Hamas legitimate?

[Gunny]

Thanks for point #2 !! Most appreciated. I wish it was possible to agree with your point #1, though. I see too many 'Leftie friendly' arguments from FJ to believe he isn't a supporter.

Then you must not like me either. I think leftwingers and rightwingers BOTH suck. I think for myself. He argues in the style of a lefty. What his stances are besides contrarian is anyone's guess. He never states them.

And I'm gonna do what Abbey says because the only girl that scares me more than her is shattered.

I stand by my original statement. Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization and the has written rules against recognizing such entities as foreign governments. The Arabs in Gaza elected this terrorist organization to represent them as some warped idea of a government. That's on them.

The only right those Arabs have to that land is that Israel let them have it back. Like sharing your bed with a rattler, IMHO. The terrorists use Gaza as a launching pad to fire indiscriminately on Israel. I'd treat them like the criminals they are.

[Abbey Marie]

Then you must not like me either. I think leftwingers and rightwingers BOTH suck. I think for myself. He argues in the style of a lefty. What his stances are besides contrarian is anyone's guess. He never states them.

And I'm gonna do what Abbey says because the only girl that scares me more than her is shattered.

I stand by my original statement. Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization and the has written rules against recognizing such entities as foreign governments. The Arabs in Gaza elected this terrorist organization to represent them as some warped idea of a government. That's on them.

The only right those Arabs have to that land is that Israel let them have it back. Like sharing your bed with a rattler, IMHO. The terrorists use Gaza as a launching pad to fire indiscriminately on Israel. I'd treat them like the criminals they are.

I agree 100% with the bolded, Gunny. Fj enjoys trying to take apart any argument.

And were he on a Liberal-dominant board, I feel certain they would think him Conservative.

FJ: Sorry to talk about you like you're not here!


(I'm scared of Shattered, too!)

[Gunny]

I agree 100% with the bolded, Gunny. Fj enjoys trying to take apart any argument.

And were he on a Liberal-dominant board, I feel certain they would think him Conservative.

FJ: Sorry to talk about you like you're not here!


(I'm scared of Shattered, too!)

Everyone's scared of shattered.

I don't mind talking about FJ whether or not he's here. He can read it later. Thing is, people take HIM personally and he's not taking a damned bit of it personally. So who's REALLY winning?

[shattered]

Pfft.

[Gunny]

Pfft.

Great. Now I'm in for it. I must've interrupted some crafty junk or something.

[Drummond]

You know, FJ, it's interesting. This thread is supposed to be concerned with Hamas. But, yet again, a 'discussion' with you has drifted (for want of a better word) away from the intended subject matter. It happens a lot with you.

Ah yes, the "agenda" and "ego" argument. I insult you because you appear to be as dumb as a rock and are living in some sort of dream world as to what/why/how I post.

Translation: you freely act as a troll. This says WHAT about you ?

Then you don't know jack because when idiots err, the less intelligent, offer as proof of impeachable offenses trips taken by the FLOTUS it should be pointed out that is not an actual impeachable offense. The idea is not to inject some sort of "left-wing thinking" it's to show conservatives that they should live in reality and not live in hate. I have offered plenty of political opinion as to why impeachment is an extremely bad idea but that is a different question than has he committed an impeachable offense. Really, a little bit of discernment on your part would go a long way.

Discernment, eh ? Funny how you consistently argue, strongly, against Conservatives on this forum. Here, you talk of Conservatives needing to live in reality and not live in hate'. Now, that's a strong indictment of Conservatives, isn't it ? And you, once a self-styled 'Ultimate Thatcherite' (.. until you changed your monicker), this should firmly label you as a brand of CONSERVATIVE ... except you can't stop disagreeing with them here, and actually attacking them ...

... 'odd', eh ?

On your defences of Obama against calls for his impeachment .. I note what you say to 'justify' yourself. That doesn't alter the accuracy of this following prediction: not only have you always defended Obama from arguments promoting his impeachment, BUT YOU ALWAYS WILL DO SO.

Prove me wrong sometime. I challenge you.

And I offer you this thought, which seems to have bypassed you entirely, 'strangely': why SHOULDN'T a Conservative hate all the damage Obama has done ? A true Conservative will hate the Socialism Obama is foisting on America. How come you fail to grasp this ?

So no. You can't find me defending BO.

I'm having trouble thinking of a single instance when you HAVEN'T.

