No I did not join the military because I do not do well with collectivist group think. Would I join the military if the United States was directly attacked (armed invasion), yes. I support only a volunteer military for direct defense of the country.
Israel is a Rothschild clan/family nation
Irony is dead.
LOL. Being an ex-marxist is not a necessary condition for being a neocon. On the other hand being a biased supporter of the israeli army gets you a lot of points in the neocon ‘value system’,
You don’t read what he writes, eh ?
No you are correct simply disagreeing with you makes anyone a neocon. I have a hard time lying about the IDF despite your lack of information on the subject.
Yes, disagreeing with me and agreeing with neocons makes you a neocon. Is that hard to grasp ?
That actually makes no sense. If neo-cons “support” free markets and I do too, does that make me a neo-con? What is hard to grasp is your relentless attempts to smear others by fabricating labels for them or making implications based on things they never said.
What is the most popular ice cream flavor in the country? Suppose it’s vanilla. Now, if market economies were democratic, there would be one ice cream flavor - vanilla. That’s how majority rule works. Markets, as you might observe at the store, don’t work that way. There are all kinds of products catering to niche markets - such as super fudge ripple chip.
To stay in business, a company need not appeal to the majority of the market. All it needs to do (admittedly, this is quite a bit) is transform raw materials into finished products with enough of a difference in value to enough people to make a better return than the owners know how to do in other ways. Democracy, on the other hand, does require appealing to either a majority or a plurality. If you wish, markets are the extreme of representational democracy, only they react immediately.
So he was not wrong to do it? Why would he “have” to be put down? You’ve apparently changed the story in your response since I clearly said he got away with it - i.e. he wasn’t caught. He can’t be put down because he hasn’t been found. I’m not talking about what to do with him, just asking if he was behaving well or not.
I won’t respond to most of your message, because our exchange on Friday left me with limited vision in my left eye (blood pressure issue.) However, I’ll respond to this one. The story, as told from the Jewish perspective, is that as the Jews left Egypt, they were attacked by a band of Amalekites and emerged victorious (since Amalek, like modern day Israel, feared losing their land to a conquest, there was, in your opinion, nothing wrong with this attack.) Somehow, this is supposed to justify a war hundreds of years later against the descendents of the Amalekites. I know, I know, “justify” is the wrong word because there’s no such thing as morality.
You’ve been stating your desire to take our property to build a military. Nonetheless, do you think food is best provided by a coercive monopoly? Is that how you get the highest quality at the best price? Haircuts? Anything? Only, apparently, courts and laws - but wait, neither of those explain why you need a band of thugs to go around the globe intervening in centuries-old conflicts, do they?
I imagine it was to distinguish the colonials, who happen to be jews, from the local jews.
I have the patience of the grave young man…
But, with the prevelalence of “most people” to vote for what we have today, I do not think I have much longer to wait, the system is already falling apart, and continuing the motions like the government is, it will destroy itself, then it is only a matter of retaining my sovereigny after the fact, I have an 800 yd eye and plenty of family. You do not have to prove anything to me, because all you will prove is what will eventually result in what we have today, and I do not have to prove anything to you because, simply, I do not care if you want or will have freedom, it is not my concern. What is my concern is that you intend on using your government to coerce me because of the geographical location of the property I own and the ficticious jurisdiction it decides it has…
Well, I could reflect this on to you, it is obvious the best shot of your desires was tried and failed, limited government is a fallacy, all you are saying is that the free market will fail to support the wants of the population and a monopoly needs to be instilled in its place…
Which one of us was crying about being disheartened? Which one of us was worried that others might think something of him? How much complaining of how a victim of statism I am? I stated my case as per your request, and you retorted by complaining, being disheartened and concerned about how people would think of you if they knew there are (GOD AWFUL) anarchists that believe that AE is valid…
In closing…
It was the limited government that you so cherish that is the root of the issues tackled by AE…
I used to be like you, it was unfathomable to me that anarchy could work, it was what I learned here because I was open to learn all things, not just things that agree with my preconceived notions, that made me realize, government will not stop being tyrannical and free people can interact voluntarily without government…
Don’t believe me, ask Liberty Student, he will tell you all about it…
And have you walked the streets of South Africa as well?
Most people don’t know what they talk about, when talking about “Apartheid”?
Just a few points:
- Tutu pronounces it “A-part-hate”, which is a deception, since he knows Afrikaans well.
- The scienitifc name is actually “separate development”
- The National Party tried to implement separate development via a managerial state - That worked as long as this was actually also supported by civil society institutions. How this was failed is a story on its own.
- Separate development took the racial groups of South Africa and classified people accordingly. Only Whites were full citizens of the Republic of South Africa, while Blacks were supposed to be citizens of their homelands, which still needed to be developed. Many Blacks did however work in the White territories and Cities in South Africa.
- There were separate amenities for Blacks in South Africa.
- There is actually no real difference between these homelands and countries like Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland. These were declared independent by the British, while the former were to be declared independent by the RSA.
- Lots of the regulation that were brought in (into some sectors esp. construction), aimed at protecting poor Whites from Black competition (job reservation, minimum wages etc.).
- The cost to develop the Blacks had to be carried mainly White taxpayers.
- On a general note race relations in the old South Africa were much better then in Israel. Blacks would even work in White people homes. I never noticed that Arabs were working for Jews in Israel. It seems they really hate each other.
- The proposed two state solution for Israel/Palestine - Reminds me of the homeland/partitioning solution for South Africa.
look, i’ve only been trying to introduce a little subtlety, a little ‘care in speech’ vis-a-vis classifying whole swathes of heterogenous people as ‘criminals’.
if you guys want to say ‘israeli jews’ are evil, and you arent willing to qualify, whilst simultaneously you demonstrate a fine capacity for discrimination when you recognise that the ethical standing of the group of ‘palestinians’ is not uniform. that tells me something.
For those interested in this type of discussion, I recommend reviewing this informative and amusing post on zionist hasbara:
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-make-case-for-israel-and-win.html
Heterogeneous in what sense? I’m not attacking their ethnicity, for there are exceptions for Jews - however, to be an Israeli, you require a certain kind of culture, which is a choice, not a condition.
i dont understand what you say, to be a citizen under the authority of a state government you require a certain kind of culture?
Under the Israeli state, pretty much. If you are not a zionist in Israel, you are effectively not a citizen in terms of the de facto law of the land. This is part of the apartheid nature of zionist culture. There was recently a movement to require an oath for citizenship. That seemed too openly racist, but the death of the bill is not the death of the sentiment.
The state of Israel is a zionist state, anyone with allegiance to it is a zionist.
Can you perhaps so these laws?
-
I understand that some people believe there is such a thing as morality. I’m not sure. Because that doesn’t seem to be a force that holds this world together. I think there is reason. So…was there sufficient reason to attack that group of people? I don’t know. Obviously, the Jews thought so. I’m sure they thought it through and decided it was necessary, Therefore, I see nothing…wrong with it. I need a better word than “wrong” but I can’t think of one.
-
I’ve actually been trying to tell you why you should want a military. Again, I think the forces that govern a market are not the ones that govern war and laws. Because markets are subjective and laws and wars are supposed to be objective. So…you can’t just let everyone go around doing whatever they think is right except in markets. Besides, armies protect the markets, it’s a small price to pay to have that kind of protection, in my opinion.