The rich pay a higher percentage, and more taxes overall than the poor. Why do you think anyone is saying otherwise. And that's absolutely how it should be, for the good of everyone, rich included.

It's perfectly sensible to talk about why some people don't pay any taxes at all. I'm not even debating that. But the rich should still pay more, regardless. The US has been one of the strongest economies for most of the 20th and 21st centuries with a progressive income tax, and it's been a heck of a lot more progressive than it is now, and we were still very prosperous.

Showing fraud in some programs doesn't mean the program should be abolished. It can be reformed as well. There are plenty of ways to do that. We didn't abolish welfare in the 1990s. We reformed it. And no, it's not true that private businesses will always create the jobs when the economy is down. History has proven quite the opposite. Why would a business invest to make more goods and services if there's no market for it. A downturn in the economy breeds more economic decline. It's called a business cycle, and it's a natural occurrence. If you were a business owner, generally speaking, if you know less people out there have the money to buy your goods and services, would you increase production and hire more workers? Of course not. Does the average person put more money into the stock market or take money out when the market tanks? Takes money out, which drains money for investing. This is basic micro and macroeconomics.

Some force has to run counter to the natural tendencies of the market to force demand to increase, and of course this virtually always requires running a deficit. This is why slogans like "the gov't should be run like a business" are simplistic and wrong. The gov't should in those situations create jobs through various programs, thereby increasing income for the lower classes, which creates spending and demand, which then causes businesses to increase production, hire more workers, and that gets the economy back on track. You can site case study after case study in our history we've done this, and it worked. We ended the Great Depression via defense spending in the form of WWII in record levels as the most obvious exaggerated example. That historically was qm's worst nightmare - record deficits in raw amount at the time, and still to this day historic record deficits as a percentage of GDP during WWII, followed by a tax raise on the richest Americans to over 90%. And what calamity befell the US because of those policies? We ended the Great Depression, became an economic Superpower, and Americans enjoyed record prosperity it and the world had never seen before.

This is historical fact that simply can't be denied.

Here's what happened - Democrats deficit spent as they were supposed to (which is exactly what the GOP would have done had they been in power, because it was started by George W. Bush), which stopped the economic free fall. Moody's didn't downgrade the US debt. It was S&P. They sited math about the alarming deficits which contained a $2 trillion mistake on their part. They also sited political instability as the GOP was risking default to get their policies in place, which btw still include massive deficits.

The GOP couldn't stop the Democrats from spending all that money?! Laughable. The GOP started the freakin' bailouts and stimulus! What did the GOP do the last time there was a recession after 9/11? Deficit spent, then continued to deficit spend when the economy was strong. Dude, seriously, you have no factual basis for that kind of claim whatsoever.

>> ^quantumushroom:

this is what we've been trying to tell you QM, the system doesn't work when only a few contribute...the system works when ALL contribute based on what they can afford.
I totally agree, so why does the bottom 50% of Americans pay NO income tax? The wealthy already pay a disproportionately high percentage of all taxes and I have yet to find a liberalsifter who admits this.
I well understand that Scrooge McDuck won't miss a few more shovelfuls of gold coins swiped by federal bulldozers, but lets review reality:
1) The "extra" money attained by "soaking" Scrooge and Rich Uncle Pennybags (from the Monopoly game) will be pi$$ed away, like the 60 billion dollars EVERY YEAR lost to fraud, waste and abuse in Medicaid/Medicare. The federal mafia is composed of sh1tty stewards of our money.
2) The Hawaiian Dunce has spent 3 trillion in 3 years with little or nothing to show for it. So what magical number of dollars is going to make everything all right? A quadrillion?
3) When the socialists raise taxes, the wealthy of 2011 have their accountant press a few buttons on their computating machines, sending their $$$ overseas, invested in more stable markets. Apparently many already have, probably the moment they knew Obama was elected.
4) Liberal say, "Rich man not know difference he still rich." But there's now less money to invest and less money to create jobs. Now some liberalsifter will say, "This graph indicates that the rich don't create jobs with their ill-gotten gains."
BUT, if you're honest with yourselves, you'll know that one million dollars has a much better chance of creating jobs in the hands of entrepreneurs and investors than the government "Department of Creating Jobs" which probably spends that much just on office furniture.
5) The debt limit 'debate' is total BS, always has been. Here is what happened: taxocrats burned through tax money at an alarming rate and there weren't enough elected Republicans to stop them. THAT'S why Moody's got scared and US was downgraded. Republicans can't communicate for sh1t anyway, and so the socialists and their media lapdogs managed to blame the right for this mess.
6) Warren Buffoon likes to be liked, I get that, but he should still STFU and make a real gesture. Giving a symbolic billion dollars to the federal mafia should do it. He won't miss it.

