And when you start out wanting to bitch at somebody, you can always find a way, whether it actually makes sense or not.
My first post in this thread named a whole class of ruling types, and was not limited to literal monarchs. And, for the purposes of this discussion, I defined the difference between freedom/democracy and everything else as "an official (and at least partially real) recognition that the state belongs to its citizens, instead of the other way around". Whether the emperor pulled all the stings personally, or they were pulled instead by a whole gang of thugs, Japan clearly didn't qualify as much of a democracy until its chain of command was violently broken at the end of WW2, and it was compelled to start almost from scratch, and to try something much different from where it had been, or where it had been heading.
And it was THAT contention that LG and I were discussing subsequent posts.
And when, in your mind, did I become non-ignorant in regard to machine tools? You seem to bark at anything you read, sometimes. That makes it sorta hard to know what you actually think about any topic. Makes it hard to care, too.
No it wasn't. It was a simplistic crock of shit from someone who gets his history by reading the Reader's Digest Condensed and expurgated-by-fascist versions of history.
The Magna Carta didn't have SHIT to do with democracy. England and all of Europe were feudal at the time. There wasn't any one king with supreme power, but many many kings and lots of jockeying for position. John was in the process of condensing power into a stronger central govbernment and the barons didn't like that. The magna carta had nothing to do with any "people's rights" but everything to do with powerful individuals wanting to resist a stronger central government. Think American Civil War. Nor was John the villain idiots such as Kirk make him out to be. Somebody should read history once in a while rather than the pap they spoonfeed self-righteous rightwing dorks here :-(
Not to pile on, but that's exactly right. It's a fairy tale written by children's history-text writers with an overdeveloped need to show patterns of historical development. The problem they have with democracy is that it had about a 2000-year gap, and it was a bunch of cranky reprobates who resurrected it. How do you explain to kids that the early re-stirrings of democracy in England were made by people who promoted the divine right of kings? It's too complicated for a public-school education. I'm sure glad I didn't pay attention when I got mine. d8-)
I think you can look through the archives for quite a while without finding much criticism from me in re your machine tool knowledge. I'll admit that I don't think Fanuc controls are worth a shit and I sort of prefer American machine tools to Jap crap, but hey, other than that ...
Yes. When you got a whole flock of sheep getting into the death camas it does take a lot of barking.
I noticed. That's why you sheepsies were all gung-ho that California deserved its energy problems because we didn't build new power plants. Enron couldn't have been responsible in any way, oh no. And then the Great American Free Market routine, just before eleventy-seven major multi-nationals turn out to have been cooking the books, BIG-time. And oh yes, just a few short months ago y'all were regurgitating the pap that Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney, et al were force-feeding you. When you insist on being SO god-damned conventional there IS a lot of barking to be done. Not that it seems to help cuz y'all simply forget whatever stupid Reader's Digest crap you were spouting yesterday in your best schoolmarm manner in order to substitute whatever comes off the UP wire today. I thought people were supposed to *learn* from their mistakes.
But I guess it is kinda comforting to know that no matter what, at least one old biddy will give us the long-winded white picket fence version of reality. No matter what happens, it was all for the best, right ? "Daddy knows best, stop your barking now, you just go lie down now and be quiet and it'll all be fine in the morning, you'll see ... " pfffft.
I think you can look through the archives for quite a while without finding much support from me for Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, the crooks at Enron, or the fools who sold California to the energy brokers.
A good sheep dog barks at the right times, and for the right reasons. If it barks constantly, then the sheep will learn not to pay attention.
Jews have the "right of return" Palestinians do not.
Jews have the right to buy property anywhere in Israel, Israeli Arabs do not.
Just recently Israel ended another right. Previously, if an Israeli Arab married a non-Israeli Arab, the non-Israeli Arab could live in Israel. No longer.
Who can gain Israeli citizenship is determined by religious authorities. No Arab need apply.
There are many others. Remember that Israelis keep telling us that Israel is a Jewish state. Consider what that means if you don't meet that criterion.
You have to differentiate between Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.
Israeli Arabs have full rights. If you don't agree to that statement, I challenge you to bring even _one_ prove to any discrimination against them. I will easily disprove any discrimination claim of yours.
Palestinians on the other hand - shouldn't get more rights than any other non-Israeli citizen. In fact, since they are residents of a terrorist entity which opened a terror war against Israel, Israel should be more careful about them than an average Chinese or a Thai citizen.
Non-Jewish Americans also don't have the right to make Aliyah to Israel.
This is not a discrimination against Israeli citizens. This is a discrimination against non-Israeli citiznes. The US is also doing this discrimination toward Iranian citizens for example (It's harder to get a visa to the US when you are citizen of Iran, its easier when you are a citizen of Sweden for example). Israel as a soverign country has the right to set its immigration policies based on the nationality of the immigrant. Any Jews, part of the Jewish nation is favored, because the goal for which Israel was created was to build a homeland for Jews.
Automatic immigration into Israel is not part of the right the Palestinians are entitled to according to any international norm or law.
This is a lie. Any Israeli Arab, and even any non-Israeli citizen has the right to buy property in any place in Israel in which such a property is proposed for sale. Rare exceptions could be made - for example in tenders for a sale of a production plant for military equipment. In these rare exceptins - non-Israelis could be discriminated, but Israeli Arab would not be discrimnated only because of their Arab identity.
This is another lie. Palestinians are not entitled to automatic Israeli citizenship even when they are marrying an Israeli citizen. It is not important whether the Israeli citizen they are marrying to is an Arab, a Jew or a member of the Bahai faith.
This regulation is valid for the spouses of all of the citizens of Israel, regarding their race, gender, ethnicity or nationality. There is no discrimination against Israeli citizens here.
