• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I simply dont understand

I guess another thing I dont understand is why the people that live in Gaza dont stop the Hamas terrorist, because they are the one that suffer after Hamas rocket terrorist attacks on Israel.

Why didn’t the people of the Warsaw Ghetto stop the ZOB?
 
Wrong. Remember Pilate washed his hand of the deal and it was the CHURCH LEADERS that wanted Christ killed.

Yet another reason to doubt the Gospel stories are at all accurate. The idea that Pilate would ever be squeamish of killing a Jew is absurd.
 
I simply do not understand all the violence against Jewish people.

Can anyone on the forum explain this violence is a way that has even one tiny iota reason.
And I don't understand the israeli violence against the people of gaza. Israel got the land from palestine to make israel a nation.
 
And I don't understand the israeli violence against the people of gaza. Israel got the land from palestine to make israel a nation.
Someone pointed out that there is an entire forum where people discuss this question. If anyone seriously wants to understand the roots of the conflict more deeply, I suggest that he go to that forum. It is impossible to discuss the history thoughtfully in one thread here. Posters end up giving each other short shrift on answers that really require more time.
 
ok so

1. I don't know what you are trying to say
2. I don't see that as relevant. Israel is fully of a people who have been oppressed for two thousand years and there are cultural reasons for them to be insular.
3. It depends on which Welsh or Scottish person you talk to. In neither case does even 50% of the population support independence.
4. You may be correct about the Balkans, that is a pretty fractious region of the world and even in nominally cohesive nations, they seem to find a reason to fight amongst themselves. Perhaps that is just slavic culture since we don't see it so much in other regions of the country.
5. In this case I blame the fundamentalist Muslims and their belief that they should be the dominant religion of the world
6. Administratively created countries are a problem, we see that in the middle east as well.

The problem with what you are presenting is that there are a myriad of causes that can be traced to things other than ethnic diversity, whereas there are examples of ethnic diversity working. In that, I present England (I found your evidence poor, so I am going to use it as a positive example), the Flemish and Dutch, mainland Italians and Sicilians, the Creole and English speakers in Louisiana, Hispanic culture within Texas, the general hodge-podge of peoples in Taiwan.

There have been any number of example of stable and prosperous multi-ethnic countries throughout history. I just listed some examples.
When some in the USA was contemplating empire concerning the Philippines @1900
listen the the words of the Democrat favorite & 3 time presidential candidate!
Don't tell me the boy orator from the platte didn't make sense with these words:

'Imperialism is the policy of an empire. And an empire is a nation composed of different races, living under varying forms of government. A republic cannot be an empire, for a republic rests upon the theory that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed and colonialism violates this theory. We do not want the Filipinos for citizens. They cannot, without danger to us, share in the government of our nation and moreover, we cannot afford to add another race question to the race questions which we already have.'

William Jennings Bryan
 
In the 60s, America had reached its zenith for WHITES such as yourself and myself. Blacks, as is stated, were still loving in a state of apartheid that had existed for almost a century, thus putting them that far behind in education and employment opportunities. What you saw were the benefits for WHITE America. That was not the whole story, no matter how you try to "whitewash" it.

I guess you didn't read the last sentence of the post you replied to:

The 'great society' decimated the black family & that made all the inroads pale in comparison.
The True Black Tragedy: Illegitimacy Rate of Nearly 75%. Black illegitimacy stood at 25 percent by 1965.
Family is everything a young black without a father is starting out with 2 strikes against him.

I can certainly see & understand how deep black resentment runs. Things were turning the right
direction for blacks after WWII right up until Lyndon Johnsons two showcase policies
damaged black ascendancy. The Great Society almost eliminated the two parent family especially
in the hood & the Immigration Act of 1965 threw open the countries doors converting the USA
into what T Roosevelt called apolyglot boarding house for the world.

When Andrew Young former UN Ambassador became a spokesman for Walmart around 2005 was asked
if Walmart was killing 'mom & pop' stores in the black neighborhoods he stated:
'I think they should run the mom & pops out of my neighborhood. They have been overcharging us for
stale bread, bad meat & wilted vegetables. I think they ripped off our communities enough.
First it was the Koreans & now it's the Arabs. BTW Koreans & all Asians & all Arabs were
absent from the immigration tallies until the 'Immigration Act of 1965'
That's a indictment of Johnson's 'Immigration Act of 1965' if there ever was one.

Today's black illegitimacy rate of nearly 75 percent has been relatively new phenomenon!
Much of today's pathology seen among many blacks is an outgrowth of the welfare state that has made self-destructive behavior less costly for the individual. Having children without the benefit of marriage is less burdensome if the mother receives housing subsidies, welfare payments and food stamps. Ignored in all discussions is the fact that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994.