this is what we've been trying to tell you QM, the system doesn't work when only a few contribute...the system works when ALL contribute based on what they can afford.

I totally agree, so why does the bottom 50% of Americans pay NO income tax? The wealthy already pay a disproportionately high percentage of all taxes and I have yet to find a liberalsifter who admits this.

I well understand that Scrooge McDuck won't miss a few more shovelfuls of gold coins swiped by federal bulldozers, but lets review reality:

1) The "extra" money attained by "soaking" Scrooge and Rich Uncle Pennybags (from the Monopoly game) will be pi$$ed away, like the 60 billion dollars EVERY YEAR lost to fraud, waste and abuse in Medicaid/Medicare. The federal mafia is composed of sh1tty stewards of our money.

2) The Hawaiian Dunce has spent 3 trillion in 3 years with little or nothing to show for it. So what magical number of dollars is going to make everything all right? A quadrillion?

3) When the socialists raise taxes, the wealthy of 2011 have their accountant press a few buttons on their computating machines, sending their $$$ overseas, invested in more stable markets. Apparently many already have, probably the moment they knew Obama was elected.

4) Liberal say, "Rich man not know difference he still rich." But there's now less money to invest and less money to create jobs. Now some liberalsifter will say, "This graph indicates that the rich don't create jobs with their ill-gotten gains."

BUT, if you're honest with yourselves, you'll know that one million dollars has a much better chance of creating jobs in the hands of entrepreneurs and investors than the government "Department of Creating Jobs" which probably spends that much just on office furniture.

5) The debt limit 'debate' is total BS, always has been. Here is what happened: taxocrats burned through tax money at an alarming rate and there weren't enough elected Republicans to stop them. THAT'S why Moody's got scared and US was downgraded. Republicans can't communicate for sh1t anyway, and so the socialists and their media lapdogs managed to blame the right for this mess.

6) Warren Buffoon likes to be liked, I get that, but he should still STFU and make a real gesture. Giving a symbolic billion dollars to the federal mafia should do it. He won't miss it.

Believe me I'm not arguing that Saddam nor Gaddafi were nice guys. I making the distinction between a country being run by a corrupt leader, and destroying a country because of their corrupt leader. In my opinion Gaddafi didn't suddenly become more of a threat after his speech. In fact, he did what almost EVERY country on the face of the planet would do when faced with an armed uprising (this includes the US and the UK). There are other issues at play here also, such as why Burmese, Rwandan, Ivory Coast, Kenyan, North Korean, Saudi, Bahraini leaders deserve more respect than Iraqi and Libyan (oil rich) leaders.

By UN estimates the US killed 100,000 Iraqis (civilians and soldiers)in the first Gulf War. Other estimates show countless thousands died due to the sanctions in the 90s, and god knows how many in the last Iraq War disaster. The entire infrastructure of the Iraqi state has been in shambles for 20 years. In fact, they went from the most modern, secular, arab state to a destroyed wreck of a country. I strongly feel that a 70 year old Saddam Hussein was less of a threat to the Iraqi people than the US war was. In my opinion time would have been a much kinder ally to the Iraqis than the US was. Though I understand your point about the Kurds, realistically anything said about Iraq could easily be said about Turkey, one of our biggest allies.

"As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?" I guess my answer to you is yes. Foreign policy consistency across the board would go a long way towards stopping dictators from betting that they will get away with human-rights crimes. Inconsistency is not going to help anyone.

