Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 28, 2014, 07:23:08 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 178
1  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this quote on: July 27, 2014, 11:41:59 pm
My point is that the Palestinians' primary grievance against Israel is the settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Nothing the Palestinians have or haven't done has stopped Israel from doing that.

But their logic is that if Israel is going to do that no matter what, they're going to try to make Israel as miserable as possible. They would rather have a settlement full of stressed-out, PTSD-suffering Israelis than one full of happy, unperturbed Israelis because the former would hopefully go back to Israel proper or pressure their government to change their policies.

That is also the reason they attack civilians (though I'd point out that nearly every Israeli who has died during this operation has been a non-civilian). The rockets, as you know, kill very few people. They're not designed to kill people. They're designed to scare people and make their lives stressful and unpleasant so that they will pressure their government to pursue a different set of policies. Of course it could just as easily have the opposite effect - emboldening them to vote for politicians who will be even more hardline and uncompromising.

When you're dealing with an area that small, civilians are going to be impacted no matter what. I don't know why you're ignoring the fact that Israel has recently killed nearly 700 civilians. Why aren't you asking them to stop doing that?

Israel is trying to get rid of the rockets and tunnels used to transport them into Gaza, they're not trying to kill civilians.  What Israel has done is perfectly legal under the rules of war.  Maybe they could be more careful about avoiding civilian casualties, but that's largely impaired by Hamas using the human shield strategy. 

As far as the settlements, I'm kind of confused.  There are no settlements in Gaza or anywhere where the rockets can hit.  And, sure, the rockets don't kill a lot of people.  That's because their range is not highly populated and Israel protects its civilians, instead of using them as human shields.

No, but there are settlements all over the West Bank, which is precisely the source of the grievance. Yes, Israel dismantled its Gaza settlements, but that is meaningless considering they then proceeded to construct a number in the West Bank that far exceeded those they dismantled. If you were going to attack Israel, would you do it from the West Bank, which is essentially under de facto IDF control, or would you do it from Gaza, where Israel has no presence? Which would be easier to do?

As for the Gaza civilians, exactly where do you expect them to go so that they won't be harmed by the present Israeli incursion? They're not allowed to leave the Gaza Strip. You can pat the IDF on the back for giving them advance notice of attacks, but when they have no wherewithal to actually go to a safe location, it's totally pointless. Israeli civilians have bomb shelters they can go to when Hamas fires rockets at them. There are no bomb shelters in Gaza - kind of hard to make those when you're barred from importing building materials to make them. You might as well give them no warning and kill them suddenly - at least that way they won't spend their last minutes and hours in a state of panic and terror.
2  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update XVI: Sidejackin' it in the Train Room. on: July 27, 2014, 09:57:01 pm
Basically, folks, I am listening to all of your concerns and I am mulling over all of my options right now.  You guys are bringing up valid arguments and I've spent the past little while trying to talk myself into hanging onto the job and at least trying to look in the evenings and do what has been discussed here.  I'm also mulling over my options if I take my parents' advice to quit, figuring out what my first moves would be.  I have already found one job fair I can go to anytime this week Tuesday-Friday.  Then again, if I held onto this job, at least I would have a paycheck coming in.  It is money in the bank for now and I can get on the phones and do the best I can.  There are pros and cons to both decisions.  The cons of hanging onto this job is I might potentially miss out on some opportunities just by not being available to interview at a moment's notice.  The cons of quitting is that I run the risk of being out of a job for quite some time.  The pros of hanging onto this job is the aforementioned paycheck, but also that some employers prefer someone who already is working as opposed to someone who is sitting at home during the day looking.  The pros of quitting now is I can go all-in on the job search immediately once I get home.  I have a big decision to make.

No one interviews on "a moment's notice" for jobs. You could "go all-in on the job search" already if you didn't spend all your evenings and weekends watching baseball and visiting your parents all the time.
3  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update XVI: Sidejackin' it in the Train Room. on: July 27, 2014, 09:04:36 pm
Jesus. H. F#$%ing. Christ.
4  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update XVI: Sidejackin' it in the Train Room. on: July 27, 2014, 08:51:27 pm
The honest truth:  I have not been fired.  However, I will go into work in the morning and turn in my 3-days notice, under the full readiness that they may walk me out.  The thing with giving my notice is to be courteous.  I will go in and be prepared to stay all day, if that's what they want.  I am prepared for whatever happens.