Tell you what. Why not post an example or two showing us records of your committed opposition to Obama ?

Now to your arguments about the UK economy, and your past anti-Conservative stances ...

First point to make: your detailed discussions on this took place on a thread originally devoted to Islamic incursions in UK schools !! Just another example of your enthusiasm for thread drift. Anyway ....

It was not the only viable alternative, that's the point of disagreement. That and your disingenuous argument that I back the Labour approach, patently false BTW.

So you say. But as I argued on the other thread, there were only two options .. either fiscal prudence, an approach where reckless spending ceased and a housekeeping regime prevailed, OR, the Labour approach of never-neverland spending on pet projects using money not previously earned.

Labour borrowed heavily (.. rather as your Leftie pal Obama has done ? Yes ?). So, when the Credit Crunch of 2008 hit us, the UK was especially poorly positioned to weather the fiscal storm.

In 2010, a joint Conservative/LibDem Government was elected. Their agreed approach was an austerity package, meant to cut right back on spending, even to make deep cuts, rather than continue the insane Socialist spending of previously.

Rule of thumb ... if you're going to spend, first make sure you've got the home-grown funds to do so !!!

So to this following point, of yours ...

But you haven't been proved right, I pointed out where the Conservatives instituted a tax cut that conveniently for me coincided with economic growth.

... which is a FALSE point.

Remember what I've posted. Spend anything, IT HAS TO BE AFFORDABLE. And tax cuts HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE.

Your Daily Mail link shows that a tax cut arranged by George Osborne was arranged in 2012. It also shows that benefits flowing from it didn't provably materialise for TWO YEARS.

So in 2012, with an appreciable timelag to be expected between action and remedial effect .. how was the tax cut afforded ?

Well, your Guardian (LEFTIE publication) piece tells us.

From your link, dated 2012 ...

George Osborne has announced deep cuts in welfare and Whitehall spending after admitting Britain's malfunctioning economy had left him unable to meet the government's targets for repairing the public finances.

At the same time Osborne indulged in a very modest tax cut .. which, I recall, you formerly derided because it WAS minor ... at the same time, a balance was being struck. Cuts were being instituted. FACT ... to institute any tax cut without balancing that expenditure with some counterbalancing measure, would've been fiscal madness.

YOU, FJ, have been strongly anti-austerity, saying it 'sucks' .. YET, the tax cut you NOW approved of, was afforded via a 'cuts' regime !!

You're against austerity measures. Well, without them, HOW COULD THE TAX CUT HAVE BEEN PAID FOR ?

If not through counterbalancing austerity, the one alternative was the LABOUR policy of spending borrowed money. THERE WAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.

.... so. You approve of tax cutting, without the means to pay for it. You expect the tax cut to generate rewards ... but with a troublesome TWO YEAR TIMELAG before it does.

The logic of your argument must be that you fund a tax cut via Socialist 'methodology', i.e by using BORROWED MONEY for it.

So, FJ, do NOT tell me that you weren't supporting Labour, and do NOT tell me that there was a third alternative !! THE TAX CUT WAS MADE TO INITIALLY WORK THROUGH COUNTERBALANCING IT WITH AN AUSTERITY MEASURE !!!!

And yes, I do recall you whining about charts. If you have other charts then present them. Do you know how hard it is to find charts about the UK economy?

I know this much. When making your argument, you somehow failed to find any charts which factually covered any of the positive recovery period, i.e 2013 or later (.. because that time period was disproving your argument !!). You did find one that 'mysteriously' reported up to 2019 (!!), which you wanted us to think was factual, though ...

Take a look at what this link leads to .. a post of mine, answering yours, from the thread (a hijacked one) where this was all discussed ... it's entertaining stuff ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...212#post688212

Sample quotes ...

Your first bar chart goes all the way back to 1994 ?? To prove WHAT, about the conditions of 2008 ??
Consider this, though. Factored into all of this is the commitment to not only get spending under control, but to do this with the handicap of paying interest on money borrowed previously. So disgustingly terrible was Labour's recklessness that, regardless of present-day prudence, it's all we can do to cope with the interest payments racked up !!

THIS is the reality our present Government inherited, and is still stuck with !! And on top of that, YOU have wanted them to afford tax incentives ???

Thank you kindly. Better to have explanations, whether obvious or not, than to have the expectation of cloud-cuckooland guesswork.

