goatland is a binary world

[MtnGoat]

"His threat worked and he was able to bastardize the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause."

 

Madison himself made it clear the "general welfare" clause was to be taken *only* in the context of the strict limits placed upon the state by the constitution and was well aware that if it were taken otherwise, anything at all could be justified.

 

For all the justifications that somehow people are different or more modern now, they clearly saw *exactly* how people operate and this has never changed, which is why the constitution is such an impressive document.

[fern]

[iain]

 

[ 11-14-2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: iain ]

[Greg_W]

Since j_b is into discussing useless international coalitions, maybe he could explain to me any benefit we receive from being a part of the North African Treaty Organization (NATO). Was this something created with Britain when we entered WWII in 1942 and sent troops to Africa? Seems pretty stupid to keep it up so many years later.

 

Greg W

[j_b]

I may be stating the obvious but in a day and age of global economics, international coalitions are ever more relevant, not the opposite.

 

I am not going to get into what Madison/Hamilton/Jefferson said (mean) and did not say, but it always makes me smile to see people 'forget' about the profound changes that have affected human societies since the industrial revolution. It's a little like referring to plato's works as the ultimate relevant document because he knew human nature.

 

finally, fdr has been called many different things (all over the political spectrum) by many different people, so I am not surprised by anything you might say considering you probably also think that anyone more progressive than Gephardt is a dangerous radical. Perhaps you should instead look at politicians of that period as having had to pick up the pieces left by laissez-faire economics.

 

[ 11-15-2002, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: j_b ]

[allthumbs]

Despite the best effort of the U.N. Organization to the contrary, the United States still stands alone in defense of human dignity. We have our faults, and they become more conspicuous as time goes on, but we remain the one nation left in the world where a man can conduct himself like a man, and defend himself, his house, his wife, and his children to the best of his ability. His rights may be circumscribed but they still exist, at least for now. This is why we keep up the battle.

[Peter_Puget]

Ah J_B - Let me help you out here. Context. Context Context. I have merely asserted that the Israelis are better than their opposition. You have presented no argument against this. But you have posted a series of posts illustrating bad behavior by the Israelis. You have also accused them of War Crimes and Genocide. I also pointed out clear instances where some of the journalists working for some of organizations behind your links have made representations of facts that were clearly not true and I believe they have done so knowingly to further a political agenda. The quotes I posted are unequivocal and clearly at such odds with reality that calling such distortions out can only be considered a smear campaign in the world 1984. Didn't one Guardian editor once said something like: "Opinions are free the truth costs." As such my posts have helped to provide context for your links.

 

I have repeatedly said that a mere listing of bad behavior was a waste of time. After all how can one judge what is being presented? Do the number of violations of proper behavior count or do they have to be weighted differently according to some cosmic scale? Does your reference to a village being destroyed in 1948 count less because it is old? It would be easy for me to go to many sites and post many links showing the opposite of what your links claim. Again it would be meaningless without a context and an argument to frame them.

 

Now I clearly I have suggested that you have not been engaging in a honest discussion but rather have been using these threads as an opportunity to post items advocating your point of view. (think of a Sunday morning talk show where the politician guest says his prepared line regardless of the question) Here is an example form the first post on this thread::

You begin by quoting MtnGoat:

MtnGoat:

 

Israel: Constition, laws, rights, religous freedom.

Palestinians and their islamic supporters: none of these

 

You then respond:

MtnGoat is poorly informed:

 

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/return.html

 

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/VictimGroups/Palestinans/palestinans02.htm

 

in other words, it's not much different than what we did to the American Indians except times have changed and a little powder in the eye (barely) is needed to maintain appearances.

 

When your links are read it is clear they are about the Israelis only. As such they do not address Mtngoats second claim regarding the Palestinians. The links lead to some writings by Uri Davis here are some important quotes from those links

 

From the first link:

In 1950 the Israeli Knesset passed two laws

They(Arabs who left Israeli during the many wars) are excluded by law from actual or p~aential citizenship in the Jewish state

 

Second link:

Apartheid is an exceptional form of racial discrimination predicated upon the enforcement of racism in law through Acts of Parliament

 

Certainly from these quotes it is obvious that you are not denying the Constitution and laws part of Mtngoat's claim. As far as I can see the references to rights in your links refer to those who are not considered Israeli citizens. As such you links do not say anything to Mtngoat's claim regarding rights. As far as religious freedom your links are basically silent. Thus I can only conclude you have not proved your case that Mtngoat is incorrect and the evidence you appeared to be providing was in reality nonexistent. Your first link also refers to a tragedy /massacre at Al-Duwayma (1948) Now if I was to point to the relocation of Japanese Americans as a refutation to someone's claim that in the US we have rights I would be called a buffoon. But I would also point out that the conquering battalion was in a state of war at the time as war imposed the nascent state of Israel by the Arabs. (pointing this out is called providing a context) again your reply was truly not truly a rejoinder to Mtngoat's claim but merely the opportunity to "smear"

 

I have also pointed out some ridiculous analogies you made such as comparing American Indians and Westward expansion to the situation in Israel. Further I believe you are smart enough to know the analogy was flawed and used it merely to associate genocide with the Israelis. As I have said usage of such terminology is the result of a political agenda not a analytical one. I even added in some Palestinian references to show they were in on the word usage too. I find such a political campaign closer (as in identical) to a smear campaign than anything I have engaged in.

 

I find it telling that you have never once answered any of my questions concerning Arab behavior. My sense is deep down you know the Israelis are much closer to conforming to the ideal enshrined in the UN declaration you have posted and for some reason refuse to admit it.