The fact is I can't look for a job effectively when I'm working 8-5 with a 30-minute lunch, have no access to my cell phone while I'm on the floor itself.  Yes, I can call them back during lunch, but it's likely their lunch hour, as well.  The policies for phone use is different on the floor side-jacking or taking calls than it is in the classroom.  I look for most jobs online, but the employers generally call me to set up an interview.  I also go out and look for jobs, which is not obsolete.  Ever heard of temp agencies?   I basically don't want my hands tied while trying to play ball, if you will.

Yes, Inks, I know exactly what I'm doing.  You are free to question that, but you will not change my mind.

If you want employers to contact you via email, there's usually an option on applications indicating that. Most employers are well aware that a prospective employee probably cannot immediately take their phone call while they're at work.

If you call them on your lunch hour, any HR person worth their salt will pick up the phone, even if they are at lunch. And when they do, you schedule your interview and then very courteously request that in the future (s)he contact you via email.

Hell, if you get a call, just pretend you're going to the bathroom or something. That's allowed isn't it? You're seriously telling me that this makes it impossible for you to look for a job?
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How the Democratic Party became a tool for Wall-Street on: July 27, 2014, 08:32:36 pm
AD, who got more money from investment banks in 2012? Romney or Obama?
What does that have to do with anything? The existence of Wall Street Republicans precludes the existence of Wall Street Democrats?

Why is a Republican criticizing the Democratic Party for being a tool for Wall Street when his own party is an even bigger tool if you go by how much money they got from them?
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How the Democratic Party became a tool for Wall-Street on: July 27, 2014, 07:41:25 pm
AD, who got more money from investment banks in 2012? Romney or Obama?
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Explain the following on: July 27, 2014, 07:40:44 pm
Are you asking why there are racial disparities in income? Or are you asking why someone made a chart drawing attention to this fact?
8  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update XVI: Sidejackin' it in the Train Room. on: July 27, 2014, 07:35:58 pm
RIP Call Center.

But seriously, Bushie, if this job is really as leisurely as you say it is, at least until you get your logins or whatever the hell they're waiting on, you have no excuse for not looking for a job while you're still working there. It's not like you're working 12 hour days at some mentally draining task like investment banking or doctoral research. You're currently being paid to listen to people talk on the phone. Hell, keep your cell phone with you and look for jobs on it while you're "sidejacking" or whatever it is.

Also, you should be looking up when every job fair in Tulsa and OKC is and penciling those in on your calendar. You should sign up for Meetup and look for networking events on there. If you're not on LinkedIn, create a profile on there too.

Stop dicking around. You've been going on about how you want to prove that you can keep a job and be successful at it; well this is not the way to go about it. You either need to go all in on this and be serious or you need to do what several people here have been telling you and just get on disability and live the corn syrup-filled life of a fat, lower-middle class Red State schmuck for another 20 or 30 years.
9  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: July 27, 2014, 04:54:55 pm
I'm tired of wasting my time answering your drive by's.  You don't discuss things, you make accusation posts and then flee only to come back several days later with more of the same.  Perhaps you should just stick to bullying Bushie.  You're much better at that.

You're the one who talks about "good guys" and "bad guys" like you're a f^&#ing eight year-old who watched Top Gun when he snuck out of bed.

As far as I can tell, you're a card-carrying member of the Israel Can Do No Wrong Ever Caucus. You complain about Hamas targeting civilians when Hamas has killed 2 Israeli civilians and Israel has killed nearly 700 civilians. (But I'm sure they "really do care" as you're so fond of saying)

Bushie is a lazy, fat f#$%. And you're a stubborn armchair general with an immature "Kill them bad guys, woo hoo! Yee haw!" attitude to foreign policy. And tomorrow, we're all going to wake up and Bushie is still going to be a lazy, fat f#$% and you're still going to be a dollar store John McCain. Who's the real waste of time?
10  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this quote on: July 27, 2014, 04:23:31 pm
My point is that the Palestinians' primary grievance against Israel is the settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Nothing the Palestinians have or haven't done has stopped Israel from doing that.

But their logic is that if Israel is going to do that no matter what, they're going to try to make Israel as miserable as possible. They would rather have a settlement full of stressed-out, PTSD-suffering Israelis than one full of happy, unperturbed Israelis because the former would hopefully go back to Israel proper or pressure their government to change their policies.