Mind you ... AGAIN, in the first chart, the hard data AGAIN CUTS OFF AT 2012 !! Why do you refuse to look at 2013, the year of first significant progress ??

There's a clue in that somewhere, FJ ....

You won't revive the thread because it shows the TRUTH of what I stated.

You want me to revive a hijacked thread with more hijacking ? Well ... I have no problems in quoting from it.

Also your fiction that I defended Labour's appraoch.

YES. For the reason given. Only two options existed, to afford a tax cut by cutting elsewhere, i.e more austerity; or, to borrow money to fund it, a self-defeating strategy, ONE LABOUR WAS KEEN ON DOING WHEN IN POWER.

Then naturally you're a moron because my approach was spending restraint and tax cuts.

SPENDING RESTRAINT, IN THOSE DIRE CIRCUMSTANCES, COULD ONLY EQUAL AUSTERITY MEASURES !!

Tax cuts that stimulate growth and not targeted Keynesian crap that is straight to deficit financing IMO.

.. With a two year timelag in between tax cut and realisable benefit (!!) .. HOW do you propose the time gap, that black hole in finances, is bridged ?

THERE IS BUT ONE WAY ... USING BORROWED MONEY, I.E A LABOUR STRATEGY.is

I ridiculed a tax cut? Do you have a link?

Yep, you certainly did ! ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...646#post686646

I posted:

If you read on, you'll see that Ed Miliband, the current Labour leader, tried to pour water on all of this. But then ... he, and you, think alike. He, and you, don't want to admit that Conservative fiscal prudence WORKS.

The article begins with this helpful Budget summary:




Chancellor announces 1p cut in duty on each pint of beer and a freeze on cider and spirits in crowd-pleasing move
Bingo tax halved to 10% with promise of bigger prizes for players
Help for savers in the penultimate Budget before the election next year
Cash and stocks ISAs to be merged into single ISA with annual tax-free savings limit of £15,000
Osborne promised families extra help after coming through the recession
Working parents offered £2,000 tax break on cost of childcare
Vowed to cut taxes and boost manufacturing during 55-minute statement
Threshold for paying both basic and higher tax rates is hiked
£1 coin scrapped: New version will be shaped like old threepenny bit
New promises will be funded by crackdown on tax evasion raising billions
Growth forecasts upgraded as economic recovery gains momentum
But more cuts are on the way with the welfare bill capped at £119bn




Conservatives will raise tax when they must, FJ. They much prefer to cut it, however. WITH SUFFICIENT LATITUDE AVAILABLE, THEY'LL DO SO. SO LONG AS SUCH CUTS CAN BE AFFORDED.

You replied, with ....

So your vaunted tax cuts are relegated to beer and bingo? If I bothered I'm pretty sure I could compare that list to Labour and the bad plans that BO has burdened us with and see some commonalities. There is almost nothing in there that is pro-growth that spurs the private sector to job growth andvlowered unemployment.

Congratulations on being less than flattering to Obama, by the way !! That aside, though, the fact is that when Osborne took his tax cutting measures, YOU TRIED TO RIDICULE OSBORNE'S ACTION ... HERE IS YOUR PROOF.


Osborne was limited in what he could do. As I explained, and as I had to explain to you before ... tax cuts, to be entered into, MUST be affordable.

[Drummond]

Then you must not like me either. I think leftwingers and rightwingers BOTH suck. I think for myself. He argues in the style of a lefty. What his stances are besides contrarian is anyone's guess. He never states them.

And I'm gonna do what Abbey says because the only girl that scares me more than her is shattered.

I stand by my original statement. Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization and the has written rules against recognizing such entities as foreign governments. The Arabs in Gaza elected this terrorist organization to represent them as some warped idea of a government. That's on them.

The only right those Arabs have to that land is that Israel let them have it back. Like sharing your bed with a rattler, IMHO. The terrorists use Gaza as a launching pad to fire indiscriminately on Israel. I'd treat them like the criminals they are.

I agree with much of your post, Gunny.

Still, you do surprise me. Judging by your second sentence, you see both Left wingers and Right wingers in similarly disparaging terms ?

And I was convinced you had to be a Conservative ... because I've seen a whole lot of commonsense in your posts.

Well, OK. It seems we have a lot more latitude for disagreement than I'd thought. So be it. I'll take on anyone if I think I have reason to.

