quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

after  wars, people, refugees  normally go back home,what happened with these refugees, why were they not sent back where they came from ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SaintIntensity

according to Biden, the US has "no better friend than Israel" - on hehalf of your other allies, can I recommend you ring them when you want help with anything in future?
see if their young men will be happy to die alongside yours, see if they will spend THEIR $$$ in the "global interest"

you pay em $$$millions (all those "loans" turned to grants, military equipment etc)
they repeatedly fuck you over
they wont EVER help if its not in their immediate best interests

they have the Polaroids - and America hasn't the balls to call their bluff - like a chihuahua leading a Rottweiler - you are just their bitches

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Still people who become refugees go back after what caused them to flee, to rebuild and start again, the common factor that is useful, is language. Despite whatever destruction to property, the land remains, it can again be built on, and furthermore the trades people, surely a country wants as many skilled people to rebuild as possible, trades would be in high demand.

Now, if a people were displaced by war now and decided they wanted to build a new country, could they, even if they had documents to prove their right going back centuries or even millenia, would their claim be upheld, or would they be sent back from whence they came.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

As I recall Moonhead,the jets Syria and Egypt were flying weren't exactly manufactured in Syrian and Egyptian plants...so you get no points for that.
Now let me ask you something if your neighbor showed a predisposition to burn down your house ...would you hand him back his petrol can?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Still people who become refugees go back after what caused them to flee, to rebuild and start again, the common factor that is useful, is language. Despite whatever destruction to property, the land remains, it can again be built on, and furthermore the trades people, surely a country wants as many skilled people to rebuild as possible, trades would be in high demand.

Now, if a people were displaced by war now and decided they wanted to build a new country, could they, even if they had documents to prove their right going back centuries or even millenia, would their claim be upheld, or would they be sent back from whence they came.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Still people who become refugees go back after what caused them to flee, to rebuild and start again, the common factor that is useful, is language. Despite whatever destruction to property, the land remains, it can again be built on, and furthermore the trades people, surely a country wants as many skilled people to rebuild as possible, trades would be in high demand.

Now, if a people were displaced by war now and decided they wanted to build a new country, could they, even if they had documents to prove their right going back centuries or even millenia, would their claim be upheld, or would they be sent back from whence they came.

You obviously have NO idea what the destruction of the European Jews entailed if you truly believe that all it would have taken was a piece of land (confiscated) and some brick and mortar to reconstruct. This was a massacre of extraordinary proportions that destroyed not only human beings but that attempted to obliviate an entire culture, a language, and everything that goes with it. All I can do is suggest you go back to the history books.

The British were heavily involved in the creation of Israel; prior to that, the Jews were treated like scum by the local Palestinians, yet there had been Jewish settlements there for hundreds of years (same as elsewhere in the Middle East). It's far more complicated than you seem to think. History. Books.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

As I recall Moonhead,the jets Syria and Egypt were flying weren't exactly manufactured in Syrian and Egyptian plants...so you get no points for that.
Now let me ask you something if your neighbor showed a predisposition to burn down your house ...would you hand him back his petrol can?

No, but I wouldn't act all aggrieved if I got sent down for killing him, either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

As I recall Moonhead,the jets Syria and Egypt were flying weren't exactly manufactured in Syrian and Egyptian plants...so you get no points for that.
Now let me ask you something if your neighbor showed a predisposition to burn down your house ...would you hand him back his petrol can?

No, but I wouldn't act all aggrieved if I got sent down for killing him, either.

Well now you are screwing up the metaphor Moon,in your screwed up version just who is/are the parties responsible for having "sent down"Israel"for killing him"

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I think it's kinda cool, actually :-) .

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

Uhmmmmm, no......the fuel taxes and road use taxes pay for the roads so there is no entitlement there... That would be an earned benefit.

OK, so everyone who has ever worked has paid into Social Security, and that is considered an entitltement and not an earned benefit?

Personally I'd call it an earned benefit to those that have payed in. But it's amazing how many that draw that didn't pay or payed very little. I prefer to view it as a poorly conceived and terribly managed Big Government Vote and Enfluence Purchasing Program.

