Hamas legitimate?

[fj1200]

Your offerings go beyond your so-called idea of what's true about me. You launch into abusive comments, as anyone can readily see. You've done this a lot with me, because you know that - short of conceding to me, which you just can't face doing - you've nothing else you can do. Such abuse is a clear sign of weakness on your part. I've long since interpreted it that way.

Answering your 'vacuous fool' jibe. Two examples of your Leftie positions ... one ... you invariably find ways of defending Obama from attack. You try to disguise it with the occasional disparagement of yours, but the fact remains that when someone puts together an argument strongly challenging Obama's position, you find some 'grounds' or other to argue against it.

Two ... you once argued strongly against the UK Conservative Party's austerity approach to the UK economy. What you offered instead cloned our LABOUR PARTY'S own preferred approach (our own mainstream Socialist Party). That history had already discredited that approach, and that the Conservatives were having success with their methods, didn't cut any ice with you.

You were committed to your Leftie stance, after all .. and you didn't let a little thing, like PROVABLE FACT, get in your way. What Leftie would ?

-- Fact is that our economy is now rated to be healthier than it was pre-2008. No reckless spending. In its place, responsible prudence.

Anyway, all this detracts from this thread's subject-matter (something you yourself are very good at arranging) ...

Everything I post about you is true from my perspective. I wish we could have a rational discussion but you always make the thread what you think about me rather than what the thread is about: That's your choice, not mine along with your "leftie" blather.

You could point out me defending BO. But remember defending truth is not defending BO. But yes, I argued against British austerity because as I explained; austerity sucks. I believe in that thread you were 1) eagerly defending the big government approach, and 2) trying to paint me as supporting Labor which was patently false.

So, in conclusion, your "PROVABLE FACT" was nothing more than your imagination. That's a recurring theme isn't it? And guess what, British turnaround coincided with tax cuts which is exactly what I supported. You could revive the thread if you need a reminder.

[gabosaurus]

Does the Palestinians voting them into office now make them legit? Any less of a terror organization? What if they were in Pakistan? Iran? or maybe even America?

Who are we to decide what kind of government that other countries want? Saudi Arabia has a government that not only recognizes terrorism, but financially supports them. Yet we recognize and even do business with them.
We recognize China and Russia, two of the most evil and corrupt nations in the world. Not to mention many African nations ruled by corrupt despots.
The U.S. should not be dictating how other nations want to run their business.

[Gunny]

Who are we to decide what kind of government that other countries want? Saudi Arabia has a government that not only recognizes terrorism, but financially supports them. Yet we recognize and even do business with them.
We recognize China and Russia, two of the most evil and corrupt nations in the world. Not to mention many African nations ruled by corrupt despots.
The U.S. should not be dictating how other nations want to run their business.

Deflection. We don't worry about government other countries want. It IS our choice to decide whether or not to recognize them based on their actions. The US CAN dictate who the US wishes to aid or not, and the US CAN decide who it deems worthy of defending. THAT is our choice, and has nothing to do with deciding who else chooses anything.

The US didn't make the so-called Palestinian's choices. THEY do. We get to choose whether or not we support the good guys or the bad guys.

A footnote for you, ms history buff. The US adamantly opposed the recreation of Israel. Being Americans, the second that rag tag little bunch started kicking butt, that viewpoint changed because we love the underdog here. Which was cool until we lost sight of the who the underdog was and started feeling sorry for another underdog and lost sight of right and wrong in the process.

There is NO SUCH THING as a palestinian. They are arabs. Period. Palestine was a country that a tribe of idiot city states ruled way back when. The Jews took it from them. Way it was. The Arabs sided with axis powers during WWI and lost. Tough. The treaty of Balfour gave Israel to the Jews. Why? No one wanted them in Europe the US and at the time, the ME was a world away.

You lose a war you lose your shit. That's how it was. The Arabs lost and lost their shit. I find it interesting and noteworthy that you apologize for and take the side of anyone that's ever opposed us. You might think there's something wrong with that thinking, considering you don't mind living here and sucking off our milk and honey?

[Drummond]

Everything I post about you is true from my perspective. I wish we could have a rational discussion but you always make the thread what you think about me rather than what the thread is about: That's your choice, not mine along with your "leftie" blather.

I tend to do two things in discussions: firstly, actually discuss what I'm meant to be discussing. The other - since it's relevant to a remarkable degree - is to consider what's driving the discussion in the first place. This is so often an important component when debating with a Left winger, since so much of what they try to advance follows a wider agenda.