Thanks for you civil and informed answer. Just so you know, I probably won't have the time to respond again any time soon.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^vaporlock:
Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).
Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).
I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.


like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context
Slow down before you dismiss Gaddafi's statements on genocide because they resemble Saddam's speechs. Nobody, and I mean nobody(Arab,Palestinian,Iraqi) denies Saddam's record on mass killings.
In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds there estimates higher than 200k murdered by Saddam. Half of the dead are from military operations against civilians including the use of chemical weapons, while the other half are mass executions complete with bulldozers to dig large enough graves on site.
The estimates of his crushing of the Shia uprisings at the end of the first gulf war exceed 100k dead as well, with gunships and tanks being used to lower the number of 'unruly' civilians to something more 'manageable'.
You are right about the similarities between Gaddafi and Saddam. It's a reason to take his threats regarding genocide of those opposing him as deadly serious.
Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
It wasn't just a "speech". He followed the speech up by mobilizing his army and marching across the country killing anyone even suspected of being with the opposition. He was within a single city of having taken back full control of the country and being able to "secure" his gains. I hate having to point that "secure" in this case means systematically hunting down killing as many supporters of the opposition as it takes to be certain no-one will ever consider doing it again. Whether that can be done with 100 or 100 thousand doesn't matter to a dictator, it's just a means to an end.
As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?

>> ^vaporlock:

Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).
Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).
I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.



like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context

Slow down before you dismiss Gaddafi's statements on genocide because they resemble Saddam's speechs. Nobody, and I mean nobody(Arab,Palestinian,Iraqi) denies Saddam's record on mass killings.

In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds there estimates higher than 200k murdered by Saddam. Half of the dead are from military operations against civilians including the use of chemical weapons, while the other half are mass executions complete with bulldozers to dig large enough graves on site.

The estimates of his crushing of the Shia uprisings at the end of the first gulf war exceed 100k dead as well, with gunships and tanks being used to lower the number of 'unruly' civilians to something more 'manageable'.

You are right about the similarities between Gaddafi and Saddam. It's a reason to take his threats regarding genocide of those opposing him as deadly serious.

Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.

It wasn't just a "speech". He followed the speech up by mobilizing his army and marching across the country killing anyone even suspected of being with the opposition. He was within a single city of having taken back full control of the country and being able to "secure" his gains. I hate having to point that "secure" in this case means systematically hunting down killing as many supporters of the opposition as it takes to be certain no-one will ever consider doing it again. Whether that can be done with 100 or 100 thousand doesn't matter to a dictator, it's just a means to an end.

As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I was going to give a long winded reply about how you are completely full of crap, but I decided against it. It is fairly obvious you have formed your opinion based in very little evidence. I don't think you will find many people that support your position that "Ron Paul does it for the votes". He has never been a mainstream candidate, never pandered, and usually the outcast even in his own party. So much so, that he has run as a 3rd party before, and railed against the 2 party system.
In otherwords, not to be rude, I think your full of shit. That your ideas on Dr. Paul are based on very fragmented bits. I understand your skepticism after Obama; but even people who hate Dr. Paul's politics here on the sift, like DT and Net, always say how they admire his integrity, and straight forward honesty. There are many snakes on capital hill, most people would agree that this is not one of them.
>> ^ghark:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^ghark:
>> ^blankfist:
Again. Why is this man not president?

Watch a few of his interviews, he's as corrupt as the rest of them. He denied that the impact of the BP oil spill was significant and even played down direct evidence (tarballs) in one I saw. This is normal party politics, a few of them make speeches to get people on their side, but the voting never follows them - e.g the use of Weiner/Grayson by the Dems during the Healthcare "debate" to get people to think the Dems wanted a real healthcare bill - but all the while they get the numbers to vote with the lobbyists because that's where the money comes from for all of them.

So your accusing the man of normal party politics when we have this video showing him in direct opposition to his party politics....what was your point again?

