Stop! You’re confusing Joel with actual issues…
Sorry. 
Rather less so than the Zionist terrorists who by relentless violence (including extra-territorial acts of the type which are nowadays condemned when committed by Islamic crews, such as bombing the British embassy in Rome in 1946) persuaded the Western nations trying to maintain order in Palestine to give up and get out so that the Zionist terrorists could convert it into Israel, a bastard child of terrorism which is opposed to all forms of terrorism and crimes against humanity except those which it commited in its past and commits in its present.
Israel’s denials of its past and maintenance of the bad aspects of it as national policy makes Japan’s rightist elements look almost respectable. At least Japan hasn’t engaged in its deplorable actions since 1945, while Israel has been at it almost constantly during the same period so far as expelling and oppressing the Palestinians is concerned.
And this is where ancient, and not so ancient, historical claims become absurd.
Never mind about the Egyptians, why not give Israel back to the Turks? After all, they held it rather longer, and much more recently, than the Jews.
But if we’re going back to original occupation (which is not the same thing as nationality or ownership), Israel probably belongs to some Neanderthal or semi-ape intermediate step between apes and man. Which, on careful observation, consideration and allowing for the land bridges which disappeared tens of thousands of years ago, could mean that it belongs to someone in Australia of the species boganum rosacea Australopithecus of which one of the many surviving examples here looks like:
More seriously, to the extent that anyone can take ancient claims based on the bible or anything else seriously, if everyone has to go back to the original owners then the British, French and Germans are going to seriously pissed off going back to control from Rome.
Although there’s a bit of a problem there as the Romans now aren’t the successors to the original Romans who conquered Britain, Gaul and Germania, not least because Attila the Hun suppressed Rome.
However, Attila the Hun wasn’t actually a Hun. Huns are commonly regarded nowadays as ancestors of the Germans, but the Huns were more probably from what is now Turkey or the Ukraine or even Iran or somewhere well outside what is now Germany (but which the people from those parts have for some years been busily reclaiming by invading Germany as guest workers etc).
Attila was more probably a Scythian, which was probably a Russian or Slav in today’s terms.
So, when Attila the German Hun suppressed the truly Roman Rome he was probably really a Russian Hun, which could mean that Russia nowadays should still control Italy (as if anyone could) and exercise dominion over Britain, France and Germany via Italy.
Which means that Mr Putin can counter America / NATO’s missile placement in Poland by putting his missiles in Britain, France and Germany by exercising Russia’s ancient rights to those lands through Attila the (Not Really a Proper German) Hun’s claim through the Romans who conquered and occupied those lands.
Unless, of course, the French object to missiles being placed in England due to their ancient claim to England since conquering it in 1066. Although that was just the Normans who weren’t French as France hadn’t been invented at that stage.
Meanwhile the Danes who were visiting Britain in their Viking boats long before the Normans to collect Danegeld, and later occupying parts of Britain, have a much better claim than the “Johnny come lately “ French.
So it looks like the Danes can tell Putin to shove his missiles up his Scythian arsehole if he tries to put them in England.
Although I suspect Mr Putin ain’t going to take a lot of notice of that.
Any more than anyone else does, or should, of claims based on ancient rights.
Because, for example, the Scythians who spawned Attila the Hun might well have originated in what is now Iran and expanded to what is now eastern Europe and then westwards.
If they really came from Iran, then Iran has a claim by ancient right to most of Europe, which I somehow don’t expect America or any European nation to uphold with anything remotely like the enthusiasm they show for the ancient claims to Israel upon which the Zionists rely from a much earlier period. Not to mention the minor problem of the Jews being expelled from their homeland long before the Scythians started their expansion.
I really don’t understand why anyone bothers with ancient historical claims, because they invariably present them in such a narrow and unhistorical fashion that they are utter bullshit and make sense only to those who want to use those arguments to support what they want to and, although it is difficult to believe that anyone could achieve it, make considerably less sense than the rational bullshit I have presented.
[Schuultz]:World politics will be less about “Making/keeping everyone semi-happy through compromises” and more about “We need this, we’ll take it, if necessary by force”. Sadly this will probably lead to the UN becoming less dominant whereas the NATO becomes more so.
Unfortunately, perhaps, I have never regarded the UN as relevant at all.
It is perhaps one of the biggest failures, and biggest frauds, ever perpetrated upon the unsuspecting populace of the planet Earth.
The UN grew out of the League of Nations, itself an exercise in abject futility, which it’s severely bastardised offspring, today’s UN, has as its’ only success.
The UN is just about the planet’s most expensive exercise in futility in all recorded history.
The UN has never yet achieved any goal beyond the ever-deepening entrenchment of yet another unneeded layer of bureaucrats and self-serving political castes that achieves nothing more significant than platinum-lining its’ own ever-expanding caste-pockets.
With the exception of the Marshall Plan,
I struggle to recall any UN “effort” that actually resulted in any positive thing for the UN member Nations, let alone the populations those nations represent.
Most Western populations contribute some funding to the UN, from which the economic return is precisely nil.
In short, much Like the European Parliament (yet another LoN bastard-stepchild, in effect), the UN is a hideously expensive hot-air factory doing nothing more than assuring its’ own continuing yet worthless existence.
In Economic terms, if there has been a paradigm shift (though I do not believe there has) the UN and EuroParliament should be the very first things killed off:
after all, Embassies and ambassadors can and do perform the same functions with far more success and efficiency. The vast amounts of money thus saved by the various governments world-wide might then be useful to all of humanity.
Can Obama do the job? I don’t see why not, though I don’t believe him to have the same unifying effect as JFK did.