You want a rational discussion ? Really ? Then why such ready recourse to abusing posting from you ?? Rewriting your opponents' texts, so as to (you hope !) 'ridicule' that opponent. Or, just straight insulting ...

I think you have two goals in debating. One is to inject Left-wing thinking into this forum. The other is to forever bolster your ego. And YES, this is true from MY perspective .. since I've seen so much posting from you which indicates I'm right about that.

If you object to my 'leftie' blather ... then don't prompt those remarks by arguing as a Leftie !! It's that simple. But for as long as you do, so I'll point it out. Oh, I understand that you'd find it easier to sell your points here if people didn't see the Left-wing aspect to them .. but this is your problem rather than mine.

You could point out me defending BO. But remember defending truth is not defending BO.

Your 'truth' just HAPPENS to turn out that way, though. How many arguments, for example, have been put on this forum about impeaching Obama, and how many times have you entered such discussions and tried to offer a rationalisation which pours cold water over such suggestions ? This you consistently do ... I've never seen a thread where you do anything else than that ... and I will predict that you will continue to, regardless of the detail in those future discussions.

I know this, because I know that you will defend Obama as a 'given'.

But yes, I argued against British austerity because as I explained; austerity sucks.

.. and I recall agreeing that it does. But what I ALSO argued was that it was the only viable solution to our economic difficulties.

I've been proved right, and the British economy is going from strength to strength. This is despite your delusional (and politically convenient) insistence that our current path would drive us into becoming a Third World economy.

And, yes. You produced your graphs and charts at the time to try and prove your argument .. which just HAPPENED to fail to cover the period of emerging upturn ... didn't you ?

I believe in that thread you were 1) eagerly defending the big government approach,

Dream on ... this is a favourite fiction of yours, one of your attempts at demonisation (a favourite Leftie tactic in itself). I defended a commonsense attitude to fiscal management. But, YOU defended the Labour Party's alternative 'approach' instead.

Naturally, you would. And did.

and 2) trying to paint me as supporting Labor which was patently false.

My above point disproves your assertion. You DID adopt the Labour approach, and in defiance of emerging proof that its opposite was working !!

Only adherence to a preferred ideology can credibly explain that.

So, in conclusion, your "PROVABLE FACT" was nothing more than your imagination.

I have not 'imagined' my country's improving fiscal fortunes, and your rubbishing of the methodology employed, even though it was working !!!

That's a recurring theme isn't it?

Your just 'happening' to defend Socialists and their ideologies IS, yes.

And guess what, British turnaround coincided with tax cuts which is exactly what I supported.

Disingenuous. A minor tax cut - which I believe you ridiculed at the time ? - came about as a result of its affordability, this permitted by an already improving economy !!

It was fiscal prudence, not reckless expenditure, which helped us through. Tax cuts are fine, and I support them in principle, IF, and only IF, they can be afforded in the first place !! But Labour was all about spending money it didn't have, through spending other sources of money it had first borrowed.

You could revive the thread if you need a reminder.

If that was to happen .. would you, again, insist upon only producing stats outdated enough to fail to reflect our true, CONSERVATIVE LED, recovery ??

No prizes for the answer ...

[Gunny]

Everything I post about you is true from my perspective. I wish we could have a rational discussion but you always make the thread what you think about me rather than what the thread is about: That's your choice, not mine along with your "leftie" blather.

So that isn't you a couple of posts later calling NightTrain a troll? I could swear that userID says fj1200. Just sayin' ......

[fj1200]

So that isn't you a couple of posts later calling NightTrain a troll? I could swear that userID says fj1200. Just sayin' ......

No. I was agreeing with his decision which is why I thanked the very same post in which you think I was calling him a troll.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Deflection. We don't worry about government other countries want. It IS our choice to decide whether or not to recognize them based on their actions. The US CAN dictate who the US wishes to aid or not, and the US CAN decide who it deems worthy of defending. THAT is our choice, and has nothing to do with deciding who else chooses anything.

The US didn't make the so-called Palestinian's choices. THEY do. We get to choose whether or not we support the good guys or the bad guys.

A footnote for you, ms history buff. The US adamantly opposed the recreation of Israel. Being Americans, the second that rag tag little bunch started kicking butt, that viewpoint changed because we love the underdog here. Which was cool until we lost sight of the who the underdog was and started feeling sorry for another underdog and lost sight of right and wrong in the process.

There is NO SUCH THING as a palestinian. They are arabs. Period. Palestine was a country that a tribe of idiot city states ruled way back when. The Jews took it from them. Way it was. The Arabs sided with axis powers during WWI and lost. Tough. The treaty of Balfour gave Israel to the Jews. Why? No one wanted them in Europe the US and at the time, the ME was a world away.