This is the third lie I noticed you posted since the beginning of the last post of yours.
Israeli citizenship is granted only by the interior ministry and is not determined by any religious authorities. For a non-Jew, the procedures of getting an Israeli citizenship are not dependent in the ethnicity of the applicant. An Italian American and an Arab American will have to pass exactly the same procedure. In case of Jewish immigrants, the interior ministry is sometimes consulting the Chief Rabbis, but this is irrelevant for Arab applicants.
Any Jew anywhere in the world can go to Israel and get immediate citizenship. This is a right reserved for Jews. No Palestinians need apply.
Then we agree that Israel is a racist state?
If America limited immigration to only white people then we would be a racist state.
Do a Google search on; "Palestinian" "buying property" "Israel". There will be hundreds of articles on that issue.
You are probably not aware that Israeli Arabs do not serve in the IDF. An Israeli would explain this as a favor to the Israeli Arabs, i.e. not forcing them into sometimes "unpleasant" work. Jewish Israeli's are forced to serve in the IDF. Care to speculate on the reason for this discrepancy?
I am talking Israeli Arabs here. This is a right that they had until just a month ago.
That is the point that I am making. If you are a Jew you get immediate citizenship. The definition of who is a Jew is determined by religious authorities.
You are probably not aware of the rules on losing Israeli citizenship. If you are an Arab Israeli and leave Israel for 6 months you lose your citizenship. If you are a Jew you never lose it no matter how long you are gone.
You choose to not respond to this last point. Israel is a country that does not want the Palestinians around. It is doing everything to drive them from their home using methods both subtle and violent.
The goal of Zionism is ethnic purity in Israel. They believe that God gives them this right. They believe that since God gave them that right he also excused them from other rules that might be inconvenient such as the commandments against murder and stealing. What we see today is am Israel formed by those beliefs. This Israel is racist thug of a country who believes that God is smiling on them.
The Israeli parliament passed a law preventing Palestinians married to Israelis from gaining Israeli citizenship.
Human rights groups have condemned the law as racist but supporters say it is necessary for security reasons and to maintain the Jewish character of the state of Israel.
The law will prevent Palestinians from the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza from marrying Arab-Israelis, who make up about 20% of the population of Israel.
Arab MP Ahmad Tibi described the law as "inhuman", while leftist deputyc Zeeva Galon has warned that the law will "deny the fundamental right of Arab Israelis to start families".
The new law, which applies only to Palestinians, will prevent the approval of any future or pending applications. =======================================================
There seems to be a discrepancy with the new law and what you said below:
"Furthermore, the Israeli law is forbidding any discrimination based on race or ethnicity. The Israeli courts are enforcing this law."
"The Israeli parliament passed a law preventing Palestinians married to Israelis from gaining Israeli citizenship. "
This is true.
This law is valid for all of the citizens of Israel, Jews or Arabs, while Peter was trying to imply that this law was valid only for Israeli Arabs - and therefore discriminates Arabs from Jews.
Again, the important thing to realize is that this law does not discriminate between Arab citizens of Israel and Jewish citizens of Israel.
About the context of this law: The context of this law is that Palestinian terror organizations were using the Israeli citizenship law as a loophole in Israel's security. Terror organizations were recruiting Palestinians who married to Israelis as agents inside Israel.
The practical application of the law is that it discriminates against Palestinians and not against Jews. Do you care to speculate how many times it will be applied against Palestinians and how many times it will be applied against Jews?
It is clearly a racial law design to enhance the ethnic purity if Israel. It is in line with Israel's goal of maintaining it's "Jewish character" i.e. a racist state.
That is the standard Israeli propaganda. All Palestinians want to attack Israel. Perhaps a Palestinian that marries into Israeli citizenship loves Israel. ;-)
US Supreme Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that Israel is the only country he knows who has the courage to discuss so much about human right issues in time of war. While other countries talk a lot about human rights and freedoms, but when a war is coming than suddenly there is no place for too much questions on freedom issues.
I found the following quote of him on google:
formatting link
The United States could learn from compromises Israeli courts have struck to balance terrorism and human rights concerns, Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer said last week according to AP. Israeli judges have adopted what Breyer called "intermediate solutions'" that acknowledge the security risks the country faces, the justice told an audience at Columbia Law School. "There are many solutions that ... solve nothing to everyone's satisfaction but are not quite as restrictive of human rights as an extreme solution, nor as dangerous as some other extremes," Breyer said. He gave an example drawn from Israeli courts of terror defendants who might try to use visits from lawyers to communicate terror instructions from behind bars. The security risk might make it impossible to allow such defendants to receive visits from any lawyer they choose, Breyer said, but not impossible to ensure a defendant has a lawyer nonetheless. Defendants could still choose lawyers from an approved list, Breyer said.
There are indeed a lot of fine words written about Israel's legal system. They have no bearing on what happens on the ground. The Israeli legal system probably does not want to get it's hands bloody in dealing with the Palestinians. The official euphemism for assassination in Israel is "extrajudicial killing". Thus, the courts are not involved. Should we cheer Israel's legal system for it's deliberate blindness?
Then how do you reconcile that law with the following claim:
Is not discrimination against Palestinians a discrimination due to ethnicity? I'm not saying the Israelis don't have the right to discriminate. I'm just pointing out that it can't truthfully be said that the Israelis DON'T discriminate due to race or ethnicity when the facts seem to indicate that they do.
Let's try repeating Pete's original statement:
============================================== Just recently Israel ended another right. Previously, if an Israeli Arab married a non-Israeli Arab, the non-Israeli Arab could live in Israel. No longer. ==============================================
Is this a correct assessment of the situation after the new law was passed?
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.