You missed the point good sir, being in direct opposition when making a speech is completely irrelevant in pretty much all cases, because the votes are all that matters. I gave an example, perhaps read all of my post next time. The reason he is making the speech is pretty clear, it gets people to think that the two party system works because they have at least one person in the party they can side with. It's basically just a part of marketing the party to the public.
In case you hadn't noticed, there have been anti-war speeches like this for many many years, and what exactly has been done?
And of course, the best example of all - Obama - lots of great speeches to get people on his side, no action. It works because people have short memories.



I never said he does it for the votes, it's not really even about him, it's more about the party and how they can get people like you to believe in them because they have one or two seemingly upright candidates. As an example, go look up his Wiki, he's responsible for quite a significant amount of 'no' votes on what he deems are improper bills, that sounds great on paper, yet what difference is it going to make when ~95% of the party votes yes and bulldozers them through anyway. Look at your own example, you say he rails against the two party system - yet he's IN the two party system - you see what I mean? It's politics, if you can't see that then I'm sorry.

I think his stance on many issues is technically great, legalization of marijuana, stopping the war etc, but listen to, or read, his interviews - you find quotes like this:
"I mean, it’s a horrible accident, but it’s an accident. Do you think BP likes this kind of stuff? It’s not like they committed a criminal act".

Yea great, let BP destroy the environment through reckless malpractice, if you've spent any time researching the spill you would know it went far deeper than being a simple accident, he says he is for unlimited liability, then in the same breath defends the oil company for that disaster.

He is also against universal healthcare - he is also against the current system - but once again, with the two party system, how is it going to be fixed? Short answer - it isn't.

So my point is that some of his principles are great, some are awful, he takes fewer corporate donations than most of his colleagues - once again, great - but what difference is it going to make in the bigger picture while the current system is in place? The answer goes back to my original point - it gets people like you on board, and that is it; he can't, by himself, create significant improvements, even assuming that he wants to.

Some of the trailers aren't quite built for what people use them for so they have to do a little extra to get stuff onto them. But the important thing about trailers is that they are meant to haul the weight you're putting on them and they have tie down points that secure what you're putting on them.

The shady "discount" operations usually haul equipment in a less than legal method and are rather dangerous on the roads in general. Whether or not they have newer equipment, if it ain't tied down, stuff goes bouncing off when they hit rough roads or have to make sudden stops/movements.

The problem I see with what this guy is doing is that he risks ripping the bed of his truck up by slapping his front bucket into the bed when he loads (especially the front), or gouging it when he unloads. Plus catching bad spots on the bed from dents and dings and making them worse. And his backhoe, people move them around all the time via the digging bucket and use the front bucket to pick the machine up regularly. However, he's got the ass of the machine coming in contact with the ground and if his backhoe is made like the one I've operated there are heavy hydraulic lines running right there. If he tears one of those lines in the process of doing this, he's looking at a really hard to replace line with it in that position and possibly causing damage to the machine.

And, those machines are strong enough to rip themselves apart if you rev them up like he's doing. So if he ever forgot to pull the legs up when loading into the truck, that machine would bend them or break them off..or damage the truck severely with the motor revved up like that. Makes for a good show to have the machine be all fast about lifting itself and what not, but it can cause a lot of damage before you realize it's doing so.

>> ^Spoon_Gouge:

Actually, This seems to be pretty common. Now, perhaps not into a dump truck, but my brother-in-law used to put both his shovel and his backhoe on the trailer using this same method. The shovel has bulldozer tracks so gets the front end up, turns the crane around and the crawls onto the trailer using the showel to jack up the ass end. The backhoe, however, goes on just as shown here.

Actually, This seems to be pretty common. Now, perhaps not into a dump truck, but my brother-in-law used to put both his shovel and his backhoe on the trailer using this same method. The shovel has bulldozer tracks so gets the front end up, turns the crane around and the crawls onto the trailer using the showel to jack up the ass end. The backhoe, however, goes on just as shown here.

>> ^Unaccommodated:

I think everyone is WAY OVERREACTING. Yea, there some damage, and I'm sure the state will cover it. But they're all freaking out like its the end of the world. Obviously the bulldozer was stuck, and they were trying to get it out. Which would he more likely lose his job over, leaving it stuck and being out one badly needed bulldozer, or smash-up the back of some NY prick's SUV?


uhhhh because there is a right way to do things and a stupid lazy fuckin' idiot way to do things, seems you are in favour of the second...