You lose a war you lose your shit. That's how it was. The Arabs lost and lost their shit. I find it interesting and noteworthy that you apologize for and take the side of anyone that's ever opposed us. You might think there's something wrong with that thinking, considering you don't mind living here and sucking off our milk and honey?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gunny again.

[fj1200]

I tend to do two things in discussions: firstly, actually discuss what I'm meant to be discussing. The other - since it's relevant to a remarkable degree - is to consider what's driving the discussion in the first place. This is so often an important component when debating with a Left winger, since so much of what they try to advance follows a wider agenda.

You want a rational discussion ? Really ? Then why such ready recourse to abusing posting from you ?? Rewriting your opponents' texts, so as to (you hope !) 'ridicule' that opponent. Or, just straight insulting ...

I think you have two goals in debating. One is to inject Left-wing thinking into this forum. The other is to forever bolster your ego. And YES, this is true from MY perspective .. since I've seen so much posting from you which indicates I'm right about that.

If you object to my 'leftie' blather ... then don't prompt those remarks by arguing as a Leftie !! It's that simple. But for as long as you do, so I'll point it out. Oh, I understand that you'd find it easier to sell your points here if people didn't see the Left-wing aspect to them .. but this is your problem rather than mine.

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. Proof below.

Your 'truth' just HAPPENS to turn out that way, though. How many arguments, for example, have been put on this forum about impeaching Obama, and how many times have you entered such discussions and tried to offer a rationalisation which pours cold water over such suggestions ? This you consistently do ... I've never seen a thread where you do anything else than that ... and I will predict that you will continue to, regardless of the detail in those future discussions.

I know this, because I know that you will defend Obama as a 'given'.

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.

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

.. and I recall agreeing that it does. But what I ALSO argued was that it was the only viable solution to our economic difficulties.

I've been proved right, and the British economy is going from strength to strength. This is despite your delusional (and politically convenient) insistence that our current path would drive us into becoming a Third World economy.

And, yes. You produced your graphs and charts at the time to try and prove your argument .. which just HAPPENED to fail to cover the period of emerging upturn ... didn't you ?

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. 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.

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?

Dream on ... this is a favourite fiction of yours, one of your attempts at demonisation (a favourite Leftie tactic in itself). I defended a commonsense attitude to fiscal management. But, YOU defended the Labour Party's alternative 'approach' instead.

Naturally, you would. And did.

You won't revive the thread because it shows the TRUTH of what I stated. Also your fiction that I defended Labour's appraoch. Then naturally you're a moron because my approach was spending restraint and tax cuts. Tax cuts that stimulate growth and not targeted Keynesian crap that is straight to deficit financing IMO.

My above point disproves your assertion. You DID adopt the Labour approach, and in defiance of emerging proof that its opposite was working !!

Only adherence to a preferred ideology can credibly explain that.

Link it up buttercup. Your imagination is not acceptable as proof.

I have not 'imagined' my country's improving fiscal fortunes, and your rubbishing of the methodology employed, even though it was working !!!

Cut to top tax rate sees revenue climb by £9billion: Amount paid by wealthiest has soared since 50p rate was reduced

The amount of tax paid by the best-off has soared since George Osborne slashed the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p, according to a new analysis.New figures from HM Revenue & Customs show the total income tax collected on earnings over £150,000 has shot up from £40 billion last year to £49 billion this year.
Former Conservative Cabinet minister John Redwood, who produced the figures, said it appeared the Chancellor’s tax cut was having dramatic results in what would be a ‘shock to many of the conventional pundits’ who criticised the measure.

I love it when conservatism, actual conservatism that is, is validated. One where tax cuts are a boon to growth. Your methodology was resulting in austerity having to be extended further into the future.

Autumn statement: George Osborne slashes welfare and extends austerity

Although two years of zero growth will mean that the government's budget deficit next year will be almost double the £60bn predicted in Osborne's first budget in June 2010, the chancellor said progress was being made. By including the expected £3.5bn proceeds of the auction of the 4G spectrum he was able to say that the deficit was coming down in each year of the current parliament.
The OBR predicted that it would take until late 2014 for the economy's output to return to its pre-recession level in early 2008 and that borrowing would be higher in each of the next four years than it expected at the time of the budget in March as a result. But while warning that job losses in the public sector will top 900,000 by 2018, the OBR backed the chancellor's view that the 2012 downturn was caused by factors beyond the government's control and would not increase Britain's structural budget deficit.

