between both parties, not less.

One cannot bomb and maim people into submission no matter what weapons you will use, the US tried to subdue Vietnam through massive bombing campaigns and failed, not because it was wrong in its military approach or didn't drop enough ordnance but because it did not create cooperation nor understand the local populace. The Israelis do. But their aim is not to live peacefully along side the Palestinian people as a stance of foreign policy but to create enough friction that will eventually justify a cohesive seizure of all the lands in Gaza and the West Bank. Or better yet keep infringing on Palestinians so they retaliate and they can seize more land.

This cannot be allowed to occur, as it would justify the brute force tactics in capturing and holding entire enclaves under the guise of assuring security. The argument has already been applied in America's intervention in Iraq which started as when the US sought to nullify WMDs in Iraq lest the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud. This is the same argument Russia has used in intervene in Georgia and South Ossetia. The same argument Germany used in capturing Czechoslovakia.

The Holy land is not mandated to one peoples over another.

EDIT: For clarification.

Yehoshua, you don't disagree so much as you peddle forth the same BS spit out by the Israel media to justify the actions of the IDF. Shit your name is the Jewish pronounciation of Jesus for goddsakes.

And its not like you bring forth any objectivity to the discussion, not to mention that your comments are woefully ignorant or rather malicious in their reading of history and the conflict at large.

Hamas was elected not only because of it being terrorist, shit the Americans voted in Bush should we condemn all Americans to die for their unlawful unilateral military actions? Hamas provided the Palestinian people with a government that provided schools and hospitals when Fatah was too busy with infighting over who controls what after Yasser Araft died who ran the thing as his personal mob business more then any government institution that cared for its people.

Hamas is a reflection and embodiment of the bitterness that Isreal has wrought on the Palestinian people over the last 60 years, it is foolish and stupidity to simply relegate peoples actions to terrorism without thinking about what exactly drives a populace or a single person to resist and fight to the death.

To say that Israel is conducting this 'war' as safely as possible is the dumbest shit I ever heard, you yourself claim that war is hell yet at the same time you really believe that bombing and killing civilians will suddenly enlight them and turn them into docile democratic people. How is Israel showing care by telling Gazans to basically internally flee within the open air prison they set up with blockades, necessitating the tunnels that smuggle goods in. The Gazan blockade has been in effect since June of last year, something that Israel has claimed was to destroy Hamas as well by applying collective punishment of all Gazans, a war crime under Geneva conventions. Violence simply begets violence see the current destabilized Iraq and Afghanistan as a whole.

As a military strategy its disconnected with what Livni claims of peace and ending Hamas, the Lebanese war showed that all of Israel's military power could not destroy Hezboallah and what was the cost of this failure? The utter devastation of most of Lebanon. How did that work out for Israel? A great success? Will this hostile action cease the attacks or simply create even more fundamentalism in a people who see right that the world at large care not for their plight.

Countless cases have shown that COIN works best in fighting terrorism that is allying yourself with the general population to seek a common objective, this was shown to work in several locations in Iraq such as Mosul. However Israel has no common objective with the Palestinian people who they have shoved into smaller and smaller enclaves through slow acquisition of lands by 'settlers'. The west bank looks like fucking swiss cheese now. Israel seeks simply to acquire and hold land. It's military power assures even though civilian deaths will occur through hostile action, in the long term the land will become theirs.

But this is what Israel wants and needs, a perpetual war to keep its population in check and to continue having American support. To claim its fighting the good fight killing mostly civilians so that it can win elections.

But hell what do you care you come simply to shill propagandistic bullshit and by lines of the Israel apologist media who don't even cover Gaza because IDF does not allow reporters in.

I could on and on deconstructing your thinly veiled apologizes for what are essentially war crimes.

Think of the analogy of what is happening in Gaza, The US is being bombed by Russia because Russia is sick and tired of the nuclear threat America presents. Russia is full justified in assuring its national security and hopes that by bombing major population centers of America, the American people will rise up and over throw their tyrannical government that they voted in.

kthxbye.

^Imstellar

You say:
"the reason i did this (gay marriage = polygamy) was to illustrate that democracy is a flawed system and does not protect against oppression, intolerance, and hate--the only system which does this is a rule of law derived by basic human rights!"

Your proposition was:
"Republic government" + "That single line "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is enough to ensure gay rights, polygamist rights, womens suffrage, forbid slavery, racism, protect freedom of speech and religion, maintain economic liberty, and guard against any other form of oppression."

Do we live in the same world?

The United States is a federal constitutional republic not a democracy. Bill of rights (1791) and the US Constitution (1787).