 

PP

[Uncle_Tricky]

All of you please report to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Total Information Awareness Office to have you chips implanted ASAP.

[MtnGoat]

"I am not going to get into what Madison/Hamilton/Jefferson said"

 

This isn't surprising, since it places some modern explanations for what the meaning of the constitution is, in the toilet in many places.

 

From expressly saying the "general welfare" clause applies only as specifically limited by the document, to the understanding that

"militia" means every adult, or "speech" means all forms of speech commercial or political or spoken or press *regardless* of media, their statements fly in the face of what some wish to turn the document into.

 

The founders where well aware of every one of the arguments made today for expansion of the state, because believe it or not they'd seen them all before. For example, no 20th century person invented the idea that "society" demands everyone be beholden to everyone else, that existed in the wildest dreams of the humanists of the early reformation in 1200-1300. They'd already discussed these things. Pure democracy had been discussed, and various forms tried, in classical greece.

 

this stuff is not some modern construct of oh so caring liberals empowered by a sense of superiority because only they sit at a computer keyboard while those backwards people in antiquity didn't.

 

"but it always makes me smile to see people 'forget' about the profound changes that have affected human societies since the industrial revolution."

 

it always makes me smile to see people think that technological changes mean even the slightest change in human nature. The eternal conceit of the people living in an eternal and advancing ephemeral "now", to think they are somehow superior to those in the past because *they* are the modern and enlightened ones is really something.

 

People in 200 BC figured they were the modern ones, people in 1000 and 1836 and 1937 figured that too.

 

Even the most casual reading of history from ancient works to the most modern show *exactly* the same human traits at work. Lust, love, greed, altruism, crime, benevolence, war, peace, the whole works, just the same the entire time, regardless of the tools or toys of the age which affect the periphery but never change the feelings people feel or the deep reasons for their actions.

 

Nobody is forgetting anything about technological changes, but some people are apparently forgetting that wether we hold car keys or the reigns of a horse, human emotions and drives remain the same.

 

"It's a little like referring to plato's works as the ultimate relevant document because he knew human nature."

 

Which made his works some of the ulitimate relevant documents. Dissing ideas because of their age instead of their content, while ignoring that human nature was the same as it is now, is the ultimate in the arrogance of seeing only the present as relevant.

 

Where plato related his ideas to the technology of his age, a case can be made for modern differences with his ideas. Where they concern human nature, they remain applicable.

 

"Perhaps you should instead look at politicians of that period as having had to pick up the pieces left by laissez-faire economics."

 

Or we could look at them at having to pick up the pieces of only partial understanding of stock markets in an industrial age combined with crappy trading practices and insupportable margin trading laws.

[MtnGoat]

"As such you links do not say anything to Mtngoat's claim regarding rights. As far as religious freedom your links are basically silent."

 

As is he, as are all apologists for Palestinian's who engage in the depradations we are discussing.

 

J-B has yet to show us the rights guaranteed in any nations opposing Israel. He has yet to show us the existence of free and open opposition viewpoints in those nations, or even that jews have any rights at all in these neighboring nations. While I defend the bad agaisnt the worse, he defends the worst against the bad and remains entirely silent on religious freedom, rights, and protected opposition parties. Good work peter.

[MtnGoat]

"My sense is deep down you know the Israelis are much closer to conforming to the ideal enshrined in the UN declaration you have posted and for some reason refuse to admit it."

 

Such an incredibly good point, I wish i'd thought of that. We should compare the israeli constitution to the UN dec j_b holds up as a gold standard, and then compare the nations who oppose Israel to the Un standard he uses, and see how that comes out.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Damn.

[RobBob]

MtnGoat said:

quote:

---

J-B has yet to show us the rights guaranteed in any nations opposing Israel.

---

WTF? I know I said I was leaving this issue...but your insinuation, that citizen rights are a more-important criterion to judge a nation on than its predation of neighboring land...is utter bullshit. You are too smart for that, Goat. You have a biased attitude on this, and it is becoming more and more transparent.

[j_b]

context, precisely. I did not think it had to be explained but here it goes. Your and mtngoat discourse is basically that arabs and palestinians are evil while Israel is a modern parliamentary democracy with a few problems (and therefore they are the good guys). I won't mention you also assert they are morally and historically justified in their doings. I set myself to illustrate the black-and-white, aka binary, nature of your stance by letting some people knowledgeable about the state of Israel tell us what they thought about it and perhaps place actions in Palestine within that context. This approach seems to me a lot more pertinent than any spewing you and I might do on this board. Did I say my intent was to whitewash all arabs of all of their deeds? no. Now if you have any contributions to add which'd counter the points raised in those pieces and notably address the apartheid charges, go ahead. Isolating actions from their historical and contemporary framework via demonizing arabs is precisely what your are doing. So don't talk to me about context.

 

I can also tell you did not read those links very carefully. if I had the time I'd explore the implications of "the State of Israel does not have one single universal citizenship for all of its citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike", or what religious freedom means in a theocracy (nearly) at war with its largest religious minority, but I won't bother because it speaks for itself and in anycase it is well documented in the links mentioned (they are still available).

 

and MtnGoat your opinion that 'human nature' in all of its glory determines the relationship between the state and its citizens with secondary consideration to how technology enables human interactions is utter non-sense. Despite your saying so, millions of individuals driving around in gas guzzlers does not have the same implications than an equal number riding in horse drawn buggies. I think it fairly obvious, apparently you don't and rather talk about 'human emotions'. What can I say ....

 

[ 11-15-2002, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: j_b ]