Your just 'happening' to defend Socialists and their ideologies IS, yes.

You'll have to provide some proof of that one.

Disingenuous. A minor tax cut - which I believe you ridiculed at the time ? - came about as a result of its affordability, this permitted by an already improving economy !!

It was fiscal prudence, not reckless expenditure, which helped us through. Tax cuts are fine, and I support them in principle, IF, and only IF, they can be afforded in the first place !! But Labour was all about spending money it didn't have, through spending other sources of money it had first borrowed.

I ridiculed a tax cut? Do you have a link? Afforded. That's a government-centric argument. One that you were more than happy to make.

If that was to happen .. would you, again, insist upon only producing stats outdated enough to fail to reflect our true, CONSERVATIVE LED, recovery ??

No prizes for the answer ...

That depends, are you going to whine incessantly when they prove me right as they did repeatedly? So in short, you should produce what you think to be a better graph or keep your whimperings to yourself.

[Abbey Marie]

Singing Kumbaya will provide the same result?

If all we are concerned with are results, why come on a message board at all?

I'll answer that: We are also concerned with making our viewpoints known. And with being able to discuss with others who may know more about a particular topic. Or who may have a different, interesting, perspective. And then there is one shining moment when someone sees your point, has a change of mind, and they may in turn change others' minds. Well, anyway, those are some of the reasons I am here.

For example, hoping for that last one is the reason I think Jafar is here.

[Abbey Marie]

I never stated otherwise and stated "what if". I'm of the belief that electing a group such as Hamas, or another terrorist organization, does absolutely nothing to change the horrible crimes they have committed. It would be the same if Al Qaeda were in fact elected there. The people of Palestine might very well consider them legit, as they voted for them, but I can't see any sane nation in the world having diplomatic relations with Al Qaeda and considering them legit in anyway at all, regardless of what the ballot box states.

There is also the perhaps unanswerable question of how "freely" did those people really vote?

[Abbey Marie]

It depends on your respect for sovereignty-- if you believe that a sovereign nation is an entity composed of the People, then Hamas/ISIS/Taliban etc are legitimate. Thus, if they're legitimate powers, then you can hold the people accountable for the wrongdoings of their leadership. But if you reject the legitimacy of the organization then you can't, in good conscience, hold the People accountable.

That's quite a leap to go from Sovereign= people= legitimate. All organizations are composed of people. They are only "legitimate" in the case of Hamas by *perhaps* the most technical of definitions. I prefer to take other more important things into consideration than just technicalities.

Further, a so-called "legitimate" government voted in by the people can only remain so if it doesn't go outside the laws set out when they are elected, as amended from time to time. I would strongly suspect that the people who voted here did not agree to, "Yes, you may use my babies as a human shield if you'd like", for one example. Holding people responsible for the actions of a government that exceeds its powers isn't really fair.

[fj1200]

If all we are concerned with are results, why come on a message board at all?

I'll answer that: We are also concerned with making our viewpoints known. And with being able to discuss with others who may know more about a particular topic. Or who may have a different, interesting, perspective. And then there is one shining moment when someone sees your point, has a change of mind, and they may in turn change others' minds. Well, anyway, those are some of the reasons I am here.

For example, hoping for that last one is the reason I think Jafar is here.

Of course, the holy grail is that we convince one of those darn leftists to recognize that conservative views are superior. But my point of what you quoted was that on this particular question there really will be no change in result. Should Hamas be legitimate because they suck? No, they just are as so many other regimes shouldn't have been legitimate but just are/were.

[Abbey Marie]

Holy Mother of Pearl.

1. Fj is not a leftie

2. Drummond is far from dumb.



Now, let's get back to the subject matter of Hamas.

[Abbey Marie]

Of course, the holy grail is that we convince one of those darn leftists to recognize that conservative views are superior. But my point of what you quoted was that on this particular question there really will be no change in result. Should Hamas be legitimate because they suck? No, they just are as so many other regimes shouldn't have been legitimate but just are/were.

Re the bolded: Same goes for liberals, Muslims, etc., seeking to convince others. And for every political leaning in between, of course.

I know your point. But you seemed to also be saying to Jim that merely seeking validation for a viewpoint is pointless because there will be no results. I disagree that is all we do, and I disagree that it would be pointless anyway. Or I would not be here.

[Drummond]

Holy Mother of Pearl.

1. Fj is not a leftie

2. Drummond is far from dumb.



Now, let's get back to the subject matter of Hamas.

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.