Black youth unemployment in some cities is over 50 percent. But high black youth unemployment is also new. In 1948, the unemployment rate for black teens was slightly less than that of their white counterparts — 9.4 percent compared with 10.2. During that same period, black youths were either just as active in the labor force or more so than white youths. Since the 1960s, both the labor force participation rate and the employment rate of black youths have fallen to what they are today. Why? Are employers more racially discriminatory today than yesteryear? Were black youths of yesteryear more skilled than whites of yesteryear? The answer to both questions is a big fat no. The bulk of today's problems for many blacks are a result of politicians and civil rights organizations.

You were saying!
 
When some in the USA was contemplating empire concerning the Philippines @1900
listen the the words of the Democrat favorite & 3 time presidential candidate!
Don't tell me the boy orator from the platte didn't make sense with these words:

'Imperialism is the policy of an empire. And an empire is a nation composed of different races, living under varying forms of government. A republic cannot be an empire, for a republic rests upon the theory that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed and colonialism violates this theory. We do not want the Filipinos for citizens. They cannot, without danger to us, share in the government of our nation and moreover, we cannot afford to add another race question to the race questions which we already have.'

William Jennings Bryan
That was the prevailing theory a hundred years ago, sure, but it was a more racist time.
 
Representative democracy was first created by America- one of its defining historical achievements, and it has always been one of the most multicultural places in the planet.

“I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.”
-George Washington

Please, STOP IT!

Washington offered those kind words to newly arrived immigrants to NYC
from the Kingdom of Ireland who some of the natives frowned upon,
a nice gesture and hardly out of character for the founder! After all
only the English had more signers of the founding documents than the Irish.
6 of the founding signers were Irish born or Irish ethnics. I think one Carroll
was catholic from Maryland. You can't really have thought
he was recruiting every earthly human. The founders as a unit IMO without
fact checking more than likely never even have even met an Asian ethnic.
For all practical purposes to the founders Western Europe was the Earth.

When Washington took his oath of office as president the thirteen
states were 99% protestant. At that time 1790 US citizenship
was opened up for "free white persons" of 'moral character'. No others need apply.

The English ethnics were most prominent along with Scots, Irish, Welsh & Dutch.
When the Germans came shortly afterward Ben Franklin was alarmed.

Your interpretation of what Washington meant is bizarre!!

Representative democracy was first created by America- one of its defining historical achievements, and it has always been one of the most multicultural places in the planet.

“I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.”
-George Washington

More than likely 95% of the founders
 
Karma was when dozens of Hamas terrorist rockets fell in Gaza!!!!!!
 
I guess you didn't read the last sentence of the post you replied to:

The 'great society' decimated the black family & that made all the inroads pale in comparison.
The True Black Tragedy: Illegitimacy Rate of Nearly 75%. Black illegitimacy stood at 25 percent by 1965.
Family is everything a young black without a father is starting out with 2 strikes against him.

I can certainly see & understand how deep black resentment runs. Things were turning the right
direction for blacks after WWII right up until Lyndon Johnsons two showcase policies
damaged black ascendancy. The Great Society almost eliminated the two parent family especially
in the hood & the Immigration Act of 1965 threw open the countries doors converting the USA
into what T Roosevelt called apolyglot boarding house for the world.

When Andrew Young former UN Ambassador became a spokesman for Walmart around 2005 was asked
if Walmart was killing 'mom & pop' stores in the black neighborhoods he stated:
'I think they should run the mom & pops out of my neighborhood. They have been overcharging us for
stale bread, bad meat & wilted vegetables. I think they ripped off our communities enough.
First it was the Koreans & now it's the Arabs. BTW Koreans & all Asians & all Arabs were
absent from the immigration tallies until the 'Immigration Act of 1965'
That's a indictment of Johnson's 'Immigration Act of 1965' if there ever was one.

Today's black illegitimacy rate of nearly 75 percent has been relatively new phenomenon!
Much of today's pathology seen among many blacks is an outgrowth of the welfare state that has made self-destructive behavior less costly for the individual. Having children without the benefit of marriage is less burdensome if the mother receives housing subsidies, welfare payments and food stamps. Ignored in all discussions is the fact that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994.

