>> ^stellar:

There are so many ways that could have gone terribly wrong.


Not to worry; I'm sure he'd get workman's comp and a nice settlement from the supermarket.

I agree that it is a private matter and nobody's business.

However, when you approach public servants and involve them in your quest to "win" in a divorce settlement, then you have lost your right to "this is private."

Bad behavior on O'Reilly's part, and nothing new.


>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^bareboards2:
O'Reilly seems to be confusing An Officer and a Gentleman with the cops. Adultery is unbecoming to an officer and could be grounds for loss of rank.
And this is coming from Mr Loofah.
What a hypocrite.

I disagree. As Cenk points out, he's not the one committing adultery and besides, it's no one else's business except for the people directly involved. It's not like two people who are in love, one of them in a marriage that's down the tubes, will wait until a costly divorce has been finalised. I'm not saying this is the case here, but we don't know and shouldn't judge someone else's private business

The claim for Arabs right to the land is stronger because they did not leave the area (as a group). They are also not as diluted genetically from their original ethnicity(s) (shared with Jews, who are of multiple ethnicities, but mainly of Arab decent).
Zionism is the support of the Jewish state, not necessarily the support for it's expansion (although that support is strong in Israel). That means all Israelites are Zionists, unless they are traitors to their own country and are working to end the Jewish state, there aren't many if any of those people in Israel, they would be stoned to death. I'm not sure what definition of Zionist you are working with, it must be different from mine. Not all Zionists are expansionists, and there is nothing in the word that requires poor treatment of others.
To answer Boise_Lib: Because these children are required to serve in the army, actively supporting the state, they are Zionist, whether by choice or by birth. They have the right to leave AFTER their service, or before if their parents leave Israel, so like any child, they are at the whim of their parents and forced into their belief system whether they believe in it or not. This means I was partially wrong in my statement and I will revise it..., all adult Israelis are there 100% by choice.
I love the 'you are just wrong, I can't be bothered to tell you why' mindset. It really doesn't help your argument or help sway my ideas, it gives the impression that you really don't have anything to point at as 'wrong' you just don't like what you read. If you really can point out any inaccuracies I would like to know so I can learn or clarify, but I think you are simply reading in what you want to argue against.
I'm flabbergasted by your idea that (to paraphrase) 'we only send $2.5 BILLION a year, that's not much'. It shows clearly that you aren't being logical or reasonable in the least. If we are going broke fast (and we are), why should we be sending 2.5 BILLION to ANYONE? Especially if your contention, that it isn't a large part of their budget and they don't need it is correct, why bother sending them a dime? There are certainly others we could send that money to and do FAR more good, like Africa.
Anti-Zionism might help, anti-Semitism probably not so much. Pro-Zionism is certainly hurting things by supporting one sides expansion while ignoring the atrocities that causes the Palestinians. As I previously wrote, anti-Semitism often is a by product of anti-Zionism, where the anger at the Zionists is misapplied to only and to all Jews. Therefore, Zionism creates anti-Semitism, rightly or wrongly. I am not an anti-Semite, I am an anti-Zionist...being human, sometimes the two are confused or convergent but not intentionally on my part.
The BEST solution in my eyes is a diplomatic one that stops the expansion and solidifies borders, and one that gets us OUT of the conflict as a nation (if the nutjob born agains want to send their own money, that's their business). I don't see that as the ONLY solution, and obviously neither does Israel, since they are not negotiating in any serious way, and instead continue to expand and provoke, expand and provoke. The Palestinians on the other hand have been pushing for solidified borders for decades and continuously agree to them only to have "settlers" (invaders) move into the land as soon as the treaty is signed. This gives them the moral high ground to me, but does not mean we should be involved.>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^newtboy:
Yeah sure, we're all 'Africans', but that designation intentionally ignores the evolution of the species and differentiation since the second great migration, (the first was the aborigines, genetically different from the second wave) and so intentionally ignores 'ethnicity' as a concept.
True, the scattering of the 'Jews' (ethnic term intended here) has changed them from the other 'Arabs' they originally were to the mixed ethnicity they are now, making them slightly different from the Arabs of the region today. Shouldn't the fact that their ethnicity has been diluted also dilute their claim to their ancestral lands (as if such a claim should hold water anyway, if your ancestors lost the land, it's lost, right)?
anti-Semitism is what results from the miss-application of anti-Zionism in many cases (including for me sometimes). For me, it is NEVER an ethnic issue, always a religolitical (religious/political)issue that causes the dislike of the group.
All Israelis are Zionists by definition and action, I suppose this is not true for ALL Jews (of either definition) but is the public position of their 'church' and their ethnic leadership as well. I feel fairly safe saying it's the position held by nearly all Orthodox Jews, but that might be wrong, I don't know many. That makes them a completely different animal from the Chinese, where many in China actively don't support their government or even their system of government, but are forced to stay in China and work for it. No Israeli is forced to live in Israel, it's 100% by choice.
I do understand that in large part, the 'fundamentalist Christians' (and also American Jewish Zionists) are to blame for us funding and supporting Israel, I hope I misread and you don't think they foot the bill too, we all do.
Can we agree that religious justifications for ANY otherwise bad act are wrong, and reinforce the idea that religion itself is wrong and bad?>> ^hpqp:
@newtboy
If we go back far enough, we are all Africans; ethnic distinctions happen to take the history of peoples' migrations into account. Yes, ethnic Jews are Arabs (or vice-versa) just like most Australians, Americans and Canadians are Europeans, except instead of colonisation it is the Jewish diaspora that is the cause for their break from their "land of origins".
Antisemitism is racism against Jews (ethnic group), whether they be religious or not. I fully disagree with Israel's politics and their funding by Americans (speaking of which, you do know, I hope, that they are above all funded/supported by fundie evangelicals, don't you?) for the purpose of colonisation, but to lump all (ethnic) Jews/Israelis (that's a nationality btw) together saying that they support this is about as ridiculous as saying that all Chinese in China and around the world support the communist government in China just because they're Chinese.
That being said, I agree entirely that the religious justifications over land - from both sides btw - is ridiculous and dangerous. "My prophet died here so it's my land!" Ugh.