That is also the reason they attack civilians (though I'd point out that nearly every Israeli who has died during this operation has been a non-civilian). The rockets, as you know, kill very few people. They're not designed to kill people. They're designed to scare people and make their lives stressful and unpleasant so that they will pressure their government to pursue a different set of policies. Of course it could just as easily have the opposite effect - emboldening them to vote for politicians who will be even more hardline and uncompromising.

When you're dealing with an area that small, civilians are going to be impacted no matter what. I don't know why you're ignoring the fact that Israel has recently killed nearly 700 civilians. Why aren't you asking them to stop doing that?
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is the death penalty justice or revenge? on: July 27, 2014, 04:03:37 pm
It really depends on the crime, but if someone murdered one of your relatives, what kind of penalty would you prefer then?

It doesn't matter. Whether my relative was killed or a total stranger in another state was killed should have no bearing. Justice is the carrying out of laws with reason and without passion or prejudice. It's not the job of the justice system to make victims "feel better" as so many "victims' rights" groups tend to advocate.
12  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this quote on: July 27, 2014, 03:51:28 pm
How convenient for you (and the rest of us Americans) that the US's occupation of Native American land occured before this arbitrary line you drew to separate "acceptable" and "unacceptable" kinds of land occupation. Ha, we got grandfathered in, suckers!

I'm sure you arrived at this specific dividing line through a fair and rational thought process, and not at all through your own self interest.

It's not arbitrary. The fact is that prior to the early 20th century, it was pretty much accepted as a given that white people were better than everyone else and could do whatever the hell they wanted in any corner of the world. In fact, it was our "duty" to conquer and control those poor lil' darkies so that they could be given the glorious gifts of our civilization. (And give us their rubber/gold/tobacco/etc in the process.)

That was something that we came to understand over time was completely wrong. And if that conclusion had been reached in, say, the mid-18th century, the right thing to do would have been to compensate the native Americans, return them their lands and confine ourselves to areas that they were willing to voluntarily sell us. And any government that would be set up would be done both with their consent and the colonists' consent.

Some of my ancestors helped settle Jamestown colony in the 17th century. I doubt they thought of the natives as human beings with rights equal to theirs. That was completely outside the scope of human thought at that time.

They didn't know any better. But an Israeli settler who wantonly shoots at Palestinians from his settlement outpost most certainly does know better. He has the benefit of hundreds of years of history and human development that someone 400 years ago didn't have. So yes, I am going to hold him to a higher standard, and yes, what he is doing in the year 2014 is wrong. What my ancestors did in 1650 was wrong by the standards of 2014 but not by the standards of 1650. That is the difference.
13  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this quote on: July 27, 2014, 03:45:35 pm
Well, that's certainly wrong on many levels as it pertains to Native Americans.  But, more to the point, I didn't imply that anything that happened to Palestinians is justified.  I meant, just because your group of people legitimately suffered, you don't get to fire missiles at innocent civilians and blatantly violate rules of war.  Hamas is clearly the villain here and there's nothing that could justify their tactics and ideological program.  The cause of Palestinian statehood and human rights is kind of irrelevant to this current situation.  It could be the best cause, most righteous cause in the world, if you're pursuing using Hamas's tactics, you're at fault for both your attacks and the response. 

This is what would happen if Hamas stopped shooting rockets: Israel would end their military operation, the troops would go home, the settlement construction in the West Bank/Judaea and Samaria/Cisjordan would continue and nothing would change.

So what incentive do they have to do that? At this point, the general sense among Hamas seems to be that Israel is never going to seriously negotiate anything and isn't going anywhere, but if they're going to be there then Hamas is going to ensure that their existence is as miserable as possible. And Israel has more or less taken the same stance - they can't eliminate the Palestinians or send them all to Jordan, so they're going to make their lives as unpleasant as they can for the time being.

The goal in both cases is to get the other side to "self deport" to borrow a Mittism.

That's another silly argument.  Not shooting rockets at civilians won't immediately solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, I agree.  That's hardly a test for whether you should continue an action though.  Nothing, by itself, will lead to peace.  But, observing basic conventions of human decency would be a good start, and that goes for both sides.  Both sides need to start taking steps towards peace, even if there's no guarantee the other side will reciprocate.  However, the thing that locks the situation in place though is the mass scale violence.  Hamas is clearly the driving force behind that and they need to stop.