I think everyone is WAY OVERREACTING. Yea, there some damage, and I'm sure the state will cover it. But they're all freaking out like its the end of the world. Obviously the bulldozer was stuck, and they were trying to get it out. Which would he more likely lose his job over, leaving it stuck and being out one badly needed bulldozer, or smash-up the back of some NY prick's SUV?

Once inside the building, they barricaded themselves in and set to work. Equipment used to make weapon components were trashed and computers, filing cabinets and office furnishings were thrown out of the windows. Once they were done they calmly waited for the police to arrest them. Two activists who supported them outside the factory gates were also on trial. All of the defendants have argued that what they did was not only morally necessary but crucially that it was legal. U.K law allows the commission of damage of property to prevent greater crimes.

Two of the accused, Simon Levin and Chris Osmond have extensive experience of working in Palestine with the International Solidarity Movement. Chris Osmond told the court that ’the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza at that time meant it was imperative to act’. He cited the words of Rachel Corrie, the U.S activist who was killed by an IDF bulldozer in Rafah, as an inspiration. The court heard a passage of Corrie’s diary ’I’m witnessing this chronic insidious genocide and I’m really scared, this has to stop, I think it is a good idea idea for all of us to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop’.

During the trial the court heard not only from the defendants themselves but from Sharyn Lock, who was an international human rights volunteer in Gaza during Cast Lead. She was inside Al-Quds hospital in Gaza City when it was attacked with white phosphorus. She concluded her evidence by saying that she had no doubt that those who armed the Israeli Air Force ’had the blood of children on their hands’. The jury saw footage of the air attacks on the UNWRA compounds where civilians were sheltering and have been given an edited version of the Goldstone report.

Recently elected member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas also gave evidence supporting the decommssioners, saying that the democratic process ’had been exhausted’ as far as the factory was concerned.

On January the 17th 2009 the bombs had already fallen relentlessly on Gaza for three weeks. Massive, passionate demonstrations and pickets had been held in many cities around the country and the world in protest against Israel’s war crimes, but to no avail. A growing sense of helplessness was grabbing hold of the movement as the Palestinian body count stood at over 1400 and counting. 300 of the dead were children. It was against this background that the “citizen’s decommissioning” of EDO MBM/ITT took place.

EDO/ITT is an arms manufacturer, based in Brighton since 1946. They were acquired along with the rest of EDO Corporation by the multinational arms conglomerate ITT in December 2007. Their primary business is the manufacture of weapons systems such as bomb release mechanisms and bomb racks. This includes crucially the manufacture of the VER-2 Zero Retention Force Arming Unit for the Israeli Air Force’s F16 war planes.

Over the years, EDO have consistently denied supplying Israel, and despite over fifty court cases campaigners were not able to properly expose the links between the factory and the IAF. However the serious nature of the charges against the seven (the factory sustained nearly £200,000 of damage and may not have recommenced production for weeks) means that for the first time courts took the argument that EDOs business is fundamentally illegal very seriously.

Paul Hills, the Managing Director of EDO MBM, spent his five days on the witness stand last week being confronted with all the evidence gathered by campaigners over the years –evidence which exposes a complex network of collaboration between British, American and Israeli arms companies and the way in which their deals are clouded in secrecy. The Decommissioners were able to present Mr Hills, for the first time, with a dossier of evidence showing how EDO MBM use a front company in the U.S.A to indirectly supply components for the F 16 to Israel. Under U.K law the supply of weapons components that might be used in the Occupied Territories is actually a crime.

After hearing Hills’ explanations of his company’s business practices, Judge George Bathurst-Norman said that, despite Hill’s denials of dealing with Israel, it was clear that their was enough evidence to justify a genuinely held belief they did. He also offered the opinion that End User Certificates required for arms export licences were “ not worth the paper they are written on” as they can be easily manipulated.