Also very broad and inaccurate generalizations.
You can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions for a pretty detailed explanation.
Dilution of ethnicity and claim of their ancestral lands can just as easily apply to 'Arabs' there.
And just like Jews, "Arabs" is a general term for various ethnic and religious groups.
So whose land it is is a very subjective topic of how far back in history you want to go.
Not all Israelis are Zionists. The word Zionist have many various meanings and definitions, but you seem to have a totally wrong understanding of what it is. There's a sizable portion of Israel Jew's population that is against those settlements and treatment of (to call it broadly) non-Jewish populace.
There are also many other wrong assumptions and generalizations in your post.(right now I'm too tired after work to elaborate on them all).
Needless to say the whole Israeli conflict is a very complex and messy situation. There are guilty parties on both sides. Cutting funding/aid to either side will not move things for the better. Over the last 10 years US aid to Israel was about ~$2.5billion/year. That is about 1% of Israel's $217billion GDP economy. While sizable, cutting that aid will not be a significant hindrance.
External boycotts, protests and especially antisemitism will not help things either. That will only make them more stubborn and have justification for potential threat to their sovereignty and survival. The only real solution is a diplomatic approach to change governments' policies.

I'm skeptical too, boise. This may be legit, but it may also be another astroturf venture designed to manufacture consent for some yet to be revealed agenda. It's hard to trust anyone in politics these days, and keeping your finances secret is not a good sign - you gotta figure the Citizens United ruling was part of some larger plan. Also, one of confirmed funders, Arno Political Consultants, has a track record of election fraud.

Arno Political Consultants Controversies (from wiki).

In 2004, APC hired JSM who hired YPM who is accused of tricking people into registering to vote as a Republican.[2]

In 2004, APC is accused of forging signatures on a petition to legalize slot machines in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.[5]

In 2005, APC has come under fire for allegedly fraudulent ballot petitioning strategies, particularly pertaining to a Massachusetts anti-gay marriage proposal as put forth by the Massachusetts Family Institute.[6][7]

In 2007, APC hired JSM, Inc. who hired independent contractors who gave snacks and food to homeless people in exchange for signing petitions and registering to vote.[8]