Even then slavery ended (legally speaking only) in 1865, racism continued for a long time culminating with the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Woman's suffrage only came into nationalized form in 1920.

I find it silly to lay the blame at the feet of democracy which doesn't currently exist in the US, and claim that solutions exist in a republic that issues laws and decrees that you expect to be perfectly respected by every organ of the government and applied fairly across the nation.

The obstacles to same-sex marriage stem from basic social incompatibility out of years of fear mongering that gays would ruin America and its moral standing originating in the fundamentalist christian right. It's basic social taboo, which we might find wrong but wouldn't be thought of so in the Midwest and most of the Christian enclaves in the US.

These fears are then expressed in election that bring social conservatives to power, resulting laws passed by congress, house and signed in by the President, the largest one being the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), authored by Bob Barr (republican at the time) in 1996 going fast tracked through a republican controlled house and congress.

Its Congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."

What I outlined there was not a democracy, it is exactly what you outlined, a republic which at its core has the bill of rights that possess "the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

In the same way as social views are altered so do those who get elected into power become representative of changing of the times, for example Prez Obama's political platform included full repeal of the DOMA.

I believe that in the next 5 to 10 years there will be a repel or reform on Prop 8, at the same time I believe it will be confined to more socially progressive areas of the US with more conservative states taking much longer.

Then if polygamy is such a big issue and concern well they can mount a organized movement to have state recognition for that (even though I think its a really minority and fringe issue not on the same scale as gay rights).

But you are mistaken to think that the solution will magically spring forth if we simply have a republic with human rights as guiding tenants because we had that and even then social issues took decades to resolve. The line "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is an ideal the forefathers gave this country it wasn't a dictum and in many ways I believe at the time it was meant to apply only to white male Americans oppressed by British rule.

But its wording has come to mean so much more as an idea. It is America's pursuit of that idea that makes that nation so great.

As I have said before...

Heaven is a Communist enclave. No one owns property. Everyone is provided for under a universal provider plan for ALL of their needs. Food is free. Shelter is free. Entertainment is free. FOREVER. Now.. if that isn't a Communist paradise. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE F#$K IS.

I think I love you.

In reply to this comment by honkeytonk73:
Jesus dislikes communism. That is why you should vote Republican.

Now.. lets talk about Heaven. Heaven is a Communist enclave for certain. Noone owns property. Everyone is provided for under a universal provider plan for ALL of their needs. Food is free. Shelter is free. Entertainment is free. FOREVER. Now.. if that isn't a Communist paradise. I DONT KNOW WHAT THE F#$K IS.

Vote Republican. Vote Jesus.

HEAVEN is a communist enclave. Don't think so? Think about it. Everyone who is properly 'enlightened' goes there. Lives together. You don't own land. You get free food and entertainment. It is the largest WELFARE STATE in the universe.

So, if you are anti communist, you are ANTI-Jesus. ANTI-Heaven. ANTI-God.

So there.

Jesus dislikes communism. That is why you should vote Republican.

Now.. lets talk about Heaven. Heaven is a Communist enclave for certain. Noone owns property. Everyone is provided for under a universal provider plan for ALL of their needs. Food is free. Shelter is free. Entertainment is free. FOREVER. Now.. if that isn't a Communist paradise. I DONT KNOW WHAT THE F#$K IS.

>> ^Irishman:
Can somebody in America please explain to the entire rest of the world, who after all feel the effects of American foreign policies every day, why The People of The United States do not want Ron Paul as their next president? Or Mike Gravel?
What is everyone around the world missing here? What do you guys know that we don't? Cos from Europe it looks like you're all about to make fools out of yourselves once again.


I missed the part of history where Europe turned into a libertarian enclave. When did that happen?

Is there some poll that shows overwhelming support for Ron Paul that I missed? The only one I found limited choices to just McCain vs. Obama (no Clinton, even).

Heh. Independent Kosovo is a sham. Its not independent in any sense of the word other then it being a small enclave funded by international donors and run by NATO and the EU.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

"..Huckabee can't possibly win in a final race for the White House..."

That's ominously close to what I thought about W before 2000.

This is elitist, but it's easy to underestimate the level of ignorance in the public. We forget because we live our lives in these enclaves of non-stupidity (like here IMHO - our only brush with the vast majority out there might be through an episode of Jerry Springer.