We may have interesting times ahead ! As you'll have seen from my jousts with FJ, I don't hesitate to take on opposition (although admittedly I'm very long-winded about it, at times ...).

Should be fun ....

[fj1200]

I stand corrected, ma'am.

Fj needs a every so often.

Don't we all.

Thanks for point #2 !! Most appreciated. I wish it was possible to agree with your point #1, though. I see too many 'Leftie friendly' arguments from FJ to believe he isn't a supporter.

Of course for #2 to be true #1 has to be false and ain't nobody believes that but you. Knuckleheads notwithstanding.

Then you must not like me either. I think leftwingers and rightwingers BOTH suck. I think for myself. He argues in the style of a lefty. What his stances are besides contrarian is anyone's guess. He never states them.

And I'm gonna do what Abbey says because the only girl that scares me more than her is shattered.

I stand by my original statement. Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization and the has written rules against recognizing such entities as foreign governments. The Arabs in Gaza elected this terrorist organization to represent them as some warped idea of a government. That's on them.

The only right those Arabs have to that land is that Israel let them have it back. Like sharing your bed with a rattler, IMHO. The terrorists use Gaza as a launching pad to fire indiscriminately on Israel. I'd treat them like the criminals they are.

Lefties are contrarian? Lefties ask questions? Oh, and I state my stances all the time just like I state that I don't disagree with any of the rest of your post.

[fj1200]

I agree 100% with the bolded, Gunny. Fj enjoys trying to take apart any argument.

And were he on a Liberal-dominant board, I feel certain they would think him Conservative.

FJ: Sorry to talk about you like you're not here!

I gotta tell ya'. I'm starting to feel the love.

I don't mind talking about FJ whether or not he's here. He can read it later. Thing is, people take HIM personally and he's not taking a damned bit of it personally. So who's REALLY winning?

Don't kid yourself, you really are sweet.

I KNOW y'all think I'm this sweet, nice humble guy ....

[Gunny]

Don't we all.



Of course for #2 to be true #1 has to be false and ain't nobody believes that but you. Knuckleheads notwithstanding.



Lefties are contrarian? Lefties ask questions? Oh, and I state my stances all the time just like I state that I don't disagree with any of the rest of your post.

Dude, can you actually read and process? I said YOU are contrarian. I do not recall calling you a lefty. I said that is your argument style. You, on the other hand, I think are just contrarian to be friggin' contrary. That DOES lend you to a style of argument most associated with the left. And for someone that likes to use the term "red herring", you throw more out there than there are in the Bering Sea. It's a style of argument based on the progressive left questioning any rule, standard or norm we have. I was trained in it for years. They teach it in high school journalism. I can read it for what it is.

You just want to argue. I don't think you even care about what.

[Gunny]

I gotta tell ya'. I'm starting to feel the love.



Don't kid yourself, you really are sweet.

I'm a real sweetheart alright. Huh. Run that one past some of the older posters here.

[fj1200]

You know, FJ, it's interesting. This thread is supposed to be concerned with Hamas. But, yet again, a 'discussion' with you has drifted (for want of a better word) away from the intended subject matter. It happens a lot with you.

If this thread is about me then is squarely your fault. You always cover your lack of an intelligible argument with my "leftie-ism." That's why you're failing to prove me a leftie again.

Translation: you freely act as a troll. This says WHAT about you ?

You know you love trolls which is why your always enabling 'at' and his trolling comments against me. It's why you're a hypocrite. Nevertheless pointing out your stupidity is not trolling, it's calling out TRUTH.

Discernment, eh ? Funny how you consistently argue, strongly, against Conservatives on this forum. Here, you talk of Conservatives needing to live in reality and not live in hate'. Now, that's a strong indictment of Conservatives, isn't it ? And you, once a self-styled 'Ultimate Thatcherite' (.. until you changed your monicker), this should firmly label you as a brand of CONSERVATIVE ... except you can't stop disagreeing with them here, and actually attacking them ...

... 'odd', eh ?

On your defences of Obama against calls for his impeachment .. I note what you say to 'justify' yourself. That doesn't alter the accuracy of this following prediction: not only have you always defended Obama from arguments promoting his impeachment, BUT YOU ALWAYS WILL DO SO.

Prove me wrong sometime. I challenge you.

And I offer you this thought, which seems to have bypassed you entirely, 'strangely': why SHOULDN'T a Conservative hate all the damage Obama has done ? A true Conservative will hate the Socialism Obama is foisting on America. How come you fail to grasp this ?