There is a history of juries in British courts finding anti-war activists not guilty when they attack machinery used in war crimes. In 1996 four women from Trident Ploughshares decommissioned a Hawk jet that was about to be shipped to Indonesia – they were found not guilty. In 2008 the Raytheon 9, who damaged a factory in Derry supplying weapons to Israel during the 2006 Lebanon war, were acquitted by a jury and only two weeks ago a group of nine women carrying out a similar action at Raytheon during the Gaza attacks were also found not guilty by an unanimous jury.

On Friday, the jury found Simon Levin, Tom Woodhead, Ornella Saibene, Bob Nicholls, Harvey Tadman, Elijah Smith and Chris Osmond not guilty of “Conspiracy to Cause Criminal damage” by unanimous verdict in Hove Crown Court.

Chris Osmond said “This action was taken because of EDO MBMs illegal supply of weapons to the Israeli military. We brought the suffering of ordinary Palestinians into a British courtroom and confronted with the evidence they took the brave decision to find that our actions were justified.”

The decommissioners’ stance made it clear to companies like EDO that they can no longer count on not being held to account for their actions. There are now a growing number of people in the international community who are willing to risk their own liberty to stand up for the people of Gaza and to challenge Israel’s war crimes through whatever means possible.

I'll bring my bulldozer, you bring giant fucking walls to encircle ancient farm lands.

well this is the thing , i like marshel arts and all the other sports as a form of dance and way of getting fit , allso they are like a living musum of culture. but allot of the people that practise them ohnistly think of them as a practical wepon , when in modern socity its very rare that you would actualy need to know annything to be in the best servival outcom . nearly always if in a confruntatoinal situatoin your better running away , allso due to the nature of street fighting chances are annyone who actualy has intent to hurt you will have a kniffe or a gun , in which case your fucked.

there is allso a huge difference to knowing basics of self defence and keeping fit and limber , over sumone that trains as if they are going to be a gladeator.

the latter seems like a very unproductive usage of time ( in the sence of doing it for self protectoin) I have nothing against people doing it for enjoyment.

I allso find sport scence quite intresting , and thats what this guys kick techneek realy comes down to , utilising the muscles in the most efficent way to deliver force at a given piont of contact. but its so retardedly simplistic compared to other scencies or other thigns of intrest , yet the guys presenting it teach it as if its some sort of mystical oober magick , exsploiting peoples retarded respect for martail arts that has developed over the yers.

infact one of the things that the japanise ninja sucsesfully did was convince people that they had magic powers and that was a sort of mental wepon that would give them the upper hand in a battel. its amusing that morons are still going allong with it.

In modern life u just need to know how to handle a knife use and look after a gun , and identify potentail situatoins from a distance so you can avoid them or run away. skills such as how to make money , or cook grow capture varouse foods , or be educated are going to be far grator factors in avoiding phisical fights and having good servival in modern life.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^westy:
so i got this thing that fires metal faster than the speed of sound.

I can almost understand why people repeat this stupid comment in light of self-defense videos, but this is a sport. Nobody talks about how they own a bulldozer when watching football.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^westy:
so i got this thing that fires metal faster than the speed of sound.

I can almost understand why people repeat this stupid comment in light of self-defense videos, but this is a sport. Nobody talks about how they own a bulldozer when watching football.


I sure as hell fucking do! "Hey Everyone...LOOK at my Fucking Bulldozer!"

>> ^westy:

so i got this thing that fires metal faster than the speed of sound.


I can almost understand why people repeat this stupid comment in light of self-defense videos, but this is a sport. Nobody talks about how they own a bulldozer when watching football.

Yeah the foreign media has it all wrong. They don't use camels and guns to blow up Palestinians, they use tanks bulldozers and airstrikes to destroy their homes! Completely different story! They're just aiming at the HOUSES (and occasionally the U.N.) not the PEOPLE.

Israelis deserve all the bad press they get in the Western media and more. Their country is more like Nazi Germany than they'd ever admit and it's painfully clear that they are on a mission of, 'ethnic cleansing'. But I guess the rules change when the jackboot is on your foot for a change huh?