In 2009, proponents of a payday loan veto referendum sued APC in Franklin County for breach of contract and negligence. 13,000 signatures were thrown out because the Form 15's had not been appropriately filled out. They were seeking $438,000. [9] Both parties reached an undisclosed settlement agreement on July 29th, 2009.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Political_Consultants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_Elect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Political_Consultants

>> ^newtboy:

Yeah sure, we're all 'Africans', but that designation intentionally ignores the evolution of the species and differentiation since the second great migration, (the first was the aborigines, genetically different from the second wave) and so intentionally ignores 'ethnicity' as a concept.
True, the scattering of the 'Jews' (ethnic term intended here) has changed them from the other 'Arabs' they originally were to the mixed ethnicity they are now, making them slightly different from the Arabs of the region today. Shouldn't the fact that their ethnicity has been diluted also dilute their claim to their ancestral lands (as if such a claim should hold water anyway, if your ancestors lost the land, it's lost, right)?
anti-Semitism is what results from the miss-application of anti-Zionism in many cases (including for me sometimes). For me, it is NEVER an ethnic issue, always a religolitical (religious/political)issue that causes the dislike of the group.
All Israelis are Zionists by definition and action, I suppose this is not true for ALL Jews (of either definition) but is the public position of their 'church' and their ethnic leadership as well. I feel fairly safe saying it's the position held by nearly all Orthodox Jews, but that might be wrong, I don't know many. That makes them a completely different animal from the Chinese, where many in China actively don't support their government or even their system of government, but are forced to stay in China and work for it. No Israeli is forced to live in Israel, it's 100% by choice.
I do understand that in large part, the 'fundamentalist Christians' (and also American Jewish Zionists) are to blame for us funding and supporting Israel, I hope I misread and you don't think they foot the bill too, we all do.
Can we agree that religious justifications for ANY otherwise bad act are wrong, and reinforce the idea that religion itself is wrong and bad?>> ^hpqp:
@newtboy
If we go back far enough, we are all Africans; ethnic distinctions happen to take the history of peoples' migrations into account. Yes, ethnic Jews are Arabs (or vice-versa) just like most Australians, Americans and Canadians are Europeans, except instead of colonisation it is the Jewish diaspora that is the cause for their break from their "land of origins".
Antisemitism is racism against Jews (ethnic group), whether they be religious or not. I fully disagree with Israel's politics and their funding by Americans (speaking of which, you do know, I hope, that they are above all funded/supported by fundie evangelicals, don't you?) for the purpose of colonisation, but to lump all (ethnic) Jews/Israelis (that's a nationality btw) together saying that they support this is about as ridiculous as saying that all Chinese in China and around the world support the communist government in China just because they're Chinese.
That being said, I agree entirely that the religious justifications over land - from both sides btw - is ridiculous and dangerous. "My prophet died here so it's my land!" Ugh.

Also very broad and inaccurate generalizations.
You can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions for a pretty detailed explanation.

Dilution of ethnicity and claim of their ancestral lands can just as easily apply to 'Arabs' there.
And just like Jews, "Arabs" is a general term for various ethnic and religious groups.
So whose land it is is a very subjective topic of how far back in history you want to go.

Not all Israelis are Zionists. The word Zionist have many various meanings and definitions, but you seem to have a totally wrong understanding of what it is. There's a sizable portion of Israel Jew's population that is against those settlements and treatment of (to call it broadly) non-Jewish populace.

There are also many other wrong assumptions and generalizations in your post.(right now I'm too tired after work to elaborate on them all).
Needless to say the whole Israeli conflict is a very complex and messy situation. There are guilty parties on both sides. Cutting funding/aid to either side will not move things for the better. Over the last 10 years US aid to Israel was about ~$2.5billion/year. That is about 1% of Israel's $217billion GDP economy. While sizable, cutting that aid will not be a significant hindrance.
External boycotts, protests and especially antisemitism will not help things either. That will only make them more stubborn and have justification for potential threat to their sovereignty and survival. The only real solution is a diplomatic approach to change governments' policies.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
And he's right about the "governmentally fixed price for gold", and if it was legal in this country to offer competing currencies I don't think many people would care whether the USD was backed by gold or not. But because we're forced to use one central currency, it should at the very least be value backed.