I disagree with your assumption that the issue takes religion into account when picking sides or media (the US has a highly constricted view to reporting news from Israel in AIPAC controlled way, have you ever heard anything critical of Israel from US news sources?), there are many Christian and Jewish activists who believe that Israelis process of peace is heavy handed. As I recall Israel is the only nation that has a nuclear weapons program that is hush hush on the International scene, and is well armed with Merkava tanks, AH-1 Cobras and M-16 wielding soldiers, that force has always been there and is not a response to the threat recently. Not that this is a justification for Palestinian tactics, but what other response would you expect after 60 years? Them throwing rocks still?

I believe that the Israeli people want a peaceful resolution to this conflict, but that is at odds with the decision reached in high government of Israel to deny the Palestinian people the right to their own land.

For all the peace rhetoric of the last 60 years, all you have see is a slow dismemberment of the Palestinian territory into ever smaller enclaves. As Henry Siegman writes:

"The Middle East peace process may well be the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history. Since the failed Camp David summit of 2000, and actually well before it, Israel’s interest in a peace process – other than for the purpose of obtaining Palestinian and international acceptance of the status quo – has been a fiction that has served primarily to provide cover for its systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and an occupation whose goal, according to the former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon, is ‘to sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people’.

But I digress from the main video, I just find it so supremely ironic as well for UN Watch to attack the human rights records of Iran when you have Bush come up on the podium and talk about human rights when we have Guantanamo bay. Robert Parry from ConsortiumNews:

George W. Bush – who asserts his unlimited personal authority to kill, kidnap, torture and spy on anyone of his choosing anywhere in the world – opened his annual speech to the United Nations by hailing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The U.S. President pushed the envelope of the world’s credulity even further by citing the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of 1948 as justification for his “war on terror” and his draconian policies for eliminating “terrorists” or other threats to world order with little or no due process.

I mean srsly?

I Guess this begs the question.. who is in charge over there?

Iraqi PM criticises Baghdad wall - BBC April 22nd 07

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has asked for construction to end on a concrete wall around a Sunni enclave in the capital, Baghdad.

Mr Maliki said there were other ways to protect the Adhamiya neighbourhood, which is surrounded by Shia districts.

The US military, which is behind the project, has said the purpose of the wall is to prevent violence between Sunni and Shia militants.

But Iraqi politicians have warned it will increase sectarian tensions....Read More

Thanks for the input, Baqueta. I also always thought it was "sings the streets a serenade," but when searching for the complete lyric listing I've found that "streetsuss" appears the only form ever used. After a little more searching, I feel certain that you've pegged it; "street-suss" seems a fairly common term.

From http://www.uri-geller.com/rage.htm :

Robert McNeil finds some aggressive street-suss being directed at the Festival luvvies. ...
"Meanwhile, the bar-room hangouts of the Edinburgh habitues resound to the sound of bitchily dismissive critiques of a 'scuzzy' circus which markets itself with an aggressive sense of street-suss, and which wins popular support by the barrel-load, but scores 'nil points' in Edinburgh's teaming enclaves of fey, androgynous arty-farty folk."

From M-W:

Main Entry: suss
Pronunciation: 's&s
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: by shortening & alteration from suspect
1 chiefly British : FIGURE OUT -- usually used with out
2 chiefly British : to inspect or investigate so as to gain more knowledge -- usually used with out

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22street-suss%22

So, Romeo serenades the bitter night with the fires of street wisdom burning in his soul, completing the sorrowful harmony which echoes through the alleyways and withering branches of barren trees ineluctably entering Juliet's solitude with an offer of sweet remorse.

...or something.

The Right is having trouble attacking this man clearly. They go back years to find a clip to try to pass him off as a flip flopper?

Please.

Let's see now... Since 2003 Bush revised the way he refers to the war...

March 2003 - Operation Iraqi Freedom:
"This will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory."
TROOPS : 90,000

May 2003 - Under Mission Accomplished banner:
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
TROOPS : 146,300

April 2004 - On Staying Course:
"These killers [terrorists] don't have values. They want to shake our will... But we will stay the course."
TROOPS : 138,100

November 2005 - Strategy for Victory in Iraq:
"Every man and woman who volunteers to defend our nation deserves an unwavering commitment to the mission - and a clear strategy for victory."
TROOPS : 154,000

July 2006 - Operation Together Forward:
"Obviously, the violence in Baghdad is still terrible, and therefore there needs to be more troops."
TROOPS : 131,000

January 2007 - New Way Forward Iraq Strategy:
"This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis... Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."
TROOPS : 132,000


The military itself says Bush's surge plan is a foolish political compromise, that introduces too few troops to secure the situation but just enough to get more Americans killed. Bush doesn't listen to his own generals, dismissing the advice of the Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, who wanted the increase to be just a few thousand men.