Black youth unemployment in some cities is over 50 percent. But high black youth unemployment is also new. In 1948, the unemployment rate for black teens was slightly less than that of their white counterparts — 9.4 percent compared with 10.2. During that same period, black youths were either just as active in the labor force or more so than white youths. Since the 1960s, both the labor force participation rate and the employment rate of black youths have fallen to what they are today. Why? Are employers more racially discriminatory today than yesteryear? Were black youths of yesteryear more skilled than whites of yesteryear? The answer to both questions is a big fat no. The bulk of today's problems for many blacks are a result of politicians and civil rights organizations.

You were saying!

It depends on what you mean by "active in the labor force" for blacks in the late 1940s. Their "acitivity" was in the dregs of labor, whatever the white folks didn't want to do, maybe they would let the black folks do. What sort of "labor" do you think they engaged in, in the South? Statistics lie unless the background is included.
And I'm not sure exactly what you have against a "polyglot" society? It's also called "diversity". I know that your Republican party is basically composed of white men and their wives, but we Democrats welcome everyone with open arms regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, etc etc etc. Which party really represents the citizens of ALL America?
 
To the OP, with all the violence and hatred that has been going in this country the last 4 years, why does this surprise you?
AOC, is that you? :unsure:

I believe GOD cannot solve the issue even GOD comes down from heaven.
 
It depends on what you mean by "active in the labor force" for blacks in the late 1940s. Their "acitivity" was in the dregs of labor, whatever the white folks didn't want to do, maybe they would let the black folks do. What sort of "labor" do you think they engaged in, in the South? Statistics lie unless the background is included.
And I'm not sure exactly what you have against a "polyglot" society? It's also called "diversity". I know that your Republican party is basically composed of white men and their wives, but we Democrats welcome everyone with open arms regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, etc etc etc. Which party really represents the citizens of ALL America?

'But we Democrats welcome everyone with open arms regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, etc etc etc.'

Thanx for seconding my point:
Apparently Andrew Young who I mentioned in the post you replied to didn't think democrats 'come one come all'
policy helped black ascendency pointing out:
'I think they should run the mom & pops out of my neighborhood. They have been overcharging us for
stale bread, bad meat & wilted vegetables. I think they ripped off our communities enough.
First it was the Koreans & now it's the Arabs.'
################################
Finally, it was Teddy Roosevelt who mentioned he had a problem with a "polyglot society"
Over one hundred yrars ago the same Teddy Roosevelt memorialized on 'Mt Rushmore'
chimed in & became a prophet stating:

'The one absolute certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationaliities'

Well we certainly have become a country over the last 50 years 'split into a number of unsocial, jealous & alien sovereignties' now. Thanx the LBJ & Ted Kennedy, Johnson's spokesman for the Act of 1965.
No cause for celebration.
 
Last edited:
I simply do not understand all the violence against Jewish people.

Can anyone on the forum explain this violence is a way that has even one tiny iota reason.
I have never understood the Nazis either.

But it was something something "they stabbed us in the back, and are trying to replace us".
 
I simply do not understand all the violence against Jewish people.
Do you understand violence against other generic groups? Asians, homosexuals, Muslims, Christians, goths etc.?

Can anyone on the forum explain this violence is a way that has even one tiny iota reason.
Human beings are aggressive pack animals.
 
Moderator's Warning:
This thread has been moved to the Israel Palestine Forum.

It is subject to Martial Law Rules, please read here before continuing to post:

 
[deleted words]
################################
Finally, it was Teddy Roosevelt who mentioned he had a problem with a "polyglot society"
Over one hundred yrars ago the same Teddy Roosevelt memorialized on 'Mt Rushmore'
chimed in & became a prophet stating:

'The one absolute certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationaliities'

Well we certainly have become a country over the last 50 years 'split into a number of unsocial, jealous & alien sovereignties' now. Thanx the LBJ & Ted Kennedy, Johnson's spokesman for the Act of 1965.
No cause for celebration.

Yes, the words are from a speech given by Teddy - "the Colonel", as the NYTimes called him but you have quote-mined those words and certainly some who read them will not understand - or will accept them in a manner that the Colonel would disagree with.

Roosevelt Bars the Hyphenated
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all ... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic ... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.
 
'But we Democrats welcome everyone with open arms regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, etc etc etc.'

Thanx for seconding my point:
Apparently Andrew Young who I mentioned in the post you replied to didn't think democrats 'come one come all'
policy helped black ascendency pointing out:
'I think they should run the mom & pops out of my neighborhood. They have been overcharging us for
stale bread, bad meat & wilted vegetables. I think they ripped off our communities enough.
First it was the Koreans & now it's the Arabs.'
################################
Finally, it was Teddy Roosevelt who mentioned he had a problem with a "polyglot society"
Over one hundred yrars ago the same Teddy Roosevelt memorialized on 'Mt Rushmore'
chimed in & became a prophet stating:

'The one absolute certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationaliities'

Well we certainly have become a country over the last 50 years 'split into a number of unsocial, jealous & alien sovereignties' now. Thanx the LBJ & Ted Kennedy, Johnson's spokesman for the Act of 1965.
No cause for celebration.