What Obama faces from the Oval Office includes the following, like it or not:
If a war on an international scale does arise it will likely be that there are effectively only two major contenders (broadly: Communist China vs Capitalist USA), with broad allegiances split between both sides. Once that happens, Isaac Asimov’s late 1970’s prediction of a Co-Dominium will be the only near-sane outcome, in preference to the annihilation of vast swathes of planetary populations. In effect, that is when a new modus of government will come into being, since some form of co-operation will be necessary for survival whereas currently it is seen as merely useful at times.
Like you, I cannot see any such war extending beyond about 5 years, and even then, I’m guessing at no deployment or usage of nuclear weapons.
NATO will find itself in a strangely schismatic yet pragmatic dual role: both of attempting to keep the peace/limit the war, and of laying the foundations of a societal government, rather than the maintenance of a collection of national governments.
As for political correctness: that was a stillborn the day it was invented, and which, against most known laws of nature survived, zombie-fashion, to haunt us all. However: it is also the Frankenstein that took-over the laboratory, against plain common-sense.
Respectful Regards, Uyraell.
Who is the Red Bearded fellow?
yes ofcourse. he deserves to be our president. I know there are other issues regarding Obama but I would focus on the positive platform he is fighting. And i believe everything he does is for the good out His Countrymen.
QUOTE=nkkie123;157156]yes ofcourse. he deserves to be our president. I know there are other issues regarding Obama but I would focus on the positive platform he is fighting. And i believe everything he does is for the good out His Countrymen.[/QUOTE]
DITTO!!!..I feel Obama is a very Great man and he also deserves to be the Canadian President as well. If I had the option I would vote for him too!..Abolish the monarchy in Canada and let Obama unite us with the Strong , The Proud, the America! Go Obama Go Obama!!!:lol:
I’m not for or against President Obama. What’s starting to worry me is talk about “nationalisation” of automotive industry, healthcare, banking industry, and so on. If our government were to come out and say: “We are turning Socialist”, there would be an uproar. It’s worrisome that it’s looking like a back door attempt at it. Excuse me if you think that I’m “ill-informed”, but as a common “ill-informed” citizen, that’s what it’s beginning to look like. So, I’m going to start attempting to become better informed.
If your nation, being the taxpayers, bails out the auto and banking industries by putting your money into them, shouldn’t you have control of that investment through your government, which put your money into them?
Or would you rather just give your money, with no strings attached, to bail out the morons who caused this problem in the first place and who have demonstrated that they can’t manage their own businesses successfully?
Sure, there should be oversight on the money loaned to these businesses, but I don’t think the government should own the businesses. I suppose someone should be appointed to run the companies until the loans are paid back (if ever:rolleyes:), then if these companies are viable, let them go their way. Hopefully things will be much more stringent in the future and messes like this won’t happen.:rolleyes:
The big problem is that the US government has managed to half-ass both capitalism and socialism.
When things were going well, the Industries yelled ‘Capitalism’, kept the profits for themselves and did everything to further increase them, such as outsourcing and ‘streamlining’ aka firing, in the process completely ignoring the needs of the American people.
Now that the Industry is going down, they’re yelling ‘We’re American, we’re a part of you guys’, and want the people who they had previously fired without flinching to pay their debts.
The issue here is that the Government had to decide what to do. Plead ‘Capitalism’ and let them drown, in the hopes that even though these Companies died, the free market would lead to new companies rising to fill the void in the consumer’s needs,
or
Answer the pleads of the industries and bail them out, spending trillions of tax-payers money to save the people that don’t give a fuck about the tax payers, but hopefully saving the companies and the jobs in the process.
Now let’s be realistic here: Neither Republicans nor Democrats were ever going to let these Industry Juggernauts die, no matter how free market they claim to be.
The only difference is that the Democrats attached plenty of regulations and governmental authority to the money they give the companies, essentially ‘taking them over’. This way, they have control over the companies and can influence their recovery. I highly doubt that the Obama administration has any plans for long term ownership of either of them.
The Republicans on the other hand would have most likely bailed them out as well, though less directly and, through that, with less influence. The risk of CEOs abusing the cash and giving themselves even more outrageous salaries would have been even higher, and because they wouldn’t have to be as transparent as now, they would have potentially even gotten away with it.
All in all, I think Obama is going the only way he realistically can, and the criticism and claims that FOX and the Republicans are doing right now are mainly them discovering how much fun it is to criticize - as opposed to defend - the government for a change.
When we come out of this hole the world will be safe for about another 15 to 20 years until the next crop of financial wonder kids who have no memory of this event, because the oldest of them are still are in their teens, are in positions to create the next disaster with their next set of brilliant financial products and strategies.
That’s the way it has gone for ages.
He should be President for this, if for no other reason. :lol: Always loved the Etta James version, but Beyonce is a class act:
Dobbs has become a total pandering nutter. The whole birth certificate thing is silly conspiratorial nonsense and a way to avoid actual issues…
This issue will not go away, it will hang on, and on, I do say that it is odd that the complete documentation is withheld, as that would finally settle the issue. It would be a small act for Obama to disclose these things to bring the controversy to an end, whichever end it might be. All of this should be in public records.
Most Americans will not totally dismiss the possibility of conspiracy if there are documents reportedly extant, yet remain undisclosed to public record.
From the look’s of these videos looks like some of the world leaders dont think so…
Just like the “inside job” 9/11 Conspiracy theories based completely on shit…
But Obama was born in Hawaii and his birth certificate has been on his campaign site and Bush didn’t bring down the Twin Towers with robot planes. It’s what people choose to believe…
Who can account for the popular belief ? No one, but in absence of a genuine document being shown on the nightly news, some will continue to have doubts. Foolish, I agree that anyone would risk such a thing, the penalty would be horrific. My doubts of the man are confined to his plans for America.