Oh brother. It's a strong indictment of those who live in hate. I may argue against the occasional conservative but I don't argue against conservatism. Your blather aside I've "defended" BO against stupid charges, it's called TRUTH you know, and I probably will state that impeaching him is an incredibly stupid political decision. He may have certainly committed high crimes and misdemeanors but that's a different question. Now since you don't think I hate what BO's incompetence has done to the country go ahead and try to find a post where I've praised what he's "foisted" on America. I challenge you to fail at this one too.

I'm having trouble thinking of a single instance when you HAVEN'T.

Tell you what. Why not post an example or two showing us records of your committed opposition to Obama ?

That's an amazing way to announce your failure. Hack move dude.

Now to your arguments about the UK economy, and your past anti-Conservative stances ...

First point to make: your detailed discussions on this took place on a thread originally devoted to Islamic incursions in UK schools !! Just another example of your enthusiasm for thread drift. Anyway ....

Name one anti-conservative stance. Oh, and I'm pretty sure you're the one who derailed it. Yup, you did. Post #32.

Blah, blah, blah...

So, FJ, do NOT tell me that you weren't supporting Labour, and do NOT tell me that there was a third alternative !! THE TAX CUT WAS MADE TO INITIALLY WORK THROUGH COUNTERBALANCING IT WITH AN AUSTERITY MEASURE !!!!

OMG, what a flipping waste of time. Your just attempting to avoid your failure by attempting to rehash a thread that you chose to abandon. If you have a point to make you can make it over there.

I know this much. When making your argument, you somehow failed to find any charts which factually covered any of the positive recovery period, i.e 2013 or later (.. because that time period was disproving your argument !!). You did find one that 'mysteriously' reported up to 2019 (!!), which you wanted us to think was factual, though ...

What point is there in discussing something with someone who is so stupid as to not understand a projection. Dude, your smoking your leftie weed from back in the day.

You want me to revive a hijacked thread with more hijacking ? Well ... I have no problems in quoting from it.

Uh yeah, because the discussion was in that thread, not this one.

YES. For the reason given. Only two options existed, to afford a tax cut by cutting elsewhere, i.e more austerity; or, to borrow money to fund it, a self-defeating strategy, ONE LABOUR WAS KEEN ON DOING WHEN IN POWER.

Only two options exist when you are of a simple mind. A simple mind that doesn't understand anything more than left and right.

.. With a two year timelag in between tax cut and realisable benefit (!!) .. HOW do you propose the time gap, that black hole in finances, is bridged ?

THERE IS BUT ONE WAY ... USING BORROWED MONEY, I.E A LABOUR STRATEGY.is

Reagan was a leftie? Do tell.

Yep, you certainly did ! ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...646#post686646

I posted:

You replied, with ....

Congratulations on being less than flattering to Obama, by the way !! That aside, though, the fact is that when Osborne took his tax cutting measures, YOU TRIED TO RIDICULE OSBORNE'S ACTION ... HERE IS YOUR PROOF.

As I said I support growth oriented tax cuts, "beer and bingo" cuts are not growth oriented.

Osborne was limited in what he could do. As I explained, and as I had to explain to you before ... tax cuts, to be entered into, MUST be affordable.

Yup, your government-centric view is never too far away is it?

[fj1200]

Dude, can you actually read and process? I said YOU are contrarian. I do not recall calling you a lefty. I said that is your argument style. You, on the other hand, I think are just contrarian to be friggin' contrary. That DOES lend you to a style of argument most associated with the left. And for someone that likes to use the term "red herring", you throw more out there than there are in the Bering Sea. It's a style of argument based on the progressive left questioning any rule, standard or norm we have. I was trained in it for years. They teach it in high school journalism. I can read it for what it is.

You just want to argue. I don't think you even care about what.

I know. I was just in' at some in the thread not necessarily you. But no, I don't think the left is contrarian. I mostly like to ask question, it's a Socratic thang.

I'm a real sweetheart alright. Huh. Run that one past some of the older posters here.

I've been here long enough.

[shattered]

Great. Now I'm in for it. I must've interrupted some crafty junk or something.

You know you did. And FYI, you CAN, in fact, triple stamp a double stamp.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm a real sweetheart alright. Huh. Run that one past some of the older posters here.

Just a big ol' teddy bear.


With claws and sharp teeth.