Again though......relevance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Still people who become refugees go back after what caused them to flee, to rebuild and start again, the common factor that is useful, is language. Despite whatever destruction to property, the land remains, it can again be built on, and furthermore the trades people, surely a country wants as many skilled people to rebuild as possible, trades would be in high demand.

Now, if a people were displaced by war now and decided they wanted to build a new country, could they, even if they had documents to prove their right going back centuries or even millenia, would their claim be upheld, or would they be sent back from whence they came.

You obviously have NO idea what the destruction of the European Jews entailed if you truly believe that all it would have taken was a piece of land (confiscated) and some brick and mortar to reconstruct. This was a massacre of extraordinary proportions that destroyed not only human beings but that attempted to obliviate an entire culture, a language, and everything that goes with it. All I can do is suggest you go back to the history books.

The British were heavily involved in the creation of Israel; prior to that, the Jews were treated like scum by the local Palestinians, yet there had been Jewish settlements there for hundreds of years (same as elsewhere in the Middle East). It's far more complicated than you seem to think. History. Books.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Personally I'd call it an earned benefit to those that have payed in. But it's amazing how many that draw that didn't pay or payed very little. I prefer to view it as a poorly conceived and terribly managed Big Government Vote and Enfluence Purchasing Program.

If you were to actually look it up you would find that SS is a voluntary insurance program.
Is it your position that if you buy an insurance policy on your life and make only a few payments before you die that your benificiary should not be paid because you only made a few payments?

That entire paragraph leaves me with only this as a response:

What?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

Uhmmmmm, no......the fuel taxes and road use taxes pay for the roads so there is no entitlement there... That would be an earned benefit.

OK, so everyone who has ever worked has paid into Social Security, and that is considered an entitltement and not an earned benefit?

Personally I'd call it an earned benefit to those that have payed in. But it's amazing how many that draw that didn't pay or payed very little. I prefer to view it as a poorly conceived and terribly managed Big Government Vote and Enfluence Purchasing Program.

Again though......relevance?

Actually soc. sec. has been a fiscal darling, the beneficaries of which are the citizenry that's been forced to 'lend' the treasury back $2.5 trillion of it since the 'great reform' of 1983.

This was done without hesitation of either side and so these Wash., political captains of financial hedonism could fund a very expensive, wealthy, tax cut and corporate 'Purchasing Program.'

The are no problems with either soc. sec. or Medicare for that matter, that wasn't caused by our congress. If not for those whores they both would be flush with plenty of money. Instead Medicare is paid at retail and Soc. sec. sits with a pile of govt. paper instead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Personally I'd call it an earned benefit to those that have payed in. But it's amazing how many that draw that didn't pay or payed very little. I prefer to view it as a poorly conceived and terribly managed Big Government Vote and Enfluence Purchasing Program.

If you were to actually look it up you would find that SS is a voluntary insurance program.
Is it your position that if you buy an insurance policy on your life and make only a few payments before you die that your benificiary should not be paid because you only made a few payments?

That entire paragraph leaves me with only this as a response:

What?

It is called an analogy.
You  said:

quote:

Personally I'd call it an earned benefit to those that have payed in. But it's amazing how many that draw that didn't pay or payed very little. I prefer to view it as a poorly conceived and terribly managed Big Government Vote and Enfluence Purchasing Program. 

Since SS is a voluntary insurance program (this according to both SS law and the  SCOTUS).
So like any other form of insurance your benifit is not tied to how many payments you made.  Yet somehow you seem to either not be able to grasp that or you disagree with that concept...why?

It seems reality and the often fictional concepts of Washington are leaving your explanation a tad bit hollow.

But no worries Mr Rodgers' post refreshed my memory rather nicely..... I normally stop paying attention to what you say as soon as you become condescending.

Best too you.

< Message edited by xBullx -- 3/15/2010 5:17:56 PM >

_____________________________

Live well,

Bull



I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.

(in reply to thompsonx)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

"more complicated than he thinks" might be the understatment of the century. He is totally clueless about the history of the region. He obviously doesnt know that "Palestinian's" have never been indigenous settlers of the territory encompassed by Israel.