On the point of Israel's intentions, I don't think it's clear.  Israel has seriously negotiated with the Palestinians in the past.  If you go back to the time before the second intifada, there were serious negotiations.  Look at the Oslo Peace Accords and the Camp David summit.  Israel has negotiated in good faith when they didn't feel this huge threat to their security.  I think they would again if they had a partner for peace.  If there was a sane, orderly Palestinian government to negotiate with Israel would likely be forced to make serious concessions by the international community.

When Mahmoud Abbas tried to negotiate with them unilaterally, Israel claimed that wasn't valid because he wasn't representing the entire government. Whenever he tries rapprochement with Hamas, Israel claims they still won't negotiate because now Hamas is involved and they don't like Hamas. What if the Palestinian Authority simply refused to negotiate with an Israeli government that had a right-wing party like Yisrael Beitenu in its coalition? You can't just refuse to talk to someone because you don't like their internal political reality. Hamas's political success in Palestinian elections is Israel's own fault more than anything else.

When the suicide bombings stopped in the mid-2000s, Israel responded by building more settlements. When the rocket attacks from Gaza stop, there are more settlements. When the rocket attacks started up again, there were more settlements.

Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that the fact that the settlement construction continues is a pretty big red flag that Israel has no interest in negotiating?
14  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: July 27, 2014, 03:39:20 pm
I hope it happens to dead0man just to see his reaction. I am sure he will be very understanding.
I have no idea how'd react, but I can guarantee you one funking thing, my grand kids wouldn't still be "refugees" firing rockets across the Missouri River 70 years later.

What would they be doing, then? Assuming the Native Americans refused to give them citizenship or freedom of movement and made them all live in, say, a section of Oklahoma that was under a complete embargo?
15  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Political Matrix Series: Question 2 on: July 27, 2014, 02:30:21 pm
Agree. If you send jobs overseas, your assets in the United States should be taken over and your workers given control of them.

What if the jobs were already overseas? What if a US company acquires a Chinese company that already manufacturers a product in China?
16  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this quote on: July 27, 2014, 02:18:35 pm
George H. W. Bush and his foreign policy team (James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Thomas R. Pickering) were probably the closest any administration came to a truly balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

And Bush got hell for that decision, the Christian Right started looking for people to primary him, and AIPAC got firmly in the Clinton camp.
17  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this quote on: July 27, 2014, 02:01:36 pm
This is where the US might consider holding hostage arms expenditures to Israel until a satisfactory peace occurs.

Ted Cruz is accusing the White House of launching an economic boycott of Israel all because the FAA halted US airline flights to Tel Aviv for two days for security reasons.

You really think stopping arms sales to Israel is a realistic course of action?
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: What States Would Have Remained Swing States If Bush Had Won In '92 on: July 27, 2014, 01:40:13 pm
With the economy being so good in 1996 and 2000, I could easily see Republicans matching the 5-term FDR Dem streak or even the 6-term post-Civil War GOP streak.  Looking back, the economy wasn't even that terrible in 1992.

Of course it wasn't bad compared to what we've been through since 2008.

But things were not good from 1990-1991. In addition to the recession, you had deindustrialization being completed in the Rust Belt and you had the Midwest recovering from the price collapse of various crops in the mid-late '80s. And many of those people felt very threatened by NAFTA.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Is the Republican's problem that they're too Southern? on: July 27, 2014, 01:35:52 pm
Seems to turn off Northeast and West Coast voters.

What's worse, some regions of the South such as Northern Virginia and South Florida don't even share a southern culture anymore.

The focus has been on gay marriage lately and how it's wrecking the GOP with moderate voters, but maybe the bigger issue is the overall culture Republicans are perceived to have.

Um, the current GOP Senate candidates are not focusing on gay marriage at all, at least based on their current ads and campaign.

It's not that the candidates are focusing on it. It's that the issue is being talked about in society as a whole a lot and the GOP is decidedly on the wrong side of the issue.

Are there any Senate candidates running this year who have unequivocally supported the right of all Americans to civil marriage?
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: video of 1992 Clinton veep speculation on The McLaughlin Group on: July 27, 2014, 01:33:08 pm
Interesting to hear Chris Matthews say John Kerry won't be chosen because he's single. Getting married to Teresa Heinz didn't exactly boost his presidential chances.