I really don't care what Teddy Roosevelt said well over 100 years ago. To whom was he referring? You don't mention that. Italians? Irish? Eastern Europeans? Jews? All faced discrimination of various sorts when immigrating to the US, but all were indeed fully ensconced as citizens within a couple of gemerations at most because they were WHITE.
And what "sovereignties" are you referring to?
And the Democratic party is proud to be a big tent for Americans no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background etc etc etc as opposed to the Repub party that welcomes primarily white men and their wives, especially if they are wealthy.
 
I really don't care what Teddy Roosevelt said well over 100 years ago. To whom was he referring? You don't mention that. Italians? Irish? Eastern Europeans? Jews? All faced discrimination of various sorts when immigrating to the US, but all were indeed fully ensconced as citizens within a couple of gemerations at most because they were WHITE.
And what "sovereignties" are you referring to?
And the Democratic party is proud to be a big tent for Americans no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background etc etc etc as opposed to the Repub party that welcomes primarily white men and their wives, especially if they are wealthy.

What the Colonel said before the NYC Knights of Columbus in 1915 is relevant today - a time when the nation has become nearly as divided as it was in 1860. In that same speech, that I linked to in #93, he said

“I would have the son of the multi-millionaire and the son of the immigrant who came over in the steerage, sleep under the same dog-tent and eat the same grub.” He was at that time promoting the idea of universal service to the government of the United States - not necessarily in the military but some form of work for a period of two years that would contribute to the betterment of society. No excuses allowed, no buying out of service - only the completion of education would delay service to the nation. Today, of course, that would mean the daughters of the wealthy would be sharing a tent with some poor girls.
 
Do you understand violence against other generic groups? Asians, homosexuals, Muslims, Christians, goths etc.?

Human beings are aggressive pack animals.
C'mon, you cannot be that naive. They are not even close :LOL:. Muslim vs Jew is in GOD mode. The others are in human mode.
 
C'mon, you cannot be that naive. They are not even close :LOL:. Muslim vs Jew is in GOD mode. The others are in human mode.
The question was one of motive, not scale.
 
Thank you for your opinion. However, your mistake here seems to be that you think YOUR opinion is akin to an acknowledged fact.

Of course, it's not.

You should also read the works of 1st Century historians like Josephus.

Remember Pilate washed his hand of the deal and it was the CHURCH LEADERS that wanted Christ killed.
What does that have to do with my remarks? You seem to be confused.

I am well-aware of what Pilate said, according to Scripture. I'm also well-aware that he DID. No crucifixion could take place without his approval (full-throated, or tacit). He didn't want to take responsibility for it, but he authorized it. You should read the works of 1st Century Jewish scholars and historians like Josephus.

For the record, @j brown's body said:
It began with the Christian Biblical teaching that Jews and their descendents are responsible for the killing of Christ.
I said that's NOT what the Bible says. It's what SOME (like you) have interpreted from Scripture.

That is 100% correct. The Bible does NOT state that "Jews and their descendants are responsible for the killing of Christ".

The above is really not arguable point, Logical1. Sorry.

You are entitled to your interpretations of Scripture. You are not entitled to any expectation of acceptance of those opinions, especially from someone who actually READS his Bible.
 
What the Colonel said before the NYC Knights of Columbus in 1915 is relevant today - a time when the nation has become nearly as divided as it was in 1860. In that same speech, that I linked to in #93, he said

“I would have the son of the multi-millionaire and the son of the immigrant who came over in the steerage, sleep under the same dog-tent and eat the same grub.” He was at that time promoting the idea of universal service to the government of the United States - not necessarily in the military but some form of work for a period of two years that would contribute to the betterment of society. No excuses allowed, no buying out of service - only the completion of education would delay service to the nation. Today, of course, that would mean the daughters of the wealthy would be sharing a tent with some poor girls.

His comment regarding a “polyglot” America in 1915 is every bit as irrelevant as it is today for the reasons I stated in post #94.
 
C'mon, you cannot be that naive. They are not even close :LOL:. Muslim vs Jew is in GOD mode. The others are in human mode.
I do not know what you mean by God "mode".
 
Back
Top Bottom