The way I understand it, you can legally offer and accept another currency, it's just that you aren't allowed to refuse to accept dollars as settlement of debts incurred.
That's why it's legal to use gold, bitcoins, gift cards, frequent flyer miles, Xbox live points, WoW gold, etc. Even credit cards and checks aren't actually legal tender.


mo·nop·o·ly /məˈnäpəlē/ Noun
The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

So, two questions. 1. would you say the US government has "control" over the supply or trade of the commodity of monies?

2. If you can "legally offer and accept another currency" why did these guys get raided if competing currency is legal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar#Federal_Government_response

>> ^blankfist:

And he's right about the "governmentally fixed price for gold", and if it was legal in this country to offer competing currencies I don't think many people would care whether the USD was backed by gold or not. But because we're forced to use one central currency, it should at the very least be value backed.


The way I understand it, you can legally offer and accept another currency, it's just that you aren't allowed to refuse to accept dollars as settlement of debts incurred.

That's why it's legal to use gold, bitcoins, gift cards, frequent flyer miles, Xbox live points, WoW gold, etc. Even credit cards and checks aren't actually legal tender.

>> ^sirex:

its ok, the usa owns the chinese ! Maybe he meant "owes" the chinese.... and maybe enough to go bankrupt.


When you owe someone tons of money, it is easier to dictate the terms. Look at most credit card settlements. The CC holds all the cards, but more often then not settle for much less than the contractual amount. Once a debt is sufficiently large, enough to jeopardize ANY return, the debtor has more power than one would normal consider. A cash cow can quickly turn to a liability if it isn't handled correctly. If a debtor knows his stuff, he can put considerable strain on the debt holder. It isn't common sense, but he is correct.

We just had a Teen tasered to death to Charlotte NC, again.

Last week was a rough one for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD). They were deemed out of control by a federal jury who awarded the family of a taser-killing with a $10 million settlement. Then they went ahead and did it again. This time CMPD officer Michael Forbes pumped 50,000 volts of electricity into the frail body of 21-year old La'Reko Williams -- killing him.


These things are over used and leathel.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^marbles:
No one decides. They’re inherent. They evolved in the human mind long before the organization of human society.
Okay, I just have to add, this claim re:property displays an absurd degree of historical illiteracy.
1) Nomadic human societies tend to use a possession scheme, where its yours if you have it.
2) As people began to settle land they started using a usufruct scheme where it's yours only while you maintain it.
3) As settlements and their governments became more powerful they created property in perpetuity to consolidate their own power.
Property, as you defend it, is the result of a statist powergrab.
If there exists an inherent set of human rights to things, history shows that to be by physical possession only.


And all this time you've been denying the concept of property exists. Like I've previously eluded to: Government force is not always consistent with liberty. And that's the point. Government force should always be consistent with liberty.

>> ^marbles:

No one decides. They’re inherent. They evolved in the human mind long before the organization of human society.

Okay, I just have to add, this claim re:property displays an absurd degree of historical illiteracy.

1) Nomadic human societies tend to use a possession scheme, where its yours if you have it.

2) As people began to settle land they started using a usufruct scheme where it's yours only while you maintain it.

3) As settlements and their governments became more powerful they created property in perpetuity to consolidate their own power.

Property, as you defend it, is the result of a statist powergrab.

If there exists an inherent set of human rights to things, history shows that to be by physical possession only.

I hope he got a new car out of the deal, better than the one he lost.

http://www.king5.com/news/investigators/Chase-changes-procedures-after-mistake-lands-customer-in-jail-125381223.html

'Njoku’s Seattle attorney, Felix Luna, would not elaborate on the terms of the settlement. However, before the settlement was reached, he told the KING 5 Investigators that Njoku was seeking an apology, financial compensation and changes in bank procedures.

“Ikenna is very happy with the resolution,” said Luna.'

He's black.
>> ^EMPIRE:

this is revolting. just fucking revolting. How is this man not being awarded a millionaire settlement?

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^EMPIRE:
this is revolting. just fucking revolting. How is this man not being awarded a millionaire settlement?

Because major cash settlements for ordinary people are a myth.


They gave him a cheque...

>> ^EMPIRE:

this is revolting. just fucking revolting. How is this man not being awarded a millionaire settlement?


Because major cash settlements for ordinary people are a myth.