Boosted his bank account though.
21  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Your Forum Cabinet on: July 27, 2014, 01:25:15 pm
President: ElectionsGuy (L-WI)
Vice President: Dues Naturae (I-NY)

Secretary of State: JBrase (I-TX)
Secretary of Defense: Chairman Sanchez (R-FL)
Attorney General: Maxwell (I-OK)
Secretary of the Treasury: Goldwater (R-WA)
Secretary of Agriculture: IndyTexas (I-TX)
Secretary of Labor: dead0man (I-NE)
Secretary of Education: Madman Motley (R-IN)
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Grumps (I-PA)
Secretary of Transportation: TDAS04 (D-SD)
Secretary of Energy: Miles (I-LA)
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: RR1997 (R-IA)
Secretary of Homeland Security: SPC (L-CA)

White House Press Secretary: TheHawk (R-CT)
Chief of Staff: Dallasfan65 (L-MA)

Seeing as I'm from a major city and have no agricultural background, I can only assume you're putting me there because of my opposition to most farm subsidies.
22  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this quote on: July 27, 2014, 01:17:24 pm
Well, that's certainly wrong on many levels as it pertains to Native Americans.  But, more to the point, I didn't imply that anything that happened to Palestinians is justified.  I meant, just because your group of people legitimately suffered, you don't get to fire missiles at innocent civilians and blatantly violate rules of war.  Hamas is clearly the villain here and there's nothing that could justify their tactics and ideological program.  The cause of Palestinian statehood and human rights is kind of irrelevant to this current situation.  It could be the best cause, most righteous cause in the world, if you're pursuing using Hamas's tactics, you're at fault for both your attacks and the response. 

This is what would happen if Hamas stopped shooting rockets: Israel would end their military operation, the troops would go home, the settlement construction in the West Bank/Judaea and Samaria/Cisjordan would continue and nothing would change.

So what incentive do they have to do that? At this point, the general sense among Hamas seems to be that Israel is never going to seriously negotiate anything and isn't going anywhere, but if they're going to be there then Hamas is going to ensure that their existence is as miserable as possible. And Israel has more or less taken the same stance - they can't eliminate the Palestinians or send them all to Jordan, so they're going to make their lives as unpleasant as they can for the time being.

The goal in both cases is to get the other side to "self deport" to borrow a Mittism.
23  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Cassidy getting thrashed by Cassidycare on: July 27, 2014, 01:04:56 am
I have no problem with this. Really your standard ratf(inks)ing.

Republicans who get indignant when Democrats pull this sort of thing (including Claire McCaskill's ads pumping up Todd Akin in the 2012 GOP primary) should stop complaining about "corrupt Chicago-style politics" and start asking, "Are our primary voters really this stupid?"
24  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Cassidy getting thrashed by Cassidycare on: July 26, 2014, 10:55:00 pm
So a liberal PAC that pretends to be a Tea Party group with the name and logo attackingRepublicans Iin a Tea Party esque way
 Very clever.

But it can't be a liberal PAC. It's called PATRIOT Majority USA. Everyone knows liberals can't be patriots. They're the ones who want to ban The Bible and burn our flag.

> said every Tea Party supporter everywhere
25  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update XVI: Sidejackin' it in the Train Room. on: July 26, 2014, 10:18:04 pm
Oh, and I guess I should provide the first weight check of Season XVI.  I have now lost 6 pounds since July 13.  I have dropped from 292 to 286.  I continue to watch my calories and try to stay within 2,300 calories each day.

There is no reason you should be eating any more than 2,000 a day.

I use the myfitnesspal app on my iPhone to track my weight and food intake and it says to lose a pound a week, I need to stay under 2,300.  There are days I do stay under 2,000, maybe 2,100.  Today, I had just under 2,500 just because I had a big breakfast.  I had a light dinner tonight, so I tried to salvage what I could in my diet.

So instead of discussing this with your doctor or a nutritionist, you're using an iPhone app. And when the iPhone app told you to stay under 2,300 calories a day, you went ahead and had 2,500. This is really going well. You had a big breakfast because you chose to have a big breakfast. If you hadn't done that, you wouldn't have gone over your limit and had to "salvage" at the end of the day.

Did you not read anything else I said?  It was just one day.  Most days I'm well under 2,300.  You have no right to attack me over one day that wasn't that far over.

Excuses, excuses. Same reason your weight loss that has been going on for like seven years has only netted you six pounds lost. If I had the health problems you do, I wouldn't be anywhere near as sanguine about it as you seem to be. You're an obese man who sits in a chair all day at work and drives 1/4 a mile because he doesn't want to walk the laundry over. I don't even think your body needs to be getting 2,000 a day, quite frankly.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 178


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines