Respect

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I don't claim to know the historical context so I'm not making that judgement. I'm trying to understand your rationalisation for Israel's right to land claimed by Palestine. Your argument seems to be:

Premise: Taking land is either always right or always wrong.

If it is always right, then it was right when Israel took it.

It if is always wrong, then it would be wrong for Palestine to take it from Israel

Therefore Israel are entitled to the land.


This seems entirely specious to me. Firstly, the premise is false - in actual fact the morality of land appropriation depends on historical context. Secondly, and you allude to this in #126 with the "circle of life" completing itself, you can swap Israel and Palestine around and end up with "Therefore Palestine are entitled to the land". All you're really saying is, "shit happens".

Yes but the historical context is that both groups have a right to the land, historically speaking. Perhaps I should change it to "was taking that specific land always right or always wrong?"

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

As I've said to you before, I got no problem with you believing what you want to believe, but your style is so fucking overly didactic it's awful, and impossible to make any sensible points, you are so convinced that you are right, just because you have different ideas to many (probably most ) of us here.

I don't think I'm right because my thoughts are different on most issues, I think people shouldn't take heart in the widespread agreement they will get on this board if they disagree with me because it is almost guaranteed. And yes, you've said it before. No need to say it again. It is very difficult not to be didatic on here, it stems largely from a need for constant repetition. At the end of the day there is nothing more didetic than your popping up every other thread to tell me this...

 

[missing old pills]

Yes but the historical context is that both groups have a right to the land, historically speaking. Perhaps I should change it to "was taking that specific land always right or always wrong?"

The biggest problem is they believe in two books which happen to say the samething but they cannot and will not agree who's book is the right one.

The answer lies ahead when humanity drops believing in this religious nonsense and gets a fucking grip.

Faith is believing there is a sea just coz you've seen a stream.

I've seen lots of bad and a little good. That good is my stream and until the sea rages in politics, wars, religion and most of the bollocks that man wastes his time with just justify my beliefs.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

So if I'm on your land without your consent and I jump, Am I trespassing whilst I'm in the air ? It's not occupation I have an issue with, we all have to live somewhere its the very idea that you can own land. It make no sense to me at all we are merely short term landlords at best but the idea that an individual can own land especially the landed gentry who own vast tracts of land and think that others have no right of entry, I have an issue with.

I can't remember from my a-level law classes how high you technically own up to lol, but you would still be tresspassing. Plus you'd be down in a second and be tresspassing again . I don't reallt want to get into a debate about the right to private ownership of property, I've dug far enough.

 

[badandwicked]

So if I'm on your land without your consent and I jump, Am I trespassing whilst I'm in the air ? It's not occupation I have an issue with, we all have to live somewhere its the very idea that you can own land. It make no sense to me at all we are merely short term landlords at best but the idea that an individual can own land especially the landed gentry who own vast tracts of land and think that others have no right of entry, I have an issue with.

I know its a seperate debate but I couldn't agree more. Similarly with private beaches - people claiming they own the coastline and can prevent others using and enjoying it.

Oh and SHM its never too late to post a picture of George Galloway in a cat suit.

 

[parttime crackhead]

^ strange opinions. Is it OK for me & 25 of my mates to move into your houses then because you don't believe that you own them?

 

[badandwicked]

atm23 used the term landlord. or you could use the word tenant. or guardian. A temporary arrangemnt is better then people attempting to lay claim to it for ever. I may own the bricks & mortar but not the land it stands on. When I'm dead you'd be welcome.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I'll just leave these here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIy_GmvUElE&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1NIuCt72bU&feature=player_embedded

LOL

 

[MrM]

Dunno what all the fuss is about really. It's mostly just sand and semtex and camelshite that side of the med anyway.

I think it's something to do with religion.

 

[parttime crackhead]

atm23 used the term landlord. or you could use the word tenant. or guardian. A temporary arrangemnt is better then people attempting to lay claim to it for ever. I may own the bricks & mortar but not the land it stands on. When I'm dead you'd be welcome.

What gives you the right to have your bricks & mortar on that land? Get them shifted.

 

[Mailmonkey]

I don't think I'm right because my thoughts are different on most issues, I think people shouldn't take heart in the widespread agreement they will get on this board if they disagree with me because it is almost guaranteed. And yes, you've said it before. No need to say it again. It is very difficult not to be didatic on here, it stems largely from a need for constant repetition. At the end of the day there is nothing more didetic than your popping up every other thread to tell me this...

Yeah sorry I know I can be very predicatable when you start off on one...I WAS again going to keep out of this one, but was moved to write by charlies description of you as a Borat-style right winger....

And how can you tell me off for repeating myself, then state "It is very difficult not to be didatic on here, it stems largely from a need for constant repetition"

You ARE ridiculously didactic, whatever you refuse to believe...an auto-didact, a didactosaurus, didactosauraus rex....that is you.

 

[Ismene]

So do we know if the muslims voted for him because he's a socialist or because he's anti-war and sent a leaflet round saying no alcohol had ever touched his lips?

 

[Allein]

I can't remember from my a-level law classes how high you technically own up to lol, but you would still be tresspassing. Plus you'd be down in a second and be tresspassing again . I don't reallt want to get into a debate about the right to private ownership of property, I've dug far enough.

Nah, fair enough its derailing the thread a bit anyhow, I have some very strong views on this having argued the point many many times in the '90's when I was involved in the free party scene so I have personal experience of a "land owner" who doesn't even use the land or derelict building on it and there isn't a residential house for miles kicking off because we are using it for a party.

I'll say my last word on this subject and leave this thread to others but I do not recognise landownership in its current form and I believe it is beyond ridiculous to suggest that anyone can actually own the land, although I do accept that you have to have some kind of system that allows people to restrict access to certain pieces of land as long as they have a good justification to do so.

Thank you and good night

 

[Ismene]

Other notes. This was a heavily Muslim dominated constituency. Labour put up a strong Muslim candidate. And still got trounced by a non-Muslim.

Bit more complex than that shm, apparantly many muslims feel that decisions in Bradford have been taken for too long by a small group of Pakistani's from Murpir - a small town in Kashmir. Who was the guy Labour put up this time? You guessed it - the son of a local bigwig Labour guy from Murpir.

 

[tambourine-man]

Bit more complex than that shm, apparantly many muslims feel that decisions in Bradford have been taken for too long by a small group of Pakistani's from Murpir - a small town in Kashmir. Who was the guy Labour put up this time? You guessed it - the son of a local bigwig Labour guy from Murpir.

...so they elected a gobshite from Dundee?

 

[Ismene]

...so they elected a gobshite from Dundee?

But a gobshite who'se lips have never touched alcohol and isn't from Mirpur.

Oh, and who curses the west for wars on muslims which the Labour guy couldn't do.

But I'd be interested in whether or not the young muslims voted for him because he's a socialist or because he's anti-war.

 

[parttime crackhead]

But a gobshite who'se lips have never touched alcohol and isn't from Mirpur.

Oh, and who curses the west for wars on muslims which the Labour guy couldn't do.

But I'd be interested in whether or not the young muslims voted for him because he's a socialist or because he's anti-war.

Just taking a stab in the dark here but I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who voted for him don't know or care what a socialist is. George Galloway is a great public speaker/debater. He knows what to say, when to say it & who to say it to. He said the right things to the right people to win this election.

Does anyone really believe that he won this on his overall politics as oppose to particular pro-Muslim (I'd possibly even go as far as to say anti-west) patter that he's hit out with either now or in the past?

Does anyone really believe that he could possibly have won an election in an area that wasn't overwhelmingly Muslim?

To be fair though, I do think the guy speaks some sense (compared to most politicunts) & would maybe even chuck him a vote myself given the chance but folk are kidding themselves on if they try & claim that this particular area wasn't cynically chosen.

 

[RLP]

But a gobshite who'se lips have never touched alcohol and isn't from Mirpur.

Oh, and who curses the west for wars on muslims which the Labour guy couldn't do.

But I'd be interested in whether or not the young muslims voted for him because he's a socialist or because he's anti-war.

I think you're overestimating the effect of both the Muslim vote and Galloway's policies.

The real question is why couldn't one of the main three parties offer the electorate of Bradford something they could believe in? Labour and Tory lost over 20% of their support in a couple of years. Lib Dems couldn't even retain their deposit. It was a rejection of mainstream politics rather than a particular affiliation with Galloway, although to give him credit he connected with the people of Bradford really well.

Expect UKIP and other left wing independents to poll well in the future, with many seats held by Lab/Con to fall to them. We're going to have another hung parliament in 2015 and the share of the vote is going to be spread even more than it currently is.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Yeah sorry I know I can be very predicatable when you start off on one...I WAS again going to keep out of this one, but was moved to write by charlies description of you as a Borat-style right winger....

And how can you tell me off for repeating myself, then state "It is very difficult not to be didatic on here, it stems largely from a need for constant repetition"

You ARE ridiculously didactic, whatever you refuse to believe...an auto-didact, a didactosaurus, didactosauraus rex....that is you.

That is me... on here. Not when i'm talking to someone who isn't a total dick. You don't need to repeat yourself to me, I have the message.

 

[MrM]

That is me... on here. Not when i'm talking to someone who isn't a total dick. You don't need to repeat yourself to me, I have the message.

Your views on muslims, gays (from memory) and your fellow bluelighters all seem pretty horrible. What do you hope to achieve by sharing them?